If I may take the time to address this point of eternal security. We seem to be always arguing semantics. For if the scriptures are true certainly there are those destined to inherit the kingdom of God yet as you have diligently pointed out that we can yet mess up, which I believes serves to combat complacency. However The word force as in God does not force us to repent, is relative in it's use and inferance. You might hate me for saying this, for to you it probably appears petty. But if I may, God does force if we are to count the revelation of his goodness as a power against a lie that is another power that forces us to despise God. Just a thought.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
FREE WILL
- Thread starter Jennie
- Start date
jasoncran
Member
i am fully aware of what eternal security is, i choose that word force to make a point. eventide seems to begrudgly dislike calvinism. i find it odd that he would like eternal security.
there is story on my expericience on that.
i was in a church that espouse what eventide preaches, one wed bible study osas came up. i said my piece on that and why, others disagreed and i shared what i did when i was a bi male. the pastors was going to use charles stanleys book as defense as he draws from scripture. not that i dont like mr.stanley but lets go to the root of our theology and source of authority the bible.
he also talked about a pastor who told him one day after being a christian for i think well over a decade that he was gay and born gay. this pastor first told that man he was still saved and also then told him he cant live that live.
having lived that live briefly and understanding the pull of that live and what it does(you either repent or walk away hating christ as you cant live in a real preaching truth church and be ok). if he that is truly in you wont let you just go into that sin as he didnt with me. so if that men can after x amount of yrs say yup i am gay and i want to be open(cant recall if he was trying to stay celebate for sure or was openly embracing). either he wasnt saved but the way its told he was saved and served God with integraty. i doubt he wasnt saved but choose to walk away. i cant just tell someone its ok to sin(not that pastor did) but some would take it that way. i would rather state you are wallking away from God and in danger of damnation(of course if i need to be that bold) often we must pray for wisdom.
You confess your sin openly and so I reckon you clean regardless of the flesh. You are in fact walking in the light. I would never say it's okay to sin, I simply want to point out that we are not able to deny we have weakness and be right before God. I find the perfect image of God, the Christ, to be of a very understanding and merciful nature who knows our weakness and even the bible expresses a humility that says, Forgive me Father for I am a sinner. Somewhere there is an eternity with God and no enmity. Here in this world it is yet uncertain who resides forever, but I really do believe God made it happen and not men. I was greatly blessed by the song you chose for me. My sincere gratitude, may the peace of Christ be upon you.
Last edited by a moderator:
jasoncran
Member
i was listening to one of her other songs and that one was also the next choice to listen.i fully understand what you they eternal security doctrines teaches, i know that its not taught as a license to sin nor is my contra view a legalistic one.
what i am trying to point out to eventide is that inorder for eternal security to be true the other four points of calvinism must also be true.
what i am trying to point out to eventide is that inorder for eternal security to be true the other four points of calvinism must also be true.
Eventide
Member
This is your definition of regeneration..
So step one is getting a new heart (kind of like what the tin man needed).. So you just woke up one day and all of the sudden you have a new heart and love for God.. that's amazing.. absolutely nothing done on your part.. God just unconditionally picked you..
S P E C I A L
Eventide
Member
Quick question with regard to Eph 1:13..
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise...
Did you or did you not have the Spirit of Christ living in you before you trusted in Christ and believed..?
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise...
Did you or did you not have the Spirit of Christ living in you before you trusted in Christ and believed..?
Eventide,
Assuming this is still a discussion and in the best interests of it, I am repeating myself from the other thread -
I consider this as a working definition - when something of a kind has a greater inherent value than all other things of its kind, it's said to be special.
Q1a. Would you agree?
Q1b. If not, what do you find lacking in this working definition?
God sees nothing in the sinners before Him to base His mercy upon - all are profitless - all are gone out of the way. He then has mercy and compassion on whom He wills, independent of the inherent value of the person receiving such mercy.
Q2. How then can you consider that person special?
Q3a. If 2 equally condemned murderers are brought before a sovereign king and he has mercy on only one of them - mercy out of his sovereignty and not based on any parameter pertaining to the guilty - is the one who is set free deemed special?
Q3b. If you think so, then tell me what that greater inherent value in that person was which was not present in the other guy.
Give honest answers to the above 3 questions - and we shall draw nearer to a conclusion.
See, each one has a belief framework - and by its very nature, each framework supports only certain beliefs together. We can't evaluate each other's beliefs within our own frameworks - it's not logical. We can only test for sufficiency with Scriptures and for internal consistency within the other's framework.
My point being - you evaluate what I'm putting forth in your own framework and then complain of contradictions. You assume it's because what I'm putting forth is false - it could just as well be that your framework is not consistent. To conclude where the issue is - you'll have to test all that I'm putting forth within the framework I'm suggesting and checking for consistency there - you cannot impose your existing beliefs here(unless they are required for sufficiency) - for what if they are false.
Also, another option is to answer my questions which test your own belief framework for internal consistency. (We have in good faith assumed that each genuinely thinks he is being true to Scriptures.)
So far, neither of the above has happened - can we then conclude that this discussion isn't exactly a discussion and stop right here? Your questions seemed to want answers - now they're seeming more like rhetoricals - I'm not getting the feeling that you really want to know how I reconcile all my beliefs - if I'm wrong in this, I'd be glad.
So, there are a couple of ways to proceed further - take the time to consider all that I've put forth, ask questions to clarify where exactly we differ, ask questions on those differences - get to the root of where we differ and then we'd have gotten somewhere. In the meantime, refrain from deriding what you haven't fully understood - a request is all this is.
Also, start considering the questions I put forth to check the internal consistency of what you believe - and there should be no need for either of us to feel pressured or obligated to be answerable to the other - we're not here to win a contest by being more right. It must be our desire for both of us - and all people everywhere - to be united in the truth.
The way you mean if I had the Spirit is misleading. I see it this way - the Holy Spirit begins a regenerative work in us, is operating on us and then towards the culmination of this process, seals this work of His with Himself coming to dwell within us. I think you too are equating indwelling of the Spirit with the sealing of the Spirit - at least I see it so. But why does that have to imply that the Spirit cannot work on me without dwelling in me as yet? I cannot be authoritative in all this - I only am saying I find no contradiction here.
Are you participating in a discussion here or are you stating just what you believe - if it's the latter, you are free to do so in any manner you like - if you'd simply say that this is the case, you wouldn't find me causing any aggravation with my questioning you. But if you are participating in a discussion, your responses must factor in what others are saying too.Eventide said:
Assuming this is still a discussion and in the best interests of it, I am repeating myself from the other thread -
I consider this as a working definition - when something of a kind has a greater inherent value than all other things of its kind, it's said to be special.
Q1a. Would you agree?
Q1b. If not, what do you find lacking in this working definition?
God sees nothing in the sinners before Him to base His mercy upon - all are profitless - all are gone out of the way. He then has mercy and compassion on whom He wills, independent of the inherent value of the person receiving such mercy.
Q2. How then can you consider that person special?
Q3a. If 2 equally condemned murderers are brought before a sovereign king and he has mercy on only one of them - mercy out of his sovereignty and not based on any parameter pertaining to the guilty - is the one who is set free deemed special?
Q3b. If you think so, then tell me what that greater inherent value in that person was which was not present in the other guy.
Give honest answers to the above 3 questions - and we shall draw nearer to a conclusion.
I have been answering your every question - but my questions go unanswered. I wish it were because you are considering them - in which case I will not press for any answer. But if it were because you are ignoring them, then I can only implore you to reconsider them.
See, each one has a belief framework - and by its very nature, each framework supports only certain beliefs together. We can't evaluate each other's beliefs within our own frameworks - it's not logical. We can only test for sufficiency with Scriptures and for internal consistency within the other's framework.
My point being - you evaluate what I'm putting forth in your own framework and then complain of contradictions. You assume it's because what I'm putting forth is false - it could just as well be that your framework is not consistent. To conclude where the issue is - you'll have to test all that I'm putting forth within the framework I'm suggesting and checking for consistency there - you cannot impose your existing beliefs here(unless they are required for sufficiency) - for what if they are false.
Also, another option is to answer my questions which test your own belief framework for internal consistency. (We have in good faith assumed that each genuinely thinks he is being true to Scriptures.)
So far, neither of the above has happened - can we then conclude that this discussion isn't exactly a discussion and stop right here? Your questions seemed to want answers - now they're seeming more like rhetoricals - I'm not getting the feeling that you really want to know how I reconcile all my beliefs - if I'm wrong in this, I'd be glad.
So, there are a couple of ways to proceed further - take the time to consider all that I've put forth, ask questions to clarify where exactly we differ, ask questions on those differences - get to the root of where we differ and then we'd have gotten somewhere. In the meantime, refrain from deriding what you haven't fully understood - a request is all this is.
Also, start considering the questions I put forth to check the internal consistency of what you believe - and there should be no need for either of us to feel pressured or obligated to be answerable to the other - we're not here to win a contest by being more right. It must be our desire for both of us - and all people everywhere - to be united in the truth.
To show good faith, I shall answer this alone, but I'm not continuing this if you're not really interested to discuss.
The way you mean if I had the Spirit is misleading. I see it this way - the Holy Spirit begins a regenerative work in us, is operating on us and then towards the culmination of this process, seals this work of His with Himself coming to dwell within us. I think you too are equating indwelling of the Spirit with the sealing of the Spirit - at least I see it so. But why does that have to imply that the Spirit cannot work on me without dwelling in me as yet? I cannot be authoritative in all this - I only am saying I find no contradiction here.
One note here. I don't find it comfortable to be included in the eternal security camp without defining the term. As I agree there is scripture that points out we can mess that up, and I find the fear of God to be a necessary retraint or compulsion on the will acknowledging His seat over us. I therefore do not see any conflict with my belief that men's wills are subject to higher powers even as I declare there exists a Truth that we are all coming into knowledge of or remaining ignorant of.
jasoncran
Member
ok, then you are very close to what i think, we must subject our wills to God and who is faithful on his end to keep us. God isnt a liar, we are but not him.
Former Christian
Member
Eventide
“I find it perplexing that so many people are led to believe that man is totally depraved and unable to hear or understand the simple message of the gospel.. that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.. but this is what happens when the doctrines of men trump the word of God.â€
Currently, half of Protestantism is under the influence of Calvinism. The other half is under the influence of Wesleyanism. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are divided from Protestantism and from each other by their own ideas of the Historic Christian Faith. Then there’s what the Biblical writers have actually said that each side thinks it represents. Christianity in action.
FC
“I find it perplexing that so many people are led to believe that man is totally depraved and unable to hear or understand the simple message of the gospel.. that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.. but this is what happens when the doctrines of men trump the word of God.â€
Currently, half of Protestantism is under the influence of Calvinism. The other half is under the influence of Wesleyanism. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are divided from Protestantism and from each other by their own ideas of the Historic Christian Faith. Then there’s what the Biblical writers have actually said that each side thinks it represents. Christianity in action.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Childeye
What my daddy meant was, that without common sense people are fools. Not that they’re senseless. They believe in things that have no relationship to what is obviously and intuitively true and real. It’s a common proverb in the south where he was from, at least it used to be a common proverb. People seem determined to talk themselves out of common sense nowadays. Especially Christians who seem to be able to believe in all kinds of nonsense, and then claim that the Bible says it, when the Bible says no such thing. It takes a lot of fear of reality to try so hard to hide from it.
“All lies at the end of reasoning end in hypocrisy, I've revealed your hypocrisy therefore what you are believing in is not true. Are you now too proud to admit it? that would be Satan causing you to deny the Truth.â€
It would be hypocrisy on my part if I agreed with you. It was my hope that maybe you were a little different from Smaller who said that Genesis 3 is a fairy tale. Unfounded hope I see. I’m sorry. I have no patience for conspiracy theories.
“Paulâ€
Paul persecuted the Church out of ignorance not knowing who Jesus was. He acted honestly according to the knowledge that he had. He was a Pharisee but he was not like the Pharisees who acted out of self-aggrandizement. When Jesus came to him and revealed the truth to him he changed his mind and began to follow Jesus. He had the free will to change his mind. When new knowledge came forth he changed according to the new knowledge. If he had no free will, then he wouldn’t have changed.
I don’t believe we are androids created by God, programmed to do the will of God. I don’t believe that Satan came along and reprogrammed humanity to do his will. And that they have both been busy each reprogramming humanity ever since. You people think that Satan has free reign. Job made it clear that he does not. Do you think that Satan came to Jesus out of the blue and tempted him? Not at all. He had permission to do so because it was part of God’s plan. Just as he had permission to torment Job because it was part of God’s plan. If we have no free will, then there is no way that we could be held responsible for anything that we think or do. And for God to hold us responsible under such conditions would not reflect the nature of a perfect God, but a God created by men.
“You are describing thinking as free yet you agreed that Satan proposed disobedience to God which forced Eve to consider and in the end of events from there altered men's thoughts through the knowledge of good and evil. You are describing a will not necessarily a free one.â€
Eve knew what God said. She chose to follow Satan instead of God, thinking that he was right. What do you think Satan did? He interpreted the words of God so that they had a different meaning. And Eve bought into the interpretation. Eve was deceived by an interpretation. It’s happening all the time in Christianity. People who claim to believe in the Bible believe in their own interpretations, even against common sense. And you can think what you will which of us is following common sense.
“Richard Dawkins Hates a God he doesn't even believe in. Hypocrisy.â€
Good grief. You even misunderstand Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn’t hate a God he doesn’t believe in. He believes that the idea of a God is a myth created by men as a tool to reign over the ignorant and fearful. And those who claim to believe in God are believing a lie perpetuated by religion. What he hates is that people have bought into what he considers a lie. You’ve called both me and Dawkins a hypocrite. You really need to know what people are about before you start calling them hypocrites. Lest you show yourself to be the hypocrite.
FC
What my daddy meant was, that without common sense people are fools. Not that they’re senseless. They believe in things that have no relationship to what is obviously and intuitively true and real. It’s a common proverb in the south where he was from, at least it used to be a common proverb. People seem determined to talk themselves out of common sense nowadays. Especially Christians who seem to be able to believe in all kinds of nonsense, and then claim that the Bible says it, when the Bible says no such thing. It takes a lot of fear of reality to try so hard to hide from it.
“All lies at the end of reasoning end in hypocrisy, I've revealed your hypocrisy therefore what you are believing in is not true. Are you now too proud to admit it? that would be Satan causing you to deny the Truth.â€
It would be hypocrisy on my part if I agreed with you. It was my hope that maybe you were a little different from Smaller who said that Genesis 3 is a fairy tale. Unfounded hope I see. I’m sorry. I have no patience for conspiracy theories.
“Paulâ€
Paul persecuted the Church out of ignorance not knowing who Jesus was. He acted honestly according to the knowledge that he had. He was a Pharisee but he was not like the Pharisees who acted out of self-aggrandizement. When Jesus came to him and revealed the truth to him he changed his mind and began to follow Jesus. He had the free will to change his mind. When new knowledge came forth he changed according to the new knowledge. If he had no free will, then he wouldn’t have changed.
I don’t believe we are androids created by God, programmed to do the will of God. I don’t believe that Satan came along and reprogrammed humanity to do his will. And that they have both been busy each reprogramming humanity ever since. You people think that Satan has free reign. Job made it clear that he does not. Do you think that Satan came to Jesus out of the blue and tempted him? Not at all. He had permission to do so because it was part of God’s plan. Just as he had permission to torment Job because it was part of God’s plan. If we have no free will, then there is no way that we could be held responsible for anything that we think or do. And for God to hold us responsible under such conditions would not reflect the nature of a perfect God, but a God created by men.
“You are describing thinking as free yet you agreed that Satan proposed disobedience to God which forced Eve to consider and in the end of events from there altered men's thoughts through the knowledge of good and evil. You are describing a will not necessarily a free one.â€
Eve knew what God said. She chose to follow Satan instead of God, thinking that he was right. What do you think Satan did? He interpreted the words of God so that they had a different meaning. And Eve bought into the interpretation. Eve was deceived by an interpretation. It’s happening all the time in Christianity. People who claim to believe in the Bible believe in their own interpretations, even against common sense. And you can think what you will which of us is following common sense.
“Richard Dawkins Hates a God he doesn't even believe in. Hypocrisy.â€
Good grief. You even misunderstand Richard Dawkins. Dawkins doesn’t hate a God he doesn’t believe in. He believes that the idea of a God is a myth created by men as a tool to reign over the ignorant and fearful. And those who claim to believe in God are believing a lie perpetuated by religion. What he hates is that people have bought into what he considers a lie. You’ve called both me and Dawkins a hypocrite. You really need to know what people are about before you start calling them hypocrites. Lest you show yourself to be the hypocrite.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Ivdavid
“FC - "And experience is subjective so that to say that its certainty is grounds for authoritative certainty is unwarranted."
I was not concerned with how our certainty could be authoritatively imposed on other people when I was discussing this. Just on whether we could be certain ourselves.â€
When we emphasize our certainty with too much fervor, we automatically begin to impose that certainty on others. That is when our certainty becomes fanaticism and authoritative. And that is all I am concerned about. We should be certain in ourselves concerning certain things. But we should never impose that certainty on others. We, as those who are in Christ, if we are being taught by Jesus Christ, share many convictions that we believe are certain. But due to the nature of the denominations, and its influence upon those who are in Christ, there are many convictions that we don’t share because their source isn’t Jesus Christ. There are many things that denominations authoritatively believe are certain that are not among the things that we share. In Christianity, there is doctrinal certainty and authority concerning that certainty where none should exist.
“ivdavid - “I believe Paul,Peter made authoritative statements in the sense, they stated truth with absolute certainty.â€
I think you misunderstood me here. I agree to the model of shepherding. I only wanted to know if the elders/ordained shepherds sharing - not imposing - their own absolute certainties(as used in the first point in this post) was also a point of contention for you.â€
The only point that I contend is whether or not elders should rule as Lords. I agree with Peter who says no, and Paul who agrees with Peter. So much for the Roman Catholic institution that claims Peter as its reason for its authoritative structure. So much for Protestant institutions that have imitated the Roman Catholic institution by creating similar authoritative structures.
“FC - "...but the fact is not changed by the explanation as it is by the practice of interpretation."
What do you mean by fact here - something like Paris is in France, Earth revolves around the sun, genes replicate etc.
Would "we are no longer under the law" qualify as fact? You can simply answer yes/no. (I'm not discussing law,grace here....i'm trying to completely understand what you mean by interpretation) â€
Trying to interpret Biblical discrepancies away doesn’t in fact make them go away. The discrepancies continue to exist. They are only replaced by the interpretations in the minds of the interpreters and of those who agree with their interpretations.
The practice of interpretation is simply the attempt to understand the thoughts of human writers by human thinking processes. It’s the way the world understands human writings. Because apart from the writer being physically present to interpret his own writings, the writings can’t be understood in any other way. Thus interpretation is especially necessary in relation to ancient writings where the writers are dead. All I’m saying is that this practice shouldn’t be applied to the Bible, because the source of the Bible is the living God. There is a living teacher that can interpret it for us. We benefit from the source and the teacher through the living Holy Spirit. It stands to reason that this only applies to those who are in Christ and experience the reality of the living teacher through the Holy Spirit. Those who are not in Christ, or do not walk by the Spirit, have no such experience and thus must of necessity practice interpretation as the means to understand the Bible. But by doing so, they are proclaiming to the world that in their minds the Bible is simply a collection of human writings without a living Divine source or living teacher.
There are only two alternatives: understanding the Bible through our own thinking by interpretration or understanding it through supernatural means. If we receive the proper understanding through the living teacher, and then interpret that understanding, it is the same as if we are understanding the Bible through our own thinking. We have understood what we have been given by Jesus through our own thinking and the teaching is nullified or changed by our own thinking, just as if we interpreted the Bible directly.
Atheists and Christian Homosexuals understand the Bible through the practice of interpretation. If the practice of interpretation is legitimate, then we can’t judge the interpretations of Atheists and Christian Homosexuals as being any less legitimate than our own. And if we consider the practice of interpretation to be legitimate, then there is really no ground for believing that any denominational interpretation is any more authoritative than any other denominational interpretation, other than the say so of denominational authorities. The practice of interpretation, rather than making things more certain, actually muddies the waters.
“I did think we each had good in us because I thought I had good in me until God showed me during my conversion that I had never once kept the intent of the Law expressed in one of its own commandments - to love God. Since I had never loved God in any of my acts/works before regeneration, I have always transgressed the law in every single act of mine - thereby having committed sin all along. The gravity of this truth burdened me with so great a guilt and feeling of helplessness that Christ on the cross seemed so much sweeter as an unshakable rock of hope. His love for me - who have been nothing but His enemy all along - is what enabled me to begin to love.â€
I think that all who are in Christ, and are honest with themselves have this experience. Throughout the Bible we see instances of people literally falling on their faces when faced with the righteousness of God. When faced with the righteousness of God, our own righteousness is as filthy rags. And the experience should continue even after we are in Christ. We should have a strong sense of our sinfulness as compared to the righteousness of God. It is our motivation to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.
“So now I know that one who is not regenerated cannot obey God - is unable to seek God and love Him as He ought to be loved - and therein such a one transgresses the law continually.â€
Continually? Well, you fooled me. I had no idea that you agreed with Childeye and Smaller. I can see that I need to be more observant.
When faced with the righteousness of God, are own righteousness is as filthy rags. But how does that imply that we have no righteousness whatsoever. Do you really think that those who aren’t in Christ are not able to perform any righteous act at all? What of Abraham who didn’t know the Law given to Moses, was not in Christ, didn’t have the Spirit in the sense that we do. Yet Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. How was it possible that he was able to believe God? What of those who are not in Christ and yet are capable of keeping the laws of their own man-made nation? Are all the laws of the nations unrighteous? If so, then why are we encouraged to submit to the laws of the nations, except when they don’t agree with the Laws of God?
“I'm not yet fully conversant with your understanding of the "soulish".â€
The Soul is just our own self, our own ego, the id, the I. When God breathed into a body made from the dirt of the earth, man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). The soul is not the human spirit nor is it the body made from dirt. It is the soul. You should do a study on the soul in the Bible someday. But be aware that it will be a difficult study, because in the New Testament, the Greek word that means soul is translated by some English words that don’t reflect the actual meaning of the Greek word. In the KJV it is translated as life, mind, heart, as well as soul, and in a couple of places it isn’t even translated. In the NASB, supposedly more literal than the KJV, it is translated as heartily, life, mind, person, thing, as well as soul. The same thing is true in the Old Testament as well. But you should search and seek nevertheless, and through the effort Jesus will reveal to you the nature of the soul.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word soulish, since it seems to have caused more confusion in your mind than not. I don’t think that it’s even a legitimate word. But I have heard Christians use the word. What I intended to convey is that we’re not only capable of walking by the flesh or by the spirit, but we are also capable of walking according to our own soul, according to our own desires and affections. This is not necessarily wrong. To prefer the color blue over the color red certainly couldn’t be attributed to the flesh or the spirit. But when our desires and affections are selfishly used against someone else, then it can assuredly lead to actions of the flesh.
As in the incident of David and Bathsheba. Seeing a woman that one considers beautiful and admiring her beauty is not a transgression nor does it have anything to do with the flesh or spirit. It is simply a matter of a personal preference of the soul. Not everyone thinks that a rose is the most beautiful of flowers. It is where we go from there that may become something related to the flesh. And that is all that Jesus was talking about. When we look upon a woman and then have lust for her, that becomes a transgression, something of the flesh, even if the only action is to think lustful thoughts in our minds. We really need to know the difference. Because if we don’t, then we are apt to either succumb to the flesh or start bumping into walls whenever we encounter a beautiful woman in an attempt to not succumb to the flesh.
And you’re right, when we live by the soul without any humility, it can certainly lead to self-righteousness. And that can lead to a number of fleshly actions.
FC
“FC - "And experience is subjective so that to say that its certainty is grounds for authoritative certainty is unwarranted."
I was not concerned with how our certainty could be authoritatively imposed on other people when I was discussing this. Just on whether we could be certain ourselves.â€
When we emphasize our certainty with too much fervor, we automatically begin to impose that certainty on others. That is when our certainty becomes fanaticism and authoritative. And that is all I am concerned about. We should be certain in ourselves concerning certain things. But we should never impose that certainty on others. We, as those who are in Christ, if we are being taught by Jesus Christ, share many convictions that we believe are certain. But due to the nature of the denominations, and its influence upon those who are in Christ, there are many convictions that we don’t share because their source isn’t Jesus Christ. There are many things that denominations authoritatively believe are certain that are not among the things that we share. In Christianity, there is doctrinal certainty and authority concerning that certainty where none should exist.
“ivdavid - “I believe Paul,Peter made authoritative statements in the sense, they stated truth with absolute certainty.â€
I think you misunderstood me here. I agree to the model of shepherding. I only wanted to know if the elders/ordained shepherds sharing - not imposing - their own absolute certainties(as used in the first point in this post) was also a point of contention for you.â€
The only point that I contend is whether or not elders should rule as Lords. I agree with Peter who says no, and Paul who agrees with Peter. So much for the Roman Catholic institution that claims Peter as its reason for its authoritative structure. So much for Protestant institutions that have imitated the Roman Catholic institution by creating similar authoritative structures.
“FC - "...but the fact is not changed by the explanation as it is by the practice of interpretation."
What do you mean by fact here - something like Paris is in France, Earth revolves around the sun, genes replicate etc.
Would "we are no longer under the law" qualify as fact? You can simply answer yes/no. (I'm not discussing law,grace here....i'm trying to completely understand what you mean by interpretation) â€
Trying to interpret Biblical discrepancies away doesn’t in fact make them go away. The discrepancies continue to exist. They are only replaced by the interpretations in the minds of the interpreters and of those who agree with their interpretations.
The practice of interpretation is simply the attempt to understand the thoughts of human writers by human thinking processes. It’s the way the world understands human writings. Because apart from the writer being physically present to interpret his own writings, the writings can’t be understood in any other way. Thus interpretation is especially necessary in relation to ancient writings where the writers are dead. All I’m saying is that this practice shouldn’t be applied to the Bible, because the source of the Bible is the living God. There is a living teacher that can interpret it for us. We benefit from the source and the teacher through the living Holy Spirit. It stands to reason that this only applies to those who are in Christ and experience the reality of the living teacher through the Holy Spirit. Those who are not in Christ, or do not walk by the Spirit, have no such experience and thus must of necessity practice interpretation as the means to understand the Bible. But by doing so, they are proclaiming to the world that in their minds the Bible is simply a collection of human writings without a living Divine source or living teacher.
There are only two alternatives: understanding the Bible through our own thinking by interpretration or understanding it through supernatural means. If we receive the proper understanding through the living teacher, and then interpret that understanding, it is the same as if we are understanding the Bible through our own thinking. We have understood what we have been given by Jesus through our own thinking and the teaching is nullified or changed by our own thinking, just as if we interpreted the Bible directly.
Atheists and Christian Homosexuals understand the Bible through the practice of interpretation. If the practice of interpretation is legitimate, then we can’t judge the interpretations of Atheists and Christian Homosexuals as being any less legitimate than our own. And if we consider the practice of interpretation to be legitimate, then there is really no ground for believing that any denominational interpretation is any more authoritative than any other denominational interpretation, other than the say so of denominational authorities. The practice of interpretation, rather than making things more certain, actually muddies the waters.
“I did think we each had good in us because I thought I had good in me until God showed me during my conversion that I had never once kept the intent of the Law expressed in one of its own commandments - to love God. Since I had never loved God in any of my acts/works before regeneration, I have always transgressed the law in every single act of mine - thereby having committed sin all along. The gravity of this truth burdened me with so great a guilt and feeling of helplessness that Christ on the cross seemed so much sweeter as an unshakable rock of hope. His love for me - who have been nothing but His enemy all along - is what enabled me to begin to love.â€
I think that all who are in Christ, and are honest with themselves have this experience. Throughout the Bible we see instances of people literally falling on their faces when faced with the righteousness of God. When faced with the righteousness of God, our own righteousness is as filthy rags. And the experience should continue even after we are in Christ. We should have a strong sense of our sinfulness as compared to the righteousness of God. It is our motivation to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.
“So now I know that one who is not regenerated cannot obey God - is unable to seek God and love Him as He ought to be loved - and therein such a one transgresses the law continually.â€
Continually? Well, you fooled me. I had no idea that you agreed with Childeye and Smaller. I can see that I need to be more observant.
When faced with the righteousness of God, are own righteousness is as filthy rags. But how does that imply that we have no righteousness whatsoever. Do you really think that those who aren’t in Christ are not able to perform any righteous act at all? What of Abraham who didn’t know the Law given to Moses, was not in Christ, didn’t have the Spirit in the sense that we do. Yet Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. How was it possible that he was able to believe God? What of those who are not in Christ and yet are capable of keeping the laws of their own man-made nation? Are all the laws of the nations unrighteous? If so, then why are we encouraged to submit to the laws of the nations, except when they don’t agree with the Laws of God?
“I'm not yet fully conversant with your understanding of the "soulish".â€
The Soul is just our own self, our own ego, the id, the I. When God breathed into a body made from the dirt of the earth, man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). The soul is not the human spirit nor is it the body made from dirt. It is the soul. You should do a study on the soul in the Bible someday. But be aware that it will be a difficult study, because in the New Testament, the Greek word that means soul is translated by some English words that don’t reflect the actual meaning of the Greek word. In the KJV it is translated as life, mind, heart, as well as soul, and in a couple of places it isn’t even translated. In the NASB, supposedly more literal than the KJV, it is translated as heartily, life, mind, person, thing, as well as soul. The same thing is true in the Old Testament as well. But you should search and seek nevertheless, and through the effort Jesus will reveal to you the nature of the soul.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word soulish, since it seems to have caused more confusion in your mind than not. I don’t think that it’s even a legitimate word. But I have heard Christians use the word. What I intended to convey is that we’re not only capable of walking by the flesh or by the spirit, but we are also capable of walking according to our own soul, according to our own desires and affections. This is not necessarily wrong. To prefer the color blue over the color red certainly couldn’t be attributed to the flesh or the spirit. But when our desires and affections are selfishly used against someone else, then it can assuredly lead to actions of the flesh.
As in the incident of David and Bathsheba. Seeing a woman that one considers beautiful and admiring her beauty is not a transgression nor does it have anything to do with the flesh or spirit. It is simply a matter of a personal preference of the soul. Not everyone thinks that a rose is the most beautiful of flowers. It is where we go from there that may become something related to the flesh. And that is all that Jesus was talking about. When we look upon a woman and then have lust for her, that becomes a transgression, something of the flesh, even if the only action is to think lustful thoughts in our minds. We really need to know the difference. Because if we don’t, then we are apt to either succumb to the flesh or start bumping into walls whenever we encounter a beautiful woman in an attempt to not succumb to the flesh.
And you’re right, when we live by the soul without any humility, it can certainly lead to self-righteousness. And that can lead to a number of fleshly actions.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Jasoncran
“what i am trying to point out to eventide is that inorder for eternal security to be true the other four points of calvinism must also be true.â€
Not necessarily. Depends on where the emphasis is placed, on being in Christ or on our own ability to get us where we’re supposed to go. We have the choice to walk by the flesh or by the Spirit. Doesn’t mean that we can hop in and out of Christ every time we make the wrong choice.
We have to be careful not to get into the situation that Martin Luther found himself in. He had a hard time with the flesh and despaired. And it caused him to come up with the idea of Justification by faith alone so he wouldn’t have to deal with the flesh in fear all the time. If failure in one’s fight against the flesh is not related to Salvation, then the failure can be tolerated. Not ignored, because if the flesh is ignored it may be an indication that such a one was never in Christ at all.
FC
“what i am trying to point out to eventide is that inorder for eternal security to be true the other four points of calvinism must also be true.â€
Not necessarily. Depends on where the emphasis is placed, on being in Christ or on our own ability to get us where we’re supposed to go. We have the choice to walk by the flesh or by the Spirit. Doesn’t mean that we can hop in and out of Christ every time we make the wrong choice.
We have to be careful not to get into the situation that Martin Luther found himself in. He had a hard time with the flesh and despaired. And it caused him to come up with the idea of Justification by faith alone so he wouldn’t have to deal with the flesh in fear all the time. If failure in one’s fight against the flesh is not related to Salvation, then the failure can be tolerated. Not ignored, because if the flesh is ignored it may be an indication that such a one was never in Christ at all.
FC
Yes now factor in that the carnal mind cannot be subject to God. In other words there is the desires of the flesh which by default if we are not subject to God we are subject to the flesh. Then factor in an entity that uses our flesh to both tempt us and accuse us and deceive us. I do not believe we are able to submit our wills to God without first seeing through at least some of this deception in some way. The carnal mind does not even value Godly things but values worldly things. Only the Word of God in a man's heart can cause a man to believe. Only the Holy Spirit of Truth can expose deception.
Please understand that I do not like freewill theology because it claims men knowingly defy God. The fact that There are those who persecute Christians believing they are actually serving God is evidence of a profound deception that freewill theology falls short of explaining so it cannot be true as an absolute.
I cannot ignore this fact and be honest before God.
jasoncran
Member
uh, i knowingly knew the act of gay male love was in defiance of God and heard God tell me not to partake in communion till i repent. and also in church services where it wasnt brought the spirit would convict me at each and every alter call. i knew i was hardening my heart each time every so slowly. the more i did that the easier it was to sin. yes there was this as the lbgt says, inner homophobia. that is where the person who is gay hates who he is. i was going through that and also wanting to be in that relationship along with the conviction. i was telling myself that being in this was right , when deep down inside I KNEW it was wrong.
that is willful sin. it may not have reached the point of no return but it was there.that is why i say its a point of continual rebellion.
Eventide
Member
So in your opinion.. God allowing YOU to repent and to believe the gospel, while not affording this to all men, is not special..?
Are you serious.. ?
Eventide
Member
What's the point..?
You know for a fact that if God allows certain people to repent and believe the gospel, while not affording that to all men, that this is a 'special' case..
In your examples, they are ALL special cases if the the above situation pre-exists in your mind.
You can't seem to admit it though.. and that's fine.. if you'd like to believe that unconditional election is not a special case, then go right ahead.
Eventide,
This is one of the questions concerned with that example that you seem to have overlooked...
I'll add to that -
Q3c. Do you think the king was being partial and hence unjust when he showed mercy on one of them while not on the other, given that he didn't base his decision on any parameter concerned with the guilty? In other words, is this king's having mercy on whom he wills considered unjust?
It does not make me 'special' - and no, I don't consider as facts what I don't believe in. Kindly do not presume that I am trying to hold on to an untruth even though I believe it's the truth.
Q3b. If you think so, then tell me what that greater inherent value in that person was which was not present in the other guy.
This is one of the questions concerned with that example that you seem to have overlooked...
I'll add to that -
Q3c. Do you think the king was being partial and hence unjust when he showed mercy on one of them while not on the other, given that he didn't base his decision on any parameter concerned with the guilty? In other words, is this king's having mercy on whom he wills considered unjust?