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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
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
-
Message to GOD"S elect
- Thread starter josefnospam
- Start date
Messenger
Member
Eventide
Member
It was a rhetorical question mondar...
Last edited by a moderator:
Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
Faith is indeed pleasing unto God. Anything pleasing to God is indeed meritorious.
Of course men in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Even thought the scripture says faith is pleasing to God you must of course reject such a concept because it would mean that your system of theology leans toward some works salvation theology. In my system, there is no merit in faith only because it is something granted by God on behalf of Christ.
See Phil 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:
In logic, this is a great example of what is called a category error. You might be unfamiliar with the laws of logic, I do not know. Nevertheless, you are correct, the car is not pleased that you are aware it is red. God on the other hand is pleased that you have faith in the atonement to save, and in him.
Here we have major disagreement. You might think you only made a slip of the pen, and made a statement that you did not think out, but I think it is an actual part of your theology to deny that the shed blood of Christ actually saves absolutely. Your statement here disappointments me very much. It displeases me that you lower the value of Christs shed blood to a mere tearing down of a barrier to salvation. Christ shed blood is salvation to the fullest! I can see what you insinuate. you think that Christ did no more then merely establish a remote possibility of salvation and then you have to make the whole thing work by your own glorious decision. I cannot express how strongly I disagree with such a lowering of the value of Christs shed blood. Of course in my view, the cross of Christ saves absolutely and to the uttermost. It does far more than tear down a barrier between us and salvation. Christ shed blood does all that is needed for salvation.
The whole issue underneath the whole thing is that you must justify your view of free will faith by making faith to be something that is neutral and does not please God (which is unscriptural) and then devalue the value of Christ shed blood (which is both unscriptural and offensive).
Christ went to the cross, shed his blood, presented it at the heavenly altar as the great high priest, and is intercessor for all those he shed his blood for. He was sacrifice, high priest, and intercessor for those whom he elected to save. He does not fail in his intercession, priestly ministry, nor in his shed blood. Christ never fails!
So how do you know that your "Not a man in the flesh". What did your election feel like?
I believe in Jesus Christ. Why is your Faith superior to mine?
Or am I elect and just don't know it?
My apologies for being bothered by your lowering of the value of the atonement. I should not have been bothered, it is actually very common to make statements that Christs shed blood does something less then make an absolute salvation.
To answer you questions above, one of them concerns the "flesh." Of course it is a good question to ask if one is in the flesh or the spirit. In Romans 8, the two are set in antithesis.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
I know know of my own salvation by my faith in the shed blood. There are other ways and we could discuss the scriptures on this, but I am going to move on.
Your second question is What does Election feel like. The answer is that Election is not related to sensory perceptions. It was a choice made by God in eternity past.
The 3ird question on Why is my faith superior... Well, I am not sure I would phrase it that way... I have no way of knowing that a faith is superior until we go before Christ. He is the judge. I suspect that you are asking why I see you as lowering the value of the atonement. Specifically, I am referring to your words....
"God tore the barrier down for mankind through the Cross of Christ." As I understand your theology to say that once Christ tore down the barrier, anyone can be saved. Now you did not use the words "anyone can be saved by Christs shed blood." There is a way that is true, because the value of Christs shed blood is infinite. If Christ had elected a billion to the billionth power more people, he could still save even more. Christ's shed blood is soo valuable that he could save an infinite number of people. That is of course not the point. The point is who did the choosing. Did we choose Christ because he chose us? Or did he Christ just die to make this remote possibility that a few would be choose to accept his shed blood and then spent all this time in heaven biting his nails hoping someone accepts his shed blood?
The problem with the statement that "because of Christs death anyone can be saved" is that it also implies that no one is saved by Christ shed blood. That statement implies that Christ died only to provide a possibility of salvation, and not to actually perfectly save anyone. In my opinion, Christ died to save absolutely and to the uttermost. I can defend this scriptural if needed (but let me just define differences in theology for now).
When you make statements like "God tore the barrier down for mankind through the Cross of Christ" that tells me you believe that Christs shed blood did no more then tear down a barrier? So then it does not save absolutely to the uttermost?
I guess this is the importance of the election question. If election is dependent upon something in us, then we have something good in us. Then we are not saved by Christ shed blood alone, but without unconditional election, we are saved partly by Christ shed blood, and partly by our own glorious decision of faith. That would of course make salvation a 50 X 50 thing. Part of it done by God and part by the believer.
In unconditional election, it makes salvation to be all of God, 100%. Even the faith by which we are justified is a gift of God. (Phil 1:29; 1John 5:1). Christ then died for those he intends to give faith, and saves them to the uttermost.
I am glad to hear you say.... "I believe in Jesus Christ." Lets now add the word "alone." The judiasers believed in Christ and circumcision to save. That of course is anathema in Galatians. We need to add the word "alone." We believe "in Christ alone." He did all that was needed to save, including giving us faith by changing our nature so that we will come running to him. (1 John 5:1). He did this because he chose us from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).
There is simply not text in all of the bible that says we were chosen on the basis of foreseen faith.
Again, I apologize for the shock I felt when I read your statement. I still consider you a brother in the Lord, and worthy of kindness, but I am concerned about that statement that you made. It does lower the value of Christ death to a potential salvation, and not an absolute salvation.
G
George Muller
Guest
You make my point "I have died to "self-will" and the life I live I hope to always live according to the will of Christ. That is not "free-will" that is a surrendered will.
Also Eventide, to ignore the scriptures that declare that God predestined and knew us before, is to ignore a very important, powerful confidence and peace that God intends us to have with this knowledge. I would agree that some could be in error as it relates to this issue, and would confront that error, but I will never ignore such wonderful knowledge as to know that God already knows the beginning from the end, when He calls and saves. He already knew me before He ever made this world, now any man who claims or attempts to grab hold of that wisdom and such deep thoughts will no doubt be in error on certain points, but that truth is so great, I will not reject it or fail to cherish it because others are error, if indeed they are?
Eventide
Member
More straw men George... Ignoring predestination or election, hardly.. That's why I asked the simple question. But of course I should have known that some can't handle it..
Sorry to bother you, go back to erecting straw men if you must.
G
George Muller
Guest
What do you mean by the term "straw men" ??? Is that just a term that allows you to ignore the clear and evident points of my post or anything that shows the errors of "free-will"? Your straw men reply to all biblical logic is the real false premise that hinders a honest search and discussion of the truth. So all I know to do with this sort of vain and ungodly logic is just to make the same evident point . Free-will is a completely unbiblical doctrine and can only be used to defend disobedience and can never be explained as that which responds to the Cross of Christ and what the bible demands as obedience, in that we walk in the "will" of the Spirit. The scriptures in NO WAY promotes that a man would walk in SELF-WILL, which it seems all that promote such doctrines are always ready to boast in.
George, he is just going to continue trolling. You have to ignore the low hanging fruit sometimes.
I do not believe you were shocked by my statement. You act that way to try to make your point more relevant. You have heard that statement many times and are well versed in how to manipulate the readers. It is what I used to pounce on and then make the claim that "the Cross tore down the barrier" was a sole accomplishment of the Cross from the others point of view. It is standard procedure. I was not shocked or offended by your statements. I just know what Hit me in the Gut when I was under Calvinism.
G
George Muller
Guest
If "dying to self" at His Cross, is being "dragged" then yes I accept that charge. If Paul being knocked from his horse, and blinded, seems unbiblical to you? Then maybe you are on a horse called "free-will" and are in need of being "dragged" to the truth that is granted to those who humble and surrender SELF-WILL. Again I see you make no attempt to defend such an unbiblical position in the scriptures, because you cannot. Straw-man this and straw-man that, insult upon insult upon any who come against your "will". Yes God broke me in my pride, and my knee did bow and my tongue did confess, this is true salvation. I would not want or accept another.
Maybe using the word "shocked" was an over statement, but I am truly surprised by the lack of recognition that the conditional election position results in a devaluation of the shed blood of Christ. The apology I made was sincere. I should have somehow toned down the post. I will make a better attempt at expressing myself more cordially.
Yes, I have heard similar statements, and a part of my point was in taking the moral high ground in pointing out that you were devaluing the shed blood of Christ. I do not think capturing the moral high ground is "to manipulate the readers." In fact, it is not actually the readers I felt interest in, it was you. I have read and responded to some of your other posts. I have observed some things about you. Your working at Kione Greek. Your probably a 1st year student. I have noticed that you are parsing words correctly in other posts, but seem to fail to be able to grasp concepts of good greek exegesis. If you are a first year student, in your later years, you will improve. (I do not mean to sound like the great white guru of koine greek, I am not. I had several years of study and came out a mediocre student, and am very rusty. I suspect I do have the skills in greek to recognize a first year student, I am right?) You seem to have good self control and do not express anger in your posts very fast. I also suspect you actually read and process some of the arguments posted against you. gr8grace, even reading and processing arguments against you puts you ahead of many in these forums. So then, my comments have nothing to do with manipulating readers, no, not them, it is really you I had in mind. And I truly hope that you will have some sort of benefit as iron sharpens iron.
You might have to try coming at me again here. I am not sure I am grasping what your saying when you say ""the Cross tore down the barrier" was a sole accomplishment of the cross from others point of view. I think you are referring to unbelievers? Certainly there is sufficient grace to save an infinite amount of people in the shed blood, but the cross did not tear down barriers for the non elect. If it did, they would have been saved to the uttermost.
Do you think when I talk about "saving believers to the uttermost" that I am playing a semantical game. I am not. I am sincerely interested in seeing the grace of God represented accurately. I trust you are too.
What would make a person think, that we don't have the ability to make choices before or after we are Born again?
JLB
G
George Muller
Guest
Well in context of the "will" all obedience in to surrender ones own "will" to Gods Will. All disobedience is a product of ones own "will" and those who have not died to self and self-will. Free-will is the most unbiblical term one could used to describe the life of one who walks in Gods Will. It is a very good term to describe the "church" that is in rebellion against the truth of Christ.
Re 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (change your "will"-do it My way, not your own)
Here is the "free-will" church
Everyone who chooses to do the will of God, does so because they make the choice to.
He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." Matthew 26:39
Yes George, because they have to choose.
Because they have a free will, they have to choose to do God's will rather than their own will.
If you have taken up your cross today, and have crucified your will, then YOU have nothing to do with anything, it is Christ in you who does God's will.
You have to take up your cross daily in order to allow Him to do God's will, not you.
It is your choice to take up your cross daily or not.
JLB
JBL, unfortunately, whenever anyone denies "free will" you people assume that we are denying the human attribute of "will." Confusing the two only muddies the waters of any discussion. I do not think George Muller is denying the human attribute of will. George himself said "All disobedience is a product of ones own "will"." That of course is a statement that we have will.
What George is saying is that the use of human will is never positive because it is corrupted by being in Adam's fall. In original sin we receive sin nature, or a nature of rebellion and anger against God. Here is a verse on rebellious corrupt human nature...
3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--
Please note the underlined part. Of course verse 3 is an explanation of verse 1. Verse 1 talks about being dead in sins and trespasses.
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
The term "dead" in many contexts in scripture speaks of a spiritual death. Those in a spiritual death because the sinful nature, or the rebellion of Adam; this death is passed on to the whole human race. The result is that we reject the ministry of the word and the spirit by nature.
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Notice that the natural man (the unregenerate in Adam) cannot (a word of ability) know the things of the Spirit.
This is of course why John 6:44 says that men do not have the ability to come to Christ.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Of course the 2nd part of verse 44 tells us how men come to Christ. They are drawn. So then, faith is not the work of man for God, but it is the work of God in mans heart. It is the drawing of God.
So then, in faith, human will is also used when God works in a person's heart, or changes their nature so that the want to believe. We chose either way. We chose rebellion as unregenerate, but we choose faith when God draws us, or regenerates the soul to love him with all our heart, and soul. After regeneration, do we use human will to choose Christ? Absolutely, we come running to him and we want him. Its our choice. But the choice is the work of God, not man.
This is not a mere semantical thing, it is important. I hope this avoids the continued accusation that we do not believe in the ability of the human to choose.
Here, I would prefer using biblical language in a biblically correct way. It might sound cool, and make for a cool devotional thought, but it muddies the waters and does not lead toward precision in the use and study of biblical language. We do not crusify the will. We are crusified with Christ, and our will is changed, but the scriptures do not use the terminology "crusify the will."
In conclusion, we do not give up our will, we still make choices, but when we make the choice of choosing Christ, it is God working in the human heart that is the cause of this choice, and not ourselves. There is no merit for us in faith because it is the work of God in us, and not the work of man for God. There can only be merit when we do it.
So then, do you have faith? Praise God who gave it to you.