Bible Study The "Man" Centered gospel which is really anti-chr

[BenJasher]

A well-known radio personality stated the other day that God does
NOT send any man to hell. Men send themselves to hell by rejecting
the offer of life that God has provided in Christ.

He stated that since all men show up on earth dead spiritually, by default
and because of their rejection of their Savior, they are responsible for
their fate.

So, the religious explanation of how men end up in “hell†is that because
of a man's passivity and unresponsiveness to the gospel, he consigns
himself to hell. Man does it, God does NOT.

If that is true, then by the same logic, choosing to receive Christ, an
active response by man, must mean that men are also responsible for
sending themselves to heaven. In fact, if the argument goes that a man
is responsible for sending himself to hell by passively doing nothing, that
same logic demands that those who actively do something (believe),
send themselves to heaven, and therefore deserve similar credit for their
fate. (Emphasis mine)


Gang, I just don't see how religion can have it one way and not the other.
If religion insists that men send themselves to religion’s “hellâ€Â, the logic
follows that men also send themselves to heaven. In other words, the
religious man says in his mind, "I am responsible for sending
myself to heaven. I could have done nothing and sent myself to ‘hell’, but I chose to do something. And because I did something, I'm going to heaven".


I, I, I!

Can religion’s “gospel†be any more man-centered than that?!!

Friend, don’t be misled. God determines man’s fate…period. And man’s
fate is sealed, sealed through the finished work of the Savior of the world!

Now that’s good news!

Now, this man has used simple reasoning to unravel a very dangerous mindset that is prevalent amongst much of the christian world today.

To make the statement that a man sends himself to hell is for one thing, callous. For another, it is unscriptural and directs your attention to the fact that the person making this statement is unlearned in the subject to which he is so authoritatively stating himself. He is only looking at one side of the theological coin. If he took but a moment to look at the other, he would most likely hang his head in shame and shut up. Then he would do some prayerful study, seeking a better answer. (Been there, done that. Have the t-shirt to prove it.) It is an easy mistake to make. But it needs correcting, nonetheless.

Man is saved by grace. It is a free gift from God. It is not of man so that no man can boast. (That is scripture, btw) It's all about Him. It has nothing to do with us. And any system of theological thought that proposes that man has anything to do with his election and/or salvation is anti-christ.

It is the goodness of God that leads a man to repentence. It is not repentence that leads to the goodness of God. The steps of a man are ordered of the Lord. (The word "good" in that scripture is not in the original, and has been added by an annotater during translation, leading to a mis-translation.)

You have not chosen Me. But I have chosen you.

It's all about Him. It has nothing to do with us. Think for just one moment. Which would you rather have: A man centered religion (I chose to be saved. I am responsible for getting myself to heaven) which is by definition, anti-christ; or would you rather have a Christ centered religion (I was saved by grace, and I live by the faith of the Son of God) which is what it is supposed to be anyways?

 

[Rick W]

This is the essence of the debate between freewill and predestination of which both are indeed scriptural. I remember a while back listening to one of Charles Stanley's radio ministries. He asked, "Where do the two come together?" He paused then added, "They don't."
So is there a juncture where each supports the other or not?

Maybe that "well-known radio personality " WAS Charles Stanley?
:

 

[thessalonian]

It's really about what God is doing in and through us.

Eph 3
[20]
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think,
[21] to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever. Amen

Thus it is about us in that we must recognize what he does in ourselves and others to bring about our salvation. There is no dichotomy between freewill and predestintion because God molds our wills, bringing us to faith and then drawing us nearer to him. He does this by grace. All is grace. All of nature around us is because of God using his grace to bring about these things. This is called natural grace. Actual grace is the grace God uses to gently move us toward him. Sanctifying grace occurs when we have come to believe and are ready to let him in. This is not the first grace however or the last. Thus we are brought to faith by grace and brought nearer to him by grace. All men recieve grace for God's laws are written in men's hearts by grace (Romans 2:15). Grace however can be rejected. ("why do you resist the Holy Spirit"). It is rejected grace that keeps man on a path of destruction. Thus it is not God's fault if any man ends up in hell. Hope this helps.

 

[Rick W]

Good answer Thessalonian. Something to think about.
I'll be watching this thread closely... quite interesting.

 

[BenJasher]

Thank you for your response(s).

But let's go back to the question that is at the heart of the original post here.

Which would you rather have: A man centered religion (I chose to be saved. I am responsible for getting myself to heaven) which is by definition, anti-christ; or would you rather have a Christ centered religion (I was saved by grace, and I live by the faith of the Son of God) which is what it is supposed to be anyways?

And, if it was Charles Stanley, it only bolsters my point, to wit:

To make the statement that a man sends himself to hell is for one thing, callous. For another, it is unscriptural and directs your attention to the fact that the person making this statement is unlearned in the subject to which he is so authoritatively stating himself. He is only looking at one side of the theological coin. If he took but a moment to look at the other, he would most likely hang his head in shame and shut up. Then he would do some prayerful study, seeking a better answer. (Been there, done that. Have the t-shirt to prove it.) It is an easy mistake to make. But it needs correcting, nonetheless.

He has a good personality. He is clear and concise. He definitely has the gift of gab. (We say he has kissed the blarney stone.) His calling is to be a teacher. But on this point, he missed the point. Completely.

There is a dichotomy. The two are as diametrically opposed to one another as is Christ and anti-christ; flesh and spirit; good and evil; Light and darkness. Which way do you want to go? Do you want to learn from your mistake, or remain in darkness?

 

[thessalonian]

You miss my point. The dichotomy you make is a false one. Man must come to belief. But that belief is attained by the grace of God which works on all men's hearts.

Titus 1
[1] First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,
[2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
[4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If you say God sends men to hell the above verse makes no sense. God desires the salvation of men, yet does nothing to save them? :o But we see for instance in John 6 a group of Jews and disciples/Apostles being told the very same words which were an equal grace for all of them. We see those who rejected Jesus words turning away on their own free will and power. John 6:66. Did Jesus deprive them of truth? What grace was denied them. Surely hearing words from the mouth of God himself is grace. Quite apparently for those who "turned and followed him no more" there was a rejection of that grace in those words which Christ gave equally to all there. How can God be blamed for their rejection of his words?

 

[BenJasher]

Thess;
First of all, I appreciate your words. On one level, I find no grounds for a disagreement. What you are saying is undeniably true.

My point, which I guess I failed to clarify, was directed towards those who deny the sovereignty of God in these matters. There are those who will tell you that our salvation depends on our choices alone. That reasoning, followed to it's natural conclusion will result in the quandary of imbalance that my original post tried to point out. I apologize to the board if I obfuscated my point.

But in reality, my friend, when you boil the meat off the bone, all you have left is Him. What you find is that it was Him all the time. It was His choice that mattered, not ours, regardless of what our choice was. I know of those who had no intention of walking in the Way, but God had other plans, and they met Him through an act of His sovereign grace without their own volition being part of the equation. Even our faith is rendered of no consequence by His faith. It is all about Him, and always was.

Until we finally get that part figgered out, we are in danger of our relationship with Him devolving into an anti-christ religion. And it happens very easily. We are not even aware of it happening til we find ourselves denying His part in this whole thing. We end up desperately seeking answers we once had and didn't know it.

Like I said earlier: Been there, done that. Wanna see my t-shirt?

 

[mutzrein]

Ben

Good reading your posts on election - and I agree - they can't have it both ways.

Can I clarify your position on hell then. Since salvation is totally of God do you say it is therefore God's prerogative as to who will go to everlasting punishment also?

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

Thess;
First of all, I appreciate your words. On one level, I find no grounds for a disagreement. What you are saying is undeniably true.

Great!

My point, which I guess I failed to clarify, was directed towards those who deny the sovereignty of God in these matters. There are those who will tell you that our salvation depends on our choices alone.

I most definitely would disagree with that. We cannot choose him on our own. We cannot come to know him on our own. This is pelgianism.

That reasoning, followed to it's natural conclusion will result in the quandary of imbalance that my original post tried to point out. I apologize to the board if I obfuscated my point.

Agreed.

But in reality, my friend, when you boil the meat off the bone, all you have left is Him.What you find is that it was Him all the time.

At the heart of the matter I do agree with this.

It was His choice that mattered, not ours, regardless of what our choice was.

I understand what you are saying but I guess I don't like the phrasing of it. It to me is a false dichotomy. By his grace our wills must become united with his. He prayed that we all become one. He speaks of the body of Christ by which all Christians work together. He says we must abide in him and he in us. Thus he is about bringing us to that choice. He is the potter and we are the clay. One who does not choose him, though he has had the grace to do so, ends up in hell.

I know of those who had no intention of walking in the Way, but God had other plans, and they met Him through an act of His sovereign grace without their own volition being part of the equation. Even our faith is rendered of no consequence by His faith. It is all about Him, and always was.

Once again I agree in principle here. The Apostle Paul was quite hardened against him. But once again we do have to make the choice. He gives us the grace to make it but cannot do it for us. Some recieve the same grace and yet "turn and follow him no more". John 6:66.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

I am not trying to be arguementative here. I think we in general agree. I guess here is what I don't like about the phrasing "all God and not us". Let's just say five thousand years ago a man was starving. He saw a rabbit along the trail. Picked up a stone and was lucky enough to smoke the rabbit. The man survived because he ate this one rabbit. Now this man happened to be the great to the fifth power grandfather of you and I. Had he starved, you and I would not have been here. Can one say that you and I are here by accident? I would hope you believe as I do that we are here soley by the grace of God. We are a part of his plan. Is there any way however to separate us from being here from either the man or the rabbit or for that matter the parents of the man and the blades of grass that fed the rabbit so that he was able to feed the man. The rock and the man's ability to throw it accurately enough to hit the rabbit were the result of God's grace as well, even God's grace for us. All creation cries out to the glory of God. Therefore what I don't like is trying to separate God from his creation, separating God from his actions through that creation, and separating the work that he is doing in us and through us from him. He is totally responsible for our salvation. This does not mean that we have no part in it but that the part we have in it is by his grace. God brings it about and he brings about our cooperation. That cooperation however does have to be there.

Does that help?

 

[BenJasher]

Ben

Good reading your posts on election - and I agree - they can't have it both ways.

Can I clarify your position on hell then. Since salvation is totally of God do you say it is therefore God's prerogative as to who will go to everlasting punishment also?

Regards

My Goodness! I apologize Mutzrein! I quit following this thread, but I would have answered your post if I had seen it beforehand.

...do you say it is therefore God's prerogative as to who will go to everlasting punishment also?

YES! Absolutely!

But, first, define "everlasting". Then define "punishment".

Then, there are a couple of points to consider: 1)This election, to either fate, is made before the person in question had a chance to do good or evil, or to know that they even had a choice. And this brings up the next point; 2)If God the Father chose to bless you and to curse me; and both choices were based on the pleasure of His will, wouldn't that obligate God the Father to do good toward me also at some point?

...God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one may not be cast out from him.

This is an O.T. scripture that ought to be etched upon our minds as clearly as John 3:16 in the N.T.