The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[childeye]

That is not really the main issue.

I put forth this issue as the issue, because this is what Arminians such as Roger Olson of the society of Evangelical Arminians has said is the issue, and I quote, "Real Arminianism has always believed in human freedom for one main reason—to protect the goodness of God and thus God’s reputation in a world filled with evil. There is only one reason classical Arminian theology emphasizes free will, but it has two sides. First, to protect and defend God’s goodness; second to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."

And if anyone should be blamed it is Adam.

Please consider how you come across to me Malachi. Above you seem to think Adam should deserve blame. But I myself would never ever pass such judgment without being absolutely sure it was deserved. That to me is what righteous judgment is all about. Why should Adam be blamed? And to be precise, keep in mind this is about 'freewill', so that when I say blame it is clear it amounts to condemnation for something Adam knowingly could have and should have avoided. And to be even more precise, the blamer/accuser of Adam must be certain beyond and doubt, that if put in Adam's shoes, he would have not done what Adam did. I can't in all honesty make that claim and that is why I can't blame Adam. In fact God has shown me, that many times I have been deceived by Satan into doing something I otherwise wouldn't have done.

It is God Himself who desires that the offer of salvation be freely responded to because it is a free gift (Isa 55:1-7).

Respectfully Malachi, you can't conflate a 'free' gift with a 'free' response. A free gift pertains to something that is not be bought, hence it is free. The free response from a freewill has nothing to do with not buying a response.

And in any event He created men (Gen 1:26,27) and angels with free will for His own eternal purposes.

You are implying that Genesis 1:26-27 is to be interpreted as being given a freewill because we are made in God's image. God's image pertains to a resemblance of God. Here's the problem, freewill theology is saying men freely choose or volunteer to sin. Yet God can't sin. So you can't claim that being made in God's image constitutes the free ability to sin. God gave us a will, this will became corrupted through a corrupt image of god. It may have been a freewill in the sense it was free from corruption at the time it was made, but God did not give us the disability to sin, Satan did that. 1 John 3:8.

Think about what you are saying about yourself. Note that the second great commandment is to love others as you would want to be loved, right? That means to deliberately transgresses against this commandment is to deliberately desire to hurt others. All sin hurts somebody. I honestly don't ever want to deliberately hurt anybody, so I am never going to be a proponent of freewill theology. Nor do I think anybody else would want to hurt anybody else, since I don't. Unless of course they were deceived in some manner, or forced into it by circumstance, wherein freewill is not applicable. The truth is that sin is irrational. So what are you saying? That you have a freewill that can volunteer to hurt others? That this is autonomy?

 

[The_Epsicle]

Please provide Scriptures stating the principal of Sola Scriptura. [Off topic, WIP]
God bless,
William

[Off topic. WIP]

Sola Scriptura, Word Alone:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:14-17 ESV

"I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." - 1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV

"And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." - 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." - Acts 17:11 ESV

"And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures," - Acts 17:2 ESV

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13 ESV

"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock." - Matthew 7:24-25 ESV

And last but most certainly not least:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." - Revelation 22:18-21 ESV

 

[The_Epsicle]

Missed your questions, my bad.

"To clarify, before I spend any further time in this post, would Scriptural proof change your mind?"

Yes it would, as stated above.

"Secondly, are you contending that a dead man can resist?"

Not at all, I am contending that the Bible is unclear because regardless of which way you believe it espouses some heresy.

"If not are you contending only after Regeneration a man can or cannot resist?"

Again not at all because of the reasons stated above, I'll get some more documentation to clarify my position in one moment.

 

[The_Epsicle]

My search for documents to clarify my position turned up this, after looking up the scripture references in here I agree with you William. Seems I was not as well versed on my church's teaching of predestination as I thought I was.

"To be sure, it is necessary to observe the Scriptural distinction between the election of grace and the universal will of grace. This universal gracious will of God embraces all men; the election of grace, however, does not embrace all, but only a definite number, whom "God hath from the beginning chosen to salvation," 2 Thess. 2:13, the "remnant," the "seed" which "the Lord left," Rom. 9:27- 29, the "election," Rom. 11:7; and while the universal will of grace is frustrated in the case of most men, Matt. 22:14; Luke 7:30, the election of grace attains its end with all whom it embraces, Rom. 8:28-30. Scripture, however, while distinguishing between the universal will of grace and the election of grace, does not place the two in opposition to each other. On the contrary, it teaches that the grace dealing with those who are lost is altogether earnest and fully efficacious for conversion. Blind reason indeed declares these two truths to be contradictory; but we impose silence on our reason. The seeming disharmony will disappear in the light of heaven, 1 Cor. 13:12." - A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), paragraph 38

 

[williamt]

Missed your questions, my bad.

"To clarify, before I spend any further time in this post, would Scriptural proof change your mind?"

Yes it would, as stated above.

"Secondly, are you contending that a dead man can resist?"

Not at all, I am contending that the Bible is unclear because regardless of which way you believe it espouses some heresy.

"If not are you contending only after Regeneration a man can or cannot resist?"

Again not at all because of the reasons stated above, I'll get some more documentation to clarify my position in one moment.

That would be great, because you stated that you are not saying a dead man can resist, then you are stating that a man not brought to life through regeneration is unclear in Scripture, and it is a heresy. As to a heresy, I am curious as to which council concluded that the Canons of Dort or the TULIP were heresy?

All of these verses pertain to irr. Grace, because it is clear that the act of being born again or regenerated is a sovereign act of God. It is something God does which enables us to believe the gospel message, not something that comes as a result of our belief.

John 1:12-13
John 3:3
John 6:37-40
John 11:43
Titus 3:5
Ephesians 2:1, 5, 13

Salvation depends on God to take the action and apply salvation. Man can not have a hand in it because he is unable and unwilling (dead means dead). Unable because of his total depravity, unwilling because God applies salvation to us; we don't apply it. God's sovereignty guarantees those whom He calls (Jn 6:44) will come to Him. Salvation is not dependent on us. Man's will is not free to choose or reject salvation.

Supporting Scripture:

Dan 4:35
Eph 2:8
Isa 55:11
Eze 36:26-27
Jn 6:37, 39, 44-45
Rom 8:29-30
2 Tim 2:25
Jn 1:13 Eph 2:1
Isa 46:9-10
Prov 21:1
2 Tim 1:9
Jn 3:27
Acts 20:24
Jn 3:19-20
Titus 3:5
Acts 15:18 (NKJV)
Rom 3:24
Rom 9:16
Rom 11:6
Jn 1:12-13
Isa 65:1
Deut 30:6
1 Pet 1:23
Jn 6:65
Jn 3:8
Acts 5:31
Acts 11:18
Acts 16:14
Phil 1:29
Phil 2:13

Are we beating a dead horse, brother?

God bless,
William

 

[williamt]

I did not know you were Lutheran?

God bless,
William

P.S. I would like to talk with you about other subjects. I have questions about the Missouri Synod.

 

[The_Epsicle]

I agree with everything you've said William, I got doctrines mixed up and thought you were talking about double predestination for a moment and I lost all sense after that. This isn't the first time I've put my foot in my mouth in this thread, go back to post #28 to see an epic example of that. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[williamt]

No problem, I am happy to meet you and discuss these things among other subjects. I have opened a line of private conversation between us. Looking forward to knowing more about you, brother.

Soli Deo Gloria!

God bless,
William

 

[Deborah13]

To clarify, before I spend any further time in this post, would Scriptural proof change your mind?

God bless,
William

Let's look at one of Luther's scriptures for limited atonement with the understanding from other scriptures.
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out--to remission of sins;

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Who is the blood sprinkle on, the whole nation of Israel. Will all of them be justified by it, no, only those who have faith.
Isa 49:8 Thus said Jehovah: `In a time of good pleasure I answered thee, And in a day of salvation I helped thee, And I keep thee, and give thee, For a covenant of the people, To establish the earth, To cause to inherit desolate inheritances.
desolate inheritances = gentile nations

He was sacrificed for the nation of Israel....Isaiah's people v8
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
All the iniquity of Israel was laid on Him.
He was portioned with the many. Gentile nations, not just Israel.
Not just the iniquity of Israel but the iniquity of the many, the Gentiles, as well.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great [H7227- many], and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many [H7227], and made intercession for the transgressors.

Matt 26:28 - when Jesus said, the many, this is what He is referring to. Before Him were all Jewish men, and He tells them the new covenant is for many. Obviously, they didn't get it either, considering their surprise when gentiles received the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues. He was speaking prophecy to them. :nod

 

[williamt]

Let's look at one of Luther's scriptures for limited atonement with the understanding from other scriptures.
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out--to remission of sins;

Exo 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
Exo 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Who is the blood sprinkle on, the whole nation of Israel. Will all of them be justified by it, no, only those who have faith.
Isa 49:8 Thus said Jehovah: `In a time of good pleasure I answered thee, And in a day of salvation I helped thee, And I keep thee, and give thee, For a covenant of the people, To establish the earth, To cause to inherit desolate inheritances.
desolate inheritances = gentile nations

He was sacrificed for the nation of Israel....Isaiah's people v8
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
All the iniquity of Israel was laid on Him.
He was portioned with the many. Gentile nations, not just Israel.
Not just the iniquity of Israel but the iniquity of the many, the Gentiles, as well.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great [H7227- many], and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many [H7227], and made intercession for the transgressors.

Matt 26:28 - when Jesus said, the many, this is what He is referring to. Before Him were all Jewish men, and He tells them the new covenant is for many. Obviously, they didn't get it either, considering their surprise when gentiles received the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues. He was speaking prophecy to them. :nod

A common position or interpretation used to prove your point Deborah is John 3:16. Many Universalist (because that is actually where your doctrine is headed) believe the "World" means from every tribe, tongue, and nation without exception in order to support a universal atonement. This is met with great opposition from within the Limited Atonement camp, and they'll refute the meaning of the "world" and correct it as such, "from every tribe, tongue, and nation without distinction." All we need do is read further to John 3:18 to find an exception.

John 3 covers what is required, without Regeneration one cannot see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, and one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

God bless,
William

 

[Deborah13]

A common position or interpretation used to prove your point Deborah is John 3:16

I didn't use John 3:16. It's too easily disputed by Calvinists. I used prophecy, and prophecy wording with the same word 'many', that Jesus used. :biggrin

Many Universalist (because that is actually where your doctrine is headed)

Ahh....no, it doesn't not say that they, as individuals, will all be justified by His blood. And there is a big difference. Not all those of Israel were justified by His blood either. That is just silly thinkin'. :wink

 

[williamt]

Then I apologize for using John 3:16 as a Scripture having nothing to do with your position or where you are ultimately going. I acknowledge you're speaking about prophecy, and that Luther and Later Reformers were oblivious to this revelation.

I am removing myself from this thread.

God bless,
William

 

[Deborah13]

Then I apologize for using John 3:16 as a Scripture having nothing to do with your position or where you are ultimately going. I acknowledge you're speaking about prophecy, and that Luther and Later Reformers were oblivious to this revelation.

I am removing myself from this thread.

God bless,
William

Sounds like sarcasm to me.
Be Blessed.

 

[Deborah13]

Luther and Later Reformers were oblivious to this revelation.

Not all them were oblivious. Commentaries, William, I read many commentaries written by many of them.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Matt. 26:28
".....The whole of this passage will receive additional light when collated with Isa_53:11, Isa_53:12. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify Many, for he shall bear their iniquities - because he hath Poured Out his soul unto death, and he bare the sin of Many. The pouring out of the soul unto death, in the prophet, answers to, this is the blood of the new covenant which is poured out for you, in the evangelists; and the רבים, rabbim, multitudes, in Isaiah, corresponds to the Many, πολλων, of Matthew and Mark. The passage will soon appear plain, when we consider that two distinct classes of persons are mentioned by the prophet.
1. The Jews. Isa_53:4. Surely he hath borne Our griefs, and carried Our sorrows. Isa_53:5. But he was wounded for Our transgressions, he was bruised for Our iniquities, the chastisement of Our peace was upon him. Isa_53:6. All We like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of Us all.
2. The Gentiles. Isa_53:11. By his knowledge, בדעתו bedaato, i.e. by his being made known, published as Christ crucified among the Gentiles, he shall justify רבים rabbim, the multitudes, (the Gentiles), for he shall (also) bear Their offenses, as well as Ours, the Jews, Isa_53:4, etc....."

 

[childeye]

Our blaming others itself is on account of Sin in the flesh, isn't it?

I'm glad you asked this question. Yes, a sinner in a state of sin blames others as well as their selves for sin, while the pure of heart do not. Romans 8:1. 1 Peter 1:22. Matthew 6:12.

Besides, Rom 4:8 does proclaim the blessing in how God does not impute sin to us - but that's because He's imputed it to Christ and not because there is no sin at all to impute

Yes there is sin, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Romans 5:13. So when we say sin was imputed to Christ, there is a distinction to be made. For Christ being a propitiation for our sins, is a matter of paying a debt according to a legal requirement of the law, while righteousness is imputed through faith in God's righteousness which erases the debt because of His forbearance. Romans 3:25. 1 John 4:2. Hence we should bear and deal with one another's sins even as He dealt with us, through mercy and understanding. 1 John 3:16. Galatians 6:1. Psalm 40:6. So since God does not require sacrifice but the legalist does, the question should be asked, who is the blamer? Who is the receiver of the payment of innocent blood through the means of the law? Hebrews 2:14. Revelations 12:10. Isaiah 14:17. Isaiah 42:7.

And where Sin is, there must be blame - why must not the sinful Self then bear blame?

Because sin is condemned in the flesh not in the person walking in the Spirit. Psalm 32:2. Consequently, it is my own personal experience, that there could be no cleansing of a guilty conscience if I were to blame myself or others for being made of corruptible flesh. As I forgive, I am forgiven and my conscience is clean without hypocrisy. Moreover, I forgive things above and beyond the depths of my own sin. Before,when I did believe in freewill, I held myself and others responsible for sin. Looking back at it, I had a self righteous attitude wherein sin became a greater power the more I tried to be righteous, I became even more sinful and guilty. I loathed myself. After I learned that men are slaves of sin, I eventually began forgiving others their sins and as I did, I became less sinful and less guilty. I now forgive all people for all things and I am free of sin and guilt. That to me is the law of Christ. Romans 8:2.

 

[Deborah13]

Before,when I did believe in freewill, I held myself and others responsible for sin. Looking back at it, I had a self righteous attitude wherein sin became a greater power the more I tried to be righteous, I became even more sinful and guilty.

I am confused. Why would knowing that man has the will to choose cause you not to forgive others? I look at it like God forgives me, who am, not to forgive them? When I was fighting, for years, forgiving a particular person, I knew I was wrong not to and that was part of what hurt my relationship with God. But the problem for me really, was the mixing of law and grace.

 

[childeye]

I am confused. Why would knowing that man has the will to choose cause you not to forgive others?

The term will means the ability to reason and choose. The term freewill means the ability to choose freely. There is a difference. Freewill according to the dictionary implies a man's moral choices are not subject to any higher powers, nor any predetermined sequences of events. Since I believed in this form of freewill, I had no concept of sin being in my members as Paul stated, even because I thought sin was a choice. I therefore also thought righteousness was a choice, available at my discretion, rather than a gift that could only be attained through faith in God's True and Loving Image, the Christ.

So when I believed in freewill as a Catholic, I was taught that men's moral choices were freely made as in deliberate and voluntary. Consequently I blamed myself and others for having any sinful passions that were acted upon, because I thought it was simply me and likewise others just not caring or trying hard enough to be good. Forgiveness was not justifiable for myself nor anyone else. I also therefore had no concept of sinful choices being a product of weakness of the flesh, nor did I have any concept of any deception happening through a false image of god. I did not see Satan behind my thoughts speaking lies. I could not see the powers behind my sin. I believed I was in control because I had a freewill.

I look at it like God forgives me, who am, not to forgive them?

That is a logical and humble sentiment. I wished I could have looked at it that way. My image of god was that He hated me because I wouldn't perform in a righteous manner. I wasn't good enough. I believed hell was a place He reserved for sinners like me, and all I had was fear of Him.

When I was fighting, for years, forgiving a particular person, I knew I was wrong not to and that was part of what hurt my relationship with God. But the problem for me really, was the mixing of law and grace.

The mixing of law and grace? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[The_Epsicle]

The mixing of law and grace? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Oooohhhh boooyyyy!!!!!!!

The Lutheran is going to have fun with this one!... tomorrow....

I'll add some more scripture but for now I'll deal with basic definitions, the Bible can be split up into two groups which are:

Law: Makes demands that we cannot fulfill. And damns all those who do not conform to it's impossible(but righteous) demands.(Romans 3:10 ESV, Isaiah 64:6 ESV, Romans 6:23 ESV

The scripture that probably supports the idea of the Law(and it's distinction from the Gospel) the best is this one:

"So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." - Romans 7:21-25 ESV

Gospel: Makes no demands and even offers the Faith required to believe it, the Gospel is the forgiveness of Sins through the belief in Jesus.(John 3:16 ESV, Ephesians 2:8 ESV, John 5:24 ESV)

For proper understanding of the Bible you must make a proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel, this is a central belief in Lutheran theology and is a part of sola scriptura. The Law and it's demands are found in both the Old and New Testament, as well as the Gospel and it's life saving Grace is found in both the Old and New Testament. I'll add more scripture as needed but this ought to be enough to get started.

 

[ivdavid]

They received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22.
Pentecost was something different.

Okay, though my beliefs are different on these, we do agree upon there being this Difference between Pentecost and the indwelling of the Spirit.

You'd made 2 points -
1. Using this verse(Eze 36:27) to apply to the order of salvation, the Holy Spirit is given last, not first.
2. Regeneration is not complete without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with your Point 2.
I differ with your Point 1 in that I do not see any order mentioned with respect to faith and regeneration in Eze 36:26-27 - there is no mention of faith/believing there for me to accordingly sequence faith before regeneration or vice versa. Insufficient data there in itself.
Nonetheless, I presume you were referring to Eph 1:13 where you see the indwelling of the Spirit following faith - to which I refer to our earlier agreement on the Difference between the indwelling of the Spirit and Pentecost. I think you hold the sealing of the promised Spirit to be the same as the indwelling of the Spirit - while I hold it to be what happened over Pentecost. Compare Eph 1:13 with Acts 2:33.

As an aside, why do you hold that the disciples couldn't have been indwelt by the Spirit before John 20:22 ?

 

[williamt]

John 3:8 - "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Awareness of regeneration may follow sometime later in life. A lot of denominations place emphasis on the "conversion" experience, some people actually never experience a conversion or have a conversion experience to share. For example, John MacArthur cannot recall his point of Regeneration. Some people also claim similar life experiences to John the Baptist. The lack of conversion testimonies are plentiful in denominations that perform Covenant Baptism. John 3:8 affirms Regeneration precedes faith.

John 3's conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus draws an allusion back to Ezekiel 36:25-27. I'd also like to point out John 3:10 - "10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" Are you a teacher of Israel and yet.... these things took place throughout the OT, you should know this Nicodemus, and the Ordos Salutis has always been the same. Regeneration precedes faith.

The salvation of OT saints was the same as NT saints, only differing in direction. OT saints had a forward looking faith, while NT saints have a rearward type of historical looking faith. Both are regenerated before faith. Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit through Regeneration or more precisely, the Holy Spirit enables Faith.

Just curious, with the emphasis being placed on Pentecost, just to clarify, is anyone suggesting Isaiah was not regenerate, or any other OT saints before Pentecost?

Wish I could stay, but I really do need to excuse myself from this thread due to other obligations.

God bless,
William