God's freewill vs. Mankind's election

[zone]

yes and you also cut up my posts.
and change the order. Ive asked you to stop.

i didn't see any post mentioning that nor requesting that.
but i apologize for any confusion at all.

i see it now.

 

[Abiding]

everyone spins it how they like?
does everyone means everyone?

alright.
i'll take some time and consider that faith is not a gift from God.[/QUOT

zone is it fun to do that? it must be

 

[zone]

zone said:everyone spins it how they like?
does everyone means everyone?

alright.
i'll take some time and consider that faith is not a gift from God.

zone is it fun to do that? it must be

what?
what's the deal?

i meant what i asked.
does everyone include you?
do you spin it also.


and i also meant what i said: i will take some time to consider that faith is not a gift.

that means just what it says.
i'll study what i can which says faith is not a gift.

i want to get it right.
your suggestion that i'm playing around or having fun (at your expense??) is a little concerning.
might want to review your own posts Mike

anyways.
maybe i'm totally wrong and faith is not a gift.

i'll be looking into it.

 

[Abiding]

You do well in studying the Bible to see if what you have been taught is correct and be ready to change your views if convinced by evidence from scripture. We all should do so. However, as our teachers may be limited in their understanding of scripture we also are. Scripture makes little room for "new" interpretation, at least when it comes to the meaty and foundational issues. Thing is that those who want to have a "unique" interpretation also ends up there with problems. And they're also men. I find it plausible to study church history and see what my fathers in the faith taught of old, what their struggles were and what caused divisions and apostasies.

A fundamentalist of the "read the Bible as it is written only" or "me and the Bible alone" stock have huge problems with this as well as with any systematical approach to scripture. These fundies are still but mere men. Their arguments against "traditions" makes no sense, since they, too, create traditions by way of their attitude. Traditions that they expect their people to follow. Don't get me wrong, I love many of the Indie Fundie Baptist people and similar, its just that their take on hermeneutics is rather chaotic.



Well...there are not a few arminians who are very learned about calvinism...and some of them are also former calvinists. Not all of them says calvinism proper teaches easy believeism, they just still cling to their arminian views anyway.



I just wondered where you got your belief from...shall I take it that your position on that is what you have found through personal studies, not what you have been taught in your church?



I think one must differ personal belief from common faith. Our common faith is expressed in the confession. The confession builds upon older confessions which all are traced back to the first christian community. If you want a belief system totally free of "man's hand", then you must consequently stop trying to make sense of what you read in the Bible. However, that is not possible, since you have to do the work of interpreting scripture anyway...there's no way around it. And, lo, you're also a man.

This is hardly true to say confessions go back to the first christian community.
Theyve changed throughout church history. And ill say radically changed.

 

[tribesman]

This is hardly true to say confessions go back to the first christian community.
Theyve changed throughout church history. And ill say radically changed.

How do you think they are "radically" changed? Any conspiracy theory about "constantinism" and Nicea or similar?

The creeds all came in existence for different reasons during different times, they also expound on different issues, but basically in essentials they harmonize with each other.

 

[zone]

side note - quick question:

pre-millinialism..

EG are you not premillennial?
like...do you not believe in a future 1,000 year reign?

 

[Abiding]

I see a big change around 350-450 and creeds and confessions i agree were for different
reasons. So my point is that the later creeds added beliefs that were not in earlier creeds
or confessions. So you cant say that what is considered today as essentials wernt in the
earlier creeds.

So to say back to the first christian communities you have to say free will. And stay free will
till about 350-450.

 

[Abiding]

Originally Posted by tribesman
Not at all against scripture, only against your understanding of same:



God didn't have to wait for us to "do our part" in order to justify us. He didn't have to wait for us to use some "ability" to profess faith. He did all this work while we were still dead in our sins. Regeneration equals being resurrected, that is being raised from the dead. It is all a work in Christ Jesus, for His people. Faith being the instrument - NOT condition - where this gift is received.

This is amazing grace!
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````````````````````````


Whats the difference between the instrument and a condition?

And how does it compare to:

Hebrews 11:6


[SUP]6 [/SUP]But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, andthat He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And how could this be if faith comes after regeneration? when it would not only contridict
Hebrews it wouldnt seem to even be necessary.

 

[Abiding]

I see a big change around 350-450 and creeds and confessions i agree were for different
reasons. So my point is that the later creeds added beliefs that were not in earlier creeds
or confessions. So you cant say that what is considered today as essentials wernt in the
earlier creeds.

So to say back to the first christian communities you have to say free will. And stay free will
till about 350-450.

Correction:
So you cant say that what is considered today as essentials were in the
earlier creeds.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

They are scripture, pal. I just don't buy into your interpretation of same. I don't know how you can squeeze in literally the whole world in Romans 1. And btw, you're a man, interpreting scripture...and yet you say "only the Bible!"...see?).

just because you do not buy into it does not mean it is not so.. So instead of showing me how I erred. you just say I am wrong. talk about an ad hominem.. how should I react?

I don't know what you're shooting at here...trying to refute limited atonement? Have nothing to do with what is discussed right now. All men are guilty of and responsible for their own sin.

there has never ben an argument here. so not sure what you mean. He said they have no excuse.. no one will have an excuse. how else can you interpret this? he surely is not talking about those who are his children.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

wow....that is harsh.
skinski? are you serious EG?

btw - i've seen some of your posts and threads go on for miles....i read them to try to understand you EG.
if you don't want to interact with diggs' passages just say so.

come on...what up here?

whats up is I grow tired of posts with just a bunch of verses posted, with no content.. we all get on skinski for doing this.. should we be doing the same? We are supposed to be discussing Gods work (in here free will vs election) and just cutting and pasting abunch of verses does not help prove our points.

 

[tribesman]

just because you do not buy into it does not mean it is not so.. So instead of showing me how I erred. you just say I am wrong. talk about an ad hominem.. how should I react?

there has never ben an argument here. so not sure what you mean. He said they have no excuse.. no one will have an excuse. how else can you interpret this? he surely is not talking about those who are his children.

No ad hominem at all. I just used your own rhetoric. You say that people follow "men" and their interpretation. But you are also a man and have the same Bible as us all, and you also have to make an interpretation. So we're on equal terms, OK?

Now, I asked how you can squeeze in "the whole world" in Romans 1. Do you mean that what Paul describes there is an universal address? This is how all men are?

 

[tribesman]

...creeds and confessions i agree were for different
reasons. So my point is that the later creeds added beliefs that were not in earlier creeds
or confessions. So you cant say that what is considered today as essentials wernt in the
earlier creeds.

The earliest creeds didn't contain as much as the later ones...that doesn't mean that beliefs were "added" by way of changing beliefs...the necessity to expound on some things came as different parties disputed what was already believed. The deity of Christ and the Trinity were early disputed by sectarians, thus the need to reiterate and underline what was the accepted and received doctrine.

I see a big change around 350-450 ... So to say back to the first christian communities you have to say free will. And stay free will till about 350-450

When and how is "free will" mentioned in these creeds and confessions?

And, when or if "free will" is spoken of by the early fathers, do you just assume that it would be understood the same way that say arminianism would define same?

 

[tribesman]

Whats the difference between the instrument and a condition?

And how does it compare to:

Hebrews 11:6

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, andthat He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And how could this be if faith comes after regeneration? when it would not only contridict Hebrews it wouldnt seem to even be necessary.

Well, a condition in this setting is something someone has to fulfil, either you or another person. In this case another person has fulfilled the condition. An instrument is in this setting a means or a tool wherewith you receive this something. In this case what this person has fulfilled. It is charged to your account.

As for Heb.11:6, you might want to stress "he who comes to God". This scripture must of course be understood in the light of all other scriptures that talk about what it takes for man to come to God. It cannot collide with these scriptures, but must fully harmonize with them.

So, what did Jesus teach about what it takes to come to Him and how it happens? Does it look much like it is within the reach of possibility for each and every man if he just wills it?

Luke.18

[25] For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
[26] And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
[27] And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

John.6

[28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John.10

[11] I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
[12] But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
[13] The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
[14] I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
[15] As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
[16] And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
[28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

 

[unclefester]

A bit off-topic but .... whatcha think Abiding ? Are you throwing your hat into the ring ??

 

[zone]

whats up is I grow tired of posts with just a bunch of verses posted, with no content.. we all get on skinski for doing this.. should we be doing the same? We are supposed to be discussing Gods work (in here free will vs election) and just cutting and pasting abunch of verses does not help prove our points.

okay EG.
as for the passages posted i think (?) you may be objecting to, i see the point in posting them....they are posted in response to the flow of the discussion and are posted to reflect what the other person is trying to convey. they certainly help me see the other's point. my own reasoning through what i think they say and mean at some point can (hopefully if i stop dragging my knuckles) be altered or i can be enlightened not by what the other is saying as much as i what i will actually see in the passages posted.

i get fed up when there no passages posted to underscore what we are saying.

at some point opinion and intepretation have to have something backing them.
i know you know this. this is a bible study...i'm currently using passges that have been posted to do a comparison of views study. that's why i found them helpful.

i just thought the comparison one of particular member to another particular member was highly inappropriate since (i at least) consider one to be extremely heretical. so perhaps i took offense for the first member's sake on that ground. it had nothing to do with me...but nevertheless, there you have it.
in any case, this is a new day.
i hope to do better today than i did yesterday.
love zone

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You do well in studying the Bible to see if what you have been taught is correct and be ready to change your views if convinced by evidence from scripture. We all should do so. However, as our teachers may be limited in their understanding of scripture we also are. Scripture makes little room for "new" interpretation, at least when it comes to the meaty and foundational issues. Thing is that those who want to have a "unique" interpretation also ends up there with problems. And they're also men. I find it plausible to study church history and see what my fathers in the faith taught of old, what their struggles were and what caused divisions and apostasies.

A fundamentalist of the "read the Bible as it is written only" or "me and the Bible alone" stock have huge problems with this as well as with any systematical approach to scripture. These fundies are still but mere men. Their arguments against "traditions" makes no sense, since they, too, create traditions by way of their attitude. Traditions that they expect their people to follow. Don't get me wrong, I love many of the Indie Fundie Baptist people and similar, its just that their take on hermeneutics is rather chaotic.



Well...there are not a few arminians who are very learned about calvinism...and some of them are also former calvinists. Not all of them says calvinism proper teaches easy believeism, they just still cling to their arminian views anyway.

The catholics use the "history" excuse too/ As did the jews. I think it is dangerous to try to base our beliefs on what happened almost 2000 years ago, as much of what we would have had would have been destroyed by the roman church.

As I have said many times. God will hold me responsible for what I believe, He is not going to give me a get out of jail free card if I follow men 2000 years ago and they got it wrong.. And again, using this argument, the jews were right, and Christ was wrong, because Christ did not follow the history of the jews (non biblical) where the jews did..

I just wondered where you got your belief from...shall I take it that your position on that is what you have found through personal studies, not what you have been taught in your church?

Well considering I just said I found some flaws in the doctrines I was brought up with. so studied to see what Scripture said and changed my beliefs, so this should have answered your question

I think one must differ personal belief from common faith. Our common faith is expressed in the confession. The confession builds upon older confessions which all are traced back to the first christian community. If you want a belief system totally free of "man's hand", then you must consequently stop trying to make sense of what you read in the Bible. However, that is not possible, since you have to do the work of interpreting scripture anyway...there's no way around it. And, lo, you're also a man.

lol.. Again, do we do as the catholics do, Do we do as the jews did? thinking like this God Christ crucified, and the very people he have the word to did it because they followed traditions and not the word of God..

Forgive me if I refuse to buy into this false premise and risk falling as the jews did

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not at all against scripture, only against your understanding of same:

Or against your misunderstanding of the same. What makes you more right than me?

God didn't have to wait for us to "do our part" in order to justify us.

Scripture would disagree, we are justified BY (through the means of) Faith.. which means before we had faith, we were still dead in sin. There is no way you can get out of this one.

He didn't have to wait for us to use some "ability" to profess faith.

What ability? who do you think gave us, and every man who ever lived the ability to have faith? is it of our own ability, or did God give us the ability? You would understand this clearly if you did not try to twist things around and try to make faith something it is not..

He did all this work while we were still dead in our sins. Regeneration equals being resurrected, that is being raised from the dead. It is all a work in Christ Jesus, for His people. Faith being the instrument - NOT condition - where this gift is received.

1. Regeneration is being quickened or being made alive, So sorry, it does mean resurrected from dead (spiritual) to life (spiritual). If we are not spiritually ressurected from death to life. then we are still dead in our sin.
2. It is all the work of Christ. The word (logos) speaks of him, proves who he would be, proves what he would do. Proves when he would do it. Is a witness to what he did, and is a witness to what happened after he left..The HS convicts us of sin righteousness and judgement. Thus giving us the means (through the word and conviction of the HS) to say yes or say no to the grace gift God wants to give us.
3. Faith is an instrument, your right. But without it, there is no salvation, and until it happens we are still dead in sin.

This is amazing grace!

Amazing Grace is the fact that we have been given the opportunity to be saved in the first place. Non of us deserve it.. And non of us can ever deserve it, no matter how hard we work. we will still be rightly condemned if left to our own. That is grace!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

We are saved by grace - through faith. Even if you say faith is not a work, you still imply that it is a condition that must be fulfilled IN YOU before God is able to save you.

Fulfilled in me? where do you get this stuff?

Paul said we are saved through grace. by Faith not works. Faith is apposed to works. Your trying to twist it to mean something else.

This means you do not believe that all conditions to save you were already fulfilled in Christ Jesus. There's no other conclusion to draw from this.

Your wrong in so many ways.

1. If I did not believe all the conditions were met. I could not possibly have faith in Christ alone. I would instead chose to add to the gospel. or outright deny the gospel and chose to make my own gospel
2. The very fact that I do believe Christ finished the work of salvation is the basis of my hope and faith in Christ.

again.. Your trying to twist what the word faith means and add to it something which is not there.

Again, tell me. How can I boast when my COMPLETE TRUST and ASSURANCE lies all in Christ and not in myself?

I side with scripture which says that God bestows this great mercy on us while we are yet dead, we are but passive receivers of an undeserved pardon. As shown many times, we are first quickened from death unto life, then after that follows fruit such as faith and repentance et al.

I agree. we are quickened to life, and THEN comes the fruit.

The problem is you skipped what made us alive in Christ in the first place.

Why are we dead? sin
How can we be made alive while still dead in sin? we can't
What makes us alive? Justification.
What makes us justified? FAITH IN CHRIST.

First comes the gospel. Then comes repentance. then comes faith, then comes justification which brings about regeneration. Finally comes the fruit of our faith.

It can be no other way.

You can't believe unless you're one of His sheep. You don't choose to be a sheep. You don't have that power of creation - but God has.

Thats funny, James disagrees with you. We can believe and still not be saved, Because we do not have faith. many people believe. Even arminians and other people who do not place full trust in Christ believe. According to what you just said, they could not believe. it would be impossible.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

side note - quick question:



EG are you not premillennial?
like...do you not believe in a future 1,000 year reign?

what would make you think I am not?