John UK wrote: .. after it is fed through the grammar-checker and truth-finder and logic-monger
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and hisÂ seedÂ were the promises made. He saith not, And toÂ seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thyÂ seed, which is Christ.
Yes, a doctrine can turn on a single word.
Mk 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God ofÂ Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
The logic eluded the Pharisees! Logic is important. That is why God gave us minds, and communicated in words.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles'Â doctrineÂ and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Rmns 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form ofÂ doctrineÂ which was delivered you.
The early disciples were distinguished by their adherence to apostolic doctrine, which they took to heart.
Rmns 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to theÂ doctrineÂ which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Doctrinal purity was important in the early church before the rise of false christianity.
Change the tune? No, you have a twist in your brain about what we both believe when you begin to extra reason God and put him in the box of your own 'logic' arriving to preposterous conclusions. This is what a hypercalvinist does. We do believe the doctrines of grace, but we allow God to be God, we take what scripture states at face value without having to explain him.
Ahem, I haven't changed my tune at all. If you read carefully through all my posts, I have been consistent throughout.
Since you now claim to be an expert on the names I cited, can you point me to any statements they made purporting that Christ died for the unelected or indeed that he loved them with a saving love?
As for taking statements at face value you clearly cannot accept Christ's numerous statements that he died for the sheep, those given to him by the Father, but have to hide behind what you consider vague enough terms to encompass every single individual in the world, thereby turning a Christ who came with a mission and will undoubtedly accomplish it to another Christ who died for all but failing wholly to secure that end.
You ungod the God of the bible and set up your invented phoney god in his stead.
B. McCausland wrote: None of these were hypercalvinists. They believed the doctrines of grace but not in the impotent God alluded to. They believed in the free offer of the gospel and so they preached in faith allowing God to be God.
They believed that God elects, atoned for the sins of the elect in the death fo Christ, calls effectually by the Gospel, and preserves his elect till the return of Christ.
It was precisely because of these beliefs that they had confidence that God's word would not return to him void, but accomplish what which he pleased and that it would prosper in its design of gathering in the elect.
These are exactly the things being insisted here by those that you have labelled hyper-calvinists.
The difference is we don't need to change the teaching of the bible because we have utmost faith in what the bible teaches and don't need to fabricate another gospel or invent another god.
ladybug wrote: The context of 2 Peter 3:9 has already been addressed. Who is Peter speaking to? 'Us-ward' - believers. It is the 'usward that God is not willing to perish, to come to repentance. That is the context of the verse.
I get the distinct feeling that their views are not governed by the Scriptures. Why disturb the airy fairy warm and fuzzy image of their invented idol by the actual teachings of the Bible?
Isn't it strange that the IFBs, whose whole dispensational theology relies on the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles, should have a problem with the "world" or the "all"s constituting Jews and Gentiles? Beggars belief.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Does this mean that John 6:44 is of no value to the Lord? It definitely states that all that the Father gave will come, but here is I Peter God is not willing that some should perish? How would this even be a possibility to consider?
If I am correct in reading your concern then it seems to me that John 6.44 addresses effectual calling, but the Peter chapter is concerned with divine preservation of the elect and their perseverance .
If I have misinterpreted your post please elaborate what you see as the problem.
Dr. Tim wrote: John, I couldnâ€™t agree more that there are some who seem to be more concerned about keeping â€śundesirablesâ€ť out of Heaven than helping people get in. I daresay that when they speak of â€śthe elect,â€ť what they really have in mind is that they are actually the elite.
Not at all. Since we have no idea whom God has elected the command to repent and believe goes out to everyone. However the doctrine of election and God's choosing explains to us why not everyone comes to Christ.
To suggest that those who believe in the doctrines of grace are not concerned for the salvation of the lost is total nonsense. If that were the case we would not have had George Whitfield, or Charles Spurgeon or many of the American Greats like Jonathan Edwards, or their modern counterparts in the likes of Dr Masters etc.
It is high time that the liars on this board take the commandment against bearing false witness seriously.
What about 2 Pet 3.9, "" The Lord is long-suffering to US-WARD, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
"The clue to the interpretation of these words lies, we think, in the oft omitted words, "us-ward ;" towardÂ us,Â His chosen and redeemed people, the Apostle informs us the Lord is longsuffering. His good pleasure is, thatÂ weÂ should be saved with an everlasting salvation. Hence he is not willing that one ofÂ usÂ should perish. The context discusses the most solemn subjectsâ€”the day of judgment ; the passing away of the heavens, and the burning up of the earth and the works that are therein. Momentous and mysterious themes, yet one comforting thought should console each fearful heart. However the severity of God may be manifested toward His enemies, towardÂ usÂ He is long-suffering. None of His children shall perish; and those yet uncalled, and those even that are yet unborn, shall be brought to repentance, and God'sÂ idealÂ churchÂ realizedÂ when the whole family are brought home at last." W Styles
Those who force the meaning to mean every single individual have an impoverished god who can wish but not accomplish what he desires. Who desires all to come, but refuses to draw them. They remain unconcerned about the Bible contradictions they create
Dr. Tim wrote: People go to hell 100% contrary to the will of God.
I too believe that every person who sincerely comes to Christ in repentance and faith will be saved. However, when it comes to the question of those who will come, we know that they have to be drawn by the Father. Since not all come, or indeed not all are saved, then the answer is that they are not drawn by the Father. As to God wanting to save everyone, we're back to sloppy reading of the Bible.
Let's take 1 Tim 2.4 "God will have all men to be saved" - Paul is discussing the subject of prayer which he exhorts should be offered for all men. This determines the force of the "all" in passage before us. Is Paul really asking us to pray for all 7 billion people on the earth? If you sincerely believe this to be the case, how is it working out for you? Or is he saying as Calvin wrote, "When he wrote it might have been thought that because kings and magistrates were mortal enemies of theÂ gospel,Â God had rejected them. He would, however, encourage supplications even on their behalf, for it might prove that some even of them were the chosen of the Most High"? In other words the "all" refers to all sorts and conditions of men.
B. McCausland wrote: See these two texts. 1."The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world" 2."My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life" Both are true though they seem not to match meaning. One says Christ gives life to the world, and the other that he gives life to his sheep. How do you square them is your problem.
Well, how about this for a solution viz. there is no conflict between them because the God of the Bible is not double minded and that they refer to the same people? Simple really.
BTW, since no one here has denied that the gospel should be preached indiscriminately to every creature, why do you label those who defend the doctrines of grace "Hypercalvinists"? Maybe you should revisit the commandment against bearing false witness.
Mike wrote: It isn't my place to argue with what Jesus said. It has to be incorporated into what I believe, regardless of what I might think.
You addressed something I never raised. I don't question that evil is spiritual. However, unregenerate men being able to give good material gifts to their kids is not a spiritually good act. A spiritually good act would have to be born of faith because without faith none can please God. (Heb. 11.6)
So in the passage the Lord is not saying that spiritually evil men can produce spiritually good acts (good relative to each other yes, relative to God no), which is what is needed to prove your point that spiritually dead people can of their own "free" will produce spiritually good acts.
And why should anyone have a problem with God being referred to as their heavenly father? Did I miss something? Since God created each and every one of us of course he is our heavenly father.
Your attempt to vacate meaning from the very clear verses I cited to demonstrate that the well of unregenerate human nature is so poisoned that nothing spiritually good comes from it is quite astounding. If you cannot even identify the spiritual problem, no wonder you don't understand the solution.
B. McCausland wrote: Texts announcing the extend/purpose/potential of the atonement, "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" "The bread of God is he which comes down from heaven, and gives life unto the world" "... the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" " I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" "... the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" "he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" " the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world" "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" "God loved the world... gave his Son.. " "the covenant ... God made with our fathers, saying ... in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" The potential/extend of the atonement does not indicate universal salvation, but infinite redemptive value, because the eternal sacrifice involved an infinite victim: "...they ... crucified the Lord of glory" "ye denied the Holy One and the Just, And killed the Prince of life"
Mike wrote: One example might be Jesus' own: Luke 11:13 "If ye then, being evil, (their nature)know how to give good gifts (go against their own nature) unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
With respect that is speaking to an audience about what they considered good in terms of this world, not what is spiritually good.
Viewed spiritually, God's view is clear:
Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
None do good.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
So I ask again, since nothing spiritually good can come from our nature, how can our will be "free" to go against that nature?
Mike wrote: We are all, as you say, born with a sin nature, and we all die as a result of Adam's sin imputed to us. But we are not born with any sin of our own. The wicked become wicked via their own sin, fed by their sin nature. Wickedness is sinful behavior, not the bent toward it.
Thanks for your response. If I may probe a little farther.
In which case, as you concede so much, how is the will "free" to act against one's own nature?
Mike wrote: Hi Adriel, it's good to note the truth in the last sentence that man makes himself wicked, not that he was wicked before his birth and was created that way for God's glory, etc. He indeed made the wicked, i.e. as in he created them, but he did not make the wicked wicked. That's on them alone.
Are you arguing that we are all created blank sheets and with upright wills and then go astray as we live life? Or do you accept that we are all born with a sinful nature and that as life progresses that nature becomes more and more evident?
Here is the John UK method of preaching exemplified:
Gen 3.9 God is not omniscient
Gen 4.16 God is not omnipresent
Gen 6.6 God changed his mind
Gen 8.1 God temporarily forgot Noah
Exod 31.17 - God was tired. We have to accept the text at face value and not attempt to reconcile this with Is 40.28
Judg 1.19 God couldn't do this because he is not omnipotent.
Ps 44.23 God sleeps
We could go through the entire bible and multiply examples like this a thousands of times over. The fact is that it is the preacher's job to explain the text and open to the hearers the mind of God and not seek to hide behind words or to leave hearers with a false impression.
All the verses I mentioned have to be explained, otherwise the hearers will walk away having a completely wrong view of God and the meaning of his word.
How can God give increase when people are presented a false gospel?
Any preacher who doesn't care about representing the Lord faithfully or believes that lying for God is ok has no job preaching. He is a hireling. Period.
Just wondering wrote: Why would God require His children to do that which some say He wonâ€™t?
Why does his love for his enemies have to result in a provision of salvation for them? Does God owe anyone anything?
If you look at the context of the command to love enemies, we have an illustration of how God loves his enemies.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
God provides many things of this life equally to the righteous and wicked. Likewise if we limit provisions, care, empathy, prayers etc only to the righteous, how do we differ from the ungodly?