There Was a Time, Long, Long Ago.....

[Alive]

If I, with my non-Calvinist soteriology, am not welcome here, just say so.

Say what?
I did not delete your two posts, so I cannot respond to your query.
Of course you are welcome.

 

[LeviR]

If I, with my non-Calvinist soteriology, am not welcome here, just say so.

When someone realizes his nature is sinful, then it is right for the person to deny his nature what it desires if what it desires is not good.

 

[Arial]

Did you take that as criticism? Before, each time I have been deleted, there was a message saying so. I didn't see such a message on that one.

You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. And you have been warned of posting things like this before. If you don't want warnings and corrections, then stop doing what you are doing that prompt them. Don't blame the messenger.

 

[Arial]

OK y'all. I will start a new thread or remain silent on the topic and discussion I was going for. I concede the thread over to those who would like to use it as a way to discuss all sorts of non OP topics.

 

[Arial]

Did you take that as criticism? Before, each time I have been deleted, there was a message saying so. I didn't see such a message on that one.

Perhaps it comes down the the expression probably every mother has said to her children. "I am not going to tell you again!"

 

[LeviR]

OK y'all. I will start a new thread or remain silent on the topic and discussion I was going for. I concede the thread over to those who would like to use it as a way to discuss all sorts of non OP topics.

I thought the topic was on Arminianism ve Calvinism. And whether or not man can of his own will choose God.
If this not the topic?

 

[Arial]

I thought the topic was on Arminianism ve Calvinism. And whether or not man can of his own will choose God.
If this not the topic?

I can see why you thought that, given the responses that were given before you began to post. Maybe, you did not read the two parts of the OP? That often happens and I am guilty of doing that myself, entering a discussion after it has gone off the rails, simply commenting on what was said in a particular post.

But a careful reading of both parts of the OP will show that the topic is what happened to the church as the visible factions in it and how that came to be. It addresses the "gateway" into those branches and the general weakness and immaturity of much of the body; when that gateway was opened, and what was lost that gave access to the enemy that infected the whole body in various ways. It so happens that can be traced straight back to doctrinal teaching, or rather the lack of it, and a systematic, exegetical, biblical hermeneutics, expository teaching, from our pulpits, All of which were an integral part of what came out of the Reformation---iow the theology of the Reformation.

The posts that followed with one exception, did not address that issue but instead illustrated it.

I rest my case.

 

[brightfame52]

You quote Romans 5:19 and assign the effect of Adam's disobedience to the entire human race. It assigns the effect of Jesus' obedience to the very same entire human race. But you just don't get it. Why? Because that does not align with your false soteriology.

What that verse says is that the effect of Jesus' obedience negated the effect of Adam's disobedience. In other words, were it not for Jesus, all humanity would have been effectively condemned at birth; however in Jesus' obedience that is not the case. The spirit of each as given by God is alive and righteous at birth. We become sinners when we sin.

Actually Rom 5:19 is only about the elect, their experience in Adam their head and then their experience in Christ their head, the non elect or all humanity are not in view or in focus either time.

 

[JIM]

Actually Rom 5:19 is only about the elect, their experience in Adam their head and then their experience in Christ their head, the non elect or all humanity are not in view or in focus either time.

That is hilarious.

 

[JIM]

Part 2 of There Was a Time, Long, Long ago

In the days during and following the Reformation, until the deep and widespread corruption of Finney, preachers preached differently. There were other factors involved in this change, other than Finney. But all were products of cultural changes that also led to a rethinking of traditional Christianity, and really was a cunning and overt, yet subtle, attack on Christ's church. Men being used as instruments for the spiritual forces that rage against Christ, and having failed to destroy him, rage against his church, with carefully disguised deception.

The preachers of that day long ago, were systematic in their preaching and teaching. That is, it was a theology based of an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith. It consists of many "ologies" (pneumatology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, missiology, eschatology, and others.) But it begins and carries through in a consistent manner, theology. Who does God reveal Himself to be in his word. This of course is closely intertwined with Christology.

They dealt with the whole of the Bible to arrive at the doctrines, and they preached it exegetically, and expositionally. They came to the meaning of texts through this method and then and only then, presented applications. During the Reformation, including the Scottish reformation that came slightly later, confessions of these doctrines were established, and even the little children were taught them, in an age appropriate manner, though they were not dumbed down so as to lose all substantative material as we see so often in our Sunday Schools today. There were confirmations pertaining to membership in the church in which they were "tested" as to their knowledge and understanding, but there were no altar calls (invitations).

One striking difference between then and now, is that attending church was part and parcel of communities. From childhood on, the people were immersed in this type of teaching and preaching. It was normal. The people, even the children, heard the gospel. And they either believed it or they didn't believe it.

We see in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles, the words "believe" connected to the person and work of Christ, and believing as the way to eternal life. We see the command to repent given. Somehow, thanks to Finney and many, many after to this very day, something was inserted into all those statements of believing and repenting that is nowhere found in them. And that is the word "choose". Before this corruption and the wide scale loss of doctrinal teachings, doctrine itself having become a thing to be avoided as unnecessary and even dangerous, congregants weren't taught that word was there, and they never thought to put it there or decide it was implied, having been firmly established in who God is and who mankind was in relation to him. God was the center of their religion and Christ was the cornerstone and capstone of all. God was the creator and owner and governor over all his creation. It was, long, long, ago, always God's will being done, even in salvation and those he saves. It was a glorious, glorious thing that He would stoop down to treasonous humanity and send his Christ, and Christ would come and suffer and die in the place of a sinner, to take upon himself their just punishment, and that Jesus would willingly lay down his life on their behalf. They didn't worry about choosing or not choosing. Their cry was, "I believe, I believe!" And if any did not believe, they didn't worry about it either. They simply considered the whole thing foolishness.

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

It should be clear to all that being sealed with the promised Holy Spirit occurred with regeneration. And here Paul is telling his audience that happened when they heard and believed.

 

[Arial]

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

It should be clear to all that being sealed with the promised Holy Spirit occurred with regeneration. And here Paul is telling his audience that happened when they heard and believed.

In case you are trying to make this a statement of chronology, it isn't. It is not being presented as step 1, step 2, step 3 because that is not the subject matter.

The subject at this juncture from verse three is the blessings that are bestowed on the believer. One of them being an inheritance and the purpose of that inheritance. In verse 13 he tells them of another blessing. That they are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit as a result of believing the gospel as a guarantee of our inheritance until the fullness of time when we acquire the fullness of that inheritance. It is for their comfort and assurance even in times of trouble.

It is in John 3:1-15 (and other places but there we have Jesus himself telling us the first order of salvation). A person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit first. Being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. They are distinct.

 

[JIM]

In case you are trying to make this a statement of chronology, it isn't. It is not being presented as step 1, step 2, step 3 because that is not the subject matter.

The subject at this juncture from verse three is the blessings that are bestowed on the believer. One of them being an inheritance and the purpose of that inheritance. In verse 13 he tells them of another blessing. That they are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit as a result of believing the gospel as a guarantee of our inheritance until the fullness of time when we acquire the fullness of that inheritance. It is for their comfort and assurance even in times of trouble.

It is in John 3:1-15 (and other places but there we have Jesus himself telling us the first order of salvation). A person must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit first. Being sealed by the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. They are distinct.

First you need to figure out who are the "we" and the "you" in Ephesians 1. Second your objection to the chronology there is noted and discounted. Third, please explain how one can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and not be sealed by the Holy Spirit or vice versa. Fourth, where, exactly, in John 3:1-15 does it say that regeneration comes first?

 

[Arial]

First you need to figure out who are the "we" and the "you" in Ephesians 1.

I know who they are. They are believers. Paul is writing to a church of believers in Ephesus. Not people who have not yet believed but those who do believe already. Who do you think they are.

Second your objection to the chronology there is noted and discounted.

On what basis?

Third, please explain how one can be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and not be sealed by the Holy Spirit or vice versa.

They are regenerated and sealed at the same time but that does not mean they are not distinct actions. Paul is making a point of their having been sealed in Christ---in other words, nothing can separate them from him or their inheritance. They in effect though invisible, have the mark of Christ, his seal, "This one and that one are mine."

Fourth, where, exactly, in John 3:1-15 does it say that regeneration comes first?

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again. 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."

It is invisible and is 100% an act of God that must take place first. Need more evidence?

John 1:9-13 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He ws in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those who were born of God (not the will of man) are those who believed.

 

[makesends]

The subject at this juncture from verse three is the blessings that are bestowed on the believer. One of them being an inheritance and the purpose of that inheritance. In verse 13 he tells them of another blessing. That they are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit as a result of believing the gospel as a guarantee of our inheritance until the fullness of time when we acquire the fullness of that inheritance. It is for their comfort and assurance even in times of trouble.

Edit: My bad. I see you had already made my point about coincidence, vs cause and effect. 13 doesn't say the sealing is a result of believing, though I agree it is a result of the same action of the Spirit, when giving us the faith by which we believe.

 

[Arial]

I'm not saying you are wrong about the cause-and-effect relationship here, but 13 does not say "as a result of".

In my personal opinion, from all I have seen in Scripture, the sealing and the belief may even be two effects of the one action of the Spirit, when he produced that faith within us. That may be playing with words, I don't know, but I can't see our belief as productive

The natural result of being born again is believing and the natural result of believing is being sealed. Paul is telling them (those who already were believers) that they are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Paul is not preaching the gospel here, even though the entire content preceding verse 13 is gospel, he is strengthening and encouraging his audience in the midst of troubles and doubts, to not give up hope.

 

[makesends]

The natural result of being born again is believing and the natural result of believing is being sealed. Paul is telling them (those who already were believers) that they are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Paul is not preaching the gospel here, even though the entire content preceding verse 13 is gospel, he is strengthening and encouraging his audience in the midst of troubles and doubts, to not give up hope.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that verse 13 does not of itself say that. Where your argument depends on that statement, it fails by that statement.

Regardless, you did straighten that out in an earlier post that I only later read, (which is why I said, "my bad"), where you said, (in effect), that the two things —belief and the sealing— are concurrent. I have no problem with you, then —would that I could see my own sloppy hermeneutic so quickly!

The rest of this between you and me is semantics and humans playing with words to describe principles we barely begin to comprehend.

 

[Arial]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that verse 13 does not of itself say that. Where your argument depends on that statement, it fails by that statement.

Regardless, you did straighten that out in an earlier post that I only later read, (which is why I said, "my bad"), where you said, (in effect), that the two things —belief and the sealing— are concurrent. I have no problem with you, then —would that I could see my own sloppy hermeneutic so quickly!

The rest of this between you and me is semantics and humans playing with words to describe principles we barely begin to comprehend.

It is the case with me, and probably (hopefully) the case with at least those who read, study, and interpret the word of God in like manner as the Reformers did, starting with God and what he reveals about himself and keeping the whole consistent with itself, the more we do learn the more we realize that basically we still know next to nothing. Where that does not happen most likely there is still need of sanctification in the area of pride and arrogance. All in God's good time. He is still working on it with me, that "old" man subdued but still fighting for life at times. But for the righteousness of Christ that clothes us and none of our own right?

 

[brightfame52]

That is hilarious.

Laugh now !

 

[makesends]

That is hilarious.

Wonderful argument, ad hom is... I wonder how you figure it will convince anyone.

 

[makesends]

It is the case with me, and probably (hopefully) the case with at least those who read, study, and interpret the word of God in like manner as the Reformers did, starting with God and what he reveals about himself and keeping the whole consistent with itself, the more we do learn the more we realize that basically we still know next to nothing. Where that does not happen most likely there is still need of sanctification in the area of pride and arrogance. All in God's good time. He is still working on it with me, that "old" man subdued but still fighting for life at times. But for the righteousness of Christ that clothes us and none of our own right?

Going OT, maybe, here, but I can't help but when I hear of fighting/suppressing the 'old man', I think of John Owen's, "Be killing sin, or it will be killing you." Anybody who thinks Reformed theology teaches freedom to sin doesn't know much about Reformed theology.