Without an Excuse 😶

[Arial]

You favour theology's Unconditional Election over scripture which states that those who heard and learned from the Father's were given to the Son.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

I already did John 6:45. Here you are responding to John 10 with John 6. And you didn't touch a single thing of John 10 that I posted.

Here is the John 6:45 coverage again. Don't ignore it this time but exegete all the scriptures pertaining to that comment, including the meaning of verse 45.

You took one verse, verse 45 out of the entire discourse of Jesus in the chapter, and specifically when He gets down to expounding on His own statements, as though none of that mattered. The only thing He said that needed to be considered at all, according to you was, "It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will al be taught by God'. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me---" And "everyone" then becomes in your view all people, past, present, and future without exception. In spite of what Jesus has said before and after. Without even giving a thought to what He said before and after. And you made Jesus to be contradicting Himself!

What systematic, proper hermeneutics, and careful exegetical seeking for understanding of verse 45 would do is find out in light of what has already been said, who these are who hear and are taught by God. And there is nothing difficult about doing so. They must be those who are drawn to Jesus by God, and the very same ones that are raised to life on the last day. The redeemed in other words. And they did not choose redemption for it says the opposite. Jesus tells them in verses 64-65 why it is they do not believe. Because it had not been granted them by the Father.

And along with verse 44, I gave all those other scriptures which still go uninterpreted by you, that say exactly the same thing along with the statement that those whom God grants to come to Christ are the very same one's the Father is giving Him.

 

[Arial]

Now, it's superfluous??? Completely changes the meaning of the post.

You are losing track of the conversation. On purpose? Here is your sarcastic remark that you made instead of actually addressing the post.

Don't you mean ""I lay down my life only for My sheep?"

Here was my response.

"Only" is superfluous.

It wasn't clarifying anything and didn't need to be clarified. You had said Jesus never said He only died for those God gave Him. My response to that was "I lay down my life for my sheep." After your sarcastic remark I gave an exposition of that entire discourse in John 10 where Jesus said that. I am waiting for you to disprove what I said.

 

[Ladodgers6]

yes it is as many as the Father gave to the Son of man Jesus . they alone are given the gospel power from the Father to move.

Your thoughts on Peanut Gallery comment that every man is given light?

 

[Mr GLee]

Your thoughts on Peanut Gallery comment that every man is given light?

Hi thanks

I would offer God is Light and not only can he create it temporal, the Sun and Moon. But that light as a understanding of God is hidden from mankind, given to those born from above

I think it is one of reasons when he spoke he spoke through parable and without the hidden understanding the Spirit of Christ spoke not.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

John 1:4-5 In him was life; and the life was the light of men And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

[David1701]

You favour theology's Unconditional Election over scripture which states that those who heard and learned from the Father's were given to the Son.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Who opens their ears to hear from God? Who opens their hearts to believe?

Salvation is of the Lord, not man's will or works!

 

[PeanutGallery]

I already did John 6:45. Here you are responding to John 10 with John 6. And you didn't touch a single thing of John 10 that I posted....

Same sheep who heard and learned of the Father were given to the Son, whose voice the sheep recognized.

 

[Mr GLee]

Same sheep who heard and learned of the Father were given to the Son, whose voice the sheep recognized.

It was the voice of God not the son man dying mankind the prophet apostle who spoke the words of his Holy Father

The kind of word below .Let there be and it was good

Matthew 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

It's what prophets sent out as apostles (messengers) do. . declare the living will of Him not seen

 

[Arial]

Same sheep who heard and learned of the Father were given to the Son, whose voice the sheep recognized

This is why systematic theology is so important. Generically systematic means something is based on or consulting a system. A step by step manner.

Since we know that the Bible is the word of God and therefore there are no contradictions in it, systematic theology derives doctrines by gathering together all of what Scripture teaches on a particular topic and makes claims on that data. So, from this come the other doctrinal "ologies" such as Christology, soteriology etc. covering the doctrines of historical Christianity. And if that sounds overwhelming and impossible for the layman to do, it is not. The Bereans did it by checking the scriptures (OT for them) to see if what the apostles were saying was true. And of course along with this goes exegesis of given scriptures that are related. That is, pulling out of the text its meaning by relating it to the surrounding text and what the Bible says in other places on the same subject, without reading into it one's presuppositions based on an already held belief.

Here you have done nothing but the latter. You already believe that God does not elect who He will save, but that man makes that choice, and that it is his libertarian free will that does so. Synergism instead of monergism. So you interpret those passages accordingly, ignoring or reinterpreting them through changed definitions, all other scriptures that clearly show monergism in salvation.

You even ignore parts of Jesus' speech in the context of its whole. Such as, "I am the good shepherd.I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." A flock of sheep is made up of individual sheep. Christ is the owner of that flock and the owner of each individual in His flock, and they are the same ones that the Father is giving to Him. And you fail to put that with His statement that His sheep hear His voice and the others do not. And those who do hear follow Him and they are the ones God is giving Him. Not the ones who choose Him without the Father giving them to Him. They don't believe so of course they do not choose to believe. And that the ones who do not hear (believe) don't because the Father is not giving them to Him. You turn what Jesus is saying completely upside down and backward in order for it to say what you already believe.

And though we have talked about John 6 and its doctrinal relationship and consistent agreement with what Jesus says here, and I have given exegesis of it, you ignore it also in arriving at your own doctrine. 64-65 "But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

And you also give no consideration to just two other scriptures I gave you dealing with the same subject, when you arrive at your backward interpretation.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, ir norder that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

And not only all of that, but when you gave your interpretation of who His sheep are, you provided nothing of how you arrived at that conclusion in order to support the conclusion.

 

[Synergy]

Read the ten commandments, or Leviticus and Deuteronomy, or the parts about conscience in the NT. Everyone who is not in Christ, is under law/conscience and will be judged according to his works.

Are those people of the elect? If so then election depends on human works and is not monergistic.

 

[PeanutGallery]

This is why systematic theology is so important. Generically systematic means something is based on or consulting a system. A step by step manner.

Since we know that the Bible is the word of God and therefore there are no contradictions in it, systematic theology derives doctrines by gathering together all of what Scripture teaches on a particular topic and makes claims on that data. So, from this come the other doctrinal "ologies" such as Christology, soteriology etc. covering the doctrines of historical Christianity. And if that sounds overwhelming and impossible for the layman to do, it is not. The Bereans did it by checking the scriptures (OT for them) to see if what the apostles were saying was true.

Got it; one needs to read scripture through the lens of Calvin's Systematic Theology; but then, which flavour?

 

[Arial]

Got it; one needs to read scripture through the lens of Calvin's Systematic Theology; but then, which flavour?

Systematic theology does not belong to Calvin, has nothing to do with Calvin, was not "invented" by Calvin. Don't be a doofus.

Truth is, people instinctively learn anything systematically. They handle all instructions, books, fiction non fiction alike, ideas, concepts, systematically. Everything but the Bible. In all their systematic life and growing and learning, only the Bible becomes something to search unsystematically. And yet, with the Bible, mining the very truths of God should be our goal, we scoff at any systematic way of doing so.

Could you ever learn algebra if you first did not learn 1+1=2?

 

[David1701]

Are those people of the elect? If so then election depends on human works and is not monergistic.

Those of the elect who are not yet saved are under law/conscience: those whom the Lord Jesus Christ has saved are under grace.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Systematic theology does not belong to Calvin, has nothing to do with Calvin, was not "invented" by Calvin. ....

Which Systematic Theology would you suggest as a lens through which one reads scripture?

 

[Arial]

Which Systematic Theology would you suggest as a lens through which one reads scripture?

Start with God and who He reveals Himself to be. After that make sure everything agrees with who He is. Weigh your assertions carefully against who He is. If you come to a scripture that sounds to you as though it is saying one thing, check other scriptures on the same subject to see if there is any contradiction. If your interpretation would contradict anything on the same subject, figure out why. This can usually be done by the surrounding text, who is speaking, who they are speaking to, why they are saying what they say. And any historical or cultural aspects that surround it that may be pertinent. No sound doctrine can ever come from a single scripture, or from taking all the scriptures that you interpret in the same way----such as always adding the word or concept of choosing, when all that the scriptures say is "believe." You have to get the interpretation right first.

So it isn't which systematic theology should you use, but rather be systematic in arriving at what you call God's truth. Forget Calvinism and Reformed theology as "isms" and "ologies" for a second. That is not the real issue. Historically it is a fact that during the Reformation this systematic work was done. That is not to say that every bit of it is correct, and it should not be taken as such. Nevertheless, the Reformers had a mission to reform the RCC which was intensely corrupt, had taken the Scriptures out of the hands of the people, set themselves up, in effect, as God. When they refused to reform, it became a Protestant movement. But they did the work. With diligence and integrity and years, and from the Bible only, and systematically on all points of doctrine, keeping all scripture on each subject consistent with itself throughout, and consistent with who God reveals Himself to be.

That is why the result of this painstaking work is found in the Confessions of the Reformation as statements of doctrine and belief for the Christian church. That is why Reformation theology is called Reformation theology. And because they have already done this arduous work, we who have neither the time nor inclination to do it, have helps. A gift of God to His church. We can read what they had to say about it and where it came from, and the exegesis in it, or contemporary sources. And then we know where to go in the Bible to look, what all to look at, checking it for ourselves with the Bible. Just as the Bereans did. If we want to really know the truth, it is our duty to do this. Check what the other side says also. Check their sources, their exegesis, their consistency with all of scripture. Then make up your mind. What you do is only accept one side and not truly find out for yourself, with the tradition of your beliefs and interpretations firmly entrenched. And completely unable to support your use of scriptures. On both sides you have to look out and identify fallacies in their arguments, and unsupported claims. From a neutral position.

 

[PeanutGallery]

...
That is why the result of this painstaking work is found in the Confessions of the Reformation as statements of doctrine and belief for the Christian church. That is why Reformation theology is called Reformation theology.
...
And then we know where to go in the Bible to look, what all to look at, checking it for ourselves with the Bible. Just as the Bereans did.
...

Which Bible best supports Reformation Theology?

 

[Arial]

Which Bible best supports Reformation Theology?

The one I most use now, but have not always, and did not begin my study of Reformed theology with, is the Reformation Study Bible. I have both the ESV and the NKJ but both have the same verse notes, book prefaces, and topic notes. In addition it has a lot of other information. Some of the Confessions, a history of Bible interpretation, a brief outline of the Reformation and Reformation era preaching, and much more. A whole wealth of information at your fingertips from theologians who can be trusted. Note I said trusted, not automatically believed.

And unless you think it will be utterly biased and therefore untrustworthy, that is not the case. Particurilly with difficult passages where there are differing views, in those text notes, it gives all of them or the main ones. Let the reader decide. But beyond that, it is coming from the Reformed position and will give you a thorough foundation of what it is they believe so you can make an informed decision instead of an uninformed one. It gives Scripture references to the assertions it makes in the text notes, showing you where to look to see if it is valid.

You can find this Bible on Amazon at a much less price than if you went directly say, to Ligonier Ministries.

 

[Synergy]

Those of the elect who are not yet saved are under law/conscience: those whom the Lord Jesus Christ has saved are under grace.

So they are of the elect. Now since "law/conscience" depends on human works then election is conditional (synergistic), at least in this sense.

 

[Synergy]

Start with God and who He reveals Himself to be. After that make sure everything agrees with who He is. Weigh your assertions carefully against who He is. If you come to a scripture that sounds to you as though it is saying one thing, check other scriptures on the same subject to see if there is any contradiction. If your interpretation would contradict anything on the same subject, figure out why. This can usually be done by the surrounding text, who is speaking, who they are speaking to, why they are saying what they say. And any historical or cultural aspects that surround it that may be pertinent. No sound doctrine can ever come from a single scripture, or from taking all the scriptures that you interpret in the same way----such as always adding the word or concept of choosing, when all that the scriptures say is "believe." You have to get the interpretation right first.

So it isn't which systematic theology should you use, but rather be systematic in arriving at what you call God's truth. Forget Calvinism and Reformed theology as "isms" and "ologies" for a second. That is not the real issue. Historically it is a fact that during the Reformation this systematic work was done. That is not to say that every bit of it is correct, and it should not be taken as such. Nevertheless, the Reformers had a mission to reform the RCC which was intensely corrupt, had taken the Scriptures out of the hands of the people, set themselves up, in effect, as God. When they refused to reform, it became a Protestant movement. But they did the work. With diligence and integrity and years, and from the Bible only, and systematically on all points of doctrine, keeping all scripture on each subject consistent with itself throughout, and consistent with who God reveals Himself to be.

That is why the result of this painstaking work is found in the Confessions of the Reformation as statements of doctrine and belief for the Christian church. That is why Reformation theology is called Reformation theology. And because they have already done this arduous work, we who have neither the time nor inclination to do it, have helps. A gift of God to His church. We can read what they had to say about it and where it came from, and the exegesis in it, or contemporary sources. And then we know where to go in the Bible to look, what all to look at, checking it for ourselves with the Bible. Just as the Bereans did. If we want to really know the truth, it is our duty to do this. Check what the other side says also. Check their sources, their exegesis, their consistency with all of scripture. Then make up your mind. What you do is only accept one side and not truly find out for yourself, with the tradition of your beliefs and interpretations firmly entrenched. And completely unable to support your use of scriptures. On both sides you have to look out and identify fallacies in their arguments, and unsupported claims. From a neutral position.

What did the Reformers say about the fact that Christian Churches were already planted and thriving two decades before he ink of Paul's first Epistle was even dry? That meant that all Christian beliefs and practices were ironed out and present in thr Churches that were planted, based only on the Greek OT (LXX) and Apostolic oral traditions. In no way am I denigrating the NT, just placing it in its proper context. I have yet to read any Reformer mention that reality. Have you?

 

[Arial]

What did the Reformers say about the fact that Christian Churches were already planted and thriving two decades before he ink of Paul's first Epistle was even dry? That meant that all Christian beliefs and practices were ironed out and present in thr Churches that were planted, based only on the Greek OT (LXX) and Apostolic oral traditions. In no way am I denigrating the NT, just placing it in its proper context. I have yet to read any Reformer mention that reality. Have you?

They were all planted in person. They were often instructed through circular letters---written. They weren't based only on the Greek OT but the Greek OT did support what they were saying. But you bring up a good point. And one that I have addressed, though not on this forum, and I am sure most if not all of those who are Reformed in their theology, agree with and most likely has been stated. I first saw it in the third book I read on the subject "Doctrines That Divide" by Erin Lutzer. It astonished me that I had never been told it before, and given no reason to see it, in the A'ist churches I attended for the first 23 years.

The first half of his book deals with the doctrines of the church other than the controversy over total depravity etc. And from it I garnered an astonishing truth and a very important one, and one that is seldom considered.

Christ's church has boundaries and the parameters of those boundaries are found within the covers of our Bible, most specifically in the NT. It was the apostles that laid this foundation and that we have today, and that they had then though not in a bound book form as we do. And that foundation is the doctrines, or teachings of His church. Nothing more. Nothing less. We do not add to it, or take away from it. It is as though a wall were built around His church, with gates, as was the case with Jerusalem. To keep safe, to keep out, and to keep in.

That is why I look around and weep and pray as Nehemiah did. "Our walls are broken down, and our gates are burned with fire."

It was the Reformers who tried and did rebuild those walls and set those gates, secured our boundaries (and that was their sole aim) in the past.
It was others who came in and tore them down again, and I believe the resurgence of Reformed theology, is rebuilding them once more. We would do well to listen to them.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Hi thanks

I would offer God is Light and not only can he create it temporal, the Sun and Moon. But that light as a understanding of God is hidden from mankind, given to those born from above

I think it is one of reasons when he spoke he spoke through parable and without the hidden understanding the Spirit of Christ spoke not.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

John 1:4-5 In him was life; and the life was the light of men And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Well Peanut Gallery suggest that every man receives God's light, and further suggest that fallen man based on this received light from God can make a "decision" to be saved or not. This comes from Pelagius, Finney, etc.., Synergists theologies. This ideology ignores what happen in the Fall, what Adam lost in the Garden; relationship and right standing with God; the curse bestowed because of the One Man's Sin; and the condemnation & punishment because of sin. They gravely devoid the gravity of sin and place not sinners, but good men in a vacuum where sin is not present. Where Prevenient Grace is not effectual in saving anyone, but is needed (light), to save men/women. But there is so many questions that pose a huge problem for them.​