- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A biblical warning about our times
Posted on 2/12/22 at 1:08 pm to LSUconvert
Posted on 2/12/22 at 1:08 pm to LSUconvert
In the image of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit for if weren't we so couldn't receive them. Is much, much more than attributes. Case in point, Jesus died for much more than our sins - His sacrifice replaced our sin heredity that we inherited - hence the teachings of the 'old man' and 'new man'
Let US make man in OUR image
Let US make man in OUR image
This post was edited on 2/12/22 at 1:10 pm
1
Posted on 2/12/22 at 1:10 pm to wfallstiger
quote:
Is much, much more than attributes.
Exactly!
More, not less.
Posted on 2/12/22 at 2:19 pm to Revelator
quote:
And every sin I have committed or will commit has been covered by the blood of my Lord and Savior’s substitutionary death….praise Jesus!
While I believe this to be true, I cringe when someone says it.
It gives off a vibe that it doesn’t matter how we live, or that we can take sin casually. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but it can be taken that way.
I’m convinced that no truly saved person who has become a new creature should ever treat sin casually.
Another thing that Christian’s say that is cringeworthy is,” everyone sins ever day.”
We should never approach life with this attitude.
I don’t particularly like it either but it’s the truth. Because I’m a born again Believer and my sins are forgiven until my last breath doesn’t mean I intend to live in the sinful ways of my prior self but I knew when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior the sanctification process was going to be a daily struggle until the day I die. All I know is the sinful things that used to not bother me will gnaw at me if I willfully do those things now.
Posted on 2/12/22 at 2:54 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
LSUconvert
Are you trying to make the case that God is not holy?
Posted on 2/12/22 at 5:01 pm to roscoe mike
quote:
You've completely avoided the entire point of this whole conversation. It's clear you've encountered a contradiction. Which truth will you believe? That we were created in his image? or that he is perfection?
Both cannot be true and yet the scripture states both at different points. You must decide this for yourself. Which one have you chosen?
There is an element to your portion of debate that has not been considered by you.
Yes, we are created in his own image ...but ...God is not fallen as mankind has become. Therefore, your antics carry no factual consideration while you are trying to turn God into mankind at our level. Not his.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 9:39 am to LSUconvert
quote:As someone else pointed out, you should really consider what the scriptures mean when it says that we are created in God's image. We are in His image by analogy, not in perfect and exact likeness of God.
It's clear you've encountered a contradiction. Which truth will you believe? That we were created in his image? or that he is perfection?
There are communicable attributes of God that He is able to share with others and there are incommunicable attributes that He is unable to share with others due to His very nature as God.
Communicable attributes are primarily His moral attributes. They consist in things like goodness, justice, love, mercy, truthfulness, rationality, and wisdom. There are also incommunicable attributes that belong to God alone, such as immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, self-existence, sovereignty, and transcendence. There are more attributes in both of these categories, but in trying to understand what it means that we are made in God's image, we have to consider what and who God is and what and who we are. God is a spirit, yet we were created with physical bodies. God is omnipresent, but we were made constrained to space and time. God is omniscient but we have to learn things to gain knowledge.
So if we are not God and do not possess all of the attributes of God, then in what sense are we made in the image of God? To know this, you have to know what an image does. Images image. That is, they reflect or display something about whose likeness they are created. For us, we were created as mirrors to reflect God in some way to creation, in things like reason and love; in morality and justice; in dominion and sacrifice. We were created to point to our creator by reminding those who look at us or interact with us that we were created by God for His glory, and that we should see His glory in all that we do.
It's why we are supposed to obey God's law (as summarized by the 10 commandments and further summarized by Christ's command to love God and neighbor): the law reflects God's holy and righteous character, and in being images of God, we are also to reflect God's character by being holy and righteous in our actions. Due to the fall, we cannot do this perfectly, but one day we will be glorified and be free from the presence of sin, where we will reflect God's holiness in every respect with our obedience to the law.
When Adam fell, the image was shattered. We no longer fully reflect God's holiness and goodness. We are no longer able to reason or love rightly and completely. We are as mirrors that have been smashed and shattered. When God regenerates us by His Spirit and makes us born again, it's as if the broken pieces start getting put back together, where we are conformed to the image of Christ in holiness, being sanctified until our deaths, where we will be glorified and the image will be perfectly restored and we will once again reflect God's image rightly.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 12:20 pm to Revelator
First, thought this thread was dead 
but it keeps being bumped. (I'm guilty of bumping it too)
Ok, first I'd love to see some of those scripture passages, I'm not saying they aren't there, but I would suspect that it speaks of man's fallen nature, not the foundational nature God gives all human beings.
How I understand it.
God created us as good. Genesis 1:31 (RSV): And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
In the beginning God created us very good. That is obvious from the scriptures. Philosophically this makes sense, God can only create what is good.
However if you know the story, Adam and Eve fell into sin, and as you follow the story of humans it is clear that man is in a fallen state.
However, it's not that to its core that man is evil. instead, by sinning man changes what God gave him which was good. So I would argue that at the foundation of man he is good because God created him that way, but because of original sin and our own personal sin what was built on that foundation is corrupted. It's probably a little oversimplified but that is how I understand it.
God cannot create anything evil
God created man
Therefore Man is good, but after his creation man has fallen, meaning he has corrupted his nature.
So again I believe man is good in himself but the presence of sin corrupts our nature.
but it keeps being bumped. (I'm guilty of bumping it too) quote:
He isn’t, and this is plain from the scriptures
Ok, first I'd love to see some of those scripture passages, I'm not saying they aren't there, but I would suspect that it speaks of man's fallen nature, not the foundational nature God gives all human beings.
How I understand it.
God created us as good. Genesis 1:31 (RSV): And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
In the beginning God created us very good. That is obvious from the scriptures. Philosophically this makes sense, God can only create what is good.
However if you know the story, Adam and Eve fell into sin, and as you follow the story of humans it is clear that man is in a fallen state.
However, it's not that to its core that man is evil. instead, by sinning man changes what God gave him which was good. So I would argue that at the foundation of man he is good because God created him that way, but because of original sin and our own personal sin what was built on that foundation is corrupted. It's probably a little oversimplified but that is how I understand it.
God cannot create anything evil
God created man
Therefore Man is good, but after his creation man has fallen, meaning he has corrupted his nature.
So again I believe man is good in himself but the presence of sin corrupts our nature.
This post was edited on 2/14/22 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 2/14/22 at 12:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You answered your own question. God created man good, yet man sinned. This is where original sin comes in (unless you want to go full Pelagian and deny it, which you haven't done to date). Adam's sin permeated all of his posterity, and therefore all have a sinful nature, corrupted and incapable of choosing that which is spiritually good. That's precisely why we must be "born again" by the Spirit
For the most part we agree here, I would just rephrase we can't choose what is spiritually good without being born again. I would argue that pre-saved man can choose good acts, but those acts cannot save him. But I believe this is beyond what we are discussing.
quote:
Whether you want to accept double predestination or not, the result is the same if God chose to save some and not others rather than purposefully condemn some along with purposefully saving others. In the end, God would have chosen to save some people from their sins while others would not be saved, and thus, they would be damned.
I believe it is more complicated than what you are trying to make it out to be.
Unless I'm mistaken Calvin who promoted double predestination says that God chose to save some and not others. Only based on his purpose his sovereignty alone, not based on how we respond to his will.
While Catholics hold that God chose to save those both based on his purpose, his sovereignty, and how we respond to his grace. Meaning God does give grace to those who will reject it. I quoted the Catechism, CCC from here on out, to explain what I believe.
quote:
There is a doctrine about the two wills of God. They are referred to in many ways (secret will and revealed will; sovereign will and moral will; will of decree and will of command; etc.) but the gist of it is that there are things that God ordains to happen that He doesn't necessarily "want" to happen. Or another way of saying it is that God allows or even determines something to happen that He doesn't like for the sake of something to happen that He does like.
For instance, God didn't will (desire) that Christ, His only begotten son, should die a painful and shameful death on the cross, but God willed (decreed and ordained) it to happen for the sake of saving a people for Himself.
In this way, God doesn't desire that anyone should perish in Hell (though they, as we all, deserve it), but ordains that many do that His name would be magnified by the mercy He shows to those He saves
I can agree with what you are saying maybe with some exceptions. But as mentioned earlier the bigger issue we seem to have is what role does man's freedom play in God's plan for salvation?
quote:
Again, if God is merely looking ahead in time (or in the present, however you want to view God in terms of time), then God isn't ordaining anything to happen with our salvation, He is just passively watching what we will do.
First let me say I'm speculating some, so I may have said something that doesn't work and I just haven't realized it. For example, I may be coming off as semi-pelagian when I don't intend to do that. IF have than I need to fine tune my arguments, because I certainly don't believe in semi-pelagianism.
But again back to what the CCC says.
quote:
To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy.
We are in time, meaning we experience past present and, future, but for God who is outside of time, he experiences time as present all at once. To him the past is present, and the future is present. So when he created the universe he knew that Adam would sin, that Cain would kill Abel that the Israelites would worship other gods. Based on his knowledge of all eternity being present to him, he planned out his sovereign will. This is extremely oversimplified because it's impossible for us to know how God can experience all of eternity in one moment.
If God views time in this way then he knows everything that will happen, and how his action will change what will happen.
For example: God knows that if he doesn't send his son to die on the cross, then man would be condemned to hell with no possibility of salvation. But if he sends his son to die on the cross he can save us.
God isn't passive in how he is looking on the future, his providence is guiding all creation (without taking away our freedom) so that we can be saved.
As I understand it. Double predestination says God doesn't take into consideration our free response to his grace. While Catholics hold that he does take into consideration our free response to his grace.
quote:
There was quite a lot of "freedom" that had to take place for Christ to be in the position He was in, at the right time and place in history, to accomplish what God had ordained to pass. All of the people--in Adam's line, in Abraham's line, in David's line--that had to do certain actions at certain times for everything to take place just as God prophesied through the Prophets, all leading to the cross where Jesus had to be nailed to the cross. That isn't merely God sitting back and watching things unfold as to not interfere with our wills. God actively uses men to accomplish His purposes. Joseph's brothers willed that they should sell Joseph into slavery, but God had ordained (not just knew and watched) that that act should happen so Joseph could rise to power in Egypt and save his family from the famine that God had already planned to send.
Not only that, but God ordained that the people of Israel would be taken into bondage in Egypt so that He would deliver them by His own hand. While Pharaoh hardened his heart, we are also told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, too, meaning that God orchestrated that Pharaoh wouldn't let the people go too early so that Pharaoh would get the glory for setting the people free. It was God that delivered the people, and He reminded them of it all the time.
I need to wrap this up. But I think this question comes down again to Man's freedom. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to believe that man has no freedom, instead he is moved by an irrestistable force to act in certain way, namely God. Those who are not saved are not free to do anything good because everything they do is evil, even if on it's face value it is a good deed. A simple example, an atheist gives $1000 to hurricane relief efforts. That on it's face value is a good act, but because he isn't saved even this seemingly good act is in fact evil.
Please correct me if I've misrepresented your viewpoint.
Finally, sorry these posts get so long. Hard to be brief in conversations like this.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 1:01 pm to Revelator
15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[d] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
-1 John 2:15-17
-1 John 2:15-17
This post was edited on 2/14/22 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 2/14/22 at 1:39 pm to Revelator
The bride to be was made pure as she placed the leaven of sin in the Holy Lump who was prepared as an Offering that rises up on the third day and He turned evil for good. The news of this taste good and the Bread of Life is good.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 1:55 pm to BobLeeDagger
quote:Does -1 John come before John or in-between John and 1 John
-1 John 2:15-17
Have y'all settled anything yet? I tried to follow for a while and maybe even commented once but this has been going for a while.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 2:27 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Does -1 John come before John or in-between John and 1 John
This such a reach of a joke.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:09 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:I don't necessarily disagree with your desire to rephrase. I only state it that way because a lot of people think that pre-saved man can actually please God by his good works. Even if a "good" work (obedience to God's law) is performed, it is done in unbelief, and therefore it is sin and displeasing to God. Like the sacrifices of Israel that were hypocritical and God spoke against in Isaiah 1, or David's recognition that a broken spirit and a humble and contrite heart (faith) is what God desires, not meaningless sacrifices or works done without faith.
For the most part we agree here, I would just rephrase we can't choose what is spiritually good without being born again. I would argue that pre-saved man can choose good acts, but those acts cannot save him. But I believe this is beyond what we are discussing.
quote:I suppose my point is to try to address the emotional side of this, because logically and theologically, the result is the same, whether we like it or not:
I believe it is more complicated than what you are trying to make it out to be.
Unless I'm mistaken Calvin who promoted double predestination says that God chose to save some and not others. Only based on his purpose his sovereignty alone, not based on how we respond to his will.
While Catholics hold that God chose to save those both based on his purpose, his sovereignty, and how we respond to his grace. Meaning God does give grace to those who will reject it. I quoted the Catechism, CCC from here on out, to explain what I believe.
If God determines that a subset of all people will be saved according to His sovereign will, then that means the rest of humanity will necessarily be damned. So whether single predestination (God merely chooses which particular individuals will be created and saved and lets the rest die in their sins and get the just penalty their sins deserve) or whether double predestination (particularly choosing some to be created for salvation and particularly choosing others to be created for damnation), the end result is that God will ordain that some be saved while not ordaining salvation for the rest.
The difference boils down to whether God is active or passive in the damnation of the reprobate. I personally believe that double predestination is biblical and that Paul's argumentation leads to that conclusion in Romans 9 when he talks about vessels of wrath created/prepared for destruction.
quote:Man is free to choose to act according to his will. The will (the base of desire) is what is not free, while man's choices (that which he desires to do and act upon) are based on the will which is enslaved to sin.
I can agree with what you are saying maybe with some exceptions. But as mentioned earlier the bigger issue we seem to have is what role does man's freedom play in God's plan for salvation?
Essentially this is how it works: before sin, man was free to choose both good and evil. After the fall, man is only free to choose evil (from God's perspective), and certainly not able to convert himself or prepare himself for conversion to faith in Christ. After regeneration by the Spirit, man is both capable of choosing obedience (good) and disobedience/sin (evil), though the fallen nature still persuades us to choose evil and disobedience at times (and often). When we are glorified in Heaven, we will only be able to choose what is spiritually good, because all sin and temptation will be removed.
The Spirit's work of sanctification in the regenerated person operates through the means of Grace that God gives us to continue to change our desires so that we desire less and less to sin.
Check out the short section the WCF has on free will. You can search for "IX. Of Free Will" to jump to it.
To summarize: I believe in freedom of volition (ability to make choices), not in freedom of the will.
quote:A couple of things come to mind here.
We are in time, meaning we experience past present and, future, but for God who is outside of time, he experiences time as present all at once. To him the past is present, and the future is present. So when he created the universe he knew that Adam would sin, that Cain would kill Abel that the Israelites would worship other gods. Based on his knowledge of all eternity being present to him, he planned out his sovereign will. This is extremely oversimplified because it's impossible for us to know how God can experience all of eternity in one moment.
If God views time in this way then he knows everything that will happen, and how his action will change what will happen.
1. I don't believe God's relation to time has any bearing on whether or not He is active or passive in our salvation. Whether God's responding to our free response to the gospel happens in the past or present, the end result is the same: God is passively looking and learning what we will do and then changing His plans to accommodate us.
There are multiple problems with that view that I can see, but it's biggest one (other than I believe it simply isn't biblical) is that it opens the door to Open Theism. Namely, that God doesn't actually "know" what will happen but He only knows what possibly will happen, and that God has to learn what will actually happen over time (whatever that looks like according to your view of God's relationship with time). Since God is all-knowing (omniscient), God cannot "learn" anything because He already knows everything. Since God knows everything, there is no point in Him having to figure out what we would do or will do with the gospel message. If God already knows what would happen, it makes no sense for God to adjust His plans according to new knowledge that He won't have (because, again, He already knows everything).
2. Directly related to #1, everything in salvation has to do with man's will to one degree or another. From the actions of those Roman soldiers that led Christ to the cross to the actions of those since Adam that led to Christ's birth in that specific place and time, there isn't a lot that God can do if man's actions (because of his will) are off-limits to Him. This completely removes God's sovereignty over man, as while God may be sovereign over the wind and sea and other natural forces--making them move and act as God pleases--man's "will" is what drives all of redemptive history. If God has no say in that matter, but only tries to woo and persuade a stubborn people, then God isn't actively saving anyone; He is merely trying to convince man to save himself.
The scriptures paint an entirely different picture than that. God is active, not passive, in history. God changes hearts; sends nations against nations; delivers and saves peoples; destroys enemies; and on and on. God is the one who does all these things for His own glory.
God's sovereignty has to include God's sovereignty over the actions (and thus the wills) of man, or else you're left with a Deistic god that sort of sits back and doesn't get involved, but winds the clock and lets it tick.
quote:I touched on this above, but in essence, God changes our desires to accomplish His will. When He gives us new desires at the new birth, we cannot help but to desire Christ. When He gives us the gift of faith, we cannot help but to believe.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to believe that man has no freedom, instead he is moved by an irrestistable force to act in certain way, namely God. Those who are not saved are not free to do anything good because everything they do is evil, even if on it's face value it is a good deed. A simple example, an atheist gives $1000 to hurricane relief efforts. That on it's face value is a good act, but because he isn't saved even this seemingly good act is in fact evil
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:11 pm to Revelator
quote:That's not a warning. For some, it's an uplifting prophesy that affirms their faith.
A biblical warning about our times
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
When God regenerates us by His Spirit and makes us born again, it's as if the broken pieces start getting put back together, where we are conformed to the image of Christ in holiness, being sanctified until our deaths, where we will be glorified and the image will be perfectly restored and we will once again reflect God's image rightly.
Beautifully articulated.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:23 pm to Dawgwithnoname
quote:You forgot the most destructive of all leftist "religions", namely nearly all mainline protestant "christian" denominations and the vatican too.
Leftist religions:
Climate Change
"Trust the Science"
Abortion
"Pay their fair share"
This post was edited on 2/14/22 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:24 pm to CedarChest
Is Russia going to nuke us?
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with your desire to rephrase. I only state it that way because a lot of people think that pre-saved man can actually please God by his good works. Even if a "good" work (obedience to God's law) is performed, it is done in unbelief, and therefore it is sin and displeasing to God. Like the sacrifices of Israel that were hypocritical and God spoke against in Isaiah 1, or David's recognition that a broken spirit and a humble and contrite heart (faith) is what God desires, not meaningless sacrifices or works done without faith.
I mostly agree with you here, I guess what I'm saying is an atheist giving to hurricane relief efforts is not a sin or evil in the eyes of God, the act in itself. Sure his unbelief is evil but not the act he is performing. I'm separating the act with the man's belief. But in no way does him giving money to hurricane relief in any way help him obtain salvation. As you say only in faith and the grace of God can he be saved. (The baptism thing is in play again here)
quote:
If God determines that a subset of all people will be saved according to His sovereign will, then that means the rest of humanity will necessarily be damned. So whether single predestination (God merely chooses which particular individuals will be created and saved and lets the rest die in their sins and get the just penalty their sins deserve) or whether double predestination (particularly choosing some to be created for salvation and particularly choosing others to be created for damnation), the end result is that God will ordain that some be saved while not ordaining salvation for the rest.
I guess I need to read up a little more on predestination of the faithful. I get what you're saying here, but there is a reason the Church I follow, (who follows Jesus, so I really ultimately follow Jesus) condemns the theology of Calvin mainly double predestination and not single predestination.
quote:
The difference boils down to whether God is active or passive in the damnation of the reprobate. I personally believe that double predestination is biblical and that Paul's argumentation leads to that conclusion in Romans 9 when he talks about vessels of wrath created/prepared for destruction.
And as I understand it. You argue that God is active in the damnation of men, and I argue that God is passive in the damnation of man. As in God doesn't actively will that John Doe goes to hell, rather John Doe chose to reject God's grace and therefore is condemned to hell.
quote:
Man is free to choose to act according to his will. The will (the base of desire) is what is not free, while man's choices (that which he desires to do and act upon) are based on the will which is enslaved to sin.
Man's will is enslaved and it's through God's grace that man is moved to salvation. I would posit though that man is still free to choose salvation or not when God moves him to be saved.
This is something else I need to review, because I do believe that many things influence the will but at its core it is still free.
quote:
After regeneration by the Spirit, man is both capable of choosing obedience (good) and disobedience/sin (evil), though the fallen nature still persuades us to choose evil and disobedience at times (and often). When we are glorified in Heaven, we will only be able to choose what is spiritually good, because all sin and temptation will be removed.
Yes and we would agree here. But don't I remember you saying earlier that the will is not free? That after being redeemed man won't go against God's will, or am I mistaken?
quote:
The Spirit's work of sanctification in the regenerated person operates through the means of Grace that God gives us to continue to change our desires so that we desire less and less to sin.
Check out the short section the WCF has on free will. You can search for "IX. Of Free Will" to jump to it.
To summarize: I believe in freedom of volition (ability to make choices), not in freedom of the will.
I need to review what someone like St. Thomas Aquinas says on the will, because it seems to me you are more knowledgeable on the will than I am.
quote:
1. I don't believe God's relation to time has any bearing on whether or not He is active or passive in our salvation. Whether God's responding to our free response to the gospel happens in the past or present, the end result is the same: God is passively looking and learning what we will do and then changing His plans to accommodate us.
This is not what I'm arguing here. I would argue that God is actively involved in salvation history, but his activity in salvation history doesn't take away our free response to his grace.
quote:
There are multiple problems with that view that I can see, but it's biggest one (other than I believe it simply isn't biblical) is that it opens the door to Open Theism. . .
Clearly not what I believe
quote:
2. Directly related to #1, everything in salvation has to do with man's will to one degree or another. From the actions of those Roman soldiers that led Christ to the cross to the actions of those since Adam that led to Christ's birth in that specific place and time, there isn't a lot that God can do if man's actions (because of his will) are off-limits to Him. This completely removes God's sovereignty over man, as while God may be sovereign over the wind and sea and other natural forces--making them move and act as God pleases--man's "will" is what drives all of redemptive history. If God has no say in that matter, but only tries to woo and persuade a stubborn people, then God isn't actively saving anyone; He is merely trying to convince man to save himself.
The scriptures paint an entirely different picture than that. God is active, not passive, in history. God changes hearts; sends nations against nations; delivers and saves peoples; destroys enemies; and on and on. God is the one who does all these things for His own glory.
God's sovereignty has to include God's sovereignty over the actions (and thus the wills) of man, or else you're left with a Deistic god that sort of sits back and doesn't get involved, but winds the clock and lets it tick.
Hmmmm, this is where we can discuss things more.
I would argue that God can be active and change the hearts of man, etc. but still allow for Man's freedom.
Let's go to the cross.
Was Pilate free in condmening Jesus to death? I would argue yes, but there are a few possibilities. 1) God is active not in terms of Pilote being a puppet but rather God moved him to condemn Jesus. Let's say I want my child to eat a piece of king cake, I could tell him you can either eat king cake or do chores. He is free to choose one or the other, but I've influenced him in such a way that I know what he will pick. Maybe not the greatest example, but I believe God is powerful enough to move us to make certain choices. 2) God is more passive in the situation, he may put things in motion by his providence, but ultimately it was Pilate own free choice to condemn Jesus to death. (Option two seems less likely, but I'm just guessing.
I believe God is active in our world, but in a way that doesn't take away our freedom. He certainly moves in us to lead us to him and his son and to do his will. But he never takes away our freedom to choose him or reject him.
Posted on 2/14/22 at 3:47 pm to Dawgwithnoname
"Leftist Religion"?
*SMH*
"Not part of Leftist Religion:
God
Jesus
The Holy Spirit
The Bible
Holiness
Morality"
DT...moral? *ROTFLMAO*
*SMH*
"Not part of Leftist Religion:
God
Jesus
The Holy Spirit
The Bible
Holiness
Morality"
DT...moral? *ROTFLMAO*
Posted on 2/14/22 at 10:28 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:My interpretation of Rom. 14:3 is that anything that doesn't proceed from faith (including otherwise "good" works) is sinful. We can't divorce faith from the works, because God created us to do good works in Christ, not apart from Christ (Eph. 2:10)
I mostly agree with you here, I guess what I'm saying is an atheist giving to hurricane relief efforts is not a sin or evil in the eyes of God, the act in itself. Sure his unbelief is evil but not the act he is performing. I'm separating the act with the man's belief. But in no way does him giving money to hurricane relief in any way help him obtain salvation. As you say only in faith and the grace of God can he be saved. (The baptism thing is in play again here)
I understand the desire to think that a work is good in and of itself, but I don't believe it is. Just as you can do a "good" thing for selfish gain, or for an evil purpose, God doesn't look at works removed from motive, and if our motive is not good (done by faith to glorify God), then the work is judged as gross before God.
Isaiah 64:6 says that our best works of righteousness are as filthy rags before God. Isaiah starts his writing with a condemnation of God's people, saying God doesn't care for their good works (commanded sacrifices) because they do not obey in other ways (1:10-15). To God, the sacrifices of His people were disgusting to Him because, while they offered their sacrifices, they acted in other ways as rebels against God. Their sacrifices (good works) were faithless and thus a stench in God's nose.
quote:My honest assessment as to why Rome condemns Calvinism is because it is based entirely on scripture rather than also including the addition of the Catholic magisterium. Because Rome uses both, their conclusions about what the Bible teaches is different than what someone might find if they only used the Bible to develop doctrine. This is a fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants, and it's why we tend to talk past each other. I also say this with the knowledge that not all Protestants agree that Calvinism is biblical. At this point in history, most would likely disagree that it is biblical based on what is taught these days. Even so, it was the main antagonist to Catholicism during the Reformation, when it was condemned.
I guess I need to read up a little more on predestination of the faithful. I get what you're saying here, but there is a reason the Church I follow, (who follows Jesus, so I really ultimately follow Jesus) condemns the theology of Calvin mainly double predestination and not single predestination.
quote:Exactly. Our understanding of God's role in these matters is very different. Like I said, I believe Paul's logical argument about God's role in salvation that flows throughout the first several chapters of Romans is very clear, and that chapter 9, specifically, addresses this very issue. Paul makes the argument that God is just and righteous to create people for the purpose of destroying them, and in doing so, shows His power and glory. It's precisely why Paul uses Pharaoh as an example. It would be like using Adolph Hitler in today's culture.
And as I understand it. You argue that God is active in the damnation of men, and I argue that God is passive in the damnation of man. As in God doesn't actively will that John Doe goes to hell, rather John Doe chose to reject God's grace and therefore is condemned to hell.
quote:This particular topic is at the heart of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. Is the will bound, or is it free? Is man totally depraved, or is he not? Can man obtain faith and salvation on his own, or does he first require an act of God?
Man's will is enslaved and it's through God's grace that man is moved to salvation. I would posit though that man is still free to choose salvation or not when God moves him to be saved.
This is something else I need to review, because I do believe that many things influence the will but at its core it is still free.
Some passages that I believe speak to the condition of our wills and our ability to "choose" Christ without the work of God in regeneration are: Eph. 2:1-3; John 6:44; 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10-11; Rom. 8:7; and John 6:65. There are many more that speak to not just our condition as slaves to sin, but our need for the work of the Spirit to make us alive.
quote:Yes, I don't believe the will is free. The natural man's will is bound by sin and he cannot choose that which that which is the ultimate spiritual good (faith in Christ) apart from a work of God in him. The regenerate man is no longer bound by sin, but has both the influence of sin and the Spirit via the means of grace in his life. While he is free to choose to sin or obey, his will is not free from the influence of sin or the Spirit, and thus he will continue to sin in this life, though he should sin less and less as sin is weakened and removed by the Spirit through the process of sanctification. Even when we have our glorified bodies in Heaven, we still won't have a free will, because we will be in the absences of sin, and will not even be capable of sinning in such a state.
Yes and we would agree here. But don't I remember you saying earlier that the will is not free? That after being redeemed man won't go against God's will, or am I mistaken?
quote:My apologies if I have misrepresented or misunderstood you. I'm making the argument that God's perspective of time is irrelevant to whether or not He is active or passive in salvation.
This is not what I'm arguing here. I would argue that God is actively involved in salvation history, but his activity in salvation history doesn't take away our free response to his grace.
quote:I'd wager that few would actually say they are Open Theists (and I'm not accusing you of being one, purposefully or even accidently). I'll say, though, that Open Theism is the only consistent Arminian theology in my opinion. The issue I have is logical consistency within these doctrines, and I believe that Arminians are logically inconsistent in this regard. They view God as merely looking ahead or knowing what we will choose rather than actively setting our desires on Him to actively save us. God's part in our salvation is providing the means of it and then simply knowing whether or not we will take part in it. The knowledge-only part is what I have issue with, because it means that whatever God does, it isn't actually effectual to save in itself.
Clearly not what I believe
quote:While the topic of the will is a tricky thing, I'll simply repeat that if man is sovereign over his own salvation, then God is not. If man is the decider, then God is not. If man can frustrate God's will, then God's will can be frustrated. Yet the picture of salvation all throughout scripture is one of man's utter dependence upon God. God sovereignly choosing those who do not deserve to be chosen. God choosing the least of the nations in Israel; weak sinners like Moses and David; and uneducated fishermen who didn't grasp what God was teaching them until after the Spirit actively came upon them at Pentecost. God grants repentance to those with hard hearts and forgives those who have turned their backs on Him, not forgiving them because of what they do to deserve it, but because He has made a covenant with them (swearing by His own holy name). God softens hearts and draws His people (back) to Himself.
I believe God is active in our world, but in a way that doesn't take away our freedom. He certainly moves in us to lead us to him and his son and to do his will. But he never takes away our freedom to choose him or reject him.
This post was edited on 2/14/22 at 10:36 pm
Page 23 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News