Conference yukon::christian_v7

	Andrew, seeing you gave two different meanings to the same passage, do
you think the confusion will be cleared up, or added to? If's were used, so it
does make it hard to imagine the meanings you gave as being concrete.



Glen

    RE: .2
    
    And what were the "two different meanings" that you saw, Glen, and what
    meaning do you give the passages cited by Andrew?

Hi Glen,  

    No passages at all have been cited yet!  I'm sorry you're confused! ;-)

							Andrew

    We have done this one before.
    
    Romans 5:18 is extremely clear.
    
    
    "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one
    man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all"

Thanks Patricia - exactly.  Addressed to Christians, who whould be aware
that the 'for all' 'indicates availability', rather than implying
acceptance. 

								Andrew

    RE: .5
    
    Clear indeed!
    
    And who was that one man, what was his act of righteousness, and how
    does his righteousness lead to our own?
    
    Was there such an effective act of righteousness before or has there
    been since?  If this one man's righteousness is not unique, then what
    are the others and by what standard are they deemed righteous?

    
    Let's look clearly at the context of 5:18, written to Roman Christians,
    this being of utmost importance.  Earlier in chapter 3, Paul writes
    about the justification mentioned in 5:18: "...even the righteousness
    of God *through faith* in *Jesus Christ* for *all those who believe*;
    for there is no distinction; *for all have sinned and fall short of the
    glory of God* [emphasis mine].  Clearly the justification spoken of in
    5:18 is for all those who have believed through faith in Jesus Christ's
    atonement for his/her sins.  The immediate verse previous to 5:18
    qualifies 5:18.  5:17 says "...much more those who *receive* the
    abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life
    through the one, Jesus Christ."  There is a clear qualification or
    explanation of "all" in 5:18.  It cannot mean everyone since its
    requirements are faith and receiving the gift of God's grace.  All
    those who reject Jesus Christ's sacrifice and grace are not included in
    the "all" of 5:18, by necessity.
    
    It is rather absurd and totally ignorant to suggest that one such
    passage would be interpreted as supporting universal salvation when
    the huge volume of Paul's writings speak so clearly to the necessity of
    faith in Christ and the reality of being under the wrath of God as an
    unbeliever and being under the grace of God as a believer.  
    
    This is a perfect example of the illogic systemic in UUism, if Patricia's 
    method is a valid representation of that organization.
    
    jeff

Patricia, we have a whole long note (656, which is now a bit hard to follow
since you deleted most of your notes) on your attempted 'interpretation' of
Romans 5:18.  It is abundantly clear (as Jeff noted AGAIN) that the only way
you can come to your "clear" interpretation of this verse is to completely
ignore *THE PRECEDING VERSE*, to which verse 18 is connected by THEREFORE, so
is clearly a continutation of the very same thought.

To say nothing of ingoring huge portions of the rest of Romans, the rest of
Paul's writings, and the rest of the Bible.

What you are doing is EXACTLY like someone making the statement "I
categorically deny that I beat my wife," and your taking the last four words
of that quote and saying: "See, he says right here 'I beat my wife.'"

Paul

Revelation 13:8  
    And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not
 written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
 world.
    
    Here's an interesting exapansion of Romans 5:18.  I recently did a
    study of all the Book's mentioned in the Bible (i.e., Book of Life,
    Book of the Generations, Book of the Covenant, Book of the Law, Book of
    Remembrance, etc.).  The above verse seems to imply the ultimate in
    God's grace: everyone's name was recorded in the Book of Life from the
    foundation of the world.  However, we are the ones reponsible for our
    names staying there - we erase the names ourselves by our rejection of
    Christ.  The Bible teaches that an invitation (or call) is given to all, 
    but that only a few will accept it.  1 Peter 1:2 tells us we are, "elect 
    according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification 
    of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."  
    Matthew 22:14 says, "For many are called, but few are chosen (elected)."  
    God clearly does choose, but man must also accept God's invitation to 
    salvation.
    
    Mike

In support of that idea, Mike:

The LORD replies to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of
my book."
						Exodus 32:33

"He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.  I will never blot
out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my
Father and His angels."
						Revelation 3:5

    I don't really want to rat hole this conversation.  
    
    Marco asks some great questions in .0.  
    
    
                                      Patricia

    
    The idea of God saving everyone is a heathen notion and a heathen
    problem, and is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures.  The Bible makes
    it clear that Christ died not for the whole world (i.e. everyone who ever
    lived) but for those who believe.  It also teaches that we are all
    guilty of sin, and responsible for our sin without regard to our
    knowledge of Christ, deserving of eternal separation from God.  The
    Christian knows this truth firsthand.  
    
    The unbeliever confronted with Christ's claim, yet not believing, is 
    still trying to figure out how she can avoid responsibility for her 
    own sin by feigning concern for the heathen who've never heard of
    Christ, and other such worldly problems like racism, wealth, poverty,
    sexism, govt policy, and so on.
    
    I thank God that He saved me when I will only forever deserve
    punishment for my sins.  This is God's grace, His love-driven,
    unmerited favor, of which I desire to ponder and enjoy forever and
    ever.
    
    jeff
    
    
    
     

    .12
    
    Amen Patricia, they are GREAT questions.   My sons have had the very
    same questions themselves.  I praise God for them, for they are the
    platform for knowledge of Jesus!

>    problem, and is not taught anywhere in the Scriptures.  The Bible makes
>    it clear that Christ died not for the whole world (i.e. everyone who ever
>    lived) but for those who believe.  It also teaches that we are all
>    guilty of sin, and responsible for our sin without regard to our
>    knowledge of Christ, deserving of eternal separation from God.  The
>    Christian knows this truth firsthand.  
    
    This extreme Calvinistic view is self-contradictory.  How could Christ not 
    die for the whole world, yet everyone still be responsible for their sin
    regardless of their knowledge of Christ?  Christ not dying for the
    whole world clearly contradicts the following verses:
    
1 John 2:2  
    And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
 for the sins of the whole WORLD.

1 John 4:9-10
      In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent
 his only begotten Son into the WORLD, that we might live through him.
 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
 Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
    
John 3:16-17
      For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
 For God sent not his Son into the WORLD to condemn the WORLD; but that
 the WORLD through him might be saved.

Romans 10:9-13
 That if THOU shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
 believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU shalt be
 saved.
 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
 confession is made unto salvation.
 For the scripture saith, WHOSOEVER believeth on him shall not be
 ashamed.
 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
 Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
 For WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

    
    You're obfuscating, Mike.  You're doing the same thing as Patricia
    when you take "world" to be literal like Patricia takes the word "all" 
    literally.
    
    jeff

    Bible *IS* meant to be taken LITERALLY, WITHIN CONTEXT, except where
    the Holy Spirit says He's being figurative.  Patricia's "all" and God's
    "world" have nothing in common.
    
    Mike

    
    A passage in the Bible is to be taken literally if it makes sense to do
    so.  The context of any passage must be the whole counsel of God, the
    complete Bible.  And your idea about the Holy Spirit making the
    distinction is bound to get you into trouble.
    
    In any case, I know you're loathe to admit it, but "world" and "all" are
    exactly the same type of terms in that their definition (and
    certainly in their usage in the passages we're discussing here and
    which you typed in, as well as in many other places in the Bible) is a 
    broad inclusiveness.  But neither term is meant to be taken literally as 
    meaning completely inclusive in every occurence and usage in the
    context of the Bible.  To do so is to create contradictions with the
    plain teaching of Scripture.
    
    jeff

    RE: .18
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Your assertions that "the Bible is to be taken literally if it makes
    sense to do so" and that "the Holy Spirit making the distinction is
    bound to get you into trouble" give me pause.
    
    What do you mean?  Are you posing "sense" as a more sure basis for
    interpretation than the Spirit?  If so, how does that work exactly?
    
    I hope you take my questions at face value, not writing me off as a
    looney tune because we disagreed about the nature of man. :-)
    
    /Wayne

I believe Jeff Benson is right in making the statement that Christ's
death was for His elect (those who had been foreordained to believe).

As Jeff points out the usage of the words "world" and "all" in the
Bible are sometimes all-inclusive and sometimes indicate inclusion
of all groups rather than all individuals.  For example, take 1 Tim 2:4
	who desires all men to be saved and ...
I used to believe "all" here was all-inclusive.  However, look at
the context; 1 Tim 2:1 says "... I urge that entreaties and prayers
be made on behalf of all men".  Using the all-inclusive "all" would
imply that prayer for the 5 billion people of this world would be
needed, taking a very long time indeed.  However, Paul goes on in
2:2 to clarify, "for kings and all who are in authority".  I think
the Paul's intent is that prayer be made on the behalf of "all kinds
of men" in 2:1, and then being more specific in 2:2 for those in
authority.  Likewise, in 2:4, he means God desires "all kinds of men
to be saved, not just Jews etc".  The "world" scripture references
cited earlier are similarly to be interpreted.

Ram

	Only God knows who will ultimately accept or reject Him.
*Anyone* may enter through the Door (the finished work of the Son)
to eternal life with the Father.  Please, don't presume to know
what only God can know.  Pray for *everyone's* salvation, *especially*
for the salvation of your current enemies/adversaries.

	Salvation *is* *offered* to everyone, yet not everyone will be saved.
It's clear enough (to me at least) that the Bible teaches both as fact.

	You may now resume the usual Calvin/Arminius and Universalist
wrangling.  Have fun!  ;-)

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
saved. 



Jim

Re: .21
>	Only God knows who will ultimately accept or reject Him.

Right on! Because being dead in our sins, unless God breathes life into
us, we will continue to be dead, having no desire to respond to the
command to repent and believe!  God knows his elect, and they will
respond to his call, as the sheep do to their shepherd.

> Please, don't presume to know
> what only God can know.  Pray for *everyone's* salvation, *especially*
> for the salvation of your current enemies/adversaries.

I don't presume to have a clue as to who God is going to save.  Hence my
prayer and witness is for all God brings across my path.  If God would
only mark with a big E the backs of the elect, I could perhaps be more
focused ;-)

>	Salvation *is* *offered* to everyone, yet not everyone will be saved.
> It's clear enough (to me at least) that the Bible teaches both as fact.

First, let me assure you that I do not believe adherence to the doctrine
of predestination (as articulated by Saul of Tarsus, Augustine of Hippo,
John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards) is a necessary condition for salvation.  I
lovingly accept those who disagree with this position as brothers in the
faith.

However, I believe the Bible teaches particular redemption as fact.  And
from time to time I'd like to lovingly correct those who misunderstand
the Bible on this point.  The first seven years of my walk with the Lord
I was similarly misled; but have since come to a much better appreciation
of the Sovereignty of our Mighty God.

Re .22:

> whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Absolutely!  Only God's elect have any desire to turn to the light.
Were it not for His incredible mercy, we would all be wallowing in our
sins, hating the things of the light.  In Romans 8:29,30, Paul writes
	For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed
	to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born
	among many brethren; and whom He predestined, those He also
	called, and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom
	He justified, these He also glorified.

This sheds light on Rom 10:13.

Jeff and Ram,  

A couple of points:

RE: .13

My own personal experience is that those who claim they can't believe in a God
who would damn someone who had never even heard of Jesus, are INDEED trying
to avoid responsibility for their own sin, and are hoping that the God of the 
Bible is a myth and not the only God.  I have also heard of people, albeit
a small number of them, who when confronted with the same biblical truth and at
first reject it, struggle through it, accept it and then go on to do great
things for God through his power.  As one of my ministers said "If you feel bad
that the Aborigines will go to hell because they haven't heard about Jesus, then
you need to become a Christian and go tell them about Jesus!"

RE: .18

Similarly with people who claim that the Spirit told them what a specific 
Scripture means.  Almost always it's done to justify a certain behovior, even 
in the face of Scriptural evidence that would contradict their "Spirit-given
meaning."  Let me say I don't believe this is what Mike and Wayne are 
talking about, maybe they could elaborate on their earlier statements.  Let me
also add in my own experience, the SPirit has given me insight/understanding 
and helped me with applications of the Bible, by guiding me to other Scriptures.

As for when it makes sense to take the Bible literally and when it doesn't, I 
take the Bible at it's word, ie it means what it says.  In Ram's REply.20, he 
says Paul couldn't be talking about praying for "all men" as that would mean
all 5 billion people would need to be prayed for, which would take a long time.
He adds that Paul narrows the "all" down to kings and those in authority.
And then he extends that to say the "All Men" God wants saved are all different 
types of men. From my point of view, God SAYS to pray for ALL men, INCLUDING
kings and those in authority.  Why? Because he wants ALL men to be saved.  Not,
God says pray for all men, but he really can't mean all men because it doesn't
make sense for me to pray for 5 billion people, and therefore God must not want
all men to be saved, but all types of men to be saved. 

***********
Jeff and Ram,
I don't mean to take Ram out of the loop or to imply you both believe the
exact same thing in the 1 Timothy case.  I didn't have enough time to enter
two separate replies that cover the same basic ground.
************

And lastly, wrt RE: .18, if it makes more sense to you, based on the whole 
counsel of God, that "all" and "world" should NOT be taken literally in 
1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16, and the 1 John passages, I would appreciate and 
find it most interesting to study the Scriptural references you've put 
together to come to this conclusion.

In His Love,

Peter (who won't be back until Thursday).

    The doctrine of predestination is one of the most debated in 
    Christianity.  
    
    Predestination says basically that we were chosen by salvation by God
    
    Free Will says that we can choose. 
    
    There is also the possibility with many things in scripture that 
    two seemingly opposing doctrines can coexist - although there is a 
    tension between the two both can be equally true at the same time. 
    This is true all over scripture.  
    
    The best discussion I have seen on this subject is a book called
    Chosen by God - by R C Sproul
    
    concerning free will - if I am a sinful man - walking in darkness in
    that all of my thoughts and ways are evil - how could I even have the
    desire for God - except that God gave me that desire.  
    
    So if all of those to be saved are chosen then why do we witness,
    because we don't know the mind of God - and we must merely obey him,
    and we might be the instruments of his work.  
    
    for me I am still searching God's word - the bood above for the first 
    time shed light for me on this subject.    My wife is strongly
    predestination, but I am more of the opinion that there is a
    coexistance or a balance.  
    
    Ask the Lord, he will show you
    

One last question, I'm sorry if it was already answered in this note.

I had a very interesting discussion with someone in a bar this weekend (I 
have the deepest discussions there....). We agreed on one point, that is 
that to enter the Kingdom of God ("Heaven"), the bible states that you must 
acknowledge Jesus.

But, the question we could not agree on is: Does it matter WHEN you 
acknowledge him? Do you have to do it while you live on earth, or does he 
forgive you when you stand before him at the portals of his Kingdom ?

Thanks for your great reactions!!

Marco

(P.S. : Please forgive my English, I'm just a stupid Dutch peasant still 
studying for a diploma in Computer Science...)

      If its the message of the cross that is the power of God unto
      salvation, it must follow that God gave to every man a revelation
      of His goodness.
    
      It is a revelation of agape that saves.  Light has come into the
      world.  God sends the rain and the sun on the just and the unjust.
      Rain and sun are mainly metaphorical for *revelation*.
    
      If God did not die for those who ultimately reject Him, it would
      have to follow that He excluded them from receiving revelations
      of how good He is, but as Romans says, no man has an excuse for
      rejecting God because He has *shown* Himself to them, i.e. GIVEN
      them the word that saves (revelation of His agape).
    
      To summarize, it is revelation that saves and if God did not die
      for the lost, it would have to follow that He did not give them
      revelation from which they had oppurtunity to respond to.
    
      But, He did.  And this is why they are without excuse.  Clearly,
      the onus is on them or to put another way, the oppurtunity to
      respond by faith to the word was given to them.
    
      Thus God died for them.
                  
    							Tony

    
>    Your assertions that "the Bible is to be taken literally if it makes
>    sense to do so" and that "the Holy Spirit making the distinction is
>    bound to get you into trouble" give me pause.
    
>    What do you mean?  Are you posing "sense" as a more sure basis for
    > interpretation than the Spirit?  If so, how does that work exactly?
    
    Hi Wayne,
    
    Mike stated emphatically and unequivocally that the Bible should be
    taken literally, within context, at all times.  My point is that the
    context is the whole Bible, not just the immediate passage.  If there
    are several different obvious meanings for "world", "all" and so on, in
    the whole Bible, or if the meaning being ascribed is at odds with other
    clear teaching in the Scripture then the seemingly "contradictory" meaning 
    must be understood better and one's understanding modified and position
    changed.
    
    Mike then went on to state that the Holy Spirit is the One to make such
    a distinction between what is literal and what is not, if there is some
    question or controversy.  This implies a completely subjective method of
    interpretation which can result in all kinds of error, thus the
    probable trouble.
    
    jeff

>Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
>saved. 

>Jim
    
    Hi Jim,
    
    What does this say about election vs. free will, if anything?  It
    simply states a fact as far as I can tell. Or are you being a good
    noter and responding to the topic at hand, instead of this rathole, by 
    saying that only those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, 
    not everyone?
    
    jeff  

Hi Peter,
    
>And lastly, wrt RE: .18, if it makes more sense to you, based on the whole 
>counsel of God, that "all" and "world" should NOT be taken literally in 
>1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16, and the 1 John passages, I would appreciate and 
>find it most interesting to study the Scriptural references you've put 
>together to come to this conclusion.

>In His Love,

>Peter (who won't be back until Thursday).

    I'll provide some Scripture and discussion for you to look into and
    ponder in the not-too-distant future.
    
    jeff  

    RE: .29
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Good to hear from you.  Does this mean you haven't written me off as a
    looney tune? :-)
    
    Would you agree with, or at least appreciate, what I said in notes
    795.413&422?  Those notes document the gist of how I perceive the Holy
    Spirit's work in my life.
    
    /Wayne

>         <<< Note 847.29 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    Mike stated emphatically and unequivocally that the Bible should be
>    taken literally, within context, at all times.  My point is that the
    
    You misquoted me.
    
================================================================================
Note 847.17                 Salvation for everyone ?                    17 of 32
OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                 5 lines  12-JAN-1996 15:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bible *IS* meant to be taken LITERALLY, WITHIN CONTEXT, except where
    the Holy Spirit says He's being figurative.  Patricia's "all" and God's
    "world" have nothing in common.
    
>    context is the whole Bible, not just the immediate passage.  If there    
    
    I've said this several times as well in here.
    
    Mike

    
>    Good to hear from you.  Does this mean you haven't written me off as a
>    looney tune? :-)
    
 
    Of course I haven't "written you off"!  What a preposterous idea!!!
      
    >Would you agree with, or at least appreciate, what I said in
    >notes 795.413&422?  Those notes document the gist of how I perceive the 
    >Holy Spirit's work in my life.
    
    >/Wayne
    
    Yes, I would agree and appreciate in large measure!
    
    jeff

    RE: .38
    
    WRONGHEADED - Persistently and stubbornly wrong.
    
    How so, Jeff?  You use very strong words, and that's how I infer you
    deem me a looney tune.
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .40
    
    Thank you, Jill2.
    
    I regret that not all see value in reconciling their thoughts with
    God's Word such that His Word in fact expresses their thoughts.
    
    Anyway, to other readers, my intent was not to take over this topic.  I
    thought there would be much value in a repository of only Scripture
    related to this topic (Salvation for everyone ?), in particular.
    
    By all means, those who feel I'm wrongheaded, offer your opinions.  I
    intend to neither affirm nor refute opinions, but others certainly may. 
    This is a public conference.
    
    /Wayne

    
    Hi Wayne,
    
    As I told you privately, Orthodox Christian doctrines are more than
    citing Scripture, they are more like summaries of Scripture.  
    
    I am doubtful that such an exercise will demonstrate anything conclusively
    except that some folks' have access to electronic Bibles and some
    don't. ;)
    
    jeff

    Wayne, don't let Jeff discourage you from trying to condense all this
    into something meaningful.  I'd love to see an attempt.
    
    Jill2

Chapter V

Of Providence

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold,1 direct,
dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,2 from the
greatest even to the least,3 by His most wise and holy providence,4
according to His infallible foreknowledge,5 and the free and
immutable counsel of His own will,6 to the praise of the glory of
His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.7

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God,
the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;8
yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according
to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or
contingently.9

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,10 yet is
free to work without,11 above,12 and against them,13 at His pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness
of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it
extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels
and men;14 and that not by a bare permission,15 but such as has
joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,16 and otherwise
ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His
own holy ends;17 yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only
from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and
righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.18

V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes
leave, for a season, His own children to manifold temptations, and
the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their
former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of
corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be
humbled;19 and, to raise them to a more close and constant depen
dence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more
watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other
just and holy ends.20

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous
Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden,21 from them He not
only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened
in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts;22 but
sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,23 and exposes
them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;24
and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of
the world, and the power of Satan,25 whereby it comes to pass that
they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for
the softening of others.26

VII. As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all crea
tures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His
Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.27

_______________________________
1 HEB 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory,
and the express image of his person, and upholding all
things by the word of his power, when he had by
himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high.
2 DAN 4:34 And at the end of the days I
Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and
mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the
most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth
for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as
nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the
army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the
earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him,
What doest thou? PSA 135:6 Whatsoever the Lord
pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the
seas, and all deep places. ACT 17:25 Neither is
worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any
thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and
all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations
of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and
hath determined the times before appointed, and the
bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek
the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find
him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For
in him we live, and move, and have our being; as
certain also of your own poets have said, For we are
also his offspring. JOB 38-41.
3 MAT 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a
farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground
without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your
head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye
are of more value than many sparrows.
4 PRO 15:3 The eyes of the Lord are in every place,
beholding the evil and the good. PSA 104:24 O Lord,
how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made
them all: the earth is full of thy riches. 145:17 The
Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his
works.
5 ACT 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from
the beginning of the world. PSA 94:8 Understand, ye
brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye
be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?
he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that
chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that
teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The Lord
knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
6 EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestinated according to the
purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will. PSA 33:10 The Lord bringeth
the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the
devices of the people of none effect. 11 The counsel
of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his
heart to all generations.
7 ISA 63:14 As a beast goeth down into the valley,
the Spirit of the Lord caused him to rest: so didst
thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.
EPH 3:10 To the intent that now unto the
principalities and powers in heavenly places might be
known by the church the manifold wisdom of God. ROM
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might
shew my power in thee, and that my name might be
declared throughout all the earth. GEN 45:7 And God
sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the
earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
PSA 145:7 They shall abundantly utter the memory of
thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy
righteousness.
8 ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and
by wicked hands have crucified and slain.
9 GEN 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and
harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and
day and night shall not cease. JER 31:35 Thus saith
the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and
the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves
thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: EXO 21:13
And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into
his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he
shall flee. DEU 19:5 As when a man goeth into the wood
with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth
a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the
head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his
neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of
those cities, and live: 1KI 22:28 And Micaiah said, If
thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken
by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of
you. 34 And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and
smote the king of Israel between the joints of the
harness: wherefore he said unto the driver of his
chariot, Turn thine hand, and carry me out of the
host; for I am wounded. ISA 10:6 I will send him
against an hypocritical nation, and against the people
of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the
spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down
like the mire of the streets. 7 Howbeit he meaneth not
so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his
heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
10 ACT 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and to the
soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be
saved. 44 And the rest, some on boards, and some on
broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass,
that they escaped all safe to land. ISA 55:10 For as
the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and
maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed
to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my
word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that
which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it. HOS 2:21 And it shall come to pass
in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord, I will hear
the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; 22 And the
earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil;
and they shall hear Jezreel.
11 HOS 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of
Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and
will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by
battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. MAT 4:4 But he
answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God. JOB 34:10 Therefore hearken unto
me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that
he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that
he should commit iniquity.
12 ROM 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he
considered not his own body now dead, when he was
about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness
of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of
God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving
glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what
he had promised, he was able also to perform.
13 2KI 6:6 And the man of God said, Where fell it?
And he shewed him the place. And he cut down a stick,
and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim. DAN
3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the
king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these
men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was
an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats
changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
14 ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in
unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33 O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge
of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his
ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind
of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 2SA 24:1
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go,
number Israel and Judah. 1CH 21:1 And Satan stood up
against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
1KI 22:22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And
he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit
in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou
shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do
so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a
lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets,
and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1CH
10:4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy
sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these
uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer
would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a
sword, and fell upon it. 2SA 16:10 And the king said,
What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let
him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse
David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done
so? ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and
by wicked hands have crucified and slain: ACT 4:27 For
of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou
hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with
the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered
together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy
counsel determined before to be done.
15 ACT 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations
to walk in their own ways.
16 PSA 76:10 Surely the wrath of man shall praise
thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. 2KI
19:28 Because thy rage against me and thy tumult is
come up into mine ears, therefore I will put my hook
in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will
turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.
17 GEN 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against
me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as
it is this day, to save much people alive. ISA 10:6 I
will send him against an hypocritical nation, and
against the people of my wrath will I give him a
charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and
to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 7
Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart
think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut
off nations not a few. 12 Wherefore it shall come to
pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work
upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the
fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and
the glory of his high looks.
18 JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,
neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is
tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is
from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning. 1JO 2:16 For all that is in the world, the
lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
world. PSA 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I
kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether
such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and
set them in order before thine eyes.
19 2CH 32:25 But Hezekiah rendered not again
according to the benefit done unto him; for his heart
was lifted up: therefore there was wrath upon him, and
upon Judah and Jerusalem. 26 Notwithstanding Hezekiah
humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of
the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.
31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the
princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of
the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to
try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.
2SA 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel, and he moved David against them to
say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
20 2CO 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above
measure through the abundance of the revelations,
there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the
messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be
exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the
Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he
said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my
strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly
therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that
the power of Christ may rest upon me. PSA 77:1 I cried
unto God with my voice, even unto God with my voice;
and he gave ear unto me. 10 And I said, This is my
infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right
hand of the most High. 12 I will meditate also of all
thy work, and talk of thy doings. (cf. MAR 14:66-72
with JOH 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to
Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more
than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest
that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed
my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved
because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all
things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith
unto him, Feed my sheep.
21 ROM 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonour their own bodies between themselves. 26 For
this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature. 28 And even as they did not
like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not convenient. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election
hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the
spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and
ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
22 DEU 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart
to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto
this day.
23 MAT 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be
given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he
hath. 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be
given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that
hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
24 DEU 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let
us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his
spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might
deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. 2KI
8:12 And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he
answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do
unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt
thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay
with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip
up their women with child. 13 And Hazael said, But
what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
great thing? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath shewed
me that thou shalt be king over Syria.
25 PSA 81:11 But my people would not hearken to my
voice; and Israel would none of me. 12 So I gave them
up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in
their own counsels. 2TH 2:10 And with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that
they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not
the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
26 EXO 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and
multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he
hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as
the Lord had said. 32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart
at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
2CO 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To
the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to
the other the savour of life unto life. And who is
sufficient for these things? ISA 8:14 And he shall be
for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for
a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a
gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
1PE 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is
precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the
stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made
the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at
the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were
appointed. ISA 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this
people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye
indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their heart, and
convert, and be healed. ACT 28:26 Saying, Go unto this
people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not
understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and
their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have
they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and
hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and should be converted, and I should heal them.
27 1TI 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is
the Saviour of all men, specially of those that
believe. AMO 9:8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are
upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from
off the face of the earth; saving that I will not
utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. 9
For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of
Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a
sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the
earth. ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work
together for good to them that love God, to them who
are the called according to his purpose. ISA 43:3 For
I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and
Seba for thee. 4 Since thou wast precious in my sight,
thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee:
therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy
life. 5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy
seed from the east, and gather thee from the west. 14
Thus saith the Lord, your redeemer, the Holy One of
Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have
brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans,
whose cry is in the ships.

Back to document index

Original file name:WCF05

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.

    RE: .43
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Actually, I meant the exercise to be taken seriously in terms of time
    taken.  I had hoped folks would think on these things at home,
    certainly not spontaneously.  That's not to discourage those who've
    committed vast amounts of Scripture to memory, rather to affirm folks
    like me who need some time to examine the Word and meditate such that
    His Word expresses the desire of their heart.
    
    Would you not agree that "Salvation for everyone?" is a topic worthy of
    great deliberation?
    
    I was perhaps misguided in that I assumed time spent gaining God's
    perspective through His Word by the Holy Spirit was noble.  My own
    desire is that the doctrine I understand is understood with words God
    Himself uses.  I admit the difficulty presented in just quoting
    Scripture to others, but I want my own mind to think God's thoughts.
    
    Make sense?
    
    By the way, after consulting with a couple moderators, I'm inclinded to
    open a new topic in which only Scripture is used related to this topic.
    That way, those who are put off for any reason by my request in this
    topic can freely contribute here without feeling like they're somehow
    violating a new conference guideline, while those who want to give the
    "use only Scripture to express your thoughts" exercise a try can do so
    there.
    
    Jeff, I hear your admonition.  You saw my request as misguided, others
    saw it as aggressive, for lack of better terms.
    
    Thanks for the feedback.
    
    /Wayne
         

    VIOLATIONS GALORE!
    
    - Westminster Confession is not God's Word
    - No adding to scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6)
    - > 100 lines

    Actually Wayne,
    
    I've been blessed by your inputs don't be discouraged.
    
    Jeff B., I'm shocked!

In the original note .35, Wayne Parker asked some questions, and requested
that all responses consist of scripture only - no personal commentary.

There was some subsequent discussion in this note as to whether that was an
appropriate request.  Wayne has begun a new note (note 853), which continues
that discussion on that basis.  The notes which followed that thread have
been moved there.  The notes talking about why it is/isn't a good idea have
been left here.

Enjoy.

Paul

    Wayne -
    
    I think a new topic is a great idea.  
    
    I'm glad you said that it was ok to take time.  I prefer it that way 
    too.  Perhaps I'll post another after some more thought.  However, 
    I've actually been studying this topic lately so my original input 
    is mostly from that and represents time and thought already.  
    Otherwise I could never have generated it that fast! :-)
                                                       
    Jill2  

    
    Hi Nancy,
        
    >Jeff B., I'm shocked!
    
    Really?!!  Truly shocked??!!!  I know it was an excessively long entry
    but I just didn't know if I should break it up or not, you know, into
    several notes and all.  And I did indeed fret over it for a small
    amount of time.  But I guess my human frailty enabled me to enter that
    note which was clearly over the guideline. Do you think there's any
    hope for me at'all?  
    
    jeff

|    The doctrine of predestination is one of the most debated in 
|    Christianity.

** Yes it is!  How sad that such an awesome act of God whereby He guarantees
   the destiny of those who believe in Jesus Christ has been warped by our
   Enemy to actually divide the body of Christ! :-(
    
|    Predestination says basically that we were chosen by salvation by God.

** I'm torn in responding because I don't want to argue.  But this under-
   standing is not one with which I would be comfortable.  I've found comfort
   in the following:

   Election is the act of God by which I was chosen to be His son.

   Predestination is the act of God whereby He guaranteed that I will be
   made like Jesus Christ to stand without sin before God.

   In other words, Election and Predestination are God's sovereign act on
   my behalf as a believer whose faith is placed in Jesus the Christ of God.

   GOD CHOSE ME AND GUARANTEED MY DESTINY TO LIVE WITH HIM FOREVER!  That, to
   me, is the focus and power of the three-fold doctrine of foreknowledge,
   election and predestination.
    
|    Free Will says that we can choose.

** Mind boggling!  That God can and will finish His work in me even if I mess
   up.  I chose Jesus and I have eternal life.  Hallelujah!  But God chose me
   a sinner, before I knew Him, before I was born, and in Christ does all that
   I cannot do for myself.  He is making me righteous, not because I deserve
   His favor, but because He loves me.  Amen!
    
|    There is also the possibility with many things in scripture that 
|    two seemingly opposing doctrines can coexist - although there is a 
|    tension between the two both can be equally true at the same time. 
|    This is true all over scripture.

** Our free will and God's sovereign will can coexist, even in our minds, as
   we come to grasp the infinite God who was, is and always shall be.  How
   can we affirm God to be infinite without accepting that He comprehends the
   seemingly infinite possibilities presented by free will in finite people
   WITHOUT FORCING THEIR ACTION?

   /Wayne

    RE: .50
    
    Jeff, this is between you and Nancy, but I'm impelled to note one
    thing:
    
    If there's hope for me, then there's gotta be hope for you! :-)
    And there's hope for Nancy, so things are lookin' good for there bein'
    hope for you. :-)
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .25
    
    Perhaps one of the smallest books written by a man has had a most
    profound impact on my life.  I can only thank God that He allowed me to
    encounter the author of this book in a small church in the small rural
    town of my childhood, and that because this man was a close personal
    friend of the pastor of my small rural church.  Coincidence, or the
    grace of God?  I don't know if this book is even in print now.  The
    copy I have is at least 35 years old!
    
    The book is entitled "Subjects of Sovereignty."  The author is Pastor
    Andrew Telford.  Andy Telford was a highly esteemed professor who chose
    to be called Pastor.  That in itself provides insight into this man's
    heart!  The subjects he addresses are:  Adoption; Predestination;
    Election; and Foreknowledge.
    
    Let me quote portions of his preface:
    
      "It is dangerous for God to give high truth to highly educated people.
    There is danger that in the furtherance of that truth it becomes mixed with
    an alloy of human wisdom. It pleased God on that first Christmas morning to
    give high truth to humble men, even shepherds in the fields.
    
      "These truths of Sovereignty are usually dealt with in the classroom
    of colleges and seminaries only. In these places they are subjects of
    theology. They are not dealt with in such a way that the average man or
    woman in the 'work-a-day-world' can understand them with any measure of
    intelligence, or even personal blessing for their own soul.
    
      "I am not presenting these subjects for students in the theological
    workshop, but for the average Christian who sits in the church pew to
    hear the word of God presented with a spiritual application for the
    heart and soul. I trust that the reading and the study of these
    subjects as set forth in this volume will somehow help the person who
    has an open mind to understand more clearly the Bible. I have
    endeavored to present in the most simple way these blessed truths, so
    that the common people will hear and understand.
    
      "The average Christian has been led to believe that these subjects
    are beyond his mental comprehension and spiritual understanding.
    Surely, if they are Bible subjects, the Spirit of God will help the
    humblest believer to understand something of their spiritual meaning
    and also to derive something of practical help for daily living from
    them.
    
      "After having spoken on these subjects to my own congregation...and
    having referred to them at different times in Bible Conference
    addresses, I have been asked by a number of Christians to present these
    four subjects in book form for the benefit of the Christian public.
    
      "In the presentation of them, I make no attempt to pose as either a
    scholar or an author, but am trying as a servant of Christ to present
    some subjects that have been much misunderstood by so many...I trust as
    this book goes forward it will bring joy and peace to the hearts of
    God's people, and the renewed assurance that 'He doeth ALL things
    well.'"
    
    Definitions submitted by Dr. Telford:
    
    "ADOPTION is a definite act of God whereby God sets a goal for the
    believer.  Adoption means to be "Son-placed", not "son-made".  You are
    made a son the moment you are saved by God's grace.  Now, as a son
    there are certain privileges and benefits God by His sovereign acts has
    provided for those who are saved. <You one day will be Son-placed.>"
    
    "PREDESTINATION is a divine act of God whereby God makes that
    goal--Adoption, or Son-placing--certain for the believer. 
    Predestination is God doing something beforehand, and doing something
    about or concerning, or relative to, the farthest extent. 
    Predestination does not deal with anything in between these two
    points."
    
    "ELECTION is a divine act of God, whereby God, for reasons known only to
    Himself, in the blessing of mankind, sets to one side all firsts, and
    chooses all seconds.  Election is not God choosing or electing some to
    be saved and some to be lost. To say God chooses some to be saved and
    some to be lost is nothing more than heresay, and is charging God with
    doing something that He cannot do, because He has provided salvation
    for every man. To say that God has chosen or elected some to be lost
    would limit the atonement of Jesus Christ. That is one of the duties of
    the devil to try to limit the work of Christ on the Cross. It labels
    God as a respecter of persons, and that leads one to beleive that the
    Holy Spirit only deals with certain people, that is, those who are
    chosen or elected to be saved; and that the Spirit of God never deals
    with others. If God chose people for heaven or elected them to be
    saved, and others were chosen for hell or were elected to be lost, then
    Christ's death was not for all mankind."
    
    "FOREKNOWLEDGE is a divine attribute of God whereby God sees all things
    in the present tense.  God's Foreknowledge is the basis of His perfect
    plan of salvation. We have a salvation that is "devil-proof", so that a
    man can feel perfectly safe when he embraces Christ.  God knows the
    characteristics and the contents of the Gospel of salvation.  The
    Christian can feel perfectly safe.  God knows all about salvation, as
    well as He knows all about human sin.  <In the Godhead> of Father, Son
    and Holy Spirit was salvation devised and planned.  Every act of the
    devil, all the wickedness and weakness of the flesh, and all the power
    and attraction of the world were taken into consideration.  Men ought
    to turn from their sin and come to Jesus just as fast as they can.  God
    knows all my past.  He knows all my present.  He knows all my future. 
    With this knowledge, He has made a perfect provision.  He cares for me
    every step of the way.  God's Foreknowledge brings joy and gladness to
    the believing heart, for we know that God knows perfectly the road
    ahead, though often we do not."
    
    Anyway, Pastor Telford's book is only 71 pages.  The quotes above are
    only glimpses.  Key Scriptural support is in the book.
    
    There can be no substitute for personal study of God's Word under the
    tutelage of the Holy Spirit.  And the Holy Spirit has used different men
    and women to uniquely and powerfully open God's Word for others.  Andy
    Telford's treatment of four "Subjects of Sovereignty" helped me get
    anchored in Jesus Christ, the Rock of my salvation, when I was yet a
    child.
    
    May the Word of God dwell in us richly and keep us in perfect peace.
    
    /Wayne

    I don't understand these:
    
    >"ADOPTION is a definite act of God whereby God sets a goal for the
    >believer.  Adoption means to be "Son-placed", not "son-made".  You are
    >made a son the moment you are saved by God's grace.  Now, as a son
    >there are certain privileges and benefits God by His sovereign acts has
    >provided for those who are saved. <You one day will be Son-placed.>"
    
    So what is Son-placed?
    
    
    >"ELECTION is a divine act of God, whereby God, for reasons known only to
    >Himself, in the blessing of mankind, sets to one side all firsts, and
    >chooses all seconds.  
    
    What does first and seconds mean?
    
    
    Jill2

In the Roman and Jewish cultures, the word translated as 'adoption' doesn't
mean what we call by that term.  It meant a sort of coming of age, when the
(Roman) youth would be taken into the agora (market place), given the toga
virilis to wear, proclaimed a true son of his father, and authorised to perform
business transactions in the father's name.  A 'coming of age' in the real
sense of maturity.  What we are being taught towards by the Holy Spirit. 

'Adoption' in the sense of today's western society just doesn't compare to
being born into the family - that is how we come into God's family; by being
born again, as Nicodemus was told.  His blood runs in our veins, spiritually,
because it's His blood that cleanses us from all sin.  So to be 'born again',
and also 'adopted' (in the modern sense) doesn't really make sense!  If you
have the one, you don't need the other.  So 'adoption' has a totally different
significance. 

Interestingly, it was necessary for Jesus to be 'adopted' (in the modern sense)
by Joseph, in order that he could inherit the kingship of Israel. the family
line given in Matthew 1 includes Jeconiah, who was told that no son of his
blood line would ever reign (Jeremiah 22:24...30).  But only one of his
descendents could legally inherit the throne of Israel.  God established this
apparent anomaly in order to further limit the qualifications of the Messiah to
Jesus - not of that blood line, but 'adopted' into that precise position in the
line.  AAnd of course, Jesus was of the blood line of David, who was the last
to receive _that_ promise.  Only through his son Nathan, who did not inherit
the throne, rather than through Solomon, who did.  That's the line that leads
to Mary, as recorded in Luke 3.

God is so wonderful.... 


								Andrew 

RE: .54

|    So what is Son-placed?

** Andrew answered well in .55.

   To be Son-placed is to be like Jesus, standing before God and all creation
   as God's progeny.  We are joint heirs with God's only begotten Son.  Through
   faith in Jesus Christ, we have been born into God's family by the Holy
   Spirit.  We do not yet see all that we shall be because we do not yet see
   Jesus as He is.  When God's work in us is complete, we will be like Him,
   "holy and without blemish" for all to see.  We may not be like Jesus now--in
   fact, I am so much unlike Him.  But some day I will be like Him.  That is
   the real purpose of our Saviour.  God had in mind to have sons who would be
   like His Son.  To be Son-placed is to be like the Lord Jesus.  When we are
   son-placed, we will have new bodies.  It is future, it is certain, and it
   brings constant joy to think about, the hope that purifies, if you will.

   Many teach that the new birth and Adoption mean the same thing.  Not so.
   The new birth took place when I received Christ and became a child of God.
   Adoption will take place when I receive my glorified body.

   In .55, Andrew referred to a public act whereby a boy was son-placed, i.e.,
   he could sign his own name to legal documents and go forward with the full
   authority of a man.  This act did not make him a son--he was a son when he
   was born into his parents' family.  At a certain time/age, however, he was
   son-placed.  When born into his family, he was son-made (became an heir).
   When son-placed, he actually received the inheritance.
    
|    What does first and seconds mean?

** I don't want to entirely answer--there's just so much more to be gained in
   studying the Word of God to make this stuff your own!  But, let me give you
   the prime example to set the direction:

   "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
   obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Ro.5:19, KJV)

   "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive...The
   first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
   spirit." (1Co.15:22&45, KJV)

   "He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second." (He.10:9b,
   (KJV)

   The full thrust of the above verses can only be captured in their context,
   so please examine the surrounding verses.  Basically, the purpose of Election
   is the setting aside of all that pertains to the carnal, in order to
   establish everything that has to do with the spiritual.

/Wayne

      Wayne,
    
        I hereby award you with the recognition of...
    
        most frequent user of the word...
    
    						IMPELLED.
    
        In fact, I have not ever seen another person use it!  
        I'm finally gonna consult Webster!
    
    						Tony

    Love that Word snarf!

    Hi, Tony.
    
    Wow!  An award from Tony!  Does it get any better than that? :-)
    
    Word studies are good.  A common word people use is compel(led).  I
    think you'll appreciate the difference between being impelled and
    compelled, especially in terms of God's dealing with us.
    
    Let me know what you find (so I can be sure you really looked it up).
    :-)
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I guess I let you know what I found offline.
    
        Did I hit the nail on the head?  I'll let you be the
        judge, although that may be highly unscriptural!  ;-)
    
    					Tony

    Yes, Tony, you hit the nail on the head.  By that I mean you found
    the difference between compel and impel to be significant in the same
    way I did. :-)
    
    Words are interesting in terms of meaning, both explicit and implicit.
    I'm no expert, but I do study words and meaning.  This interest has
    been used by God to strengthen my faith because the Bible continues to
    be proven more right and reliable as I've come to understand/appreciate
    words more!
    
    /Wayne

    Hey I mix up my words all the time!  

Hi Folks,

I'm afraid the word "who(m)soever" is obviously being misunderstood in the
context of its appearance in John 3:16 as evidenced by its frequent usage
here as a proof of Scriptural support for free will or choice or universal 
offer of salvation.  And let us get it right; the passage is not "whosoever
will" but "whosoever believes".

By definition, "whosoever" is a pronoun.  As you know a pronoun is a 
relationship word which assumes the function of nouns within clauses
while referring to other locutions, within the sentence or in other
sentences.  Therefore, we must look to the context, especially the context
preceding the use of the word "whosoever" to identify for what noun the
pronoun "whosoever" is a substitution.

What stands out in my mind is that the word usage cannot under any
circumstances be ascribed the meaning of "freedom to believe", or "free
will" as is so often ascribed.  First, "whosoever" is a pronoun.  It
cannot be given the meaning "free will" or "freedom to believe" or even
"choice".  It is a pronoun substituting for someone, a person or group
of people. In our modern language it would translate to "For God so loved 
the world that He gave His one and only son that those who believe in Him 
shall not perish but have eternal life".  Let's try it with the commonly 
misused meaning. "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only 
Son that ["those with the freedom to believe"/"those with the choice to 
believe"] in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Are either of
these substitutions true to the meaning of John 3:16?  I'm rather certain 
that it is not those who have a choice to believe or who have the freedom 
to believe that will have eternal life but only "those who believe" shall 
inherit eternal life.  "Whosoever" is a pronoun for "those" who believe, 
that is, believers.

Secondly, if "whosoever" means "all have freedom to believe, a choice to
make" then the relatively clear earlier verses, providing the context in 
which we find verse 16, are contradictory to verse 16. Only several verses 
earlier Jesus has drawn a picture describing the particularization of the 
work of the Holy Spirit by describing the cause of belief (i.e. being born 
again is a work of the Holy Spirit, not of man's ability to grapple, grasp, 
and understand spiritual teaching) and by relating the predictability of the
Holy Spirit's work to the predictability of the wind, (i.e., the wind blows 
on some and not on others and we cannot ascertain where the wind came from 
nor predict where it is going.)  While the Holy Spirit's working may appear 
arbitrary to us, like the wind, of course, it is not.  But the wind does not 
blow universally.  It moves from one place to another and not to all places.
And since it is made clear here (and many other places in the Bible) that it 
is the Holy Spirit who quickens one to belief and faith it would not be 
acceptable to ascribe to "whosoever" the idea of a "freedom to believe" or 
a "choice" since this is in contradiction to the relatively clear teaching 
in John 3: that the very ability to believe is totally dependent upon the 
work of the Holy Spirit, and does not reside in man, and therefore it is 
not possible that "freedom to believe" or "choice" exists separately in man.

jeff

   
    
    

    .63
    
    If you think that is who God is, I wouldn't want anything to do with
    him.  I do not believe that God created men to go to hell.  And you can
    "semanticize" all you want [I know I made up a word] how he never did,
    but yet we really don't have any freedom of will and for me and a vast
    many others all you're showing me is an UNLOVING and UNJUST God.
    
    I don't buy it, Jeff.  I know God is not this way.  And believe me I've
    struggled like you wouldn't believe with just exactly who God is.  With
    my testimony and life you can be assured there has been anger and
    bitterness towards God there.
    
    Whosoever believes, that is what the Bible says, or those who believe,
    either way it means that there has been an action or a choice by
    someone to believe.  
    
    If you feel it comforting to have your choices removed, then okay,
    Jeff, but for me and my house we will serve the Lord of whosoever.
    
    Nancy

    re:  .63
    
    Jeff -
    
    I follow you all the way down to the conclusion.  I agree
    that you must believe to be saved.  I believe that only the
    Holy Spirit can give us faith.  However this still means that
    we have a choice.  Ace just said this in 853.7 
    
    "The fact that God knows those who "will" doesn't negate that fact
    [that we have a choice]."
    
    
    Jill
    

    It is not God's Will for anyone to perish.
    
    I'm a whosoever, Nancy is a whosoever, wouldn't you like to be a
    whosoever too? ;-)

Hi Jill,
    
>    I follow you all the way down to the conclusion.  I agree
>    that you must believe to be saved.  I believe that only the
>    Holy Spirit can give us faith.  However this still means that
>    we have a choice.  Ace just said this in 853.7 

Well, I'm pretty sure that the common idea of "having a choice" is 
contradictory with the teaching of John 3, among other passages.  An 
unbeliever cannot validly be attributed a choice of belief or unbelief if 
the power to believe is not to be found within him/herself.  Since John 3 
teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who enables us to believe, it cannot be 
said that those who do not believe have a choice.
  
>    "The fact that God knows those who "will" doesn't negate that fact
>    [that we have a choice]."
 
The fact that God knows those who "will" plus the fact that those who
will are enabled to believe by God and are unable to believe in themselves, 
eliminates any possibility that unbelievers have a choice as choice is
commonly used.
    
    jeff
    

    re .66
    
    >It is not God's Will for anyone to perish.
    Of course not.  I don't see how you got this out of my reply.  Please
    explain what I said that led you to say this.
    
    Jill

    RE: .68
    
    Hi, Jill.
    
    I think Mike was responding to Jeff, not you.
    
    /Wayne

  Hi,

     I hereby officially apply much of Nancy's eloquent ideas to another 
     popular (and equally as untru notion).   

    >If you think that is who God is, I wouldn't want anything to do with
    >him.  I do not believe that God created men to go to hell.  And you can
    >"semanticize" all you want [I know I made up a word] how he never did,
    >but yet we really don't have any freedom of will and for me and a vast
    >many others all you're showing me is an UNLOVING and UNJUST God.
    
    >I know God is not this way.
    
    >If you feel it comforting to have your choices removed, then okay,
    >Jeff, but for me and my house we will serve the Lord of whosoever.
    
    I will now rephrase it for the notion I speak of.  That would be that
    God PREFERS that the lost suffer eternal conscious torment rather than
    their eventual nonexistence.  That He PREFERS the eternal existence
    of the lost, of sin, and of agony.

    If you think that is who God is, I wouldn't want anything to do with
    him.  I do not believe that God designed it that those who chose not
    to be with Him suffer eternal conscious torment.  And all that this 
    horrible notion shows us is an UNLOVING and UNJUST God.

    I know God is not this way.
    
						Tony

    .70
    
    Can you see my little tongue sticking out at you? :-)

    
    Dear Nancy,
    
    Are you willing to bring all of your knowledge captive to the Word of
    God?  Are you willing to discard that which cannot withstand the
    scrutiny of His Word?  Are you willing to let God's Word be the final
    arbiter to what is true about Himself, about humanity, and about you?
    If you will not then your feelings and personal beliefs are to be
    the arbiter of what is true and what is not true.
    
    I would remind you that the standard for this conference is the Bible.
    
    jeff

Jeff, how does Romans 10:13 figure into your explanation of John 3:16?
It would appear to that the "whosoever" in this verse make a choice to
call or not to call on the name of the Lord.




Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be 
saved. 

| <<< Note 847.67 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| unbeliever cannot validly be attributed a choice of belief or unbelief if
| the power to believe is not to be found within him/herself.  

	If that were the case, could you have been saved? Could anyone? A lot
of people do start out as unbelievers. But God does not give up on them. But 
each step of the way, the unbeliever has a choice to make. They could decide to
listen and change, or deny and stay an unbeliever. 

| The fact that God knows those who "will" plus the fact that those who
| will are enabled to believe by God and are unable to believe in themselves,
| eliminates any possibility that unbelievers have a choice as choice is
| commonly used.

	Jeff, since you have been saved, have you EVER made a choice, a
decision, based on your own feelings? If so, it should help prove that the
above is not true. We're human beings, not God. Until we lose the flesh, we
can't be like you described above. We can try...but until we're perfect, we 
will never achieve it.


Glen

    The way I see it is that you have to look at it from *our* view.
    We are the ones living out this life.  To us, we don't know the
    outcome.  We have many choices.  It just so happens that the 
    choices we will make are all known by God.  But since we
    cannot see the whole picture, we must still live this life by 
    making choices.  So although it is true that the ability to
    choose Jesus is a gift from God, since we don't know the future, it 
    seems to us that we have choices.
    
    I suppose I will have to address the point that this says that it is
    God's will that some are not saved.  The way I see it is that the 
    darkness in the world is necessary to make the light shine clearer.  
    God doesn't like this either, it grieves Him greatly.  But it is 
    necessary.  The refining fire.  
    
    
    Jill
    

      "Many are called, but few are chosen."
    
      "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God."
    
      The many is everyone, both saved and lost.  All are called.
      The chosen are those who choose God.  Election is according 
      to God's foreknowledge.
                   
    						Tony
    
      P.S. Nance, I couldn't resist!  But, let me add that I sincerely
           believe I submitted myself to the word on that matter and
           that is what the word showed me, i.e. in the way as Jeff so 
           well put in his reply to Nancy.

Hi Jim,

>Jeff, how does Romans 10:13 figure into your explanation of John 3:16?
>It would appear to that the "whosoever" in this verse make a choice to
>call or not to call on the name of the Lord.

Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved."

The usage is exactly the same as in John 3:16.  "Whosoever" is a pronoun
which must properly refer to a person (who), not an idea or a non-living
thing.  The meaning in modern language has to be, "For those who shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  Who shall be saved?  Those who 
"have a choice" of calling on the name of the Lord?  No, only "those who
call" upon the name of the Lord.

I ask you Jim, why is this such a difficult subject?  Why is the idea of
a "universal offer of salvation" so important to you?

jeff

      Isn't there a verse that says God takes no pleasure in the
      death of the wicked?
    
      Assuming Jeff's view, if I understand it correctly, God wills
      the death of the wicked.  I will also assume that all of God's
      will is perfect and thus it must be self-evidently pleasurable
      to Him.
    
      How then can God take no pleasure?
    
    						Tony

    >I ask you Jim, why is this such a difficult subject?  Why is the idea
    >of a "universal offer of salvation" so important to you?
    I can answer this.  Jim has the gift of evangelism and it pains him
    to see lost souls.
    
    Jill
    

    
    Jill,
    
    I commend you for your willingness to dialogue on this subject and even
    modify your view when necessary in light of greater Biblical knowledge.
    I don't think you have yet quite fully absorbed the truth of John 3 as
    it relates to "choice" but I think you're farther along than some of
    our contemporaries here.  I applaud your attitude and spirit.
    
    jeff
    

    Hi Tony,
    
>      Isn't there a verse that says God takes no pleasure in the
>      death of the wicked?
 
    I don't know, is there?
       
    >  Assuming Jeff's view, if I understand it correctly, God wills
    >  the death of the wicked.  I will also assume that all of God's
    >  will is perfect and thus it must be self-evidently pleasurable
    >  to Him.
    
    First off Tony, is there anything about my "view" as expressed in
    the earlier note that is an improper analysis or representation of 
    John 3?  Secondly, if the Bible says God takes no pleasure in the death 
    of the wicked it is inappropriate for you to conclude that He does take 
    pleasure.
    
    It is simple to understand how God feels no pleasure at the
    death of the wicked.  When I learn of the wicked's life being taken,
    for example in a capital punishment case, I take no pleasure in it 
    myself. But that doesn't diminish my desire or appreciation for justice.
    
    Each of us should remember often that the righteous judgement against
    each of our lives is death and hell.  It is only God's grace and 
    mercy, in the Person of Jesus Christ, in which we have escaped our
    just end. Those who do not receive God's grace are no less 
    guilty than we for their own lives and sins.
    
    jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        One problem Jeff, is accountability.
    
        People are punished because they are accountable.  They are
        responsible.
    
        Explain to me how a person is responsible if he is born into
        the world a sinner, stands outside of the grace of God (assuming
        your view that God 'wills' the lost state of the lost) and
        thus cannot do anything but sin (i.e. lacks the ability to
        choose otherwise), and dies lost because God never willed for
        His salvation?
    
        Doesn't justice for one's life imply the choice to have lived
        a different life (i.e. personal responsibility/accountability)?
    
        How can someone deserve to be punished for what he is if he never 
        had the choice to be something other than what he is?
    
        Quite honestly, I don't really enter into the 'fray' a whole
        lot on this subject because it is so divorced, in my mind, from
        anything remotely close to a right conception of who God is
        according to His Word.
    
    							Tony

    I have a question, and PLEASE I don't mean to sound argumentative.
    I notice, particularly in this file, that often there are differences
    of opinion due to the various Faiths. Thats OK it makes interesting
    discussion. I think everyone that participates here believes that they
    are saved because we have accepted Jesus as our Savior and try to
    follow in His steps. If this is true, than where and how we worship
    should no make a difference. Do each of us truly believe that we belong
    to the true faith? I do (I'm Catholic). But if you are a Baptist,
    Mormon etc. etc. you probably feel the same about your own faith or you
    wouldn't belong to that particular religion.
    
    My point, in the end, i'm sure there will be a variety people from many
    different religions in Heaven so maybe we should not tear each others
    ways of worship apart because we really don't know which one of us is
    entirety correct.
    
    Terri
    

    Re: whosoever in John 3:16, Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32)
    
    I've checked Strong's for the Greek (same word in both places), the
    Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, several mainstream Protestant
    commentaries from respected scholars, and none of them support Jeff's
    exclusive eisegesis.  The Greek, which is a very strongly-typed, legal
    language, uses a word that is very non-exclusive.  God's salvation is
    AVAILABLE to ANYONE.
    
    Mike

    Hi Terri!  I agree with you and have written notes in here as well
    along the same lines.
    
    :-)  Nice to see you still around.

        Tony,
         
        >Explain to me how a person is responsible if he is born into
        >the world a sinner, stands outside of the grace of God (assuming
        >your view that God 'wills' the lost state of the lost) and
        >thus cannot do anything but sin (i.e. lacks the ability to
        >choose otherwise), and dies lost because God never willed for
        >His salvation?

	Paul answers this questions for us without equivocation in his
	letter to the Roman church, chapter nine setting the context.
	He responds to your very question above in verse 19:
	
	"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For
	who resists His will?"  On the contrary, who are you, O man,
	who answers back to God?  The thing molded will not say to
	the molder, "Why did you make me like this, " will it?  Or
	does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from
	the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for
	common use?  What if God, although willing to demonstrate His
	wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience
	vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  And He did so in
	order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon
	vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even
	us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also
	among Gentiles..."
	
        >Quite honestly, I don't really enter into the 'fray' a whole
        >lot on this subject because it is so divorced, in my mind, from
        >anything remotely close to a right conception of who God is
        >according to His Word.
    
    	>						Tony

	Tony, many of your conceptions of God *according to His Word* are
	completely contradictory to orthodox Christianity.  It is no wonder
	you do not enter the fray on such a subject for this is a deep and
	important subject which you cannot accept as long as you hold onto
	those other strange conceptions.

	jeff

    >Re: whosoever in John 3:16, Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32)
    
    >I've checked Strong's for the Greek (same word in both places), the
    >Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, several mainstream Protestant
    >commentaries from respected scholars, and none of them support Jeff's
    >exclusive eisegesis.  The Greek, which is a very strongly-typed, legal
    >language, uses a word that is very non-exclusive.  God's salvation is
    >AVAILABLE to ANYONE.
    
    >Mike
    
    C'mon Mike.  Please offer a little better critique than the above. 
    
    God's salvation cannot in reality be AVAILABLE to ANYONE according to
    His Word.  For all intents and purposes, we should consider it available to
    anyone and everyone and we should preach to all without partiality. 
    But it is clear from Scripture that man has no power in himself to
    choose salvation. Only God's working in man's heart enables a man to
    believe.  And with this truth in mind it is clear that those on who God
    does not shed His saving grace will never choose, indeed have no
    capacity to choose God's salvation in Jesus Christ.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 847.78 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I ask you Jim, why is this such a difficult subject?  Why is the idea of
| a "universal offer of salvation" so important to you?

	I'm not Jim, but I feel compelled to answer..... God is for everyone,
so why wouldn't the opportunity for salvation be universal?

| <<< Note 847.81 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I commend you for your willingness to dialogue on this subject and even
| modify your view when necessary in light of greater Biblical knowledge.

	Is the above, "greater Biblical knowledge" in reference to you? I hope
not. Cuz if it is, then aren't you boasting a bit? I mean, how can you know
what Jill's level of Biblical knowledge is?



Glen

    
    Well, so far I've gotten two answers from two people both claiming not
    to be Jim.  Are you two really muppets? ;)
    
    jeff

	Jim is the muppett man.... :-)

| I commend you for your willingness to dialogue on this subject and even
| modify your view when necessary in light of greater Biblical knowledge.

>	Is the above, "greater Biblical knowledge" in reference to you? I hope
>not. Cuz if it is, then aren't you boasting a bit? I mean, how can you know
>what Jill's level of Biblical knowledge is?

    Glen, I should have said, "greater Biblical evidence".  I was certainly
    not boasting.
    
    jeff

>      Isn't there a verse that says God takes no pleasure in the
>      death of the wicked?
    
    yes there is, Tony.  At least 3 that I know of.
    
    Ezekiel 18:32, 33:11, and of course 2 Peter 3:9
    
    Mike

>         <<< Note 847.88 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    
>    God's salvation cannot in reality be AVAILABLE to ANYONE according to
>    His Word.  For all intents and purposes, we should consider it available to
>    anyone and everyone and we should preach to all without partiality. 
>    But it is clear from Scripture that man has no power in himself to
>    choose salvation. Only God's working in man's heart enables a man to
>    believe.  And with this truth in mind it is clear that those on who God
>    does not shed His saving grace will never choose, indeed have no
>    capacity to choose God's salvation in Jesus Christ.
    
    Jeff, this would be true only if God didn't draw all to Him and give
    everyone to opportunity to take advantage of the salvation He made
    available.  However, He does draw all to Him.  He may not do it
    forever, He may only attempt to draw someone a few times, but the fact
    remains that He draws everyone.  Free will determines what you do with
    the Spirit's wooing.
    
    Mike

    re: .81
    
    Jeff,
    
    >I don't think you have yet quite fully absorbed the truth of John 3 as
    >it relates to "choice"
    
    Please explain further.
    
    
    Jill
    

| <<< Note 847.93 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Glen, I should have said, "greater Biblical evidence".  I was certainly
| not boasting.

	Cool. Btw, it appears you're the only one who believes as you do....

>                    -< God wishes that all would be saved >-

Mike, the God of the Bible does not "wish".  Everything He does He performs
in the perfect council of His own will according to His own purposes.  I'm
afraid that the common idea of Him wishing or desiring, and not getting, is 
indicative of our ignorance of the Scriptures and what they say about Him.

>    God's salvation cannot in reality be AVAILABLE to ANYONE according to
>    His Word.  For all intents and purposes, we should consider it available to
>    anyone and everyone and we should preach to all without partiality. 
>    But it is clear from Scripture that man has no power in himself to
>    choose salvation. Only God's working in man's heart enables a man to
>    believe.  And with this truth in mind it is clear that those on who God
>    does not shed His saving grace will never choose, indeed have no
>    capacity to choose God's salvation in Jesus Christ.
    
    >Jeff, this would be true only if God didn't draw all to Him and give
    >everyone to opportunity to take advantage of the salvation He made
    >available. However, He does draw all to Him.  He may not do it
    >forever, He may only attempt to draw someone a few times, but the fact
    >remains that He draws everyone.  Free will determines what you do with
    >the Spirit's wooing.
    
    >Mike

    Please provide a Scriptural basis for your following assertions.
    And please explain how the Scripture you cite may be reconciled with 
    Romans 9:all and John 3 (verses prior to 16):
	
	- God draws all to Him.
		- and how does God draw all to Him?
	- God draws all to Him only intermittently.
	- That we have a free will.
	- How this free will enables us to choose salvation.
	- That the Holy Spirit woos us to salvation.

    jeff

 

	>Cool. Btw, it appears you're the only one who believes as you do....
    
    Appearances are deceiving, Glen.
    
    jeff

 This Jim has been in meetings and hasn't time to answer, and likely 
 won't for the rest of the day.




 Jim

    >re: .81
    
    >Jeff,
    
    >>I don't think you have yet quite fully absorbed the truth of John 3 as
    >>it relates to "choice"
    
    >Please explain further.
    
    
    >Jill
    
    
    Hi Jill,

    You said earlier:

    >The way I see it is that you have to look at it from *our* view.
    >We are the ones living out this life.  To us, we don't know the
    >outcome.  We have many choices.  It just so happens that the 
    >choices we will make are all known by God.  But since we
    >cannot see the whole picture, we must still live this life by 
    >making choices.  So although it is true that the ability to
    >choose Jesus is a gift from God, since we don't know the future, it 
    >seems to us that we have choices.

    It does appear that you do indeed understand that the ability to 
    believe on Christ is provided by the Holy Spirit and is not inherent
    in man's power.  This is most important.  But what I'm not sure you've
    fully understood/accepted is that a seeming choice, which you allude
    to, is not the same as a real and actual choice.  The idea that man
    has an actual, real choice, rather than a seeming choice, is what
    others are defending here in contradiction to the Scriptures. 

    >I suppose I will have to address the point that this says that it is
    >God's will that some are not saved.  The way I see it is that the 
    >darkness in the world is necessary to make the light shine clearer.  
        
    This is a decent summation of Romans 9:19-2x and I'm pleased that you
    offered it.

    jeff
    

    re: 101
    
    Jeff,
    
    >It does appear that you do indeed understand that the ability to 
    >believe on Christ is provided by the Holy Spirit and is not inherent
    >in man's power.  This is most important.  But what I'm not sure you've
    >fully understood/accepted is that a seeming choice, which you allude
    >to, is not the same as a real and actual choice.  The idea that man
    >has an actual, real choice, rather than a seeming choice, is what
    >others are defending here in contradiction to the Scriptures. 
    
    Yes I actually understand/accept this.  Well accepting is sort of
    a continuing process...  What I'm trying to explain is why, accepting
    all this, there is a point to living this life.  Can you explain this
    any better than I tried to?
    
    Jill
    

    
    Jill, I don't quite understand your question.  But let's keep trying
    'til I do. ;)  I can be thick sometimes.
    
    jeff

    "Seek the Lord while He is present, call to Him while He is close at hand.
    Let the wicked abandon their ways and the evil their thoughts: let them
    return to the Lord, who will take pity on them, and to our God, for He
    will freely forgive."

    Isaiah 55:6-7

    At least some choices must be open to us, for God asks us to make choices.

    This question of freewill versus God's sovereignty has been discussed 
    many times before. You may be interested in also reading notes 94.160 
    & 683.6 by Andrew Yuille. I also have at least 1 previous note in which 
    I've contributed on this subject. Here is one relevant extract, its from
    note 683.7.

>>    Lastly, if God has boundless Love and Power, he should certainly know
>>    what we are going to do, and what's going to happen in our lives today,
>>    and tomorrow. Does human being have free-will at all, then?
>
>   Usually this issue is presented as an either/or.  For me, this is a paradox
>   where both sides are equally true and to live any other way puts a strain
>   that cannot be balanced or properly dealt with.  God is infinate, boundless
>   in existence, in knowing, in sovereignty over the totality of all that ever
>   has been, is, and ever will be.  Yet we have purpose and significance.  Our
>   choices and actions make a difference and affect the course of history, our
>   own destiny and the destiny of others as well.  Again, there are statements
>   in the Bible that put forth as true both sides of the sovereignty/free will
>   equation.  Here are a couple:
>
>   "Today I offer you the choice of life and good, or death and evil.  If
>   you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I give you this day,
>   by loving the Lord your God, conforming to His ways, and keeping His
>   commandments, statutes, and laws, then you will live and increase, and
>   the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are about to enter
>   to occupy.  But if in your heart you turn away and do not listen, and you
>   are led astray to worship other gods and serve them, I tell you here and
>   now that you will perish, and not enjoy long life in the land which you
>   will enter to occupy after crossing the Jordan.  I summon heaven and earth
>   to witness agaisnt you this day:  I offer you the choice of life or death,
>   blessing or curse."                           Deuteronomy 30:15-19
>
>   "This word of the Lord came to me: 'Before I formed you in the womb I
>   chose you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you
>   a prophet to the nations.'"                    Jeremiah 1:4-5
>
>   There are plenty more that illustrate that we have true choice and freewill,
>   and yet that God is sovereign -- God chooses and God ordains.  This issue
>   used to trouble me greatly until I realized that somewhere, somehow, these
>   two seemingly antithetical points had their meeting place and resolution
>   in the infinate God and I merely needed to live both truths.

Shalom,

Leslie

 "Choose this day whom you will serve"

I think Jill's question is, "why do we have to live this life if our
salvation has already been determined and God knows the outcome? If
we do not have free choice, if all our strings are pulled for us, what 
is the purpose of going through the puppet show of life?

I hope that my preceding reply may have helped you a little with this
question Jill.

Leslie

| <<< Note 847.99 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Appearances are deceiving, Glen.

	Yeah Jeff, I know.... 

    
    Let's not digress from the topic at hand.  The question is, "is
    salvation for everyone?".  If we maintain our focus on salvation we can
    avoid tremendous ratholes which may be implied but usually only confuse
    and obfuscate.
    
    jeff
    
    

 A comment from an outsider, it is not God who holds back salvation
 from all people, but Satan the Devil. This can be seen in 
 2 Corinthians 4:1-4 NWT "That is is why, since we have this ministry
 according to the mercy that was shown us, we do not give up; but
 we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed,
 not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but
 by making the truth maifest recommending ourselves to every human
 conscience in the sight of God. If, now, the good news we declare
 is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among
 whom the god of this system is blinding the minds of the unbelievers,
 that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ,
 who is the image of God, might not shine through." Now people will
 perish because the good news is veiled from the hearts, that is 
 Satan does all in his power to stop the good news affecting their 
 lives (compare the illustration of the sower Matthew 13:3-23) In the 
 great commision that Jesus gave to his disciples, they were to make 
 disciples of all the nations (without partiality) (Matthew 28:19,20). 
 But how can persons take life's water (the good news, compare 
 Revelation 22:17) if the message of the good news is veiled from them. 
 2 Corinthians 3:16 NWT reads "When there is a turning to Jehovah, the 
 veil is taken away." Throughout the scriptures persons are admonished
 to repent and seek God ( Matthew 4:17, Zephaniah 2:3), if a person is 
 repentent that is he turns around and thn seeks God, will He turn them 
 away?. Ofcourse not,two portions of scripture spring to mind but there 
 is probabally a lot more. Firstly Acts 10:34,35 NWT "At this Peter opened 
 his mouth and said: 'For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 
 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is 
 acceptable to him." and secondly the wonderful illustration of Jesus' 
 instructing to persevere in prayer recorded at Luke 11:5-8. Jesus then 
 comments in verses 9-13 NWT "Accordingly I say to YOU, Keep on asking, 
 and it will be given YOU, keep on seeking and YOU will find, keep on 
 knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. For everyone asking receives, 
 and anyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened. 
 Indeed, which father is there among YOU who, if his son asks for a fish, 
 will perhaps hand him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he also asks 
 for an egg, will hand him a scorpion? Therefore, if YOU, although being 
 wicked, know how to give good gifts to YOUR children, how much more so 
 will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!'"


 Last thought, Repentance is a personal choice, which no one including 
 God can make for anyone. Though he loving urges all to seek him and
 repentance. Question, can a person with an unrenpentent heart
 be saved?.

 Salvation is open to all who would repent, seek God and do His will.

 Phil.

 PS I know the NWT is not looked on favourably here, but you can always
 check with your own translation of the Bible.

RE:         <<< Note 847.78 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  Who shall be saved?  Those who 
>"have a choice" of calling on the name of the Lord?  No, only "those who
>call" upon the name of the Lord.


 Of course!  But, in order for me to call upon the name of the Lord, I must
 choose to do so, correct?  


>I ask you Jim, why is this such a difficult subject?  Why is the idea of
>a "universal offer of salvation" so important to you?


 God desires all to come to repentance and none to perish.  That tells me
 that there is a choice involved..some choose to reject Him.



 Jim

Hi Jim,

>upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."  Who shall be saved?  Those who 
>"have a choice" of calling on the name of the Lord?  No, only "those who
>call" upon the name of the Lord.
    


>> Of course!  But, in order for me to call upon the name of the Lord, I must
>> choose to do so, correct?

  No, you must not *choose* to do so; you must do so.  There is but one 
  option to be saved and that is to call upon the name of the Lord.  To be 
  saved you must call on the name of the Lord, there is no choice inherent 
  in the command.

>I ask you Jim, why is this such a difficult subject?  Why is the idea of
>a "universal offer of salvation" so important to you?


 >>God desires all to come to repentance and none to perish.  That tells me
 >>that there is a choice involved..some choose to reject Him.

 But that doesn't answer my questions.  

 Are you willing to believe that God's "desires" go unmet?  I gently ask you, 
 just what is God lacking such that He desires as we do?  And how does your 
 belief reconcile with Romans 9 and the several other passages which are 
 in contradiction with your belief that people have a "choice" to make?

 jeff
    
    p.s. I think I understand why the subject is difficult for most folks
    here, especially Baptists, but I think a healthy struggle over the
    truth is spiritually beneficial and probably unavoidable for anyone 
    whose most basic and beloved ideas are in danger of being uprooted.
    However, I reserve the right to be wrong on the answer to "why the 
    difficulty" and don't want to be presumptuous.
    

 Jeepers, maybe I'm dense or something, but I don't see the problem.  Yes,
 one MUST call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.  One MAY, as have
 many with whom I've spoken, hear the message of salvation, understand that
 they are apart from God, yet chose NOT to accept that which He has so
 freely offered us to their own destruction.

 What is the problem here?

    
    Jim,
    
    I don't think you're dense at all...stubborn maybe, which I'll be the
    last to criticise.  But you are not willing to acknowledge a contradiction 
    with Scripture in your deeply held belief.
    
    jeff

>    Please provide a Scriptural basis for your following assertions.
>    And please explain how the Scripture you cite may be reconciled with 
>    Romans 9:all and John 3 (verses prior to 16):
>	
>	- God draws all to Him.
>		- and how does God draw all to Him?
>	- God draws all to Him only intermittently.
>	- That we have a free will.
>	- How this free will enables us to choose salvation.
>	- That the Holy Spirit woos us to salvation.

Song of Solomon 1:4
Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his
 chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more
 than wine: the upright love thee.

Jeremiah 31:3
 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee
 with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Hosea 11:4
 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as
 they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

John 3:27
 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him
 from heaven.

John 6:44
 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
 I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
 except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 12:32
 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
 that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Isaiah 45:22
 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
 and there is none else.

Isaiah 55:1
 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no
 money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and
 without price.

Matthew 22:9
 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to
 the marriage.

John 7:37
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
 saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
 Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

1 Timothy 2:4
 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
 truth.

Revelation 22:17
 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say,
 Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the
 water of life freely.

Matthew 28:19
 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Luke 12:8
 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the
 Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
 thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
 springing up into everlasting life.

Acts 10:43
 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever
 believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

1 John 5:1
 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one
 that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Revelation 3:20
 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
 open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Acts 2:21
 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
 Lord shall be saved.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
 condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
 men unto justification of life.

Romans 10:13
 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Titus 2:11-12
 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
 soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Acts 10:34-35
 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is
 no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh
 righteousness, is accepted with him.

2 Peter 3:9
 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
 but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that
 all should come to repentance.

Hebrews 10:22
 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having
 our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure
 water.

James 4:8
 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye
 sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Hebrews 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first
 began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard
 him;

Hebrews 12:25
 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who
 refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn
 away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Acts 24:25
 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,
 Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a
 convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 17:30-34
 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all
 men every where to repent:  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he
 will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;
 whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
 the dead.  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked:
 and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.   So Paul departed
 from among them.  Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the
 which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others
 with them.

2 Corinthians 6:2 (Isaiah 49:8)
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of
 salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now
 is the day of salvation.)

Psalm 32:6
 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou
 mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh
 unto him.

Psalm 69:13
 But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O
 God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation.

Psalm 95:7
For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of
 his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,

Joshua 24:15
 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom
 ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the
 other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell:

John 15:4-10
 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
 except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.   I am the
 vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same
 bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  If a man abide
 not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,
 and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.  If ye abide in me, and my
 words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my
 disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in
 my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have
 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 2:6
 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he
 walked.

1 John 2:28
 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we
 may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

1 John 3:6
 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
 neither known him.

2 John 9
 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath
 not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father
 and the Son.

Matthew 10:22
 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that
 endureth to the end shall be saved.

James 1:21
 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and
 receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Romans 10:9
 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
 believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
 saved.

2 Peter 1:10-11
 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and
 election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:  For so an
 entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:14
 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to
 the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John 5:24
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on
 him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;
 but is passed from death unto life.

Romans 8:34
 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
 risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
 intercession for us.

Acts 2:21
 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
 Lord shall be saved.

Romans 5:18
 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
 condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
 men unto justification of life.

John 15:26
 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
 Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall
 testify of me:

John 16:7-14
 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
 away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
 depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the
 world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:  Of sin, because they
 believe not on me;  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me
 no more;  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.  I have yet
 many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.  Howbeit when he, the
 Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not
 speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he
 will shew you things to come.  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of
 mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 4:6
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God
 heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

| <<< Note 847.113 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I don't think you're dense at all...stubborn maybe, which I'll be the
| last to criticise.  

	Unless you think stubborn is good in this case, you have just done what
you said would be the last thing you would do. 




Glen

    Good grief, Mike!  The least you could have done was to place the
    Scriptures addressing a question underneath the question!  Since it is
    a response to my questions you won't mind me saying that it is
    basically incomprehensible at this point.  Can you organize it better?
    
    jeff

      Jeff,
    
        You're kind of seeming presumptuous to me.  You seem to be
        presuming that we (or at least many of us) are purposely/
        consciously contradicting scripture.  In this matter, you
        seem to me to be forming barriers and I think you as well
        as myself and the rest of us need to heed the admonishment
        of 1 Corin 8:2.
    
        If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet
        as he ought to know.
    
    						Tony

    
    Tony,
    
    As we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus
    Christ we are always faced with a new and/or deeper understanding 
    of the truths in the Bible.  Our response at first is often to reject 
    a new truth, at least publicly, while we privately think about it, pray 
    about it, meditate upon it, and so on.  This is especially true when a 
    truth challenges our view of the world and of God.  It would be strange 
    to me to attribute an evil motive to this experience.  It is largely the
    process we go through as we continually cast off the old and put on the
    new in the renewing of our mind.
    
    jeff 

>    Good grief, Mike!  The least you could have done was to place the
>    Scriptures addressing a question underneath the question!  Since it is
>    a response to my questions you won't mind me saying that it is
>    basically incomprehensible at this point.  Can you organize it better?
    
    The questions and references are all interrelated.  Print it out and
    read them at your leisure.  Since you put so much stock in the
    Westminister Confession, I know you can handle 280 lines of God's Word.
    
    Mike

>    Good grief, Mike!  The least you could have done was to place the
>    Scriptures addressing a question underneath the question!  Since it is
>    a response to my questions you won't mind me saying that it is
>    basically incomprehensible at this point.  Can you organize it better?
    
    >>The questions and references are all interrelated.  Print it out and
    >>read them at your leisure.
    
    >>Mike
    
    I will not, Mike.  You may feel relieved that you have entered a reply
    but I reject it.  It is a type of reply but no reasonable person would
    consider it a fair answer to my questions.
    
    jeff

    re: .-1:  Well, then, chalk me up as unreasonable!  ;-)

	Jeff, it is obvious for anyone to see that people have reviewed the
scripture you posted in a different light than you. For you to say everyone
else is wrong but you, could be a true statement. But then again, you could be
wrong. But until you get to talk to God personally, you can believe you are
correct, but you can't possibly know for sure. Why? Because of the many
different interpretations people have from reading the same piece of Scripture.


Glen

      Personal conviction is so important.  But, I will try to be
      willing to see other's convictions and maybe even allow them
      to modify my own.
    
    						Tony

Hi Glen,
    	
    >Jeff, it is obvious for anyone to see that people have reviewed the
>scripture you posted in a different light than you. 
    
    What Scripture are you referring to, Glen?  And what entries by people
    demonstrate a review of the Scripture I posted?
    
    >For you to say everyone
>else is wrong but you, could be a true statement. 
    
    Where did I say this, Glen?
    
    >But then again, you could be
>wrong. 
    
    Since I didn't say everyone else is wrong its impossible for me
    to be wrong.
    
    >But until you get to talk to God personally, you can believe you are
>correct, but you can't possibly know for sure. Why? Because of the many
>different interpretations people have from reading the same piece of Scripture.

>Glen
    
    Sorry Glen but your idea of knowledge is about as worldly as it gets
    and your view is not shared by Bible-believing Christians.  We believe
    that what we could never figure out or come to understand about God,
    His world, salvation, and ourselves He has provided for us in His Word.
    
    And there aren't "many different interpretations" people have from
    reading the same piece of Scripture.  So far there are only two in this
    string, a far cry from many.
    
    I can't remember how you defended your participation in this
    conference, Glen, not being in harmony with its premise.  What was that
    reason again?
    
    jeff  

| <<< Note 847.124 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>



| What Scripture are you referring to, Glen?  And what entries by people
| demonstrate a review of the Scripture I posted?

	Go read your entries in this and the cp notesfiles. 

| Where did I say this, Glen?

	By saying someone is wrong, and when many seem to support their view,
you are basically saying that you're right, and they are wrong.

| Sorry Glen but your idea of knowledge is about as worldly as it gets and your 
| view is not shared by Bible-believing Christians.  

	100% view? Yup, it is not believed by the Bible believing communities
out there. But then again, seeing no one person has it right, I'm in the same
company as anyone else. But thank you for pointing out the obvious. 

| We believe that what we could never figure out or come to understand about 
| God, His world, salvation, and ourselves He has provided for us in His Word.

	So you have all knowledge to everything, Jeff? 

| I can't remember how you defended your participation in this conference, Glen,
| not being in harmony with its premise. What was that reason again?

	Cuz I can. But please feel free to point out where I have gone against
the premise. 


Glen

 Please do not bring disputes/discussions from other conferences into this one.
 Also, please take any personal disputes/disagreements offline.


 Thank you.


 Jim Co Mod.

    
    Glen,
    
    I don't intend to argue with you.  I was giving you an
    opportunity to be specific and to engage in a meaningful 
    conversation.  Maybe another time!
    
    jeff

	Sorry Jeff, I don't buy it. You cloak too many things for me to think
otherwise.

Warning #2, from another mod -

This is degenerating into a squabble, please take it offline if you desire to
continue.  Any further interaction along these lines will be deleted without
notice.

Paul

    Re: .120
    
    Jeff, I'm sorry to see that 2500+ lines of the Westminister Confession
    is more important to you than 280 lines of God's Word.

>    Re: .120
    
>    Jeff, I'm sorry to see that 2500+ lines of the Westminister Confession
>    is more important to you than 280 lines of God's Word.
    
    You talkin' to me?!! (in my best Dan Yackel imitation).  
    
    I don't understand you, Mike. Why are you obfuscating?  I haven't
    appealed to the Westminster Confession in our latest discussion.
    
    I asked you specific questions and I expected you to either give me an
    answer, rather than a list of Scripture, out of context and without any
    organization, or decline to answer.
    
    jeff

 If salvation is not offered to all, how are the following verses explained?




1Timothy 2:3  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
Saviour; 
  4  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
truth. 



2Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count 
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

    RE: .131
    
    Unwilling to speak or read only Scripture--scary!
    
    /Wayne

    .133
    
    Amen Wayne.  As a matter of fact spiritually the *most* significant
    thing happening with me is that I've embarked on a journey with God
    and me alone.  Alone meaning the, Spirit, The Word, and my submission
    to His revelation of himself to me.
    
    It is important for my next step of growth to ignore what any human
    being has said to me about God's nature and for me to truly find out
    for myself who God is to me.
    
    I've spent my entire Christian life struggling with this... believing
    that because of human abuse I'm really insignificant to God.

>   >                         -< What's the problem? >-
>   > RE: .131
    
>   > Unwilling to speak or read only Scripture--scary!
    
>   > /Wayne
    
    The problem is...never mind.  If it isn't apparent I can't imagine
    how to start to explain it.
    
    jeff

    RE: .135
    
    I repeat: Unwilling to speak or read only Scripture--scary!
    
    Implying that we need more than the Word and the Spirit in order to
    know God--dangerous!
    
    "Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is
    near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his
    thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon
    him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are
    not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For
    as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
    your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh
    down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth
    the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to
    the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth
    out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall
    accomplish that which I please, and it shall propser in the thing
    whereto I sent it." (Is.55:6-11, KJV)
    
    Jesus said, "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another
    Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of
    truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither
    knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in
    you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you...Howbeit when
    He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for
    He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall
    He speak: and He will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for
    He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that
    the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of mine,
    and shall shew it unto you." (Jo.14:16-18 & 16:13-15, KJV)
    
    Now, what is it exactly, Jeff, that the Word and the Spirit cannot show
    us without man's help?
    
    /Wayne
          

Hi Jim,

> If salvation is not offered to all, how are the following verses explained?

>1Timothy 2:3  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
>Saviour; 
>  4  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
>truth. 

>2Peter 3:9  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count 
>slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should 
>perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

I realize how these verses at a surface glance seem to suggest exactly what
you believe, Jim, that is, the ability for all men to reject or receive the
offer of salvation.  But there are two reasons I offer which should 
cause you to reconsider what these verses actually mean.

1. There are Scriptures which are very explicitly at odds with these type
   of Scriptures and which are much more direct and exclusive.  Romans 9
   is a perfect example.  John 3 is another example.  Ephesians 2:8 is
   another example.  There are many, many others.

2. And then there is the matter of God's will.  Both verses above say
   explicitly that God *wills* that all men are saved and come into the
   knowledge of the truth, that none should perish and that all should
   come to repentence. What do you believe about the power of God's will?

Reading these verses strictly as they are written, without regard to the 
rest of the Bible, one must conclude that these verses support universal 
salvation.  Universal salvation is not orthodox Christianity.

Reading these verses in the context of an overarching belief in a 
"universal offer of salvation", you eliminate God's omnipotence and
power by making the verse mean that God wills and man can thwart His
will.  The sovereignty of God, not man, is the orthodox Christian 
teaching.

The interpretation which avoids universal salvation and man's sovereignty
is to interpret "all" as not exhaustive, which also maintains harmony 
with the clear teaching of Romans 9 and many other Scriptures.

jeff

    
    
>    Implying that we need more than the Word and the Spirit in order to
>    know God--dangerous!

     Didn't imply that, Wayne.

    
>    Now, what is it exactly, Jeff, that the Word and the Spirit cannot show
>    us without man's help?
    
>    /Wayne

     You've turned my words and intent around to an unrecognizable premise.
     I don't know what you're talking about.

     jeff


          

 I'm not sure the word "will" in those verses is speaking of God's 
 will for our lives, but of his wishes.




 I still don't understand why you don't see that people can reject the
 message of salvation.  I've sat in homes of people who have listened
 to a presentation of the gospel, yet chose not to accept the gift of
 salvation, even recognizing that "God is calling them".



Jim

> I'm not sure the word "will" in those verses is speaking of God's 
> will for our lives, but of his wishes.
    
    Well, I challenge you to look up the meaning of the word.  I also
    challenge you to find any place where God is described as wishful.

> I still don't understand why you don't see that people can reject the
> message of salvation.  I've sat in homes of people who have listened
> to a presentation of the gospel, yet chose not to accept the gift of
> salvation, even recognizing that "God is calling them".
    
    Oh, Jim.  I've never said any such thing!
    
    jeff

>> I still don't understand why you don't see that people can reject the
>> message of salvation.  I've sat in homes of people who have listened
>> to a presentation of the gospel, yet chose not to accept the gift of
>> salvation, even recognizing that "God is calling them".
    
 >   Oh, Jim.  I've never said any such thing!
    
  

  then what are you saying, Jeff?  You tell me that people can't "chose",
 yet I present a case where people do chose.  



 And I will look up the previous definition "will".  Of course I don't believe
 God is "wishful" other than to say that the verses I mention seem to be saying
 that he "wishes" all would be saved, yet there are some who are not because
 they "choose" not to.



 Jim

These two positions were given names about 400 years ago, as Calvinism and
Arminianism.  But they existed long before that - they've both had passionate
adherents over the 2000 years since Christ was here.

In our 'discussion,' can we remember that sincere and devout followers of
Christ have differed about this very subject, each pointing to scriptures
that back up their position and discounting scriptures that dispute their
position, for two millenia now?  Can we remember that we're not likely to be
the ones to come to 'final' solution to this dispute, and keep it as a
'discussion,' and not get personal in our remarks to each other?

Thanks,

Paul

>> I still don't understand why you don't see that people can reject the
>> message of salvation.  I've sat in homes of people who have listened
>> to a presentation of the gospel, yet chose not to accept the gift of
>> salvation, even recognizing that "God is calling them".
    
 >   Oh, Jim.  I've never said any such thing!
    
  >> then what are you saying, Jeff?  You tell me that people can't "chose",
 >>yet I present a case where people do choose.
    
    You think they choose, and it appears they choose, because you think they 
    have an actual choice within themselves.  The truth is that those who
    receive Christ's salvation are those who God has given the gift of
    faith (Eph 2:8) Those who have not been given the gift of faith cannot 
    receive Christ's salvation.  The desire, the power, the ability to trust 
    Christ for forgiveness of sins is totally a provision of God by His 
    grace. Those to whom God does not give the gift of faith cannot rightly 
    be said to have a choice of accepting or rejecting His grace.  

 >>And I will look up the previous definition "will".  Of course I don't believe
 >>God is "wishful" other than to say that the verses I mention seem to be saying
 >>that he "wishes" all would be saved, yet there are some who are not because
 >>they "choose" not to.

 >>Jim

    Good, Jim.  Regardless of what you come up with do continue
    your evangelistic work for it is good and proper.
    
    jeff

    RE: .138
    
    Jeff, the title of your note .131 says that speaking only Scripture is
    crazy.  Was I wrong in assuming you hold that something more is
    required in order for God to speak through His Word?  Of course, the
    Holy Spirit indwelling believers gives understanding that the world
    cannot receive.  What I'm talking about here is God's Word in relation
    to His children.
    
    I regret that I cannot share with you the joy I feel when God's own
    Word expresses the thoughts and intents of my heart.
    
    I will try to comply with the wishes of moderator Paul the Weiss and
    carry my point no further.
    
    /Wayne

    
>    Amen Wayne.  As a matter of fact spiritually the *most* significant
>    thing happening with me is that I've embarked on a journey with God
>    and me alone.  Alone meaning the, Spirit, The Word, and my submission
>    to His revelation of himself to me.
    
    Hi Nancy,
    
    I'm curious.  Where in the Bible is there any indication or command
    that you will receive significant revelation alone?  I offer to you
    that the Bible demonstrates consistently the communion of the saints as
    a fundamental tool in the growth of the Christian.
    
    >It is important for my next step of growth to ignore what any human
    >being has said to me about God's nature and for me to truly find out
    >for myself who God is to me.
    
    I applaud the Berean attitude, Nancy.  But surely someone has told you
    something valuable about God which you know in your heart is true.  And
    where will you discover for yourself "who God is to" you?
    
    
    >I've spent my entire Christian life struggling with this... believing
    >that because of human abuse I'm really insignificant to God.
    
    But you're precious to God, Nancy!  You were bought with a price, the
    blood of Jesus no less!  How else will He prove your worth to you? 
    What more can He do?  What else can anyone say?  The solution to your
    problem Nancy is to see how big God is and how dependent we really are.
    
    jeff

>    I will try to comply with the wishes of moderator Paul the Weiss and
>    carry my point no further.

Carry on, I had no wish to stop the discussion.  All I wished to do was ask
that we recognize that this is an age-old debate, with great theological
minds throughout history firmly on both sides, and as such refrain from
becoming antogonistic towards each other.

Paul

    
    Wayne,  you just misunderstood me.  And Oh! don't mind what ol' "Paul 
    the Weiss" says unless he suggests kindness, as he did. ;)
    
    jeff

    Jeff, the verses I listed DO answer your questions in the same order
    you asked them.  However, to really answer your questions in a Reader's
    Digest version, one needs to look no further than Paul's Mars Hill
    discourse in Acts 17:21-34.  Here we see the 3 reactions to the
    preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that you exclude:
    
    1. Sneering and rejection - Paul's audience exercised their free will
           and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They rejected the Holy
           Spirit's call and weren't given another opportunity.
    
    2. Procrastination - the Holy Spirit was wooing them to come to a
           saving faith in Jesus Christ, but they didn't quite allow their
           free will to submit to Him.  They were willing to hear more!
           However, Paul never returned to Mars Hill for the rest of his
           ministry and thus the Holy Spirit never gave them another chance.  
           They rejected the drawing of the Holy Spirit to His Gospel in their 
           only opportunity.  God's Word says, "Today is the day of
           salvation!"
    
    3. Acceptance and belief - the Holy Spirit wooed these people to the
       point that the spiritual seeds took root.  They exercised their free
       will and entered into the saving covenant with Christ.
    
    Mike

    
    Thanks Mike!  Will you enter the Acts 17:21-34 text from your electronic 
    Bible?
    
    jeff

Acts 17:22  
    Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens,
 I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

17:23  For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with
 this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship,
 him declare I unto you.

17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord
 of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

17:25  Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing,
 seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the
 face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the
 bounds of their habitation;

17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and
 find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

17:28  For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of
 your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think
 that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and
 man's device.

17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all
 men every where to repent:

17:31  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in
 righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given
 assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

17:32  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and
 others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

17:33  So Paul departed from among them.

17:34  Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was
 Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

    RE: .147
    
    Jeff, I give up.  I do not want to be reading into your words falsely.
    Since I misunderstood you, would you please be so kind as to say what
    you meant?
    
    Thanks.

    Oh, and lest there be any doubt, I would not consider myself one of
    the "great theological minds throughout history" referenced by Paul the
    Weiss in .146; therefore, I'm not impelled to carry on a dialog with Jeff
    who deems me "wrongheaded" or "misguided."  I only desire to share my
    view of Jesus and my high regard for God's written Word and the Spirit He
    sent.
    
    /Wayne
    
    P.S.  Just curious:  What was Christ doing off by Himself in the desert
    for 40 days?  And what did the Apostle Paul do off by himself in Tarsus?
    And what happened to John off by himself on the isle of Patmos?  There
    can be no doubt that the "communion of saints" is a key part of growing
    in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  But, there comes
    time when we must see God as MY Father, as well as OUR Father, and that's
    when His Word and His Spirit minister uniquely.  And MY salvation is of
    particular interest to MY God and Saviour.  I did not think that sharing
    only God's Word commended to our hearts as truth would return to Him void
    in the hearts of believing readers in whom His Spirit dwells.

    
>    Please provide a Scriptural basis for your following assertions.
>    And please explain how the Scripture you cite may be reconciled with 
>    Romans 9:all and John 3 (verses prior to 16):
	
>	- God draws all to Him.
>		- and how does God draw all to Him?
>	- God draws all to Him only intermittently.
>	- That we have a free will.
>	- How this free will enables us to choose salvation.
>	- That the Holy Spirit woos us to salvation.

>    jeff

    Mike, I appreciate your effort to respond in an appropriate
    fashion!  But I still don't see where your entry answers my questions,
    except by your assertion that they do.  Maybe over time you'll be able
    to take my request above by line and explain your belief with
    supporting Scriptures and explain how you would reconcile your answer
    with the passages I identified.
    
    jeff
 

    
>    I will try to comply with the wishes of moderator Paul the Weiss and
>    carry my point no further.
    
>    /Wayne

================================================================================
Note 847.153                Salvation for everyone ?                  153 of 153
ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"               5 lines  12-FEB-1996 15:37
                       -< try a little harder, Wayne ;) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    I will try to comply with the wishes of moderator Paul the Weiss and
>    carry my point no further.
    
>    /Wayne

** I said I'd try. :-)  Perhaps I again misunderstood the following:

================================================================================
Note 847.147                Salvation for everyone ?                  147 of 153
ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"               5 lines  12-FEB-1996 14:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Wayne,  you just misunderstood me.  And Oh! don't mind what ol' "Paul 
    the Weiss" says unless he suggests kindness, as he did. ;)
    
    jeff

** What did you mean by "don't mind what ol' 'Paul the Weiss' says unless he
   suggests kindness?"  Did you really not want me to carry on?  Or did you
   deem my note .151 to be unkind?

   And perhaps I misunderstood the following:

================================================================================
Note 847.146                Salvation for everyone ?                  146 of 153
PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, " 9 lines  12-FEB-1996 14:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I will try to comply with the wishes of moderator Paul the Weiss and
>    carry my point no further.

Carry on, I had no wish to stop the discussion.  All I wished to do was ask
that we recognize that this is an age-old debate, with great theological
minds throughout history firmly on both sides, and as such refrain from
becoming antogonistic towards each other.

Paul

** What did you think Paul meant in saying "Carry on, I had no wish to stop the
   discussion?"

   Whatever.  I shall bite my tongue. :-)

   /Wayne

>	- God draws all to Him.
>		- and how does God draw all to Him?

Song of Solomon 1:4
Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his
 chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more
 than wine: the upright love thee.

Jeremiah 31:3
 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee
 with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Hosea 11:4
 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as
 they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

John 3:27
 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him
 from heaven.

John 6:44
 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
 I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
 except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 12:32
 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
 that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

>	- That we have a free will.

Isaiah 45:22
 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
 and there is none else.

Isaiah 55:1
 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no
 money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and
 without price.

Matthew 22:9
 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to
 the marriage.

John 7:37
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
 saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
 Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

1 Timothy 2:4
 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
 truth.

Revelation 22:17
 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say,
 Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the
 water of life freely.

>	- How this free will enables us to choose salvation.

Matthew 28:19
 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Luke 12:8
 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the
 Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
 thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water
 springing up into everlasting life.

Acts 10:43
 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever
 believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

1 John 5:1
 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one
 that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Revelation 3:20
 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
 open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Acts 2:21
 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
 Lord shall be saved.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
 condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
 men unto justification of life.

Romans 10:13
 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Titus 2:11-12
 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
 soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Acts 10:34-35
 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is
 no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh
 righteousness, is accepted with him.

2 Peter 3:9
 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
 but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that
 all should come to repentance.

Hebrews 10:22
 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having
 our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure
 water.

>	- God draws all to Him only intermittently.

James 4:8
 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye
 sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Hebrews 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first
 began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard
 him;

Hebrews 12:25
 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who
 refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn
 away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Acts 24:25
 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,
 Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a
 convenient season, I will call for thee.

Acts 17:30-34
 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all
 men every where to repent:  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he
 will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;
 whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from
 the dead.  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked:
 and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.   So Paul departed
 from among them.  Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the
 which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others
 with them.

2 Corinthians 6:2 (Isaiah 49:8)
(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of
 salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now
 is the day of salvation.)

Psalm 32:6
 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou
 mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh
 unto him.

Psalm 69:13
 But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O
 God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation.

Psalm 95:7
For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of
 his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,

Joshua 24:15
 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom
 ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the
 other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell:

John 15:4-10
 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
 except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.   I am the
 vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same
 bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  If a man abide
 not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,
 and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.  If ye abide in me, and my
 words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my
 disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in
 my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have
 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 2:6
 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he
 walked.

1 John 2:28
 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we
 may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

1 John 3:6
 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him,
 neither known him.

2 John 9
 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath
 not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father
 and the Son.

Matthew 10:22
 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that
 endureth to the end shall be saved.

James 1:21
 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and
 receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Romans 10:9
 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
 believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
 saved.

2 Peter 1:10-11
 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and
 election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:  For so an
 entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:14
 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to
 the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John 5:24
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on
 him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;
 but is passed from death unto life.

Romans 8:34
 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is
 risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
 intercession for us.

Acts 2:21
 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
 Lord shall be saved.

Romans 5:18
 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
 condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
 men unto justification of life.

>	- That the Holy Spirit woos us to salvation.

John 15:26
 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
 Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall
 testify of me:

John 16:7-14
 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
 away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
 depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the
 world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:  Of sin, because they
 believe not on me;  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me
 no more;  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.  I have yet
 many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.  Howbeit when he, the
 Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not
 speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he
 will shew you things to come.  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of
 mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 4:6
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God
 heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

    As you might've noticed by now, a lot of these scriptures answer more
    than 1 of Jeff's questions.
    
    Mike

Acts 26:27  King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou 
believest. 

 28  Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a 
Christian. 

 29  And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that 
hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these 
bonds. 

	Seems to me that Scripture backs what the majority have been saying in
here.

 Which is what, Glen?

>>                           -< for Jeff, question 1 >-

    Thank you, Mike, for your reconsideration.  I have responded to each
    Scripture below.  I don't see any support or explanation for how God
    draws all to Himself.  Maybe you can elaborate.
    
jb>	- God draws all to Him.
jb>		- and how does God draw all to Him?

>>Song of Solomon 1:4
>>Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his
>>chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more
>>than wine: the upright love thee.

This does not say God draws all to Him exhaustively as was your original
assertion.  "Draw me" is an imperative (I suspect - its hard to tell) from 
the speaker(s), not a statement by God.  These are believers speaking since
the "king" is acknowledged. They come into his chambers (but do note, the
king *brought them in*, they did not bring themselves in!). These are the
upright, not the unrighteous which means this does not support the
assertion that God draws *all* to Him.


>>Jeremiah 31:3
>>The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee
>>with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Yes! God draws men to Himself!  But you know that Israel is the audience
here, not the Gentiles, therefore it does not support an exhaustive drawing.

>>Hosea 11:4
>> I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as
>> they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

Again, Israel is the audience, meaning the drawing is exclusive, not
exhaustive.

John 3:27
>> John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him
>> from heaven.

If you believe this method (of entering only Scripture) is a perfectly 
reasonable approach to answering my questions then what are you going to
do about a Scripture that says this?!!!  This makes *my point* perfectly!!
A man cannot receive anything! including the truths of God or salvation 
"except it be given him from heaven".  

John 6:44
>> No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
>> I will raise him up at the last day.

Again, you have made my point perfectly!  No man can come to Him unless He
is drawn by God!  Only those drawn will come and those who are drawn cannot
come and do not have a choice in the matter!

John 6:65
>>And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me,
>>except it were given unto him of my Father.

Uh oh.  Something is taking shape here and it ain't pro-choice!!

John 12:32
>> And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

If you think "all" is exhaustive here, you've got a serious problem.
The exhaustive drawing is in complete contradiction to the last three
verses you have entered.  You cannot say there is some kind of drawing
that does not result in belief based on this verse since the previous
verses on this subject demonstrate that those who are drawn believe.
And they do not allow for those who are not drawn to not believe.
Also, we know that not all men have been drawn to Christ; there are those
who have not heard of Him at all much less been drawn by Him.

John 6:63
>>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
>> that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I think this is again in support of my point that the flesh, the human
will included, profiteth nothing in salvation.  The spirit! He's the one
that brings us to life!

jeff

Hi, Jeff.

What do you make of the following passages?  I've always taken them as being
heard by some who would choose life and others who would choose death.

================================================================================

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before
you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore _CHOOSE_ life, that both
thou and thy seed may life: That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that
thou mayest obey His voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto Him: for He is thy
life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the
Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."
(Deut.30:19&20, KJV)

"Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth: and put
away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in
Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord,
_CHOOSE_ you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers
served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in
whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
(Josh.24:14&15, KJV)

"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in
their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will
pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have
called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But
ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will
laugh at you calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh
as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and
anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer;
they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For they that hated
knowledge, and _DID NOT CHOOSE_ the fear of the Lord: They would none of my
counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of
their own way, and be filled with the own devices. For the turning away of the
simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them. But
whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of
evil." (Prov.1:22-33, KJV)

================================================================================

Thanks.

/Wayne

>    But you're precious to God, Nancy!  You were bought with a price, the
>    blood of Jesus no less!  How else will He prove your worth to you? 
>    What more can He do?  What else can anyone say?  The solution to your
>    problem Nancy is to see how big God is and how dependent we really are.
 
    
    Jeff, I needed to highlight this, because in fact this the first lesson
    the Lord taught me in the last few weeks. :-)
    
    But I do believe there is more for me to learn.

>>                           -< for Jeff, question 2 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	- That we have a free will.

>>Isaiah 45:22
>> Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
>> and there is none else.

This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking/interpretation.  You extrapolate
from a universal call to free will.  This says nothing about free will!
This says in effect, "I am God and there is no other.  Here me everywhere
and look to me for salvation."  I understand that you think this call means
that people have free will but it does not.  This verse tells us where to
look for salvation. 

>>Isaiah 55:1
>> Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no
>> money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and
>> without price.

This is a call to only those that are thirsty and even still doesn't say
or imply that they have "free will" to do so.

>>Matthew 22:9
>> Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to
>> the marriage.

Again, this says nothing about the hearers will, only the invitation. And
more strictly refers to "only as many as ye shall find". Surely the highway 
outside the banquet is not the only highway and could be interpreted as
a limited call - to those close by, for example.

>>John 7:37
>>In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
>> saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Still extrapolating from an announcement to free will.  Only the thirsty
will show up.  We know that not all are thirsty by any means.  And the
last entries (in support of "God draws all to Him") you provided show 
that those that thirst are thirsty because God has drawn them.

>>Romans 10:12
>>For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
>>Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

You know all do not call upon Him.  You know this does not address the
issue of free will.

>>1 Timothy 2:4
>> Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
>> truth.

This is one like those that Jim entered.  You either have to change the
meaning of "will" to "wish" thereby denying God's sovereignty and elevating
man's sovereignty or you have to conclude universal salvation.  The only
way in which you can reconcile this verse with what the rest of the Bible
says about God and about humanity is to not view "all" as exhaustive, a
very reasonable approach. 

>>Revelation 22:17
>> And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say,
>> Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the
>> water of life freely.

Only those who hear and thirst are invited.  Whosoever is a pronoun for
"those" that positively will.  It does not prove that their will is free and
would contradict the passages from John you entered (and others) which
demonstrate that only those God draws have thirst and can hear.

Think about your past experiences.  Think about those who hear the gospel
all of their lives and do not respond.  Think about those who hear the
gospel and could care less about its message.  Think about those people
Jim mentioned who said that even though they believed God was calling them,
they could not accept the truth.  Think about those in this file and others
who have seen much of His Word in print and a tremendous amount of discussion
of Christian doctrines yet remain in their unbelief.  Think about the cults
and their fabrications and how easy it is, with the proper analysis, to
see the error in their beliefs and distortion of the Bible required to
hold such gross beliefs yet they continue in them.  

There is only one explanation in light of all of Scripture - man cannot
come to God unless God quickens him to believe.  Man's will is dead
in trespass and sins and biased to love the darkness.  All those who have 
come to Christ have not come as a result of a "free will" but as a result 
of God's grace in choosing them, by removing the enmity and the blinders
so that they may believe.

Salvation is God's work through and through.  Man can do *nothing* on His
own to save himself.

jeff

    Another interesting passage from this morning's devotions in Psalms.
    
102:18  THIS SHALL BE WRITTEN FOR THE GENERATION TO COME: and the people which
 shall be created shall praise the LORD.

102:19  For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven
 did the LORD behold the earth;

102:20  To hear the groaning of the prisoner; TO LOOSE THOSE THAT ARE APPOINTED
 TO DEATH;

102:21  To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem;

102:22  When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the
 LORD.

>         <<< Note 847.164 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>
>    Thank you, Mike, for your reconsideration.  I have responded to each
>    Scripture below.  I don't see any support or explanation for how God
>    draws all to Himself.  Maybe you can elaborate.
    
    You don't want to see it because you don't look objectively.  Instead
    of taking God's Word as it reads, you have to play scripture twister to
    force fit your theology.
    
>>Song of Solomon 1:4
>>Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his
>>chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more
>>than wine: the upright love thee.

    This book is taught by scholars to be a type of the love story between
    the Bride and the Bridegroom.  However, I'll leave it at that since we
    shouldn't be basing doctrine on the poetic books.  They should only be
    uses to reinforce docrtrine stated elsewhere.  This was my intention
    here.
    
>>Jeremiah 31:3
>>The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee
>>with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
|
|Yes! God draws men to Himself!  But you know that Israel is the audience
|here, not the Gentiles, therefore it does not support an exhaustive drawing.
    
    Again, this passage is poetic, but we should ignore the fact that we
    are grafted in and are also God's children now.  Same applies to the
    picture of our Abba in Hosea 11:4.

John 3:27
>> John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him
>> from heaven.

|If you believe this method (of entering only Scripture) is a perfectly 
|reasonable approach to answering my questions then what are you going to
|do about a Scripture that says this?!!!  This makes *my point* perfectly!!
|A man cannot receive anything! including the truths of God or salvation 
|"except it be given him from heaven".  
    
    Agreed, but your view has no balance between God's Sovreignty and Man's
    Free Will.  Who are we to say who God will save or won't save?  God has
    extended the invitation to everyone but not all will accept.  God draws
    men to Him, but free will determines if that wooing is accepted or not. 
    The simple example is what I posted from Paul's Mars Hill discourse
    yesterday.  There you have the only 3 possibilities to the preached
    Gospel: No, Maybe Later, or Yes!

John 6:44
>> No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
>> I will raise him up at the last day.

|Again, you have made my point perfectly!  No man can come to Him unless He
|is drawn by God!  Only those drawn will come and those who are drawn cannot
|come and do not have a choice in the matter!
    
    Wrong.  We agree on the drawing, but you exclude vast amounts of
    Scripture pertaining to Man's Free Will in response to the drawing.

John 12:32
>> And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

|If you think "all" is exhaustive here, you've got a serious problem.
|The exhaustive drawing is in complete contradiction to the last three
|verses you have entered.  You cannot say there is some kind of drawing
|that does not result in belief based on this verse since the previous
|verses on this subject demonstrate that those who are drawn believe.
    
    Right "All" doesn't imply that everyone will ultimately be saved.  You
    should know that I don't support universal salvation as being Biblical. 
    It means that Christ draws people to Himself regardless of nationality,
    race, or status (check the Greek).  Jesus' utterance was prompted by
    the presence of Greek Gentiles (v. 20) and should be evaluated in that
    context.
    
>And they do not allow for those who are not drawn to not believe.
>Also, we know that not all men have been drawn to Christ; there are those
>who have not heard of Him at all much less been drawn by Him.
    
    Wrong.  You don't have to hear the name of Christ to be drawn.  This is
    where cults like Mormonism go wrong as well.  Romans 1:18-20 and
    2:14-16 explain this.  God has created us with the knowledge of Him and
    what is right ingrained in us.

John 6:63
>>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
>> that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

|I think this is again in support of my point that the flesh, the human
|will included, profiteth nothing in salvation.  The spirit! He's the one
|that brings us to life!
    
    Well if God didn't write His law on everyone's heart as explained by
    Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-16 you would be correct.  The words of His
    Spirit will minister to that which is created in us.  The flesh and
    human free will battle this in the spiritual realm whenever a person is
    exposed to the Gospel of Christ.
    
    Mike

  Hi Jeff,

    My summary viewpoint.

    This is a classic example of *preponderance of evidence*.  People
    can (and are) providing a slew of texts, that taken as they read
    SEEM to point to the idea that man has a choice to make.  You no
    doubt will be well able to interpret things differently.  Your 
    interpretations, while possible, seem often to be less likely.

    What I have seen in a few doctrinal questions is that there are
    scriptures which seem to support one position and some which seem
    to support the other.  They don't *need* to, they *seem* to.  We need
    to take the Bible as a whole.  We could tally the entire lot of texts
    that seem to say one thing on one side and those texts that seem to
    say another on the other side.

    I happen to believe that many interpretations are possible with
    many single texts.  HOWEVER, if one were to have a sort of tension
    index and honestly appraise a position by looking at the tension
    required with a few of them (Romans 9 for example with my position),
    ...that truth would be on the side of minimum tension.

    I see you as requiring tension all over the place.  'World' in John
    3:16 is not world as most anyone would expect it to be.  God is love 
    only with some people and not with others (as again would not be the 
    expected interpretation), etc., etc.

    The fundamentals of this question reduce to this for me:

    What is God's character?  Who is God?  1 John says that God IS love.
    1 Corinthians 13 expounds on just what this love is.  Seeks not its
    own, keeps no record of wrongs, etc.  Does 1 Corin 13 support your
    position?

    I believe God sends His rain and His sun on the just and the unjust.
    Rain and sun are metaphorical for the agape that draws.

    So what of election?  1 Peter 1:2 defines what election is *according*
    to.  It is NOT according to a sovereign will; it is according to His
    FOREKNOWLEDGE.  From the standpoint of the fact that God knows everyone's
    final choice and that God is the ultimate presider of reality, He can
    assume ultimate responsibility EVEN WERE THE LOST TO HAVE FREE WILL.

    Thats what I see.  He designed us with free will.  He knows by fore-
    knowledge that this person over here will choose to not have a relation-
    ship with Him.  God realizes that He is Presider over this universe 
    wherein He is the Giver of free will and so in a sense He gave this 
    man his choice.  With this ultimate responsibility and His foreknowledge,
    He can then say the man was elected to damnation.

    I see Romans 9 the same way.  An election based on foreknowledge.

    "Many are called, few are chosen."  Who are the many that are called?
    What are they called to?  I believe the many are everyone.  God has
    called all people to salvation.  The chosen are those who accepted the
    gift.

							Tony

>         <<< Note 847.167 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>	- That we have a free will.

>>Isaiah 45:22
>> Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
>> and there is none else.

|This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking/interpretation.  You extrapolate
|from a universal call to free will.  This says nothing about free will!
|This says in effect, "I am God and there is no other.  Here me everywhere
|and look to me for salvation."  I understand that you think this call means
|that people have free will but it does not.  This verse tells us where to
|look for salvation. 
    
    The second imperative expresses the result which will follow obedience
    to the first (Genesis 42:18, John 3:14-15, Numbers 2:19, Acts
    16:30-31).  This isn't just a simple look, but a look to the Saviour. 
    This is the look of conversion.  God discredits paganism but calls the
    idolaters, not to the judgment they deserve, but to salvation - if only
    they will look to Him.  God's great decree has been announced that all
    humanity will come to acknowledge His sovereignty.  All will not be
    saved, but all must acknowledge the Lord as God alone.

>>Isaiah 55:1
>> Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no
>> money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and
>> without price.

|This is a call to only those that are thirsty and even still doesn't say
|or imply that they have "free will" to do so.
    
    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  After the
    special privileges of Israel (chapter 54) there follows, as the
    consequence, the UNIVERSAL INVITATION to the Gentiles (Luke 24:47,
    Romans 11:12-15).

>>Matthew 22:9
>> Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to
>> the marriage.

|Again, this says nothing about the hearers will, only the invitation. And
|more strictly refers to "only as many as ye shall find". Surely the highway 
|outside the banquet is not the only highway and could be interpreted as
|a limited call - to those close by, for example.
    
    Wrong.  In looking at the Greek, the great outlets and thoroughfares,
    whether urban or rural, is where human beings are found.  It's an
    invitation for all to come just as they are.

>>John 7:37
>>In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
>> saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

|Still extrapolating from an announcement to free will.  Only the thirsty
|will show up.  We know that not all are thirsty by any means.  And the
|last entries (in support of "God draws all to Him") you provided show 
|that those that thirst are thirsty because God has drawn them.
    
    The deepest cravings of the human spirit are in this offer.  HE made
    almost the exact same offer to the Samarian woman at the well in John
    4:13-14.  But what she saw as fact in here turned into a worldwide
    proclamation where the living water is declared to be Himself.  In
    Galilee he invited all the weary and heavy-laden of the human family to
    come under His wing and find rest (Matthew 11:28).  This is the same
    deep want of humanity.  In the synagogue at Capernaum he announced
    Himself to be the Bread of Life.  He is the end-all of peace, rest, and
    satisfaction for all humanity.  Here Christ sounds forth the
    proclamation to a great audience in the religious metropolis just as He
    did in Isaiah 55:1.

>>Romans 10:12
>>For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
>>Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

|You know all do not call upon Him.  You know this does not address the
|issue of free will.
    
    Whatever the differences between these 2 groups, there is no difference
    when it comes to the need for Christ and the availability of His
    salvation (Romans 3:22).  The source of spiritual life is found in the
    same Lord.  Paul cites Joel 2:32 (see also Peter in Acts 2:21) to
    support this.  This calling on the Lord is the echo within the human
    heart of the call of God Himself according to His purpose (Romans
    8:28-30).  God will hear the cry of any who call upon Him for
    salvation.  God is not a God of exclusion and prejudice.

>>1 Timothy 2:4
>> Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
>> truth.

|This is one like those that Jim entered.  You either have to change the
|meaning of "will" to "wish" thereby denying God's sovereignty and elevating
|man's sovereignty or you have to conclude universal salvation.  The only
|way in which you can reconcile this verse with what the rest of the Bible
|says about God and about humanity is to not view "all" as exhaustive, a
|very reasonable approach. 

    God wants all me to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 
    This fits perfectly with John 3:16 and with the declaration in 2
    Corinthians 5:14-15 that Christ died for all.  Salvation has been
    provided for all, but only those who accept it are saved.  "Knowledge"
    in the Greek means "precise and accurate knowledge."  Such knowledge of
    God's truth is both the root and fruit of salvation.  Likewise, this
    passage implies that man's free will can reject God's drawing.
    
>Think about your past experiences.  Think about those who hear the gospel
>all of their lives and do not respond.  Think about those who hear the
>gospel and could care less about its message.  Think about those people
>Jim mentioned who said that even though they believed God was calling them,
>they could not accept the truth.  Think about those in this file and others
>who have seen much of His Word in print and a tremendous amount of discussion
>of Christian doctrines yet remain in their unbelief.  Think about the cults
>and their fabrications and how easy it is, with the proper analysis, to
>see the error in their beliefs and distortion of the Bible required to
>hold such gross beliefs yet they continue in them.  
    
    ...and think about those who procrastinated over the invitation to
    accept Christ as their Savior for several years before giving their
    RSVP.  Free will is what made it take so long.  It's a spiritual battle
    between man's flesh and God's drawing.
    
>Salvation is God's work through and through.  Man can do *nothing* on His
>own to save himself.
    
    A free gift isn't yours until you accept it.
    
    Mike

    This isn't the only problematic area for Calvinists - another is
    perseverance of the saints.  All the warnings in John 15:1-6,10,14;
    Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-8 (one of the toughest to
    explain), 1 Timothy 1:19, 2 Timothy 2:18, and 2 Peter 2:1.
    
    Mike

    God is no less sovereign in choosing not to save us against our will
    than in making us willing to be saved.

    "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For
    whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto
    the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to
    this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord
    both of the dead and living." (Ro.14:7-9, KJV)

    I haven't had the chance to read this conference for months now, so no
    doubt I've missed a lot. I'm not sure when I will be able to be back.
    But tonight, I was brought here to deliver the following for anyone who
    is willing to hear it.
    
    In my own personal Scripture study, not only have I discovered that God
    is entirely sovereign in all things (He leaves absolutely nothing to
    chance, even to controlling the outcome of the casting of lots), but
    that the entire premise of the free will controversy seems to be rooted
    in the sinful human desire to have control over *something*, that is,
    to *be* God. After all, that is our ultimate age-old struggle and was
    what motivated Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
    good and evil in the first place. 
    
    All of the evidence that I have seen that would seem to indicate that
    we have freedom of choice has underlying it the simple fact that He
    alone is God; apart from Him, we can do nothing. He has mercy on whom
    He will have mercy, and He hardens whom He will harden. All of our days
    were written before any of them came to pass, and He directs our every
    step. This may be an affront to our pride, but it is the truth. See
    Proverbs 16:33, John 15:5, Exodus 33:19, Psalm 139:16, and Jeremiah
    10:23.
    
    In history, we are living out His story, not ours. He weaves His story
    in the tapestries of our lives. Yes, He does present us with choices,
    but it is He Who enables us to make them or not, just as it is He Who
    enables us to enjoy what He has given us, or not, as He sees fit
    (Ecclesiastes 6:2). And when we have made a choice, can we really say
    that we could have made any other choice? Reality would not be what it
    is if we had made a different choice.
    
    Speaking for myself, it is a great relief to know that He Who began a
    good work in me will be faithful to complete it and that there's
    nothing that I can do to foul it up (Philippians 1:6)! I no longer have
    to bear the burden of worrying whether or not I'm making the right
    choices, because He works in all things for the good of those who love
    Him (Romans 8:28). I am free to come before Him as a child, unburdened
    by the concerns of this world, trusting with a childlike faith that my
    Father will provide for all of my needs, just as He promised. I am free
    to live, to make mistakes, to grow, to learn, and to love. His yoke is
    easy and His burden light.
    
    To those of you who may cling to the need to believe that you have free
    will, I would ask you: Are you happy? Have you received His abundant
    life? Have you entered His Sabbath and found rest? Or are you burdened
    with choices, agonizing over whether or not you are making the right
    ones? Are you worried that God might one day turn away from you? Do you
    feel a need to be "right"? If so, it doesn't have to be that way. Psalm
    23 is a reality that can be experienced in this life, as is the Lord's
    abundant life. But this can only come to those who are ready to submit
    to God's sovereignty and let Him truly be Lord so that they may be as
    little children.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

Scripture clearly shows that some people resist God's grace:

	"How often would I have gathered thy children together,
	 ... and ye would not."  Mt. 23:37

	"Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost..."  Acts 7:51

/john

    John,
    
    Yes, they do, because that is exactly as He has engineered it. See
    Romans 9:14-29. He grieves and feels the pain of the rejection, but He
    endures it because He has ordained that it must be so. Romans 9:22-24.
    
    And on the contrary, the denial of free will gives us a glimpse into
    the real meaning of human existence, which is the truth that everything
    that has happened in our lives, whether we see it as good or bad, is in
    fact a good gift from Him to us personally so that those of us on whom
    He has mercy may experience the riches and joy of that mercy. He loves
    us that much!
    
    -- Daryl

      re: .174
    
      Hi Daryl,
    
        You asked...
    
        "Are you ready to submit...?"
    
        Might I have been correct to interpret it, "Are you ready to
        make a choice?"
    
        I'm sorry if it pains you, but I completely see things differently
        as based on my personal understanding of agape.
    
        Agape draws.  The iron will of the sinner compels and would do
        anything to deny free will.
    
        The crux of this (for me) is a right understanding of agape.
    
        I don't love my wife because she makes me love her.  I love my
        wife VOLUNTARILY because I see her love for me and my heart is
        warmed.  She draws me into communion with her.  She doesn't 
        make me be with her.  I choose to be with her.
    
        Such is the power of love.  And its essence of drawing and not 
        compelling.
    
    							Tony

For me, the question of whether God in His sovereignty has granted us free
will or whether we our every action is under the complete soveriegnty of God
once again falls under the category of: what does God want for us?

He absolutely wants us to live in the surety and trust that Daryl speaks of.
So He speaks of everything - even our choices - being His will, that we can
just rest in His arms.  Yet at the same time He desires us to seek His face,
and in many (most?  all?) people, being completely relieved of the burden of
striving to make the right choices will induce a complacency, so He gives us
a very strong mandate to make the right choices:  Aside from Jesus' constant
references to it, there is Dt 30: "I have set before you life and death,
blessings and curses, therefore choose life" or Joshua 24: "Choose this day
whom you will serve," among hundreds of other places.  And God says
repeatedly that the consequences, oppression, and exile which He brings upon
the Israelites is due to their choice to reject Him.

That tension between earnestly desiring to make sure we make the right
choices, while at the same time resting in surety and peace in His arms, is
exactly what He desires for us, so once again I'm not surprised that He set
up this tension for us.

Paul

    
    Mike,
    
    I have decided not to proceed with this method of discussing this
    topic.  Your own method of using Scripture only has resulted in 
    clearly obvious contradictions in your own argument.  It should be
    apparent to everyone.
    
    Also, you insist on casting aspersions, like "Scripture twister" upon
    me. And you label me a "Calvinist" as if to discredit me somehow and
    speak unkindly about other problems we have, as if that had any bearing
    on our current argument. Though I am not offended these are offensive
    acts which seems to accompany a weak argument.  I think it is evident that 
    I have been taking the most straightforward look at Scripture, analyzing 
    what it actually says without regard to a presupposition.  But you continue
    to use in your argument the presupposition of free will to prove your
    point. This is circular reasoning and is invalid.  As you have demonstrated
    in the Scripture you entered, there is no Scripture-only support for "free
    will".
    
    You also have not taken the opportunity to explain the Scriptures you
    use as a support for "free will" with those in direct, clearly-written
    opposition, such as Romans 9 (there are others, btw).
    
    But there has been some progress, in my view, in your acknowledgement
    that "all" is not necessarily "exhaustive".  I think this is a large
    step which may allow you to take even a next step.
    
    Its important for you (and others) to remember that I too believed more
    or less as you do on this topic.  
    
    jeff
    

>That tension between earnestly desiring to make sure we make the right
>choices, while at the same time resting in surety and peace in His arms, is
>exactly what He desires for us, so once again I'm not surprised that He set
>up this tension for us.

>Paul
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    The tension you speak of above is not to the topic at hand.  You are
    speaking of the tension within belief.  The ability to make right
    choices (i.e. obey God) outside of belief is impossible as I'm sure you
    agree.  
    
    jeff  

    re .178
    
    Paul -
    
    I've been struggling with Genesis 32:24-32 where Jacob struggles with
    God.  I think its the same lesson but I can't quite see it yet.  See
    if it works for you.
    
    Jill 

Could you fill that out a little more, Jill?  I can't connect the two very
well.

Paul

I just noticed that Mail.Jewish is also discussing free will.

Here are two of the messages:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Zvi Weiss		 <weissz@haven.ios.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 19:11:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: G_d's Omnicience vs. Free Will

> From: Aaron H. Greenberg <greenbah@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
> > From: Bennett Ruda <bruda@tribeca.ios.com>
> > Whenever I hear people discuss the apparent paradox of how G_d can be
> > omnicient yet we have free will, I think about the explanation that I
> > heard Rabbi Aaron Rakefet give when I was in the Kollel in BMT. Just
> > look at the 1986 World Series. We can rent a video tape and watch how in
> > the 6th Game, in the 9th inning, Mookie Wilson's single dribbles past
> > Bill Buckner at first. We rewind the tape and watch it over and
> > over...knowing (omniciently?) exactly what will happen. Yet this
> > knowledge in no way interferes or affects the outcome -- Bill Buckner
> > will never get Mookie out.  Is it not possible to imagine then that
> > HaShem too could be equally aware of exactly what will happen without
> > that knowledge affecting what we do.
> 
> This not a logical analogy.  The 1986 World Series is in the past, we
> could not possibly have know it was going to happen in advance, if we
> knew in advance then we could have affected the outcome.  This does not
> answer the parodox in the least.

It *is* a "logical analogy" because for G-d, there is really no such 
thing as "Time"... Thus, for G-d, there is no "past" , "present", 
"Future" as we know them.

> Question: Why do we insist on having a paradox?  God's omnicience of the
> present is part of our thirteen principles of faith, but our future
> thoughts and actions aren't necessarily included.  Can God create a
> world with beings that he cannot know with 100% accuracy what they will
> do next despite the fact that he has complete knowledge of the current
> state of the system?  Why not?

See above where it seems that it is logically not possible to 
distinguish between "past" and "future" vis-a-vis G-d.  Also, please look 
at the Rambam in the "Peirush Hamishnayot" for the Chapter of Chelek in 
Sanhedrin where there is a much fuller discussion of these "principles"
-- I believe that the above point of view is not supportable accoridng to 
the Rambam's formualtion there.
--Zvi

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Micha Berger <aishdas@haven.ios.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:57:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Omniscience and Free-will

R. Akiva, in Avos 3:19, says "All is seen, but freedom is given", so he
clearly felt that there was an apparent paradox between Omniscience and
free-will.

The question, as I see it is, "If G-d knows now what it is I will choose
to do later, then doesn't that mean that my future decision is already
forced?"

A variety of answers are given by the Or Samei'ach.

- If we don't understand what it means by "G-d knows", then how can we
  even discuss the effects of G-d knowledge?

  I think this resolution is based in the Rambam's idea that
  "Attributes" of G-d either describe what He isn't, or how His actions
  appear to us. In this case, "Omniscience" means that His "knowledge"
  is different in kind than ours so it has no limitations.

- Hashem sees the past and future in the same way. If it doesn't bother you
  that He knows that past yet we can have free will, His knowledge of
  the future shouldn't bother you either.

  This resolution, IMHO, say something about how we think about time and
  causality. We get used to thinking that early events cause, and
  therefor to some extent determine and constrain, later events. So, if
  Hashem knows something now, we assume it must restrict my ability to
  choose later. But WRT G-d, the sequence of events is a non-issue. Our
  future decision could effect (kaveyochol) His current "knowledge". His
  knowledge, although earlier in time, is an effect, and not a cause.

Despite the number of Chazal who've discussed the question, my own resolution
was the conclusion that the question is meaningless.

Hashem does not know NOW what I will decide LATER. This language assumes
that He experiences this moment along with me. G-d is timeless, He has
no "now". We can't ask the question, because there is no "when" associated
to Hashem's knowledge. Asking if Hashem knows now what I will decide later
is about as meaningful as asking for the mass of the number three, or
the color of justice.

Micha Berger 201 916-0287        Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
AishDas@haven.ios.com                     (16-Oct-86 -  5-Oct-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>

    re: .178
    
    Paul -
    
    I'll try.  I spent a very long time striving to see His face.  It
    was the main point of my existence.  It took a lot of constant effort.
    I wouldn't let go of this for anything.  
    
    I see Jacob's struggle as the same thing.  Jacob wouldn't let go until
    God promised to bless him.  After that Jacob stopped struggling.  But
    Jacob was even closer to God after that.
    
    So maybe it is a process that leads to rest, instead of a coexistance?
    
    Jill
     

    
    John,
    
    This argument really isn't about mans' "free will" versus God's
    omniscience, though it might be confused as such, especially by Jews
    who don't recognize the revelation of the New Testament.
    
    This argument would more appropriately be framed as mans' "free will"
    versus God's omnipotence.
    
    jeff

Does one lead to the other, or can the rest and the struggle coexist?  Can
we, while resting secure in His arms, knowing that our every breath is in His
will, at the same time struggle with Him to know Him better?

I see no evidence in scripture that rest in Him - a rest without struggle -
was the final state.  By "rest" I don't mean inactivity, I just mean being so
submitted to God that nothing bothers us.  Picking an example, when Elijah
confronted the prophets of Baal, to external evidence he was resting in God:
he was just moving forward into an intense situation with no outward signs of
doubt or conflict (though we don't know what was going on inside him). 
Elijah seems to be in perfect rest.  But we are allowed to see what happens
next - he's totally out of that place of rest.  He runs for his life, and
asks God that he be allowed to die.

Even Jesus, who was in the Father's rest perfectly, wrestled with Him in the
garden.

I think we have to learn how to do both at the same time.

Paul

The idea that there is no free will is so obviously proven false from
Scripture that it's hard to believe it would even be discussed.

The consequences of a lack of free will are also obvious: There would be
no need to even _try_ to be obedient to God, for all we do would be what
he wanted anyway.  There would be no joy in our love of God, because if
we hated him, it would be what he wanted us to do, anyway.  There would
be no reason to be honest and upright, for if we were to steal and to
murder it would be what he wanted us to do, anyway.

No, God's Will is for all to obey him, for all to come to him.

Those who fail to love and obey him are those who by their own free will
reject God's grace freely offered.

/john

    re: .186
    
    Paul -
    
    Hmm, I just don't know.  Perhaps perfect rest will do away with
    all the struggle?  So its a process of more rest and less struggle.
    But since you point out that even Jesus struggled and He was perfect,
    perhaps we can not rest totally until we are united with Him and
    no longer in this body?
    
    Jill
    

>The idea that there is no free will is so obviously proven false from
>Scripture that it's hard to believe it would even be discussed.
    
    Hi John,
    
    Well, why don't you see if you can do any better than Mike in proving
    your assertion from the Scriptures.
    
    But before you go any further remember that the topic is salvation and
    whether it is for everyone, not the topic of "free will" in general.
	
    jeff
    

      re: .185
    
      Interesting in light of 1 Peter 1:2 which states that election
      is according to foreknowledge which I would catagorize with
      omniscience and not omnipotence.
    
    						Tony

    RE: .190
    
    Tony, music to my ears and joy to my heart! :-)

    See note 853.1--that's what the Word of God says to me, anyway.
    
    /Wayne

    There is a commonly-held misconception that a child reaches adulthood
    at age 18 (or some other arbitrary culture-specific age). In fact, most
    of us never reach true adulthood. That which is generally known as
    adulthood is actually nothing of the sort, since the majority of
    childhood problems are never dealt with and are simply carried forward
    and impact our lives until the day we die. How many of us have gotten
    over the pain of what our parents failed to give us? And how many of us
    are still stuck in our heads, having long since locked away our hearts
    in dark, filthy, lonely cells to cry oceans of tears where no one can
    hear them so that they won't embarass us? We survive, thinking that we
    have things figured out and that we understand how Christianity works,
    all the while denying the very center of our beings: our hearts. Do we
    think we really know love? I would venture to say that most of us have
    no clue as to what love really is. But there is a part of us, chained
    up in that cell, that longs to know.
    
    By contrast, the true adult is one who has learned what it really is to
    be a child: the freedom, the joy, the thrill of experiencing life, and
    the security of being unconditionally loved and fully provided for,
    hemmed in behind and before, with all needs met and all desires
    entrusted into the Father's care for Him to meet as and when He sees
    fit. Most of us never know this kind of life, but somehow we know in
    our imprisoned hearts that there must be more to life than that which
    we now have; something beyond what we presently know. So we search for
    the meaning of life. The true adult has a glimpse into not only what it
    means to love God with all of the heart, soul, mind, and strength and
    to love one's neighbor as oneself, but also a glimpse into how this is
    done. More importantly, the true adult is actually enabled to do it in
    ever-increasing measure. The false god of "free will" has been
    denounced in favor of the joy of being truly free in the Lord Jesus, to
    live His abundant life, in constant, second-by-second communion with
    the Father, Who shows His beloved child all that He does so that the
    child may experience the profound blessings of doing likewise. *That*
    gives life meaning. Every day becomes a personal adventure, to see what
    the Father will do (He's always doing new things) and will show us
    today about life, about love, about others, about ourselves, and about
    Himself. What better testimony could there possibly be to those who are
    hurting, struggling, downcast, and desolate of heart? This is the Good
    News: Jesus is Lord!
    
    
    It is not surprising to me that my words are not understood, much less
    received. I rather expected that they would not be by the majority of
    people. The matters of which I speak are not intellectual matters of
    the kind usually spoken here but rather are matters of the heart. They
    must be spiritually discerned, for the language of the heart is
    completely different from the language of the head. 
    
    If any of us thinks he knows anything, he does not know it as he ought.
    The Lord will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will harden
    whom He will harden. My conscience is clear before Him; I have written
    what He has asked me to write here in the name of the Lord Jesus. The
    seeds have been cast forth, and it is up to Him to determine the type
    of soil in which they land.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

    Here's a bit of truth that the Lord gave me this morning as I was
    praying about this topic:
    
    The size of one's ego and the degree of one's pride are inversely
    proportional to the size of the cell into which one's heart has been
    crammed. This directly affects one's ability both to give and to
    receive God's love.
    
    -- Daryl

    Tony,
    
    The Lord would have me respond to your note directly.
    
>Might I have been correct to interpret it, "Are you ready to make a
>choice?"
    
    Yes and no. Your interpretation is valid, but underlying it is the
    truth that one can only be ready to make such a choice if the Lord has
    enabled them to do so.
    
>I'm sorry if it pains you, but I completely see things differently as
>based on my personal understanding of agape.
>
>Agape draws.  The iron will of the sinner compels and would do anything to
>deny free will.
>    
>The crux of this (for me) is a right understanding of agape.
        
    I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm neither pained nor surprised.
    Exactly what within us responds to agape? Is it not our hearts? If our
    hearts have been imprisoned, and we're expending great levels of
    unconscious energy denying them, then we are in fact fighting agape,
    which is the very thing our hearts desire most. Our hearts know the
    truth; it is our heads that struggle to deny it in an attempt to
    maintain freedom of will in direct rebellion to the will of God.
    Eventually, God breaks those on whom He has mercy, and they lose the
    strength to fight. Then He begins to set the heart free from the false
    beliefs that imprison it.
    
    Anyone who would understand agape must first abandon all they think
    they know, not just on that subject, but on *all* subjects. False
    knowledge, understanding, and wisdom abound, but true knowledge,
    understanding, and wisdom come from God alone (and appear as
    foolishness to the world). We are to lean not on our own understanding.
    A cup that is filled with dirt must first be emptied and cleaned before
    it is fit to be used for drinking.
    
>I don't love my wife because she makes me love her.  I love my wife
>VOLUNTARILY because I see her love for me and my heart is warmed.  She
>draws me into communion with her.  She doesn't  make me be with her.  I
>choose to be with her.
    
    And what would happen if she stopped loving you and stopped drawing you
    in? Would you then cease to love her?
    
    Your privilege and calling as her husband is to love her as Christ
    loves the Church, giving yourself for her and washing her with His
    blood so as to present her as holy and blameless in your eyes before
    Him. You have the privilege of loving her unconditionally not because
    she loves you, but because *He* first loved you. His love may flow
    through you to her so that she may receive its incomparable blessings
    and give thanks to the Father for it. In her own way, His love may flow
    through her so that you also may receive and give thanks. Agape is so
    much more than we presently understand.
    
>Such is the power of love.  And its essence of drawing and not 
>compelling.
    
    This is one aspect of love. There are other aspects that are not as
    well understood and are certainly not as popular. For example, how is
    it that God, being all-powerful, would allow anyone to suffer the
    second death, since He has the power to prevent it? This too is love,
    but it has implications beyond those you have yet seen.
    
    In the final analysis, God is love, and His love is sovereign. Love
    *never* fails.
    
    In His love,
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Thanks bro!  I reread the reply you referenced and it was
        a blessing!  I was completely unaware of another text which
        explicitly defined election as being according to foreknowledge.
    
        The Word is so good!
    
    						Thanks Wayne,
    
    						Tony

      Hi Daryl,
    
        I felt impelled to immediately respond to one part of what you
        wrote and that is about the analogy with my wife.  Of course
        I know it falls apart; it is an incomplete analogy.
    
        In the analogy, I did not use myself as loving like Christ, I
        used my wife as doing so.  I simply tried to point out that
        my wife does not compel my conscience, she rather draws it.  I
        did not mean to extend the analogy any further; certainly not
        as far as you took it.  I agree 100% that the love Christ gives
        me is an unconditional love.
    
        As for the rest of your replies, my summary thoughts are these:
    
        I consistently perceive in your writings a trademark quality
        of them being presented as infallible prophetic words.  I
        perceive this as being an extremely unhealthy need that you
        have.  I'd prefer not to perceive it.  Paul didn't say the 
        words he penned in his epistles were 100% inspired, yet they
        are part of the Canon of scripture.
    
        The other thing I saw was a logical flow that went like this:
    
        1) To disbelieve in this matter (God has chosen who will be
           saved and who will be lost) is to not be an adult and to
           not understand love.  Such a person must be a spiritual
           child.
    
        2) True adults understand the truth of the matter.  
    
        I disagree with your concept of agape and thus remove this
        card from this house of cards and it all falls down (for me).
    
        But, even were I to believe you were doctrinally correct, I
        would not have agreed with the reply's posting as I don't
        agree with blanketly telling people they hardly have any under-
        standing of love and so forth (even if it be true)...
    
        It can be perceived as so haughty...
    
        I AM NOT implying what is in your heart, I am just telling you
        how these words ring in my ear.
    
        But, I do believe I am a spiritually baby.  I hope you believe
        that *you are* too!
    
    						Tony

RE: .179

Hi, Jeff.

This is between you and Mike.  I did want to address a couple points, though,
as part of "everyone" and "others." :-)

|    I have decided not to proceed with this method of discussing this
|    topic.  Your own method of using Scripture only has resulted in 
|    clearly obvious contradictions in your own argument.  It should be
|    apparent to everyone.

** Actually, obvious by now is that what's apparent to you is NOT necessarily
   "apparent to everyone."  God cannot deny Himself, and His Word is not
   self-contradictory.  What we have here is differing interpretation.  You
   see no contradiction in your interpretation, whereas Mike and SOME others
   do.  Mike believes his interpretation to be true, whereas YOU and SOME
   others do not.

   I believe there is a proper reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's
   volition/responsibility/accountability in Scripture.  Your's is an extreme
   view which cannot be wholly reconciled with Scripture, your claim other-
   wise notwithstanding.

   However, I do not doubt you believe your understanding to be true.  And I
   would not forbid that understanding because, in the final analysis, you
   see God as absolutely sovereign. I, for one, and I'm sure Mike and at least
   SOME others, see that Truth.  God is sovereign in some being saved and
   others being lost.  The key problem is man actually thinking he can stand
   against God, i.e., the lost seeing themselves without accountability or
   as righteous in their own eyes, and the saved perhaps worrying that God can-
   not really do what He says.
    
|    Also, you insist on casting aspersions, like "Scripture twister" upon
|    me. And you label me a "Calvinist" as if to discredit me somehow and
|    speak unkindly about other problems we have, as if that had any bearing
|    on our current argument. Though I am not offended these are offensive
|    acts which seems to accompany a weak argument.  I think it is evident that 
|    I have been taking the most straightforward look at Scripture, analyzing 
|    what it actually says without regard to a presupposition.  But you continue
|    to use in your argument the presupposition of free will to prove your
|    point. This is circular reasoning and is invalid.  As you have demonstrated
|    in the Scripture you entered, there is no Scripture-only support for "free
|    will".

** Mike did not label you a "Scripture twister."  What he said was "you have to
   play scripture twister to force fit your theology."  Mike did not label you
   a "Calvinist."  What he said was "this isn't the only problematic area for
   Calvinists..."  Mike labeled YOUR VIEW ON THIS SUBJECT Calvinistic.  FWIW,
   that's how I took things, but I stipulate that I'm neither you nor Mike! :-)

   You claimed to take no offense, but rather saw offensiveness to reinforce
   your view that Mike's argument is weak because you've previously seen offen-
   sive acts accompany weak arguments.  You go on to say you "think it is
   evident" that your look at Scripture is more straightforward without regard
   to a presupposition.  Well, Jeff, I as perhaps alone among "others" do not
   see your interpretation as straightforward without presupposition.  IMHO,
   you see circular reasoning on Mike's part while refusing to see your own.

   Based on our previous interactions, I'm fairly sure you'll "reject" my
   observation and opinion.  And I'm pained more than you know to think that
   you, my brother in Christ, might see me as NOT studying to show myself
   "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly divid-
   ing the word of truth" but rather engaging in "profane and vain babblings"
   increasing unto ungodliness (see 2Ti.2:11-16) because I do not totally share
   your view.  I nonetheless offer my assessment because I'm convinced of the
   truth, just as you are.  And, as you, I would that all men come to the truth.
   You have a choice to ponder these things in your heart or to reject them
   outright.  So be it.
    
|    Its important for you (and others) to remember that I too believed more
|    or less as you do on this topic.

** And what exactly do you think Mike (and others, including me) believe?  I
   would again present a few key points about what I believe BASED ON THE TRUTH
   OF SCRIPTURE AS COMMENDED TO MY HEART BY THE HOLY SPIRIT:

     1) GOD ALWAYS WAS, IS AND SHALL BE. Beyond Him there was, is and will
        be none.

     2) God is Light and Love. IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS.

     3) THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST. In Him is life, and the life is the
        light of men.

     4) GOD IS SOVEREIGN IN LIFE, and His light shines in our darkness.

        Principle:  Light dispels darkness.  In order for light to not be
          seen in darkness, the light must be hidden by something not trans-
          parent.  In other words, darkness itself cannot hide light. Sin is
          darkness.  Light shines in darkness; therefore, the Light can be
          seen by sinners in darkness unless it is hidden by something else.
          As darkness cannot forbid light, so sin cannot forbid Light.

     5) God loves us and hates sin.  HE IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS.

And to the question of this topic:  Salvation is reserved and guaranteed ex-
clusively for those who will confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and will
believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead (see Ro.10:8-13).

/Wayne

RE: .197

Now we come to the crux of the issue:  Who or what is hiding the Light?  Since
darkness cannot hide light, and sin cannot hide Light, then by whom or by what
is the Light hidden, or why and when and how are men made blind?

Being born in darkness in no way implies being born blind: "And this is the con-
demnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the
light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be discovered. But he
that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that
they are wrought in God." (Jn.3:19-21, KJV)  The condemnation is NOT because of
preconditioned blindness, rather because men love darkness instead of light.
There would seem to be a choice, light unto life or darkness unto death.  Loving
darkness cannot be the work of God because God cannot deny Himself.  That men
born into darkness can see and be drawn to the Light is ENTIRELY the work of
God.  Jesus said, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, he shall not enter therein." (Mk.10:15, KJV)  How exactly would a child
be able to receive the kingdom of God?  The Scripture does not say whosoever is
not GIVEN the kingdom of God shall not enter, rather whosoever will not RECEIVE.

I submit that God gives us life, and the beginning of life is seeing Him.  Being
created in the image of God implies discernment and volition, the ability to
know and choose.  God holds man responsible for how we use His free gifts to us.
Of course, to reject the free gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ is to choose
death, even though temporal life with sin's "pleasures" might appear to go on.

Furthermore, I submit that we come into the world like Adam and Eve, i.e., both
self-aware and God-aware in innocence, and we sin the same way by choosing to
disobey God.  I fully expect Jeff and others to see this as outrageous, if not
heretical.  Nonetheless, I have yet to see irrefutable Scriptural proof that we
are born totally depraved, spiritually blind and dead.  Again, being born into
darkness is not the same as being unable to see light.  If we come into the
world unable to see like Adam and Eve, then God is a respecter of persons.
Would God blind anyone from birth and lead him to death?

"Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but
shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord." (Le.19:14, KJV)

"Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of the way." (De.27:18a, KJV)

"Then again called <the Pharisees> the man that was blind, and said unto him,
Give God the praise: we know that <Jesus> is a sinner. He answered and said,
Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was
blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did He to thee? how opened
He thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear:
wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be His disciples? Then they
reviled him, and said, Thou art His disciple; but we are Moses disciples. We
know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence He
is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that
ye know not from whence He is, and yet He hath opened mine eyes. Now we know
that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth
His will, him He heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man
opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, He
could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in
sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. Jesus heard that they had
cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, 'Dost thou believe on
the Son of God?' He answered and said, Who is He, Lord, that I might believe on
Him? And Jesus said unto him, 'Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that
talketh with thee.' And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. And
Jesus said, 'For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not
might see; and that they which see might be made blind.' And some of the
Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto Him, Are we
blind also? Jesus said unto them, 'If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but
now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.'" (Jn.9:24-41, KJV)

Only God knows when each of us first chooses to disobey Him, and He has made
known to us that, left to our own devices, we will all and always sin.  Without
light in darkness, we would sin unto death.  But God said, "I will be gracious
to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."
(Ex.33:19b, KJV)  The Apostle Paul concluded "So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Ro.9:16, KJV)

Why must God be seen as less sovereign in choosing to empower man with volition,
enabling our choice unto life or death, than in actually causing some to be
saved and others to be lost according to His choice?  No matter how we cut
things, God extends mercy and grace according to His will, not ours.  I believe
Scripture teaches that God freely and impartially gives everyone the freedom/
opportunity to choose either life or death, and that the destiny of those
incapable of exercising the gift rightly remains with "The Lord, The Lord God,
merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keep-
ing mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that
will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth
generation." (Ex.34:6&7, KJV)

Choosing life must be regarded as proper use of God's gift, not as any act of
righteousness on our part.

What then of blindness?  I submit that seeing and choosing precede blinding and
hardening unto death.  And even then, according to election (setting aside the
carnal in order to establish the spiritual), some who are blind may see again:

   "The Lord looseth the prisoners: The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind:
   the Lord raiseth them that are bowed down: the Lord loveth the righteous:
   The Lord preserveth the strangers; He relieveth the fatherless and widow:
   but the way of wicked He turneth upside down...He healeth the broken in
   heart, and bindeth up their griefs. He telleth the number of the stars; He
   calleth them all by their names. Great is the Lord, and of great power: His
   understanding is infinite. The Lord lifteth up the meek: He casteth the
   wicked down to the ground...The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear Him,
   in those that hope in His mercy." (Ps.146:7b-9; 147:3-6 & 11, KJV)

   Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me
   to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
   to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind,
   to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of
   the Lord." (Luke 4:18&19, KJV)

   Jesus said, "'Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have
   the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness
   knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light,
   that ye may be the children of light.' These things spake Jesus, and
   departed, and did hide Himself from them. But though He had done so many
   miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: That the saying of
   Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath
   believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
   Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath
   blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
   their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should
   heal them. These things said Isaiah, when he saw His glory, and spake of
   Him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but
   because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put
   out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise
   of God." (Jn.12:35-43, KJV)

   Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that
   sent me. And he that seeth me seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into
   the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And
   if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not
   to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and
   receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have
   spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of
   myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I
   should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is life
   everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me,
   so I speak." (Jn.12:44-50, KJV)

   The gospel of Christ "is the power of God unto salvation to every one that
   believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the
   righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The
   just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
   against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
   unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
   for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the
   creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
   are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they may be without
   excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
   neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
   foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
   fools." (Ro.1:16-22, KJV)

   "For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned
   without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have
   sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the
   law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For
   when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained
   in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, Which
   shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
   bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing
   one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
   Christ according to my gospel." (Ro.2:11-16, KJV)

   "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
   believeth." (Ro.10:4, KJV)

   "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which He seeketh for; but the
   election hath obtained it, and the rest were hardened (According as it is
   written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should
   not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day...Have they
   stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall
   salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy...And
   they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for
   God is able to graft them in again...As concerning the gospel, they are
   enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for
   the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
   For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
   through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that
   through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them
   all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all." (Ro.11:7&8,11,23 & 28-
   32, KJV)

   "As we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden
   things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God
   deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every
   man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid
   to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
   of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
   who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not
   ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus'
   sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined
   in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
   face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
   excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." (2Co.4:1b-7, KJV)

I know that some likely will not appreciate my presenting Scripture without
"necessary and sufficient" commentary.  But, the above passages have been used
by God to reveal Himself to my heart.  My words might not comprehend or repre-
sent Truth, but God's own Word does, regardless of my incomplete understanding.
So, I submit my thought process in part and portions of God's Word for
consideration.

I could care less about my words being remembered, but the Word of God will go
forth to accomplish His purpose.  May the Word of God dwell in us richly, keep-
ing us in perfect peace whose minds are stayed on Him.

/Wayne

|    I have decided not to proceed with this method of discussing this
|    topic.  Your own method of using Scripture only has resulted in 
|    clearly obvious contradictions in your own argument.  It should be
|    apparent to everyone.

>>** Actually, obvious by now is that what's apparent to you is NOT necessarily
>>"apparent to everyone."  God cannot deny Himself, and His Word is not
>>self-contradictory.  What we have here is differing interpretation.  You
>>see no contradiction in your interpretation, whereas Mike and SOME others
>>do.  Mike believes his interpretation to be true, whereas YOU and SOME
>>others do not.

Hi Wayne,

The obvious contradiction I am referring to is between the idea that men 
have a free will with which to choose salvation and several of the 
Scriptures Mike entered in support of this idea which demonstrate clearly 
that unless God draws men (a supernatural act) they cannot come to Him for 
salvation.  If only those who are drawn by God to belief, and God does not
draw everyone, it cannot be true that men have an *actual* choice because 
the enabling power to believe is really outside of them, that is, it is in
God's work in drawing.


>>I believe there is a proper reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's
>>volition/responsibility/accountability in Scripture.  Your's is an extreme
>>view which cannot be wholly reconciled with Scripture, your claim other-
>>wise notwithstanding.

You have not heard my view as I have not entered it concerning man's role
in salvation.  So, any view you attribute to me on this matter is based
upon assumption.

>>However, I do not doubt you believe your understanding to be true.  And I
>>would not forbid that understanding because, in the final analysis, you
>>see God as absolutely sovereign. I, for one, and I'm sure Mike and at least
>>SOME others, see that Truth.  God is sovereign in some being saved and
>>others being lost.  The key problem is man actually thinking he can stand
>>against God, i.e., the lost seeing themselves without accountability or
>>as righteous in their own eyes, and the saved perhaps worrying that God can-
>>not really do what He says.

I do not believe many evangelicals today really understand God's sovereignty.
And since they do not truly understand it they cannot accept the many
implications of His sovereignty.
    

>>Based on our previous interactions, I'm fairly sure you'll "reject" my
>>observation and opinion.  And I'm pained more than you know to think that
>>you, my brother in Christ, might see me as NOT studying to show myself
>>"approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly divid-
>>ing the word of truth" but rather engaging in "profane and vain babblings"
>>increasing unto ungodliness (see 2Ti.2:11-16) because I do not totally share
>>your view.  I nonetheless offer my assessment because I'm convinced of the
>>truth, just as you are.  And, as you, I would that all men come to the truth.
>>You have a choice to ponder these things in your heart or to reject them
>>outright.  So be it.

Au contraire, Wayne, I consider all you and anyone else has to say to me 
personally.  Concerning the Word of God though, I have an advantage; I have
been on both sides.

    
|    Its important for you (and others) to remember that I too believed more
|    or less as you do on this topic.

>>** And what exactly do you think Mike (and others, including me) believe?  

Don't know about you, Wayne.  But I was speaking to Mike (and others,
whomever they may be) who believe man's will is free and that all have a
choice in salvation, to believe or disbelieve, within themselves.  This
very erroneous idea has many, many serious implications for the life of
the believer and that is why it is so important.

jeff

>The obvious contradiction I am referring to is between the idea that men 
>have a free will with which to choose salvation and several of the 
>Scriptures Mike entered in support of this idea which demonstrate clearly 
>that unless God draws men (a supernatural act) they cannot come to Him for 
>salvation.  If only those who are drawn by God to belief, and God does not
>draw everyone, it cannot be true that men have an *actual* choice because 
>the enabling power to believe is really outside of them, that is, it is in
>God's work in drawing.

But what you missed is that the supernatural act of drawing men _can_ be
resisted.  This is free will.  This is made clear in Matt 23:37.

/johyn

>The obvious contradiction I am referring to is between the idea that men 
>have a free will with which to choose salvation and several of the 
>Scriptures Mike entered in support of this idea which demonstrate clearly 
>that unless God draws men (a supernatural act) they cannot come to Him for 
>salvation.  If only those believe who are drawn by God to belief, and God 
>does not draw everyone, it cannot be true that men have an *actual* choice 
>because the enabling power to believe is really outside of them, that is, 
>it is in God's work in drawing.

>>But what you missed is that the supernatural act of drawing men _can_ be
>>resisted.  This is free will.  This is made clear in Matt 23:37.

>>/johyn

Whether your statement is true or not, Johyn, it is a different matter.

jeff

    Hi Jeff 
    
    ->>I believe there is a proper reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's
    ->>volition/responsibility/accountability in Scripture.  Your's is an extreme
    ->>view which cannot be wholly reconciled with Scripture, your claim other-
    ->>wise notwithstanding.
    -
    -You have not heard my view as I have not entered it concerning man's role
    -in salvation.  So, any view you attribute to me on this matter is
    -based upon assumption.
    
    So lets hear your view about the reconciliation of God's sovereignty
    and man's volition/responsibility/accountability.
    
    
    Jill

RE: .199

Hi, Jeff.

Thanks for listening to what I've been trying to say.  We're still apart on
whether seeing and choosing precede/evoke faith, or faith is arbitrarily given
by no other foreordained means, but I hope you see that I confess God as
absolutely sovereign in the lives of men, mine in particular!

| The obvious contradiction I am referring to is between the idea that men 
| have a free will with which to choose salvation and several of the 
| Scriptures Mike entered in support of this idea which demonstrate clearly 
| that unless God draws men (a supernatural act) they cannot come to Him for 
| salvation.  If only those who are drawn by God to belief, and God does not
| draw everyone, it cannot be true that men have an *actual* choice because 
| the enabling power to believe is really outside of them, that is, it is in
| God's work in drawing.

** Jeff, I believe we do have an *actual* choice, BUT ONLY BY GOD'S WILL.  I
   see God-given volition as an awesome means by which God can hold man
   responsible for sinning without Himself being seen as sin's cause or as a
   respecter of persons.

   Speaking for myself, I can't really express to you or another how great God
   is in my eyes, let alone how GREAT He really is, given that He has done, is
   doing and will do all that He says EVEN THOUGH HE FOREORDAINED THAT I COULD
   CHOOSE TO NOT WORSHIP HIM AS GOD.  The fact is that by God's mercy man can
   have temporal life apart from God, even though God sustains that life.  Our
   Enemy deceives by having us believe that we also can have eternal life apart
   from God, or that we can have eternal life without "trusting and obeying"
   Jesus the Christ of God.

| You have not heard my view as I have not entered it concerning man's role
| in salvation.  So, any view you attribute to me on this matter is based
| upon assumption.

** Your are correct--I did make an assumption.  Based on your written words
   to date, I assumed that you saw man as having no role whatsoever in salva-
   tion, except that God could do something outside man's control and decree
   man nonetheless responsible.  If my assumption is wrong, then please set
   me straight. :-)

| I do not believe many evangelicals today really understand God's sovereignty.
| And since they do not truly understand it they cannot accept the many
| implications of His sovereignty.

** Amen and Amen, Jeff!  How can we comprehend God who by foreknowledge sees
   many being lost as a necessary result of their foreordained volition, but
   nonetheless bears in Himself the pain and sorrow wrought by sin so that
   those who do call on His Name might be saved (forgiven, cleansed and made
   like His own Son) according to election?  God gave all men volition so that
   some might be saved unto His glory!  Otherwise, ALL WOULD DIE IN SIN!  God
   invites even those who think they do not need Him to come unto Him.  The
   Word is sent to all that some might be saved.

   How big is God?  He is at least big enough to have borne in Jesus Christ all
   of the pain and sorrow that man's (past, present and future) sin accrues.
   We can do nothing.  Come to Jesus and live (just like a dependent child), or
   turn away and die.  We who are "being fully persuaded that, what God has
   promised, He is able also to perform" will become His righteousness!

   IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT!!

| Au contraire, Wayne, I consider all you and anyone else has to say to me 
| personally.  Concerning the Word of God though, I have an advantage; I have
| been on both sides.

** And I, too, consider your words, Jeff.  That's the least that brothers
   should do. :-)  Thanks for taking time to share what you believe to be true,
   even if I can't/don't understand your words.

   Advantage?  How so?  Both sides?  Were we not both lost and then found?  Or
   are you referring to God's sovereignty versus man's "free will?" :-)  Jeff,
   I have sought rest on both sides of the issue, and not finding rest, have
   come to a position holding God as sovereign in/through my choices, able to
   use even my mistakes and the mistakes of others on my behalf to conform me
   to the image of His Son (see Romans 8).
    
| Don't know about you, Wayne.  But I was speaking to Mike (and others,
| whomever they may be) who believe man's will is free and that all have a
| choice in salvation, to believe or disbelieve, within themselves.  This
| very erroneous idea has many, many serious implications for the life of
| the believer and that is why it is so important.

** I 100% agree that man's will is not "free."  Volition is a gift of God, part
   and parcel of life.  God has empowered us, though, to use that gift unto
   eternal life or death.  In that sense, man is free to turn toward or away
   from the Light.

   The idea that God chooses/causes few to be saved and most to be lost has
   many more serious implications, I think.  Of course, the danger in the life
   of believers around "free will" is thinking we can do something to save
   ourselves, or otherwise ENABLE or DISABLE God.  How utterly foolish!

/Wayne

    Hi, Tony,
    
>In the analogy, I did not use myself as loving like Christ, I used my wife
>as doing so.  I simply tried to point out that my wife does not compel my
>conscience, she rather draws it.  I did not mean to extend the analogy any
>further; certainly not as far as you took it.  I agree 100% that the love
>Christ gives me is an unconditional love.
    
    Fair enough; no problem. I had hoped that this was so but did not wish
    to make that assumption. If what I described is actually a living
    reality for you, then in that way you are indeed blessed!
        
>I consistently perceive in your writings a trademark quality of them being
>presented as infallible prophetic words.  I perceive this as being an
>extremely unhealthy need that you have.  I'd prefer not to perceive it. 
>Paul didn't say the  words he penned in his epistles were 100% inspired,
>yet they are part of the Canon of scripture.
    
    For what it's worth, I have not said that my words are inspired, nor
    have I said that they are not. However, you seem to be making the
    assumption that they are not and ignoring out-of-hand the possibility
    that they are. If I may ask, by what means do you make this judgment?
    
    Has the Lord ever used you to speak a prophecy? Has He ever had someone
    speak a prophecy to you personally? How would you judge the validity of
    such a prophecy if He did (in either case)?
    
    Do you understand the concept of living life doing and saying only what
    you see the Father doing and saying? If so, do you have a working
    knowledge as to how this may be done from a practical standpoint?
    
    I am truly sorry that you see this as a need (and an unhealthy one at
    that) on my part. Though this may be difficult if not impossible for
    you to believe, I can assure you that the only need of which I am
    conscious is to do what I see the Father doing. He has worked within me
    over the last fourteen months to set me free from all conscious
    perceived needs, and in so doing, He has brought to my awareness and
    set me free from a lot of unconscious ones as well. I can honestly say
    that as far as I am presently aware, all of my needs are fully met in
    Him. I do have a couple of strong desires, but He has enabled me to
    surrender them to Him and to await patiently His will concerning them,
    whether they be fulfilled in His perfect timing or not at all in this
    life. The Lord has worked within me so that I am now fully content just
    being, without having to concern myself with what I am being or doing.
    I can just be me, and He takes care of everything else, working in all
    things (including my mistakes) for my good and for the good of others
    who love Him.
    
    So that which you perceive as a need on my part is in fact nothing more
    than a holy unction from the Lord to say exactly what I hear Him
    saying, exactly how He says it. Yes, I speak with boldness and
    authority, because that is how He is speaking. I would have been
    perfectly content never to enter another note in this conference, much
    less one spoken in such a tone, but it is not within me to deny or
    resist what He has put on my heart to do and to say. So I would ask you
    not to judge by appearances but rather to make a right judgment, for as
    you judge, so will you be judged. I say that for your caution and
    because it is a truth, not because I have any hard feelings toward you
    (on the contrary, I care for you a great deal!).
    
>I disagree with your concept of agape and thus remove this card from this
>house of cards and it all falls down (for me).
    
    No problem. It is not a requirement that we agree, in fact it is by
    design that we do not, at least at present.
    
>But, even were I to believe you were doctrinally correct, I would not have
>agreed with the reply's posting as I don't agree with blanketly telling
>people they hardly have any under- standing of love and so forth (even if
>it be true)...
>    
>It can be perceived as so haughty...
>
>I AM NOT implying what is in your heart, I am just telling you how these
>words ring in my ear.
    
    Well, for what it's worth, I apologize if you were offended. However,
    the Lord has had a number of people make exactly this kind of statement
    many times throughout Scripture, and they probably appeared haughty to
    those toward whom the words were directed too. Is it so strange that He
    would choose to say this now? He is not above offending our
    sensitivities for His ultimate sovereign purposes, because He knows
    exactly what we need to hear at any given time so that His plan will be
    carried out. Jesus spoke many hard truths, but the Father caused Him to
    be a stumbling block so that many would not understand or receive them.
    Only those whose hearts the Father had softened and enlightened could
    receive Jesus.
    
>But, I do believe I am a spiritually baby.  I hope you believe that *you
>are* too!
    
    The fact that you even feel the need to say this reveals much about
    what is going on within you, at least with respect to me, but that is
    not a topic for this public forum. 
    
    Personally, I claim nothing with respect to spiritual maturity. I only
    relate from experience what the Lord has done in my life in the
    knowledge that I am being obedient to His leading in doing so and that
    it will help those whom He has prepared to receive my words. Clearly
    you are not one of those people, at least not now. I have no problem
    with that and no desire for it to be otherwise than it is; He knows
    what He is doing.
    
    But is it so impossible that He would raise up someone and impart
    knowledge and experience that would take them several light years
    beyond where you are today? And if He did this, do you have any idea
    why He would do this? How would you respond to Jesus or the apostles if
    they were around speaking His words boldly and with authority today,
    and their doctrinal teaching differed from yours? Would you resist
    them, or would you get on your face before the Father, renounce your
    knowledge and understanding, and ask for His wisdom? In fact, is not
    this latter action what we all should do when faced with teaching that
    condradicts what we have learned to-date? I can testify that I have
    done it concerning the words you and others here have spoken. It is an
    extremely common practice for me to do this, for apart from Him, I can
    do nothing, and my wisdom is worse than useless. Everything I have
    posted here is the result of having done that.
    
    -- Daryl

      Hi Daryl,
    
        I have to rush to work, but I quickly want to say one thing.
    
        I DEEPLY appreciate the tone of your reply!!  Thanks!!   :-)
    
        I will hope to do as Paul commended the Bereans for doing.
        Study the word to see if these things are so.
    
    						Thanks Again,
    
    						Tony

  Hi Jeff,

    I just want to acknowledge one thing you have stated a few 
    times.  You have stated that the initial coming to saving
    faith is something man cannot do on his own.  That this must
    be of divine origin.  The reasoning is thus that God must have
    elected these people for salvation and given that God must
    have provided for these people to make this right choice, it
    must follow that those who did not make this right choice
    were not elected to do so.

    I understand your reasoning.  It would seem that if faith is
    required in order to be saved, what of a person's very first
    impulse of faith?  Was that very first impulse not a right act?
    If a right act, was it not of divine origin?  If a person has
    a choice to make, is not the choice itself a righteous deed?
    And thus God must have authored it?

    I freely acknowledge that this is quite a quandary.  I cannot
    explain this.  But, there is a tension here for the view I hold
    to also has a quandary for those of your position which is, "How
    can you reconcile your belief with any kind of right concept of
    a God who is agape?"  How does one explain a God who is supposed 
    to be love and yet who designs the universe such that untold millions
    end up in eternal conscious torment (your view embraces this as well)
    and they had no say in the matter???

    What is my point?  Part of your support for your position is reasoning
    where you have cited the above quandary.  But, an argument based on
    reasoning where each side has its quandaries would, I believe, much
    more strongly support the position you *do not* hold to.

    Why?

    Because the gospel is about understanding God's goodness and if one
    were to place the unexplained in a hierarchal order, those things that
    are unexplained that put a rational understanding of God's character
    to the test would rate a higher scale than those that do not.  Or to
    put another way, if one or the other were to be left unfathomed, as
    understanding agape is foremost, your view would be rejected on the
    basis that to not fathom the unfathomable thing you confront us with 
    *is a lot more fathomable* than to not fathom the quandary we pose 
    with you.
    
    Thus, you are a lot better off to keep rational thought as distant
    as you can from your line of defense and stick to scripture only - 
    although it is my sincere conviction that scripture, rightly understood,
    will not help you either!!!

							Tony

    >    <<< Note 847.174 by EDSCLU::GLEASON "Daryl Gleason, IBM I/C Support" >>>
>    To those of you who may cling to the need to believe that you have free
>    will, I would ask you: Are you happy? Have you received His abundant
>    life? Have you entered His Sabbath and found rest? Or are you burdened
    
    YES! to all of the above.
    
>    with choices, agonizing over whether or not you are making the right
>    ones? Are you worried that God might one day turn away from you? Do you
>    feel a need to be "right"? If so, it doesn't have to be that way. Psalm
    
    NO! to all of the above.
    
    Mike

    God's Sovereignty vs. Man's Free Will is 2 sides of the same coin.  
    Election is God's side, free will is our side.  Anyone who doesn't
    balance the 2 as Scripture teaches is only looking at 1 side.
    
    Mike

>         <<< Note 847.179 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    
>    I have decided not to proceed with this method of discussing this
>    topic.  Your own method of using Scripture only has resulted in 
>    clearly obvious contradictions in your own argument.  It should be
>    apparent to everyone.
    
    Obviously it isn't because the topic keeps coming up.  Avoidance
    doesn't solve anything.  I can understand if you're suddenly too busy,
    but my last reply to you requires a response.  Hit & run tactics don't
    sit very well with me.
    
>    Also, you insist on casting aspersions, like "Scripture twister" upon
>    me. And you label me a "Calvinist" as if to discredit me somehow and
>    speak unkindly about other problems we have, as if that had any bearing
>    on our current argument. Though I am not offended these are offensive
>    acts which seems to accompany a weak argument.  I think it is evident that 
>    I have been taking the most straightforward look at Scripture, analyzing 
>    what it actually says without regard to a presupposition.  But you continue
>    to use in your argument the presupposition of free will to prove your
>    point. This is circular reasoning and is invalid.  As you have demonstrated
>    in the Scripture you entered, there is no Scripture-only support for "free
>    will".
    
    I don't respond very well to condescending dialogue such as yours. 
    This paragraph is a prime example.  You do this often and to anyone who
    disagrees with you.  Some of the insults you've hurled toward Wayne and
    others in here call for an apology.  I know for a fact that you've been
    asked about this several times offline.  Yet, when someone directs it to
    you, all of a sudden it's not okay.  Jeff, as gently as I can say this,
    it's time for you to look in the mirror.  
    
>    But there has been some progress, in my view, in your acknowledgement
>    that "all" is not necessarily "exhaustive".  I think this is a large
>    step which may allow you to take even a next step.
    
    The "progress" is a figment of your imagination.  I never stated that I
    supported universalism.  Something is definitely wrong if you perceive
    progress out of non-existence.
    
    Mike

    
    Hi Mike,
    
    Will you (or someone else) enter Romans 9:1-24 from an electronic
    Bible?
    
    thanks!

Romans 9:1  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing 
me witness in the Holy Ghost, 
  2  That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 
  3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, 
my kinsmen according to the flesh: 
  4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and 
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
promises; 
  5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, 
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 
  6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not 
all Israel, which are of Israel: 
  7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: 
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 
  8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 
  9  For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah 
shall have a son. 
 10  And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by 
our father Isaac; 
 11  (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, 
but of him that calleth;) 
 12  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 
 13  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 
 14  What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 
 15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and 
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 
 16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
God that sheweth mercy. 
 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I 
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be 
declared throughout all the earth. 
 18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he 
hardeneth. 
 19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath 
resisted his will? 
 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing 
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 
 21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one 
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 
 22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, 
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 
 23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
 24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the 
Gentiles? 


Number of occurances of search:   -  24.

    Re: .197
    
    Wayne, thanks for that excellent and well-formulated reply.
    
    Mike

Ezekiel 3:18-21
    When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him
 not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his
 life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I
 require at thine hand.
 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor
 from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy
 soul.
 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit
 iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou
 hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness
 which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at
 thine hand.
 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not,
 and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou
 hast delivered thy soul.

>         <<< Note 847.201 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>
>Whether your statement is true or not, Johyn, it is a different matter.

    Jeff, is this a game of semantics you're playing now?  If you have a
    problem with dialogue about free will in this topic then maybe we can
    find another or create a new one.
    
    Mike

>         <<< Note 847.199 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>|   Its important for you (and others) to remember that I too believed more
>|    or less as you do on this topic.
    
    Being on both sides obviously doesn't make any of us an expert.  I've been
    there as well and I have lived it.  I have felt the pain and hinderance
    of 100% Arminianism.  God has shown me that the Biblical view is more 
    balanced than any man-made extreme (i.e., Calvinism or Arminianism). 
    When you rebuked your Arminius-tendencies, you forgot to research the
    middle before adopting the other extreme.  Both of these extreme views,
    Biblically speaking, are only half right in their 5 points.

>Don't know about you, Wayne.  But I was speaking to Mike (and others,
>whomever they may be) who believe man's will is free and that all have a
>choice in salvation, to believe or disbelieve, within themselves.  This
>very erroneous idea has many, many serious implications for the life of
>the believer and that is why it is so important.

    Such as?
    
    Mike

    
    Thank you, Jim!
    
    What does Romans 9 say about salvation?  Anyone feel free to comment.
    
    Also, anyone have another translation of Romans 9, such as NIV or NASB
    on-line?  If so, will you enter it?
    
    jeff
    
    

    RE: .208
    
    I understand your point, Mike, and essentially agree.  I would say
    Foreknowledge is God's side, "free will" is our side, and Election is
    God's act to insure salvation for all those He sees calling upon Him.
    
    David said, "O Lord, thou has searched me, and known me. Thou knowest
    my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my though afar off. 
    Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all
    my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou
    knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid
    thine hand upon me. SUCH KNOWLEDGE IS TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME; IT IS HIGH,
    I CANNOT ATTAIN UNTO IT. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither
    shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art
    there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the
    wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even
    there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I
    say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light
    about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth
    as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou
    hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I
    will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous
    are thy works; and that my soul knoweth greatly. My substance was not
    hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the
    lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being
    unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, what days they
    should be fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
    
    "How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the
    sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the
    sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. Surely thou wilt slay the
    wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. For they speak
    against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do not
    I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those
    that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count
    them mine enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know
    my thoughts: And see if there be any way of pain in me, and lead me in
    the way everlasting." (Ps.139, KJV)
    
    /Wayne
          

    
    Mike,
    
    I reject Calvary Chapels' theology of balance.
    
    Most of us here believe the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith
    and life.  Truth is exclusive.  Balance is for those unable or
    unwilling to understand/accept a truth claim which contradicts their
    worldview. 
    
    jeff

One thing I see you doing, Jeff, is saying "Passage X must not be taken
literally, but must be viewed in the light of passage Y."  And there is truth
to this, this is a major basis of correct interpretation.  But to be correct,
it must be matched by the opposite: "Passage Y must not be taken literally,
but must be viewed in the light of passage X."

Given the enormous emphasis of the Bible, of the prophets, of Jesus on
choosing God, (of which Mike's Ezekiel passage is only one example), how can
the passages which suggest that God does the work of making the choice be
taken completely literally.

I'm with Mike on this one - neither extreme is complete.  I think the 2-sided
coin is a good analogy.

Paul

>         <<< Note 847.218 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    
>    I reject Calvary Chapels' theology of balance.
    >
>    Most of us here believe the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith
>    and life.  Truth is exclusive.  Balance is for those unable or
>    unwilling to understand/accept a truth claim which contradicts their
>    worldview. 
    
    Jeff, you're condescending again and your opinion is obviously
    uninformed with respect to CC.  
    
    When both man-made extremes blatantly contradict God's Word, we
    obviously have more homework to do.  Like me, CC also believes "...the
    Bible to be the infallible rule of faith and life.  Truth is
    exclusive." 
    
    Mike

      Hi Jeff,
    
        When you gave the qualifier to 'balance', did you mean that
        in a universal sense?  The word balance is so generic that
    	I find it incredible to be able to describe is as you did
        and to be assured that it fits in every case the word is used.
    
        I am honestly unsure of Mike's exact view, but I see it as
        possible that his present understandings have been sincerely
        and honestly attained and that if he has any 'worldview' in
        him (which we all probably do to some extent), it is not 
        recognized by him as such.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .218
    
    "Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice. Let your
    moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." (Ph.4:4&5, KJV)
    
    Anyone care to look up that word moderation, either in an English
    dictionary or in the original Greek, and share the meaning?
    
    /Wayne

Not a definition, but an old saying:

"Everything in moderation, including moderation."

    RE: .216
    
|    What does Romans 9 say about salvation?  Anyone feel free to comment.

** I dunno, Jeff, what does Romans 9 say about salvation?  I will make a few
   comments on what the passage says about Election, though.

Romans 9:1  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing 
me witness in the Holy Ghost, 
  2  That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 
  3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, 
my kinsmen according to the flesh: 
  4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and 
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
promises; 
  5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, 
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
  6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not 
all Israel, which are of Israel: 
  7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: 
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 
  8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 

** Israel is God's "chosen" people!  Carnal Israel has been put aside in order
   that Spiritual Israel might be established.  And Spiritual Israel comprises
   both Jew and Gentile; therefore, God's promise made without repentance (on
   His part) to Israel is kept in Jesus the Christ of God.

  9  For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah 
shall have a son. 
 10  And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by 
our father Isaac; 
 11  (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, 
but of him that calleth;) 
 12  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 
 13  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

** Elect according to Foreknowledge.  How exactly did this come about?  Did God
   cause Jacob to lie and deceive in order to get the birthright and blessing?
   Or did God cause Esau to sell his birthright?

   No!  Jacob and Esau both had choices to make according to their natures.
   God foreknew what would transpire between Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Esau,
   and chose Jacob through whom His purpose would stand, neither by Jacob's
   nor Esau's work (or lack thereof), but by Him who called Abraham, Isaac and
   Jacob.  God was sovereign in Jacob's and Esau's choices.

   Moreover, we cannot take this passage to say that Jacob was saved and Esau
   was lost.  "Loved" and "hated" are in terms of God's purpose in the
   blessing of mankind, NOT in terms of Jacob's and Esau's salvation.  Election
   often has more to do with the means through which salvation is offered than
   with who is saved and lost.  In this case, Jacob was chosen as the person
   through whom God would bring forward His plan of salvation.

 14  What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 
 15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and 
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 
 16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
God that sheweth mercy. 
 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I 
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be 
declared throughout all the earth. 
 18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he 
hardeneth.

** Pharaoh had choices, and God was sovereign in those choices to deliver His
   chosen people from captivity.  God did not deliver His people against
   Pharoah's will, rather He made Pharaoh willing to let His people go.  In
   other words, God did not kill Pharaoh and raise up another who would let
   His people go, rather He patiently endured Pharaoh's choices in order to
   reveal His power.

 19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath 
resisted his will? 
 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing 
formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 
 21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one 
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 
 22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, 
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

** Note that v. 22 does not say God afore prepared vessels of wrath for
   destruction.  Honour and dishonour do not refer to life and death, rather to
   appearance and purpose.  Man's reply is Why did you make me like this?, not
   why did you make me do this?  Flesh warring against spirit.

   V. 22 does say that God remains patient with people who make choices unto
   death.  In other words, God is patient with sinners, but His wrath is
   revealed against sin.  Why not just immediately destroy sin, and sinners,
   too?

 23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of 
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 
 24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the 
Gentiles? 

** Because drawn out of sin and darkness are people choosing life, foreordained
   to become like God's own Son.  God's mercy extends to all who sin that some
   might be saved.

/Wayne

    It's time for me to bow out of this discussion. It's amazing the degree
    of tenacity and desperation with which some people cling to their
    beliefs, and though it saddens me somewhat, it is just as it needs to
    be. After all, if we were to lose our beliefs, then what would be left
    of us? However, that is exactly what the Lord works in those on whom He
    has mercy, so that they might die and then find true Life in Jesus. Are
    you ready to die? Because we all will, one way or another.
    
    Those on whom the Lord has mercy will be blessed by experiencing great
    trauma in their lives which causes them to question everything they
    have previously believed, throw out the majority of it, and hold onto
    the rest very lightly, prepared to throw it out too, because such
    beliefs are simply inadequate and do not reflect reality. I myself have
    gone through it and have seen several others go through it as well; it
    is a necessary part of coming to grips with who we are as compared to
    Who He is. It's the only way for us to learn to be in our hearts. He
    will not begin to fill us with Himself until He has begun the work of
    emptying us of ourselves. Our understanding is worse than useless
    because it leads others astray. Only His understanding leads to Him.
    If we think we know anything, we know nothing as we ought to know it.
    
    Tony, I also appreciated your reply to my reply; thanks very much.
    Ultimately, the Word of God is our only foundation, and everything
    else, including our beliefs about the Word, will pass away. I commend
    you to Him and would encourage you to contact me off-line if at any
    time you feel led to hear more about what He has shown me.
    
    To all of you, I would leave the following question: If we truly do
    have freedom of will, then what is the meaning of the following verses?
    And I would ask you to be very careful in your responses, because your
    responses will reflect the level of breaking that you will experience
    in the coming time of trial, which will be more intense than any as yet
    experienced on this planet. We are held accountable for every careless
    word we say!
    
        I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I
        in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
        - John 15:5
        
        All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one
        of them came to be.
        - Psalm 139:16
        
        A man's steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone
        understand his own way?
        - Proverbs 20:24
        
        I know, O Lord, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man
        to direct his steps.
        - Jeremiah 10:23
    
    In His love,
    -- Daryl

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I am gonna extract your reply, print it, and give it a thorough
        read-through.  I believe I will be wonderfully blessed.
    
      Hi Daryl,
    
        Wonderful reply.  Time permitting, I will expound on how it was
        a blessing for me.  Thanks!  God bless you!
    
      Hi Jeff,
    
        It has not gone unnoticed by me that you have not replied to me
        at all.  Thats OK.  I understant (I think).
    
    							Tony

>One thing I see you doing, Jeff, is saying "Passage X must not be taken
>literally, but must be viewed in the light of passage Y."  
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    Can you describe where I have done this specifically?
    
    jeff

    RE: .226
    
    If my words are understood to lead others astray, then God forbid my
    words!
    
    The truth is that man will die apart from God.  We can do nothing
    righteous on our own.
    
    /Wayne

	
    Hi Tony,

    >I just want to acknowledge one thing you have stated a few 
    >times.  You have stated that the initial coming to saving
    >faith is something man cannot do on his own.  That this must
    >be of divine origin.  

    Yes, Tony, that's what I've said because that's what the Bible
    says.	
    The Bible makes it clear, and it is a hallmark of evangelical
    Christianity, that faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8).
    This is where the certainty comes from concerning where faith
    comes from - the Bible's clear statements.

    >The reasoning is thus that God must have
    >elected these people for salvation and given that God must
    >have provided for these people to make this right choice, it
    >must follow that those who did not make this right choice
    >were not elected to do so.

    There really is no reasoning involved.  God's sovereignty and
    man's inability to save Himself are revealed to us in the Bible.
    
    And try to remember that I am not defending election per say but
    answering the question, "is salvation for everyone?".  

    >I understand your reasoning.  It would seem that if faith is
    >required in order to be saved, what of a person's very first
    >impulse of faith?  Was that very first impulse not a right act?
    >If a right act, was it not of divine origin?  If a person has
    >a choice to make, is not the choice itself a righteous deed?
    >And thus God must have authored it?

    God has revealed to us in the Bible that we are unable to save
    ourselves and that He has provided the propitiation for our sins
    in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ. Is there
    any reasoning required to defend this truth?  If God says we are
    unable to save ourselves, can it be any clearer?  Does He mean
    anything else?

    >I freely acknowledge that this is quite a quandary.  I cannot
    >explain this.  But, there is a tension here for the view I hold
    >to also has a quandary for those of your position which is, "How
    >can you reconcile your belief with any kind of right concept of
    >a God who is agape?"  How does one explain a God who is supposed 
    >to be love and yet who designs the universe such that untold millions
    >end up in eternal conscious torment (your view embraces this as well)
    >and they had no say in the matter???

    First of all, Tony, your "right concept of a God who is agape?" is
    exclusive to a fault.  God is love, among other things, such as just.
    Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that you understand and believe,
    if you accept the Bible as *the only infallible* rule of faith and 
    life, that all who go to hell deserve it for their sins.  *And* that
    all who go to heaven do not deserve it, for their sins.  It is utterly
    unbiblical to say "they had no say in the matter".  We all, each and
    everyone, deserve hell for the lives we've lived.
    
    >What is my point?  Part of your support for your position is reasoning
    >where you have cited the above quandary.  But, an argument based on
    >reasoning where each side has its quandaries would, I believe, much
    >more strongly support the position you *do not* hold to.

    Where I am reasoning (which is hardly anywhere on this topic about
    which the Bible has much to say) it is from a consistent Biblical
    interpretation. 

    jeff

>    
>    I reject Calvary Chapels' theology of balance.
    >
>    Most of us here believe the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith
>    and life.  Truth is exclusive.  Balance is for those unable or
>    unwilling to understand/accept a truth claim which contradicts their
>    worldview. 
    
>>    Jeff, you're condescending again and your opinion is obviously
>>    uninformed with respect to CC.  
    
    Mike, dear brother, I am not condescending.  If you perceive that as
    true, I apologize.
    
    You have consistently used the term "balance" to describe CC's view and
    the documents you entered which represented CC's theology, I guess,
    also used the language of "balance".  
    
    >>When both man-made extremes blatantly contradict God's Word, we
    >>obviously have more homework to do.  Like me, CC also believes "...the
    >>Bible to be the infallible rule of faith and life.  Truth is
    >>exclusive." 
    
    The Bible must be the arbiter.
    
    jeff

RE: .218 & .220

|    Most of us here believe the Bible to be the infallible rule of faith
|    and life.  Truth is exclusive.  Balance is for those unable or
|    unwilling to understand/accept a truth claim which contradicts their
|    worldview.

** Lest there by any doubt, I too "believe the Bible to be the infallible rule
   of faith and life."

   I would, however, characterize Truth differently.  I would rather say TRUTH
   IS ABSOLUTE.  Some definitions:

   EXCLUSIVE 1. Not divided or shared with others.
             2. Admitting only certain people; select.
             3. Expensive; stylish; fashionable.

   ABSOLUTE  1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
             2. Not mixed; pure.
             3. Not limited by restrictions, qualifications, or exceptions.
             4. Positive; certain.

   I understand what Jeff is trying to say:  Truth excludes error, i.e., there
   is no balance for Truth.  To "balance" truth is in fact error.

   Truth is revealed in/by God's Word, Jesus Christ in the flesh and the
   written Word together with the Holy Spirit.  God's Word is sent into all the
   world.  That which contradicts His Word is error.  Regarding the Word of God
   as just another opinion or perspective, albeit a "good" or "better" one, is
   error.  Truth is absolute.

   But, Truth often is found in balancing two or more fallible views, none of
   which stands alone as Truth, but each of which presents some truth.  Balanc-
   ing then is extracting truth and discarding the residue.  In the final
   analysis, nothing will stand against Truth.

   "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present
   your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
   reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye trans-
   formed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good,
   and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given
   unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think (of himself) more
   highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath
   dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one
   body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one
   body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Ro.12:1-5, KJV)

   Let us not miss opportunity to establish/know Truth by rejecting views that
   differ from our own without first extracting truth to be reconciled with the
   truth commended to our hearts by the Holy Spirit.  Of course, the first
   source and the final touchstone of Truth is the Word of God.

   "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
   But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being
   deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast
   been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a
   child thou hast know the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise
   unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is
   given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
   for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be
   perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Ti.3:12-17, KJV)

   "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief,
   suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your
   faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for
   it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto
   were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example,
   that ye should follow His steps: Who did not sin, neither was guile found in
   His mouth: Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He
   threatened not; but committed His cause to Him that judgeth righteously: Who
   His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead
   to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
   For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd
   and Bishop of your souls." (1Pe.2:19-25, KJV)

/Wayne

>         <<< Note 847.231 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    
>    You have consistently used the term "balance" to describe CC's view and
>    the documents you entered which represented CC's theology, I guess,
>    also used the language of "balance".  
    
    "Balance" is my adjective not theirs.  The documents I entered don't
    really stress it.  FWIW, staunch Calvinists like Dr. John MacArthur
    give nothing but praise to CC's theology in the new video "Venture of
    Faith."
    
>    The Bible must be the arbiter.
    
    Agreed.
    
    BTW - I'm working on my Romans 9 reply.  It may be a few days.
    
    Mike

    RE: .210
    
    Just wanted to point out that chapter 9 is preceded by chapter 8 and
    followed by chapters 10 and 11.  Context is important!
    
    But, we know that, right?! :-)
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .226
    
    Daryl suggests that "we are held accountable for every careless word we
    say!"
    
    "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is
    from the Lord. All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the
    Lord weigheth the spirits. Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy
    thoughts shall be established. The Lord hath made all things for
    Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Every one that is
    proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand,
    he shall not be held innocent. By mercy and truth iniquity is purged:
    and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Pr.16:1-6, KJV)
    
    The first verse would seem to suggest that man's thoughts and words are
    from the Lord, so how could we say something careless?  Ah, but there
    is context:
    
    "The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the
    wicked poureth out evil things. The Lord is far from the wicked: but He
    heareth the prayer of the righteous. The light of the eyes rejoiceth
    the heart: and a good report maketh the bones fat. The ear that heareth
    the reproof of life abideth among the wise. He that refuseth
    instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth
    understanding. The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and
    before honour is humility." (Pr.15:28-33, KJV)
    
    Would I be wrong in concluding that "the fear of the Lord" might be key
    to determining that for which God assumes responsibility?  I would direct
    attention back to note .165 (yet to be answered/addressed) in which a
    passage from the first chapter of Proverbs relates "the fear of the Lord"
    to volition.  What of those who do not commit their works unto the
    Lord?  And, for that matter, what is "the fear of the Lord?"  I suggest
    that Ro.1:16-23 probably answers adequately.
    
    /Wayne

  Hi there,

  I thought I'd break my time honored read only status to add my two
  cents to this freewill thing. It's just one more view, no more, no
  less. As I said in my intro note, I'm a Calvinist, more or less, but
  I make no claim to have the last word on Calvinism. Views on freewill,
  Christian epistomology and soteriology come up a lot in my apologetics
  classes so I thought I might have at least another point of view
  to consider. I also see here what I feel is a complete misunderstanding
  of what calvinism is, but thats better taken up in some other note.

  (Disclaimer: please excuse any typo's. I have a new workstation and the
   keyboard is driving me up a wall)

  The issue I think boils down to how one views the sovereignty of God.
  Calvinism is based on seeing God as completely sovereign in all 
  aspects of life and the world. His influence is ingrained not only
  in our lives and emotions but in the entirety of his creation.

  He governs our inward feelings, desires, motives, not only of believers
  but of all people. But we also know that we make choices. The thing
  is, because we make choices, we say we are free moral agents. If we
  weren't we would be puppets, etc. We made the choice for God, others
  didn't, that is just the freewill, which God created us with, working.

  (in this note I'm using the terms Calvinism and Arminianism in a
   technical sense, I'm not trying to pigenhole anyone. I don't like 
   being labeled any more than the rest of you :)

  It seems to me that the problem is how can we have a will (or be a
  free moral agent) and God be sovereign at the same time. How can God
  foreordain something, from eternity, and make certain it happens with
  all these freewill choices running around mucking things up?

  Instead of denying either freewill or God's complete sovereignty, it
  may be better to see if they can coexist. God has, if I read the Bible
  correctly, a divine plan for the world, foreordained from eternity
  ( Isaiah 46:8-11) but in the middle of all of it he dumped in a bunch of
  free moral agents, making choices all over the place. His plan is, of 
  course, complex and diverse, but it is also fixed. When God decreed 
  it, it became a fact. Somewhere out there these things come together,
  although I myself don't see it as a paradox.

  Scripture contains predictions of prophecy and predictions being 
  perfectly fulfilled through the actions of free agents. They all acted
  freely and yet acted out the will of God. So it seems to me that certainty
  of an action is consistent, in some way, with us making choices.
  It would be a contradiction to say that God foreknows an event which
  by its nature is uncertain. We have to make a choice, either God
  knows the events of the future  and they are certain or that they are 
  uncertain and he doesn't know the future.

  If man is rational, there must be a cause for him to act one way or
  another. If the will is to decide in favor of a weaker motive against
  the stronger motive or without any motives at all would be an effect
  without a cause. But we all have a conscience that tells us that we have
  reasons for doing something, whether they'er good or bad. Reasons, or a
  reason, may be subconscious but at least it's strong enough to make us act 
  one way or another. As Pascal said, "The heart has it's reasons that 
  reason cannot know."But how ever it is that we make a choice, a motive 
  is present which influences it.

  Take the donkey story (a good example, I've been called similar things
  myself :). There's a donkey in the middle of an empty, square white 
  room. Equally on either side of him is a trough of food. There is nothing
  to influence him to go to one or the other. Without a motive, or
  influence to make him decide, it would starve to death. Of course it
  finally goes to the trough on the right and eats. Why that one? Who
  knows. It might not even know. But somewhere there was a reason for
  it to choose (I know. Donkeys don't reason and aren't human, but
  just go with me on it :). I know this example fall's short, but I think
  it gets us in the ball park of what I'm trying to point out.
    

  continued:

  So our choices,or volitions, are governed by our own nature, including
  our dispositions, knowledge, character etc. But we're created by God
  and we are not independent of God, believer or unbeliever. God created
  us and the world we live in with all of it physical laws. All of it
  has influence on us. We act according to how we are influenced by what
  surrounds us. Our conscience tells us that what appeals to us at that
  given point in time and those things are what determines our choices. 
  Our will is not free  in the sense that is it independent, indifferent or 
  self-determined because it always follows the preceding state of mind.
  The will is only free in the sense that our volitions are conscious 
  expressions of our mind. Even when we make a decision that we don't
  like there is some motive which influences us to make that choice.
  We are free only when our choices are determined and/or controlled by 
  our reason and feelings.

  That is why we "judge" a person to be a good person or a bad person,
  by the character of their actions. Matthew 7:16-20 tells us 
  By their fruits you will know them...every good tree brings forth good 
  fruit but the corrupt tree brings forth bad fruit. A good tree cannot 
  bring forth bad...Therefore by their fruits you will know them
  (paraphrase mine). Conduct reveals character. A "good" person generally
  does good interrupted occasionally by doing bad and vice a versa.

  If a persons choices weren't determined by their character then their
  choices wouldn't be theirs and they couldn't be held responsible for
  their actions. 

  If we have truly freewill actions,then how can we be held answerable
  for them (our actions)? Can a person be held responsible for chance
  events? If the acts of the will are not caused by the character of the
  person how can they be "my" actions any more that the result of a chance
  event? We cannot be held responsible for a chance event because we have
  no control over a chance event.
  We would have no causal influence offer any event, i.e."I can be
  responsible for tossing a coin since I caused it to be tossed but I can
  not be responsible for the out come. The very idea of responsibility
  depends on causation. I think that freewill destroys responsibility,
  rather than supports it.

  Bertrand Russell (our favorite atheist) made this very point. How can
  God, who made me with freewill, send me to hell for acting in accordance
  to my nature? If I am free, and autonomous from outside causes or
  influences then I can't be held responsible for my actions. After all
  God never made  any effort to prevent me from acting in accordance with 
  the dictates of my nature. I am not responsible for the free choices of 
  an autonomously free will. Because it is an uncaused cause of my actions, 
  it seems more like a chance blik in my brain, totally random and in 
  principle unpredictable. Since God created my will autonomous I really 
  have no control of it at all. So how can God send me to hell?

  In that respect he's right. 
  If we have truly freewill actions,then how can we be held answerable
  for them (our actions)? Can a person be held responsible for chance
  events? If the acts of the will are not caused by the character of the
  person how can they be "my" actions any more that the result of a chance
  event? We cannot be held responsible for a chance event because we have
  no control over a chance event.

    

  continued:

  It would be here that the Calvinist would say that man's character is
  most heavily influenced by sin. Of course the depravity of man is a
  whole other topic. I feel that (since I believe in original sin and the
  literal fall of man) man, being sinful acts only in accordance to that
  nature. The world is a fallen world, it's influences are fallen. That is
  our past and our present, but certainly not the believers future.

  So when I look at freedom, freewill, I see it as much more limited than
  what it would first appear. We're limited by the physical laws, social 
  laws etc. A person at any given moment is pretty much what his past has 
  made him. But so long as his acts are made under the control of his own 
  nature he then has all the liberty of which he is capable. Man has 
  free will only in the sense that he is not under any outside 
  compulsion which interferes with his freedom of choice or his just 
  accountability.

  I think this is where the Arminian and Calvinist part ways (if they
  haven't a long time ago). The Calvinist says,  In man's fallen state 
  he only has what would be called freedom of slavery. He is in bondage 
  to sin and spontaneously follows Satan. He does not have the incentive
  to follow God. Is this free? Nope. Man may have a self will but he
  does not have a truly free will in the way Arminian define it (being 
  the inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives). 
  To the Calvinist man in his natural condition is totally deprived. He
  cannot choose God on his own due to his nature. God must effect the
  change. God must be the one to come to us.

  The next topic would be how we look at God's revelation to man. Calvinism
  sees "general" and "special" revelation (yes, I feel it's scriptural).
  But again that's a whole other topic.

  God so governs the feeling, habits, desires, motives of men that they 
  freely do what He purposes. How this works is hard to grasp, even
  impossible, but it's real nonetheless. We do, however, have enough
  knowledge and understanding to know that God's sovereignty and man's
  freedom are in perfect harmony. Look at Philippians 2:12 and 13
  
  ...Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 
  for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his 
  good purpose.

  We work for the glory of God. We work out our salvation in our long
  journey of sanctification. But it is God working in us that enables
  us to do it. If God is working in us, an outside influence, an
  outside cause, is that freewill? If we truly rely in God for everything
  and every aspect in our lives, is that freewill? Not as the Arminian
  defines it. To me the paradox is saying "I have freewill" and then
  saying "God is working in me to change me and to glorify me."
  Did you out of you own freewill make that choice for God? You've
  already debated the verses:

        ACTS 13:48
                When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored
                the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for
                eternal life believed.

        EPHESIANS 1:11
                In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according
                to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity
                with the purpose of his will.
 
       2 THESSALONIANS 2:13
                But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved
                by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to
                be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and
                through belief in the truth.
 
  and all the others brought up. Playing dueling verses doesn't get us
  anywhere. 

  I myself believe that without destroying or even impairing man's free 
  agency, God exercises over us a divine superseding action that through
  the Holy Spirit (some) people will come to Christ.

  I see Calvinism's idea of choices and the Arminian idea of choices
  as contradictory. The question is not about the reality of choices,
  but about whether they are caused or not. An encased act of the will is
  no doubt a freewill act. A caused act of the will is not free in the 
  Arminian sense.

    

  continued:
  
  When the Arminian sees an example of a choice, he assumes that is is a 
  freewill choice. In fact he has to assume that he has freewill period.
  The simple fact is that freewill isn't a biblical doctrine. It's an
  assumption.

  To me, natural man (read, totally sinful) clings to his concept of
  autonomy. He wants to be autonomist in all his areas of life. The want of
  autonomy is (to me) what the fall was all about. The believer, though
  redeemed, still wants to cling to some of their perceived autonomy. They
  want to call all the shots, including choosing to come to the Lord.

  Loraine Boettner gave the illustration of a man carrying a bowl of
  Goldfish wherever he went. The goldfish themselves felt free. They
  moved wherever they wanted, ate when they wanted.  They were unrestrained
  within the bowl yet were under the control of the man carrying them.

  If we accept that we have free will, then we must accept that we are
  micro sovereign (my term). We are mini-gods determining our course
  of action. As such, satan, in the garden, was right, "we will
  become like God."

  
  Some of the questions that pop up in my head when I listen to the
  various thoughts are these.

  When the Arminian prays for someone to be saved, what are they praying
  for, God to take away that persons freewill? That person being a 
  sinner, is not choosing God. So in effect the prayer is saying something
  to the effect of "please Lord, save this person, make him come to you
  (against their natural freewill not being inclined to do so).
  Let the Holy Spirit work in him (an outside cause)."

  The reason the Arminian can make this prayer is because a), they feel
  that man is not totally deprived and is able to accept God's
  invitation on their own, and b), that their freewill is at least
  equal to God's sovereign power,therefore being able to thwart His divine 
  plan.

  Another argument I think about would go like this.
  "OK, God created me with freewill.
  With that freewill I made the choice to accept the Lord."

  First of all, you can't believe in "Once Saved Always Saved" because
  of course you have freewill to turn away. (Arminius understood this. At
  first he believed in perseverance of the saints, but soon found it
  couldn't stand up against total freewill).
  If you do believe in "OSAS" then what did God take away from your nature
  to keep you from using your free will to turn from Him?
  Once he altered you in such a manner, are you still a free agent?

  And on the same track, once you are glorified in heaven, did God
  again take away your free will as to keep you from sinning in
  heaven? In heaven are there any free agents?

  Well, those are my thoughts in a very small nut shell.
  I'll finish up with a couple of verses that I think about when looking
  at this issue. There are of course many more but these came to me
  first.

  Any way thank for listening. Talk to you all later.

				Tony


        PROVERBS 16:1-4
                1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord
                  comes the reply of the tongue.
                2 All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are
                  weighed by the Lord.
                3 Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will
                  succeed.
                4 The Lord works out everything for his own ends - even
                  the wicked for a day of disaster.


        PROVERBS 16:9
                In his heart a man plan his course, but the Lord
                determines his steps.


        PROVERBS 16:33
                The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is
                from the Lord.


        PROVERBS 19:21
                Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the
                Lord's purpose that prevails.


        PROVERBS 21:1
                The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs


	The entire book of Job


	REVELATION17:17
		For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his 
	 	purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to 
		rule, until God's words are fulfilled.
    

re .239

;In heaven are there any free agents?

Tony,

A brief comment on a question you posed. The book of Jude shows
that the angels are indeed free to choose, in Jude 6. Ofcourse
in their action they trangressed against Jehovah's Sovereignty
in foresaking their proper dwelling place. However, the majority
chose to stay in the heavenly realm. How pleased their heavenly 
Father must feel that they did so out of choice and not compulsion.
If one can choose to be disobedient to ones Creator, then the
opposite must be true for Jehovah's perfect creatures such as
Adam and the angels.

You mentioned the goldfish swimming in the bowl and being governed
by the movements of the man carrying it. The difference between
man and animals, is that animals act instinctively were as man
is a moral agent. For example, the goldfish instinctively swims 
round the bowl. But the man may know that swimming round the bowl
is the right environment for him, but he may choose to jump out of
the bowl eventhough he knows this will bring drastic results. This 
was certainly true of the angels mentioned in Jude 6.

Jehovah has absolute freedom, man has relative freedom that is to God
and his laws. If man chooses to live outside his relative freedom
then he is doomed to failure. One has only to look at creation itself
to see that Our Creator loves variety and originality, but as humans
eventhough we each have our individual traits we are still under 
obligation to fear God (not wish to displease him) and keep his 
commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Failure to keep God's moral laws 
have led many to despair, keeping them can lead one to lasting
happiness (still being different from everyone else).

You mention the OSAS doctrine, well in Jude we see a warning to God's
anointed ones "Beloved ones, though I was making every effort to write
to YOU about salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write
YOU to exhort YOU to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once
for all time delivered to the holy ones. My reason is that certain men
have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to
this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God
into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner
and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 3-4 NWT . Jude then lists 3 examples,
which include verse 6 and the fallen angels. To fear God, not to 
displease him, they are admonished to "put up a hard fight for the 
faith". What would be the point of such admonition if God was doing
*everything* for them. Paul recognised the fight or struggle he had 
with his sinful flesh and had to get tough with himself 
(1 Corinthians9:27). 


Phil. 

  Re: .239

> b), that their freewill is at least equal to God's sovereign power,
> therefore being able to thwart His divine plan.

    IMHO this seems to presuppose that you or someone knows Gods divine
    plan, and that His plan is that some have been choosen to be saved
    and some have not. I'm not seeing where you have established this
    pre-supposition. So why pray for the someone's salvation when they
    are either choosen by God to be saved or they are not, nothing we 
    or they can do to change that. A question to you, would you still
    take this position if you had been one of the ones that was not
    choosen to be saved? Why do any evangilization at all then, it has
    all been determined! In fact why did Christ come and die for us, it's
    all been determined. God decided who would be saved and who would not
    back somewhere in eternity. No need for Christ then!

    Ok so maybe I'm taking this to far and I missed something, but I'm
    not buying it.

    Peter.

    
    We evangelize because Christ commanded it!  We evangelize because God
    has chosen in His sovereignty to use men, as a secondary cause, to
    preach the News by which those chosen before the foundation of the world 
    will hear and believe.
    
    jeff

    Re: .242
    
    Ok this is what you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    	1. A person is chosen by God before the foundation of the world.
    	2. This person at first is not aware of their chosen status.
    	3. Someone evangelizes them and they believe and become aware
           of there status.
    
    A question, If a chosen person is never evangelized, or never believes
    are they still chosen? If they are not doesn't this thwart God's
    divine plan?
    
    Peter.
    
    

    Re: last 2
    
    I don't get it either.  If God has chosen them, why bother
    evangelizing?  God doesn't need our help to establish the elect. 
    It seems Calvinist denominations that have missionary outreaches (not
    all do for this very reason) do so for nothing.
    
    Mike

      Hi Tony,
    
        I appreciate your contributions and especially the humble 
        spirit behind them.  (I have yet to read the whole thing,
        btw - busy).
    
        I thought of something.  Could it be that in one sense we
        have free will and in another sense we don't?
    
        We have free will in the sense that we can choose whom we
        will serve.
    
        We don't have free will in the sense that we are bound to 
        have to serve someone.
    
        No matter what, we have a master - we are bound in that respect
        with no free will whatsoever.
    
        But, we can choose who our master is.
    
        Choose this day whom you will serve.
    
    							Tony

>    Re: .242
    
>    Ok this is what you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong.
    
>    	1. A person is chosen by God before the foundation of the world.
>    	2. This person at first is not aware of their chosen status.
>    	3. Someone evangelizes them and they believe and become aware
>           of there status.
    
    Yes, that's it.
    
>    A question, If a chosen person is never evangelized, or never believes
>    are they still chosen? If they are not doesn't this thwart God's
>    divine plan?
    
>    Peter.
    
    There is no such thing as a person chosen by God who is never
    evangelized or never believes.  
    
    I'm beginning to see more clearly, through these entries, what the 
    real problem is.  Most of us do not believe in God's sovereignty over
    creation.  Many of us are actually Deists in a sense with regard to
    God's interaction with His world.  
    
    I think a new topic is in order which may make it all come together for
    all of us!
    
    jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        I agree.  I believe that because God is love, the only order
        of intelligence He could create would be one that can be
        drawn by love.
    
        I believe that agape draws, but does not compel.  Thus, God,
        in a sense, relinquished some sovereignty.  He gave intelligent
        life one aspect of sovereignty.  That aspect is the right to
        choose whom I will serve.
    
        I agree.  God relinquished an aspect of sovereignty.
    
        Such is agape.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .246
    
    Just in case some are left wondering what Jeff has just called many of
    us, a Deist is one who affirms the existence of God while denying the
    validity of revelation.
    
    In other words, Jeff is saying that many of us seek to understand God
    on our terms while denying what He says about Himself.
    
    Well, I for one am a Christian, one who personally knows Jesus whom to
    know is eternal life.  And I do not seek to know God outside His
    revelation.  Jesus Christ revealed God in the flesh, and the fullness
    of God is (being) revealed in His Word by His Spirit.
    
    On the authority of God's Word, I can say that those who will not see
    God as revealed in Jesus Christ will surely die in their sin.
    
    And Jeff would be wrong in saying that I, for one, do not believe in
    God's sovereignty over creation.
    
    RE: .247
    
    Tony knows that I do NOT believe that God "relinquished" any aspect of
    His sovereignty.  In other words, God in no way put away His ability or
    right to do anything.  He is sovereign and He cannot deny Himself.
    
    Because God CHOSE to do things a certain way in no way diminishes His
    prerogative to have done things differently.  God is absolutely
    sovereign in that none or nothing can stand against what He has
    purposed to do!
    
    Jesus Christ as God in the flesh relinquished no sovereignty, rather He
    chose to humble Himself even unto death on the cross THAT WE MIGHT BE
    SAVED.  Satan's temptation in the desert and those asking Jesus to
    prove Himself to be God by coming down off the cross were testing His
    will, not His sovereignty.  And Jesus showed Himself to be God by doing
    God's will perfectly, something that man alone cannot do!
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Thanks for defining *deist* for us.  I felt it was not a very
        good thing to be, but I lacked enough enthusiasm to go after 
        the definition.  It appears to me that for anyone to call anyone
        a deist is highly significant.  Actually I think its unwise.
    
        As far as the sovereignty thing goes, I wonder if our differences
        in understanding are semantics?
    
        Here is an example.  God wants everyone to be saved.  This is
        His will.  Some people will not be saved.
    
        My partial definition of sovereignty: In the area within which
        one is sovereign, one's will comes about.
    
        In the above, God's will did not come about.
    
        Thus I conclude that God is not sovereign *in all things*.
    
        Why was He not sovereign in all things?  Because some willed
        to do that which is contrary to His will.  And they were actually
        able to will as they did.
    
        Thus I conclude that God relinquished some of His sovereignty
        when He created an order of intelligence such that they had
        the capacity for their will to run contrary to His.
    
        I further conclude that the underlying basis for this decision 
        to create beings with this capacity which they have is - LOVE.
    
        Thus I conclude that love, by very nature of what it is, is
        willing to relinquish, in some aspects, sovereignty.
    
        Wayne, do you agree with my line of reasoning and perhaps 
        disagree with my terminology?  Do I misuse the term sovereign?
        If so, how does my definition differ from your own?
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I reread your last reply and you stated that none can stand 
        in the way of what God purposed to do.
    
        But, didn't He purpose that all be saved?
    
        And didn't the lost stand in the way of God's purpose?
    
    						Tony

  Hi All,

  To respond to some of the comments (thanks for all of them).

  Why do we evangelize? Because God told us to. We're to go out to the
  world and preach His word. It's really as simple as that. The reasons
  are no different for the Calvinist, and really, why should they be?
  We (anybody) do not know when we witness what the fruit will be or
  who will except it.  It's not for me to know who the elect are.

  What energizes the Calvinist is that they know that they're work is
  not in vain. We throw out the seeds and those who will, will hear.
  Election does not make a believer lazy (why bother if their going to
  be saved anyway), but gives them confidence knowing God's word does not
  return empty. 

  I do not know of any doctrine, either Calvinist or Arminian that lets 
  believers sit on their rear. And really, why would they want to? I can't
  think of anything more awesome than knowing that God is using me as a
  tool in his plan of redemption. If any believer came to me with the
  above argument they would need to show me biblically their reasoning.
  Some of the greatest evangelists, past and present were Calvinist, or
  reformed, such as Spurgeon, Martyn Loyd-Jones, Pink and more recently
  John McArthur, J.I. Packer, D. James Kennedy etc. I think they would 
  wince at the idea of not bothering to preach God's word.

  God is a perfect, infallible God and as such He created a perfect,
  infallible plan of redemption. Why it is the way it is, is God's
  business. If someone wants to argue that plan they need to take it
  up with God (I'm just following the rule book :).

  About the sovereignty thing.

  I think that either God is sovereign or his not. I would need to ask for
  some Bible references that portray God turning over some of his power.
  I feel that that's an assumption. I think that if that view is taken
  to it's conclusion you end up with something like Ben Kinslow's (sp)
  (the guy on the 700 club) book and giving man a sovereignty of his
  own. In my view that is a complete heresy. I guess if one is not
  a trinitarian they could get away with it, but I am, so I can't.

  Anyway, the Sovereignty of God is a pretty big topic and maybe should
  placed in it's own note (I don't know, I'm the new guy). But I'm
  game. It's a wonderful topic.

  	Talk to you later
	Tony (TWF so as not to confuse me with the other Tony :)
    

Additionally, deism especially refers to the 17th & 18th century doctrine
that God created the world & its natural laws, but then stepped back from
creation and takes no further part in its functioning.

I am wondering why the simple solution, offered by myself in a further back
note, and by Garth in another topic, has been like a rock around which the
waters of your arguments have raced past with barely a notice.

Leslie

      re: .251
    
      Hi Tony! (TWF),
    
        I have a problem with your reason we should evangelize.  The
        basic problem I have is that it would seem to throw reason
        out the window.  God says, "Come reason with Me" and I believe
        He wants us to have some intelligent understanding of why we
        do things - such as evangelism.  I don't see God as nearly
        so despotic that He sits back with the posture, "Do it because
        I told you!"  Abraham, when Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) were about
        to be destroyed tried to reason with God.  I don't see that God
        had a problem with this, rather I see that He welcomes it!!
    
        He wants us to search for understanding as for mined treasure
        (Prov. 2).  Your answer seems more like a search for what lies
        right at the surface.  I think (strongly) that God welcomes a 
        much more reasoned answer than "Because He told us to."
    
        Not that to do something because He told is shouldn't be insuffi-
        cient, but I think God longs for our understanding to be more
        reasoned than that.
    
      Hi Leslie,
    
        I'm pretty mellow about this whole topic, not feeling any
        alienation with anyone and not feeling like its really any kind
        of argument (for me).  I'm feeling real relaxed about it all.
    
        However, what reply numbers were yours and Garths???
    
    						Tony
    

    >        I believe that agape draws, but does not compel.  Thus, God,
    
    Tony, Paul said the love of Christ compels him ;-)

    RE: .253
    
    Hi, Tony.
    
    I think the note to which Leslie refers is .104 wherein she
    cross-references other contributions, too.
    
    /Wayne

    Maybe Jeff was just being "wrong headed" or uninformed by calling us
    Deists when he should know now that we're not.
    
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        I looked up compel before and I could swear that its meaning
        included force.  Then I looked it up today and that was a
        secondary meaning and the 1st meaning was to irresistably 
        constrain and the word constrain is the rendering of 2 Corin
        5:14 in the KJV (where compel is used in the NKJV).
    
        Well, as long as compel does not include forcing the conscience,
        I think its a good rendering.
    
      Hi Leslie,
    
        I reread .104 and if I could summarize your contribution, it is
        that the reconciliation of free will/sovereignty is unfathomable,
        but not to He who is infinite.
    
        I have a problem with it only because the example I posed seems
        (to me) to be too easily reasoned.  Thus my tack is that the real
        difficulty lies in needing to maintain that God is sovereign in
        all things.  As you imply in .104, that is an irrational assertion
        for us finite beings, i.e. our reason cannot explain this.
    
        I guess, Leslie, others are more content applying reason rather 
        than dispensing with it to the extent that you do in .104.  So
        thats why some continue to discuss and why you are content and,
        from you belief system, see no use for continuing on.
                               
    						Tony

    In my eyes, this "debate" is starting to resemble the one between the
    triunity of God vs. Jesus only or oneness doctrine.
    
    Mike

    On deism...
    
    Wayne mentioned how Jeff was saying that many of us seek to under-
    stand God on our terms and deny His revelation to us.
    
    Take heed, lest ye fall.
    
    I am sure that to some extent I do seek to understand God on my terms
    and do deny His revelation to me.
    
    I guess there is deism in me - not knowingly of course, but who am 
    I to guage my heart which is so wicked, who can know it?
    
    God can play a videotape of my earthly life some day and show me the
    time I have FULLY been cleansed from the lack of discernment of seeking
    to understand God on my terms.  He can also show me when I first did
    not deny any of His revelation to me.
    
    I'll not presume.  Only God knows.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .252
    
    Hi, Leslie.
    
    If I understand your "simple solution" correctly, you basically said
    that God is sovereign and man has choices, and since Scripture cannot
    contradict itself and seems to support both God's sovereignty and man's
    volition, then any paradox we perceive is ultimately resolved in our
    infinite God.  Thus, we live out both truths and leave the results to
    God.
    
    That is a proper view basically saying that we obey God (even if we
    don't understand everything) and trust God to honor His Word.  I see that
    as proper because God remains sovereign, able to do what He says without
    human understanding or approval.
    
    That solution just doesn't reflect what my heart now sees by faith.  I
    no longer see a paradox.  I regret that written words have failed to
    impart my understanding to other readers, but that's really not my
    responsibility.  The Word of God is Truth and the Holy Spirit who has
    been given to every believer will lead us into all Truth according to
    His purpose.
    
    Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about whether others deem me
    right as about implications that my understanding somehow does not
    derive from conscientious study of God's Word and attention to His
    Spirit bearing witness within me.
    
    To the best of my ability to know my own heart, I did not enter this
    fray to prove myself right and others wrong, rather to share the under-
    standing He has revealed to me by which I rest in Him.
    
    I'm dismayed that discussion often seems more in a spirit of "proving"
    ourselves than in edifying others, but such is life in the flesh! :-)
    
    Thanks for your insightful contribution here and elsewhere.  May we
    together grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .249 & .250
    
    Hi, Tony.
    
    We've covered this ground before (see topic 795, notes .429 - .455),
    and I would now say nothing differently.
    
    However, I'll take another shot with an analogy:  The desire of my
    heart is that my children will not experience pain and hurt.  Sometimes
    I forbid them to do certain things, and as long as they're "in my care"
    and "under my control", they are forced to do what I say.  However,
    sometimes I let them do things even though I _know_ they will be hurt
    because the direct personal experience is needed to make their learning
    effective.  But in permitting them to experience hurt, I am mindful of
    my goal for them, i.e., that the end will be better than the beginning.
    
    Sometimes I know that they comply with what I say without really
    wanting to obey.  Especially in those cases, they need to personally
    experience consequences in order to understand why I forbid certain
    things.  So, I choose to let them go through the experience now to
    preclude much greater pain later.
    
    With the goal of my children's "perfection" always in mind, am I
    relinquishing any of my sovereinty as their father in choosing to let
    them follow a path that I know will be painful?  No.  I let them go
    their own way in the context of my goal for them.  They may make
    choices that are contrary to my "will" as others have come to
    understand in terms of standards and values, but the end result is that
    they come to fully appreciate my "will" and desire to be conformed to
    that which they have personally seen/felt to be good.  And I always
    desire that they do what I say rather than deal with consequences of
    wrong choices.
    
    Do you catch my drift?  I remain sovereign as my children's father even
    when I let them do their own thing.  They could not do their own thing
    unless I choose to take that course of action, i.e., that my goal for
    them is being met in part through their choices and consequences.
    
    Of course the stakes are higher for our Heavenly Father.  That man
    would love God without being forced seems to suggest at least some
    volition on man's part.  God by foreknowledge sees many choosing to die
    in unbelief, but for those He sees choosing life, He has made His goal
    of Christ-likeness sure.
    
    Anyway, I could go on and you and others might continue to find fault
    with my words and logic.  The bottom-line to me is that God
    relinquishes no sovereignty when He chooses not to force man's thinking
    and doing.  We must praise Him for intervening to secure our salvation,
    not see Him as somehow not in control.
    
    I'll stop.  If my words contain truth, then the Holy Spirit will
    commend it to your heart.  On the authority of God's Word I do say that
    to view God as not being in control is to err.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Thanks and I really appreciate those words and I can handle
        describing God as spovereign in the area that you referred -
    	almost like an ultimate sovereignty.
    
        Where it all falls apart for me is as applied to the lost for
    	I believe God purposed the same wonderful future for the lost
    	as He did for the saved.  But, in the ultimate sense, it didn't
        take place.
    
    							Tony

    RE: .262
    
    Unless, of course, that in order for ANY to be saved others must be
    lost.  Certainly, one "natural" consequence of volition is death.
    
    Tony, Scripture is very clear that Adoption is God's goal only for
    those who believe.
    
    I would challenge you only to ponder these things in your heart as you
    reconcile Scripture with Scripture under tutelage of the Holy Spirit.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        But, again, didn't God *want* the lost to be saved?
    
        The following is my rough idea of what I think sovereign
        means.
    
        I think it basically means that God's way is sovereign.
        He is love and this principle IS sovereign.  Love is
        unquenchable, it is consuming, it is the supreme desire,
        it is everything.  Love is so powerful that it consumes
        sin and anyone in whom is sin (if love is fully unveiled).
    
        God's sovereignty, I believe, has yet to be fully revealed,
        but the day comes when ALL creatures (yes, even Satan and
        his fallen angel cohorts as well as all the lost) after the
        resurrection of the unjust kneel before God and essentially
        acknowledge, "You are sovereign and love is the only way."
    
        EVERYONE, both saved and lost, know that His way is sovereign.
        There is no other way.
    
        The lost, even though acknowledging this, know they are lost
        and God will simply say, "I love you" to all creation in full
        glory.  The lost will not be able to accomadate this revelation
        for it arouses sin to perform its deadly work.  All sin does is
        reveal to them who they are.  This revelation is too crippling
        for them to handle.  
    
        Love is sovereign.  It is the principle by which all reality
        must ultimately express itself and not contradict.  God is 
        love and God is sovereign.  He is of essence love.
    
        I guess I have just contradicted myself in a way.  I now believe
        God is sovereign, but I have a different understanding of what
        *sovereign* may mean.  I think it has to do with the essence
        of how all existence ultimately must operate.
    
        I don't think it has to do with His desires needing to be met
        in every detail.  Thus, where before I was thinking God is not
        sovereign (as my definition required His will always being met),
        I now believe He is sovereign.
    
        The day comes when every creature on earth and in heaven, from
        the smallest atom to the greatest body declares that God is love.
    
    						Tony
                                                          
        

Hi, Tony.

Yes, indeed, God _wants_ all men to be saved.  A necessary result of man being
given volition is that many would not choose life.  God's purpose targeted those
of us who believe.  Make no mistake, He takes no pleasure in men being lost.  I
believe just as their is joy in heaven for each one who calls upon God for
salvation, there is sorrow for each one who is lost.

We really don't have a clue as to His sacrifice so that some of us could be
saved!  We can only taste the burden of suffering borne by Jesus on the cross!

Consider the following:

"<That supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for
all men> is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will
[THELO] have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
(1Ti.2:1,3&4, KJV)

THELO is to will, to wish, implying volition and desire.

This passage expresses the desire of God's heart that all would be saved, but
does NOT suggest that all men in fact would be saved.

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but
is longsuffering to usward, not willing [BOULOMAI] that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance." (2Pe.3:9, KJV)

BOULOMAI is to wish, expressing more strongly than THELO the deliberate exercise
of the will to make happen that which is purposed.

This passage explicitly states that GOD DID NOT DELIBERATELY DESIGN THAT ANY MAN
SHOULD PERISH.  However, the passage does NOT say God foreordained that all men
should come to repentance.  The entire phrase "not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance" refers to the reason for God's
longsuffering toward us.  In other words, because God did not design any man to
be lost, He is patient with us so that all men might repent.

Interestingly enough, the Living Bible probably renders the most appropriate
translation: "He isn't really being slow about His promised return, even though
it sometimes seems that way. But He is waiting, for the good reason that He is
not willing that any should perish, and He is giving more time for sinners to
repent."

You are so right--God loves sinners, both saved and lost.  So what exactly did
God foreordain and predestine?

"<Christ> verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was
manifest in these last times for you, Who by Him do believe in God, that raised
Him up from the dead, and gave Him glory; that your faith and hope might be in
God." (1Pe.1:20&21, KJV)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He
also called: and whom He called, them He also glorified. What shall we then say
to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His
own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely
give us all things." (Ro.8:28-32, KJV)

Foreordination and predestination have everything to do with being saved and
nothing to do with being lost.  In other words, God foreordained His provision
for our sin and predestined us who believe to become like Jesus.

Something that has stuck with me since my days in college:  The greatest joy
of love is love returned, and the greatest pain in love is to not be trusted.
I think you can identify with that as I do!

In Christ's great Love,

/Wayne

P.S.  I developed the exegesis last night subject to review this morning before
posting.  Your note was an excellent lead in.  And timely, too, given mom's
death this morning--she has now acheived the goal for which she was predestined
by our God and Saviour!

            The day comes when every creature on earth and in heaven, from
            the smallest atom to the greatest body declares that God is love.
    
    Revelation 3:9 
    I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to 
    be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come 
    and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
    
    

  Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth 
  and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
	"To Him Who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
	 be praise and honour and glory and power,
	 for ever and ever!"

							Revelation 5:13

      Hi,
    
        Nice replies Jill and Andrew!  I was aware of Rev 5:13, but
        not Rev 3:9.
    
        I just want to say that this was an example where I had my
        beliefs challenged and modified by soem of the contributions
        made here in this topic; most notably Wayne's.  
    
        I now believe that God is sovereign and I can thank some of
        you here for helping to reshape my beliefs to something I 
        hope is more reflective of the truth as it is in Jesus.
    
    						Tony

    Praise the Lord!  And we all thought you were stubborn! :-) :-) :-)
    
    Tony,
    
    Thank you for your humility.  The example you have shown us is that
    while we disagree through struggle we learn from each other.  We must
    remember that the attitude portrayed in struggle is what will determine
    what we learn.
    
    I love you, Bro.

      Thanks Nance,
    
        Just a couple weeks...
    
    						Luv You Too,
    
    						Tony

    RE: .268
    
    Tony, my brother.
    
    My heart is rejoicing, NOT because you've perhaps come to agree with
    me, but rather because of the joy, peace and security in our Lord that
    I feel lays ahead for you in new-found truth.
    
    In Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or
    think, according to the power that worketh in us (Ep.3:20),
    
    /Wayne

RE: <<< Note 847.257 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
    
>        I guess, Leslie, others are more content applying reason rather 
>        than dispensing with it to the extent that you do in .104.  So
>        thats why some continue to discuss and why you are content and,
>        from you belief system, see no use for continuing on.

Tony,

I do not think the solution Garth and I have offered dispenses with reason
at all!  Wayne, came much nearer the mark in understanding what I was trying
to say.

Perhaps its just that I can see both sides of the issue equally well.

Leslie

      Hi Leslie,
    
        Gee, I don't want to rathole this part, but the way I read
        your reply was that sovereignty (as you defined it) and free 
        will find their harmony with an infinite God and that we as
        finite creatures cannot understand this.
    
        Anyway, it seemed to me that you were saying that the under-
        standing for the harmony is beyond us, but that it exists,
        neverthless.  And the infinite does understand (of course).
    
        Thats why I saw it as 'beyond reason.'  
    
    						Tony

>Additionally, deism especially refers to the 17th & 18th century doctrine
>that God created the world & its natural laws, but then stepped back from
>creation and takes no further part in its functioning.

    This is more of the idea I had in mind when mentioning Deism.
    
    jeff

    Okay, say that man has no free will as Calvinism suggests.  How do you
    explain these verses in Revelation?
    
    Rev. 3:5  
    He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will 
    not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
    before my Father, and before his angels.
    
    The implication here, and with other verses regarding the Book of Life,
    is that everyone's name is entered into it from the foundation of the
    world.  This is a tribute to God's grace that everyone has the opportunity 
    to receive Christ.  What you do with Jesus as Lord and Savior determines 
    if your name stays there or not.  If we don't have free will to choose
    to accept Christ as Savior, how do the unsaved get their names blotted
    out?  God wouldn't be as God of justice if names were blotted out
    without the opportunity to repent and keep your name in the Book of
    Life.
    
    Rev. 20:7-8
    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
    Here mankind is getting deceived after 1000 years of paradise and
    perfection.  How do millenial saints choose to follow Satan after 
    experiencing such perfection from God?  
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Help me understand.  Correct me if I am wrong.
    
    	You refer to people as deists because
    
    	1) Deists believe God stepped back from creation and takes no
    	   further part in its functioning.
    
    	2) These people do not believe that what God wills must come
    	   to pass.  Such as people can be lost because of their own
    	   choice in spite of God's desire to save them.
    
    	I happen to not believe that everything God wills comes to pass
    	and thus, according to your rationale, I am in the above category.
    
    	However, I believe God is ACTIVELY DRAWING ME by showing me how
    	good He is and by trying to motivate me to drink in His goodness.
    
        On what rational basis would you then conclude that I believe that
        God is taking no further part in my functioning?
    
    							Tony

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I think I said that people are Deists *in a sense*.  What I meant was
    that so many folks *really* seem to believe that God lets us do as we
    will, that He has removed Himself from the day-to-day management, if
    you will, of His creation.
    
    The Bible makes it clear that this is not true.  But like I said, this
    is another topic.
    
    jeff

Hello Mike,

>    Okay, say that man has no free will as Calvinism suggests.  How do you
>    explain these verses in Revelation?

     The issue here, and it is important to keep it contained for the sake
     of continuity, discussion, and  understanding, is whether man's will is 
     free to choose or reject salvation.

     As an aside and probably of significance for you is the fact that
     the unbiblical doctrine of "free will" is a hallmark of Roman Catholic 
     theology.
    
>    Rev. 3:5  
>    He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will 
>    not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
>    before my Father, and before his angels.

     Are you sure this is what the verse says?

>    The implication here, and with other verses regarding the Book of Life,
>    is that everyone's name is entered into it from the foundation of the
>    world.  This is a tribute to God's grace that everyone has the opportunity 
>    to receive Christ.  What you do with Jesus as Lord and Savior determines 
>    if your name stays there or not.  If we don't have free will to choose
>    to accept Christ as Savior, how do the unsaved get their names blotted
>    out?  God wouldn't be as God of justice if names were blotted out
>    without the opportunity to repent and keep your name in the Book of
>    Life.

Take a better look, Mike.  I can't see anything in the verse which states
or necessarily implies that everyone's name is in the Book of Life.  It
makes more sense to understand the verse as saying that once one's
name is in the Book of Life, via salvation, it will stay there.  
    
>    Rev. 20:7-8
>    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
>    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
>    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
>    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
>    Here mankind is getting deceived after 1000 years of paradise and
>    perfection.  How do millenial saints choose to follow Satan after 
>    experiencing such perfection from God?  
    
>    thanks,
>    Mike

Where do these verses state that saints choose to follow Satan?  As a matter
of fact "nations" (I'm curious, is the word actually "Gentiles" or a 
related word/derivative?) was often used as a term for those outside of 
God's covenant.  

jeff

    
    Leslie,
    
    I did want to address,if not specifically, then the gist of your comments.  
    "Free will" does not exist as a Biblical doctrine.  God's sovereignty
    is clearly taught throughout Scripture.  
    
    Though it is difficult to understand, impossible actually, we can adopt
    as truth what the Scripture teaches.  I do not believe a paradox exists
    since "free will" is not taught, especially "free will" in salvation,
    in the Bible.  Man has a will but it is not free or autonomous.
    
    jeff

|         <<< Note 847.278 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
|
|     As an aside and probably of significance for you is the fact that
|     the unbiblical doctrine of "free will" is a hallmark of Roman Catholic 
|     theology.
    
    It's also a hallmark of several Protestant denominations.  Catholicism
    has its antiBiblical problems but I don't consider man's will as one of
    them.
    
|>    Rev. 3:5  
|>    He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will 
|>    not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
|>    before my Father, and before his angels.
|
|     Are you sure this is what the verse says?
    
    yes, it's right from the online KJV.  My preferred version is the NASB
    because of its accuracy.  Here is how it reads:
    
    "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
    not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
    before My Father, and before His angels."

    The word "erase" is also used in the NIV - as in never erase.
    
|Take a better look, Mike.  I can't see anything in the verse which states
|or necessarily implies that everyone's name is in the Book of Life.  It
    
    Read it for yourself.  Your name is there until you decide to reject
    Christ as Lord, Savior, and God.  This is a tribute to God's grace.  
    
|makes more sense to understand the verse as saying that once one's
|name is in the Book of Life, via salvation, it will stay there.  
    
    How can you say this given the warnings in scripture?  1 Timothy 4:1 
    says that "in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith."   
    2 Thessalonians 2:3 speaks of "a falling away" or an apostasy.
    
|>    Rev. 20:7-8
|>    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
|>    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
|>    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
|>    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
>Where do these verses state that saints choose to follow Satan?  As a matter
>of fact "nations" (I'm curious, is the word actually "Gentiles" or a 
>related word/derivative?) was often used as a term for those outside of 
>God's covenant.  
    
    Are the wicked or those outside God's covenant participants in
    Messiah's millenial reign?  Even if they are, which I tend to doubt,
    how can they not be elect after serving God in Messiah's perfect
    kingdom for 1000 years?

    thanks,
    Mike

|>    Rev. 3:5  
|>    He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will 
|>    not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name
|>    before my Father, and before his angels.
|
|     Are you sure this is what the verse says?
    
   >> yes, it's right from the online KJV.  My preferred version is the NASB
   >> because of its accuracy.  Here is how it reads:
    
   >> "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
   >> not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
   >> before My Father, and before His angels."

   >> The word "erase" is also used in the NIV - as in never erase.
    
|Take a better look, Mike.  I can't see anything in the verse which states
|or necessarily implies that everyone's name is in the Book of Life.  It
|makes more sense to understand the verse as saying that once one's name
    |is entered in the Book of Life, via salvation, that it stays there.
        
    >>Read it for yourself.  Your name is there until you decide to reject
    >>Christ as Lord, Savior, and God.  This is a tribute to God's grace.  
    
|makes more sense to understand the verse as saying that once one's
|name is in the Book of Life, via salvation, it will stay there.  
    
    >>How can you say this given the warnings in scripture?  1 Timothy 4:1 
    >>says that "in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith."   
    >>2 Thessalonians 2:3 speaks of "a falling away" or an apostasy.

I say this because this is the straightforward way to interpret Rev 3:5.

    
|>    Rev. 20:7-8
|>    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
|>    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
|>    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
|>    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
>Where do these verses state that saints choose to follow Satan?  As a matter
>of fact "nations" (I'm curious, is the word actually "Gentiles" or a 
>related word/derivative?) was often used as a term for those outside of 
>God's covenant.  
    
   >> Are the wicked or those outside God's covenant participants in
    >>Messiah's millenial reign?  Even if they are, which I tend to doubt,
    >>how can they not be elect after serving God in Messiah's perfect
    >>kingdom for 1000 years?

Well, I am not a pre-millenial dispensationalist so I would reject the
context you have built for interpreting this passage.  In any case you
still haven't answered the question; where does Rev 20:7-8 say that 
saints choose to follow Satan?  

jeff

    

      Jeff,
    
        Your Roman Catholic input didn't seem to introduce a whole lot
        unless one were to draw the following leap:  "Ah, its Roman
        Catholic, therefore its wrong!"
    
        Roman Catholics believe Christ is God, don't they?
    
        Given the fact that RC teaches some true and some false, of
        what significance is your contribution?
    
        (Well, at least I believe they teach some false things.)
    
    						Tony

    Re: .278
    
    > As an aside and probably of significance for you is the fact that
    > the unbiblical doctrine of "free will" is a hallmark of Roman
    > Catholic theology.
    
    What kind of an argument is this. Are you saying to Mike, my enemy
    is your enemy, therefore we should be friends and agree. I take
    offense at this statement and find that is weakens all of your
    other contributions, IMHO.
    
    Peter.
        

    Re: .280
    
    > It's also a hallmark of several Protestant denominations.  Catholicism
    > has its antiBiblical problems but I don't consider man's will as
    > one of them.
    
    Mike, glad to see that you did not take the bait.
    
    Peter.
    
    

>         <<< Note 847.281 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>
   >> "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
   >> not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
   >> before My Father, and before His angels."
    
>I say this because this is the straightforward way to interpret Rev 3:5.
    
    This doesn't address the problem/question.  What does one do for God to
    erase their name?

|>    Rev. 20:7-8
|>    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
|>    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
|>    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
|>    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
>Well, I am not a pre-millenial dispensationalist so I would reject the
>context you have built for interpreting this passage.  In any case you
>still haven't answered the question; where does Rev 20:7-8 say that 
>saints choose to follow Satan?  
    
    You can't fall into deception without following Satan.  Now how can
    this happen to people living in millenial perfection for 1000 years?
    
    Mike

    
    > As an aside and probably of significance for you is the fact that
    > the unbiblical doctrine of "free will" is a hallmark of Roman
    > Catholic theology.
    
    >>What kind of an argument is this. Are you saying to Mike, my enemy
    >>is your enemy, therefore we should be friends and agree. I take
    >>offense at this statement and find that is weakens all of your
    >>other contributions, IMHO.
    
    >>Peter.
    
    No, I'm not saying, "my enemy is your enemy" at all.  I'm saying to
    Mike that since he understands some of the extent of error in Roman 
    Catholic theology, especially concerning the gospel, that he would be
    interested in knowing that "free will" is not just an aside but a
    hallmark, or very important feature, in their theology, which of course
    leads to very much of the error in Roman Catholic theology in other
    important areas.
    
    jeff
        

   >> "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
   >> not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
   >> before My Father, and before His angels."
    
>I say this because this is the straightforward way to interpret Rev 3:5.
    
   >> This doesn't address the problem/question.  What does one do for God to
   >> erase their name?
    
    You assume that all names are in the Book.  The verse does not state
    this to be true nor is it necessarily deduced.  

|>    Rev. 20:7-8
|>    And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
|>    prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
|>    quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: 
|>    the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
    
>Well, I am not a pre-millenial dispensationalist so I would reject the
>context you have built for interpreting this passage.  In any case you
>still haven't answered the question; where does Rev 20:7-8 say that 
>saints choose to follow Satan?  
    
    >>You can't fall into deception without following Satan.  Now how can
    >>this happen to people living in millenial perfection for 1000 years?
    
    >>Mike
    
    How did Israel fall into deception with God in their very midst?  The
    hallmark of sin and Satan are their deceptive nature and power.
    Besides, the verse still doesn't say that saints followed Satan nor is
    it necessarily deduced.
    
    jeff

    .287
    
    Jeff, if its not of God, then who is it of?

    Hi Nancy,
    
    I don't understand your question.
    
    jeff

    I believe that the spiritual warfare that is happening around us
    creates the influence of both God and Satan in our lives.   Our motives
    are either pure or impure.  How would you align the source of our
    behaviors between pure and impure?
    
    I would place under the category of God anything that is not against
    Him is for Him.  Therefore anything that is against Him or His law is
    of Satan.
    
    
    

      I think our motives are split.  

    Jeff, playing semantic games isn't necessary if you can't explain the 
    text.  The verses are as plain as the nose on our faces.  I understand
    they contradict your beliefs, but don't try to tell us it isn't obvious
    enough for you.
    
    This leaves the questions unanswered.  I'm still working on the Romans 9
    commentary.
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I don't play "semantic games".
    
    I can only pray that God will open your eyes and let you see that *you*
    are rationalizing by way of presupposition to the conclusion you draw
    from the two passages you entered.  And I will state one more time (and 
    no more, I promise) that neither of the passages you entered either say 
    what you say they say (oh my, so many "say"s!) or by necessary deduction,
    say what you say they say.
    
    jeff

	Errr....Jeff, you have played semantics games quite often. Maybe you
gave it up for Lent? :-)

	Let God handle it, People. 

    Tony,
    
    Exactly what do you mean by split?  Do you mean that an individual
    behavior can have both pure and impure motivation?
    
    If so, I would disagree.

    
    I would say that it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to truly
    know our motives, and certainly the motives of others.  The heart is
    desperately wicked, who can know it?!
    
    I personally have found the analysis and searching of my own motives to
    be a most frustrating and fruitless exercise.  Even when I thought I
    had discovered my motive for doing something, and I could never be
    sure, the discovery didn't help me not do it in the future if it was
    something that I needed to stop doing.  Clearly the only way for a
    sinner like me to obey God, and stop doing those evil things I'm so
    inclined to do, is to simply obey Him by the power of His Holy Spirit.
    
    I think motives, if they're still important, won't be understood until
    we're free from this fallen flesh and its fallen mind.
    
    jeff

      Yes, Nancy, I think our motives are largely split.  I think
      its real possible that people do certain things out of selfless
      and selfish motives.
    
      I think I've discerned as much in my own heart.  Although I
      couldn't agree with Jeff more about our really not knowing 
      our hearts.
    
    						Tony

    I do disagree, I think we may not WANT to face the impurity of our
    motives by justifying them through something that seems pure, but if
    there is any blemish it destroys the entirety of the behavior.
    
    The Bible says that blessings and cursings cannot come from the same
    heart.  They are not compatible.  Either you are hot or cold, there is
    no lukewarm.
    
    How do you reconcile your belief against these scriptures?
    
    Tony, I agree with you that we can know our hearts.  The fact that they
    are deceitful doesn't mean we can not know when we have been deceived. 
    God has promised to reveal our hearts to us through the purification of
    His word.  "Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin
    against Thee."
    
    

    Since I'm a door knockin' soul-winning type person, I think I'll just
    mosey right on over to the next ...

    SNARF!!! :-)

    It seemed necessary to Jeff and Mike's latest string of replies to look
    up every occurrance of the book of life.  Interesting reading.  But I
    haven't had time to finish.  May I suggest that others try that too?
    
    Jill

    Re: .286
    
    > No, I'm not saying, "my enemy is your enemy" at all.  I'm saying to
    > Mike that since he understands some of the extent of error in Roman 
    > Catholic theology, especially concerning the gospel, that he would
    > be interested in knowing that "free will" is not just an aside but a
    > hallmark, or very important feature, in their theology, which of course
    > leads to very much of the error in Roman Catholic theology in other
    > important areas.
    
    Ok, I think you might have misunderstood me. That's probably my fault,
    I'm sure I did not do a good job explaining myself. What I meant was
    why bring this, "point of interest", up in this discussion at all. Mike
    had not mentioned the RC position on free will, or did I miss
    something.
    
    Oh well, a couple of questions though.
    
    	1. I have been doing some digging and am having trouble finding
    	   free will as a "hallmark" in RC theology. Based on how you
    	   put this I would think it would be a whole chapter in the
    	   Catechism, I haven't found one yet. I'm going to do a lot
    	   more digging on this though. I think that Saint Thomas Aquinas
    	   argues at least part of the Calvinist position. I'm going to
    	   do some digging in Summa Theologica if I get some time. My
    	   question to you is what are your sources for saying that
    	   free will is a hallmark of RC theology?
    
    	2. Could you describe the RC doctrinal errors that this leads to?
    
    Peter.
    

      Hi Nance,
    
        I thought of one example.  I know that sometimes I mentioned
        to others some scripture memorizing I have done and I know
        that part of my motivation has been to encourage others to
        do the same, to truly want them to have a closer walk with
    	the Lord as a result.  However, I believe that sometimes 
     	pride was a part of it.  I felt a little like a bigshot
    	because of my accomplishments.
    
        Split motivations for obvious reasons.  I am not perfectly
        sinful and I am not perfectly righteous.  I sin and obey.
    
    						Tony

    
    Hi Peter,
    
    Furthering a discussion on RC doctrine will seriously sidetrack this
    topic in my opinion.  However, to answer your question, you will find
    the roots of "free will" in Aquinas's Summas to the extent that his
    apologetic is Aristotelian, which is considerable.
    
    Concerning the errors associated with "free will" doctrine, there are
    many.  First off the biblical nature of man is denied (i.e. depravity)
    and this leads to an unbiblical gospel of works.  If the gospel is
    false, there is no cure, no regeneration, many lost people falsely
    presuming salvation and so on.
    
    jeff

    RE: .298
    
    Actually, Nancy, I think Tony said that he couldn't agree more with
    Jeff about not knowing our own hearts.  Through all those negatives
    Tony said he agreed with Jeff. :-)
    
    RE: .304
    
    Tony, I think Nancy's main point is that we cannot attribute impure
    motives to God.  Some would have us believe that God establishes all
    our motives, be they pure or impure, and Nancy suggested rather that
    Satan might have something to do with impurity.
    
    Again, if I'm wrong in speaking for Nancy, she will correct me. :-)
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .305
    
    To say that man is not TOTALLY DEPRAVED from conception does NOT deny
    the Biblical nature of man and does NOT necessarily lead to an
    unBiblical gospel of works.  That is an improper generalization.
    
    Scripture indisputably reveals man to be a sinner by nature.  We sin
    because we are sinners, and, left to our own devices, we will all and
    always sin unto death.  But Jesus the Christ of God was given that we
    who believe might have eternal life.
    
    We are deceived if we think we can do anything to save ourselves.
    
    As you know, Jeff, I believe Scripture clearly teaches that man was
    given volition by God, but that man cannot have eternal life apart from
    Him.  Only God effects our salvation.

    I believe man is "free" to choose life or death, but we are NOT "free
    moral agents" who can exist apart from God.  In other words, man can
    choose to live in earthly flesh without God, but he cannot have eternal
    life without God.  Furthermore, even life in earthly flesh is granted and
    sustained by God in love, mercy and patience, whether or not man
    recognizes Him.

    My prayer in all this wrangling is that Jesus Christ be lifted up.  His
    work, not ours, must be the focus.
    
    /Wayne

   >> "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
   >> not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
   >> before My Father, and before His angels."
    
>I say this because this is the straightforward way to interpret Rev 3:5.
    
    >>This doesn't address the problem/question.  What does one do for God to
    >>erase their name?

    
    Hi Mike,
    
    I've been thinking about some of the implications concerning your
    interpretation of Rev 3:5. 
    
    Basically you are suggesting that we are all saved upon birth or
    conception and then either are saved until the end or lost and thus
    erased from the Book of Life.  If we are saved from the beginning, by
    virtue of being written in the Book of Life, then what use is Christ's
    sacrifice?  What reason is there for a gospel at all if this is true?
    
    Are you prepared to believe that we start out our existence in a state of
    grace and salvation?  If so, how do you support this in light of the
    whole counsel of God and the very Gospel itself?
    
    I don't think you have any way around these conclusions if you
    interpret Rev 3:5 as you have presented in this string.
    
    jeff

    I haven't had time to study it yet, but Rev 3:5 is addressed to the
    church.  Thats significant.  
    
    Jill

>    Concerning the errors associated with "free will" doctrine, there are
>    many.  First off the biblical nature of man is denied (i.e. depravity)
>    and this leads to an unbiblical gospel of works.  If the gospel is
>    false, there is no cure, no regeneration, many lost people falsely
>    presuming salvation and so on.
    
    I disagree since the Bible teaches that man's heart is corrupt.  You're
    still looking at one side of the coin.  You can have the freedom to
    choose life through the Holy Spirit even when you are in the gutter of
    this world.  The Bible is full of such spiritual transformations.  This
    isn't works, it's grace.  A free gift is only yours when you receive it.  
    
    Mike

|         <<< Note 847.308 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
|   >> "He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will
|   >> not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name
|   >> before My Father, and before His angels."
|    
|    Basically you are suggesting that we are all saved upon birth or
|    conception and then either are saved until the end or lost and thus
|    erased from the Book of Life.  If we are saved from the beginning, by
|    virtue of being written in the Book of Life, then what use is Christ's
|    sacrifice?  What reason is there for a gospel at all if this is true?
    
    That's not what I suggested at all.  I said God's by His grace has put
    everyone's name there from the foundation of the world.  What you
    decide to do with His Son as Lord and Savior determines if your name
    stays there or not.  Such grace should fit right in line with your
    beliefs.  God has done everything possible that no one will perish.  Go
    back and re-read my replies on this.
    
>    Are you prepared to believe that we start out our existence in a state of
>    grace and salvation?  If so, how do you support this in light of the
>    whole counsel of God and the very Gospel itself?
    
    I never claimed this.  This would be unscriptural.  Again, re-examine
    my replies.
    
>    I don't think you have any way around these conclusions if you
>    interpret Rev 3:5 as you have presented in this string.
    
    I think you misunderstood what I originally entered.
    
    Mike

    
    But Mike there is no escaping the conclusion I have drawn from your
    interpretation of the passage.
    
    And where can we learn more of this "grace" you have come up with where
    all people are in the Book of Life (are saved - there's no other
    interpretation possible considering the passage) at conception (I
    guess) and are later erased if they are not saved (but since they're
    already saved at conception how are they not saved later?).  And then
    those who are saved later (which makes no sense since they were saved,
    i.e. written in the Book of Life, at conception) are not erased from
    the Book of Life.
    
    Rev 3:5 is a letter to the church as Jill has astutely mentioned. 
    "Overcomers" are Christians.  It is most appropriate to interpret this
    passage as Christians are written in the "Book of Life" upon belief in
    Christ and will not be erased but will be kept by Christ.
    
    jeff 

      Hi Wayne,                                             
    
        If Nance meant it as you said it, I couldn't agree more.
    
        As per this topic...
    
        I just feel that there are so many texts that refer to a
        choice being made that I feel that Jeff has to come up with
        something other than what too many texts obviously seem to
        be saying.
    
        Another one is Jerusalem who was not willing to be gathered
        in.  Another is Ninevah where there is a conditional prophecy
        to repent or be destroyed.  What is the significance if their
        decision to repent was fastened by God?
    
        I see so many texts that point to man making a choice that I'm
        really just a casual reader here.
    
    							Tony

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    We must look *first* to the clear and direct *teaching* in the Bible 
    concerning salvation to understand God's and man's relationship to
    salvation.  Any other passage which is not an actual teaching concerning
    salvation but can, out of context usually, be offered as one must be
    assessed in light of the direct teaching concerning salvation.  If
    one of these passages that are not actually in a context of directly
    teaching about salvation and is in contradiction to direct teaching
    concerning salvation, we must not "balance" the two teachings but we
    must interpret the contradictory, non-soteriological passage in light
    of the soteriological passage.
    
    Got it?
    
    jeff

	Question, what is the book of remembrance mentioned at 
	Malachi 3:16? . What does this portion of scripture tell
	us about God and how feels about those who seek him?.


	Phil.

    
    "Seeking" and "free will" are hardly synonomous.  Let's try to stay 
    focused (I realize this is the eternal admonition in electronic
    forums and is hard to do).
    
    jeff
    
    

    Wayne,
    
    Yes my point is that we cannot attribute impure motives to God.  

    Andrew -
    Do you have time and interest to do the book of life study and
    post the results?  I won't get to it for a long time otherwise...
    
    Jill

      Thanks Jeff, I think I 'got it.'
    
      John 3:17 is pretty soteriological, isn't it?  "Whosoever
      believeth."  "God so loved the "world."
    
    						Tony

      Mean to say 3:16.

    Tony, 3:17 works well too here.

      Amen, Mike!
    
      I don't see Romans 9 as all that 'soteriological' either.
      It seems to me that Paul had just labored to tell us that
      "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
      and then labored to expound on the gospel in chs. 3 (starting
      at the end) through 8.
    
    						Tony

    .319 Tony,
    
    Yes, John 3:16,17 is a passage which describes the means of salvation.
    But it is limited to a positive statement.  And, in case you have 
    forgotten, it is not in any way teaching "free will".
    
    jeff

    Re: .305
    
    Jeff,
    
    > Furthering a discussion on RC doctrine will seriously sidetrack this
    > topic in my opinion.
    
    I agree it would sidetrack this topic, therefore I won't presue it.
    I'll make a post that I think is more in line with the topic.
        
    > First off the biblical nature of man is denied (i.e.depravity)
    > and this leads to an unbiblical gospel of works.  If the gospel is
    > false, there is no cure, no regeneration, many lost people falsely
    > presuming salvation and so on.
    
	"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good"
	(Gen. 1:30). Revelation teaches us that God made man rightly, but that
	man brought upon himself a multitude of evils.

	Although he was made by God in a state of holiness, from the very
    	dawn of history man abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One.
    	Man set himself against God, and sought to find his fulfillment apart
    	from God.

	The sin of Adam was in him an actual sin. He of his own free will did
	something he knew was in opposition to God's will. His sin, however,
	has affected all his descendants, the whole human family. "Therefore
	as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin,
	and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12)

    The above was taken from _The_Teaching_of_Christ_ A Catholic Catechism for
    Adults.

    The Catholic Church does teach that man is in depravity, maybe not
    total depravity as the Genesis passage above would indicate.

    Did God make Adam sin or did he do it of his own free will. If God
    made him then He is responsible for man's sinful nature. That seems
    to contridict Gen. 1:30.

    Peter.

    Re: .307
    
    Wayne,
    
    It seems you answered .305 for me in part. Thanks.
    
    Peter

    Hi Peter,
    
    >The Catholic Church does teach that man is in depravity, maybe not
    >total depravity as the Genesis passage above would indicate.
    
    Well, this is indicative as the source of most error, isn't it?

    >Did God make Adam sin or did he do it of his own free will. If God
    >made him then He is responsible for man's sinful nature. That seems
    >to contridict Gen. 1:30.

    >Peter.
    
    Adam had an unbiased will unlike all who followed him.
    
    jeff

    Here is a section from _The_Teaching_of_Christ_ A catholic Catechism
    for Adults. Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 1983 on predestination. Just to
    give the Catholic position, at least in part.
    
    
	"The proper destiny of man is eternal life with God, for God calls
	and invites all men to Himself and wills all men to be saved.
    	(cf. 1 Tim 2:4)

	Men are predestined in the sense that God's merciful gift precedes
	and makes possible every mercy, especially that of eternal salvation.
	Certainly there is no predestination in which God selects certain
    	persons NOT to attain eternal life with Him and WITHHOLDS from them
    	the gifts of salvation. At the same time, the predestination of which
    	we speak does not mean that in the past God planned things that would
    	mechanically occur in future time, that God is as it were sitting in
    	heaven watching pages of history already written turn before Him.
    	Rather, it is a predestination that fully respects the freedom that
    	God Himself gives men.

	The mystery of God's eternity transcends time; every moment of time
	is always present to Him, and it is His eternal mercy that guides men
	to salvation He wills for all men. Yet history remains history, and each
	individual's live remains his own to live- an adventure in freedom. For
	God does not force the creation that He guides with a gentle love.

	Men can do NO SAVING DEEDS at all without God who sustains them in
	being  and who alone enables them to do good. But God also allows men to
	resist His grace, to refuse the life He offers, to do the things He
    	forbids. For God made men free and He wills that men come to Him freely.

	God's respect for the freedom of persons does not reflect unconcern
	on His part. He continues to show immense love and care even when men
	turn away from Him. Judas is addressed as "friend" even as he is about
	to betray Christ (cf. Matt. 26:50). God's mercy and goodness are
	constantly stressed in Scripture. "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and
    	forget not all His benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals
    	all your diseases, who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you
    	with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good..."
    	(Ps. 103:2-5).

	Forever He is offering life, "'Come'. And let him who hears say,
	'Come.' And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take
	the water of life without price" (Rev 22:17)

    
    As is evident from what you entered Peter, the "free will" dogma is, as
    I hinted earlier, an unbiblical error shared by both Arminians and
    Roman Catholics.
    
    jeff

No, Jeff.

Your teaching that we are all robots dancing at the end of the string of
the god-marionetter is what is unbiblical.

The bible is full of the record of people choosing to serve God or choosing
to reject him.

God's Will and Grace give us the ability to choose and accept him, but it
is also His Will that we be free to take him up on his offer and choose life,
or to reject his offer and choose death.  Only by ignoring half the bible
can you reject the fully biblical doctrine of free will moved by God.

/john

    Re: .327
    
    Jeff,
    
    > Well, this is indicative as the source of most error, isn't it?
    
    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
    
    >> Did God make Adam sin or did he do it of his own free will. If God
    >> made him then He is responsible for man's sinful nature. That seems
    >> to contridict Gen. 1:30.
    >
    > Adam had an unbiased will unlike all who followed him.
    
    I'm not sure you answered my question and I'm not sure what you are
    saying. Are you saying that Adam's will is different than ours? If
    so could you give me some scriptural support for this.
    
    Peter.
     

    >    Did God make Adam sin or did he do it of his own free will. If God
    
    Funny you ask this because Wayne and I were discussing it offline
    recently.  The Mormons believe something similar to this.  Joseph Smith
    wrote that Adam's fall in the Garden of Eden "became a necessary, 
    honorable act in carrying out the plan of the Almighty" (Joseph Smith - 
    Seeker after Truth, p. 160).
    
    However, God's Word seems to have a major problem with this notion in
    James 1:13-17.  Thoughts like the one above are completely
    unscriptural.
    
1:13  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be
 tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
1:14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
 enticed.
1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is
 finished, bringeth forth death.
1:16  Do not err, my beloved brethren.
1:17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
 from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
 turning.

    Why would God create a bunch of robots to love and serve Him when it
    means so much more to be loved because someone chose to love Him out of
    sheer gratitude and thanksgiving?  As a parent, I don't want to be
    loved by my children because they are my elect and have no choice. 
    Father in heaven is no different.  He desires the praises of His
    people.
    
    Mike

    Hi John,
    
>No, Jeff.

>Your teaching that we are all robots dancing at the end of the string of
>the god-marionetter is what is unbiblical.
    
    *I* am not appealing to anything outside of Scripture.  And I have not
    characterized us as robots nor does the Bible.

>The bible is full of the record of people choosing to serve God or choosing
>to reject him.
    
    So?

>God's Will and Grace give us the ability to choose and accept him, but it
>is also His Will that we be free to take him up on his offer and choose life,
>or to reject his offer and choose death.  Only by ignoring half the bible
>can you reject the fully biblical doctrine of free will moved by God.

>/john
    
    Well, this is the argument, isn't it?
    
    jeff

    Re: .331
    
    Peter,
    
    > Well, this is indicative as the source of most error, isn't it?
    
    >>I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
    
    What I am saying is in respone to your statement that the Roman Catholic 
    church teaches depravity but not as Genesis indicates.  In other words,
    the perversion or incomplete teaching of the Word is the source of most
    error.
    
    >> Did God make Adam sin or did he do it of his own free will. If God
    >> made him then He is responsible for man's sinful nature. That seems
    >> to contridict Gen. 1:30.
    >
    > Adam had an unbiased will unlike all who followed him.
    
    >>I'm not sure you answered my question and I'm not sure what you are
    >>saying. Are you saying that Adam's will is different than ours? If
    >>so could you give me some scriptural support for this.
    
   >>Peter.
    
    Adam was not created spiritually dead, like us who have followed him, 
    rather spiritually alive, like us who have been born again but more so.  
    His will was unbiased in his unfallen state and was truly free.  Our
    wills are not unbiased, never have been.  We were born in sin and were
    spiritually dead at birth and are predisposed to sin due to the sinful 
    nature. Even after the new birth, in this flesh, the filth of our old 
    Adamic nature remains to ever struggle against the Spirit.  You may
    read Genesis and Romans, the whole Bible really, and see this truth
    taught directly and indirectly everywhere.
    
    jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        "For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth in Him
         should not perish, but have everlasting life."
    
        This is within the context of Jesus telling Nicodemus, "You
        must be born-again!"
    
        Within the context, what is *world*?  Within the context, isn't
        *whosoever believeth* an exhortation?  Wasn't Jesus trying to
        induce Nicodemus to believe?  Isn't He trying to motivate all
        to believe because He "so loves" them?
    
        I take this passage to teach free will because God loved the
        WORLD and yet not all that is a part of the world will be saved.
    
        Jeff, in your view, had God ever loved the lost?
    
    						Tony

>    Why would God create a bunch of robots to love and serve Him 
    
    He didn't.  And no one is suggesting that He did.
    
    >when it
    <means so much more to be loved because someone chose to love Him out of
    <sheer gratitude and thanksgiving?  
    
    God does not *require* our love.  We were not created so that He might
    be loved but that He will be glorified.  We even only love Him because
    He loved us first.
      
    >As a parent, I don't want to be
    >loved by my children because they are my elect and have no choice.
    
    The only reason your children do love you is because they are "elect", 
    so to speak.  If they were not your children they would not love you.  
    It is only your love for them which causes them to love you.   
    
    >Father in heaven is no different.  He desires the praises of His
    >people.
    
    >Mike
    
    Who glorifies his father the most?  The one who praises his father's
    graciousness and mercy or the one who praises his father's reasonableness?
    
    jeff

    Re: .335
    
    Jeff,
    
    > What I am saying is in respone to your statement that the Roman
    > Catholic church teaches depravity but not as Genesis indicates. In other
    > words, the perversion or incomplete teaching of the Word is the source of
    > most error.
    
    That's not what I said, or at least that's not what I was trying to
    say. What I was trying to say was that Genesis indicates that God
    saw that what he had created, including Adam, was good. The RC church
    teaches that all men inherit from Adam original sin and a sinful
    nature. But I believe that man is not in total depravity. To indicate
    otherwise is in contridiction to God seeing that what he had made was
    good, IMHO.
    
    Peter.
    

    Re: .335
    
    Jeff,
    
    > We were born in sin and were spiritually dead at birth and are
    > predisposed to sin due to the sinful nature. 
    
    I would agree with this and so would the RC church.
    
    > Adam was not created spiritually dead, like us who have followed him, 
    > rather spiritually alive, like us who have been born again but more so.  
    > His will was unbiased in his unfallen state and was truly free. Our
    > wills are not unbiased, never have been.  We were born in sin and were
    > spiritually dead at birth and are predisposed to sin due to the sinful 
    > nature. Even after the new birth, in this flesh, the filth of our old 
    > Adamic nature remains to ever struggle against the Spirit.  You may
    > read Genesis and Romans, the whole Bible really, and see this truth
    > taught directly and indirectly everywhere.
    
    What do you mean by "spiritually alive" or "spiritually dead" in this
    context?
    
    > Even after the new birth, in this flesh, the filth of our old 
    > Adamic nature remains to ever struggle against the Spirit.
    
    So what does the rebirth actually do? I understand that we still
    struggle after we become Christians. When does this "filth" actually
    ever leave us?
    
    Peter.
    

RE:         <<< Note 847.337 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>>    Why would God create a bunch of robots to love and serve Him 
>    
>    He didn't.  And no one is suggesting that He did.

     Jeff, please explain how your stance that people do not have some
     capability to choose for or against God does not make us robots 
     or puppets, or actors in a predetermined play.  Thanks.
    
>    God does not *require* our love.  We were not created so that He might
>    be loved but that He will be glorified.  We even only love Him because
>    He loved us first.

     I agree that God does *require* our love. But in your position that
     people do not have some capability to choose for or against God,
     how does our existence glorify Him? In what way does the annilation 
     or eternal suffering (pick one, I don't care which) of people who were 
     created for the purpose of denying God and being annilated or suffering 
     eternally give glory to God?
      
>    >As a parent, I don't want to be
>    >loved by my children because they are my elect and have no choice.
    
>    The only reason your children do love you is because they are "elect", 
>    so to speak.  If they were not your children they would not love you.  
>    It is only your love for them which causes them to love you.   

     First, one person's love for another does not always garner the other
     person's return on their love. Secondly, I believe I am loved by other
     people, including some children, who are not my children.  They may
     love me because I am interested in their welfare, enjoy their company,
     love them and are kind to them, but they do have a choice in the matter,
     and could just as equally totally disregard my love.
    
>    Who glorifies his father the most?  The one who praises his father's
>    graciousness and mercy or the one who praises his father's reasonableness?
    
     I should think that anyone who praises his father out of pure motives and
     love, of their own volition, no matter what they are praising him for, 
     would be the more glorifying to their father. 

     The problem I have with a strictly Calvanist view is that God becomes
     a monster. However, my experience has been that He is loving, kind, and
     patient as well as just.  Granted we cannot base everything on experience,
     but in seeking the truth I do think we need to use all the resources
     God has given, including revelation, experience, and reason. God's
     revelation is foremost in these, but I do not think anyone approaches
     Scripture without experience or reason affecting their understanding of 
     that revelation. Though I think our ability to reason and to draw 
     knowledge from experience is flawed, I do not think it is totally 
     corrupted.

     You may ask, "How does strict Calvanism make God a monster?" Here is
     my answer. First, let me state the Calavanist position as I understand
     it. God created Adam and Chava as free moral agents, able to make moral
     choices of their own accord. They chose to trust the Evil One more than
     God, and desired to be gods in their own right. When they made this 
     choice, creation was plunged into total depravity, stripping Adam &
     Chava's offspring of any choice. Every human being is now so wicked
     that they are incapable of making a good moral choice, and are in 
     rebellion to God. However, God in His mercy, chooses some of these 
     depraved, rebellious people, through no merit of their own, and changes
     their heart so that they can receive the gift of salvation from both
     their depraved condition, and from consequences of that condition.

     A couple of problems I have with this are:

     1) Most people are being more severely punished for the choice made
        by Adam and Chava, than Adam and Chava are. How is this justice?
        I know the Calvinist answer is that people will be punished for
        their own depravity, not the moral choice that Adam & Chava made.
        However, that answer does not show how it is justice for people
        born into a condition that have no control over whatsoever. It
        _is_ punishment for the choice made by Adam and Chava!

     2) God choosing only some people to receive His free gift and others
        to die of their malady would be like a Dr. withholding treatment
        known to cure an otherwise fatal disease from some of his patients.
        How is that justice? How is that love? God Himself chastises us
        for withholding a benefit and help from those who need it! He is
        King, but he would be despot if he held us to a higher moral standard
        than He Himself posesses.
        
     In our home fellowship group, we have been taking turns leading the 
     weekly study on some verse(s) or theme found in Proverbs.  In a 
     previous week, we looked at how Proverbs and other related Scripture
     define what righteousness is.  This week, I am preparing the study, 
     and have been looking at those verses which compare and contrast God's 
     delight in the righteous and his rewards to them with His displeasure 
     in the wicked and the calamity that will befall them. I have about 
     three pages worth of verses from Proverbs that talk about this. 

     If everyone is depraved, and God only allows some people salvation and 
     the freedom to be righteous, how is this loving, fair, just, or merciful? 
     And how does it show God to be honest and full of integrity in regards to 
     his delight in the righteous and opposition to the wicked? I suppose one 
     valid answer might be that God is not loving, fair, just, and merciful, 
     but that would be in direct contradiction to the Scriptures which state 
     those attributes of God very clearly and without qualification.     
  
     Leslie

    re: -1
    
    EXCELLENT REPLY!!
    
    (Caps used to denote emphasis.)
    
    					Thanks Leslie,
    
    					Tony

     On the other hand, here are some opposing thoughts that I have.

     Through His messengers who wrote the Scriptures, God has revealed 
     to us that His purpose for the world, for nations, and for 
     individuals will not be thwarted. Scripture also states
     that though there are those who oppose Him, God will triumph.
     One example is Baalam (sp?), who tried, against God's command,
     to say a curse against Israel, but only blessings came out of
     his mouth. We often talk about God's omnipotence, and I would 
     have to say that the One who spoke the world into being, and 
     continues to breathe life into it, and who could snuff it out 
     just as easily is omnipotent - unlimited power and authority. 
     So then, how would it be possible for people to deny the Lord 
     if His will is that all would accept His salvation?

     As I consider myself, and the choice I made, I know there is 
     nothing in me that is intrinsically wiser, more intelligent,
     or morally superior to those who have not made the same choice.
     In and of myself, I cannot say there is any quality in me that
     enables me to the discern God and His love for me any more than 
     any one else. Therefore, I acknowledge that God drew me to Him 
     through His Holy Spirit.

     A similar paradox to the freewill/God's sovereignty paradox is
     what happened with Israel in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible or Old 
     Testament). God says that He did not choose Israel because of any 
     attribute they possessed.  They were not more prestigious, more 
     numerous, more powerful, or morally better than any of the other 
     people or nations in the world. Yet He chose them to be the His
     people and the "apple of His eye".  He chose to make a convenant 
     with them that contained blessings for them that He promised never 
     to revoke.  Yet, Scripture also states that God _asked_ them if they 
     would accept His teaching and His law. God asked them if they would con-
     sent to be His people. He presented to them a choice in the matter.
     So if God both chose and allowed them to choose, is it not equally
     reasonable that He is sovereign and chooses us _and_ that we have 
     been given a real choice, and are responsible for the choices we make?

     These then are some of my reasons for believing as I do, that both 
     aspects are true - God is sovereign, what He ordains will happen,
     AND we have freewill to make a real choice concerning accepting His 
     gift of life and absolution from our sin through Yeshua haMoshiach,
     and wanting to follow His teaching. I see both sides of the argument,
     and I believe both are true. It is an "and both" sort of thing, not
     an "either or" sort of thing. Though within my understanding, I do 
     not see a way to easily reconcile the two, I do have enough reasons 
     to see that both are true. And so I rest in knowing that somewhere in
     infinate God, these seeming paradoxes have their union.

     Leslie

RE: <<< Note 847.341 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

>    EXCELLENT REPLY!!
    
Thanks Tony. I hope that my next response which I started before you wrote
the above, and finished probably much afterward, did not alter your perception
of the first note, and disappoint you.

Leslie

    If Adam and Chava were truly free, why did they choose not to be free?
    This makes zero sense.
    
    Mike

    Well I would suppose from the text that it would be because they
    were deceived.  They chose to believe the 'serpent' when it told
    them God had lied.

    Leslie

The bondage of sin was presented as 'freedom' from operating according to
design.  People still choose to fall into this trap, when the alternative
to accountability is ultimately pointlessness.  So they choose to believe 
that they have no purpose, rather than to accept that achieving the purpose 
of their existance implies the exclusion of self-rule.

The path of disobedience starts with an apparently small act of rebellion. 
This seed has festered inside until in order to escape admitting liability, 
it has to deny anything that is _not_ rebellion.  Anything which points to 
Design or Authorship makes that which violates that design or authorship 
stand out as unjustifiable.  Rather than accept that mankind is on a wrong 
path, the world denies that there is a right path.  It is therefore in a
prison of its own making, where every right act is a painful condemnation; 
right has to be represented as wrong, and wrong becomes the only acceptable 
thing....  Confused?  ;-}

It boils down to the world choosing not to be free, because it rejected 
the law which showed how to take the best advantage of that freedom.

								Andrew

      Hi Leslie,        
    
        I believe God's election is according to His foreknowledge
        and not His omnipotence.  That is what the Bible says.
    
        God has sometimes definitely expressed things as not totally
        within His will.  Ninevah is one example.  They are given
        an "either or" proposition.  Repent and live or refuse to
        repent and have judgment visited upon you.  They had a choice
        to make.
    
        Israel is another example.  When Christ cried out to Israel,
        He said he would have gathered them in like a mother hen
        gathers her chicks, but Israel WOULD NOT.  Clearly, the will
        of God and the will of Israel were not one.  Israel's will
        was, in a sense, sovereign.  Israel's will came to pass.  Her
        house was left to her desolate.  Israel had committed the 
        abomination of desolation.
    
        As for your second entry, I basically see that your ultimate
        source of reconciliation is to say that it is beyond our rational
        capabilities, but within God's.  That is, for us, it is beyond
        reason.
    
        I have come to believe that initial conversion is beyond our
        rational capabilities (for the reasons you so well expressed)
        and that God's sovereignty really doesn't have anything to do
        with whether or not His will comes to pass in every particular.
        But, rather, has to do with the truth that God and His principle
        of love is sovereign.  The day will come when His entire universe
        operates in harmony with agape.  In a sense, this is a very
        possible description of what the Bible means when it says that
        God is sovereign.
    
        As in other things, we agree to disagree - and thats' OK!  I
        don't need someone to agree with me before I can care about them.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

>    If Adam and Chava were truly free, why did they choose not to be free?
>    This makes zero sense.
    
>    Mike
    
    So, are you arguing against orthodox Christianities historic biblical
    doctrine of Adam and Eve's fall, original sin, and spiritual death?
    
    To answer your question, Adam and Eve's truly free choice to sin
    against their God, is what Paul calls "the mystery of iniquity."  Of
    one thing we can be certain; God was not shocked nor surprised.
    
    jeff

re .316

;"seeking" and "free will" are hardly synonomous

Jeff,

Ofcourse, "seek" and "free will" don't have the same meaning. But take the
following example, have you ever known a person who has saught to become an 
accomplished musician, actually become one by not excerising free will?. Is
one born naturally with this gift?. No, one has to make the choice and be
dedicated in learning how to play. A person cannot become an accomplished 
musician without wanting to be one. Throughout the scriptures man is urged to
seek God, why? because it is not something that comes naturally or given to
him. Yet Adam was originally designed to have fellowship with God, what about 
us?.

The blackest day in mankind's history is when Adam sold man into sin and 
death. From that time onward all of his offspring were tainted with this
sin, and no person would be born with the natural inclination of being godly.
Man would have been in a hopeless situation, but God took the initative in
sending his Son as a ransom (Matthew 20:28).Therefore, when John wrote "For
God so loved the world," (John 3:16a KJV) he was indicating that God realised
man's pitiful state and was sending his Son as a redeemer for sinful mankind.
This one, Jesus, would help man to walk the path of righteousness that leads
to everlasting life, that is if man would take the opportunity and excerise
faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice. This is seen in Jesus' illustration
at Matthew 7:13-14 KJV "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which
go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which 
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." What is Jesus, helping
us to see? well most people choose the wide gate and broad road that Adam put 
us on, but for us to take the narrow road (made available because of Jesus'
sacrifice) we must grasp the opportunity to enter the narrow gate and 
walk that road. Being with sinful flesh it won't be an easy option but will 
take much exertion on our part to walk that road. One thing, is clear however
from Jesus' illustration, persons don't find themselves walking either road 
without first making a choice or excerising their free will by choosing which
gate to enter. Those who seek God would have to choose the narrow gate, but
they cant walk the cramped road using just their own strength and are helped
and guided all the way by their loving and merciful God. For as soon as they 
rely solely on their own strength then they will find themselves walking the 
broad road without neccesarily realising it. 

You seem to think that God uses predujice when it comes to sinful mankind.
Peter had a similar view because of his previous religious upbringing,
but he was shown that he needed to change his view in the account of Cornelius.
Acts 10:34,35 KJV "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respector of persons: But in every nation he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." In God's eyes
we are all sinners in need of salvation, he is impartial. However, only 
those who recognise their predicament and seek to please God are acceptable 
to him. For this reason Jesus was primarily preached to those who recognised 
their condition as being sinners, and their need to turn around by repenting 
and looking to Jesus for guidance (Luke 15). Not the case for those who have 
no need of repentance, like the self-righteous Pharisees, such persons don't 
recognise their condition and feel no need to enter the narrow gate into which 
Jesus is urging all to enter. The main theme of Jesus' preaching was "repent,
YOU people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near", only someone with 
a repentent heart could enter that kingdom (Matthew 4:17).

So in conclusion, ofcourse free will or choice needs to be excerised in seeking
God. The first commandment is to love God with ones whole heart, soul, strength
and mind. Jesus showed that love of God and neighbour was a requirement for 
salvation (Luke 10:25-28). For one to show love, one must make a choice, show 
willingness it must come from the figurative heart. Love cannot be something 
that is done under compulsion.

Further, to be a disciple of Jesus Christ one must choose this window of 
opportunity.

Phil.   
 

    RE: .340 & .342
    
    Thoughtful and insightful contributions, Leslie!
    
    Long ago in the last paragraph of note .51, I suggested that our
    volition and God's sovereignty could coexist, even in our minds, as we
    come to appreciate (know and love) our infinite God.
    
    Again, your position that the paradox is reconciled in the mind of God
    is proper.  The reason I no longer see/feel a paradox is that, in my
    mind, nothing is beyond God.  He is certainly bigger than my choices,
    and I have no problem, philosophical or otherwise, with God being able
    to know things I cannot (yet) comprehend, even seeing and accounting for
    the results of choices I may not even know I had/have.  See 795.449.
    
    Furthermore, God must remain absolutely sovereign in His own choices.  I
    see/feel no problem in God's choosing to NOT force every desire of His
    heart.
    
    Bottom-line:  Those who would have me see God as knowing/controlling all
    things because He causes all things fail to elicit from me the praise
    that is due God.  I fall on my face before God in the realization that
    He loved me enough to die for my sin and that He is able to finish His
    work in me even though I sin.
    
    As an engineer, I appreciate resourcefulness and innovation.  I
    appreciate those who are able to make things happen.  But I especially
    appreciate those who are able to bring success out of others' failure,
    those who are able to fix serious mistakes made by others.  God is all
    that and more, not only able to make things happen but also able to
    glorify Himself through our mistakes and failure.
    
    Thanks again, Leslie, for your comments.  I appreciate your thought
    process.  Your "fear of the Lord" is quite evident!
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Jeff,
    
        Nothing is correct on the basis that it is 'orthodox.'
    
        					Tony

|         <<< Note 847.348 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
|>    If Adam and Chava were truly free, why did they choose not to be free?
|>    This makes zero sense.
|    
|    So, are you arguing against orthodox Christianities historic biblical
|    doctrine of Adam and Eve's fall, original sin, and spiritual death?
    
    No I'm not arguing against it.  This was more rhetorical, but think about 
    the consequences.  You state man has no free will, yet look at the
    choices they made while living in perfection.  The same applies to the
    millenial saints that are deceived by Satan after 1000 years.  The
    similarities are striking.
    
|    To answer your question, Adam and Eve's truly free choice to sin
|    against their God, is what Paul calls "the mystery of iniquity."  Of
|    one thing we can be certain; God was not shocked nor surprised.
    
    Do you use this same "mystery" for the millenial saints too since you
    haven't explained their free will choice?  I really don't see how it
    can be viewed or reconciled any other way.
    
    Mike

|         <<< Note 847.348 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
|>    If Adam and Chava were truly free, why did they choose not to be free?
|>    This makes zero sense.
|    
|    So, are you arguing against orthodox Christianities historic biblical
|    doctrine of Adam and Eve's fall, original sin, and spiritual death?
    
>>    No I'm not arguing against it.  This was more rhetorical, but think about 
>>    the consequences.  You state man has no free will, yet look at the
>>    choices they made while living in perfection.  
    
    I'm quite certain that I said that only Adam had a free will, in that
    it was unbiased.  Since Adam's fall all of the rest of us have been
    born into bondage by the nature of sin and our wills are not free from
    bias.  We sin.  We are by nature sinners.  Before being born again, we
    had no choice but to sin.  Our wills were as dead as the rest of our
    spiritual life.
    
    >>The same applies to the
>>    millenial saints that are deceived by Satan after 1000 years.  The
>>    similarities are striking.
    
    You are still presuming that saints are deceived by Satan, without
    biblical proof.  You are presuming that your eschatology is correct and
    that others are not, without proof.  And, you should get this straight,
    Jesus is the second Adam, not the saints.  Any parallels counter to
    this truth are bound to be wrong.
    
|    To answer your question, Adam and Eve's truly free choice to sin
|    against their God, is what Paul calls "the mystery of iniquity."  Of
|    one thing we can be certain; God was not shocked nor surprised.
    
   >> Do you use this same "mystery" for the millenial saints too since you
   >> haven't explained their free will choice?  I really don't see how it
   >> can be viewed or reconciled any other way.
    
   >> Mike
    
    All of your last paragraph is based upon extra-biblical assumptions. 
    It's too hard to discuss the actual issue much less hypothetical ones,
    don' you think?
    
    jeff

re. few back

>The same applies to the
    millenial saints that are deceived by Satan after 1000 years.

You must be mean the nations who rebel. It's often forgotten or not
understood that unregenerated Gentiles will live under the ruling and
reigning of Christ and His overcoming believers during the millenium. Some
peoples from the nations will have survived the great tribulation. And of these,
some will be blessed with the populating the earth during the millenium (Matt
25, I think). Also, during the millenium some will be born. These are not
regenerated. For them the millenium may not always be a picnic for they still
are fallen in nature. Though Christ has established His throne in Jerusalem to
rule over the whole earth, there is still an element of fallen humanity in the
nations. The is indicated where it says the Lord will "shepherd them (the
nations) with an iron rod". To be shepherded with an iron rod can't be all that
fun!  8*)  The final purge of this fallen humanity is dealt with at the end of
the millenium where Satan is loosed yet one more time for a final rebellion,
only this time the battle is ended quickly with God's consumming fire.  Phsssst!
Rebellion over. Enough is enough.

This is probably another discussion though I mention it here so as not confuse
the portion of the nations from the portion of the saints in this topic. Though
at the risk of adding fuel to the fire 8*), at the judgement seat of Christ when
these nations are judged he specifically says "chosen *from* the foundation of
the world", referring to the nations who are allowed to enter the millenium. Not
to be confused with the believers who were chosen *before* the foundation of the
earth. Having laid those two little goose eggs, I think I'll attempt to tip-toe
quietly out now.  8*)  8*)

Regards,
ace

RE: .353

|   I'm quite certain that I said that only Adam had a free will, in that
|   it was unbiased.  Since Adam's fall all of the rest of us have been
|   born into bondage by the nature of sin and our wills are not free from
|   bias.  We sin.  We are by nature sinners.  Before being born again, we
|   had no choice but to sin.  Our wills were as dead as the rest of our
|   spiritual life.

** Ah, so you say that Adam had a free (unbiased) will, and his fall made our
   nature different from his.  Would you be so kind as to offer Scriptural
   proof for that premise?

   I believe Scripture teaches that we are in fact like Adam by nature, and
   that if any of us had been Adam or Eve, we would have done exactly the same
   thing they did!  We are not being punished for Adam's and Eve's disobedi-
   ence, rather we are seen by God as likewise disobeying HAD WE BEEN THEM
   INSTEAD OF US.  We are deceived if we think we would not have chosen to eat
   the forbidden fruit, or if we think Adam's and Eve's choices were different
   than ours!  See note 826.34.

   Were Adam and Eve in fact sinners like us?  I believe so.  God commanded
   that they not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
   The command (law) was given to reveal sin.  Though Adam and Eve were (shown
   to be) sinners, they became aware of their nakedness and apparently felt
   compelled to hide themselves from God only after they had actually sinned.
   But God sought them out and clothed them with skins (work of God) after
   setting aside the inadequate fig leaves (work of man).  You know the rest of
   the story as well as I.

   You see Adam as not totally depraved and thus able to perceive God unlike
   us.  I see Adam like us unable to gain eternal life apart from God's
   provision.

   IN ADAM I (SINNED AND) DIE.  IN CHRIST I AM MADE ALIVE.  "For I through the
   law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with
   Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the
   life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,
   who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God:
   for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
   (Ga.2:19-21, KJV)

/Wayne

    
    
    	I've not read all of this string, so forgive me if I'm repeating.
    
    	Re: -1. Wayne,
    
    	Adam and Eve were created without sin. Sin came into the world
    through one man's (Adam's) disobedience. Prior to that disobedience he
    had no knowledge of right or wrong and lived in harmony with God. It
    was the action of temptation and the desire to be like God that caused
    them to fall and hence all men are tarred with that sin (concupiscence)
    and all men suffer the same fate - death.
    
    	We have the same nature as Adam - which we all inherit. Had he not
    sinned, then we would all still be in the Garden of Eden, and Christ
    would not need to have suffered and died for our Redemption. 
    The reason why it made our nature different, from prior to when Adam
    sinned, is our inheritance of the original sin. Adam's nature changed
    when he committed sin, and this nature we inherited. I think that is
    what is meant.
    
    	Peace,
    
    		Tom

    
    Hi Wayne,
    
    I think you can find the Scriptures which describes the history of sin
    in Genesis and Romans.
    
    jeff

    RE: .357
    
    Hi, Jeff.
    
    Regarding the history of sin:  Did you think me unfamiliar with Genesis
    and Romans?  Did I claim something unScriptural?  If so, please be so
    kind as to specify.
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne and Leslie,
    
        I just want to understand your positions better...
    
      1) Do you believe God's sovereignty MEANS that His will always
    	 comes to pass?
    
      2) Do you believe that God desires that all be saved?
    
      3) What of those who end up lost?  Do you believe that God's
    	 will was carried out regarding them?  By this, I mean, do
    	 you believe that God's will was not thwarted in that He
         desired (willed) them to be saved, yet they ended up lost?
    
      I'm truly just trying to understand you guys!  The above seems
      too easily reasoned!  Can you understand (and appreciate) why
      it might be possible for a person to believe God is sovereign,
      but to also believe sovereignty does not equate to God's will
      being accomplished in every particular?
    
      There is a part of me that *feels* like you guys are trying to
      maintain something all the while extremely simple REASON implies
      that the thing being maintained simply cannot be (maintained)!
    
      How in the world can you maintain that God is sovereign, thus His
      will always comes to pass, He wills that all be saved, and some
      end up lost?
    
      In light of the above, how can you be so certain that sovereignty
      MUST EQUATE to God's will always coming to pass???
    
      Anyway, the above is partially why I believe fundamentally different.
      I concur that God is sovereign, however my understanding of
      sovereignty accomadates the clear reality that God's will does not
      always come to pass.  His sovereignty really doesn't even have to 
      do with that.  It has to do with the sovereignty of what He is about.
    
      Love rules.  The day comes when love is the principle by which all
      reality conforms (ultimately).                               
    
    							Tony

      On flesh...
    
      Galatians and Romans especially refer to a pull whose source 
      is sinful flesh.  (The flesh lusts against the Spirit and the
      Spirit against the flesh and these are contrary one to the other...)
    
      I believe God did not create Adam and Eve with a flesh within which
      resides the law of sin and death.  Thus, they could not be tempted
      from within, only from without.
    
      I believe that when Adam and Eve consented to sin, the flesh changed
      from sinless to sinful.  The flesh has a moral aspect to it and it
      basically degraded.  The choice of the mind to sin effected the
      flesh, causing it to be changed.
    
      We are all born with perverse desires which are fleshly originating.
      God did not create Adam and Eve with these things.
    
    							Tony

RE: .356

Hi, Tom.
    
|   	Adam and Eve were created without sin. Sin came into the world
|   through one man's (Adam's) disobedience. Prior to that disobedience he
|   had no knowledge of right or wrong and lived in harmony with God. It
|   was the action of temptation and the desire to be like God that caused
|   them to fall and hence all men are tarred with that sin (concupiscence)
|   and all men suffer the same fate - death.

** If Adam and Eve were "created without sin" and we are created with sin,
   could you tell me exactly how that works, i.e., how we sin without having
   had opportunity to sin?  What exactly does "without sin" mean to you?

   Certainly, if Adam and Eve could not by nature sin, then they would not
   have disobeyed.  But they did.  So what does hindsight reveal that God
   knew by foreknowledge?

   So you say Adam "had no knowledge of right or wrong and lived in harmony
   with God."  How exactly does living in harmony with God work without know-
   ing right?  "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of
   the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good
   and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
   thou shalt surely die."  Do you really think Adam did not know what might
   be wrong?

   [In case Jeff missed that, I quoted from Genesis.] :-)

   Me thinks many Christians have not thought through this issue!  God is no
   respecter of persons, including Adam and Eve.  "But EVERY MAN is tempted,
   when he is drawn away of HIS OWN LUST, and enticed. Then when lust hath
   conceived it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth
   forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every
   perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with
   whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of His own will begat
   He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of
   His creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to
   hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the
   righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of
   naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able
   to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,
   deceiving your own selves." (Ja.1:14-22, KJV)

   [Jeff, does this count since I quoted from James and not from Genesis or
   Romans?] :-)

|   	We have the same nature as Adam - which we all inherit. Had he not
|   sinned, then we would all still be in the Garden of Eden, and Christ
|   would not need to have suffered and died for our Redemption. 
|   The reason why it made our nature different, from prior to when Adam
|   sinned, is our inheritance of the original sin. Adam's nature changed
|   when he committed sin, and this nature we inherited. I think that is
|   what is meant.

** But Adam did sin, did he not?  Would you be so kind as to offer Scriptural
   proof that we would be in the Garden of Eden if Adam had not sinned?  In
   other words, does God's Word indicate that we would have been better off
   had Adam not sinned?

   "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedi-
   ence of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the
   offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
   That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through
   righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ro.5:19-21, KJV)

   [In case Jeff missed that, I quoted from Romans.] :-)

   WE DID NOT INHERIT ORIGINAL SIN!  We inherited Adam's nature.  Again, if
   Adam were not a sinner by nature, then why did he sin?  Because "the Devil
   made him do it?"  I think not!

Bottom-line:  If we think any man, including Adam and Eve, could have attained
unto the righteousness of God by his own devices, then we, too, are deceived!

I would challenge you either to think seriously on these things, or just toss
out my opinion as rubbish "for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus
my Lord."  If the Holy Spirit does not commend my words to your heart as
truth, then by all means disregard what I've said.  But please at least see that
mine is a studied opinion derived from God's Word, even if you deem me "mis-
guided." :-)

"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts
and minds through Christ Jesus." (Ph.4:7, KJV)

/Wayne

Hi, Tony.

|     I believe God did not create Adam and Eve with a flesh within which
|     resides the law of sin and death.  Thus, they could not be tempted
|     from within, only from without.

** I hear your claim.  Would you be so kind as to offer Scriptural proof that
   Adam's and Eve's flesh was different from ours?
    
|     I believe that when Adam and Eve consented to sin, the flesh changed
|     from sinless to sinful.  The flesh has a moral aspect to it and it
|     basically degraded.  The choice of the mind to sin effected the
|     flesh, causing it to be changed.

** Again, would you be so kind as to point me to Scripture that explains how
   this change in the flesh took place?
    
|     We are all born with perverse desires which are fleshly originating.
|     God did not create Adam and Eve with these things.

** See note 826.34.  "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is
   common [or moderate] to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you
   to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make
   a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1Co.10:13, KJV)

   No, Adam and Eve were not different from us!

/Wayne

    
    Tony,
    
    You are correct!  It is unreasonable to suggest that God is sovereign
    yet not completely so.  This is a logical contradiction and a biblical
    contradiction as well.  
    
    The problem people have (and its not a biblical problem but a
    nonbiblical problem) is in reconciling a human "free will" (which
    doesn't exist) with God's sovereignty.  If people will let go of their
    idea that our wills are "free" or, more precisely, "autonomous of God"
    then the contradiction will go away.
    
    jeff

      Hi Jeff,
    
        As I stated quite awhile back, I freely acknowledge the fact
        that (with my view) the initial conversion response is
    	unfathomable.
    
        With your view, God is (to me) a barbaric monster.  Any right
        conception of agape is nearly totally obliterated.
    
        I do not dismiss the fact that (from a reason standpoint), there
        is tension with both views, however I maintain that your view
        has a magnitude of tension that outweighs my view as an elephant
        outweighs a mouse.
    
        And in saying the above, I do not dismiss scripture.  I sincerely
        and  honestly believe that you must interpret a vast number of
        texts EXTREMELY UNLIKE what they so obviously seem to saying.  As
        examples, the vast number of texts that infer that man has the
        freedom to make a choice, i.e. "Choose this day whom you will
        serve."
    
        I fail to see that you give credible appreciation to the multitude
        of texts that so clearly seem to convey the idea that man is 
        given the oppurtunity (and thus the freedom) to choose and that
        God gave something to the WORLD.
    
    							Tony
                                      

Hi, Tony.

|     1) Do you believe God's sovereignty MEANS that His will always
|   	 comes to pass?

** Yes, what God DELIBERATELY DESIGNS TO MAKE HAPPEN will ALWAYS come to pass.
    
      2) Do you believe that God desires that all be saved?

** Yes.
    
      3) What of those who end up lost?  Do you believe that God's
    	 will was carried out regarding them?  By this, I mean, do
    	 you believe that God's will was not thwarted in that He
         desired (willed) them to be saved, yet they ended up lost?

** Some will be saved and others lost according to God's plan.  What God has
   predestined for those who believe CANNOT BE THWARTED!
    
|     I'm truly just trying to understand you guys!  The above seems
|     too easily reasoned!  Can you understand (and appreciate) why
|     it might be possible for a person to believe God is sovereign,
|     but to also believe sovereignty does not equate to God's will
|     being accomplished in every particular?

** Can you not see that God is sovereign in His choices?  Because He chooses
   not to make happen all that He desires in no way means He is unable to make
   happen all that He chooses to do.

   So, yes, sovereignty does not equate to God's choosing to do all that He
   desires.  But sovereignty does equate to God's being able to do all that
   He says!
    
|     There is a part of me that *feels* like you guys are trying to
|     maintain something all the while extremely simple REASON implies
|     that the thing being maintained simply cannot be (maintained)!

** I don't think you want to go there, i.e., attacking Leslie's or my ability
   to reason.  "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare our-
   selves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by
   themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."
   (2Co.10:12, KJV)
    
|     How in the world can you maintain that God is sovereign, thus His
|     will always comes to pass, He wills that all be saved, and some
|     end up lost?

** We've covered this ground before (see notes .261 - .265).  I tried to share
   my understanding of what God's will might entail in note .265.  I'm
   impelled to say no more, but I would encourage you to do a detailed word
   study of "will" whereby we might come to a shared appreciation of God's
   heart and power.
    
|     Anyway, the above is partially why I believe fundamentally different.
|     I concur that God is sovereign, however my understanding of
|     sovereignty accomadates the clear reality that God's will does not
|     always come to pass.  His sovereignty really doesn't even have to 
|     do with that.  It has to do with the sovereignty of what He is about.

** If God's will (what He has chosen to make happen) does not always come to
   pass, then what is the basis of your faith?  If God really cannot do all
   that He says, then what can we really know?  "<Abraham> staggered not at
   the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory
   to God; And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able
   also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
   (Ro.4:20-22, KJV)

   How are you convinced that God can do what He says while "accommodating the
   clear reality that God's will does not always come to pass?"

/Wayne

P.S.  I do not claim to speak for Leslie. :-)

    
    If you can't understand, accept, and acknowledge God's sovereignty, a
    clear concept, in its entirety, by itself, according to the clear teaching 
    and authority of Scripture and by necessity of His attributes, you will
    forever be lost, unnecessarily, in the confusion of biblical
    contradiction.
    
    If people will completely acknowledge God's sovereignty, the
    contradictions, concerning man's responsibility and other
    topics, which may appear to exist in the Bible will be obliterated.
    
    jeff

    RE:  <<< Note 847.350 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

    Thanks Wayne, I wasn't able to spend much more than a couple of seconds
    in the notes file late yesterday, so am just now catching up on all of 
    these replies.

    There is one thing that needs correcting in your understanding of what 
    my position is.  You said in .350:

>    Again, your position that the paradox is reconciled in the mind of God
>    is proper.  

    I don't think the paradox is reconciled in the MIND of God. I think the
    the SEEMINGLY paradoxical truths that 1) we have the ability to choose, 
    are responsible for our decisions, and our decisions make a difference
    in what happens and 2) that God is sovereign, that His purposes and
    decisions will not be thwarted, and that He is both omnipotent and 
    omniscient have their union and existence in the Living One, the Infinate 
    God who is sovereign over His creation.  

    Like you, I don't think these truths are paradoxical, only that we have 
    a hard time accepting that both can be true. They seem like paradoxes to 
    us.  I think part of our difficulty in accepting both as true is because 
    we are the inheritors of the Greek way of thinking. (Aristotelian logic)

    Leslie

In fact, if you carefully examine Leslie's and my individual replies, you will
find that Leslie's and my present understandings differ.  Leslie still sees/
feels a paradox, whereas I do not.  But, I affirmed as proper her position that
God's absolute sovereignty and man's volition are both true and find reconcilia-
tion in our infinite God.  May we all be so humble and enlightened as to submit
ourselves to God for transformation "by the renewing of <our> mind, that <we>
may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, WILL OF GOD."
(Ro.12:2b, KJV)

    RE: .367
    
    Hi, Leslie.
    
    Words are so inadequate sometimes, but we press on nonetheless! :-)
    
    What I meant by reconciliation in the mind of God was seeing things
    from His perspective.  I had Philippians 2:1-11 "in mind." :-)
    
    Your clarification again was valuable and insightful.  Glad to have
    seemingly misrepresented your position so as to elicit your additional
    comments! :-)
    
    /Wayne

    RE: .366
    
    AMEN AND AMEN!!

  Hi Wayne,

    I can't give explicit proof that the flesh of man changed
    after the fall, however you cannot give explicit proof that
    it did not change.  I do acknowledge, however, that more of
    an onus is upon me in this matter!   ;-)

    By the way, it is critical for me to state that I believe
    the flesh Jesus took is the flesh man has had since the fall
    and not before (again, given my belief that the flesh of
    man did indeed undergo a change).

    The book that seems to me to most explicitly describe the
    humanity of Christ is Hebrews.  Jesus is said to be of the
    SEED (spermatos) of Abraham and to have taken the flesh and
    blood of the SONS of men.  Romans 1 speaks of Jesus as of the
    seed (spermatos again) of David according to the flesh (sarx).
    My point: every time Christ is mentioned as having a certain
    kind of flesh, He is mentioned as having the flesh that man 
    has *after* man fell.  Should there have been no change in
    flesh as a result of sin, I would expect the possibility that
    such language is largely insignificant.  I would also expect 
    the possibility that at least one time Christ be described as
    having the flesh of Adam before the fall (which He never is
    so described).

    Galatians and Romans list lusts whose source is the flesh.
    My concept of agape is that God would never create an order
    of beings with such a flesh.  Romans 8 refers to *sinful flesh*
    not from the standpoint of flesh which sins (for flesh does not
    sin, the mind sins), but rather from the standpoint of flesh within
    which dwells the law of sin and death.  It makes good sense to
    me (again from the standpoint of a right understanding of agape)
    that God would not create man with a flesh within which dwells
    such a thing as "the law of sin and death."

    The above though is the biggest thing to me.  The flesh described
    in Romans 7 is characterized as containing this thing called "the
    law of sin and death."  I do not believe such a thing could have
    existed outside of the occurance of sin for outside of sin, death
    did not exist.  I do not believe that any flesh described as 
    containing the law of sin and death could be the kind of flesh man
    had before sin came into the world.

    Furthermore, science is bearing out that man's flesh is full of
    problems.  I saw on TV recently a geneticist who said that virtually
    every human being has defective genes.  I believe that when God said,
    "It is very good" after looking upon creation, that He wasn't saying
    this in partial response to creating man with the genetic potential
    to have Huntington's chorea, Downe's syndrome, and an assortment other
    horrible diseases.

    I better explain how I believe it is that Jesus is called the second Adam.
    I believe that it is not because they have the same flesh (which I
    do not believe they had), BUT was because Adam impacted all humanity
    on a spiritual level and so did/does Christ.  Due to Adam's act, 
    outside of the redemptive intervention of God, all descendants of
    man are in spiritual darkness.  Due to Christ's act, all descendants
    of man are given enough grace (revelation) to restore them back to
    the image of God - to justify them.  (This is whether or not one
    responds to that light, the light is still given them and if received
    has this power).  The gift of this light is a legacy given to every
    man.  In such a way Christ impacted all mankind just as surely as
    Adam did.

    Finally, I think you stated that Adam and Eve could not have fallen
    unless they had the same flesh we have.  I see another possibility.
    That being that we can be tempted from *within* and from *without*
    and Adam and Eve could only be tempted from *without*.  (But, their
    flesh could not be a source of temptation.)

    This possibility allows for the possibility that Adam and we could 
    have different fleshes and that Adam and Eve still could have sinned.

						Tony

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Let me first say that I highlighted with asterisks that it
        was a *feeling* that reason was being avoided.  I am not
        saying I consented to this!
    
        I understand your definition of God's will, i.e. that which
        He deliberately designs to make happen.
    
        I'm not really sure what to make of this.  Perhaps the day
        will come when I am more deeply impressed.
    
        But, I have a deeper understanding of what you mean, i.e. God's
        desire and His will are not equivalent.  Desire is what He would
        like to have happen.  Will is what He deliberately designs will
        happen.
    
        I just believe that His revelation of His love is the power and
        the more I drink it in, the less likely I ever will be to turn
        away from it.  And one can drink in so much (eventually) that God
        is perceived as so good, that they simply will never ever choose
        sin to Him again.
    
    						Tony
    
        

            I just believe that His revelation of His love is the power and
            the more I drink it in, the less likely I ever will be to turn
            away from it.  And one can drink in so much (eventually) thatGod
            is perceived as so good, that they simply will never ever choose
            sin to Him again.
     or to fight against his sovereighty.  :-)
    
    
    Jill

    Re: .366
    
    Jeff, the funny thing is some of us don't see any contradictions in the
    reconciliation of both God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will.  We only 
    see contradictions in the extreme views.
    
    Mike

    Re: .368
    
    Amen, Wayne!

    
    I will be absent from this discussion from now on, at least in its
    present form.  
    
    jeff

RE: .371

Hi, Tony.

You've given me commentary and reasoning which I can follow, but with which I
cannot agree.

I await Scriptural proof texts after you've had time to ferret them out.

|   I can't give explicit proof that the flesh of man changed
|   after the fall, however you cannot give explicit proof that
|   it did not change.  I do acknowledge, however, that more of
|   an onus is upon me in this matter!   ;-)

** By the way, I do not think flesh refers merely to our physical makeup, but
   also encompasses our soul, i.e., thoughts, aspirations/intents/motives,
   volition and emotion.

   There can be no doubt that our flesh is (being) corrupted by sin.  But, I
   believe that 1 John 2:15-17 comprehends that which made Adam vulnerable to
   temptation and makes us vulnerable today.  In note 826.34 I presented what
   I see as a reasonable, if not intuitively obvious, link. :-)

   Okay, if we do not share Adam's flesh/nature, but Jesus took our flesh,
   then please explain Romans 5.  Did Christ not die for Adam's sin?  Did
   sin work differently in Adam than Romans 7:8 indicates?  If Romans 7:18
   were not true for Adam, and how to perform good could have been found in
   his original flesh, then why did he sin?

   Was Adam a person and are we persons?  If so, then please explain
   2 Chronicles 19:7; Acts 10:34&35; Romans 2:9-16; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians
   3:23-25; and 1 Peter 1:13-21.  Do you believe that Adam could have attained
   eternal life based on his own merit, i.e., his "perfect" flesh?

   If you get through these passages and emerge still believing that Adam's
   flesh was different from ours, then I'll give you some more. :-)

   [In case Jeff didn't notice, I again pointed to Romans a lot.] :-)

|   The book that seems to me to most explicitly describe the
|   humanity of Christ is Hebrews.  Jesus is said to be of the
|   SEED (spermatos) of Abraham and to have taken the flesh and
|   blood of the SONS of men.  Romans 1 speaks of Jesus as of the
|   seed (spermatos again) of David according to the flesh (sarx).
|   My point: every time Christ is mentioned as having a certain
|   kind of flesh, He is mentioned as having the flesh that man 
|   has *after* man fell.  Should there have been no change in
|   flesh as a result of sin, I would expect the possibility that
|   such language is largely insignificant.  I would also expect 
|   the possibility that at least one time Christ be described as
|   having the flesh of Adam before the fall (which He never is
|   so described).

** Did I say or imply that Jesus did not take on our flesh?  Again, where
   exactly does Scripture say that Christ's flesh was different from Adam's
   before the fall?  The difference, of course, was that Jesus was God in the
   flesh, whereas Adam was a creature in the flesh.  Adam was created, whereas
   Jesus as God took on our flesh.  Nonetheless, He "was in all points tempted
   like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15b, KJV)  Does the "we"
   exclude Adam, i.e., does this verse accommodate Adam's flesh being different
   from ours?

|   Galatians and Romans list lusts whose source is the flesh.
|   My concept of agape is that God would never create an order
|   of beings with such a flesh.  Romans 8 refers to *sinful flesh*
|   not from the standpoint of flesh which sins (for flesh does not
|   sin, the mind sins), but rather from the standpoint of flesh within
|   which dwells the law of sin and death.  It makes good sense to
|   me (again from the standpoint of a right understanding of agape)
|   that God would not create man with a flesh within which dwells
|   such a thing as "the law of sin and death."

** But do we not have such flesh?  If God did not create us, then who did?
   Again, Adam's flesh was such that sin would result in death apart from God's
   provision.  Adam's flesh was NOT exempt from the law of sin and death.

|   The above though is the biggest thing to me.  The flesh described
|   in Romans 7 is characterized as containing this thing called "the
|   law of sin and death."  I do not believe such a thing could have
|   existed outside of the occurance of sin for outside of sin, death
|   did not exist.  I do not believe that any flesh described as 
|   containing the law of sin and death could be the kind of flesh man
|   had before sin came into the world.

** Tell me again how sin came into the world if Adam's flesh could not have
   been drawn away of his own lust.  You emphasize temptation "within" and
   "without."  How exactly does temptation "without" work?  To what in Adam
   did temptation appeal?

|   Furthermore, science is bearing out that man's flesh is full of
|   problems.  I saw on TV recently a geneticist who said that virtually
|   every human being has defective genes.  I believe that when God said,
|   "It is very good" after looking upon creation, that He wasn't saying
|   this in partial response to creating man with the genetic potential
|   to have Huntington's chorea, Downe's syndrome, and an assortment other
|   horrible diseases.

** No question.  The law of sin and death is at work in fallen man.  God did
   not create Adam and Eve with defective genes, but their flesh certainly was
   subject to corruption should they eat the forbidden fruit.  If not, then
   what was the point of God's telling Adam that if he would eat of the tree
   of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die?  If Adam's flesh
   were not susceptible to sin, then why the command?

|   Finally, I think you stated that Adam and Eve could not have fallen
|   unless they had the same flesh we have.  I see another possibility.
|   That being that we can be tempted from *within* and from *without*
|   and Adam and Eve could only be tempted from *without*.  (But, their
|   flesh could not be a source of temptation.)

|   This possibility allows for the possibility that Adam and we could 
|   have different fleshes and that Adam and Eve still could have sinned.

** See "tell me again" above.  I just do not see how temptation from "without"
   works if there's nothing "within" to be drawn away.

/Wayne

    RE: .376
    
    Jeff, why are you bowing out?  What form has this discussion taken to
    impell your absence?
    
    But, I too am bowing out because I feel more of my words and interpre-
    tation of God's Word will add no further value.
    
    The Truth is to be found in God's Word as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
    
    /Wayne

    Re: -1
    
    Agreed, Wayne.  We should all rely on God and His Word to straighten us
    out.
    
    Mike

I've mostly stayed out of this one, because I don't usually dive into the
deep doctrinal discussions beyond the essentials.  I find that for me they
detract from the truth of following Christ more than they help.

Following are two sections of a book "God is closer than you think" by Juan
Carlos Ortiz that speaks to this that I really appreciated:

"The Study Trap"

We have to be careful with the emphasis we place on sermons and Bible
studies.  Jesus never said "Be careful to conduct Bible studies - and make
sure you're using the right translation."  He said, "*DO* the word of God."
When Jesus needed a donkey, he didn't give the apostles a lesson about
donkeys, he told them were the donkey was and asked them to go get it.

Once I had to preach five nights in the chapel of a seminary where I was
professor of homiletics, which is the art of preparing speeches.  My students
were going to hear me, so I figured I better lay it on thick so they would
know that I know what I'm talking about.  I decided to expound each night
upon the parable of the Good Samaritan.

One night Jerusalem represented the Garden of Eden; Jericho was the fall of
man.  The Levite and the Priest in the story represented the religions of
this world that didn't help.  The Good Samaritan was Jesus, who saved mankind
from its fall.  Another night Jerusalem was the church, Jericho was the
world, the man in trouble was a backslider, and the Good Samaritan was the
member of the church that brought him back to church.  The third night,
Jerusalem was the life in the Spirit, and Jericho was the life in the flesh. 
And so it went for five nights - new truth, new insights, new depths.

"Brother Ortiz, what a revelation!" the students said.  Yet years later I had
to repent of dragging others through all those intellectual gymnastics. 
Jesus did not give the parable for preachers to play games with.

Is it too simplistic to say the point of the story is that we help those whom
we find in need?  That's the only thing I *didn't* say in the hours of gab
that filled my five sermons.

When I came to understand this truth, I read the passage to my church.  I
said "The sermon today is this.  When we get out of this place, the first
person you find in need, whatever the need is, stop.  Meet the need.  You are
dismissed."

"But Brother Ortiz, we were expecting something deep," some protested.  What
I had given them was about as deep as the Christian walk gets.  If meeting
needs was a simple, straightforward matter for Christians, w would see a lot
fewer needy people in the world.  And a lot more busy Christians.

"Elusive Righteousness"

When we have difficulty loving those in other denominations because of their
dogma, we need to be honest with ourselves.  How can we appraise our
doctrines as better than another's?  If we are really bent on adhering to the
intellectual high path of Christian thought and behavior, what makes us so
sure our church's teaching is the chosen one?  Shouldn't we study in the
seminaries of every other denomination to be certain?

Of course, that's impractical.  But that's OK.  God never intended anyone to
serve a lifetime sentence in seminaries.  Salvation cannot depend on having
the right dogma.  SALVATION DEPENDS ON HAVING THE RIGHT PERSON.

To watch the way churches divide over doctrine, you would never think that's
the case.  You would think that as soon as you get to heaven's gates, St.
Peter will say, "Wait a minute.  First you need to pass the doctrinal test."

So he gives you a piece of paper and a pencil.

"This is our basic doctrinal exam.  Ten questions," he says.  "If you have
seven or more right, you enter right in to heaven.  If you have four to six
right, to go to purgatory for 300 years to receive lessons on doctrine.  Less
than three, be sure to dress for warm weather."

You nervously accept the pencil and quickly scan the first question:

Which baptism do you believe in:

	___immersion		___ablution		___sprinkling
as:	___an adult		___an infant		___other

You know what your church practiced, but now you wonder if maybe the correct
answer isn't something else.  So you skip that one for now and read No. 2:

Are you:

	___pre-millenialist	___post-millenialist	___amillenialist?

Well, heaven will not be like that.  You won't take a test on doctrine;
instead, Peter will take your pulse.  Whoever has the Son, has the life.  If
Peter is armed with anything, it will be a stethescope.  He'll press it right
against your heart.

"I hear a strong beat of love, joy, and peace.  Come right in," he'll say.

You say you had all the right beliefs and attended allthe church meetings and
acted just like the ideal person would act for your denomination?  It matters
little.

  If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love... And
  if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;
  and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountaions, but to not have love,
  I am nothing.  And if I give all my possesions to feed the poor, and if I
  deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

							I Cor 13:1-3

Nothing means nothing.  Lots of religious investment can equal zero profit if
you're not careful.  How many will be surprised when we get to heaven?  So
many of us will have spent our lives as church busybodies, boning up for our
doctrinal exam, only to have Dr. Peter whip out his stethescope.  Don't let
your spiritual life get sidetracked on the issues of doctrines that tend only
to divide.

    Paul, I understand how you feel.  I'm like that too sometimes and
    obviously any extreme isn't good.  
    
>We have to be careful with the emphasis we place on sermons and Bible
>studies.  Jesus never said "Be careful to conduct Bible studies - and make
>sure you're using the right translation."  He said, "*DO* the word of God."
>When Jesus needed a donkey, he didn't give the apostles a lesson about
>donkeys, he told them were the donkey was and asked them to go get it.
    
    What jumps out at me about this is that the Jews were already well
    schooled in the Word.  It was part of their culture.  They had the head
    knowledge and Christ was stressing the Word seeping into their hearts. 
    Not every Christian today has the head knowledge of His Word that we
    should.  This is just as big a tragedy as not walking the talk.

    However, Ortiz made some great points.  As a literalist I think we
    should take the Word at face value where it says to and forget the
    gymnastics.  God tells us when He's being figurative.
    
    The fundamental doctrines are important where salvation is concerned. 
    Personal experience tells me you short-change your walk with God if you
    aren't in a church with solid Biblical teaching stressing personal
    application.  I'll leave it at that.  

    Mike

      Hi,
    
        Good note Paul.
    
        I do happen to believe that the last generation sees the full
        glory of God and partial necessary preparation for scaling Mount
        Zion will include certain doctrinal understandings that are 
        relevant to just what agape is and what the plan of redemption
        is all about.
    
        I sure won't presume to know just how the above will take place,
        but I am convinced it will - no Christian will be tossed about 
        by every wind of doctrine at some point in time (Eph somewhere).
    
        I guess when a people really begins to radiate the character of
        their Savior, their 'doctrinal understandings' will carry a 
        weight in proportion to their level of sanctification and the
        true seekers of truth will give this some consideration.
    
    						Tony

    re: .377
    
    Hi Wayne,
    
      I thought I offered scriptural proof texts.  I suppose its 
      the commentary and reasoning that leads to different inter-
      pretations of scripture that is volunteered.
    
      					Tony

    RE: .383
    
    Okay.  As I said in .378, the time has come for me to let go.
    
    "Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we
    ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto Him be
    glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without
    end. Amen." (Ep.3:20&21)
    
    /Wayne

      Yeah, sounds good Wayne.  I'm not up to it.  By the way, your
      reply read a little differently this time around.   ;-)
    
      I am confident God will bring us into all truth.
    
    						Tony

I don't object to probing the mysteries.  But as another one-liner from
Ortiz's book says: "The Bible has enough mysteries to last a lifetime, but it
also has enough homework assignments to last a lifetime."  I prefer to
concentrate on the homework assignments.

Actually, stepping out of my hypocritical shoes for a moment and being as
objective as I can, I prefer to *talk* about the homework assignments.  I'm
still not doing them very well.  :-(

And Mike, I agree that we are sadly lacking in knowledge of the Word.  I've
been alarmed over the past year or so.  I finished reading through the whole
Bible *the first time* last spring, though I've read through the NT and parts
of the OT more than once, and I've read it through once again this year.  Yet
I've noted that people at church are looking to ME as a 'bible expert.'  ME?
I haven't even read it through three times yet!  What I'm doing should be the
norm.  But knowing much of ANYTHING about the Bible is considered an
'expert.'  So I'm with you on the need for Biblical literacy.

But, like the Israelites, we're living 'in our heads,' not in our deeds. 
Even in churches that do preach the Word, DOING the word is sadly lacking. So
the focus Jesus put on doing and not talking/thinking is still essential
today.

Paul

    Paul, I have struggles like that too.  Since it is sometimes hard to
    motivate yourself for devotions and seek Bible literacy, one of the
    best things you can do is find a church that teaches expositionally
    with application.  
    
    I have relatives that look to me in the same manner some of your
    brethren do.  I don't feel worthy of it as you do.  I tell them the
    same thing: if you can't get into the Word, get in a church where
    they'll teach it to you.
    
    Mike

 I love my church, and my pastor, but there are times I wish he was more
 of an expositional preacher.




 Jim

> I don't feel worthy of it as you do.

This sounds like you thought I feel worthy of being considered a 'bible
expert,' though it wasn't totally clear.

Just to make it clear:  I don't feel worthy at all of being considered a
'bible expert.'  I'm shocked that people think I'm an expert when I know as
little as I do.  It shocks me with the incredibly low general level biblical
literacy that some would consider me an expert.

It didn't use to be this way, even a short number of years ago.  When they
invaded the beaches at Normandy on D-Day in WW2, the commander of the allied
forces telegraphed a single three-word message just before the invasion
began.  Everyone who read it knew exactly what it meant and where it was
from.  Yet how many would recognize it today?

The telegraph simply read "But if not."

Please don't anyone post the answer immediately.  Do you know where that is
from?  You have a head start - it's somewhere in the Bible.

Paul

 That quote used to be Dan Yackel's P-name.




 Jim

Hi Paul,

>I've mostly stayed out of this one, because I don't usually dive into the
>deep doctrinal discussions beyond the essentials.  I find that for me they
>detract from the truth of following Christ more than they help.

This is, in my opinion, a strange statement.  How is it that if the Bible
is God's word that a deeper understanding of His word detracts from the
truth of following Christ?  I wonder if, in the case of this mindset, that
the "truth of following Christ" is a euphemism for "my experience is a
better standard than the Bible."  I believe it is the rejection of the
importance of solid Biblical doctrine which has landed Christianity and
individuals where they are today.  Certainly the Puritans, for example,
who were steeped in the Bible and its doctrines far more than we are today 
were much more "doers" than today's Christians. 

I'm puzzled by this common attitude which you verbalize above as it relates
to the many commands to know God's Word, to "grow in the grace and knowledge
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."  God has spoken to us in His Word and
all we need to know is to be found there.

>Following are two sections of a book "God is closer than you think" by Juan
>Carlos Ortiz that speaks to this that I really appreciated:

>"The Study Trap"

>We have to be careful with the emphasis we place on sermons and Bible
>studies.  Jesus never said "Be careful to conduct Bible studies - and make
>sure you're using the right translation."  He said, "*DO* the word of God."
>When Jesus needed a donkey, he didn't give the apostles a lesson about
>donkeys, he told them were the donkey was and asked them to go get it.

I disagree with Mr. Ortiz.  The grace of God is ministered through preaching
and learning the Bible.  If he is saying that some Bible studies are
characterized by an emphasis on such truly irrelevant issues such as 
translation (assuming it is a valid translation) then I would agree. Or if he's
suggesting that application must follow knowledge, then I would agree.  But
I sense the idea that somehow we are to know what Christ would have us do
without spending too much time looking at the source, the Bible, which tells
us what we should do in general or specifically.

>Once I had to preach five nights in the chapel of a seminary where I was
>professor of homiletics, which is the art of preparing speeches.  My students
>were going to hear me, so I figured I better lay it on thick so they would
>know that I know what I'm talking about.  I decided to expound each night
>upon the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Unfortunately, he condemns himself by his own words concerning his motive in
preaching the Word.  I bet that he found his own pride detestible and as
so often the case with most of us, we dispense with our pride (for a moment-
by God's grace) and then we launch our crusades to eradicate pride in
everyone else we encounter.  And we throw out the baby with the bathwater
in the process.  It is a sign of immaturity. 

>One night Jerusalem represented the Garden of Eden; Jericho was the fall of
>man.  The Levite and the Priest in the story represented the religions of
>this world that didn't help.  The Good Samaritan was Jesus, who saved mankind
>from its fall.  Another night Jerusalem was the church, Jericho was the
>world, the man in trouble was a backslider, and the Good Samaritan was the
>member of the church that brought him back to church.  The third night,
>Jerusalem was the life in the Spirit, and Jericho was the life in the flesh. 
>And so it went for five nights - new truth, new insights, new depths.

>"Brother Ortiz, what a revelation!" the students said.  Yet years later I had
>to repent of dragging others through all those intellectual gymnastics. 
>Jesus did not give the parable for preachers to play games with.

So he still doesn't ackowledge *his* own failure.  Rather than repent of 
"playing games with parables" or more accurately what such a motive
represents in him, he repents of causing other people to think.

>Is it too simplistic to say the point of the story is that we help those whom
>we find in need?  That's the only thing I *didn't* say in the hours of gab
>that filled my five sermons.

Yes, it's simplistic.  What is "help?"  Who's in "need?".  And didn't he say
he was supposed to be teaching homiletics?  Don't we all know we ought to help
those in need?  But don't we all, in our world today, wonder exactly what help
is in all its connotations and implications?


>"But Brother Ortiz, we were expecting something deep," some protested.  What
>I had given them was about as deep as the Christian walk gets.  If meeting
>needs was a simple, straightforward matter for Christians, w would see a lot
>fewer needy people in the world.  And a lot more busy Christians.

I agree.  But the govt. is meeting so many needs.  And people in our 
communities (most of us anyway) don't have any needs really and even when they
do they don't share them.  There is much to be said on the issue of needs in
an affluent culture.

>"Elusive Righteousness"

>When we have difficulty loving those in other denominations because of their
>dogma, we need to be honest with ourselves.  How can we appraise our
>doctrines as better than another's?  If we are really bent on adhering to the
>intellectual high path of Christian thought and behavior, what makes us so
>sure our church's teaching is the chosen one?  Shouldn't we study in the
>seminaries of every other denomination to be certain?

This guy sounds like a Unitarian or some other liberal persuasion.  To answer
all of his questions - if the dogma is based solely upon the Bible it is 
better than all others which are not or which deviate.

>Of course, that's impractical.  But that's OK.  God never intended anyone to
>serve a lifetime sentence in seminaries.  Salvation cannot depend on having
>the right dogma.  SALVATION DEPENDS ON HAVING THE RIGHT PERSON.

He built a strawman now he's knocking it down.  All Bible-based sects teach
salvation through Christ alone; some more clearly than others.  We've been
evangelized into stupidity.  What we need today is the true, whole gospel
of Jesus Christ which calls for a surrender of the heart and mind to the
Lordship of Jesus Christ.  Jesus said go and make disciples.  We must have
heard something different because by and large the Christian church goes and
presents the gospel message and leaves it at that.  I'm quite sure that is
not discipleship.

>To watch the way churches divide over doctrine, you would never think that's
>the case.  You would think that as soon as you get to heaven's gates, St.
>Peter will say, "Wait a minute.  First you need to pass the doctrinal test."

So should we stay a part of an apostate church?  We should not!

>So he gives you a piece of paper and a pencil.

>"This is our basic doctrinal exam.  Ten questions," he says.  "If you have
>seven or more right, you enter right in to heaven.  If you have four to six
>right, to go to purgatory for 300 years to receive lessons on doctrine.  Less
>than three, be sure to dress for warm weather."

>"I hear a strong beat of love, joy, and peace.  Come right in," he'll say.

>You say you had all the right beliefs and attended allthe church meetings and
>acted just like the ideal person would act for your denomination?  It matters
>little.

 > If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love... And
 > if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;
 > and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountaions, but to not have love,
 > I am nothing.  And if I give all my possesions to feed the poor, and if I
 > deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

							I Cor 13:1-3

>Nothing means nothing.  Lots of religious investment can equal zero profit if
>you're not careful.  How many will be surprised when we get to heaven?  So
>many of us will have spent our lives as church busybodies, boning up for our
>doctrinal exam, only to have Dr. Peter whip out his stethescope.  Don't let
>your spiritual life get sidetracked on the issues of doctrines that tend only
>to divide.

I suspect this man is speaking to an audience which is not representative of
a cross-section of modern Protestant evangelicals.  Maybe they are
    academics or scholars.

In regards to his last sentence there are very specific doctrines that may be
divisive but that are absolutely biblical and utterly important to our lives
and our future as Christians.  Paul contended for "the faith once for all
delivered to the saints" and strongly exhorted those around him to do the same.
Our world is a mess and truth is hardly recognized by anyone.  I can think of
no better time than this very age to focus on the Bible and its true doctrines
so that we may be obedient to it's commands.

jeff

I'm not going to follow this trail far, because I don't think it will go
anywhere useful.

Yes, be steeped in the Word.  Absolutely.  Let it permeate your very being.
There will be mysteries there that need to be examined.  Examine those
mysteries.  But when it gives instruction, DO it.  The hard ones.  Forgive
seventy times seven.  Love your enemies.  Reach out to those who are hurting.
Jesus talks over and over (and so does the rest of the Word) about not being
hearers of the Word only, but doers.  The examples Jesus gives about who will
enter into the kingdom of heaven and who will not are about DOING and BEING,
not about THINKING.

As to what sound doctrine is, note Titus 2.  It says to teach in accordance
with sound doctrine, and then goes on for the rest of the chapter giving
examples of sound doctrine, every one of which is an example of how to live,
not of what to think.

Bringing back to the case in point in this note, I am absolutely certain that
whether I believe I have free will or not will not have the slightest effect
on my entrance to heaven.  How I live will.  So I choose to focus on the
latter.  And being honest, I almost completely ignore the former.  And I
intend to continue that.  Why should I spend the precious time of my life
fighting over something that has no effect on eternity?  In fact, the
fighting over it causes division, and I while I will not be held responsible
for doctrinal mistakes, I *WILL* be held responsible for creating division
because of doctrinal issues.

Please note that when I refer to doctrinal issues, I refer to non-essentials.
Essentials such as whether Jesus is God, whether there is any other name
under heaven by which we are saved, etc, must of course be fought for.

Paul

    
    Dear Paul,
    
    One cannot think before one does; it is impossible.  The quality of
    one's doing is preceded by the quality of one's thinking.  It is as
    simple as that.
    
    And, the issue here is the gospel, the very gospel itself!  Does the
    Bible teach man's "free will" in salvation?  I say absolutely,
    unequivocally not!  Grace, grace, God's grace!!  Arminians eat disks
    for breakfast discussing eschatology and Revelation but can offer only
    a note or two on God's grace!  What shame!  This is exactly the result
    of the belief of a "free will."  Who *really* needs God's grace since
    he's so sufficiently empowered with a "free will?"
    
    And, the issue here is God's sovereignty.  The answer to the question,
    "Is God Sovereign?" determines how one behaves almost completely. 
    Since I learned this truth from the Bible my life has changed
    dramatically.  I am doing more than I ever, ever would have.  I am
    serving God more in more ways than I ever, ever would have. 
    
    Also, we need to be willing to divide over doctrine.  In fact, those
    who do not are erring.  God constantly called Israel out of the
    idolatry around her.  And God has called us to lives of holiness and
    purity and *service*.  We cannot and will not obey this without 
    understanding God's sovereignty and His grace which are both at odds
    with the common idea of "free will".
    
    It is a tragedy of the greatest sort.  I can only cry out to God in
    thankfulness and gratitude that He has shown me in His Word the truth
    of His absolute control over everything that happens.  Even my own
    salvation was His work through and through; I can take not one single
    piece of credit for it.  I know grace!  I'm needy!  God has done and is
    doing in me all that He promises He will in the Bible.  And His means
    have been largely accomplished by bringing me to understand His Word in
    light of His sovereignty.  
    
    jeff 

>    And, the issue here is the gospel, the very gospel itself!  Does the
>    Bible teach man's "free will" in salvation?  I say absolutely,
>    unequivocally not!  Grace, grace, God's grace!!  Arminians eat disks
>    for breakfast discussing eschatology and Revelation but can offer only
>    a note or two on God's grace!  What shame!  This is exactly the result
>    of the belief of a "free will."  Who *really* needs God's grace since
>    he's so sufficiently empowered with a "free will?"
    
    I disagree.  After leaving an Ariminian background, I can tell you
    God's wonderful grace is neglected.  It was one of the main reasons I
    felt they were in error and why I left the denomination.  However, I
    disagree that "free will" is to blame for this.  Arminians also believe
    in God's grace, they just don't preach nearly as much as they should. 
    I can show you the statements of faith of some Arminian denominations
    and they all acknowledge God's grace in them.  Since God's grace isn't
    taught much, they bear fruit that is painful and their spiritual growth
    is hindered.
    
    On the other hand, you have extreme Calvinists (i.e., some Southern
    Baptist sects) that don't evangelize, misrepresent their Savior, and
    have lives that have lost their witness because of their views on the
    elect (i.e., it's a done deal so why bother?).
    
    Which of the above extremes are better?  As I've said before and I'll
    continue to say, both of the above are unscriptural.  The Bible doesn't
    support either view.
    
    Mike

I won't participate in reopening this discussion.

I understand that you believe that the doctrine of God's Sovereignty is
essential, Jeff.  I've heard your reasons, and I disagree.  You've heard
other people's reasons, and you disagree with them.  As I noted over 250
replies ago, this argument has been going on for millenia, and we're not
likely to solve it.

Paul

      Hi Paul,
    
        I think I'm likely to solve it!!   ;-)
    
    				Tony

  The sight of baseball umpire John McSherry collapsing and dying yesterday
  is one that will remain with me for a while I'm sure.  It is a reminder
  to me that the day will come when I too will "cross that river".  

  I have no way of knowing Mr. McSherry's eternal standing, but we each
  can know our own.  Each of us will one day cross that river to eternity.
  And we must ask ourselves "are we 100% sure we will spend eternity in
  Heaven?"

  Perhaps some are reading this conference today who cannot answer that 
  question with any certainty, but who have the desire to set it straight
  with God right now.."Now is the appointed time..today is the day of
  salvation"..

  
  

  Jim

    Amen Jimbo.
    
    I know that yesterday when I turned the channel, I wondered what
    happened as they were doing a mini documentary on John's life.
    
    I wondered when he died, and had no idea it was during yesterday's
    game.  Imagine the shock and horror of many who watched.  I'm sure many
    must have been reevaluating their life's values.  
    
    I know I'm guilty of living this life as though I am invincible...which
    is fine if you are invincible because of Christ and not self. :-(
    
    Nancy