Posted on 12/09/2012 11:34:49 AM PST by HarleyD
Good read. Thanks for posting.
Salvation is through faith from Jesus alone but we work with Him because we have to obey Him when He tells us to do something. So it is synergy right there. Paul tells us to work our salvation out with fear and trembling.
I really expect to be flamed but sorry am not going to change that.
Fear and trembling will definitely be involved in the battle...as the old sin-nature is removed and Holy Spirit moves forward in taking more territory.
We "work out" our salvation in humility and respect (fear and trembling) knowing that God is working through us. Thus when we see someone come to the knowledge of Christ or experience any other good deed through our actions, we need to take pause that it is not we who brought that about but Christ working in us. The honor goes to Him.
And I should also add that perhaps we may not see any works at all in our lives. We can rest assured that as we abide in Christ, He is working through us to create those good works. This is a promise of God. So, once again, we should not be down hearted when we see no works. Instead we should act out of faith with "fear and trembling" through constant and consistent obedience knowing that He is working through us-whether we can see it or not.
What we have to fear is the sinfulness of pride or believing we are useless. What we need to recognize is God's ability to create in us good works-but these good works come from the Son through the Spirit to glorify the Father. They do not come from us.
I am rejecting synergism.
I base my beliefs in Sola Scriptura.
I am not a Calvinist.
I am a Christian, whose doctrine is the bible. (not the institutes, or any other writings not in the bible)
I believe in the priesthood of the believer.
Just as the Catholic church has in prior years, added in “tradition” so has modern Reformation added Calvinism.
God is not limited by time, therefore he knows his before they choose - therefore the “issue” of free will vs election is no issue at all to a God that created time. Only to those of us who believe God so small as to exist within the time and space He created Himself.
I think I will order a copy of Boice's book "Whatever Happened to The Gospel of Grace?: Rediscovering the Doctrines That Shook the World".
Boice is excellent. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it.
right on BereanBrain, who needs no stinkin Catholic Tradition, let’s stick to sola scriptura.
ok, where in the scriptura does it say what is “scriptura”?
in other words, where do the Scriptures say the book of Hebrews is canonical and the Gospel of Thomas or the Didache is not?
have you pesonally investigated every book ever written that claims to be Scripture ( and those that do not ) and on what basis do you KNOW what is Scripture and what is not?
after all, if we must rely only on “sola scriptura”, we had better be darn sure we have the right scriptura.
i await your answer and i am sure you will give an intelligent answer, not using any Catholic Tradition of course.
As to your question of who determines (or did) the canonicity of scripture.
(in other words your assertions we must depend on maybe the catholic church or some human agent for the bible to be transmitted to us)
My answer is that God himself will arrange the circumstances to insure we get the canon.
Tradition is NOT the bible.
I believe God had a hand in the events that led to
1) The recording
2) the preservations
and
3) The construction of what we consider the scripture.
God does not NEED man, nor any agency (espeically tradition) to achieve his means.
Also, do not forget our first revelation - that is, general revelation (Romans 1:20). Which, agrees of course with specific (special) revelation, that is, the scriptures.
Tradition is not to be trusted. It’s not a construct of God.
Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
“ok, where in the scriptura does it say what is “scriptura”?
Well Peter says Paul’s letter are scripture. Paul quotes the Gospels as scripture. There’s 80% of the NT right there.
Actually if your faith is based on scripture, then one must believe in election or God is a liar
A Critical Apology
What about election? All who believe the Bible believe in election, either conditional or unconditional. Pelagianism and Arminianism teach a conditional election, while Calvinism teaches an unconditional election. What does the Bible teach? Which of the following is Scriptural?
God elected me because I first elected to believe. He chose me because I first chose Him;
OR
I chose God because He first chose me. He elected me because I could not save myself.
Granted, the believer chooses God, and the believer is chosen of God. The question is, which was the first choice? Which choice resulted from the other? Which was the cause and which the effect? Is it true that "God is careful to elect only those whom He foresees will elect themselves?" Or has God sovereignly chosen his people according to His own will and pleasure?
According to scripture, election is unconditional. That is, God chose apart from setting forth any conditions to be met. But this was not done arbitrarily. There are at least three wise reasons why God elected unconditionally.
1. Because of what God knew (Psalm 14)
The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God (v. 2).
And what did he observe? They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one (v. 3).
The Lord knew from all eternity that men, if left alone, would never choose him, or even seek him. If any were to be spared He had to choose them. The Apostle Paul quoted this Psalm in Romans 3, when revealing the sinfulness of men.
Again, in I Corinthians 2:14, Paul wrote: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
According to this verse, man is in such unbelief that the things of God are to him utter foolishness, i.e., "they are foolishness unto him." Further, man is spiritually dead and thus cannot understand, i.e., "they must be spiritually discerned," or understood.
2. Because of God's great love and mercy.
I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee (Jer. 31:3).
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 6:44, 45).
Knowing the condition of man, and knowing what man would do in time, the Lord therefore knew that man could not and would not meet any conditions set forth. In sovereign mercy he chose to set his love upon man unconditionally. There was no other way for any person to be saved.
3. What about Romans 8:29?
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.
Many attempt to use this passage to prove conditional election. However, it actually establishes the opposite. Broadly speaking, there are two general views regarding the meaning and use of the word "foreknow" in this passage. a. The Arminian and Pelagian viewpoint.
The Arminian and Pelagian commentators maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom he foreknew would respond to His offer of grace. For example, Frederic Godet says
, In what respect did God thus foreknow them? They were foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, that is, faith; so, foreknown as his faith (Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. p.325).
b. The Augustinian and/or Calvinistic viewpoint.
Augustinian commentators reject this view on two grounds: first, such an interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of the language; secondly, such a view is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures.
C. The meaning of the language in the verse.
· It is about people, not the acting of people. The word is "whom," not "what." This verse says nothing about God knowing something about particular individuals, i.e., what they would do; but, rather it speaks of God knowing the individuals themselves.
· "Foreknow" could not have reference to what the individuals under consideration would do, for God knows what all men will do at all times. However, all men are not called, justified, and glorified, nor shall this be the lot for all men. This means that God does not "foreknow" all men in this sense of the verse.
· When the view is held that "foreknow" means "what" rather than "whom," the verse makes no sense.
· Example: "What He foreknew He also did predestinate, call, justify, and glorify?"
· The word is "foreknow," not "foresaw." To foresee has reference to pre-science; to foreknow has reference to love, favor, or an intimate relationship.
· Thus, to teach that God merely saw what someone would do is not in keeping with the meaning of this verse.
D. The Immediate Context
Romans 8:29 must be in harmony with preceding chapters. Consider the following:
· Rom. 1:29-32. Men are absolutely ruined, having no remote interest in God. How could God foresee that they were not interested and at the same time foresee that they would choose to serve Christ?
· Rom. 2:11. How could God choose on the basis of what he saw men would do without having respect for some?
· Rom. 3:9-18. How could God see that none would do good, i.e., repent and believe, that none understood or sought Him, and at the same time see that they would choose Him?
· Rom. 4. Abraham, the father of the faithful, never sought God; he was a worshipper of idols (Josh. 24:2). He is called "ungodly" (v. 5). How could God have foreseen Abraham choosing Him when he didn't know who God was?
· Rom. 9:11-13. God could not have chosen based upon what one would or would not do, for none had done good or evil.
· Rom. 10:13-17 No man can call on God to be saved without a preacher and God's Word.
1. "Foreknow"; "Foreknowledge"
"Foreknow" cannot refer to the foresight of faith or good works.
· Faith would be understood as man's gift to God, not God's gift to man.
Robert Haldane: AFaith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge because, foreknowledge is always before predestination and predestination is the effect of faith.@
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).
· "Foreknow" cannot be the foreknowledge of good works for these are the effects of predestination.
We are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
· It cannot be a foreknowledge of faith, for even Arminians agree that faith is a gift which God gives or creates. But for God to give faith means that He doesn't give faith to all and perhaps He gave faith to one against his will.
2. Conclusion
· "Foreknow" means to "fore-love," i.e., "Whom He did fore-love?"
Amos 3:2 He knew Israel only.
Jer. 1:5 He knew Jeremiah.
Matt. 7:2223 I never knew you.
The fact that God chooses according to The foreknowledge of God is the cause of faith, "If one loves God, one is known by Him" (II Cor. 8:3). · God's purpose of election preceded good or evil, and who would not say that faith is a good thing (Rom. 9:1011)?
· We are not saved by the righteous work of faith. The cause of salvation is the mercy of God, not faith (Tit. 3:5; Rom. 9:15).
· Paul's theology is such that it anticipates cries of "unrighteousness" and "injustice" from natural men, which it would never do if God's election was based upon man's will or if God chose everyone to be saved (Rom. 9:11-16, 18-21). That is, no one ever cries that conditional election is unjust. The cry is that unconditional election is unjust. If Paul is not teaching unconditional election why does he presuppose that men will protest?
His own will and not because of man's faith or goodness, proves that God chooses unconditionally.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/actorattribute.html
The bottom line is, Does God have a free will? Or is He subject to the will of men?
You take my argument out of context and did not address the assertion.
You are not interested in hearing another’s view, you put words in my mouth trying to say I contend God is a liar. That is despicable.
Enjoy your belief in Calvinism, and identity in the Reformation.
I will enjoy my belief in Christianity, and identity in Christ.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
the person I was replying to said I was saying God was a liar, which i most certainly did not say, not intimate.
and you get me for telling him he’s not interested in hearing, when he takes all my comments out of context?
I guess there’s no room for a non-calvinist here.
Reading other poster's minds, attributing motives to them or making the thread "about" them often results in flame wars. "Open" religious debate tends to be contentious so therefore the ad hominems are not tolerable.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines applicable to the Religion Forum.
“All who believe the Bible believe in election, either conditional or unconditional. “
Actually, you might consider corporate election:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2448540/posts
i completely agree God will be sure we get the correct canon.
why do you believe God allowed the wrong canon to be adopted for the first 1,500 years of the Church and He took until the 16th century to finally allow the correct canon to be known?
Take a look at the post of the person who I replied to — he twisted my words, by saying i was calling God a LIAR!
You are not a good moderator.
I do not believe God allowed the wrong canon for 1500 years, until someone else came along like Calvin to set us straight. Nor do I believe Joseph Smith either with his book of mormon.
More importantly, if you are looking for the truth, God will give it to you. (Romans 1). The problem is not that we don’t have the truth. The problem is we want the easy, self serving, make you feel better version, which of course, is a lie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.