SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Hell: did Jesus die for those burning..?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 Next Page )
PosterThread
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

ZekeO--

Last time I checked there was "nothing new under the sun." All of our thoughts are derivative. All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation. Your own theology either conforms to a particular system or is a hodge-podge of parts of different systems. It is a delusion to think that we come to any biblical conclusion on our own...or that the Bible says anything at all...on its own.

And before you fly to the Holy Spirit for aid--all of us have heard incredibly bizarre interpretations of Scripture coming from the lips of people claiming the guidance of the Paraclete.

(In my original post on this matter, I said I was for independence of mind rather than slavish devotion to dogma. But anti-creedalism is neither a rational--nor a spiritual--option.)

--Eric

 2004/12/24 17:00Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Arminians can only work, pray, and hope for the best.



This man believes that if you are a Child of God you will have the witness of the Holy Spirit and will walk in the Spirit. That is the only real means of knowing if you are truly 'saved' or not. Do you have the witness of the Holy Spirit? That is the question. Not can I recite the Apostles creed and go to church. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 6:17) At any given moment one can only be assured of a present state of salvation with no assurance in the present of final salvation. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. (Hebrews 3:14,15) All we can say with certainty is "I am saved"; yet if I change my mind and begin to resist the Holy Ghost as an affirmation that I choose sin and it's end, I can do that also. The outworking of the Holy Spirit in us is love; We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (1 John 3:14)

Moreover we are saved by hope, for if we have received what we hoped for why would we continue to hope for it? As a matter of fact I do work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. I do take heed lest there be in me an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God due to sin induced hardness. I also get under my body and bring it into subjection lest at any time I myself would be adokimos. Adokimos being, rejected nigh unto cursing whose end is to be burned (Hebrews 6:8)

ADOKIMOS

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; (Romans 1:28)

ButI keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others,I myself should be a castaway. (I Corinthians 9:27)

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (II Corinthians 13:5)

ButI trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. (13:6)

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved (dokimos), but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. (13:7)

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (II Timothy 3:8)

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 1:16)

But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing (Katara); whose end is to be burned.(Hebrews 6:8)

God Bless,

-Robert






God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/24 17:08Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
If someone takes a meal to a town in Africa, and a starving man walks 20 miles from his home village into town, takes the meal and eats it--who deserves the 'credit' for saving the man's life?



The man who brought the meal, as there is no need to walk had provision not been made. If I drive 200 miles to a service and am gloriously born again it is all of God's grace anyhow. But I still have to drive there in the body God created, in the car He provided, with the gas He provided, and pray with the breath He provides. The synergism does not deny God His rightful glory. And after we have done all these things shall the Lord thank us? Nay, we shall declare we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which is our duty to do. Shall God thank a man for repenting when He commanded Him to do it? When he did that which was his duty? Nay verily. He can only ever do his duty. And once he is bought with a price, he can only ever be a servant who is eternally indebted to Christ.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/24 17:16Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation.



Now we are at the bottom of the problem. We are forever relying on subjective etymological 'interpretation' rather than Holy Ghost Divine Revelation. T.A. Sparks once said that 'carnal men' are handling 'Divine things'. How convenient! How do we know a truth? Does the Holy Ghost back the words. This is the realm of New Testament living. Not in the enticing words of men's wisdom; but in demonstration of power and in much assurance. This is not where we are, but it is where we need to be.

Quote:
And before you fly to the Holy Spirit for aid--all of us have heard incredibly bizarre interpretations of Scripture coming from the lips of people claiming the guidance of the Paraclete.



This does not get us off the hook. It merely turns back to rely on private (idios) interpretations (Epilusis). Oh for the days of a Holy Spirit based hermeneutic.



God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/24 17:22Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Robert--

No disrespect intended, but I couldn't decipher this particular post. Were you agreeing with me or not?

I believe very strongly in a Holy-Spirit-based hermeneutic, but not one that doesn't also apply time-honored rules of interpretation. Sound use of linguistic, historical, cultural, and theological data is an absolute must.

The priesthood of all believers grants us freedom of individual interpretation but it does not grant us license. We each are only one part of the body of Christ. We must rely on one another. We must listen to the voices of those who have gone before us.

I can sincerely listen to a T.D. Jakes sermon, buy into Oneness Pentecostalism, "feel" the blessing of the Holy Spirit on my new interpretation of Scripture, and look "mature" in the faith in all my actions. But it is not the Holy Spirit, and I am sincerely wrong.

A friend of mine was briefly tempted by the Latter-Day Saints Church after reading the Book of Mormon and receiving the promised "warm spiritual feeling." I am so glad he did not succumb to such a "Holy Spirit hermeneutic." I fervently hope you are as glad as I.

I'd love to develop a hermeneutic as open as open can be to the leading of the Spirit. Tell me, how do you go about deciding that the Holy Spirit has endorsed a particular message or biblical interpretation to you?

--Eric

 2004/12/24 21:11Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Similarly, if the man never walks those 20 miles, there is no need for the PROVISION to be made. And if another man walks only 2 miles, the 20-mile man has cause to boast. (Not to mention, if someone picks him up and gives him a ride to town, THEY get another notch in their Bible!) Yes, the starving man should thank God that He gave him two legs to walk upon...but in this analogy, God is the meal provider, NOT a leg maker!

If you wish to throw leg-making into the mix, it would have to be seen as a function of Prevenient Grace which in this case was effectual: it got the man to town. Are you a budding Calvinist?

 2004/12/24 21:26Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Whose truth is it anyhow?

Quote:

Svineklev wrote:
Tell me, how do you go about deciding that the Holy Spirit has endorsed a particular message or biblical interpretation to you?



Well, I would say a 'revelation' of truth from the 'Holy Spirit' must be viewed through three lenses. Does it keep the believers free in the liberty that is found in the gospel and does it it any way detract from the centrality of the Lord Jesus. And thirdly how does this 'revealed truth' stand up against versus which seem to contradict it. That is my own personal check list.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2004/12/25 0:18Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re: My Truth, Your Truth, His Truth

Quote:

Svineklev wrote:
All of our thoughts are derivative.
All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation.

To be a bit padantic this Christmas morning, all of what the bible says is what the bible says. This brings us to another interesting juncture. Do we take the bible literally or are we figurative in 'our own' interpretation?

Quote:

Your own theology either conforms to a particular system or is a hodge-podge of parts of different systems.

No it doesn't. It is not different systems, but the breadth of scriptural truth, that contain all of the isms. I align myself first and foremost with the word, and in truth, it may be seen as hodge-podge, but in these truths I see boundary fences of living whic act as guides in our walk. As has been adequately covered, taking any of the isms to the furtherest degree of application will lead to some serious vexation of spirit and of mind.


Quote:

It is a delusion to think that we come to any biblical conclusion on our own...or that the Bible says anything at all...on its own.



I think that I may on a different tangent to were you have come from and where you are heading. I say that because your beef may just be in how truth comes to us, while I am not seperating the work of the triune God upon a human soul.

Quote:

But anti-creedalism is neither a rational--nor a spiritual--option.



I suppose it depends on whether those creeds can be classed at the level of the word. I would challenge anything that is not from the word, even if it was/is considered one of the pillars of the church. In my own experience and especially on this site, if I never look for myself and find out for myself what the word is on certain things how can it become revelational to my life. It is the case of God himself revealing that truth to me, not via the teachings and thoughts of the 'cloud of witnesses'.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2004/12/25 0:47Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re: Whose truth is it anyhow?

Quote:
[i]From Eric[/i]
But look, if I took you to a beach and tried to convince you of the existence of the ocean, I wouldn't need to be coercive and you wouldn't need to rationalize too proactively.

As I am now, sure. However, if I were blind, and had a passionate inborn hatred of you (both conditions being analogous to the unregenerate state), you might have quite a time even getting me to go to the beach with you, let alone accepting something from you that I could not verify myself; even if you threw me in the ocean (which is getting pretty coercive), and I had at least the sense of touch to know water when I felt it (and do the unregenerate even have the analogous spiritual sense?), I might be so stubbornly opposed to agreeing with you that I'd deny the existence of the ocean even in the midst of drowning. No, I think you'd have to do something about that inborn hatred (and possibly the blindness) before you could even get started on the whole ocean thing.

Quote:
I think actual inabilities cannot be considered "wired," whereas restrictions can. It would be wrong to say you are programmed to be flightless (no wings!), but if born with a congenital defect making you crippled, we could say you were "wired" not to walk.

I'd agree on flightlessness not being programmed in, but humans were never designed with the ability to fly (well, I think I heard of one of the Hagin's teaching that Adam could fly, but nevermind him), whereas I would contend that Adam was designed in such a way to be at least basically able to obey God. Everyone since then has been born with a "congenital defect" (or, rather, congenital depravity) because of which they never desire to obey God unless (and until) He regenerates them (removing, or at least sufficiently mitigating, said congenital defect). Is congenital depravity "wired" in? Or were humans never designed with the ability to be obedient to God, even without such congenital problems?

Quote:
No, the regenerate cannot apostasize (apparent believers can).

So are some believers unregenerate (and presumably non-elect, if never regenerated)? Are they covenant members? I'm somewhat fond of Douglas Wilson's teachings on faithful and unfaithful covenant members, as that is one way in which I could reconcile most of my issues with the P.

Quote:
Such inevitability does not imply that there is nothing to be done, merely that one will do it. If we are called to climb a mountain and assured we will get to the summit, we still have to climb (it may require extremely intense work... and our success is conditional upon our doing it... but the point is moot because we WILL do it.)

I think I agree fully with the compatibility of inevitable salvation and "working out your salvation with fear and trembling," at least as I hear some Calvinists formulate it. Strictly speaking, I think it can be said that Calvinists believe in [b]conditional[/b] eternal security, but it is conditional upon [b]God[/b] rather than man, and one can trust with no doubt whatsoever that God will see it through. I would distinguish this from the folks I tend to call antinomians, who believe in an eternal security that is so [b]unconditional[/b] that they think confidence in the security is warranted no matter what the person winds up doing (murder, outright denying Christ, etc), and some even go so far as to say that even God cannot take away their salvation even if He wanted to.

Quote:
Give me a break, Keith: Arminians don't KNOW they are saved anymore than anyone else!

Depends on the Arminian (bearing in mind the wide variety of people called that). Some, like Bob George, emphatically teach that if a person has even had the slightest "past moment of faith" (faith being mere intellectual assent in this case), they are unconditionally eternally secure (i.e. will go to Heaven, no ifs, ands, or buts). That's absolute certainty (perhaps not satisfying radical epistemological skepticism, but I wasn't asking for that). Falsely grounded certainty, but certainty nonetheless. In most cases, however, I agree with your point: neither Calvinists nor (most) Arminians believe with absolute certainty that they will go to Heaven (some of the Arminians believe with absolute certainty that they are regenerate, but that does them about as much good on the Heaven question as it does a Roman Catholic).

Quote:
The "Eternal Security folk" are in most ways identical to Calvinists on this (and John MacArthur would not take well to your calling him an antinomian... I would say the majority of Dispensationalists are not antinomian, but I have no study to cite).

If Mr. MacArthur construed my comments as applying to him, I would apologize for the misunderstanding. MacArthur and his fellow "Lordship Salvationists" believe, as you say, quite similar to Calvinists on the issue of assurance: if a professing believer fell into serial murder and other such things and died without repenting, MacArthur and most Lordship Salvationists would probably say that the professing believer was not saved in the first place, regardless of how much assurance they seemed to have before. Other Dispensationalists, like Charles Stanley and Charles Ryrie, might answer the question differently if said person had come to the altar and prayed the prayer (remember our pastor's disagreement with Mr. Stanley over the fate of that one young man whose funeral he was asked to speak at?). By "Eternal Security folk" I did not mean everyone who believes in Eternal Security (I apologize for the misleading terminology), but rather those that believe in Eternal Security and also believe that one can objectively know with certainty that they are saved ("Of course I'm saved, I prayed the prayer!" and such like).

Quote:
You're being too literal with 1 John 3:15. His point in this passage is that we should love one another. If we don't love we cannot say that we are part of the kingdom. Matthew 5:22 is similar to this: anger or hate toward one's brother is equated with murder. That doesn't mean that just because I'm A-N-G-R-Y with you right now, I'm headed for hell. (Besides, my anger will dissipate the moment you show proper respect and agree with me!)

Anger is not necessarily the kind of hatred referred to by the Apostle. This is the kind of hatred that amounts to murder (in the way that Jesus put it), and I would term it "malicious hatred" or desire consciously opposed to the object's best interest, as distinguished from God's "hatred" of those who do wrong (Psalm 5:5) which I would call "benevolent hatred" because it is rooted in a passionate desire for the best interest of everyone involved (which may require the removal/punishment of the wrongdoer) or David's hating God's enemies "with a perfect hatred" which would be similar to God's (for we must love what God loves, and hate what God hates, no? I'm sure Bro. Robert could dig up some good Finney quotes on that, and I recently saw some strikingly similar words in Wilson's blog).

So anger is not necessarily the hatred referred to here, indeed:

Ephesians 4:26
[b]Be ye angry[/b], and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

There are times when we [b]should[/b] be angry, though we need to heed the Apostle's injunction to not let it become sinful (one way of which is letting it drag on too long). One such time of necessary anger may be when someone intentionally blasphemes or embraces heresy. I do not believe I have done that, however, so I'm not sure where the present situation lies. Nonetheless, I doubt very much that you are harboring any kind of malice towards me or anyone, regardless of the frustrations our theology may cause you.

As an aside about anger in these kinds of disagreements: I appreciate what you've said about how many have gone too far in asserting (implicitly or explicitly) that anger has no place in theological discussion, but I find that I do not become angry (so far as I recall) with someone I'm convinced is honestly trying to be consistent with Scripture and loving towards God and men, essentially regardless of the extent of the disagreement (I might think they're not regenerate in extreme cases, but I probably wouldn't be angry). Why? Partly because I could ask no more of them, any more would be asking them to embrace beliefs that they find unbiblical (unless they can be convinced otherwise, which I would certainly try), which is tantamount to asking them to sin. And in this case it's not that I'm rejecting aspects of your position despite convincing Biblical evidence; indeed, I [i]dearly[/i] wish I could embrace historic Reformed theology, my heart and mind lead me to it, but my Bible raises flags of warning.

In any case, let me see if we agree on our basic interpretation of 1 John 3:15 and Matthew 5:22 : I believe that if anyone does not love their brother, if they are consciously embracing [b]malicious[/b] hatred in their heart for someone made in the image of God, they do not love God and they are not regenerate. There I stand, and can do no other. Are we on the same ground?

If so, the question is whether or not David was in this kind of state regarding Uriah. Your thoughts?

Quote:
All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation.

[i]From Robert:[/i]
Now we are at the bottom of the problem. We are forever relying on subjective etymological 'interpretation' rather than Holy Ghost Divine Revelation

First, I would probably prefer the phrasing "All of what we say about the Bible we say through interpretation," let me know if you don't agree with that distinction. Second, I agree: if we take absolutely no system of interpretation to a text (if that is even possible) then it will be to us merely ink and paper (or whatever physical material composes it). That system could be "If I preach it and people start getting miraculously healed, it's true" (not intended at a strawman, just a possibility), or it could be "If it is the interpretation most consistent with all available data, it's close enough and God won't hold it against us if we lacked important information," or whatever. That said, this usually isn't a problem because God does much to overcome our limitations and help us understand His Word.

Quote:
[i]From Zeke:[/i]
This brings us to another interesting juncture. Do we take the bible literally or are we figurative in 'our own' interpretation?

Well, at the risk of exasperation, "taking the Bible literally" is just another system of interpretation, and often people claiming to follow it have come to disastrous conclusions, in some cases to taking a word or phrase to mean what it would "literally" mean if the person were to say such a thing, but meant something quite different to the person who wrote it down all those years ago. Strict literalism can also get you in a heap of trouble in Revelation. But to get to the point: God's Word is objective truth, and no two mutually-contridictory interpretations of the Bible can both be true (neither, perhaps, or one or the other, but not both). Nonetheless, we are constrained to subjective means of getting at that truth, as Satan could masquerade as an angel of light and perform miracles to lend his support to false doctrine, or act as "the voice" impersonating direct communication through prayer. Not that we're entirely helpless in this, not at all, nor that God could not give us effectively objective knowledge as He (apparently) did with the Apostles.

 2004/12/25 1:57Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re: Whose truth is it anyhow?

ZekeO--

Yes, but how can you be sure such liberty is even found in the Gospel? Depending upon which "liberty" you speak, different Christians (together with the Holy Spirit, at least in their belief) would either agree or disagree with you.

I have a hard time disagreeing with the centrality of Jesus--there's a tiny bit of consensus on that I do believe--but it's too amorphous to be any kind of a real guide on many issues. Homosexual marriage doesn't in and of itself push Christ out of the center. (Yes, it does conflict with several explicit Scripture passages...your next guideline...though there are plenty of people who find creative ways of interpreting those passages.)

Letting Scripture interpret Scripture (or your own private revelations) is undoubtedly wise, but certainly not sufficient. Because you're interpreting the Scripture which is doing the interpreting. As a matter of fact, you will always intervene...you cannot do otherwise.

Suppose you get a revelation saying polygamy is ok. It doesn't directly conflict with Scripture. It would seem to increase any kind of liberty you may be speaking of. It doesn't hurt the centrality of Christ in any way. I expect you to pick up a third wife by late next week.

An how about the Trinity? Your three neat little rules will not vouchsafe its safety.

Just playing with you (they're good rules...they're just not enough)

--Eric

 2004/12/25 9:15Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy