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--

You may honestly think you're going off "the breadth of Scriptural truth" alone, but you're not. The Bible can't stand alone, but it's NOT because it isn't above every other book. There is nothing even remotely on its level. The Bible can't stand alone because no document can, no matter how unique, no matter how God-given. That's hard for a lot of people to accept. But Sola Scriptura does not mean that and never has. The Reformers would quote the Fathers of the Church by the barrel full (in attacking that same church). They didn't reject tradition per se. They rejected the received tradition. They didn't put tradition on a par with Scripture (as did Rome), but they made use of it nonetheless.

And they didn't react any too kindly to those who threw out the baby with the bath water!

Hope you're having a GREAT Christmas,

--Eric

PS: Read what Keith has to say about what happens when we always take Scripture literally (as opposed to how it was intended by the original author). I don't want anybody dashing babies' heads against rocks.

 2004/12/25 9:35Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Keith--

Yes, I must open your regenerate little eyes before (or as) I take you to the beach.

Your question about whether "flightlessness" in unregenerate man is designed in (or conversely whether "flight" as a property is a supplemental gift given to the regenerate--rather than a restored trait) takes us to the ins and outs of supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism. I'll be glad to hash that all out, but I haven't definitively made up my own mind on it. Were you to accept the premise in general, what do you think might work?

Tell me more about D. Wilson's faithful vs. unfaithful covenant members, and I'll give you my take.

God cannot take salvation away from the elect not because he lacks the power but because he would not do it. There is no need. The antinomian Calvinists you speak of, generally speaking, are not a part of the elect. The elect are attached to the vine...and will produce fruit.

We must speak about these warning flags that are keeping you from further Reformed-ness. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

About my ANGER toward you. I wasn't the slightest scintilla of a smidgeon of a speck upset with you. It was merely rhetoric. Am I going to have to start using those blasted emoticons to get anybody to understand my inflections?!?

Saying, "All of what we say about the Bible we say through interpretation" is not saying anything different from "All of what the Bible says it says through interpretation."

All of what the Bible says it says to US. I was not casting aspersions on the Bible or on the Living Word. Perhaps your rendition will be more acceptible to some on this forum, but conceptually they might as well be identical. Even were we to allow the notion of direct mystical access to Scripture--which, believe it or not, I do--the apparent prophet must be subject to evaluation by those with the spiritual gift of interpretation and/or discernment AND the benchmark of Scripture (as interpreted by the elders, seen through the lens of sound hermeneutics and a knowledge of tradition).

Well, I'm off to Christmas dinner. Hope you're enjoying your break!

--Eric

PS: Obviously, I wasn't speaking of the routine devotional use of Scripture. If it reminds me to be kind to or patient with my neighbor, I don't need to run that by my pastor (or bishop or elders). On the other hand, if it tells me that the end of the world is in six weeks because Turkey is being considered for inclusion in the European Union....

PPS: It would help me if we kept our missives shorter and posted more often. Perhaps that's not feasible. But I won't always have the time or the patience to wade through all 95 theses on the Whittenberg Castle Church door.

 2004/12/25 10:39Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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?



In the same way that I know I am a child of God; by the witness of the Spirit. I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, (Romans 9:1). Notice what he says; my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit . This is not hermeneutics it is discernment. (edit) It is not that every little message, sermon, or doctrine is going to raise red flags and whistles. But, I know for a fact that if no person speaking by the Holy Spirit would call Christ accursed (anathema) then no person speaking by the Holy Spirit would call Christ the author of sin .(/edit) I don't even have to look that one up, though I may have to come up with a Biblical apologetic. One may come to a place where they can ask a question that I cannot give an answer for, but you have not convinced me because "I know what I know." It does not agree with my conscience in the Holy Ghost (edit) that God authored sin, unconditionally damns, and nor does a temporal hell. The concept of sin originating in the Holy Ghost (supralapsarianism) is totally rooted in pagan philosophy that spoils the minds of men against the true nature of a loving God. I can never believe that God unconditionally decrees damnation.(/edit)

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



That is because it is description of Spiritual discernment, rather than hermeneutics. You will either understand it or you will not (I Cor. 2:14). Men cannot teach discernment by the Holy Spirit, it comes with the genuine presence of the Spirit. I'm sure you have retraced the footsteps of Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament and found that without the promptimg of the Holy Spirit the interpretation given in the New Testament of an Old Testament passage would have never came about. I dealt with this all the time with the Jews at the Jewish Roots Institute. They simply cannot see the Holy Spirit's application of the passages. Why? And here is the clincher- because they want the Tenach but not the 'Glory.' They want the Book, but not the God of the Book. They want to keep the glory vailed and it is that very glory that illuminates their understanding. They have a hermeneutic of their own, but it is devoid of the illumination of the Holy Spirit.


Quote:
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.



There is a vital difference between hermeneutical interpretation and Divine Revelation. There are no rules of interpretation that can replace the unction of the Holy Spirit; not someones fuzzy feelings, but the one and only Holy Spirit. BTW I have taught hermeneutics using (among other things) the Chicago Statement as a point of reference; but make no mistake in what I say about the necessity of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be an, "Oh, by the way, you really ought to pray before study." NO! You need to seek the face of God with all of your being and get the sin out of your life so you can hear clearly what God is saying (II Thess 2).

The prophets were read every week in Israel in the time of Christ but they missed the message. How can that be when the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy? Simple? Again, don't miss this, they did always resist the Holy Ghost. The word + rebellion = DECEPTION.

Quote:
I fervently hope you are as glad as I.



I am familiar with this concept of the Mormon's wanting God to 'bare witness' of the authenticity of the B.O.M. I live a few blocks from the RLDS world headquarters and I see bumperstickers with that propoganda all the time. Yet, how will the Spirit witness to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit indwelling? People are not deceived because of what they feel- they are deceived because they are not FULL of the Holy Ghost and are therefore susceptable to deception.

Want a pure hermeneutic? Nothing influences your hermeneutic as much as your personal walk with God. You will notice that as you backslide- so does your theology and vice versa. A person full of the Holy Ghost can listen to a minister and detect sin in the preacher by his preaching. Listen to Paul; Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness? He was not coming to hear a flashy hermeneutical, homiletical, sermon of man's wisdom; he was coming to check the DUNAMIS. (edit) He knew the real from the counterfeit. He was coming to see If the GOD he knew was backing the words (with the dunamis he knew). (/edit)

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/25 12:06Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
the apparent prophet must be subject



This is a contradiction if we are talking about a true Prophet. A real Prophet is subject to God alone for the purpose of being the very mouthpiece of God. If he receives a rebuke it will be by another prophet or someone functioning in that office. The above statement almost scarred me! It rings with the mentality the Rabbi's have in making 'man' the final authority in matters of life and practice. What next, we take the Prophet before the Sanhedrin? It all sounds pious because after all, were using the Bible to do our discerning and the Holy Spirit. We are growing closer and closer to [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]It Is Not In Heaven (Bath Kol)[/url] every day. We need to let God be God again. We need to get beyond basing our Christian lives on a bunch of so-called doctrines and invite God back into our camp. We need a move of God desperately. Would to God that that day would soon come when God gets tired of being represented and shows Himself.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/25 12:39Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi ZekeO
I thought I would put together a little group of verses designed to show why you are quite safe to ignore Augustine, Calvin etc if you so choose.

The real issue in ‘theology’ is always the question of authority. To which authority do we credit absolute authority etc. It is obviously important to find a right criterion of truth. I don’t know whether you were around in the day’s of Jake who is a liberal/modernist quaker; his supreme authority was his own judgement of his own inner witness. We had discussions which covered an enormous range of topics but it always came back to this basic issue. Who are we to trust?

The Bible tells us that many ‘false prophets are gone out into the world’, and this long before the prosperity merchants hit the road. Error will always live cheek by jowl with truth. Christianity will always be a battlefield of the mind. How then can we have a reliable principle by which we may test the conflicting voices that claim to have the truth.

Perhaps if we just touch on some possibilities…

We cannot trust absolutely to the personal dignity of the speaker. [b] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [/b] (Gal 1:8-9 KJV) This is not Paul setting up himself against everyone else but Paul. Paul actually includes himself in this protest and imprecation. The sound bite mania of the modern age gives credibility to people of stature or fame. A local congregation here in Reading currently has a statement of Bono from U2 covering its signboard. Bono is famous, lots of people like him, his opinion must matter… at least that is the thinking.

Secondly we must not be overawed by true servants of God. [b] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: [/b] (Gal 2:6 KJV) This is not pride or arrogance on Paul’s part but a statement of his way of thinking. I once heard it said that Paul went to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to seek arbitration on the matter of circumcision. I think anyone who thinks such a thing has not understood Paul… [b] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. [/b] (Gal 2:5 KJV) He was ready to take on the whole world and the whole church if necessary… that the truth of the gospel might continue with you…

We also need to be particularly careful of sectarian loyalties whether they be Calvinistic, Finney, Holiness, David Wilkerson, A W Tozer etc. We may recognise such as real gifts to the church of God, but the second generation (and subsequent ones) stand is particular danger of defending positions held by people who have been a blessing to them. [b] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. [/b] (Mar 7:13 KJV) You must not allow previous generations to set the agenda, but neither must you slip into the equally dangerous error that Job roundly condemned [b] No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. [/b] (Job 12:2 KJV) There is a lovely comment made by G H Lang when visiting a Bible College; ‘Remember’ he said, ‘my brethren that none of us is infallible not even the youngest of us’.

Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion when he was 26. That is a dangerous age at which to begin to systematize doctrine. I was a formal pastor at 26, I speak from personal experience. The only people who absolutely know everything are teenagers and 26 year old pastors. It is dangerous because it is so difficult to unsay what you have said. If you have preached something it is so much more difficult to change your mind when you have publicly committed yourself.

We must also be on our guard against the prophetic utterances of people in intense states of mind, even if they are good people.. perhaps especially if they are good people. Doctrine may have the status of honoured tradition or ecstatic states and still be error. A thing is not better because it is older; tradition may just be ‘error grown old’. But the new is not safer either. Test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Sometimes the sectarian loyalty dominates a whole approach to scripture, as with Roman Catholicism where the scripture is venerated but locked into a single acceptable interpretation at the hands of the ‘church’. Only one interpretation is valid, the others are heresies.

J I Packer once said “The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those that result from disagreement about authority”. Calvinists and Arminians are supposed to be in agreement about this at least that the Scripture is the final authority. The quarrel is not about the authenticity of the supreme authority but about interpretation. My personal quarrels with Calvinism are that it assumes an authority of interpretation almost equal to that of inspiration. I reject this. Calvinism is one of many perspectives not the standard against which all others must be judged.

How then does a Christian interpret the scripture? First, by obeying it, in the enabling that God provides. The Book unlocks its treasures to those who are ready to respond to it. My old Bible College Principal used to say 90% of knowing the will of God is being ready to do it before you know what it is. Secondly, by conscious dependence upon that same Holy Spirit who has enabled the obedience. [b] "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. [/b] (Joh 7:17 NASB) By being willing to learn and unlearn and learn again. [b] The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. [/b] (Psa 25:9 KJV)

Meekness is not only a vital criterion for the learner but for the teacher too; [b] Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. [/b] (Mat 11:29 KJV) Meekness is a golden virtue; it means not claiming my rights, for love’s sake. The implication in the oft quoted words of the Lord is that the meek can only learn from the meek.

Although we will inevitably develop our own systematic theology, this is not necessarily wrong as long as we are constantly prepared to re-examine it. Consequently, as far as I am concerned, the possibility of Ron-ism, as Eric describes it, doesn’t worry me. It would only worry me if a ZekeO became a Ron-ist, or if a Ron became a ZekeO-ist or, perish the thought, a Calvinist.

Be prepared to learn from all, especially those who oppose you. Josiah threw away his life because he did not learn this lesson. (2Chron 35:22) Be prepared to learn from all but be careful who you commend, even to yourself. Remembering always that sparkle of wisdom that I saw on a bumper in Oregon… if you haven’t changed your mind recently, how do you know you still have one?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/27 7:23Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Remembering always that sparkle of wisdom that I saw on a bumper in Oregon… if you haven’t changed your mind recently, how do you know you still have one?



Bro. Ron, I enjoyed that exhortation thoroughly. It helps me stay in balance.

I also understand that there are many Calvinists that do not take the doctrine to its final conclusion. I get the feeling that had I lived in those times I would have been burned to death. I know, all things being equal, I could not have succumbed to such a belief as supralapsarianism. Yet, as I understand it, Calvin did not make God the author of sin.

I also wanted to put to rest in our minds the issue of whether or not God really desires all to be saved. I have copied over an excerpt of a lecture I have on "'philosophy' and the bible."

5. FPC election basically has two parts:

a. God chose a determinate number of men and women, which cannot be increased or diminished. They have no scriptural basis for this whatsoever.

b. This choice is ‘unconditional.’ This is in gross conflict with the fact that God’s grace is over all and that all have been given the measure of faith. Consider whether we will deny God’s sincerity in the following passages:

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

• 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. (John 3:16)

• 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. ( II Peter 3:9)

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

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

• 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. (Revelation 22:17)


The question is one of sincerity. Was God sincere in these and many other like passages? In the mouth of two witnesses let every word be established. These great cloud of witnesses (I Timothy 2:4, Titus 2:11, John 3:16, II Peter 3:9, Romans 10:13, Acts 2:21, Revelation 22:17, etc.) cannot be gainsayed or resisted.


6. This doctrine of unconditional election necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional damnation. This cannot be reconciled with the revealed attributes of God such as His love, goodness, grace, compassion, mercy, or sincerity. Unconditional election makes God a respecter of persons. This would make God a transgressor of His own laws. God is the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe.

7. It is good to know that most all modern evangelicals have moved to some degree or another towards the doctrines of the remonstrants. They have resisted the accusation that they do not give God all the glory in attributing to Him the sins of man. And they have resisted a doctrine that so militates against the true Gospel. 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 (Revelation 22:17).

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/27 10:37Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

RobertW--

Simple accountibility [i]scarred[/i] you? What I described is standard practice in every Evangelical church I've ever been a part of: it is a [i]normative[/i] position, nothing the least bit radical.

It fits the natural reading of 1 Corinthians 14:26-33...

"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. [b]Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.[/b] If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."

I'm sure God does get tired of being represented (especially incorrectly). I'm sure He also tires of getting directly "quoted" by those who in essence "put words in His mouth." False prophecy is not exactly more holy than solid exegesis that doesn't exude prophetic "flash."

--Eric

 2004/12/28 2:52Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron--

Yes, Calvin was young, but he was also somewhat of a prodigy. (Composing symphonies at the age of nine is too young unless one's name happens to be Mozart!) Youth at times is to be respected (e.g., Paul commending Timothy). Indeed, Calvin was deeply respected by his elders in the Reformation, the Luthers and Melancthons and Zwinglis. Besides, though youth often brings with it a certain tendency toward arrogance, the characteristic is by no means universal. And I know of no biographical sketch of Calvin's life that would depict him as inordinately arrogant. He was an unabrasive, retiring sort on the whole.

--Eric

 2004/12/28 3:16Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Robert--

You are correct. From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of Calvinists are infralapsarian (something like 90%). And even supralapsarians do not make God the author of sin.

And beg to differ, but the question is not one of sincerity. Come on, Robert, let's at least try to be civil. I would never say that your interpretation makes God out to be a liar. Don't say that of mine.

Calvinists believe whole-heartedly in every Scripture you quote. They simply interpret them slightly differently.

And there is a [i]huge[/i] amount of scriptural basis for the idea that “God chose a determinate number of men and women, which cannot be increased or diminished.”

You cannot simply ignore those verses that go against your thesis:

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30).

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day”(John 6:44).

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand” (John 10:27-29).

Should we likewise ask if God was [i]sincere[/i] when He inspired these words?

And I’ve already told you—very few Calvinists believe that the doctrine of unconditional election necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional damnation. Though logically such a conclusion is easily reached, there are many other considerations. I won’t get into all of the argumentation here, but Infralapsarianism is undoubtedly philosophically tenable.

Actually, at least here in the United States the vast majority of Evangelicals (I believe it has been estimated at close to 80%) are Dispensationalists. And they disagree with the Remonstrants on almost everything. They do accept Limited Atonement, of course. But there is a growing trend at Southern Baptist seminaries (especially the flagship school in Louisville, Kentucky) toward full-fledged Reformed Theology.

--Eric

 2004/12/28 4:18Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
And I know of no biographical sketch of Calvin's life that would depict him as inordinately arrogant. He was an unabrasive, retiring sort on the whole.


Arrogance has many forms. It isn't always brash. These are the words of his preface...

"I dare not bear too strong a testimony in its favour,and declare how profitable the reading of it will be, lest I should seem to prize my own work too highly. However I may promise this much, that it will be a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume. Wherefore,should our Lord give me henceforth means and opportunity of composing some Commentaries, I will use the greatest possible brevity, as there will be no occasion to make long digressions, seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the articles which pertain to Christianity."

Who does this man think he is? His institutes are "a kind of key opening up to all the children of God a right and ready access to the understanding of the sacred volume." It would have been encouraging to see just something here of Paul's lovely expression... we know in part. His future commentaries of specific books will be 'brief' 'seeing that I have in a manner deduced at length all the articles which pertain to Christianity'. I don't know how accurate the translation is but I commend him for his honesty in using the word 'deduction'. That is what all systematic theology,and particularly Calvinism is, a series of deductions. If I am ever tempted to produce a 'Ron-istic systematic theology' it's going to have the disclaimer 'we know in part' at the bottom of every page.

Mozart's genius was just natural ability. I think you are probably right in adducing such to Calvin, but you need something more than natural ability to discern the mind of God. You need time for reflection and time to be taken through humbling experiences... 26 is not enough time.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/28 5:42Profile





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