SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
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
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Keith
Welcome back.

Quote:
"to those who love God"; who loves God? Do any non-Christians? Certainly not (would any of you say otherwise?). The Calvinist would likely (at least, I get this impression) affirm that God and the Christian work synergistically in Sanctification, but that Justification (where God is dealing with a non-Christian) is purely a monergistic matter. They would also be likely to ask a rhetorical question like "is the sinner dead in his sins, or merely sick?" Whereupon we might discover just how far from the "T" our beloved brother Ron has slid :-)


I’m rock solid on this bit. I don’t know anyone who preaches ‘dead in sins’ more insistently than me! It is the whole thrust of ‘ye must be born again’. I am solid on ‘original sin’; my slippage with ‘T’ is on the ‘original guilt’. I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion.


Quote:
"to those who love God"; who loves God? Do any non-Christians? Certainly not (would any of you say otherwise?)...Further, what does the passage say further about "those who love God"; they are "those who are called according to His purpose." Where did that calling originate? (God, I imagine, will be the unanimous answer) Who was called? (here many will say, "everyone," or do you?) Do some refuse this call?


The phrase ‘to those who love God’ is a construction of the present participle preceded by the definite article. I have frequently referred to this construction but it refers to a state rather than an event. ‘the believing ones’ according to John 3:16 will not perish. Not precisely ‘those who have believed’ but those who are believing, i.e. ‘believers’. Our Romans verse is referring to ‘God-lovers’. No ‘continuing’ sinner is a God-lover. In fact, the whole world, by first birth is under Paul’s indictment; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God etc.

Consequently we may interpret our Romans verse to be saying that none are called who are not God-lovers, but as none are God-lovers by first birth, none are called until they are new-born. Only God-lovers are called; ‘the called’ is a statement about the ‘God-lovers’. This fits the flow of the verse too, for the called (who are also described as presdestinated) are ‘called according to purpose’. The God-lovers have a ‘call’ upon their lives because they were called ‘with a view to…’ To what? to be “conformed to the image of His Son.” I think another phrase for that is ‘glorified’, and I am glad to see that you spotted the uniformity of tenses here. Most folks instinctively put this in the future but the flow is consistent; every verb in Romans 8:30 is in the Aorist. [b] and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:30 NASB)[/b]

Predestination, in these verses, is to ‘conformity to Christ’s image’. Who are the predestined or called? The God-lovers. How does a man become a God-lover? [b] and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Rom 5:5 NASB)[/b] It is the abiding and overflowing presence of the Spirit that makes men ‘God-lovers’ and such are predestined to be ‘conformed to the image of His Son’. Am I right in thinking that ‘the predestined’, is not a biblical phrase? Neither is ‘predestination’. Predestinate is verb not a noun. It is an action performed by God; this, I think, is not a discrete number but is the ‘pre-destiny’ of all who become God-lovers.

BTW just for us foreigners what is UGA?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/14 3:58Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Bro. Ron and Bro. Keith,

Quote:
I do not believe the Bible teaches that the whole race is sentenced to hell because of Adam’s rebellion.



Neither did C. Finney. To him it was a legal contradiction; like sentencing someone to death for another man's crime. It's a mute point though because all have sinned. It only comes to play when we think of the guilt of infants- and in that case I know of no one who would suggest that they are doomed to Hell. Of coarse, there are lots of ways around this problem also.


I have always loved this Wesley quote (I will also put in the main context):

If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Therefore, though "He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth," that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy

Here again we read another similar account:

If you ask, "Why then are not all men saved?" the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God," I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." (Ezek. 18:3, 32.) Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" (2 Pet. 3:9;) "He willeth that all men should be saved." And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, "Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." (John 5:40.) "The power of the Lord is present to heal" them, but they will not be healed. "They reject the counsel," the merciful counsel, "of God against themselves," as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, "How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!" (Matt. 23:37.)


This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary, the devil, "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men" Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the 'fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but 'the smoke of their torment,' because it is God's good pleasure, 'ascendeth up for ever and ever.

This is an argument I have yet to hear answered reasonably. Again, no doctrine can make God to be the author of sin or the Father of Lies. No doctrine can make God into Satan. No doctrine can make the Gospel the "good news of mans damnation." Better would it be to say that the passages in question make no sense at all than to say they make a sense such as we find in Unconditional Election.

Bro. Keith is right when he says that the finality of these things leads to a "Platonic God" and it is one of the reasons why I have emphasized the destruction of Hellenization in the Jewish Roots thread.

God Bless,

-Robert



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 8:16Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

You guy's are just an outstanding example of conduct and grace here. From how this thread started to where it is now, well done brothers.

Liked the 'bedroom' analogy and will stay outside peeping through the key hole, eavesdropping. This topic has and will likely be one that I never fully 'get', still under the impression I am not supposed to... ;-) seems it could be summed up in [i]"Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life."[/i] (John 5:40.) But there is still much to be gleaned from all of this so I will leave it at that.

Was curious though about this from Robert:

Quote:
I despair to discuss the topic with some who even suggest that repentance is 'works' and that after a certain place in acts, repentance is no longer mentioned as a requirement of salvation. Some kind of dispensationalism I think. This type of theology comes out of a certain Theological Seminary in our town. They even have a radio station. It used to be fairly edifying, but now it is called, "positive Christian radio." The official position on the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is that the topic is "not up for discussion."



Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins? They make it sound like it's almost blasphemy to do so. Can't recall the name of the program, but come across it occasionally on another station that varies in reception out here. Whenever I hear them it leaves me going, huh? :-? ....

Well, go figure. Just as I am writing this a name came to mind, Bob George and a quick search...
[url=http://www.realanswers.net/]People to People Ministries[/url]

Is this who you were alluding to?
Sorry for the digression here, perhaps this could be moved to another posting.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/12/14 9:36Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Bro Mike,

Praise God.

Quote:
Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins? They make it sound like it's almost blasphemy to do so. Can't recall the name of the program, but come across it occasionally on another station that varies in reception out here. Whenever I hear them it leaves me going, huh? ....

Well, go figure. Just as I am writing this a name came to mind, Bob George and a quick search...
People to People Ministries

Is this who you were alluding to?



Actually it is [url=http://www.calvary.edu/]Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary[/url]. The have a policy that they will not graduate a student that does not believe in eternal security or that believes in any of the 'sign gifts' (especially speaking in tongues).

I am not sure about "People to People." Not to despair though, we have several other bible colleges seminaries in Missouri also that do not hold those positions. I don't mind if people believe it so much as they make it mandatory to affirm that statement of faith at Calvary for graduation. :-(

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 9:56Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Is this the same guy's that teach that once you are 'saved' you no longer need to ask for forgivness of your sins?



I have a cousin who attends(or attended) there that would bring me arguments from his instructors that stated that repentance is not necessary for salvation after a certain passage in the book of Acts. They invariably fall into what we could call the "No Lordship" camp. For example, although John Macarthur is a Calvinist and believes in eternal security, he also believes in Lordship salvation. He has a couple books on this; "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According To the Apostles." He has some handy charts in there that show the beliefs of the "Lordship" and "No-Lordship" camps. Lordship believes that TRUE Christians have Christ as Lord in a real way and is verifiable. No Lordship believes that Jesus can be the "Savior" and not our "Lord" and we can still go to Heaven. it is a liberal theology dressed up as Calvinism in my opinion. Calvin would have never agreed to that.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 10:04Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:

[i]From Bro. Robert: Satan provided the alternate option (sin). This invariably leads to a discussion of the origin of sin itself. We will have to save that for another post.[/i]

From Keith: That is getting at a very important part of this discussion: if God is not the origin of evil (of which sin is a manifestation), then where did it come from? I think it is a matter of recognizing that "good" and "evil" are not ontologically equal, and their relation is perhaps most analagous to "light" and "darkness", and that evil is essentially the "absence of good" or, perhaps, "absence of God"; I'd say more specifically that evil is the result of a free moral agent choosing autonomy instead of theonomy: choosing to obey one's own desires (the "way that appears straight before man") rather than God's commands. It is because of this that I believe it can be said that Adam "sinned" even before he had the "knowledge of good and evil", it was simply a matter of Adam choosing to do what was right in his eyes, rather than obey the command of God. Satan, on the other hand, may have had the knowledge of good and evil before he fell (which might, perhaps, explain why no reconcilliation has been offered him that we know of, but this is speculation upon speculation). In any case, this topic deserves a far more thorough treatment than I can give it right now. Suffice it to say as far as our discussion goes that God knew the evil would come to pass as a result of certain actions of His (i.e. creating free moral agents, angels and men, in the circumstances which He also created), and yet He still took those actions.


Keith,
You say that ‘sin’ is a manifestation of evil. I’m not sure that it isn’t the other way around, namely that evil is a manifestation of sin. I agree that evil has to be more than that absence of good. I’m sure that Adam sinned ‘before’ he had the ‘knowledge of good and evil’; that knowledge was not sin. The sin was its acquisition through a forbidden route.

I have often said that we know so little of the real origin of evil. What theologians usually call ‘original sin’ is actually the ‘secondary sin’ and its consequences. Sin, and I think this is a vital Bible truth, did not ‘originate’ with Adam; it ‘entered through Adam.’ True ‘original sin’ is a mystery, i.e. a hidden secret, and we only have the tiniest glimpses of what happened.

I still regard Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as the most important of these glimpses, even though modern evangelical scholarship tends to discount their testimony. Although we speak often of Satanic Rebellion I’m not sure that such is the Bible’s way of expression. I’m not sure the Rebellion ever happened!!! But most certainly the intention was there. The accusation brought against ‘Lucifer’ in Isaiah 14:13 is [b] For thou hast said [u]in thine heart[/u], I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: (Isa 14:13 KJV)[/b] The phrase ‘in thine heart’ is usually indicative of thought or intention rather than its execution. I am not sure that it ever got beyond the ‘I will’ stage; the judgement of God was immediate and Satan and his angels (who presumably had the same thoughts) were cast out. So we have a Satanic Ejection rather than a Satanic Rebellion. In this sense the Original Sin was the intention 'I will'; 'not thy will be mine be done'.

If we trace this to one earlier stage we can pick up some things from Ezekiel; again if we are prepared to accept this testimony. Ezekiel 28 records Satan’s self-consciousness, and again put the action on the inside [b] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (Eze 28:17 KJV)[/b] How could this have happened? That a creature in the presence of God should become aware of his own glory? In earthly language, he must have turned his eyes away, but this is beyond what we are told even in ‘glimpses’. This passage designates Satan as ‘the anointed cherub that covereth’. This word ‘anointed’ is only used here but most translations seem happy to go with ‘anointed’. The indication is that he is the chief of the cherubim. His precious-stone covering is identical to that of Israel’s High Priest but not so comprehensive. He was in Eden, the Garden of God. (I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative)

Could he have functioned in some way which was analogous to priesthood? Other fascinating details are that [b] By the host of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trade, you have defiled your holy places. So I brought a fire from your midst and it shall devour you, and I will give you for ashes on the earth in the sight of all who see you. (Eze 28:18 LITV)[/b] The CEV here refers to ‘your places of worship’ which is along the lines I am thinking. Israel’s High Priest was responsible for the Sanctuary (Holy Place); is this another analogous link?

There is another comment here that has often attracted my attention. His sentence is [b]…therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. (Eze 28:18b KJV)[/b] Satan’s judgement fire comes from within him! Is this God allowing a destructive process to have its way. In that sense, ‘not preventing’ the consequence of Satan’s arrogance? So that Satan effectively ‘self-destructs’?

But, in the end, this is not our story; it is the angels’ story and we only see the tiny intersection of theirs and ours. I think this is as close as we can get to the ‘Original Sin’ and we just do not have the data to say much.

The significance of Adam’s sin is that is brought this very sin into our human arena. [b] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Rom 5:12 KJV)[/b] Did Adam’s sin mirror Satan’s? I wouldn’t be surprised, seeing its Origin. As to the ‘creation of evil’… I don’t believe that Satan can create anything, but I do believe he is a vandal with the power to kill and destroy. It seems to be that every ‘sin’ is a distortion of a virtue as a result of the centre of gravity having been completely changed. Man, like his mentor, has become self-conscious and self-centred. He will share his destiny too, unless God rescues him.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/14 10:41Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Bro Ron,


We won't worry about modern scholarship. ;-) The passages you site are fair game. I actually did a study of this a few years ago and found that one of the Hebrew texts actually leave out three of the stones:

1. Gem # 7 Jacinth stone meaning "The Name of God" (Jehovah or Yahweh),
2. Gem #8 Agate- stone meaning "To restore to life, to return to God" (REPENTANCE)
3. Gem #9 amethyst stone meaning "To join closely" (UNITY).


As I recall he had them all and lost the 3.


Quote:
(I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative)



Thanks for sharing them. :-)

Quote:
Satan’s judgement fire comes from within him! Is this God allowing a destructive process to have its way.



Could it be that the fire cones about because of the sin (dross) that has appeared in him and he is now somehow their is 'fuel' for the fire of consumption?


Quote:
As to the ‘creation of evil’… I don’t believe that Satan can create anything, but I do believe he is a vandal with the power to kill and destroy. It seems to be that every ‘sin’ is a distortion of a virtue as a result of the centre of gravity having been completely changed.



Yes. Satan cannot create from nothing, He simply twists or 'distorts' what he has got. This, as I understand it, is the concept of "wickedness" it means to 'twist.' Like wicker furniture is wet wood that has been twisted (?). The enemy twists things that already exist. Hence, we see in that how he then can blame God for what sin and iniquity exists. But, God did not create the things as it is- He created it and Satan twisted it.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 11:34Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Robert

Quote:
my Quote:
(I have some thoughts about this, but mostly speculative)

RobertW quote: Thanks for sharing them


I didn't!

Quote:
The passages you site are fair game. I actually did a study of this a few years ago and found that one of the Hebrew texts actually leave out three of the stones:

You mean a text referring to the Levitical High Priest? That's interesting. I wonder why?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/14 13:38Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I didn't!

:-o I thought you expanded on it in the next paragraphs. That really makes me wonder though. Would you mind sharing them? ;-)


Quote:
You mean a text referring to the Levitical High Priest? That's interesting. I wonder why?



Ezekiel 28:13

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

This passage sites just 9 of the 12 stones. Yet, I read where one manuscript, perhaps the LXX has all 12 listed. I believe this version was translated from the Masoratic Text.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 13:50Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Svineklev,

Quote:
1.) The Red Heifer (though termed a chatta't in Numbers 19) is not really a sin offering. The ashes, mixed with water are used for purification of those ceremonially unclean from having come in contact with a dead person (stumbling over a grave, being in the house when someone dies, etc.) I don't think it can be applied in the way it was in this forum...that's not what Hebrews is saying.



for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those defiled, doth sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Christ (who through the age-during Spirit did offer himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13, 14 YLT) The writer to the Hebrews in this passage is making a comparison to the defilement of the body to the defilement of the conscience. "IF" the blood and ashes purged "much more" does the blood of Christ purge.

The Hebrew word for "sin" in Numbers 19:9 is Chatta'ah and it is translated as "sin" in the AV 182 times and 118 as "sin offering." Other translations are in agreement with this also.

If the Holy Spirit is not present in a persons life there is none to appropriate the sacrificial offering of Christ, just as if there was no living water. If the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Grace) is grieved away there is no way sins can be forgiven. The Spirit of Grace indeed can and is resisted and if the Spirit of Grace is resistable then the grace that comes with Him is resisted also. This is the key to understanding why the "I" is false.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/12/14 18:11Profile





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