Jesus On Faith And Works

[Knight who says Ne]

Let me see if I understand Calvinism.

God elects those who are saved. If a child isn't elected, the child is condemned to eternal hell.

God elects those who are saved. If an elect is also a rapist and a murderer, they are saved.

God elects those who are saved. if the victum of the previous isn't an elect, they are condemed.

God elects those who are saved. God must therefore also elects those who are condemend, since they were elceted for salvation.

God elects those who are saved. What was the need for a Savior?

[Knight who says Ne]

When you have a discussion of faith vs works with LDS realize there is no true faith vs works. We LDS believe all mankind (with few exceptions) will be resurrected and receive a degree of glory (mansion in the Father's house).

Mathew 22:13-15 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

This passage shows that FEW will be chosen and MANY will go to outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Mathew 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

This passage also shows that MANY go to destruction and FEW unto life.

Before you critize what we believe, it's helpful to understand what we believe. Few will be resurrected to a celestial glory with the Father. Many will be resurrected to one of the lessor two kingdoms.

[Rock]

Before you critize what we believe, it's helpful to understand what we believe. Few will be resurrected to a celestial glory with the Father.

Life?

Many will be resurrected to one of the lessor two kingdoms.

Destruction?

[Rock]

Theodophilus,

I'm in the first epistle of John at a women's Bible Study. During our latest meeting, this disucssion on the meaning of "all men" came to my mind.

1 John Chapter 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Would a Calvinist tend to interpret 'the whole world' as certain people all over the world?

[Knight who says Ne]

Before you critize what we believe, it's helpful to understand what we believe. Few will be resurrected to a celestial glory with the Father.

Life?

Many will be resurrected to one of the lessor two kingdoms.

Destruction?

Life as in Eternal LIfe...YES!

Destruction if defined as a separation from the Father....YES.

[rhinomelon]

Hey Knight, great screen name. So when are you changing to "The Knight who says 'Ekkee Ekkee Ekkee P'tang Neeeeeeeeeewum'"?

God elects those who are saved. What was the need for a Savior?

While I will not speak for Theophilus as far as Calvinism goes, I will hazard a guess. A savior is needed because that is how God chose to enact and finalize salvation for the elect. Justice still had to be served, otherwise God is abrogating His own character.

But I am always open for correction. Take care, everyone

[Theophilus]

God elects those who are saved. if the victum of the previous isn't an elect, they are condemed.

The condemned aren't condemned due to "not being elected for salvation".

They are condemned for the sins they committed.

God elects those who are saved. God must therefore also elects those who are condemend,

No, that doesn't follow at all.

The condemned are already under condemnation for their sins.

God's election of the saved is an active role, while the condemnation of the wicked is simply a passive by-product of their not being elected.

It wasn't God's action (ie. in election) that condemned them.

It was their sins that condemned them.

God elects those who are saved. What was the need for a Savior?

The Saviour is the means by which God saves the elect.

God is just, and so He can't (won't) simply ignore the sins of the elect. Their sins must be punished, and they were punished in the atoning death of the Saviour.

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

1 John Chapter 2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Would a Calvinist tend to interpret 'the whole world' as certain people all over the world?

Let me have Calvin himself answer this, from Calvin's Commentaries:

2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

One's understanding of the atonement of Christ, and what it does, greatly affects one's interpretation of passages such as these. If one believes that Christ's atoning blood is simply "available" to all, and believers "accept" it later on when they have faith, as if was some "treasury" to be withdrawn from, then one is going to have a different view than the Reformed view that God the Father chose a particular group of people for Himself, and gave that elect people to the Son (John 6:35-47), and the Holy Spirit regenerated that elect people, and Christ shed His blood for that elect people. This is the most difficult of the doctrines of election for many to accept, which is why there exist a lot of "4-point Calvinists" (who reject Limited Atonement, the "L" in TULIP).

The question of "What did the atonement actually accomplish?" is answered very well in John Owen's, Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Btw, for those interested, John MacArthur of "Grace to You" ministries will be starting a sermon series on the doctrine of election starting on Monday. Grace to You is found on many Christian radio stations, as well as gty.com, and his podcasts are available also at oneplace.com. I'm blessed to have his radio shown on during my commute to work each morning...

Theophilus

[Rock]

I appreciate that thorough response, Theo.

Oneplace is one of my Favorites. I will try to check out the Grace to You series next week. It sounds interesting.

When I'm in the car, I listen to KKLA. Grace to You airs at 6:30AM and 7:30PM, if anybody is listening in the LA area.

[revelation]

Knight:

Before you critize what we believe, it's helpful to understand what we believe. Few will be resurrected to a celestial glory with the Father.

Rock:

Life?

[consiglieri]

Criticism is more than simply discovering some "cool words" like "eisegesis" to throw at other people to try to mud-sling their beliefs.

I think the semi-unbiased reader can tell that my belief is based on the context, and yours is not. It is in fact you who are engaging in "eisegesis". At least, as of yet you have been unable to show from the context of the passage that "all men" has to mean "all individuals".

Obviously, I disagree.

And the passage isn't even about universal salvation. It's about praying for those who are against us (just as I pray for you). Only one of us is even engaging the context of passage, and it isn't you.

Of course it means "all men".

And I have never denied that (despite your shallow attempts to try to show the contrary).

But you are being incredibly disingenuous here in interpreting "all men" as "all individuals" (even though it doesn't say that, and even though the context doesn't support that), and implying that your interpretation ("all individuals") is the only valid interpretation.

It has absolutely nothing do with what "I want".

It has everything to do with what God intended, and what Paul intended for it to mean when it was written.

Just as you admitting that it might not mean "all individuals" would contradict your interpretation of the Bible. You are hardly in any better position than I am, and where I stand, I believe you are in the far worse position.

It seems that it is incredibly self-serving on your part to refer to this as "clear cut scripture", simply because you want to make this the anchor for your pet doctrine (in contradiction to other passages that are actually written about the issue, rather than this one which simply mentions it in passing).

Or I could accept all of inerrant Scripture, which teaches a unified, cohesive, and God-glorifying gospel, and simply reject your unsubstantiated interpretation.

Which is precisely what I do.

Theophilus

Dear Theo,

1 Timothy seems to be pretty consistent in its usage of "all."

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for ALL men." (2:1) Nobody should be excluded from this. I.e., "all" means "all."

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (2:4) Nobody should be excluded from this, either. I.e., "all" means "all."

"Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for ALL," (2:5b-2:6a). Nobody should be excluded from this, as well. I.e., "all" means "all."

"Godliness is profitable unto ALL things." (4:7) Nothing should be excluded from this. I.e., "all " means "all." If "all" means something less than "all," could you tell me what things godliness is not profitable to?

"For the love of money is the root of ALL evil." (6:10a) Nothing should be excluded from this. I.e., "all" means "all."

"I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth ALL things." (6:13a). Nothing should be excluded from this. I.e., "all" means "all." (Please resist the temptation to limit the power of God in your interpretation of this verse.)

"The living God, who giveth us richly ALL things to enjoy." (6:17b). Nothing should be excluded from this list. I.e., "all" means "all."

So, having considered these examples of places in 1 Timothy where the word "all" is used, Theo, I think you are swimming upstream to argue that "all" means something less than "all."

________________________

Not only that, we can also see that 1 Timothy actually knows how to use language meaning "less than all" when that is what is intended.

"Holding faith, and a good conscience; which SOME having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck." (1:19)

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times SOME shall depart from the faith." (4:1a)

(Ironically, here you would probably really want to interpret "some" as "some" in order to refute the LDS doctrine of a total apostasy. But is it consistent for you to interpret "some" as "some" here in 1 Timothy, if you are unwilling to interpret "all" as "all" elsewhere? Tell you what--If I let you interpet "all" as "some" in 1 Timothy 2:4, will you let me interpret "some" as "all" in 1 Timothy 4:1?)

The point of mentioning these "some" scriptures is to show that the author of 1 Timothy is quite capable of differentiating between "some" and "all" when he means to. He does not say "some" in the passage under dispute.

He does not say that God "will have SOME men to be saved," nor does he say that Jesus "gave himself a ransom for SOME."

Rather, he says quite clearly that God "will have ALL men to be saved," and again that Jesus "gave himself a ransom for ALL." (2:4,6)

Now, Theo, what are we to make of that?

_______________________

Additionally, 1 Timothy is full of real posers for Calvinists, because it never says that people are saved by God's predetermined will. Instead, 1 Timothy consistently gives different reasons for salvation and the bestowal of God's mercy.

"Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (1:16) That's different than Calvinism.

Paul urges Timothy to "war a good warfare; holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1:18b-20) This passage poses multiple problems to Calvinism, including the idea that those who once believed and were saved can lose that status through their personal choices.

And how does 1 Timothy say that women are saved? "She shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (2:15) It would appear that something substantially different than Calvinism is being taught here.

"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (4:16) Hmm, let's see. Calvinism here? Calvinism here? Nope. No Calvinism here.

__________________

Okay, there's my review of 1 Timothy. Not only does it consistently teach that "all" means "all," it also shows that the author can use the word "some" when he means to; and on top of that, passage after passage refutes the fundamental doctrine of Calvinism.

Is there any chance that this exegesis of a letter you consider to be the infallible word of God has made you reconsider your beliefs? Remember you mentioned earlier that you consider yourself to be fallible, so it is possible, after all, that you have made a mistake somewhere along the way.

All the Best! (And by saying "all," I mean "all," not "some")

--Consiglieri

[revelation]

Theophilus-

I agree so far with consiglieri and I am protestant. The passage says that God wills that ALL be saved and not some.

In the passages on being predestined, are you assuming that God predestined some specific people to eternal life and some to eternal death in the sense that they have no choice in the matter?

What about looking at predestination in the sense that God predestines all mankind to have the opportunity to be saved by the gospel message if they hold onto the faith given them in that message?

If God wills that all be saved, but all aren't saved, then the responsibilty for that discrepancy lies in man and not God. God gives man the freedom to reject him. Of course, they are not free to reject him until they first hear the gospel.

Or, let me throw out another thought...God may know before we are born, who will keep the faith and who won't based on his foreknowledge of the fact that men have freedom always to reject God after they come to a knowledge of the truth. But it is men's freedom to reject God that determines their destiny. God does not predestine them to damnation as if it were his (God's) choosing.

[consiglieri]

Theophilus-

I agree so far with consiglieri and I am protestant. The passage says that God wills that ALL be saved and not some.

In the passages on being predestined, are you assuming that God predestined some specific people to eternal life and some to eternal death in the sense that they have no choice in the matter?

What about looking at predestination in the sense that God predestines all mankind to have the opportunity to be saved by the gospel message if they hold onto the faith given them in that message?

If God wills that all be saved, but all aren't saved, then the responsibilty for that discrepancy lies in man and not God. God gives man the freedom to reject him. Of course, they are not free to reject him until they first hear the gospel.

Or, let me throw out another thought...God may know before we are born, who will keep the faith and who won't based on his foreknowledge of the fact that men have freedom always to reject God after they come to a knowledge of the truth. But it is men's freedom to reject God that determines their destiny. God does not predestine them to damnation as if it were his (God's) choosing.

Dear revelation,

If that is protestantism, then call me a protestant!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Theophilus]

I agree so far with consiglieri and I am protestant.

I am well aware that many Protestants reject the Biblical doctrine of limited atonement.

That is unfortunate.

The passage says that God wills that ALL be saved and not some.

I never claimed it said, "some".

And I must point out that it never talks about "individuals", which is what those who hold your position constantly assume.

In the passages on being predestined, are you assuming that God predestined some specific people to eternal life and some to eternal death in the sense that they have no choice in the matter?

First of all, I am not "assuming" anything.

The Bible teaches predestination.

Second, God's predestination doesn't preclude man's "choice". Those who are saved are not "forced" into salvation, nor are those who are damned "forced" unto damnation. Each group willingly chose their destiny, contigent on God's will.

If you are a Protestant, Revelation, have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"?

(Actually, with all due respect, I would not call you a "Protestant", but a "non-Catholic", since your beliefs don't seem to be based on Reformation principles.)

If you would like to see your concerns and criticisms addressed Biblically, I would simply point you to monergism.com, which contains many useful resources (both text and MP3) showing the Biblical nature of this doctrine. The hallmark work, of course, would be John Owen's "Death of Death in the Death of Christ", which is readily avaible in free PDF format on the internet.

What about looking at predestination in the sense that God predestines all mankind to have the opportunity to be saved by the gospel message if they hold onto the faith given them in that message?

Why would I consider such an unBiblical idea, Revelation?

Not only does it deny salvation by grace (since you now impose a "condition" on salvation), but it also contradicts the Biblical teaching that faith itself is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.)

If God wills that all be saved, but all aren't saved, then the responsibilty for that discrepancy lies in man and not God.

So you believe that God's will can be thwarted by his puny creation, man?

That would mean that God is not sovereign, that man is sovereign over his own life.

I reject such an unBiblical idea.

God gives man the freedom to reject him. Of course, they are not free to reject him until they first hear the gospel.

I don't find that concept to be Biblical, either.

Or, let me throw out another thought...God may know before we are born, who will keep the faith and who won't based on his foreknowledge of the fact that men have freedom always to reject God after they come to a knowledge of the truth.

I too will "throw out" that thought, finding it completely unBiblical.

But it is men's freedom to reject God that determines their destiny. God does not predestine them to damnation as if it were his (God's) choosing.

Might I suggest you actually learn a particular teaching before presuming to criticize it?

Calvinism and predestination don't teach that "God predestines them to damnation". There is no need to do so, since they condemn themselves because of their sins. Election is only to eternal life.

Theophilus

[why me]

I have been reading books by protestants who have converted to catholicism. One main issue why they converted to catholicism is the protestant idea of grace and not works for being saved. One can read about Scott Hahn who was a protestant pastor and anticatholic in his early life and why he converted to the catholic faithwith his wife Kimberly. Also, in a book that I am now reading, converts to the catholic church from various protestant sects relate their stories about why they have converted. There are also former EV's in the book who were pastors, relating their stories of conversion to catholicism. The Eucharist is one example that has converted some former protestants.

As they have made clear, works is an important aspect of being a christian and they back it up with scriptures. Also, they discovered from their scripture reading, that god's word just doesn't depend on the scriptures but rather on a church organization that has god's representatives to act in his name. And who guide and direct in his name. Of course, the catholic church has such an organization with the pope sitting in Peter's chair.

Of course, this whole idea of grace certainly takes the burden of living and doing a christian life off one's shoulder. But I cannot agree with it. Good works and grace go hand in hand. We are blessed through grace but we also need to do good works in our lives. But we all sin...and it is through the grace of god that we are forgiven but we need to concentrate on works also.

[Theophilus]

I have been reading books by protestants who have converted to catholicism.

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Catholicism to Protestantism.

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Mormonism to Protestantism.

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Protestantism to Mormonism.

No singular "direction" of conversion is inherently authoritative.

As they have made clear, works is an important aspect of being a christian and they back it up with scriptures.

What most non-Protestants don't seem to understand is that we "saved by grace alone" Protestants LIKEWISE BELIEVE AND ASSERT that "works is an important aspect of being a [C]hristian". We simply believe that it comes after salvation/regeneration, as "fruits" of our salvation, rather than as some sort of "co-requirement" to be saved.

Of course, this whole idea of grace certainly takes the burden of living and doing a christian life off one's shoulder. But I cannot agree with it.

Mat 11:29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

Mat 11:30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

I hope from your comment that you aren't trying to imply that those who believe in grace-alone salvation (Biblical) "don't do works", or believe they "don't have to do works", for such would be misrpresentations.

Good works and grace go hand in hand.

Good works follow from God's grace, as the "fruits" of our salvation.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

And I must point out that it never talks about "individuals", which is what those who hold your position constantly assume.

No. We read it as saying "all men" collectively. We've explained this to you a few times now.

From dictionary.com

all

â??adjective

1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.

2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.

3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.

4. every: all kinds; all sorts.

5. any; any whatever: beyond all doubt.

6. nothing but; only: The coat is all wool.

7. dominated by or as if by the conspicuous possession or use of a particular feature: The colt was all legs. They were all ears, listening attentively to everything she said.

8. Chiefly Pennsylvania German. all gone; consumed; finished: The pie is all.

â??pronoun 9. the whole quantity or amount: He ate all of the peanuts. All are gone.

10. the whole number; every one: all of us.

11. everything: Is that all you want to say? All is lost.

â??noun 12. one's whole interest, energy, or property: to give one's all; to lose one's all.

13. (often initial capital letter) the entire universe.

â??adverb 14. wholly; entirely; completely: all alone.

15. only; exclusively: He spent his income all on pleasure.

16. each; apiece: The score was one all.

17. Archaic. even; just.

â??Idioms18. above all, before everything else; chiefly: Above all, the little girl wanted a piano.

19. after all, in spite of the circumstances; notwithstanding: He came in time after all.

20. all in all, a. everything considered; in general: All in all, her health is greatly improved.

b. altogether: There were twelve absentees all in all.

c. everything; everything regarded as important: Painting became his all in all.

21. all in hand, Printing, Journalism. (of the copy for typesetting a particular article, book, issue, etc.) in the possession of the compositor.

22. and all, together with every other associated or connected attribute, object, or circumstance: What with the snow and all, we may be a little late.

23. at all, a. in the slightest degree: I wasn't surprised at all.

b. for any reason: Why bother at all?

c. in any way: no offense at all.

24. for all (that), in spite of; notwithstanding: For all that, it was a good year.

25. in all, all included; all together: a hundred guests in all.

26. once and for all, for the last time; finally: The case was settled once and for all when the appeal was denied.

27. all at once. once (def. 14).

28. all but, almost; very nearly: These batteries are all but dead.

29. all in, Northern and Western U.S.. very tired; exhausted: We were all in at the end of the day.

30. all in the wind, Nautical. too close to the wind.

31. all out, with all available means or effort: We went all out to win the war.

32. all over, a. finished; done; ended.

b. everywhere; in every part.

c. in every respect; typically.

33. all standing, Nautical. a. in such a way and so suddenly that sails or engines are still set to propel a vessel forward: The ship ran aground all standing.

b. fully clothed: The crew turned in all standing.

c. fully equipped, as a vessel.

34. all that, remarkably; entirely; decidedly (used in negative constructions): It's not all that different from your other house.

35. all the better, more advantageous; so much the better: If the sun shines it will be all the better for our trip.

36. all there, Informal. mentally competent; not insane or feeble-minded: Some of his farfetched ideas made us suspect that he wasn't all there.

37. all the same. same (def. 9).

38. all told. told (def. 2).

39. all up, a. Printing, Journalism. (of copy) completely set in type.

b. Informal. with no vestige of hope remaining: It's all up with George â??they've caught him.

men

n. plural of man

man

â??noun

1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.

2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.

3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

4. a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.

5. a husband.

6. a male lover or sweetheart.

7. a male follower or subordinate: the king's men. He's the boss's number one man.

8. a male employee or representative, esp. of a company or agency: a Secret Service man; a man from the phone company.

9. a male having qualities considered typical of men or appropriately masculine: Be a man. The army will make a man of you.

10. a male servant.

11. a valet.

12. enlisted man.

13. an enthusiast or devotee: I like jazz, but I'm essentially a classics man.

14. Slang. male friend; ally: You're my main man.

15. a term of familiar address to a man; fellow: Now, now, my good man, please calm down.

16. Slang. a term of familiar address to a man or a woman: Hey, man, take it easy.

17. one of the pieces used in playing certain games, as chess or checkers.

18. History/Historical. a liegeman; vassal.

19. Obsolete. manly character or courage.

20. the man, Slang. a. a person or group asserting authority or power over another, esp. in a manner experienced as being oppressive, demeaning, or threatening, as an employer, the police, or a dominating racial group.

b. a person or group upon whom one is dependent, as the drug supplier for an addict.

The most straightforward reading seems to be Paul saying "the whole of mankind."

[why me]

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Catholicism to Protestantism.

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Mormonism to Protestantism.

And there are testimonies of those who have converted from Protestantism to Mormonism.

No singular "direction" of conversion is inherently authoritative.

theophilus

This is true. However, all of these people from those books I mentioned before have been to seminary, were training to become pastors etc. In the books, they made it quite plain why they joined the catholic faith and the difference between the protestant and the catholic that made them convert. Very convincing stories and bible based. You can order Scott Hahne's book 'Rome, Sweet Home' online. Quite a story and a testimony for catholicism. The catholic church also claims truth, a direct line from Peter. However, for protestants such a claim is difficult to make. As one individual put it, protest is in the protestants' religious blood, hence its liberalism in scripture to suit modern times.

I prefer truth and tradition that comes from god.

[Theophilus]

This is true. However, all of these people from those books I mentioned before have been to seminary, were training to become pastors etc. In the books, they made it quite plain why they joined the catholic faith and the difference between the protestant and the catholic that made them convert. Very convincing stories and bible based. You can order Scott Hahne's book 'Rome, Sweet Home' online.

I'm well aware of Hahn's conversion story, and his apologetics.

I'm not impressed.

Quite a story and a testimony for catholicism. The catholic church also claims truth, a direct line from Peter.

Peter was never in charge of the church.

Christ has always been.

I prefer truth and tradition that comes from god.

As do I.

Which is why I can never be Roman Catholic, or Mormon.

Theophilus

[cougarfan]

Theophilus: I certainly do believe that one who believes in Christ will do His commandments. What you seem to keep missing is that these "works", these "doings", don't contribute to our salvation, since our salvation is all of grace.

I wholeheartedly agree that without Grace, no man can be saved. Clearly Grace (by definition) is a gift and not earned. However, I like the LDS position that man's effort effects what happens after salvation, whereas it appears your position is man's efforts have no effect on what happens after salvation.

Again, we disagree about man's agency... I believe that God has gifted man his agency, while you appear to dismiss agency entirely.

[why me]

I'm well aware of Hahn's conversion story, and his apologetics.

I'm not impressed.

Peter was never in charge of the church.

Christ has always been.

As do I.

Which is why I can never be Roman Catholic, or Mormon.

Theophilus

Many protestants have been impressed with Hahn's conversion story. He has made quite an impact. Likewise the many other catholic converts from protestantism. In the end, tradition wins, especially if this tradition is from god. See Mathew 13: 18-19. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, to loose and bind on earth and heaven. This can also been seen in the pope or the modern day prophet of the lds church. Take a pick.

Hopefully more protestants will come to the lds faith or the catholic faith. Tradition wins over protest when one protests god, in order to be in the world and gain the world's favor. I see this in protestantism as do many converts from protestantism. However, I have catholic, Mormon roots.

[cougarfan]

So we learn two things:

1) No one will be justified by the Law;

2) The purpose of the Law was to teach us of sin.

I don't buy it. If the Lord tells me to obey the commandments, I believe the He expects me to obey. I take Him at his word.

[revelation]

Theophilus

I never claimed it said, "some".

And I must point out that it never talks about "individuals", which is what those who hold your position constantly assume.

Could you then explain? I am open to listening and learning just incase you are right on this topic.

First of all, I am not "assuming" anything

Actually, I am very sorry if you thought I said you "were" assuming somthing. I actually was asking if you were assuming a meaning of what the passage on predestination means. And I wasn't intending to imply anything by it except to understand what the predestination passage means to you. I am well aware of the passage on predestination.

If you are a Protestant, Revelation, have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"?

Can no one be a protestant without reading the "bondage of the will" ? Can you give me an overview on it?

If you would like to see your concerns and criticisms addressed Biblically, I would simply point you to monergism.com, which contains many useful resources (both text and MP3) showing the Biblical nature of this doctrine. The hallmark work, of course, would be John Owen's "Death of Death in the Death of Christ", which is readily avaible in free PDF format on the internet.

I would rather you expounded it for me, I learn more in discussions in which I can express my concerns on a particular point than I do when reading somthing that doesn't always address my concerns.

And also, just to let you know, I am not critisizing it, but just discussing back and forth with you to see if you might be right. I am always ready to drop somthing that I believe in if it is false, in exchange for the truth!

In the truth is where I want to be!

QUOTE

What about looking at predestination in the sense that God predestines all mankind to have the opportunity to be saved by the gospel message if they hold onto the faith given them in that message?

Why would I consider such an unBiblical idea, Revelation?

Not only does it deny salvation by grace (since you now impose a "condition" on salvation), but it also contradicts the Biblical teaching that faith itself is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.)

How does it deny Salvation by Grace? The gospel is the pure grace of God. It creates faith in our hearts as God's gift to us, just as you said. Once faith is there, we must hold on to it by the power of his Spirit:

Hebrews 4:14 "Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess."

1 Timothy 1:18-20 "18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."

I also see no condition here at all. Grace first, creates the gift of faith, a person is now saved, then hold's on to the faith. Holding on to the faith comes after we are saved. Therefore it is not a condition.

So you believe that God's will can be thwarted by his puny creation, man?

That would mean that God is not sovereign, that man is sovereign over his own life.

I reject such an unBiblical idea.

You say it is unbiblical and you could very well be right about that, but you havn't shown me how your view is biblical.

God's Will is that ALL men be saved. God's will is also that men have the freedom to reject him if they choose. God does not force us into his family. So Man's rejection of God is not thwarting his purposes. God's purpose is to give them the freedom to reject him.

QUOTE

God gives man the freedom to reject him. Of course, they are not free to reject him until they first hear the gospel.

I don't find that concept to be Biblical, either.

Fair enough, now show me how you concude that using the scripture, I am listening.

I find my view to be very biblical, if I am wrong, I welcome your thoughts and ideas together with scripture to help me see that. Like I said, I gladly give up my false beliefs in exchange for the truth.

Here is how I conclude that God gives man the freedom to reject him:

Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"

From John12: "37Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him" and then later... "39For this reason they could not believe"

In Luke, the people were not willing. In John, they were not willing to believe, therefore they could not believe.

God gives men the freedom to choose not to believe. That said, men cannot choose to believe in God until he first tries to creat faith in their hearts because before faith comes, men cannot choose God because of depravity.

QUOTE

Or, let me throw out another thought...God may know before we are born, who will keep the faith and who won't based on his foreknowledge of the fact that men have freedom always to reject God after they come to a knowledge of the truth.

I too will "throw out" that thought, finding it completely unBiblical

I have shown scripture to back up what I said, could you do the same also?

QUOTE

But it is men's freedom to reject God that determines their destiny. God does not predestine them to damnation as if it were his (God's) choosing.

Might I suggest you actually learn a particular teaching before presuming to criticize it?

Calvinism and predestination don't teach that "God predestines them to damnation". There is no need to do so, since they condemn themselves because of their sins. Election is only to eternal life.

Teach me. I am very willing to learn.

[Theophilus]

Many protestants have been impressed with Hahn's conversion story. He has made quite an impact.

That is unfortunate for them.

Likewise the many other catholic converts from protestantism. In the end, tradition wins, especially if this tradition is from god.

Unfortunately, the "tradition" you are speaking of is not from God.

See Mathew 13: 18-19.

I think you mean Matt. 16.

I am well aware of that passage as well, just as I am well-aware of how Catholics and LDS misuse it. (Pay close attention to the verb tenses in the passage, for instance.)

Also, the same authority given to Peter is likewise given to the rest of the Apostles in Matt. 18:18, and to the rest of the church (eg. 2 Cor. 2:10, etc.)

Hopefully more protestants will come to the lds faith or the catholic faith. Tradition wins over protest when one protests god,

The Roman Catholic church is not "god".

The LDS church is not "god".

To claim that Protestants protest "god", is insulting, and blatantly false.

Theophilus

[Catholic Guy]

Many protestants have been impressed with Hahn's conversion story. He has made quite an impact. Likewise the many other catholic converts from protestantism. In the end, tradition wins, especially if this tradition is from god. See Mathew 13: 18-19. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, to loose and bind on earth and heaven. This can also been seen in the pope or the modern day prophet of the lds church. Take a pick.

why me,

I will add to your scriptural proof with these 50:

Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, for example, 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Jb 12:14; Rv 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gn 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kgs 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15, 20-21).

Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.

Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)

Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context [see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8]

Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).

Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).

Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).

Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).

Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).

Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5).

Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).

Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" - an example of "binding and loosing."

Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21).

Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

Could the bible be any more clear?