ttruscott
Well-known member
I accept these things BUT I abhor Calvinism because of their doctrine about 1. how people become singers, 2, election to heaven and damnation. <shrug>
ECT The Calvinist 5 Solas
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
I accept these things BUT I abhor Calvinism because of their doctrine about 1. how people become singers, 2, election to heaven and damnation. <shrug>
genuineoriginal
New member
Your logic is like saying, "The Bible mentions Satan, therefore the Bible is Satanic".
I gave my answer to your question, but you are making every effort to refuse to read it.
Let's recap how we got to this point in the discussion.
My point is that SOLA SCRIPTURA cannot be a Biblical doctrine since the Bible never teaches SOLA SCRIPTURA.
You asked about other sources besides the Bible.
I replied about the creation of the Bible by the early Christians that lived during the time after Christ and before the apostasy of the Christians in Rome created the Roman Catholic church.
My intent was to show that the Christians that lived in the first, second, and third centuries knew enough of the truth to gather together the documents that make up our Bible.
Now you ask for another source that can reveal Divine truths that are not found in the Bible.
Your Bible probably does not contain the Apocrypha, even though it was a part of the original King James Version of the Bible.
Your Bible probably does not contain the book of Enoch, even though it is referenced in the book of Jude.
Your Bible probably does not contain the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, even though they lived during the time that the Bible was being assembled.
Your doctrines probably rely upon the writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, especially the twisting of scripture done by Saint Augustine of Hippo, which do not contain the truth.
Oh yes it is! I've been debating Calvinists for decades and I have the quotes to prove it.
Of course, they do not put it in those terms but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
That's my line.
ThIS IS NOT CALVINIST DOCTRINE!!!
If you think it is, you're wrong.
I have yet to find one single Calvinists, of any stripe, who is willing to say that Calvin was wrong when he said this...
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
I have an entire thread devoted to trying to see if there are any Calvinists who are willing to disavow several severely blasphemous comments by Calvin in the books he wrote that effectively define what came to be called Calvinism. In fact, Calvinism exists precisely because of those books.
This is an equivocation at best. You're making a distinction without a difference. I mean, of course God has chosen to save some but not all. That is not in question. The question is whether it has to do with God choosing specific individuals before they ever existed and if so why where those individuals selected and not others. Calvinists do not believe that there is any "why" to it (see quotes from Calvin above). In other words, if you believed what the words of your statement would seem to mean then there would be no difference between Calvinism and Arminianism or nearly any other "ism".
Not if what that sinner deserves has been willfully taken by Another!
The entire gospel is predicated upon justice! If justice were not an issue or if justice was defined by whatever God happens to do, then there would be no need for Christ to die.
And, make no mistake, Calvinists do not believe that Christ's death was necessary. At least not in the normal sense of the word "necessary". His death was just as much an arbitrary determination as was every other event (no matter how vile or disgusting) that has or will ever happen that God, planned, predestined, ordained, and commanded to occur.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)
...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)
The bible is replete with explanations of who God is merciful to, it is only Calvinists that think it's a big mystery and they only think that because they think that God predestined everything that happens. It is nothing at all but one doctrine built upon another doctrine which is built upon yet another doctrine, none of which are biblical or even rational. It's the absolute furthest thing there is from "sola scriptura"!
So you have no concept of justice then! Not surprising! And that's not because you're stupid but because you're a Calvinist.
If someone is a criminal then not punishing him is as unjust as punishing the innocent.
Ezekiel 13:19 And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live,...
Pretty much crushes total depravity to dust as well as original sin.
Not to mention that it is one of perhaps hundreds of places where God tells us very clearly who will and who will not be shown mercy. An explanation that you just got through tell me that I have no right to even ask about. Again, this sort of double mindedness is entirely typical for Calvinists. It seems their minds are so compartmentalized that they can't detect when they've contradicted themselves inside of even two or three sentences.
What does this idiotic question even mean? In what universe is it even remotely connected to anything I've said?
God became a man so that He could die the death we deserve so that He would be able to show mercy to those who would believe while still meeting the demands of justice.
Clete
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Can a child of, say, 6 years old savingly believe? If so, what is it that causes that child to believe?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I would tend to disagree with that assertion :
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Isaiah 8:20
nikolai_42
Well-known member
It boils down to belief. Why and how does someone believe? What is implied in that belief?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
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.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
John 3:14-21
Where does that love of darkness come from? Did those evil deeds spring up from a pure source? Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus how that a man must be born again to see the Kingdom :
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:3-6
And what does John say when he introduces both Jesus?
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:10-13
Even James - who is sometimes misused to buttress a works-based salvation - says this :
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
James 1:18
We are made children of God by God's own will. Not by our own. There's a reason the analogy of birth is being used. We didn't choose to be born. But we are born into a specific family and under a specific set of circumstances and with a certain makeup. It is only of the will of God that a man can be born again. Not according to our will. Not because we want it, but because He draws us to Christ.
genuineoriginal
New member
Can you show the verses that identify scripture as the 24 books in the Tanakh, the 73 books in the Catholic Bible, the 66 books that remain in most Protestant Bibles, the 80 books in some Protestant Bibles, or the 81 books in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
And there were different well-respected Protestants who differed on what belonged in the canon of scripture. That's not the same as rejecting sola scriptura. Rather, that's debating the scope. The apocrypha has several problems (doctrinal and historical, for example). Though Enoch was quoted, it's a small fragment of a much larger work that has questions about verifiability. And its emphasis on angels seems at odds with the rest of scripture. Then there are other works that may not have issues but add nothing (thinking largely of epistles which aren't in the bible but were written shortly after the apostles passed off the scene).
The upshot is that one has to set the dividing line somewhere. The Law is obvious and the prophets all testified to Christ.
Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
I Peter 1:10-12
Those that don't agree with what we have can safely be rejected. Those that do...why do we need repetition?
ApologeticJedi
New member
There are several points where these "solas" embellish upon scripture.
(1) sola gratia
While it is true that it can be said that we are saved solely by God grace and that this is a commonly held belief by Arminians, Calvinists, Catholics, and Open Theists, it is also true that Calvinists add a particular notion to this belief that the others don't.
With regard to the Nehushtan, the bronze serpent staff that God insisted people look to in order to be saved from the fiery serpent bites, God creates a metaphor very similar to how He acts throughout time. He established rules by which people are saved, even in cases where God is provided unilateral and unmerited healing.
[Numbers 21]
[6] And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
[7] Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
[8] And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
[9] And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
This would be considered a good example of sola gratia according to everyone else, but oddly not to the Calvinists, because the people in this case, had to look in order to receive the healing. From one reference point, it could clearly be said that this was synergistic. I suppose God could have healed without the staff, or just removed the fiery snakes. However, God chose this as His way of showing the Israelites grace for their sin of complaining against God.,
(2) sola fide
While it's true that God gives us faith by giving us the gospel, the real foundation of the controversy here comes from this passage:
[Ephesians 2]
[8] or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
[9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
The popular Calvinist notion here is that the "gift" is the faith here. I believe the more likely expectation is that it is the previous mentioned salvation (from verses 5-7) that is the gift, and that the faith comes from man. If the Greek preposition had matched the feminine words used for either grace or faith we would be forced to assume it meant the faith was the gift. In fact, a netuer word COULD still be referring to faith, it is just less certain.
Indeed, like grace, it can be said that the gospel gives us faith, by giving us something to have faith in, in the same way Proverbs 14:26 talks about having reverence "gives us" confidence in God, but obviously Calvinists are referring to a more metaphysical action that God does to put faith within a man like some controlling spell.
In scriptures, typically faith is tied to the man. It is asked that He should have faith, and exhibit faith to be saved. The notion that the reprobate should be seeking a faith gift is arguably absent from scriptures.
[Romans 10]
[8] But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
[9] because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[10] For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
[11] For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.
Faith here, comes from the reprobate after he hears and believes, which requires the gospel to be sent to convince him.
(3) sola christos & sola deo gloria
I'd prefer to stay out of too much commentary on these. They suffer firstly from the problems of discussing human creeds and the high self-importance we tend to give to human conceptions over just a biblical conversation itself (ironically sola scriptura wasn't mentioned but typically is in a listing of "solas" like this) and secondly because I may not be as familiar with similar equivocations (if indeed any are any) than I am with what happens on the first two.
I just heed caution on the last one. Like "sola gratia" there is a perspective question here. We give God glory solely in one viewpoint because He deserves it, however the Bible tempers this notion that God does not "lord it over" his followers, but rather shares things with them, and desires to have a relationship with them.
[Matthew 20]
[25] But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
[26] it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
[27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
[28] even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
While maybe one could argue Jesus when to the cross for his own benefit of making himself grand by being the savior, the larger and more often mentioned frame of reference is that Jesus did this for the benefit of mankind, to be able to share in the glory.
[Ephesians 2]
[4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
[5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
So in this, God shares glory with us that we can perhaps say that only God has rightly earned.
(1) sola gratia
While it is true that it can be said that we are saved solely by God grace and that this is a commonly held belief by Arminians, Calvinists, Catholics, and Open Theists, it is also true that Calvinists add a particular notion to this belief that the others don't.
With regard to the Nehushtan, the bronze serpent staff that God insisted people look to in order to be saved from the fiery serpent bites, God creates a metaphor very similar to how He acts throughout time. He established rules by which people are saved, even in cases where God is provided unilateral and unmerited healing.
[Numbers 21]
[6] And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
[7] Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
[8] And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
[9] And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
This would be considered a good example of sola gratia according to everyone else, but oddly not to the Calvinists, because the people in this case, had to look in order to receive the healing. From one reference point, it could clearly be said that this was synergistic. I suppose God could have healed without the staff, or just removed the fiery snakes. However, God chose this as His way of showing the Israelites grace for their sin of complaining against God.,
(2) sola fide
While it's true that God gives us faith by giving us the gospel, the real foundation of the controversy here comes from this passage:
[Ephesians 2]
[8] or by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
[9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
The popular Calvinist notion here is that the "gift" is the faith here. I believe the more likely expectation is that it is the previous mentioned salvation (from verses 5-7) that is the gift, and that the faith comes from man. If the Greek preposition had matched the feminine words used for either grace or faith we would be forced to assume it meant the faith was the gift. In fact, a netuer word COULD still be referring to faith, it is just less certain.
Indeed, like grace, it can be said that the gospel gives us faith, by giving us something to have faith in, in the same way Proverbs 14:26 talks about having reverence "gives us" confidence in God, but obviously Calvinists are referring to a more metaphysical action that God does to put faith within a man like some controlling spell.
In scriptures, typically faith is tied to the man. It is asked that He should have faith, and exhibit faith to be saved. The notion that the reprobate should be seeking a faith gift is arguably absent from scriptures.
[Romans 10]
[8] But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
[9] because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[10] For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
[11] For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.
Faith here, comes from the reprobate after he hears and believes, which requires the gospel to be sent to convince him.
(3) sola christos & sola deo gloria
I'd prefer to stay out of too much commentary on these. They suffer firstly from the problems of discussing human creeds and the high self-importance we tend to give to human conceptions over just a biblical conversation itself (ironically sola scriptura wasn't mentioned but typically is in a listing of "solas" like this) and secondly because I may not be as familiar with similar equivocations (if indeed any are any) than I am with what happens on the first two.
I just heed caution on the last one. Like "sola gratia" there is a perspective question here. We give God glory solely in one viewpoint because He deserves it, however the Bible tempers this notion that God does not "lord it over" his followers, but rather shares things with them, and desires to have a relationship with them.
[Matthew 20]
[25] But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
[26] it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
[27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
[28] even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
While maybe one could argue Jesus when to the cross for his own benefit of making himself grand by being the savior, the larger and more often mentioned frame of reference is that Jesus did this for the benefit of mankind, to be able to share in the glory.
[Ephesians 2]
[4] But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
[5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
[6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
So in this, God shares glory with us that we can perhaps say that only God has rightly earned.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That doesn't answer the point I made previously:
Calvinism teaches that faith is a gift given by God and only some people have the ability to believe the gospel. And according to Calvinism all those who have the ability to believe will believe (the so-called "effectual calling" made up by the Calvinists).
However, the Scriptures tell a different story:
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor.4:3-4).
The gospel is hidden to those who are perishing and the god of this age, Satan, is responsible for the gospel being hidden from them. Satan blinded their minds to the gospel for one purpose, "so that they cannot see the light of the gospel."
The fact that the minds of those who are perishing can be "blinded" to the gospel proves that they have the ability to see it if their minds were not blinded to it. After all, one must be able to see before being blinded can happen.
This demonstrates that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel and as a result receive salvation. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the Lord's death and the blessings which flow from that death have the potential to be applied to even those who are perishing.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Oh, no it isn't. Your persistence in either making hasty generalizations or misrepresenting Calvinists for years shouldn't really impress anyone. The reason they don't "put it in those terms" is because they don't agree to the straw man you have been accustomed to pushing down. Calvinist doctrine, clearly teaches that all men merit condemnation and that God's predestination is to save some from the just consequences of their sins. Sproul addresses this in "Chosen by God." page 119 says this..
Speaking of the differences between, infralapsarian, sublapsarian and supralapsarian forms of Calvinism, you said:
You said:
I assure you the differences are just as valid as the distinctions. Yes, we all believe that God chose specific individuals (as do Arminians). There are those who argue that God predestined a “plan” but not individuals, but that silly idea is quickly dispelled by the scriptures. Second, Calvinists do not believe there is a “why” that is any of your or my business. God did not choose who He would predestine based on any merit or value in the objects of His predestination. Nor did God do based on His foreknowledge of how we would respond when we heard the gospel. Thus, God did so for his own glory, by His own secret counsel of His will, which all of the quotes you happened to lift from the institutes are conveying.
Nevertheless, I see where you are erring here. You fundamentally misunderstand the gospel.
The entire gospel is predicated upon the fact that, were God to execute justice, all would perish. The gospel is necessary because all men deserve hell. Get this wrong and you telegraph that you either haven’t read the book of Romans or you still don’t get it.
The gospel is necessary because the cross satisfied the just condemnation for all who Jesus said the Father would give to Him, and all who the Father has given to Jesus will come to Jesus. (John 6:37). All of them, every single one. The rest die in their sins (John 8:24).
Now, let me quickly address your attempt at interpreting Ezekiel in order to try and contradict Paul in Romans.
Lets start with a few observations.
- Ezekiel 18 is not in contrast or contradiction to Romans 5:12.
- Paul’s statements concerning the guiltiness we all have before God still stands despite your attempts to brush them aside (Romans 2:1, 3:9. 3:23, Galatians 3:22).
- Nobody gets to heaven apart from the forgiveness of their sins through the shed blood of Jesus.
Which of these points do you disagree with?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I think the quickest way for me to respond is to ask a seeming ridiculous question to make a point - would you criticize a blind person for not seeing what was right in front of their face?
EDIT : Okay...I think I should add some more lest this veer off the wrong way. My point is that you are trying to force something on scripture that isn't there. You are saying that because someone is blind, that means they have eyes and so they should be able to see. But the whole history of Israel militates against that. If God were on high expecting sinless perfection of His creation (though there is a sense in which I do believe He does), then the Law would have been all that was necessary for Israel. God certainly castigated them over and over again for their departure from the Law, but it never could do them any lasting good. And He chose them, remember. He wasn't caught off guard by this. God's reaction to Israel wasn't that of a shocked and hurt parent discovering his or her child was being rebellious. Yet He told them over and over again what to do and what not to do. Likewise, Christ wasn't an afterthought or a reaction to creation's sin. It was a provision for it already accomplished by the time Adam came around. The purpose of the Law is exposure. God's commands are not (initially) for perfection, but for revealing the reality of that which men reject. And they will continue to reject it until God opens their eyes.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
John 9:41
Isaiah's job to prophesy until Israel's eyes were blinded and ears were shut was simultaneously an act of judgment on sin and an act of mercy to bring salvation to the world. And when Christ came along, that blindness was not lifted :
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Luke 8:10
Last edited:
This post of Nang's is a text-book example of the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that Calvinists do not debate. Jerry made an argument (quite a good one at that) and instead of responding to the argument itself, the argument was ignored and Nang simply repeated the doctrine but in different words.
This is the best they can do because there is no way to rationally defend a doctrine that teaches that God is both just and arbitrary.
There's a better question...
If I poke your eyes out and then sentence you to eternal torture for being blind, am I just or a just a jerk?
Yet another questiion...
If I set your house on fire and then come in and rescue you from the flames but decide to leave your daughter to burn for no reason other than my own will, am I to be lauded as a savior or an arsonist/murder?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
The rescue analogies are inadequate. The issue of salvation is not (primarily) one of saving one from certain horrendous consequences of sin. Rather, it is (again, primarily) one of Lordship. The entire OT demonstrates - and I did try to make the point in my expansion on the post you responded to - man's incapability of pleasing God. Man is a sinner by nature and anything that will recover that same man must address the man's heart before it can address anything else. The sinner by nature is not going to choose to turn from his sinful ways (which he finds pleasurable) simply because God says "You can live forever". In the analogy, the sinner who has been delivered jumps out of the arms of the Savior and back into the burning building. It's because he doesn't know it's burning - and probably doesn't care because his skin is dull of feeling. He loves his sin. Sure...if you tell him he can have his sin and escape the flames, he'd jump at it. But part and parcel of being taken from the burning building is being given a liberty that exists only for those who walk after the Spirit. Those that walk after the flesh are going straight back into the fire because they are getting pleasure from it. Even if you tell them that the building is burning, their leprous skin means they can't feel the flames and so why should they care? They might feel it later, but to escape the pleasure they have would mean serving God. God knows the heart. It is deceitful and desperately wicked. Man is constantly deceived by it. So to appeal to it to choose Christ is to found man's salvation on sand.
(Apologies for mixing metaphors...)
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Been there, done that. There is no communicating with Jerry.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Many of your replies sound Universalist.
How does a Dispensationalist answer this question apart from any systematic theology proper?
genuineoriginal
New member
Nice summary, thank you.
I do want to address one thing you said as an alternative.
What a lot of people choose to ignore is the Greek word for "gift" (Strong's G1435 δῶρον dōron) is only used in the New Testament for sacrifices and other gifts offered to God (with a single exception in Revelation).
If this is a gift that God is giving to Himself, then that changes the interpretation of the verse.
Last edited:
- Status