How To Get To Heaven When You Die
- Thread starter xfrodobagginsx
- Start date
xfrodobagginsx
Active member
As far as claiming that Les Teaches that God cannot change in any way, Les actually teaches that both the Calvinist view AND the Armenian view are correct at the same time. I have never heard him say that God can never chang His mind. He does however teach that God predertermines what happens AND gives us free will at the same time AND accomplishes His perfect will through our free will choices. That is true and Biblical. So I agree with Les on that. Your conclusion isn't necessarily his conclusion. I don't think Les necessarily believes in irresistible grace. He believes that God fireknows who will be saved and then predestines them to be conformed to the image of Christ as Scripture clearly teaches.
I also agree with Feldick that God foreknows all future events. That doesn’t mean that God fixed them that way or predetermined it that way. God at times intervenes and even changes certain events according to His Sovereign will, but He still knew before hand that it would happen, given the fact that He knows all things as Scripture clearly states. So I agree with him there as well.
John 16:30 KJV
[30] Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
John 21:17 KJV
[17] He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Again, Les Feldick teaches the Biblical view that yes all events are fully known and fixed and His foreknowledge is perfect, while at the same time, allowing for free will and God does exist outside of time.and yes it is meaningless to God as far as His Soveriegn will goes. He does not consider whole areas of Scripture as simply figures of speech. He takes it literally unless the Bible indicates otherwise. There are a couple of areas that he does believe God veils, such as some of the passages in Revelation, but even then, he uses Scripture to show the Scriptural meaning. One example would be the use of the word mountain as describing a Kingdom the passage where it talks about the beast coming out of the sea, which Les says believes is referring to the sea of humanity.
Feldick doesn't teach the Doctrine of original sin. He teaches that all men inherit their sin nature from Adam, as taught in Scripture. Yes we are all held accountable for our own sins, unless washed in the blood of Christ, but we sin because we inherited our sin nature from Adam.
Romans 5:12 KJV
[12] 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:
Faith is simply believing/trusting God to the Point of submission to His will. That other stuff you said about logic is not Biblical.
My conclusion regarding your concerns about Les is that his arguments are true and Biblically based and yours are not. I have given you a couple of verses to back up my view. I can give many more. Free will and Predestination happen at the same time. Illogical? Perhaps, but Biblical.
Right Divider
Body part
That is pure insanity.
xfrodobagginsx
Active member
God is not a man. God can use human will to accomplish His perfect will. We see it all of the time. Politicians making free will choices that fulfil Biblical Prophecy. Do you really think they planned it that way? Of course not. God in His infinite power fulfills His perfect will through our free will choices. Pharoh was a perfect example. He made the free will choice to reject the Jews freedom and this accomplished the will of God as God could demostrate His mighty power through miracles, sihns and wonders. You can’t put God in a box.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
God is not illogical in any way, shape or form. God is the very definition of LOGIC.
To claim that God acts illogically in any way is pure blaspheme.
They are in fact both false at the same time.
Well, I don't have access to transcripts of his shows so I can't prove it one way or the other but you can't hold to one without the other and maintain a logically consistent doctrinal system, which most Christian don't even try to do.
And no, it is not "true and biblical". There is, in fact, nothing at all biblical about it. Any passage that you think teaches that God predetermines everything is an example of eisegesis, which is a fancy term that just gives a name to when one reads their doctrine into a text, conforming scripture to the doctrine rather than letting the text say only what it actually says and conforming one's doctrine to that. The latter being call exegesis.
Logically it is. Whether he was consistently logical is definitely in question.
That isn't any sort of slight against the man's character. It's just sort of the normal mode for people. Christians, by a large, don't really care or pay any attention to whether a particular doctrine they've chosen to believe is fully integrated into and is fully compatible with the rest of their theology.
It was not my intention to suggest that he was a Calvinist, only that he was Calvinistic.
Well, that Calvinism 101! I mean that is "Irresistible Grace" in a single sentence.
Not based on the bible, you don't.
I'm sure that statement comes as a shock but it's totally true. If you believe that, it's because of Augustine (and then Luther and Calvin), who imported such ideas into Christianity from Greek philosophy. The doctrine is predicated on the doctrine of immutability which teaches that God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever. Aristotle taught that. Augustine practically worshiped Aristotle and was convinced by his mother's bishop, a guy named Ambrose of Milan, to interpret the bible in the light of Augustine, which he did. The rest is history.
Logically it does.
I won't bother to prove that here but am quite willing to do so upon request.
The bible does exactly the opposite of clearly stating that God knows the future in any exhaustive sense. It flatly does not teach that. It teaches that God knows all knowable things that He wants to know.
"All" pretty nearly never means "every single one".
Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
You see? There are "proof texts" for every position under the sun. Your response at this point is forced to be one of two things....
1. Allow my proof texts to convince you and thereby begin to take your proof texts as the hyperbole they are.
2. Convert my proof texts into figures of speech and insist that "All" means "every single possible thing" even though it almost never does.
In short, one set of passages are figures of speech and the other means what it says. You're forced to choose. Not that YOU are forced to choose but that EVERYONE is forced to choose. I am, you are, everyone who reads the bible is forced to accept one set at face value and the other as some form of figure of speech. That much is inescapable. The question then WHY you'd pick one to take as face value over the other.
Unlike the John passages where we have a good grammatical reason to understand that "all" doesn't mean "every single one", the Genesis passages give no contextual or grammatical reason to think that these are figures of speech. The ONLY reason to do so is doctrinal. So the choice is between eisegesis and exegesis. Do we conform scripture to our doctrine or do we conform our doctrine to scripture?
You do not believe a single syllable of this because of the bible but because of Augustine's importation of Greek philosophy into Christian doctrine.
Oh yes he does and so do you!
Either "all events are fully known and fixed and His foreknowledge is perfect" or the entire chapter of Genesis 22 is one enormous figure of speech.
Either "all events are fully known and fixed and His foreknowledge is perfect" or the entire book of Jonah is one colossal figure of speech.
And not just "figures of speech" but really weird figures of speech where when God says things like "now I know" or "I will know" or "it never entered my mind" (Jeremiah 19:5), it isn't merely that God doesn't mean precisely what it seems to mean, but rather that is means the absolute opposite of what it says. "Now I know" means, "I always knew", "I will know" means "I know already", "It never entered my mind" means, "I thought of it before time began".
And again, there is no contextual or grammatical reason to think that any of these passages are any sort of figure of speech at all. The only reason to do so is doctrinal (eisegetical).
I'm sure that's his intent. I've seen it a million times over the years. Such claims, as false as they might be, are not outright lies. They believe what they are saying but are unable to see that they're not actually doing what they are claiming they're doing. Indeed, that they are often doing the reverse and not realizing it. It's a doctrinal form of paradigm blindness.
This is typical Christian doctrine that attempts to have it both ways. Again, I don't have a Les Feldick lexicon (for want of a better term) and so will have to take your word for it here but when you combine what you've said here with what you said above about exhaustive foreknowledge, predestination, etc, the inescapable conclusion is that total equivalent of "Original Sin" whether you choose to call it that or not.
Of course it is entirely biblical. You showing up to declare otherwise has no effect on it whatsoever.
Here's the difference between what you do and what I do....
If you can refute a single syllable of what I've said. I'll hear it gladly!
I MEAN THAT!! If you can demonstrate that I've gotten something wrong I am sitting here, right now, at my computer, BEGGING you to show me.
Prediction: xfrodobagginsx will make NO ATTEMPT to do so - none!
I so desperately hope that I'm wrong!
Prove it.
Which I have responded to and shown to be lacking for objectively valid reasons.
Please do!
If so then the bible is false - by definition.
If the contradictory (i.e. illogical) can be true then why do you even care what Les Feldick taught? Why would you care about what anyone teaches? If logic doesn't work and irrational truths are a thing (which they aren't) then by what means would you ever be able to declare that anything I've said is not biblical or that anything Les said was biblical?
That's a real question! You just told me "that his (Les') arguments are true and Biblically based and mine are not". How do you know that? What did you use, other than logic, to come to the conclusion that my "ARGUMENTS" aren't biblical but that Les' "ARGUMENTS" are?
Please! By all mean, explain it to me!!
You won't be able to! If logic doesn't work, no knowledge is possible. That includes doctrinal knowledge. More than that, no communication is even possible. You can't read, a single syllable of the bible, much less understand, accept as true and integrate what you read, without using logic to do it.