|
Post by eh on Jun 3, 2006 8:14:24 GMT -5
Seems to me you guys are saying that unless a person consciously rejects Christ they are saved.
So all are saved unless they specifically reject it.
I need to do nothing except avoid a total rejection of Christ. Easy.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 3, 2006 8:47:11 GMT -5
Rob, you wrote: I would suggest you read the book I recommended to Gene. I am not an ecuminist and I would also reject the notion that those who consciously reject Christ can be saved.
Rob, Is this the book you are talking about?
There is a great book called Who can be saved? by Terrance L. Tiessen (a Calvinist - which I am not) which argues the case well.
I am fairly familiar with Calvinist teachings . . . I can't imagine this phrase coming from a Calvinist: I also think there are those saved who have not explicitly heard of and responded to Christ.
However, if one were to replace the word SAVED with CHOSEN, then I think a Calvinist would say the statement is true.
Christ's, Jessi
P.S. Here is another great book on Who can be saved - Saved Without a Doubt, by John MacCarthur, Jr.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2006 9:04:58 GMT -5
Gene, and Rob-
That's one of the best conversations I've seen on here in a while. Thank you!
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 3, 2006 17:47:48 GMT -5
I wonder if the blood of Jesus is so all-encompassing of humanity and all sin, that even the Muslim is saved through the blood of Christ. We don't know the heart nor the circumstances of all those who never in their life time utter the words "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is my Savior". Is it possible there are people who never say that (or some version of that), and yet still are saved by the blood of Christ and go to the Father through Him? Is it possible to NOT confess the name of Christ, and yet be saved? This could be a loaded question, really -- the infant, the mentally incapacited could fall into that category as well as the African bush-man who never meets a Christian. Etc..... This is not to stir the pot - it's a real question. Rob wrote to Gene: I also think there are those saved who have not explicitly heard of and responded to Christ.Rob, do you mean babies and special people who haven't understanding; for their infirmities would not allow it? Under what circumstances could one be saved, "not having explicitly heard of and responded to Christ"? Thanks. Jessi Gene (& others who may be toying with ecumenism): If the Christ is the Creator of all things (John 1:3), and if God gave certain people out of the world as a gift to the Son (John 17:9), and He bought the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), how could the idea be entertained that Christ is all-inclusive? God will have mercy on whomever He will (Rom 8 & 9). He has people in every tribe, tongue and nation, but it is obvious from this passage that not ALL in all tribes, tongues and nations are His--and HE will draw those who are His to Himself through Christ (Jn 6:44). Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord (Rom 14:11). Muslims, etc, are included in the common grace of Holy God, in that He lets them live. His sun shines and His rain rains on the just and the unjust alike (Matt 5:45+). But if they never come to him, they weren't His. And all the goodness of this life is all they will ever have. His common grace is that they laugh and have joy and peace and experience happiness or excitement or love in their lifetime. Luke 16:19-31 expounds on this idea when Abraham tells the rich man, "Child, remember that in your lifetime, you received your good things; and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things; but now, he is comforted here and you are in anguish." Christ is Lord over all, Jessi Jessi, in the scenario that gives the "chosen" eternal life and others the "common grace" of God, it appears that there is also a "Hell" where those like Lazarus, who are not among the chosen, will exist "in anguish". I simply do not believe that God set up a system like that. I recognize that system can easily be argued with scripture - but I do not believe it. Best, Gene (from Switzerland now, our new home, the land of the reformation!)
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 3, 2006 20:20:24 GMT -5
No. That is not what I am saying. I do not know if that is what Gene is alluding to.
I would suggest that among the redeemed are those who:
1) Hear of and respond in faith to the true Christ by the grace of God 2) Respond in true faith to special revelation that is given them by the grace of God (I think here as examples of the many, many Muslims who have had visions of Jesus and who have become believers in Him without having heard the gospel from a human) 3) Those who cannot respond to any humanly communicated gospel - eg.infants and the mentally impaired 4) There may be others
Among the reprobate would be those who:
1) Consciously reject Christ and God 2) Those in unevangelised cultures or areas who consciously reject God as He may be known there through any special revelation 3) Those in all areas who do not consciously reject Christ and/or God as He can be known, but nor do they respond. They just float along thinking they're good people and they'll be alright. 4) Those who actively worship other gods 5) There may be others
----------------------
Jessi,
Yes, that's the book I mean.
Don't let what you can't imagine determine what you think someone might say. ;D
As an aside here is an interesting line of thought to consider.
Research seems to indicate that as many as half of fertilised ova fail to implant successfully. If the human person is created at conception as most conservative Christians believe, then that would mean as many as half of the human race have never had a chance to grow and live. Add to that the number of natural miscarriages and artificial abortions, and extremely high infant mortality rates in underdeveloped nations plus all the natural deaths of infants in developed nations and we have a situation where the majority of the human race has never had a chance reach a developmental point where they can consciously respond in faith. If all these infants are saved by the grace of God, then it follows that Heaven will include the majority of the human race.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Jun 3, 2006 20:23:26 GMT -5
not so.... I wish I had the time to tell you of some of the hurts these people have put on me and my family. It is not worth discussing... it only makes me mad. They are mostly kind to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 4, 2006 0:40:22 GMT -5
Rob,
You wrote: "I also think there are those saved who have not explicitly heard of and responded to Christ."
You said that a Calvinist wrote this and you were agreeing with how well he had it all laid out. Did he REALLY say there are those saved who have not explicitly heard of and responded to Christ? Are you SURE he didn't say CHOSEN? Well, maybe you misunderstood. Or - maybe he wasn't a Calvinist. ;D
-------------------- Gene: It's certainly your prerogative to disbelieve what the Word says about God having mercy on whomever he will. Romans 9 is a tough passage and many are offended at the providence & sovreignty of Holy God.
But . . . if one does not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, there's really nothing else . . . Good luck . . . I mean, Good Providence! ;D
Grace & Peace to all of you, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 4, 2006 1:16:23 GMT -5
Jessi,
Do you know the fallacy of too few options? Maybe you should read the book and see for yourself instead of suggesting I have it wrong, either on the count of: 1) that he said saved and not chosen (actually in the course of the book he switches interchangeably between both terms), or 2) that I misunderstood (all I can do is roll my eyes at this one), or 3) that he's not a Calvinist (again rolling the eyes).
|
|
|
Post by 2 commandmentsLOVE on Jun 4, 2006 12:15:36 GMT -5
not so.... I wish I had the time to tell you of some of the hurts these people have put on me and my family. It is not worth discussing... it only makes me mad. They are mostly kind to each other. BIG DITTOAn ex recently expressed this idea...........when the f & w's talk to her-knowing their minds-she feels like they are on a mission to re-recruit her. They are not being kind because they care but kind because that is the way you get people to meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2006 8:04:56 GMT -5
... Gene: It's certainly your prerogative to disbelieve what the Word says about God having mercy on whomever he will. Romans 9 is a tough passage and many are offended at the providence & sovreignty of Holy God. But . . . if one does not believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, there's really nothing else . . . Good luck . . . I mean, Good Providence! ;D ... Oh, but Jessi, there is something else for us who do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible as we know it! It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that leads us into all righteousness!
|
|
|
Post by guest50 on Jun 5, 2006 15:43:20 GMT -5
not so.... I wish I had the time to tell you of some of the hurts these people have put on me and my family. It is not worth discussing... it only makes me mad. They are mostly kind to each other. Where is the spriit of forgiveness here?
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Jun 5, 2006 21:37:34 GMT -5
Yes I know it is good not to harbor anger forever and we are called to forgive the people who have hurt us. But why is it so necessary to not forget? Because forgiving has enabled us to move on and in order to move on we need to learn from our past. Every one of us has been shaped and molded from past experiences, some joyful and of course, some painful. Not forgetting is remembering who we have become…stronger, smarter and redeemed.
Learning how to forgive is not easy. Notice the word learning. It is a process. It is hard to forgive because it doesn’t feel fair sometimes. And it usually is not automatic. But sooner or later (probably a lot later) you realize, what’s the use of remaining angry when all that is remaining is a reminder of it? So, when you do get to the point of forgiveness isn’t “not forgetting” still thinking about it? No, not really because forgiveness opens the door of your heart and lets out the hurt little by little. Choosing to not dwell on the ugliness of it can actually allow more room in your heart and mind for other more positive things to grow. This is why I choose not to discuss the hurt. That does not mean that it is still not there. I am still learning how to forgive.... yes ... it is a process.
guest50 perhaps you can help rather than judge me. Please explain how it is possible to forgive people we will never see again.
|
|
|
Post by guest50 on Jun 6, 2006 10:00:40 GMT -5
It was not meant as a "judgement" of you but rather a little surprise since most of your posts on this site are so pro forgiveness and having a Christlike spirit, etc. There seems to be so much studying that goes into a lot of what you and others here say that this blurb coming from your end was different.
I cannot judge as I, too, struggle with forgiveness perhaps in a much greater form than you do. The hurt will always be there - whether it is discussed or not - that part does not seem to disappear. I am trying to learn to forgive as we must do so for Christ to be able to forgive us - however, that does not mean that we will ever forget. As you said, not forgetting is part of the learning process. When these bad things come up - and they do for me on a regular basis it seems - I try to think of other things that are brigther and of days even with those folks were were good days - when there was laughter and good memories - and try to dwell a little more on that. I think one of my biggest fears is that I do not want to grow to become old and bitter until death because the attitude of this comes out in your day to day life and the interaction you have with others. I, personally, have to work on that daily.
As for forgiving people you will never see again - that is easier for me than those I have some type of animosity for in that I can forgive them and never see them again - (which stirs up all the old bitter feelings sometimes) and the bad feelings and anger are gone for good. Don't know if this explains anything or not - feel like I am rambling!
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 6, 2006 10:52:23 GMT -5
Jessi, Do you know the fallacy of too few options? Maybe you should read the book and see for yourself instead of suggesting I have it wrong, either on the count of: 1) that he said saved and not chosen (actually in the course of the book he switches interchangeably between both terms), or 2) that I misunderstood (all I can do is roll my eyes at this one), or 3) that he's not a Calvinist (again rolling the eyes). Rob: A Calvinist WOULD use them interchangeably--after he has established his premise, which adheres to the Order of Salvation, which begins with election (chosen from the foundation of the world) THEN regeneration, etc. But He would never say it from the outset the way your statement read. I don't plan to read this other book because I am a Calvinist. This one is a very basic Calvinistic belief, this Election/Salvation. One may be ELECT and not yet be regenerated yet. That's the only point I was trying to make -- for the sake of those who may be reading, I would like to be certain that Calvinism is fairly and truthfully respresented. If I err in this, let a Calvinist correct me--or (another option), maybe I am not presenting the material in a way that is clear, precise and understandable. If so, sorry for misrepresenting. Prov 16:18-19 Love in the Lord, Jessi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 11:04:43 GMT -5
Jessi-
Do you hold to double predestination?
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 6, 2006 11:10:14 GMT -5
Gene:
You wrote: Oh, but Jessi, there is something else for us who do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible as we know it! It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that leads us into all righteousness!
Where do you get that information about the Holy Spirit? From the Bible?
How do you know it's true if the Bible is not inerrant?
How do you discern which things are wrong and which things are right in the Holy Word of God?
How do you know you have the Holy Spirit?
12) For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
13) Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Love in Christ, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 6, 2006 11:30:46 GMT -5
Karl:
Really, you would have to define for me YOUR definition of this term because many have distorted and misrepresented the reformed belief concerning election/reprobation.
Could you kindly, then, elaborate on what YOUR definition is of "double predestination" or your understanding of it? I will be happy to respond.
Thanks,
Christ's forever, Jessi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 11:32:34 GMT -5
I am talking about Calvin's definition...
Karl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 17:31:48 GMT -5
Supra :-D
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 6, 2006 18:41:30 GMT -5
Karl:
You've got me stumped . . . I am not aware that Calvin ever used the term "Double Presdestination."
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Jun 6, 2006 18:59:39 GMT -5
John Calvin: On Double Predestination
In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.
Source:
From John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen.
|
|
|
Post by and this on Jun 6, 2006 19:01:22 GMT -5
What does John Piper mean when he says that he is a "seven point" Calvinist?
When Dr. Piper says he is a "seven point Calvinist," he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn't seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional "Calvinistic" truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.
The "sixth" point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18; 1 Peter 2:7-8). By definition, the decision to elect some individuals to salvation necessarily implies the decision not to save those that were not chosen. God ordains not only that some will be rescued from his judgment, but that others will undergo that judgment. This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
So just as God doesn't choose to save certain people because they are better than others (unconditional election), neither does he choose not to save certain people because they are worse than others (unconditional reprobation, or double predestination). Rather, everybody is lost in sin and no one has anything to recommend them to God above anyone else. And so from this mass of fallen humanity, God chooses to redeem some and leave others.
The "seventh" point, the best-of-all-possible worlds, means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds. Further Resources
More on Calvinism & the Doctrines of Grace.
John Piper, The Justification of God, chapters 5, 9, 10, 11.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), chapter 32, "Election and Reprobation."
Jonathan Edwards, Concerning the Divine Decrees in General and Election in Particular, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume II (Banner of Truth, 1974), 525-543.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 6, 2006 19:20:56 GMT -5
Jessi wrote:
Even without reading the book and having no plans to read the book, you still believe you know more about what he said and how he said it than myself who has read the book? I will not discuss this further. Hubris comes to mind, Jessi.
.
Perhaps he didn't. The word Trinity is not in scripture the teaching of it is apparent everywhere. Similarly, just because Calvin did not use the phrase "double predestination" does not mean the concept is not everywhere apparent in his thought.
"This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.
Institutes of the Christian religion. (III, xxiii, 1).
They add also, that it is not without cause the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for destruction, and that God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy, because in this way the praise of salvation is claimed for God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of their own accord bring it upon themselves. But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening. I at least hold with Augustine that when God makes sheep out of wolves, he forms them again by the powerful influence of grace, that their hardness may thus be subdued, and that he does not convert the obstinate, because he does not exert that more powerful grace, a grace which he has at command, if he were disposed to use it (August. de Prædest. Sanct., Lib. 1, c. 2). (III, xxiii, 1).
They again object, Were not men predestinated by the ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the cause of condemnation? If so, when they perish in their corruptions they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his posterity headlong with him. Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his creatures? I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved; and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself. (III, xxiii, 4).
Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and that every thing is necessary which he has willed; just as those things will certainly happen which he has foreseen (August. de Gen. ad Lit., Lib. 6, cap. 15). (III, xxiii, 8).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 21:48:16 GMT -5
John Calvin: On Double Predestination In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them. Source: From John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen. Spot on! Karl
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 6, 2006 22:07:15 GMT -5
OK, Rob. You win, brother. For all your many words to prove YOUR point, You're the man. No discussion.
Karl: Before I answer your question . . . .
Is this YOUR definition of "Double Predestination" or Calvin's definition? Are you including the title of "On Double Predestination" as a part of what Calvin said and defended?
In Christ, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 6, 2006 22:15:21 GMT -5
Jessi, I will PM you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2006 22:36:09 GMT -5
OK, Rob. You win, brother. For all your many words to prove YOUR point, You're the man. No discussion. Karl: Before I answer your question . . . . Is this YOUR definition of "Double Predestination" or Calvin's definition? Are you including the title of "On Double Predestination" as a part of what Calvin said and defended? In Christ, Jessi Calvin's definition- yes I am including the snippet from his writings. Karl
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Jun 6, 2006 22:41:39 GMT -5
Guest50 are the bad feelings and anger really gone for good?
I will ask another few questions. Is forgivness an act or a state of mind? Or is it a state of mind resulting from an act? How can you forgive someone if they are dead? What should you do? How would they know they are forgiven? Should they only be forgiven if they had ask for it and repented of the harm they had done to you?
I will give you a partial answer to my questions... it has helped me to forgive others to a certain degree. I have tried to fill my life with positive actions. –such as doing volunteer work somewhere... trying to help people.
|
|