#arminianism is false | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

reformedontheweb · 3 years

Text

For whom did Christ die?

Folks really get on my nerves when I post scripture stating that Christ only died for his people and then they will post a scripture that they believe teaches against this point.

These things have been discussed so many times on my Facebook page that only someone who is blind and lazy would have missed it.

But nevertheless, here we go again. I will post several Scriptures which teach that Christ only died for his people and then I will answer an objection and exegete several Scriptures which seem to teach the opposite.

It's all about not being lazy and doing the work of an exegete!

The scriptures:

Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins.

Mar 10:45 KJV For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for MANY.

Joh 10:11 KJV I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the SHEEP.

Joh 10:15 KJV As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the SHEEP.

First, Notice that the above Scriptures, when left in context, teach exactly what they state. Namely; that Christ is giving his life a ransom for many, shedding his blood for many, and laying down his life for his sheep. Notice in John that Christ goes on to tell the religious pharisaical Jews that they are not his sheep.

Joh 10:24-26 KJV 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because YE ARE NOT MY SHEEP, as I said unto you.

Notice that the self righteous religious rulers were not Christ's sheep, so that you have folks that are Christ's sheep and those that are not. In Matthew 25 we see Christ coming and dividing the sheep from the goats. No where does Christ ever say that he died for a goat.

Mat 25:32-33 KJV 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his SHEEP from the GOATS: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Secondly, these words are straight from Christ's own mouth. He states that he died for his people. Those who the Father giveth me shall come to me John 6:37 God the Father has chosen out, in eternity past, a people to give to his Son. Notice Christ's words in John 17:

Joh 17:1-2 KJV 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Christ has power over all flesh, but especially power over a particular flesh, which the Father gives him. Christ has been given power over this flesh or people, to give them eternal life.

Now let's deal with a few objections:

Object. 1. But God is not a respecter of persons:

This is only to be found in Acts. Act 10:34 KJV Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Here Peter sees a vision, wherein he is told to rise up and eat, and he refuses seeing that nothing common or unclean has ever touched his mouth. In the vision he is told that what God hath cleansed do not call common. Immediately some Gentiles arrive at his door wanting him to come and preach to their master, who was a gentile. When Peter arrives he realizes that his vision had to do with nations, for he says:

Act 10:34-35 KJV 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

So God is no respecter of Jews or Gentiles, but is calling men from all nations.

However, he is a respecter of individual persons and chooses whom he pleases within all nations. Scriptures to prove this:

Rom 9:11-13 KJV 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

God chose Jacob, but left Esau in his sins. Matter of fact, Paul states that it is not of him that willieth nor of him that runneth, but of God that shows mercy. For he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.

Rom 9:14-16 KJV 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

God even raises men up to judge them:

Rom 9:17 KJV For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom 9:18 KJV Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

So God does not respect nations and is saving men from among all nations, however, he does respect persons and saves whom he pleases.

Thirdly, scripture does not contradict scripture. If one scripture explicitly states one thing, then you cannot take another scripture which seems to imply something different and try to contradict it. God is not contradictory, nor is he the author of confusion 1 Cor. 14:33.

Here are some Scriptures which Arminians and heretics use to try and contradict 'limited atonement,' or that Christ only died for his sheep.

1Ti 2:4-6 KJV 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1st. This can't mean that God wills decretively or that God has decreed and ordained that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, for certainly some have been ordained to error.

Jud 1:4 KJV For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

2ndly, we also see that these Scriptures seem to teach that Christ gave himself a ransom for 'all.' If this be the case, then no one, and I mean absolutely no one will go to Hell. To give a ransom is to pay a redemption price. Christ has certainly ransomed a certain people for himself, but who are the 'all,' in the text?

Both the 'all' whom God will have be saved and the 'all' which Christ gave himself a ransom price can be found within the context of the Scriptures surrounding 1 Tim. 2:4-6. Go back to the beginning of the chapter.

1Ti 2:1-2 KJV 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Paul is telling Timothy to make supplications, prayers, intercession, and giving of thanks for all men, especially for Kings and all in authority......notice Paul begins to name particular types of men that prayers are to be made for. Don't just pray for your friends. Don't just pray for the poor. But don't neglect praying for the rich and for Kings because God wills that all types of men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth and Christ gave himself a ransom for all types of men, not just Jews, not just the poor, but for all types of men.

Now you may not like my exegesis of this passage, but nevertheless I have interpreted it in such a way that it does not contradict Christ's words that he died for his people. I have harmonized the two passages.

Now let's look at 2 Peter 3:9:

2Pe 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I have explained this passage so much that I am really sick of having to type out an explanation of it. If people would recognize pronouns, then their interpretation of scripture wouldn't be so one sided. However, most today are lazy and will not spend the time working with the text.

Who is the epistle written too?

2Pe 1:1 KJV Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

To them which have obtained like precious faith. This ought to give you a hint into whom the pronouns in this epistle are referring too. They are not referring to everyone in the world, but only those who have obtained like precious faith with Peter.

Now let's turn to chapter 3.

2Pe 3:1 KJV This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

Notice Peter is again stating who he is writing this epistle to by calling them 'beloved.' The 'beloved' are all who have obtained like precious faith. These are the redeemed. Those who have been born again.

2Pe 3:2-7 KJV 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Beloved or those who have obtained like precious faith, be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and the commandment of us the apostles, that there shall come scoffers in the last days saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming?' Since the Father's fell sleep, all things continue on like they always have. But these scoffers are willingly ignorant and do not remember God's first judgment, when the world that then was was overflowed with water.

2Pe 3:8 KJV But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Beloved or those who have obtained like precious faith, we would not have you to be ignorant. Time is nothing to God. A thousand years is like a day with him. He is not bound by time and works as it pleases him. But we would not have you ignorant because though these scoffers are breathing out words of ignorance, nevertheless Christ is coming.

Now what is holding him back?

2Pe 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise. He is coming. But what is holding Christ back is that he is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Now the pronoun us-ward references back to the 'Beloved' of verse 8, so that God is not willing that any of his beloved should perish, those whom he chose in Christ, but is holding Christ's coming back till the appointed time when all those chosen in him shall have been brought in.

So see there, left in context, this scripture does not teach what Arminians think that it does.

So, once again, I have explained these things and again, Arminians and heretics have rejected this.

#limited atonement #christ's death #matthew 26:28 #mark 10:45 #john 10:11 #john 10:15 #acts 10:34-35 #respector of persons #2 peter 3:9 #arminianism is false #1 timothy 2:4-6 #decretive will #will of disposition #preceptive will

0 notes

eli-kittim · 2 years

Text

Divine Providence & Concurrence

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

——-

The Doctrine of Providence

The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.

However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.

According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):

τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11

SBLGNT).

Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.

In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.

——-

The Doctrine of Concurrence

The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:

it is also evident from Scripture that there is

some kind of divine co-operation in that

which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11

Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The

Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine

anger, the staff in whose hand is mine

indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.

He goes on to say:

The work of God always has the priority, for

man is dependent on God in all that he

does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without

me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field

of endeavor.

However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:

If we begin by defining sovereignty

deterministically, the issue is already

settled; in that case, Arminians do not

believe in divine sovereignty. However, who

is to say that sovereignty necessarily

includes absolute control or meticulous

governance to the exclusion of real

contingency and free will?

In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.

In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:

The understanding here of God's

‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle

and needs to be understood very carefully.

In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are

acting freely even though God is really

behind the scenes making them do what

they do. We experience our actions as free

actions even though God is really directing

them. This is a position that William James

called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.

——-

Conclusion

The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

——-

10 notes · View notes

in-christalone · 4 years

Note

I saw a Catholic group post about how Mary was their advocate on judgement day and when i confronted them about it, they still said they didnt worship her. Jesus is our advocate

They’re quick to twist their own words when being confronted

They are swelled in the pride of their false beliefs, they’re blinded and are unable to accept the truth.

This is something only God can open their eyes from.

As long as they worship Mary (YES. WORSHIP)

They’ll never come to the truth.

And another thing; this (unlike Arminian beliefs) IS A SALVATION ISSUE.

To put it simply;

Roman Catholics aren’t saved

15 notes · View notes

gordonclark · 2 years

Text

VERIDICALISM VERSUS PRESUPPOSITIONALISM: A REVIEW ARTICLE

Gordon H. Clark*

Crucial Questions in Apologetics. By Mark Hanna. Baker, 1981, 139 pp., $5.95.

Professor Hanna's ambitious aim is to construct an apologetic method, named Veridicalism, to avoid "the stalemate between Presuppositionism [sic] and Verificationism." Or, one might say, between fideism and empiricism; or, again, between apriorism and the tabula rasa theory. Of course, these terms need some definition. Yet the first three-quarters of the book is sparse in definition. One must read almost a hundred pages before finding out what some important terminology means and then go back and read the whole again. There are two definitions given near the beginning, but sometimes a later definition is substantially different from the earlier one.

One of these terms thus ambiguous is "fideism" or "presuppositionism." The two words seem always to be synonymous, and since the author aims to present a theory that is neither fideistic nor verificationistic, neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, the term "fideism" should be restricted to a single, well-defined meaning throughout the book. But this is not the case.

Preparing for a definition, the author begins by asserting that fideism destroys the possibility of truth and knowledge (p. 17), so that "every view, irrespective of its absurdities, is on the same epistemological footing with every other view" (p. 18). On the same page he asks, "Can one be a fideist and avoid such a consequence?"

Properly speaking, this is a description rather than a definition. In actuality it is a conclusion that should be drawn only after valid arguments have been given to support it. Yet it reveals some important characteristics that the author thinks he sees in the nature of fideism. But if so one must ask, "Are there any fideists loose in the neighborhood?" Does anyone claim to hold a view that his description fits? In what books may we find his description accepted and defended? Maybe there are such people, but who are they and what reasons do they offer in favor of this position?

Barth and Brunner may be two satisfactory examples. But are these two theologians presuppositionalists? Or, to make the question clearer, are there two sorts of fideism — one that fits Hanna's description and claims that no theory is better than any other, and a second type of fideism that denies an equal epistemological basis to absurdities? Can there not be a presupposition that insists on the difference between truth and falsity? I could mention two names in support of this contention. Now the author has several good pages defending fixed truth and the necessity of logic. Indeed, these are very good pages. But his refutation of fideism, as stated and as applicable to Barth and Brunner, has incautiously and without further argument been extended to include presuppositionalists who abhor absurdities as much as the author does.

There is a second case of faulty definition. The fault, however, differs from the preceding. In the previous case a definition correctly applied to one position was transferred to a view that, at least prima facie, contradicts it. Here in this second case two definitions merge in such a way that neither serves any necessary function. The terms defined are "certainty" and "certitude."

On page 58 the author sets forth one necessary element in the definition of certainty as "the intellectual apprehension of an objective state of affairs." One's first impression of this phrase, especially as it is said to differ from certitude, which is "a subjective assurance," is that "certainty" attaches to propositions and "certitude" attaches to minds only. We could call the latter subjective and the former objective. Clearly on this understanding of the definition certitude is possible when the proposition is false. Many people are assured of what is untrue. In fact the author on page 81 acknowledges that "on one level" there are experiences of misplaced certitude. "But any case of conviction whose referent state of affairs is as one holds it to be is an example of certainty."

His next sentence, unfortunately, is disconcerting: "On another level, how ever, we may call into question the certainty we acknowledge on the first level." Now aside from the fact that these levels remain unspecified, one must ask, "Should not the sentence have said 'certitude' rather than 'certainty'?" If certainty is a quality of a true proposition we cannot deny or even doubt that a true proposition is certain. We may doubt that a proposition we have in mind is true, but this is misplaced certitude, not misplaced certainty.

Furthermore, if certainty is objective and attaches to propositions, then certainty does not require certitude. There are many propositions, propositions that are "certain," of which a man, either ignorant of or confused by them, can have no certitude. But if this be the author's meaning, then certainty, attaching to propositions, means no more than that the propositions are true. And if this is so, the term "certainty" is superfluous and confusing. "Certitude" would be the only meaningful term.

Our first interpretation of the defining clause, however, may have been mistaken. Maybe certainty is not altogether objective. Maybe it attaches to minds as certitude does. The defining clause says that certainty resides in "the intellectual apprehension." Such a certainty would be as subjective as certitude. But the author straddles the issue. He wants certainty to be a quality of both the mind and the proposition. On page 85 he states that "certainty requires both subjective assurance and the truth or[1] reality of that which is apprehended." Just how one quality — certainty — can attach univocally to the mind, the intellectual apprehension, and an external state of affairs is hard to understand.

Bypassing this embarrassing difficulty the following diagram seems to picture Hanna's definitions.

The inclusive circle has as its objects all propositions, half of them true (TP) and half false (FP). The middle circle takes in all the propositions one has in mind and believes (B). The smallest circle in its full extent represents all propositions of which I am assured. It is the circle of certitude (CD). But the propositions on the left side are false, while those on the right side are true. This half is the area of certainty (CT).

It is a very neat arrangement, is it not? But though these divisions are used at least from page 58 to page 85, here and there, one must ask, "What good are they?" The right half of the smallest circle — that is, certainty — means no more than that proposition X, which we happen to believe, is true. It helps not at all in determining whether proposition X is in fact true. And as for certitude (the whole inner circle), it is of no use whatever. The author's attempt to distinguish certitude from certainty neither harms his opponents nor helps him. The essential point in apologetics is to defend the truth of X, and this schematism does not do so. Indeed, to anticipate, the book as a whole fails to explain any method by which one may determine the truth of a particular proposition. A few incomplete procedures are mentioned, but the obvious objections to them are ignored.

There is a third definitional flaw: not so much a definition that is faulty as the absence of a definition that is needed. Embedded in the previous useless material is a phrase that calls to mind Wittgenstein's words in the Tractatus: "that which is the case." Hanna's phrase is "a state of affairs." Already quoted is: "Certainty is the intellectual apprehension of an objective state of affairs." Obviously then we cannot know what certainty is until after we know what the phrase "state of affairs" means. I am certain that is, I am certitudinous — that the author would agree that states of affairs are fundamental to apologetics. On pages 25-26 he characterizes a particular attack on Christianity as formidable on the ground that it is "made on the basis of epistemological objectivism, the view that there are extrasubjective states of affairs. . . . Other criticisms of the Christian faith which repudiate epistemological objectivism cannot be taken seriously." Then on page 32 he says, "The very nature of Christian faith is predicated on epistemological objectivism...the view that there are extrasubjective states of affairs."[2] Then later, on page 77, he continues in the same vein: "The constitutive ten ets of any position are referential meanings, for they are propositions. A proposition is an assertion that some state of affairs does or does not obtain. A state of affairs is anything that is or is not, anything that does or does not have a certain property, or anything that is or is not related to something in a particular way. Every proposition which is essentially the meaning expressible by a declarative sentence refers to a state of affairs. That is why constitutive tenets are referen tial meanings. . . . The truth-value (truth or falsity) of a proposition is deter mined by the state of affairs to which it refers."

This I find not merely unsatisfactory, but even self-contradictory. Besides indicating Hanna's dependence on the phrase "state of affairs" the sentence, in its context, at least seems to deny that propositions are states of affairs. The proposition is a statement about a state of affairs, and if a proposition does not refer to it self it is hard to see how Hanna could consider a proposition as a state of affairs. Propositions then are not realities. The presuppositionalist, at least some of them, would insist that truth is very real and that only propositions can be true. Nevertheless, though the paragraph thus denies that propositions are states of af fairs, the definition of a state of affairs ("anything that does or does not have a certain property," and so forth) applies to propositions as well as to anything else, if there be anything else. Hence the paragraph contradicts itself.

There is another word, used very frequently, which, like Wittgenstein's unintelligible "what is the case," seems to me to be equivalent to the word "given" or "givenness": in German from Kant on, das Gegebenes. Hegel of course denied that anything is given. So did Augustine. Hanna toward the end of his book at tempts to show how we can know that something is given. In my opinion his attempt is a failure and, in addition, if it were not a failure, it would be a failure, for a process that identifies the given and distinguishes it from something else shows that the given is not a given but an intellectual interpretation.

This "given" or "state of affairs" seems to be synonymous with the term "real." The state of affairs is what is real. But such synonymous terms do nothing toward identifying any reality. What is real? What is a particular state of affairs? What is given? Are dreams real? They are real dreams, are they not? Are mathematical equations real? The logical positivists, if they used the word "real," would say "no." Are propositions real? By giving propositions referents, and with other wordings, the author seems to exclude propositions from the real, objective world. In that case we can never know the state of affairs but only a replica, symbol, or picture of it. No extrasubjective reality could be in one's mind, could it? A picture of a reality is not that reality, is it? If the picture is in our mind, the thing itself is outside and unknown-unknown, because whatever is known must be in one's mind. One further question: Is the sensation of red or the taste of chocolate real? Realism, whether Plato's intellectual realism or the physical realism of the 1930s, insists that man can know reality and not just a mental reproduction of it. Hanna's position, even though he may not recognize or acknowledge it, is that a state of affairs is unknowable.

Lest anyone think that the foregoing criticism attacks a "straw man" and does not present Hanna's views fairly, there is a sort of negative evidence to the contrary. On page 109 we read, "Thoroughgoing presuppositionists categorically deny the possibility of apprehending any state of affairs in a purely objective way; that is, the doctrine or 'immaculate perception' is a delusion. For every act of apprehension is an act of interpretation." If the term "objective" is taken in Hanna's empiricist sense, this is a very accurate statement about one essential part of presuppositionalism. Clearly he accepts for himself the Roman Catholic superstition of immaculate sensory perceptions. Neither of us is attacking a straw man.

But while his descriptive statements with regard to presuppositionalism are usually quite accurate — though he made that previous blunder about fideism — his arguments seem peculiar at times. For example, to select another case where the harm is minimal, Hanna asserts on his own that "no position can escape such givenness, not even the most radical skepticism" (p. 102). This mention of skepticism heads in the wrong direction. If Hanna wished to commend his Veridicalism, he should have said, "No position can escape givenness, not even Hegelianism." For it is the latter that is best known for resolutely abolishing das Gegebenes. It is this kind of mistaken direction that weakens the relevance of some of his arguments against his opponents.

The crux of the dispute, however, is his success or failure in explaining how a "state of affairs" can be known or, more broadly, how knowledge is possible. If his theory cannot produce knowledge, then despite his attempts at refutation presuppositionalism remains at least a possible choice. It is necessary first to state Hanna's theory of "justification." This is no easy matter, for it is both confused and incomplete. Any interested reader must consult the text and make his own decision.

It seems to this reviewer, however, that his first principle is the existence of states of affairs. And before proceeding the reviewer wishes to point out that this is a presupposition, for Hanna shows neither how this principle can be deduced from something more ultimate nor how a state of affairs can be identified.

Unfortunately connecting Christian presuppositionalism with Karl Popper and his disciple W. W. Bartley III (pp. 94, 95), Hanna states that "the attempt of nonjustificationalism to dispense with irrefutable...starting points is a failure. . .[because] whenever a truth claim is made, the claimant is under a rationality norm to provide justification when it is expected or requested" (p. 95). Here Hanna entangles himself, for he never, so far as I can see, justifies this his fundamental claim. Is not this his presupposition? The situation is not as if the presuppositionalists reply with a simple tu quoque and let it go at that. Aristotle, though far from being a presuppositionalist, in Book Gamma of the Metaphysics showed how the principles of logic are embedded in every intelligible sentence. He also argued that unless an argument went back to first principles and stopped there an infinite regress would be necessary and therefore the justification could not be completed. If a veridicalist — to use this new term — or anyone else that re jects first principles, wishes to refute present-day presuppositionalists, he cannot be excused from facing their argument. Hanna does not face it — though, to use his own words, we expect and request it.

Points two and three on pages 95, 96 insist on givenness. Presumably the author means sensory givens, for otherwise a first principle, a proposition, might be a given, and this is what he seemed to deny earlier.

He further criticizes his opponents on the ground that they "operate with a principle of adequacy that is logically prior to the apprehension and utilization of biblical statements. . . . Therefore the formal principle functions as a neutral criterion" (p. 98). This, however, is a serious misunderstanding of the theory Hanna is attacking. As briefly indicated in the previous reference to Aristotle, the laws of logic are themselves embedded in every declarative sentence throughout the Bible. Since, however, they are not stated explicitly, as they would be in a logic textbook, a learner may come to know them only after he has read and thought upon various Biblical passages. Most people, in reading any book, are interested in its explicit subject matter and do not consciously repeat to themselves the laws of disjunction, conjunction and implication. So too with the Bible. But this does not mean that logic is a neutral criterion, a set of non-Biblical principles. God is truth, and Christ is the wisdom and logos of God. One may admit that the axioms of logic are of more universal application than many other Scriptural axioms. One may also admit that the other axioms could not be true without these all embracing logical forms. But since the other axioms cannot be deduced from the forms of logic — no axiom can ever be deduced from another — they too remain axiomatic. At any rate logic is Biblical, not neutral.

Strangely Hanna almost always avoids the term and the idea "axiom." He uses the word twice on page 96 and perhaps once or twice elsewhere, but usually throughout his descriptions of presuppositionalism he obscures the point that his opponent defends a system of truth consisting of axioms and theorems. This contrasts with a chaos of independent and unrelated givens. Hanna faces the difficulty of imposing some sort of order on (shall we say?) his "brute facts." Perhaps, too, had he grasped the idea of systematic truth he might have found it more difficult to argue against presuppositionalism.

This also disposes of point two on page 98, where he denies that the laws of logic can be used as postulates or axioms. He says, "The principle of non-contradiction cannot be postulated, simply because it is a necessary condition of every act of presupposition or postulation."[3] This "because" seems to have no force. If truth is a logical system, its first axiom must be the law of contradiction, or of identity, which is really the same thing. Even nonpropositionalists and non-Christians try to axiomatize logic. The formula (a<b)<(b'<a') is either itself an axiom or deducible from simpler axioms. The meaning of E can with the principle of obversion be deduced from the definition of A; but the meaning of A is an irreducible definition.

Strange to say, in this same paragraph he describes the law of contradiction as a "given." Since he has said it cannot be axiomatic, the term "given" cannot be applied to axioms. But what is a "given"? Earlier he seems to identify givens as the referents of sensations. Does he now admit that propositions can be given? If so, how can such a proposition be dependent on a referent-given? Can other propositions be givens? Then propositions must be realities, and at least these realities are mental. What then becomes of his insistence, if I understand him, on reality as independent of and external to a mind? I am afraid I do not understand him, for I think he is confused. His reply to me is that I am "patently absurd" (p. 98).

Following this charge of absurdity he claims that the laws of logic are not derived from the Bible. His argument requires the assertion that the laws cannot be so derived. My answer is that every declarative sentence — in fact, even questions and commands — are examples of logic. Not only so, but my brilliant colleague J. C. Keister has deduced detailed arithmetic from the Bible, and we are both confident that he will succeed in deducing calculus also, in detail.

As one proceeds, the sensory basis of Hanna's philosophy becomes more and more apparent. We may admit that the ontological starting point — though starting point of what is not made clear — is the Triune God (p. 101, point 1). This is irrelevant, for the whole question is, "How is knowledge possible? How do we know what the ontological starting point is?" Hanna answers: "(2) The epistemological starting point is personal awareness focused in sensory, introspective, and intel lective apprehensions." The only meaningful words in this sentence are "sensory awareness" — that is, sensation. If he tries to explain "intellective apprehension" he has passed beyond, or retreated from, allegedly given, objective sense data into the a priori and hence becomes a presuppositionalist malgré lui. If he avoids the a priori, one must ask how he gets to know God. Notice: He said the "Triune" God. Have any Australian aborigines or cultured English philosophers ever arrived at a knowledge of the Trinity through personal awareness of sensation? This is patently absurd.

At least I find it most confusing. Hanna tried to explain as follows: "The second step... is the recognition of the distinction between givens and assumptions. What is given? Generically described, it is whatever (1) presents itself to awareness (i.e. is not postulated or based on postulation), and (2) does so directly (i.e. without being inferred or derived by discursive reasoning), and (3) can be veridically corroborated by reflective examination" (p. 101).

One must now raise the question, "Is there anything at all that satisfies these three conditions?" One must also ask, "Are the conditions clear?" Point one seems to say that a person cannot be aware of anything he postulates, nor of anything he derives from his axioms. Hanna defines awareness as nonpostulational. Why then use the term "awareness"?

The second condition was that the nonpostulated object cannot be derived by discursive (deductive) reasoning. But this is not a second condition. It merely repeats half of the first condition — namely, "not . . . based on postulation." Very well, then, we cannot be "aware" of axioms and theorems.

The third condition is "veridically corroborated by reflective examination. . . ." Now either the term "veridically" refers to Hanna's own veridicalism, and in this case is a begging of the question, or with the phrase "reflective examination" it refers to some ctive process excluded in the prior conditions. At any rate, he does not give an example of any knowledge that fits these conditions. One must press the point: Does he know that David was King of Israel? that ocotillas are not cacti? that E = mc2? If so, how? A particular example, explained in = detail, would have been most acceptable.

In working out his theory positively Hanna reasonably wants to contrast it with his opponents' views. But here his descriptive statements are not so accurate as the earlier ones. One page 104 he asserts, "Presuppositionism errs in its tendency to interpret rational justification as the application of human criteria to divine truth." This is plainly false. The accusation might be true if charged against evidentialism, empiricism or Arminianism. It also seems to apply to Hanna's own veridicalism. But not to Calvinism. There may be several varieties of presuppositionalism. Earlier Hanna apparently put Barth and religious existentialists in this category. But these people reject the universal applicability of logic and give no rational justification of their paradoxes. Brunner held that God and the medium of conceptuality are mutually exclusive. But other presuppositionalists — I would not call Brunner a presuppositionalist — presuppose the inerrancy of Scripture. They find the norms of logic embedded in the Bible, and therefore they regard God as a rational rather than as an irrational being. Hence they do not use "human" criteria to judge divine revelation. Christ is the Logic and Wisdom of God. His mind is revealed in Scripture. We were created as the image of God that is, as rational beings. Hence Hanna's statement is just plain false. Or does he mean that while men cannot think that the number four is both odd and even, God can and does? Mere human arithmetic must do for our check stubs, but for God and his divine arithmetic 2 + 2 = 5. For us David was king of Israel but not of Uganda, while for God, who does not use our merely human logic, David was both. On the contrary, there is only one logic. It is divine, and that is the logic we ought to, and sometimes do, use.

Again there comes the matter of particular examples. On this same page (p. 104) he says, "Since there are extrabiblical truths, and since truth is formally one, veridicalism holds that it is legitimate to appeal to corroborative factors which are available to man universally." But this must be a nonempirical, a priori, presuppositional assumption for him. He has nowhere shown that there are any extra-Biblical truths, nor has he shown how his independent givens can fit into a system formally one, nor does he offer any argument that there are corroborative factors available to man universally, nor how he can discover anything true about every man in the past and every man in the future. This is all presuppositional, and therefore he should not use such principles.

Hanna also has some other presuppositions. To summarize a little too briefly, pages 111, 112 argue that justification cannot stop at a first truth but must regress to infinity, because a first truth is presuppositional and presuppositionalism is bad.

By calling these presuppositions another name, such as intellectually apprehensible givens, Hanna seems to include universals in the groundwork of his theory. But the more obvious candidates for givenness are sensory data — "data" means "givens." On page 116 he mentions "eyes, optical nerves, etc." He also mentions smelling a rose (p. 122), "physiological and environmental conditions" (p. 124), and that "sense consciousness is the basis or starting point of knowledge" (p. 131). Note that the latter is an unmodified assertion of empiricism. All knowledge is based on sensation. How then can he claim to have found a philosophy midway between apriorism and empiricism? Again he says, "I am aware of sensory objects. I do not know these realities by inference. . .[but through] the neurological system and environmental conditions" (pp. 133, 134). How can he tell what effects his neurological system has produced in his sensory experience? And where did he get his information on environmental conditions? Is not this all a circular begging of the question?

Living on the ridge of a mountain, and having some fifty trees on my half acre of lawn, I see out my window the glistening results of an ice storm. Every small twig is brilliant with colors. Reds, blues, yellows and purples sparkle, and some greens — that is, I have such sensations. Does this mean that the twigs are red, blue and yellow? Does it mean that ice is red, green and blue? Is there anything "out there" that is red, blue or purple?

Empiricists tell me, though of course I do not credit any empirical statements, that dogs do not see color. Then is not color, certainly the particular color, an ef fect of the neurological apparatus? Some people say that the ice and trees have no color but that the sun has these colors. They are transmitted to us by vibrations in the ether. How vibrations in an unperceived ether can be colored I do not know. At any rate nearly all scientists say there is no ether: Light consists of in visible particles. Are some of these invisible particles green and others red? I may indeed see red and green as sensations, but is anything "out there" red or green? As for what is in my mind, when looking at a color my art instructor and I do not agree as to which tube of paint I should squeeze.

My conclusion is that empiricism and Hanna's "veridicalism" are, or is, utterly impossible. And if there is no third choice between having presuppositions and having no presuppositions, and if knowledge is to be shown possible, only presuppositionalism offers any hope.

____________________

*Gordon Clark is professor of philosophy at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Tennessee.

[1] The disjunctive "or" in this case must, I believe, be the Latin aut, for the author through the book seems to divorce truth and reality. Hence this "or" is not vel, much less sive. It is unfortunate that one English word must serve to designate three distinctly different meanings.

[2] These passages seem to substantiate the earlier footnote relative to disjunction. Here again it seems that the truth is not really "real."

[3] If there is some difficulty with the meaning of the word "postulate," one should consult the Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary.

— Gordon Haddon Clark, Veridicalism versus Presupposicionalism: A Review Article; JETS 24/2 (June 1981) 163-171.

0 notes

pretselll · 3 years

Text

CONCEPT PAPER: Doctrines of Grace

Written by Guinness G. Maza, Lana Denise G. Coronel, Lester DG. Mendoza, James Aldrich M. Ramos, Gil Fabien S. Cabrera, and Jet Angelo V. Gaspar

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A Christian is someone who believes in God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Part of being a true Christian is understanding the meaning and importance of salvation, specifically to answer why we needed to be saved, how are we saved, and how can we be saved. This concept paper discusses the matter of salvation according to the doctrines of grace or the five points of Calvinism.

The paper touches on the idea of predestination and relates the five points of Calvinism to one another. Claims or hypothesis discussed are supported with evidence directly from the scriptures. This is to ensure that the validity and reliability of the paper is valued with God’s words and not what the writers think makes logical sense.

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the scope of this paper has placed a boundary on the views on grace to be discussed; thus, it does not speak for all Christians. Rather, this concept paper functions to provide readers a clear understanding on God’s grace according to Calvinists and the Bible.

PRELIMINARY RELATED LITERATURE

Calvinism is an ideology named after a French theologian, John Calvin, containing his and his successors systematic theology in which they emphasize God’s sovereignty. This reformed theology revolves around the idea that God has complete control over everything. Historians prefer to start telling the origins of Calvinism with Huldrych Zwingli, who started the Protestant movement in Zurich. This movement was continued by Heinrich Bullinger after Zwingli’s early death, and it became the theological and political backgrounds of Calvin’s works.

The five points of Calvinism wasn’t determined by Calvin himself. The story starts with a theologian by the name of Jacobus Arminius. While he was studying in Geneva with Calvin’s successor, Theodor Beza, he never expressed any uncertainty about Calvinism or Reformed theology. After he left Geneva and became a pastor in the Netherlands, he started having doubts and started to look deeper into these issues when he became a professor. After his death, there was a group of people who took his form of theology called the remonstrance group. This group, known as the Armenians, challenged Calvinism. They came up with five points of Arminianism, namely partial depravity, conditional election, unlimited atonement, prevenient grace, and conditional salvation. At the Synod of Dort in 1619, Arminianism was rejected as being unscriptural and the five points of Calvinism, as a response towards their challenge, were reaffirmed.

These points are recognized as the doctrines of grace. It is being used to teach soteriology or the doctrine of salvation. The five points of Calvinism can be summarized using the acronym TULIP, although it wasn’t originally an acronym. Each letter stands for total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

Research Questions

1. What is Total Depravity?

2. What is Unconditional Election?

3. What is Limited Atonement

4. What is Irresistible Grace?

5. What is Perseverance of the Saints?

Research Hypothesis

1. We can’t reach out to God out of our own will.

2.A person is saved not because of his merit but because it is God’s will.

3. Jesus atoned for the sins of the elect.

4. God makes man willing to come to Him.

5. Those whom God has elected will forever be saved.

DISCUSSION

The Discussion part of the concept paper is divided into sub-parts – namely Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. This is to individually explore each doctrine of graces and provide a more in-depth discussion to effectively answer the research questions and hypothesis.

Total Depravity

Total depravity is a Christian theological concept drawn from Augustine's original sin theory. It is the concept that every individual brought into this world is committed to the service of sin as a result of the Fall of Man. Without God's efficacious or prevenient grace, humans are utterly incapable of choosing to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered. This is evident in the following verses:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:10-11)

“…made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:5)

Many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of some Lutheran synods, and Calvinism, advocate it to varying degrees. Arminians, like Methodists, believe in and teach utter depravity, although they believe and teach it in different ways. The distinction between irresistible grace and prevalent grace is the most important distinction between Calvin's total depravity and Arminius' partial depravity.

The term "total depravity," as it is often understood, obscures the theological difficulties at hand. One cannot merely look at the two words and speculate on the depths of humanity's depravity. For example, as a result of the fall, Reformed and Lutheran theologians have never believed humans to be absent of goodness or unable to do good publicly. People still have the image of God, however twisted.

People have fallen into a condition of total depravity as a result of original sin. Humans are naturally willing to pursue their own will and desires, according to the concept of absolute depravity, and reject God's judgment as a result of the fall. Even religion and philanthropy are unholy to God since they are motivated by selfish human desires and are not carried out for God's glory. Therefore, according to Reformed theology, if God is to save anyone, He must predestine, call, or elect them to salvation, because fallen man does not want to, and is incapable of, choosing God. Prevenient grace (or "enabling grace"), according to Arminian theology, reaches past utter depravity to enable people to respond to God's salvation offer in Jesus Christ.

Total depravity does not imply that humans have lost some of their humanity or that they have deteriorated ontologically. People, like Adam and Eve, were formed with the power to sin or not sin, and they still have that ability, even if other aspects of their humanity have been corrupted. It also doesn't imply that people are as bad as they can be. Rather, it means that even the good that a person intends is flawed in its premise, false in its motive, and ineffective in its execution, and that there is no way to repair this situation through the refining of natural capacities. Thus, even acts of generosity and selflessness are disguised egoist activities. As a result, all good comes solely from God, and not through humanity.

Augustine of Hippo, in contrast to Pelagius, who believed that after the Fall, humans can choose not to sin, contended that since the Fall, all humanity has been enslaved to sin. Prior to making any meaningful choice, everyone is inescapably predisposed to evil and incapable of abstaining from sin. The power to choose between options is not taken away, but people are unable to make their decisions in the service of God rather than self. After the Fall, Thomas Aquinas taught that mankind are unable to escape sin, implying a loss of original righteousness or sinlessness, as well as concupiscence or selfish desire. However, Duns Scotus changed this understanding, believing that sin merely referred to a lack of inherent righteousness. Scotus' position was taken as the Catholic position during the Protestant Reformation, and the Reformers claimed that it reduced sin to a flaw or lack of holiness rather than an inclination toward evil. The term "complete depravity" was coined by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers to express what they believed to be the Augustinian doctrine that sin corrupts the entire human nature. This did not, however, imply that the imago Dei had been lost (image of God). Matthias Flacius Illyricus was the sole theologian who claimed that the imago Dei had been taken away and that sin was the essential substance of fallen humanity, and this view was refuted in the Formula of Concord.

Despite people's ability to maintain the law publicly, John Calvin used phrases like "total depravity" to suggest that there was an interior distortion that made all human activities displeasing to God, whether they were outwardly virtuous or terrible. Every human deed, even after regeneration, is tinged with evil. Later Calvinist theologians agreed on this, but the Canons of Dort and subsequent 17th-century Reformed theologians did not use the language of "complete depravity," and perhaps present a milder picture of the state of fallen humanity than Calvin.

Unconditional Election

According to Dr. R. C. Sproul, Unconditional Election or Sovereign Election means and signifies that ‘’God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us.’’, this states that God chooses us for our salvation without conditions. Therefore, God does not foresee any man’s actions and doings in choosing whoever will be selected and saved. God has chosen mankind despite of their sins and wrongdoings. Although He has commandments that we must obey and follow, it is stated in this doctrine that God had chosen us not because of who we are but because of who He is. This is evident in the following verses:

“Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—” – Romans 9:11

In Calvinism, it is stated that unconditional election is considered as one of the aspects of predestination where God chooses those individuals whom He would save and those who have been elected will receive His mercy and salvation, on the other hand, those who were not elected will receive justice without condition. It is referred to as ‘unconditional’ for God’s choice to save those who were elected were not based on any of His basis that even the sinful ones have been chosen and elected as an act of His saving grace. His choice was not dependent on the foreseen actions of an individual but rather on His sovereign.

This doctrine popularized during the 4th century with Church Father Augustine of Hippo and his debates with Pelagius. The unconditional election codified in the Belgic Confession in 1561, in the Canons of Dort in 1691 represented in reformed confessions specifically the Westminster Standards in 1646 and had continuously spreading the teachings of the doctrine throughout the different areas in the world. Unconditional Election, the second point among the five points of Calvinism that has been often linked with the term ‘predestination’.

According to Cornelis P. Venema, “all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death”, and within this statement, during the begging of the creation of Adam and Eve, us mankind have already been worthy of death for we have been under Adam’s sins ever since. God created Adam and Eve, the first two humans to ever exist in our planet Earth, but even before He created them, God has already declared and chosen to give the salvation to every mankind, even for the sinners. God has based His choice upon His Son, in which we may refer to as His ‘elect’. The Father had asked for His Son to enter our world as a human and offer His life to save every mankind from their sins and such sinners must be brought to faith in Christ.

Unconditional Election dignifies that God’s will to give salvation to all mankind will always be embedded in Him and His heart, and that He was always destined to save His people even with all their sins and sorrows.

Limited Atonement

Sin is when we deliberately break God's commandments and all sins come with a penalty. When we sin, justice demands that we suffer punishment. The doctrine declares that although the death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world, it was the intention of God the Father that Christ's atoning death be done only for those who are selected, thus leading them without fail for salvation. A “Limited Atonement” is a theological theory that the reconciliation brought about by Jesus Christ's sufferings between God and man was effective for some but not all men. This is evident in the following verse:

“She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

Limited atonement additionally called “definite atonement” or specific redemption is a doctrine conventional in a few Christian theological traditions. It is especially related to the Reformed lifestyle and is one of the 5 points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that even though the dying of Jesus Christ is enough to catch up on the sins of the complete world, it became the goal of God the Father that the atonement of Christ's dying might paint itself out in handiest pick, thereby the main theme without fail to salvation. According to the doctrine, the death of Jesus was for the picked alone, and no atonement became furnished for the reprobate. This is in evaluation to a perception that God's prevenient grace “allowing grace" that allows all to reply to the salvation presented through God in Jesus Christ Acts 2:21 in order that it's for every person's selection and reaction to God's grace that determines whether or not Christ's atonement may be powerful to that individual.

According to the Bible, Atonement comes from the Hebrew called “kippur” and it appeared multiple times in the Old testament firstly in Exodus 30:10 which said, “Aaron shall make atonement on its horns once a year. With the blood of the sin offering of atonement, he shall make atonement for it once in the year throughout your generations. It is most holy to the LORD.” On the other hand, Atonement in Greek only occurs once in Romans 5:11 and the approach of its message is ‘And not only, so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement”.

Irresistible Grace

Irresistible Grace is a theory in Christian theology, notably connected with Calvinism, that argues that God's redeeming grace is effectively applied to those whom He has determined to rescue (the chosen) and overcomes their resistance to accepting the gospel's invitation, leading them to trust in Christ, in God's timing. It differs from prevenient grace, which is linked with Arminianism and teaches that the offer of salvation via grace does not work irresistibly in a strictly cause-and-effect, deterministic manner, but rather in an influence-and-response manner that may be freely accepted or refused.

On a more popular level, the doctrine of irresistible grace has often served to emphasize the irresistible agency of God for the purposes of human conversion and salvation. After the Synod of Dordt, this teaching found its home in the 'Calvinist' tradition, with proponents such as Charles Hodge, Charles Spurgeon, James Orr, B.B. Warfield, John Murray, Loraine Boettner, J.I. Packer, Bruce Ware, and Matthew Barrett. While many other Reformed figures, such as Jonathan Edwards, have called the irresistible grace controversy "perfect nonsense," this doctrine continues to find popular expression in the enormously influential neo-Calvinism of John Piper, Albert Mohler, and Mark Driscoll. This new movement is currently one of the most influential Christian movements in the modern world and is described by Time magazine as one of the ten ideas that are changing the world.

In the late 16th century, Pope Clement VIII established the Congregatio de Auxiliis in response to disputes in the Catholic Church about the roles of efficacious grace and free will. The Dominicans emphasized the significance of efficacious grace, whereas the Jesuits adopted Molinism, which advocated for stronger willpower. These debates also led to the famous formula controversy in France, in which the Jansenists competed against the Jesuits. The doctrine is one of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism established at the Synod of Dort during the Five-Quarter Controversy with the Arminian Remonstrants, who protested against the general predestined scheme of Calvinism and its denial of free will and its condemnation of "the Majority of humanity to torment them for all eternity in hell and they never had a choice." In Calvinist churches, the doctrine is mentioned more frequently compared to other plans of salvation and their respective doctrines about the condition of mankind after the fall and is otherwise not a common topic.

Perseverance of the Saints

Preservation of the saints is a Christian teaching stating that a person who is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will continue to be good and to praise God until the end of their life. The perseverance of the saints claims that those who are truly chosen and saved will forever have faith in God. Though we are fallible, True Christians can have serious falls and wrong doings, but will never fall from grace. The simplest explanation you can give this doctrine is, “once saved, always saved” it is stated in the bible that when you are born again, you will continue to praise God.

Romans 8:28-39 states that no one can bring a charge against God’s elect (God’s children), No one can separate God and his love for his children, God will do everything for the good of his children and all of which that God Saves will be glorified, as God loves his children.

Another biblical claim that supports this doctrine is John 5:24, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes Him who sent me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” This verse states that once we believe in him, the eternal life is something that we will have in the future and will be ours forever. Perhaps it can be heaven, or resurrection.

R.C Sproul created an article stating that the perseverance is a little misleading. He believes that saints do persevere, but they persevere in their own will rather than the mercy of God. He believes that they persevere because of their belief and willingness to do so. He prefers to call it preservation of saints, because the reason these people have attained the state of grace is something that will be accomplished by God.

CONCLUSION

After the Fall of Man, humans have been spiritually dead and unable to choose God. Since we are disconnected to Him, we are also incapable of achieving salvation on own will. Despite this, he still chose to save us – unworthy as we are – without any conditions, that He sent His Son to die for the atonement of the sins of the selected. Regardless of wanting to be saved or not, the elect cannot deny God’s grace, and they will eternally enjoy salvation. Basically, the foundation of the doctrines of grace is God’s absolute control of everything. For it is Him who started the world and shall also bring an end to it.

REFERENCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZARuVXiH8k&ab_channel=TomRichey https://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWj_HHxMVIM&t=77s&ab_channel=THEBEATbyAllenParr

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/total%20depravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb2mVBLQTh8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity#History

https://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/ https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/tulip-and-reformed-theology-unconditional-election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_election https://credomag.com/article/the-first-main-point-of-doctrine-unconditional-election/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2016/09/why-is-the-saviors-atonement-important?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/04/jesus-christ-atoned-for-our-sins?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

https://www.wordsoffaithhopelove.com/what-is-atonement-in-the-bible/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace

https://brill.com/view/journals/jrt/10/2/article-p103_2.xml#d6687552e165

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/tulip-and-reformed-theology-perseverance-saints

https://www.gotquestions.org/perseverance-saints.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism?fbclid=IwAR1KDp2OHqtO29Y_dRMEBMceuWZbVH-otyjw7H4IsA9T8XGqeJU7W54I8ys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q4Z66lF2CA&ab_channel=GotQuestionsMinistries

0 notes

johnchiarello · 6 years

Text

Galatians 5

GALATIANS 5

These are the videos I post just about every night to my various sites- Galatians teaching below.

Today, Thursday 6-7-18, I’m re-posting a chapter from my Galatians study- during the week I usually make ‘real time’ updates- and post them to facebook first- then Youtube. These are real time- I post those videos right after I make them- the dates are on all my videos. I also post the Sunday Sermon videos to my facebook page right after I make them on Sunday. Here’s my Facebook link https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks At the bottom of this post there are links to all my sites.

6-5-18 Paintings- Mike- Update

https://youtu.be/gA3VGuNKsgs

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5/videos/10204432522771336/ [Funny- I actually mentioned this video below [Made years ago] on the above video- and it just happened to have been tagged here the night before- not planned]

I will give you the paintings of the atheist https://youtu.be/qXqBeB0Ka7Q

6-6-18 Friends- the mystery of gifts on a table https://youtu.be/tjwhTJGjwn4

6-6-18 Friends- the mystery solved https://youtu.be/rNfvByzKRIU

Note- the videos above are short- yet they show how God uses art and other things to speak to us. They are in order over a few days- and you see some of my homeless friends as well.

Lion of Judah https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2zL-GYEOsnfOCQ0a-JP7O2HcjUaURdR/view?usp=sharing

Walking over the GW bridge from New Jersey to NYC https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMgUnp4TnrRv4qLKTI

Cops talk to me on the GW bridge- New York City trip https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMgUqkjdLq-TH6Qavt

Plotinus and Jesus https://drive.google.com/file/d/1luFfn-zuXJdQrAN0SE4-NRVif6_EBjme/view?usp=sharing

Matt, Jimmy and Steve https://youtu.be/oqDStlTC8Qg

Revelation 6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V6RYHo9MUOId5F2o7kGm0CzU6iM8Kt5f/view?usp=sharing

Plymouth Rock https://youtu.be/Z11QQhOaMGU

New York City skyline- good view- https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMgUvYA-fo2dudRh4K

No nukes https://youtu.be/7tFDQAoS4Bo

Who is anti christ? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kuHoDgUP7dmqG2xq9R00mn8dc3E0c7SZ/view?usp=sharing

Walking off the GW bridge into New York City https://1drv.ms/v/s!Aocp2PkNEAGMgUxxoXDnXBZXXVrc

GALATIANS 5 Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. https://youtu.be/u3Sne2TFlmw Galatians 5 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1-17-17-galatians-5.zip ON VIDEO .Not under law .Walk in the Spirit .Law fulfilled by love .Against such there is no law .Fruit of the Spirit .We wait for the hope of righteousness .Calvinism- Arminianism .We are all in process .Self-control is a fruit .To be effective in the kingdom you need discipline .Protestant Reformation- Trent responds .Legal fiction? .Backsliding? .Evangelical reductionism .You are all 1 in Christ .MLK Jr. PAST POSTS [Past teaching I did that relates to today’s video- Galatians 5- verses below] GALATIANS [Links] https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/26/galatians-1/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2016/12/30/2nd-samuel-3-homeless-friends/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/02/galatians-2/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/10/galatians-3/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/12/the-seed/ https://ccoutreach87.com/2017/01/16/galatians-4/ I quote from these bible books on today’s video [Gal. 5]- below are my complete studies- https://ccoutreach87.com/romans-updated-2015/ https://ccoutreach87.com/james-2015/ https://ccoutreach87.com/protestant-reformation-luther/ (1335) GALATIANS 5- Paul’s main theme is if we possess the Spirit as believers [being indwelt by God’s Spirit] then let us also walk in/by the Spirit, as opposed to trying to please God by the law and being circumcised. Paul will use the somewhat controversial term ‘ye are fallen from grace’ which simply means that these Gentile believers started by faith and went back to the old Jewish system, much like the themes in the book of Hebrews. Paul says when you go back to the law you have left grace. Christ has ‘become of no effect to you, you who are justified by the law’. This is a good example of how words and certain phrases can develop over the centuries of church history and develop a different meaning over time. In essence the bible does teach that a person can ‘fall from grace’ but this does not describe what the modern reader might think. The first church father who attempted to formulate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was a man named Tertullian, he lived in the second century and was what theologians refer to as one of the Latin fathers [as opposed to the Greek ones- Origen, etc.] Tertullian was famous for the sayings ‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens’ and ‘I believe because it is absurd’ he was resisting the influence of Greek philosophy on the church, he felt that Greek wisdom was influencing the church too much. He was trained in law before becoming a theologian [like Luther and Calvin of 16th century Reformation fame] and he used the words ‘God is one substance/essence and also three persons’ later church councils would agree with this language. But the word ‘person’ at Tertullian’s time was the Latin word ‘personi’ which was taken from the theater and meant a person/actor who would put on different masks during the play; the word had a little different meaning then what we think of today as ‘person’. Later centuries would come to condemn certain Christian groups who seem to have formulated language on the Trinity that expresses the same thing as what the original developer of the doctrine meant to say, but because words and their meanings change over time we get ourselves into disputes that might be getting us off track. Paul also tells the Galatians that if they become circumcised that they are obligating themselves to keep all the law. Of course the medical procedure that many have done in our day is not what he is speaking about, but in Paul’s day getting circumcised was the religious rite that placed you into the religion of Judaism, and this is what Paul is refuting among the Galatians, he tells them not to go down that road. This chapter has lots of good ‘memory verses’, the famous lists of the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit are found here, and it seems pretty clear to me that Paul identified circumcision with the moral law of the 10 commandments, that is he saw being circumcised as an act that obligated you to ‘keep all the law’ some theologians are discussing whether or not Paul meant the law of Moses when speaking about going ‘back under the law’ some think Paul was speaking only of the ceremonial law and the system of animal sacrifices when he was telling the gentiles that they should not go under the law, I believe if you read Paul in context both in this letter and the book of Romans, that he is speaking of the moral law too, not just the ceremonial law. All in all Paul exhorts these believers to fight for their right to be free from the past restraints of religion and bondage, he tells them to not desire to go back under a system of bondage, that Christ has made us free from that legalistic way of life and he has liberated us by giving us the Holy Spirit- if we ‘walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and these two are contrary one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would’ amen to that. [parts] GALATIANS 3 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1 https://youtu.be/hhA-O_mb3Y8 Galatians 3 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1-3-17-galatians-3.zip ON VIDEO .Abrahamic covenant .Fulfilled thru Christ .Law [covenant] came later .1st promise stands .Law revealed sin .Faith in Christ justifies .Began in Spirit [faith] don’t go back to law [works] .Christ took the curse of the law on the Cross [tree] .Law was tutor- to bring us to truth .Jesus is the Truth .No more need for the tutor .Father of many nations .Legal and actual justification .Luther- Trent [16th century] .Legal fiction? .Mercy seat [parts] (820) ROMANS 2:1-13 ‘Therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest’. Now, this chapter will run with the theme ‘who do you think you are to judge, you do the things that you say are wrong’. Yikes, this type of preaching convicts us all. But we need to understand that Paul is saying a little more [well, a lot more!] than this. Here’s where we need to do some history. This letter is addressed to believers in Rome, those ‘called to be saints’. Paul is also giving one of his strongest defenses of his theology, he realizes that a large Jewish population are also at Rome [Acts 28]. By the time of this letter the lines are being drawn between ‘Paul’s gospel’ [the true gospel] and the ‘Jewish law gospel’ coming from the Judaizers out of Jerusalem. The main fight is over whether or not Gentile believers need to be circumcised and come under the law in order to ‘be saved’ [Acts 15]. Now the mentality of the Jewish mind was ‘we have been given Gods precepts [true] and because we are the inheritors of the law and moral standards of God, this puts us in a better class than the Gentiles’ [false]. In essence the law was supposed to reveal mans sin to himself, it was to show us our need for a Savior. But in the legalistic mind it created enmity between Jew and Gentile. This is what it means when Paul writes the Ephesian letter and says ‘the middle wall of partition has been removed in Christ’ this ‘middle wall’ is referring to the law and how it divided Jew and Gentile. So here Paul is saying ‘you Jews who are trusting in the fact that you were the recipients of the law, who use the law as a measuring rod to justify yourselves. This measuring rod was actually given to show you your sin. Did it never occur to you that the very fact that the ‘rod’ says “don’t commit adultery, don’t steal” that these things are actually sins that you yourselves do [the legalistic Jews]. And yet the very rule [law] of God that you are using to justify yourselves, this law you actually break!’ Now you are beginning to see the context. And not only were they breaking the law, but at the same time they were saying to Paul’s Gentile churches ‘unless you get circumcised, you are not accepted with God’. The Gentile believers were actually born of God and stopped doing the things that the law commanded them not to do. They were ‘fulfilling the law by nature’. So Paul is really rebuking this hypocritical mindset that said to the Gentile believers that they weren’t saved. And at the same time the ‘judgers of the law’ were actually breaking the law, while the Gentle converts were keeping it by nature! In this context verse one means a lot. Now to an important verse ‘for not the hearers of the law are just before God, BUT THE DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED’. Just the fact that this statement is made by Paul in this letter is amazing. Paul will spend lots of time in this letter saying ‘those who try and become justified by keeping the law are missing it’. He will go over and over again stating that trying to become righteous by works and law keeping are futile. Yet here he says ‘the doers of the law SHALL BE JUSTIFIED, not the hearers’. Keep in context what I just showed in the beginning of the chapter. The New Testament has a theme that I have hit on before [read the Hebrews 11 commentary on this site]. The theme is ‘men are justified’ [declared legally righteous] by faith. This faith also ‘sanctifies’ [which can also be called ‘justified’ a sort of progressive justification. James uses this in his letter. Paul says in Galatians ‘having begun in the Spirit [legal justification] are you now made perfect by the flesh’ [law keeping]. Now the New Testament teaches that God wants people to actually ‘be righteous’. Johns 1st epistle uses this as the marker of whether or not you are a child of God ‘by this we know… those that do what is righteous are born of God, those that do evil are not’. In Jesus judgment scenarios ‘those that have DONE good are raised to life, those that have done evil to damnation’. So Paul in essence is saying ‘God ‘justifies’ [using the term in a ongoing- futuristic sense] the righteous, not the ones who only hear the law [the Jewish legalists] but those who by nature do it’ [Paul’s gentile converts]. Got it? This distinction is very important. One of the historic reasons why the Protestant and Catholic churches are divided is over this issue. The Catholic Pope [Leo] who initially condemned Luther did so on grounds like this. The Pope who succeeded Leo re-read all of Luther’s documents, in an honest effort to bridge the schism, and came to the same conclusion. Now I like Luther and side with him more so than the Pope, but one of the problems was some of Luther’s writings seemed to say ‘Justification is solely by faith [true] therefore sin hardily’ [false]. Now Luther didn’t intend to come off this way, but that’s the way it sounded. So the Catholic doctrine fell more on the side of ‘Gods grace makes you righteous, God cant declare people actually righteous until they actually are righteous’ this is called the ‘Legal fiction’ argument. They said Luther’s idea was a ‘legal fiction’. In essence some of what the Catholic scholars were saying was correct. Now God does declare us righteous at the moment of belief, before we actually ‘become totally righteous in practice’. But the error of the Catholic argument saying ‘God cant declare you righteous until you are’ was missing the point. When God says ‘you are righteous’ then you are! God doesn’t lie. But I understand the Catholic point. I think Paul understood it too. In this chapter Paul says ‘not the hearers of the law, but the doers shall be justified’. [parts] . ROMANS 8-10 https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2-24-15-romans-8-10.zip

VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the videos that are not in the post- here are a few] .Council of Trent- what did the Church say? .Do we get the final say- at the Judgment? .What are the Catholic virtues- did Paul teach them? .Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and Wesley. .Infusion or Imputation? How bout both! At the bottom I added some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.

. REMINDER- This is a commentary I wrote years ago- the videos are new. .CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS; 1- Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose him? 2- When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he only speaking about resurrection? 3- Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked? 4- Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’? (839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who ‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’. Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore [because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’! This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology, part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more ‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus ‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially]. The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually living the changed life] have no condemnation’. [parts] NOTE- Erasmus disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of Predestination- which I covered in the last video. Luther was for it- Erasmus was what we would call ‘Free Will’. In his writings- which were very influential- he wrote in Greek and Latin- the language of the elites. He did this on purpose- for his target was the influential leaders of the Church. He rejected offers of money- because he did not want to align himself with any particular movement- so he could be an independent writer with no strings attached. He had many criticisms of the Catholic Church- and was very influential for the later reforms- those we see at the Council of Trent [Though the church criticized him- they said he ‘Laid the egg that hatched the Reformation’]. He taught that the church/priests/popes should be the servants of the people- He rejected the idea that the Priests/leaders made up the ‘whole of the church’- but he believed all believers made up the true church. Erasmus was a firebrand in his own way- rejecting the language that Luther and some of the reformers used [they were vulgar at times]- Luther respected the works of Erasmus- he thanked Erasmus for debating with him on the nature of Justification by Faith- He disagreed in the end- but said this debate was at the heart of the gospel- and was glad that Erasmus was willing to engage.

RENAISSANCE ARTISTS- The famous renaissance artists- DaVinci- Michelangelo- Raphael- used their artwork as a form of knowledge- the images taught things- they were not just paintings. DaVinci’s most famous work was his painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel in the Vatican. It took him 4 years to complete. The renaissance period- from about the 13/14th century to the 17th- [though there was a sort of Renaissance that took place- yes- in the Islamic world before the European Renaissance] was marked by what we term Humanism. Today we associate this term with ‘secular Humanism’ which often has a bad connotation- especially among Christians. But it meant something different back then. It was a new focus on breaking the limits off of man- and for man to excel in knowledge and skill- and to see man as having value. There was somewhat of a break away from the church in a sense- in that the church and its teachings were not the only source of wisdom for man. But- Jesus himself taught that ‘the Sabbath was made for man- not man for the Sabbath’- so- the Humanist spirit- elevating the value of man- does have a Christian basis in my view. Leonardo daVinci [15/16th century] was what we refer to as a true Renaissance man- meaning his knowledge was in many fields- not just art. He actually considered himself a sculptor first- then an artist- though he is most famous for his Fresco mentioned above. 1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of [parts] Basically the media have been turning up the heat on why Perry and all the other stoops [that would be Christians] are denying science. I have written- and posted lots about this in the past. Most people are not aware of the overwhelming amount of science that challenges the most common ideas about evolution.

I’ll just hit on one- Abio Genesis. This is the belief that life can spontaneously generate from dead matter. This view is false- scientifically false. It is also commonly held with the false view of the spontaneous generation of all things.

Many media folk hold to a belief that the Big Bang theory shows us that all things have come from no-thing. Actually- this is a scientific impossibility. This idea- creation ‘Ex Nihilo’- is false.

Einstein’s theory did show us that matter had a beginning point- called the Point of Singularity- yet today we have absolutely no scientific proof that all things came from nothing- yet most media folk do indeed believe this.

So this topic really is one where the media have created their villain [the back water Christians] and their hero [the false idea that science has proved all types of stuff- that is has not!]. Yet they hope that if they run with the narrative long enough- then hopefully they will never be found out- you know- opening that car door and seeing their man- the man they assured the whole world was gone- yet he lives to see another day.

[note- those of you who are interested in more on Evolution- on my Blog if you go to the February posts of each year- I have studies on Evolution and one on Genesis- you might find them helpful in the coming debate]. [parts] SIMONY AND CHEAP TRICK- ON VIDEO- .A.P. article review .Simony .Peter/Simon- showdown PAST POSTS- Simony (pron. [ˈsaɪ.mə.ni] or [ˈsɪ.mə.ni]) is the act of selling church offices and roles. The practice is named after Simon Magus,[1] who is described in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24 as having offered two disciples of Jesus, Peter and John, payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands. The term also extends to other forms of trafficking for money in “spiritual things”.[2][3] Simony was also one of the important issues during the Investiture Controversy. Wikipedia . [1770] TREASURY OF MERIT

Let’s pick up where we left off 2 posts back. We were talking about Martin Luther and the events that led up to the Protestant Reformation.

In order to understand the key act that caused the protest- we will have to teach some Catholic history/doctrine.

In the 16th century Pope Julius began the effort to build St. Peters basilica in Rome. He got as far as laying the foundation and died. Pope Leo the 10th would pick up after him.

The church needed to raise money for the project- and the German prince- Albert- would play a major role.

It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the Popes of the day were pretty corrupt. They came from what we call the Medici line of Popes.

If you remember last month I wrote a post on the Renaissance- I talked about the Medici family and how they played a major role in supporting the Renaissance that took place in the 13th century in Florence Italy that would spread to the region.

Well this very influential family also played a big role in who would get top positions in the church.

At the time of Luther and prince Albert- if you had the right connections and the money- you could literally buy a position in the church.

Albert already held 2 Bishop seats- and there was an opening for an Archbishops seat in Mainz [Germany] and he wanted that one too.

It should be noted that official Canon law [church law] said you could only hold one seat at a time- Albert was bidding on his 3rd one! And he was too young for all of them.

So even the Pope and the officials held little respect for what the church actually taught at the time.

So Albert opens up negotiations with Leo- and the bidding starts AT 12,000 Duckets [money] Albert counters with 7,000- and they agree on 10,000. How did they justify the numbers? 12- The number of Apostles. 7- The 7 deadly sins. 10- The 10 commandments.

Yes- the church was pretty corrupt at the time.

So Albert works out a plan with Leo- he will borrow the money from the German banks- and pay the banks off by the Pope giving Albert the right to sell Indulgences.

What’s an Indulgence?

Okay- this is where it gets tricky.

The ancient church taught a system called The Treasury of Merit. This was a sort of spiritual bank account that ‘stored up’ the good deeds of others over the years.

You had the good deeds of Jesus at the top- but you also had Mary and Joseph- the 12 Apostles- and other various saints thru out time.

The way the ‘bank’ worked was you could tap into the account by getting a Papal indulgence- a sort of I.O.U. that had the Popes guarantee that it would get so much time out of Purgatory for a loved one.

The actual sacrament that accesses the account is called Penance [confession].

When a penitent does penance- he confesses his sin to the priest- and he is absolved by the authority of the church that the priest has. The priest usually tells the person ‘say so many Hail Mary’s- Our Father’s’ and that’s a form of penance.

One of the other things the church practiced was called Alms Deeds. This term is found in the bible and it means giving your money to the poor- it is a noble act that Jesus himself taught.

In theory- part of the sacrament of penance was tied into Alms Deeds- you can access the account thru the practice of giving to the poor- which also meant giving to the church that helps the poor- and in the hands of the Medici line of Popes- meant outright giving money to the Pope.

So now you see how the abuse worked its way into the pockets of the faithful.

Albert now had the permission from Leo to sell these indulgences in Germany- and he would pick a certain corrupt priest to sell them in a place called Saxony- the region where Luther operated out of.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church never taught the crass act of ‘buying your way out of Purgatory’. The practice of including giving money as a part of the sacrament of penance was tied into the biblical principle of giving to the poor- a good thing.

But Tetzel and others abused the official meaning of the indulgence- and did make it sound like you could by your way out of Purgatory [in theory- a loved one might be in Purgatory for so many years- and through the indulgence you are actually getting time off for them- because the good deeds of others are now applied to the account].

The money Albert would raise- half would go to Rome for the building of St. peters- and half would go to pay off the banks in Germany- it was a sad system- and a sad time for the church as a whole.

It would be wrong to judge the entire church at the time as being corrupt- you did have many sincere Priests and Catholic men and women who saw the abuses and did not take part in them.

But there was corruption at the top- and this would eventually lead to the breakup of the church- and the launching of what we now call the Protestant Movement.

As a side note- it should be said that many Catholics and Protestants are not aware of the whole treasury of merit system- and the church never officially changed her position on the doctrine.

There were 3 Church councils since the time [Trent- 1500’s, Vatican 1- 1800’s and Vatican 2- 1962-65]. The Treasury of Merit never came up for change.

Obviously Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory- and it’s not my purpose in these posts to change Catholics into Protestants or vice versa- but to give all sides a clear view of the issues that divided us- and to try and be honest- and respectful during the process.

Does the bible teach anything like a Treasury of Merit? Well actually it does. The bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is the treasury that people can access- by faith- and become righteous in the sight if God.

The idea- applied to Christ- is good.

But in the hands of the Medici Popes- and the ambitious prince of Germany- it would lead to disaster.

[parts] The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar] and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.

Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this victory at Hanukah.

Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] developed during this attempt to not lose their Jewish roots- the Pharisees of Jesus day came from this movement.

Alexander was pretty successful in his attempt to unify language- even though the bible [New Testament] was written by Jewish writers- living under Roman rule- yet the original bible is written in the Greek language.

Bible scholars till this day study the Greek language to find the truest meaning of the actual words in the bible [I have a Greek Lexicon sitting right in front of me].

It would take a few centuries before a Latin version appeared on the scene [the great church father- Jerome- would produce the Latin Vulgate].

Yet it would be the re- discovery and learning of the Greek texts [under men like Erasmus- and the Protestant Reformers] that would lead to the Reformation [16th century] and other movements in church history. [parts]

The 6th session of Trent was the one where the church dealt with justification [how we become saved in Gods sight].

Rome made a distinction between mortal and Venial sin in the council- the church said that Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of justification. Yet faith is the Root- Foundation and Initial act that justifies.

Rome also taught that Mortal sin kills the grace in the soul that brings justification- and when a person commits a mortal sin- they need the ‘2nd plank of justification’ in order to be brought back into a state of Grace.

This 2nd Plank is the Sacrament of Penance [confession]. Catholic Moral Theologians use an example to show the difference between Mortal and Venial sin.

Drinking- if you take a drink [alcohol] not a sin. If you get tipsy- Venial- and if you get flat drunk- mortal.

This is a true teaching by the way- not making this up.

Catholic scholars are not in total agreement on all the Mortal/Venial sins.

Some teach that missing Mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin.

I just threw this in to show you the debates that take place.

The teachings from Trent are referred to as Tridentine.

The Protestants [early on] rejected the belief that a person can lose Gods grace once he has it- later on the Protestants would divide- severely- over this teaching- Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints.

But early on all the major Reformers did indeed teach this.

Luther believed in the doctrine of Predestination just as much- if not more- than John Calvin.

But sometimes in these history shows they get this wrong and say Luther and Calvin disagreed on it- that’s a common mistake that you hear every so often.

Luther actually wrote a book dedicated to the subject [The Bondage of the Will] Calvin never wrote a book solely on the subject.

Okay- as we end this brief study of the Protestant Reformation- you could also call it a primer on Catholic doctrine [short one].

Why is it important that we study this?

In John chapter 17 Jesus said that he desired unity for all of Gods people- and many of these divisions- which date back 500 years- are commonly misunderstood on both sides.

It is common in our day to run across an ex Catholic who might say ‘you know- I left the church because I don’t believe I need to confess to a priest’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches you are saved by works’.

The original Reformers did not have a problem with confession- the Lutherans carried the practice over into their communion.

And like I just showed you- the Catholic church rejected the doctrine of being saved ‘by works’ [Pelagianism] and simply emphasized the teaching found in the bible- the book of James- and focused more on James than Paul [who the protestants focus on].

So yes- there are still differences- but if we are not informed- then it makes it harder to strive for unity- and at the end of the day God does desire unity for all his people.

The other day I quoted the great Civil rights leader- MLK. In one of his famous speeches that’s played when we celebrate his life- you hear Martin say that not only was he seeking unity among the races- but also in the church.

He said he wanted to see Catholics and Protestants- as well as Blacks and Whites- sit down together- he referred to us all as Gods kids.

I think we should strive to achieve the desire of Martin- and Jesus.

Amen. [parts] VERSES- Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? Galatians 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Galatians 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. Galatians 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you. Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Galatians 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Galatians 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. Matthew 22:36-40King James Version (KJV) 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations James 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus- Phil. 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

MY SITES

Active sites-

www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com [Main site]

https://www.facebook.com/john.chiarello.5?ref=bookmarks

https://ccoutreach87.com/

https://twitter.com/ccoutreach87

https://plus.google.com/108013627259688810902/posts

https://www.pinterest.com/ccoutreach87/

https://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_logo

http://johnchiarello.tumblr.com/

http://ccoutreach.over-blog.com/

https://www.reddit.com/user/ccoutreach87

https://ccoutreach87.jimdo.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webstarts.com/__blog.html?r=20171009095200

http://ccoutreach87-1.mozello.com/

https://ccoutreach87.site123.me/

http://ccoutreach87.wixsite.com/mysite

https://corpusoutreach.weebly.com/

http://ccoutreach87.strikingly.com/

https://medium.com/@johnchiarello

http://corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/p/one-link_18.html [Link to past teaching]

Inactive- work in progress

https://ccoutreach87.joomla.com/

http://ccoutreach87.webs.com/

https://sites.google.com/yahoo.com/ccoutreach87/home

Video sites [Can download my videos free of charge]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ4GsqTEVWRm0HxQTLsifvg

https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=root&cid=8C01100DF9D82987

Youtube- Beta https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U

I no longer upload videos to this site- but there are many links to download here as well-

https://ccoutreach87.com/

Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on- Copy text- download video links- make complete copies of my books/studies and posts- everything is copyrighted by me- I give permission for all to copy and share as much as you like- I just ask that nothing be sold. We live in an online world- yet- there is only one internet- meaning if it ever goes down- the only access to the teachings are what others have copied or downloaded- so feel free to copy and download as much as you want- it’s all free-

Thanks, John.

#Bible #Jesus #God #christianity #homeless #religion #Galatians 5

1 note · View note

fullreviewfestival · 4 years

Text

A Controversial Newsletter “The Printed Voice of Summit Theological Seminary” ~ All articles are written by George L. Faull, Rel. D. unless otherwise stated ~ Vol. 28 No. 4 October 2015 George L. Faull, Editor The Irrationality of Calvinism --By Terry Carter The following quotes are from the book The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer. Edwin Palmer was the Executive Secretary of the NIV and General Editor of the NIV Study Bible. He was a very strong Calvinist. The following quotes from his book demonstrate that as a strong defender of Calvinism, he was honest enough to admit that it is an irrational and contradictory belief system. His statements speak for themselves. “By way of anticipation, it should be pointed out that the Calvinist keeps both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, even though he cannot rationally reconcile the two.” (Page 35) “Contrary to what most people think, the Calvinist teaches that man is free – one hundred percent free – free to do exactly what he wants…And just because man is free, man is a slave…In other words, the Christian does not have free will.” (Pages 35-36) “Here we stand before a fundamental mystery. On the one hand, the Bible teaches that God intends that salvation will be for only certain people. On the other hand, the Bible unequivocally declares that God freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone…Peter writes with unmistakable clarity that the Lord is ‘Longsuffering toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance’ (II Peter 3:9)…Here we come again to that fundamental problem of God…To man it seems impossible to reconcile both truths. They seem to contradict each other.” (Page 51) “Although it is true that none would be saved were it not for the irresistible grace of God, no one may ever fall into the rationalistic trap of saying that he has nothing to do…The Bible never allows that. It comes with only one command: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ…So believe. God commands you to. But if you do, thank God for causing you to do so.” (Page 66) “It is even Biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God.” (Page 82) “In other words, God made it absolutely certain that Joseph’s brothers would sin; yet He did it in such a way that the brothers and not God are to blame…In other words, sin is ordained by God.” (Page 83) “But if anyone has really been thinking, he has probably raised a serious objection many times…For, where is God’s holiness? If He ordained the sin of Joseph’s brothers and the sin of Judas, how can any rational person say that God is holy? Isn’t God to blame?” (Pages 83-84) “He correctly sees the problem: reconciling the two opposing forces of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility…He reasons that he cannot logically reconcile these two apparently contradictory facts. So he holds to one set of facts and denies the other. He holds to man’s freedom and restricts God’s sovereignty. In this way, he has no rational problem. The contradiction dissolves.” (Page 84) “…the Calvinists accept both sides of the antimony. He realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous. It is simply impossible for man to harmonize these two sets of data. To say on one hand that God has made certain all that ever happens, and yet to say that man is responsible for what he does? Nonsense! It must be one or the other, but not both. To say that God foreordains the sin of Judas, and yet Judas is to blame? Foolishness! Logically the author of The Predestined Thief was right. God cannot foreordain the theft and then blame the thief. And the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish…The Calvinist holds to two apparently contradictory positions. He says on one hand, God has ordained all things. Then he turns around and says to every man, ‘Your salvation is up to you. You must believe. It is your duty and responsibility. And if you don’t, you cannot blame God. You must only blame yourself’”. (Page 85) “In the face of all logic, the Calvinist says that if a man does anything good, God gets all the glory; and if man does anything bad, man gets all the blame. Man can’t win. To many people such a position seems foolish. It seems unreasonable…he [the Calvinist] accepts this paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. "From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with halftruths, from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth, O, God of Truth, deliver us." 2 THE GOSPEL UNASHAMED October 2015 He cannot reconcile the two; but…he accepts both.” (Pages 85-86) “…although sanctification is a gift of God, and it is God who works in us to do good things, nevertheless, it is our responsibility to use the means of grace, and not wait for God to move us.” (Page 87) “It’s up to you. But if you do believe, than (sic) thank God for making you want to believe.” (Page 93) “Many Christians…cannot bear to think that God has ordained sin. It sounds nonsensical, especially… [since] …God is holy and the antithesis of sin…This does not make sense…” (Page 97) “To say it another way, God willingly permits sin…In the final analysis, we cannot really understand…We may not be able to reconcile these two theses.” (Page 99) “Although all things – unbelief and sin included – proceed from God’s eternal decree, man is still to blame for his sins. He is guilty; it is his fault, not God’s.” (Page 106) “As Calvin said, ‘Although God and the devil will the same thing, they do so in an entirely different manner.’” (Page 106) “How [says the non-Calvinist] can you read it other than as a total contradiction, a yes and no on the same point? The question that is being asked is not: What does the Bible say? But rather: What can my finite reason understand? What is contradictory and what is not?” (Page 107) “John Murray takes the same humble [I, Terry, say irrational] attitude…even though to his mind there is a contradiction…’it cannot be gainsaid that God decretively [ultimately] forbids what he perceptively [directly] commands…If I am not mistaken, it is at this point that the sovereignty of God makes the human mind reel as it does nowhere else in connection with this topic.’” (Pages 108-109) Now consider some statements by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams from their book, “Why I am not an Arminian”. “Notice that sovereignty and freedom don’t cancel each other out…Rather, in a way that we cannot fully comprehend, God is absolutely in control, and we are genuinely responsible.” (Page 64) “God does not save all sinners, for ultimately he does not intend to save all of them. The gift of faith is necessary for salvation, yet for reasons beyond our ken, the gift of faith has not been given to all.” (Page 128) “Yet people cannot be saved without God’s powerful work in them. God wants all to hear the gospel, but he intends to save only some. Why that is the case, we do not know.” (Page 129) “Scripture constrains us to say that God is not the cause of sin, yet somehow, in ways we cannot fathom, His sovereign plan includes the sinful acts of human beings. ‘To put it bluntly,” writes Carson, ‘God stands behind evil in such a way that not even evil takes place outside the bounds of his sovereignty, yet evil is not morally chargeable to him.’ Exactly how God relates to the sinful behaviors of human beings we do not know…We do not know how it is that God sovereignly directs and ordains our freely chosen paths and, yes, our sinful acts as well as the good that we do.” (Pages 160-161) “For reasons known only to God, He has not chosen to save all human beings.” (Page 190) “But John 3:16-17 teaches that God loves all sinners, a truth unfortunately not endorsed by all Calvinists…When asked how we reconcile these passages with those that teach God’s special love for the elect, we admit that our theology contains rough edges. But we would rather have an imperfect theology and be faithful to the whole witness of Scripture than to mute the voice of some texts as Calvinists have sometimes done…Furthermore, we do not regard this problem as insoluble for the mind of God…But we admit that our present state of knowledge prohibits us from explaining how God can love all persons savingly in the one sense and only love some savingly in another sense.” (Pages 211-213) “We also affirmed that the Bible teaches two seemingly contradictory, but ultimately complementary truths (1) God loves a sinful world, and (2) he has a special effective love only for the elect. Only by affirming these two truths simultaneously do we do justice to scriptural teaching.” (Page 214) Interestingly, Palmer has the following, somewhat inconsistent, things to say about logic and the Bible. “And sometimes logic – to the dismay of some Biblicists - has to be used. But there is nothing wrong with using logic if we do it properly.” (Page 109) “The temptation is to accept only what our logic approves rather than what the Bible teaches.” (Page 111) Palmer repeatedly presents a false dichotomy as though we must choose between what is logical and rational or what the Bible teaches. This, in reality, is a claim that the Bible is irrational, illogical, and contradictory. At the same time it is an admission that Calvinism is illogical, irrational, and contradictory. Yet, Peterson and Williams admit that a doctrine needs to pass the logic test as well as the Biblical test. “To be true, a doctrine must pass not only a test of logical coherence but also a test of empirical fit with the Bible’s data.” (Page 202) The real choice is not between logic and Scripture, but between an irrational theology and the truth of what the Bible teaches. God is not irrational, illogical, or contradictory, nor is He the author of confusion. “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.” --I Corinthians 14:33

0 notes

worshipmoment · 7 years

Text

5 marks of a false Gosple

The gospel, or “good news,” is essentially the revelation of Jesus Christ to the world for the purpose of reconciling God’s people to Himself. Sadly, there is much perversity masquerading as the gospel, yet it’s designed to lead man away from the truth, and into a false sense of relationship with the Creator. Many cults and false religions have arisen contrary to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), but there are far more subtle attacks on the biblical gospel that, in many cases, go unnoticed, and are poisoning the church today. These are 5 telling marks that a gospel being preached is false.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. –Galatians 1:6-7

1.) The gospel exalts man. This may sound like an obvious one, but sadly, so many preachers today preach a gospel that exalts man. Arminianism is perhaps the most notorious of these. Man is said, contrary to Scripture, to have within himself some level of “goodness” to be able to “choose” God. Scripture teaches that man cannot choose God (Romans 3:11) because we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1).

Others may teach that God has chosen to save man, not solely according to the purposes of His own will (Eph 1:11), but because of some inherent value in us. Sure, we have some value to God–we are created in His image. We were also created to glorify Him. But Scripture clearly teaches that it is not because of any value or goodness in us that God has chosen to save us, he chose to save us to display His own glory (Romans 9:23).

This mark of a false gospel places our hope in something false–a hope in something other than Christ alone. It places our hope in something within ourselves, and God will not share His glory with any other.

2.) The gospel teaches that you are saved from temporal afflictions. This is mostly found in the Prosperity, Health and Wealth, and Word of Faith movements. Essentially, it teaches that when you are saved, you no longer have to suffer from worldly calamities such as poverty, sickness, and disease. Further, it teaches that if you do suffer from these things, that your faith simply isn’t strong enough. Often, your level of faith is purportedly reflected in how much money you give to the organization propagating this false teaching.

This teaching can certainly lead people astray, giving some who are not truly born again a false sense of security in practices such as tithing and seed-faith offering. Once again, Christ as the sole object of our faith is diminished and our faith is placed in our good works and is evidenced by our prosperity.

The apostle Paul teaches worldly struggles are not only likely but that God uses them for His glory, in which our purpose is to glorify God.

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong…” –2 Corinthians 2:10-11

3.) Emphasis is placed on the Holy Spirit more than Jesus Christ. Many charismatic churches teach a gospel that emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit more than the work of Christ. Certainly, the Holy Spirit, equal with the Father and Christ, is worthy of our acknowledgment. But the Work of the Holy Spirit is always to point to Christ and not to Himself (John 16:14-15). Yet these charismatic churches, in many ways, teach that the Holy Spirit is the primary end of our salvation and that it is manifested through signs and wonders performed by those who have “received Him.” This often results in aberrant teachings such as that speaking in tongues is a necessary evidence of salvation.

Jesus Christ, however, is the primary ends of our salvation. As stated in 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 above, His grace is sufficient. Seeking for signs and wonders, Christ said, is evidence of a wicked and adulterous people (Matthew 16:4).

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. –Philippians 2:9-11

4.) It is attractive to the world. Another sign that a gospel being preached is false is that it is attractive to the world. Many false gospels contain half-truths and, even in some ways, may sound very much like the gospel. But the world is impatient with the inward work of regeneration and sanctification through Christ. They seek fulfillment through entertainment and other carnal means which give them a false impression of their own piety. The message of Christ’s bloody death on the cross and his endurance of God’s wrath is watered down to the point that it is meaningless, while rock bands, laser light shows, and music devoid of any theological substance are echoed throughout the churches that teach this way. In other words, if the world is not offended by the gospel message being preached, it is false.

Scripture teaches that Christ is offensive, even calling Him the “rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8),” and that the gospel is foolish to the world.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. –1 Corinthians 1:18

5.) The gospel is not derived from Scripture. Many false churches teach that Scripture is insufficient to receive the knowledge of the grace of God. This is most prevalent in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Most cults have some form of this aberrant teaching as well, however, there are plenty of other churches, “evangelical churches,” that have strayed from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) as well. We have seen in recent years pastors like Andy Stanley stray away from the authority of Scripture as well. This opens the door to all sorts of error, most of it significant and eternally damning.

The Scriptures themselves are the testimony of Christ and His plan of redemption. They are the complete revelation of Jesus Christ sovereignly preserved by the Holy Spirit to teach, reprove, and equip the saints for everything necessary in this life. There is nothing else that we need to be made complete in Him.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. –2 Timothy 3:16-17

Yet, false gospels that are not derived from Scripture always end up being a teaching that is contrary to the biblical gospel. It always ends up being a gospel of meritorious works as opposed to grace, or a gospel of some other (co)savior and (co)redeemer as opposed to Christ alone. It always minimizes the exclusivity of Christ as the only Lord and gives many a false hope in other beliefs and religions.

It is Christ alone who saves and it is Christ alone who is King. If your church is teaching another gospel or if you notice any of these signs of a false gospel in your church, it may be time to move. Don’t just sit there and put up with it.

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. –2 Corinthians 11:4

#Christian #Bible #Jesus #Love #Faith. SeekHimFirst #God #ChristianLife #GodLovesYou #TrueFaith #Salvation #Truth #false teacher #pastors #writing

118 notes · View notes

luantavares · 5 years

Text

THE DEFINITION OF HERESY, BY VINCENT CHEUNG

Are you asking me this, or is someone else saying this? I am not sure that is the traditional definition of heresy, but it is one way people use the word. Many people call heresy doctrines that violate their church creed. I do not do this. I call heresy certain doctrines that violate some core biblical and gospel doctrines. Thus I would call heresy -- a very serious and wicked heresy -- the doctrine that denies the baptism of the Holy Spirit as an experience separate from the New Birth. Is this heresy sufficient to forfeit salvation? In itself, I say no. But if someone knowingly and persistently refuses what the Bible says on the subject when it is made clear to him, then does he really believe in Jesus Christ at all, the voice of the savior? Does this person really believe that Christ died for his sins (the atonement and justification by faith)? I have always been consistent in judging this way.

Any doctrine that falls short of biblical inerrancy is heresy. But are all unsaved who fail to affirm biblical inerrancy? I have also answered this in a consistent way.

Biblical Inerrancy Not Optional

It is other people who need to get straight their definition of heresy. By the definition you mentioned, a person must either say that someone like Sproul was unsaved, since he was an accomplice and defender of the heretic on this issue -- outright teaching it and making it into official doctrine -- or this person must say that it is not heresy to reject biblical inerrancy, in this case I would probably call this person unsaved, or he must admit that my way of defining and judging heresy is correct, because I am not stupid and do not judge according to the creedalism of Pharisees, but in a manner that is true to the gospel, and in fact, stricter.

Forget cessationism for now, since many Arminians are also cessationists. Just take Calvinists on Calvinism alone. See my "Forced to Believe," where I show that the "orthodox" Calvinism is practically Open Theism's version of divine sovereignty.

If we use the word heresy more loosely so that it resembles something like "false doctrine," some false doctrines hit directly at salvation, like the atonement and justification by faith, but others are more like finer details in eschatology. Now if someone complains that I am too lenient, and insists that anyone who believes any kind of "heresy" cannot be saved, so that he insists that all who believe a version of Calvinism that resembles Open Theism cannot be saved, I would leave the orthodox Calvinists to defend themselves against that. Else the whole bunch of them like Hodge and such are now burning in hell. Meanwhile, also try to defend Sproul's salvation, and all the people who framed and subscribed to that statement on biblical inerrancy.

The result is that any challenge to my use of the word heresy would result in the damnation of a whole bunch of their traditional heroes in both past centuries and the present time. Maybe take care of that problem first?

Vincent Cheung. From email.

0 notes

biblewordstudy · 7 years

Text

Can a christian fall from grace?

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:4 What does it mean to fall from grace, especially as that phrase is used in Galatians 5:4? The interpretation of that verse has important implications for the Christian. Some Misinterpretations Unfortunately, Galatians 5:4 is misunderstood by some. One faulty interpretation is that it describes the action of an unbeliever who rejects the gospel. Yet it is clear that the apostle Paul is writing to Christians in this epistle. In the immediate context, he declares that they have been set free by Christ (5:1) and calls them "brethren" (5:11). The New King James translation, "you who attempt to be justified," does not refer to unbelievers trying to be saved, but acknowledges that under the law the most a person can do is attempt to be justified, because ultimately "no one is justified by the law" (3:11). Another inadequate interpretation, the common Arminian one, is that Paul is addressing believers who lose their eternal salvation. Not only is this against the whole tenor of scriptural teaching about the security of salvation, it misunderstands the concept of grace in relation to salvation as well as the argument that Paul sets forth in Galatians. Below is a brief exposition of this verse in its context. The Context Developed The context shows that Paul assumes the readers' saved status from the beginning of the epistle (1:2-4). He reminds them that they were called "in the grace of Christ" (1:6). The concept of grace is at the heart of the proper interpretation of Galatians, and at the heart of the Galatians' misunderstanding of their relationship with God. Apparently they did not understand all the implications of their salvation by grace and were easily confused by false teachers (1:6-9; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7,12). Paul is seeking to dissuade the Galatian believers from trusting in the Old Testament law as a means of sanctification. That would be contrary to the principle of salvation by grace. That is why he criticized Peter for not being consistent with grace (2:11-14) and explained "I do not set aside the grace of God" (2:21). Since the Galatians began their Christian lives "in the Spirit" they should not think they could grow to maturity by their own fleshly efforts at keeping the law (3:2-3). The law only brings a curse (3:10). As believers who have been justified through faith, the Galatians are now "sons of God" (3:26) and no longer slaves to the law (4:5-7). They need to "stand fast" in their liberty and not become entangled in the bondage of the law (5:1). If they revert to legalism, Christ will not profit them in sanctification (5:2), because keeping the external requirements of the law by fleshly efforts cannot bring anyone closer to God. To be acceptable to God, hey must keep the whole law perfectly (5:3), an impossibility. Interpretation of Verse 4 In verse 4, Paul explains that believers who revert to the law are estranged from Christ." "Estranged". translates the verb katargew, which means to be separated or loosed from something, or to render something ineffective, inoperative, or powerless. Paul uses the same word in 2:21 in the sense of set aside.. His readers have been estranged in their relationship with Christ (not cut off in their position as Christians) in that His grace is inoperative for them if they go back under the law, which is what circumcision signifies (5:2). They are in Christ, but not living by the power of His grace. The verb translated "fallen" is ekpiptw which has a broad range of meaning, but usually means to fall from something or to lose one's grasp of something. The Galatians had lost their grasp of grace, not Christ, salvation, or justification. A believer can not be un-justified (cf. Rom. 8:30), but a believer can certainly live in contradiction to Godís principle of salvation and sanctification by grace. At the essence of Paul's argument is the contrast between grace and law. They are opposites which do not mix; they are mutually exclusive. One either trusts in the grace of Christ for righteousness, or the law. Adherence to one system repudiates the other. It is only through faith in God's provision that both positional (3:24) and practical righteousness (5:5) is obtained, not through the works of the law. Therefore, with the phrase "fallen from grace" Paul is not addressing the Galatians' position in Christ; he is addressing their practice, or their Christian walk. The position of the Christian is sure: Every believer stands in grace (cf. Rom. 5:2) as a child of God (3:26) set free from the bondage of the law (5:1). But Christians can compromise their position with inconsistent practice by trying to keep the requirements of the law or some other external system in their own efforts. Application If we as Christians live in outward obedience and submission to the externals of any law or religious system, we do not elevate our spirituality, but lower it. Such legalism can not make us closer to God, but creates a chasm in our relationship to Him. We fall from grace. Perhaps we could say we have a "falling out" with God, because we spurn His gift of grace - the same grace that saved us - in favor of our own achievements. This spirit of legalism goes beyond adherence to the Old Testament Law. For example, if we worship to impress others, we do not "impress" God. If we have daily devotions only to satisfy a schedule, we do not "satisfy" God. If we trust in our sacrificial service to earn God's favor, then we ignore God's sacrificial gift to us. Only life in the Spirit under the grace of God can produce the righteous life that God desires. #FreeGrace #IBelieveInGrace #BibleStudy

#bibleverse #learningthebible

1 note · View note

reformedontheweb · 3 years

Text

#arthur pink #false prophets #god's law #freewill #arminianism #dispensationalism #new covenant theology

2 notes · View notes

andrewpcannon · 5 years

Text

Tobit- Religious Self-Betterment vs. The Gospel

Tobit 3:1-6

Unlike Job, who rebuked his wife for accusing God of being unjust, Tobit wept because of his wife’s words and because she seemed to be correct about God’s injustice. The story identifies Tobit as walking in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of his life (1:3). Yet, he was now blind and unable to work. Tobit was too righteous to see so much distress if God was truly…

View On WordPress

0 notes

goodnewsus · 4 years

Text

#READ MORE at. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

0 notes