What is the meaning of Grace, according to the Bible?

[bro.tan]

In the time of the Law of Moses, the Prophets spoke only in the context of that Law, knowing that depreciating it in any way would only cause people to rationalize it away and no longer fully observe it. As long as the Law was in effect, it was the job of the Prophets, and indeed the Messiah, to protect and preserve it.

This has nothing to do with the fact the Law, as a Covenant, would be fully broken in the time of Messiah, necessitating that a new Law come forth, centered on the Messiah himself, and not on Moses. This New Covenant did not condemn either Israel or the human race. Rather, if enacted it relied on grace and initiated a righteousness that was no longer condemned as flawed and temporary.

Stating that murder is equally anger, and adultery equally lust and covetousness, is not an enlargement of the Law. It was the Law from the start, applied in various contexts.

What was new about the New Covenant was the fact that Law no longer suppressed men and kept them under condemnation, falling short of Eternal LIfe. The New Covenant, by contrast, forgave sin and enabled men to continue to walk with God despite their sin and actually obtain the promise of Eternal Life.

This new way made the condemnatory rituals of the Law no longer necessary, to prevent human from entering eternal life. The promise of a resurrection made such rituals unnecessary and no longer applicable.

Why are you arguing this? It is true without an aspect of the OT Covenant of Law!

Jesus did not have to follow the Law of Moses at all! He was perfect and had no need to give offerings for his sin. He had no need to be given commandments to be righteous since he was God in the flesh--perfect righteousness before God.

So, we follow him, and not a Law that kept us out of heaven, or only in a temporary relationship with God. In following Jesus we find his grace, which surpasses the Law and gives us a righteousness that never ends.

I've already explained this. Jesus taught the Law while the era of Law was still in force. Every requirement of the Law was still being required by Messiah.

But Jesus was saying that he would fulfill it. He had not yet fulfilled it. He had come to fulfill it.

And when did he fulfill it? He fulfilled it on the cross, and in his resurrection. That's where an eternal covenant was made with God's People. The Law, by contrast, condemned Man and only provided a temporary means of relationship between God and Israel.

What Jesus was saying was that the testimony of the Law against human sin was eternal, up until the point where he would fulfill the Law. Until the end of this present universe, sinful man would have to die, as testified to by the Law. But Jesus would fulfill the Law not by just keeping the Law, but rather, by completing its purpose in a resurrection freely given to God's People.

You are repeating the same arguments. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was not the fulfillment of all prophecies. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a specific set of prophecies that had to do with God's covenant with His People.

 

[bro.tan]

In the time of the Law of Moses, the Prophets spoke only in the context of that Law, knowing that depreciating it in any way would only cause people to rationalize it away and no longer fully observe it. As long as the Law was in effect, it was the job of the Prophets, and indeed the Messiah, to protect and preserve it.

This has nothing to do with the fact the Law, as a Covenant, would be fully broken in the time of Messiah, necessitating that a new Law come forth, centered on the Messiah himself, and not on Moses. This New Covenant did not condemn either Israel or the human race. Rather, if enacted it relied on grace and initiated a righteousness that was no longer condemned as flawed and temporary.

Stating that murder is equally anger, and adultery equally lust and covetousness, is not an enlargement of the Law. It was the Law from the start, applied in various contexts.

What was new about the New Covenant was the fact that Law no longer suppressed men and kept them under condemnation, falling short of Eternal LIfe. The New Covenant, by contrast, forgave sin and enabled men to continue to walk with God despite their sin and actually obtain the promise of Eternal Life.

This new way made the condemnatory rituals of the Law no longer necessary, to prevent human from entering eternal life. The promise of a resurrection made such rituals unnecessary and no longer applicable.

Why are you arguing this? It is true without an aspect of the OT Covenant of Law!

Jesus did not have to follow the Law of Moses at all! He was perfect and had no need to give offerings for his sin. He had no need to be given commandments to be righteous since he was God in the flesh--perfect righteousness before God.

So, we follow him, and not a Law that kept us out of heaven, or only in a temporary relationship with God. In following Jesus we find his grace, which surpasses the Law and gives us a righteousness that never ends.

I've already explained this. Jesus taught the Law while the era of Law was still in force. Every requirement of the Law was still being required by Messiah.

But Jesus was saying that he would fulfill it. He had not yet fulfilled it. He had come to fulfill it.

And when did he fulfill it? He fulfilled it on the cross, and in his resurrection. That's where an eternal covenant was made with God's People. The Law, by contrast, condemned Man and only provided a temporary means of relationship between God and Israel.

What Jesus was saying was that the testimony of the Law against human sin was eternal, up until the point where he would fulfill the Law. Until the end of this present universe, sinful man would have to die, as testified to by the Law. But Jesus would fulfill the Law not by just keeping the Law, but rather, by completing its purpose in a resurrection freely given to God's People.

You are repeating the same arguments. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was not the fulfillment of all prophecies. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a specific set of prophecies that had to do with God's covenant with His People.

As I read through your reply, it's as if you don’t read the Bible at all, and it makes me wonder if you really took the time and understood all the scriptures and verses that I post, because that would have given you the understanding and a better reply. Not one verse or scripture was post by you to give any understanding of your thoughts of process. So now, with Scriptures and verses, explain to me the new covenant, and the different from the old covenant. Again....post out scriptures and verses.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As I read through your reply, it's as if you don’t read the Bible at all, and it makes me wonder if you really took the time and understood all the scriptures and verses that I post, because that would have given you the understanding and a better reply. Not one verse or scripture was post by you to give any understanding of your thoughts of process. So now, with Scriptures and verses, explain to me the new covenant, and the different from the old covenant. Again....post out scriptures and verses.

1) Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry in the context of the Law. It was still functioning as such. And the purpose of the Law was to frustrate Man in his present condition to make him hope in new circumstances, in a new covenant.

2) The terms of the Old Covenant represented the death of Man, as indicated in the Garden. Once Man had eaten of the Forbidden Tree, his destiny was death. And this sentence lasts as long as the current universe stands. All men must die.

3) The terms of the New Covenant fulfilled the Old Covenant by certifying that all men must die. Jesus certified that by dying himself--for us and not for himself. And in so doing, he fulfilled the Law also by redirecting Israel's hope towards his resurrection.

Though the curse lasts as long as the universe, the New Covenant was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. And those who take hold of him, by faith, come under terms of the New Covenant. Though we still must die, we have come out of the curse of eternal separation from God to enjoy his grace and the hope in the resurrection.

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Your focus has been on the righteousness of the Law. And that also was Jesus' focus at that time. But the indication is that Israel, represented by the Pharisees, had made a mockery of the righteousness of the Law by hypocritically presenting righteousness as a litrugical, external framework, as opposed to an internal reality. This indicated, as Jesus said elsewhere, that the Temple Law was about to fail. The Temple itself was about to come down.

What remained was Jesus' promise that after 3 days he, as a different kind of Temple, would rise up. And true righteousness would reside in those who choose to follow him, accepting the grace indicated in his sacrificial atonement.

The bottom line is that the passage you rely on does not work these things out theologically--they are still Old Testament. But put together with what Jesus said would happen, regarding his death and resurrection, and put together with what Paul did to explain these things, we know that righteousness was real under the Old Covenant, but failed in Israel. This placed the world's hope not in the Law of Moses, but rather, in Jesus, whose death and resurrection can give us both righteousness and Eternal Life.

If you don't understand these things, you're probably not a Born Again Christian.

 

[Randy Kluth]

My goodness Randy Kluth
I was using murder as an extreme example.
Do YOU know anyone that kills a few people every month?

I know. I'm showing you that in order to prove your point you had to use an extreme example.

Someone on YouTube, I will not be offering to give him any publicity here....
actually stated that a believer could kill a few persons every month and still be saved.

I appreciate your last sentence and for agreeing with the bible.
What we think matters not...
all that matters is what the NT teaches...
and it teaches that salvation can be forfeited.

I've got plenty of scripture if you'd like to see it...
but must close down now....

I'm interested in any sincere conversation. You're welcome to share as you will...

 

[PeterAndroz]

Okay, talk to someone else.

My pleasure

 

[GodsGrace]

Do you consider yourself free from sin, or a sinner? Do you believe 1 John 1:8 is about Christians? How about verse 6?

Great questions:

Do you consider yourself free from sin, or a sinner? Do you believe 1 John 1:8 is about Christians? How about verse 6?

1. I am not free from sin.
I am not a sinner.
To say that I'm a sinner puts me in the category of those that do not know God and live life as they please.
We are children of God that may commit sin.

1 John 3:1
1See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.

2. Most probably John is writing to Christians that require encouraging or that need to have Jesus' teaching confirmed to them again. The letter was written many years after the resurrection. Also, John ays if WE claim we have no sin.
Then he goes on in verse 9 to explain that sin requires confession...unbelievers are not required to confess to God.

1 John 1:8
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


as to verse 6...it seems very clear to me.
We cannot have fellowship with God and continue to live in spiritual darkness.
Continue to live...walk in darkness
is different than committing one sin.

Walking is an action..it's continuous.
Living in darkness is a continous state.

1 John 1:6
6If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

What made Adam sin? By your thinking you seem to think it was God who created Adam with a sin nature. No. Just a human nature with free will. Adam had a clean nature with no sin before he chose to sin willfully against God's one command. That is when his nature corrupted to be like Satan's now man's god of this world. Jesus takes away that sin. From where? Our nature, making it clean again. But we still have free will.

Yes ma'am.
There certainly is a problem with the Adam story.
There actually is no reply to your question.
What made Adam sin will not be known to us.
The story would imply that he received the sin nature after eating the fruit.
But then what cause the eating, the disobedience?

if, as you say, he did not have a CAUSE for eating it...
then how could he complete an action that he did not know of yet?
He had not yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...
so he did not know evil.

The bottom line is that it's difficult to use Adam in either case.

I agree that the corruption came after eating...of course.

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

It sounds as if you believe in sinless perfection.
If you would just state this it would cut a lot of useless convesation.
I do not believe in sinless perfection.

John 15:1-4 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

Verse 3 YOU ARE ALREADY CLEAN.

But you're ignoring verse 2 EVERY BRANCH IN ME THAT DOES NOT BEAR FRUIT.

° The branch is IN JESUS....the person is a saved person.
° The saved person is not producing...the saved person is sinning by not obeying Jesus.

Any Christian who commits willful sin is still of the devil and has neither seen Him nor known Him.

What is the difference between a willful sin and one that is not willful?
The moment we sin, we know it.

If we PLAN a sin,,,that is truly a problem.
But we were given a way out....

We confess our sins.
1 John 1:8
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


If we say we do not sin...we are making God to be a liar.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.


For anyone reading along...
this in no way should encourage anyone to behave differently than how Jesus taught...
think they could sin,,,,
and then ask forgiveness.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Amen to that.

22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Many will use the name of Jesus.
That will not be sufficient.

This is what Jesus taught:

John 14:21a
. 21“He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me;

 

[GodsGrace]

I know. I'm showing you that in order to prove your point you had to use an extreme example.

Fair enough.

I'm interested in any sincere conversation. You're welcome to share as you will...

Really I have not been following the conversation.
it sounded as if you were saying a person SHOULD obey God
but they don't really have to.
I might have misunderstood.

 

[GodsGrace]

People who believe in Jesus authentically have been born again and do not go on in their former sins. While it's true that those who have genuinely converted relapse, I don't think it normal, typical, or even reality to think such Christians relapse to the point of regular murdering others for hire, sport, or otherwise.

There are always mitigating factors in such cases, including things like mental illness, emotional distress, jealousy. But the way you are describing this as born again Christians determining to act unlike born again Christians seems more like an anti-
Calvinist argument. No Christian would argue this kind of sloppy grace, because it isn't grace at all.

Thanks for your question... For the sake of argument, if genuine born again Christians return to explicit corruption on a pemanent basis, I would have to admit that they have utterly lost their Christianity. I just don't think authentic Christians do this unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. If so, God knows this and would take into consideration all of these factors when applying His Grace to them, or not.

I reread your post.
I fully agree with what you posted that I've highlighted and underlined above.
I'd say that if you can say this...we might agree on soteriology.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Fair enough.


Really I have not been following the conversation.
it sounded as if you were saying a person SHOULD obey God
but they don't really have to.
I might have misunderstood.

Yes, that would be an improper characterization. I would never say that a perosn doesn't have to obey God. The rquirement to obey God is built into the creation of Man, to live in the image of God. God's image presents Man as a creature subservient to and obedient to God, his Creator.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I reread your post.
I fully agree with what you posted that I've highlighted and underlined above.
I'd say that if you can say this...we might agree on soteriology.

The Calvinist/Arminian disagreement leans on some very speculative matters, such as the question of what did God foreknow from before Man fell? If God foreknew Man's Fall, did Man really have freedom to avoid Falling?

I have my own solution to this, but it never pays to dwell too much on lofty matters reserved largely for God to fully understand. ;)

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Also, John ays if WE claim we have no sin.
Then he goes on in verse 9 to explain that sin requires confession...unbelievers are not required to confess to God.

1 John 1:8
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


as to verse 6...it seems very clear to me.
We cannot have fellowship with God and continue to live in spiritual darkness.
Continue to live...walk in darkness
is different than committing one sin.

After studying how the EASTERN Apostles wrote, which is different than how a WESTERN mindset works, it is easy to see which EASTERN style of writing John is using, which is the same with Paul. You cannot rely on the western understanding of personal pronouns, but MUST rely on context alone. Verses 6, 8 and 10 are all verses of darkness. Verses 5, 7 and 9 are all verses of light. John is displaying contrasts, one of the Semitic writing styles of the eastern Apostles. Chapter 3 is the same with sentences or partial sentences between sinning and not being able to sin. In the second chapter, verse 1 and 4 contradicts most westerners interpretation of especially 1 John 1:8.

2:1, My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin." This contradicts many peoples justification of their sin in 1 John 1:8. Now look at verse 2:4 "4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

This verse gives you a better understanding of the meaning of 1 John 1:8 and what exactly is the lie. Seeing as verse 9 shows we are cleansed of ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, it cannot be a lie to agree with verse 9. Context is everything.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Calvinist/Arminian disagreement leans on some very speculative matters, such as the question of what did God foreknow from before Man fell? If God foreknew Man's Fall, did Man really have freedom to avoid Falling?

I have my own solution to this, but it never pays to dwell too much on lofty matters reserved largely for God to fully understand. ;)

I've had to learn about arminianism since I keep getting labeled one.
Whether a person is reformed or arminian in theology, I'd have to say that God knows everything
and He knows it before it happens.

Because God knows something,,,does this knowing cause what happens?
Is knowledge causational?

If I know you are going to pick vanilla ice-cream...
does it mean I caused you to pick it?

Yes. I believe man had a choice.
He chose to disobey God.

 

[GodsGrace]

After studying how the EASTERN Apostles wrote, which is different than how a WESTERN mindset works, it is easy to see which EASTERN style of writing John is using, which is the same with Paul. You cannot rely on the western understanding of personal pronouns, but MUST rely on context alone. Verses 6, 8 and 10 are all verses of darkness. Verses 5, 7 and 9 are all verses of light. John is displaying contrasts, one of the Semitic writing styles of the eastern Apostles. Chapter 3 is the same with sentences or partial sentences between sinning and not being able to sin. In the second chapter, verse 1 and 4 contradicts most westerners interpretation of especially 1 John 1:8.

2:1, My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin." This contradicts many peoples justification of their sin in 1 John 1:8. Now look at verse 2:4 "4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

This verse gives you a better understanding of the meaning of 1 John 1:8 and what exactly is the lie. Seeing as verse 9 shows we are cleansed of ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, it cannot be a lie to agree with verse 9. Context is everything.

I'm not too concerned with the western mind set.
I've read the ECFs.
I don't mean to appeal to authority,,,just to advise you that I read textually and contextually and attempt to reconcile all scripture with itself since some does sound conflicting.

If you wish to have a real conversation, you're going to have to make your statement and then post the actual verse to support your statement.
Replying to your above post the way it is would take at least an hour to do it correctly.

You're only supplying, I THINK, 1 John 2:1
§Am I expected to look up the rest?

Please back up all your statements with scripture.
YOU must compare all the chapters and verses in your first paragraph...
not ME.

Happy to continue if you so wish.

PS
Please notice that this is exactly what I did in my post no. 86
I would appreciate a similar reply since it is an important topic.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I'm not too concerned with the western mind set.
I've read the ECFs.
I don't mean to appeal to authority,,,just to advise you that I read textually and contextually and attempt to reconcile all scripture with itself since some does sound conflicting.

If you wish to have a real conversation, you're going to have to make your statement and then post the actual verse to support your statement.
Replying to your above post the way it is would take at least an hour to do it correctly.

You're only supplying, I THINK, 1 John 2:1
§Am I expected to look up the rest?

I usually do, but I was referring to the Scripture that you used - 1 John 1:8 8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." I don't suppose I would remember what I had written either, so you are quite right.

What I found interesting about you, as opposed to others who have thought 1 John 1:8 was a Christian, but is not, is that you recognized that 1 John 1:6 is not a Christian even though it uses the same personal pronoun. I'm impressed. 1 John 1:9 is what those in verses 6, 8 and 10 must do to become a Christian and be cleansed of ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Certainly, that person would NOT by lying if they agreed that they had been cleansed of all unrighteousness.

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

as to verse 6...it seems very clear to me.
We cannot have fellowship with God and continue to live in spiritual darkness.
Continue to live...walk in darkness
is different than committing one sin.

Oh? How many times can you commit murder and not be put to death in the Old Covenant? Or lying? Ask Ananias and Sapphira? Righteousness is after being cleansed of all "willful sins unto death" - the breaking of God's royal commandments as seen in 1 John: 3). They are breaking a commandment of God.

Yes ma'am.
There certainly is a problem with the Adam story.
There actually is no reply to your question.
What made Adam sin will not be known to us.
The story would imply that he received the sin nature after eating the fruit.
But then what cause the eating, the disobedience?

if, as you say, he did not have a CAUSE for eating it...
then how could he complete an action that he did not know of yet?
He had not yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...
so he did not know evil.

The bottom line is that it's difficult to use Adam in either case.

I agree that the corruption came after eating...of course.

The point you are not seeing is that willful sins unto death do not require a sin nature to commit. Just free will. There is an heretical teaching that goes something like this: "we will always sin as Christians until after we die and receive new bodies." As if willful sin is only generated out of one of the three parts of us - our body, and not our inner man the spirit and soul. What the born again of the Spirit of God has that Adam didn't was God living inside him, empowering him to be conformed into the image of His Son. Our new nature may even partake of the divine nature of God.

It sounds as if you believe in sinless perfection.
If you would just state this it would cut a lot of useless convesation.
I do not believe in sinless perfection.

I've never heard anyone preach about "sinless perfection" except Christ, have you? I don't know of one denomination that doesn't believe that 1 John 1:8 is a Christian. This is why I left all denominations, though I fellowship everywhere Christ is taught. "Mt. 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." 1 Peter 1:16 quoting Jesus, "Be holy, as I am holy." And Peter also used the words "never stumble." That sounds like sinless perfection to me. By the way, the only times I've heard that phrase is from pastors or forum members speaking AGAINST perfection. Who started this war against "sinless perfection," do you know? They seem to have gotten into your heart too.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I've had to learn about arminianism since I keep getting labeled one.
Whether a person is reformed or arminian in theology, I'd have to say that God knows everything
and He knows it before it happens.

Because God knows something,,,does this knowing cause what happens?
Is knowledge causational?

If I know you are going to pick vanilla ice-cream...
does it mean I caused you to pick it?

Yes. I believe man had a choice.
He chose to disobey God.

I got kicked off a recent forum I was on for holding several views that are spread out among different schools of thought. I didn't want to be held captive to any particular school of thought on this matter. I wished to think through things on my own.

I hold Predestinarian views like Calvin, and free will views like Arminius. Some do believe that God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will, and think it is because He simply knows in advance how people will choose in the future.

That's not my formula, but I do believe in free will. I don't, however, believe that God necessarily foreknew the Fall of Man, or predestined it. He simply had both choices of Man in His head, and would work out the consequences of either choice according to His plan and according to His justice.

Again, these things are too lofty for us. But we can try to understand.

 

[PeterAndroz]

I got kicked off a recent forum I was on for holding several views that are spread out among different schools of thought. I didn't want to be held captive to any particular school of thought on this matter. I wished to think through things on my own.

I hold Predestinarian views like Calvin, and free will views like Arminius. Some do believe that God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will, and think it is because He simply knows in advance how people will choose in the future.

That's not my formula, but I do believe in free will. I don't, however, believe that God necessarily foreknew the Fall of Man, or predestined it. He simply had both choices of Man in His head, and would work out the consequences of either choice according to His plan and according to His justice.

Again, these things are too lofty for us. But we can try to understand.

""I hold Predestinarian views like Calvin, and free will views like Arminius""
Then how do you explain these verses ?
1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Pet 3:9 ...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[GodsGrace]

I got kicked off a recent forum I was on for holding several views that are spread out among different schools of thought.

I know of a forum where there is an idea brewing that gnostic teachings should not be allowed on these threads.
What do you think of that?

Having thoughts that are "spread out among different schools of thought" sounds very wrong.
Having thoughts is instersesting...
but do you have solid beliefs about anything at all except that Jesus died for our sins?

I didn't want to be held captive to any particular school of thought on this matter. I wished to think through things on my own.

This is good.
Hope you reach a conclusion someday.

I hold Predestinarian views like Calvin, and free will views like Arminius. Some do believe that God's foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will, and think it is because He simply knows in advance how people will choose in the future.

Yes sir.
This is what the bible teaches.
Predestination and free will, BTW, are NOT compatible.
Either God predestinates everything
or
We have free will.

Are you RandyK?

I I force you to buy that vanilla ice-cream
HOW did you have the free will to choose it?

That's not my formula, but I do believe in free will. I don't, however, believe that God necessarily foreknew the Fall of Man, or predestined it. He simply had both choices of Man in His head, and would work out the consequences of either choice according to His plan and according to His justice.

You're limiting the knowledge God has.
Is He omniscient or not?
Does He have full knowledge of everything or not?
You're denying one of the attributes that allows God to be God.
(unlike man who does not know everything...but was gifted limited knowledge when God made man in His image)

Not sure which formula you don't agree with...
but OK.

If God was working out a plan in His head,,,does that deny man free will?
Do you know the analogy of the football game?
(I hate analogies but sometimes they're necessary)

Again, these things are too lofty for us. But we can try to understand.

Of course.
But we can use the NT to know what Jesus and the others taught.
I see free will there, not deterministic theology.

 

[GodsGrace]

I usually do, but I was referring to the Scripture that you used - 1 John 1:8 8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." I don't suppose I would remember what I had written either, so you are quite right.

What I found interesting about you, as opposed to others who have thought 1 John 1:8 was a Christian, but is not, is that you recognized that 1 John 1:6 is not a Christian even though it uses the same personal pronoun. I'm impressed. 1 John 1:9 is what those in verses 6, 8 and 10 must do to become a Christian and be cleansed of ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. Certainly, that person would NOT by lying if they agreed that they had been cleansed of all unrighteousness.

Please don't be impressed...
The first chapter of John can be debated.
IF there is any verse that is addressing non-believers it would be
1 J 1:8
8If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.

Some believe this is addressing gnostics who believed that the body sins but not the soul or spirit of the person.
Most believe that Paul is still addressing believers, although gnostics and unbelievers possible and probably were in the crowd.

This makes more logical sense to me because in 1 J 1:9 John goes on to explain the SOLUTION for the sinning and this solution could apply to both believers and non-believers on how to become Christian.
1 J 1:9
9But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.

John would be addressing believers that might have been wandering away and restating doctrine on how walking in sin is dangerous, and how confessing will cleanse from all sin. The idea of walking in sin is important in his writing here.

John continues to use the word WE...this is all inclusive and, in my humble opinion, I believe he is addressing Christians.

5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

If WE say
WE have followship --- unbelievers do not have fellowship
WE lie
WE walk
cleanses US
WE say
WE deceive
in US
OUR sins
forgive US
cleanse US
WE have not sinned
WE make Him a liar
the truth is not in US


All the we's and us tend to support those that believe John is addressing believers.

Oh? How many times can you commit murder and not be put to death in the Old Covenant? Or lying? Ask Ananias and Sapphira? Righteousness is after being cleansed of all "willful sins unto death" - the breaking of God's royal commandments as seen in 1 John: 3). They are breaking a commandment of God.

And here we go to John's teaching:
1 John 1:9
9But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.


If WE confess OUR sins....
this is the solution to sins.

But those that believe in sinless perfection must find another meaning for the above or their doctrinal belief will be destroyed.

The point you are not seeing is that willful sins unto death do not require a sin nature to commit. Just free will. There is an heretical teaching that goes something like this: "we will always sin as Christians until after we die and receive new bodies." As if willful sin is only generated out of one of the three parts of us - our body, and not our inner man the spirit and soul.

Sin is not generated by the body.
My skin cannot sin.
We can sin WITH the body.
But it is our soul that causes sin.
A soul that, at that moment, is not being governed by our spirit.

What the born again of the Spirit of God has that Adam didn't was God living inside him, empowering him to be conformed into the image of His Son. Our new nature may even partake of the divine nature of God.

You believe we're closer to God than Adam was?
The atonement is trying to get us back to being like Adam in a small way.
Adam walked with God.
Adam made a deal with God.
We do not.

I've never heard anyone preach about "sinless perfection" except Christ, have you? I don't know of one denomination that doesn't believe that 1 John 1:8 is a Christian. This is why I left all denominations, though I fellowship everywhere Christ is taught. "Mt. 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." 1 Peter 1:16 quoting Jesus, "Be holy, as I am holy."

Do you believe Jesus taught that mankind is perfect?
§Why did Jesus give the Apostles this command?
John 20:22-23
22Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”


John had a solution for sins.
Jesus had a solution for sins.

Be perfect: Be complete, §Be like your Father in heaven...in desire...in practice this is impossible.
Be holy: Be set apart for service go God. Be loving and merciful and pure.

And Peter also used the words "never stumble." That sounds like sinless perfection to me. By the way, the only times I've heard that phrase is from pastors or forum members speaking AGAINST perfection. Who started this war against "sinless perfection," do you know? They seem to have gotten into your heart too.

You have not provided scripture for Peter and not stumbling.
Please provide scripture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

""I hold Predestinarian views like Calvin, and free will views like Arminius""
Then how do you explain these verses ?
1 Tim 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Pet 3:9 ...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God planned only for X number of Elect to represent Him throughout the earth for all eternity. He did not initially plan for people who would reject living with Him in His presence for all eternity.

However, part of God's formula was Free Choice. This meant that God anticipated the possibility of wrong human choices, leading to bad people. And so, despite God's original intention to have only His Elect, He allowed, in advance, for wrong choices, along with their consequences. The resolution to the problem was thus built into the original equation, even though God's original intention was only for the Elect.

Despite the fact some people have rejected being and acting like God's Elect God's attitude towards Man remains the same, offering the same benefits for all, including redemption. God simply knows who are being produced out of human rebellion and who are the original determined Elect of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I know of a forum where there is an idea brewing that gnostic teachings should not be allowed on these threads.
What do you think of that?

Well yea--one of the moderators there, who had been very friendly with me, began to declare that Calvinism is on a par with Gnosticism. When I strongly denounced that as unfair to many Presbyterians and to many Calvinist-oriented Baptists, he was likely the major force in banning me. In fact it was he who banned me until December--not that I have any need whatsoever to be on a forum that is so intolerant.

To cut off a very large part of the historic Church, involving otherwise very conservative, very orthodox people, is shameful. And I won't be changing my view of this. Multiple times several of the mods there deleted my posts or transfered my posts to other places on the forum, which I strongly protested.

They were censoring and editing my posts, and then attempted to prevent me from openly complaining. Terrible, terrible nonChristian practices. Moderators there had their power go to their heads. Sad because prior to this I had experienced a very friendly exchange of diverse ideas.

Having thoughts that are "spread out among different schools of thought" sounds very wrong.
Having thoughts is instersesting...
but do you have solid beliefs about anything at all except that Jesus died for our sins?

Are you judging about "how things sound" or about what I actually believe? I have seen truths in groups who disagree with one another.

Take for example how divergent Christian groups look at the Eucharist. I would agree with Catholics that God's Spirit can be present in the practice of Communion, though I disagree that God's presence is intrinsically part of the ritual.

I would agree with the dignity Reformers would show the Communion service. After all, Paul said that Christians were sick or dying by not properly treating the ceremony as real. At the same time I disagree with Consubstantial views because like Catholicism they tie the ritual to God's necessary presence.

I would also agree with Baptists and others who view the Eucharist as purely symbolic, but I would retain its sacred character. As I said, Paul declared that the Communion service was sacred and had to be viewed as something more than simple symbolism. It was a sacred cereony.

I have divergent views about Water Baptism, as well. I find that various groups grab hold of a single aspect of these sacred practices, and fail to recognize unbalances, which other groups may focus on. I was raised with Infant Baptism, but now see it as a Dedication Service, and not Water Baptism such as was involved when people transferred from a sinful life under the Old Covenant to righteous living under the New Covenant, or when pagans convert to Christianity.

Christians, like myself, who were raised in Christianity, did not have to wait, like some Baptists groups, until full adulthood to engage in a Baptismal ceremony that was largely symbolic and an Initiation Ceremony. Christian parents raise their children up as Christians even before those kids convert or simply accept their religious upbringing.

Should I not identify truth in different groups, or only accept truth in a school I tend to favor? I'm not talking about dignifying aberrant groups with orthodoxy only because they have a particular truth. I'm talking about finding spiritual truths in truly Christian groups, despite the fact I may not favor their larger profile.

This is good.
Hope you reach a conclusion someday.

I already have. I've approached these things lifelong in my thoughts.

Yes sir.
This is what the bible teaches.
Predestination and free will, BTW, are NOT compatible.
Either God predestinates everything
or
We have free will.

I'm not arguing this at this point--just telling you that many Christians do accept the compatibility of Predestination and Free Will.

Are you RandyK?

I I force you to buy that vanilla ice-cream
HOW did you have the free will to choose it?

My view is that Free Will has guard rails. Election is God's domain, but human beings were not made to be slaves. We were made to make choices in accord with God's Word, ie considering what is moral with respect to God's Word.

We are not forced to consider God's Word, though we were created with that in mind. The fact that God determined X number of His Elect is not incompatible with God giving Man the ability to produce children beyond the X number of God's Elect.

Of course, God built into His formula for Man the ability to make this choice, as well as the consequences for making wrong choices. This is a correspondence between God's original pure intention with His endowment of Man with the ability to choose contrary to His will, producing children that must be judged as unworthy of God's original desire.

You're limiting the knowledge God has.
Is He omniscient or not?

"Omnicient" is a philosophical term, since it extends beyond our ability to understand what, in reality, God knows. We all believe His omniscience includes all possibilities, such as in a multiverse containing all possible scenarios arising from all possible human choices. But in terms of knowing precisely how Man will choose, I reject that God imposes upon Man his choices based on what God knows in advance.

Of course.
But we can use the NT to know what Jesus and the others taught.
I see free will there, not deterministic theology.

I reject Determinism with respect to human choice. I accept Free Human choice. But God does determine, in a sense, that there will be X number of His Elect by controlling the circumstances that drive human choice towards the things they are naturally inclined towards. If you know anything about behavior modification, I would suggest that is the process by which God determines things without overriding human freedom.