Great Sermon! Thank you for this very good sermon. We know from Scripture that we will definitely suffer as born again believers and suffering can and will produce disapointment. This message clearly helps us to maintain the right perspective and heart attitude. Although we may experience immediate disapointment when initially encountering trial and suffering, your sermon has reminded me to shift gears and think rightly and biblically about the current circumstances. Thank You for bringing this word to us. God bless you.
DJC49, You are right that I should have been clearer with 2 Cor 11:3.
You said: "Please tell me how I can be any more clear..."
I didn't say that you weren't being clear, just that I:
1) Don't see how that foreknow having a meaning beyond it's meaning (?) would change or anull it's primary meaning. Do you know what I mean?
2) Am not trying to set you up or anything, just curious as to how you deal with the elect being known intimately before they were the elect, as per 1 Peter 1:2.
BTW, don't forget that "know" is also used plenty of times without the sence you are giving it. I would say it is used more often to refer to just knowledge or "knowing" a person in the normal sence then the way you are using it.
(Genesis 29:5) And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him.
If you are going to base your statements just on that, it will be pretty hard to prove.
DJC49, Actually, with 2 Cor 11:3 I was thinking of Calvinism in general,but anyway...
I am no Greek expert, but I think it's worth looking at what Thayer and Strong say about proginōskō (Foreknow- Rom 8:29) and prognōsis (Foreknowledge- 1 Pt 1:2).
proginōskō Thayer Definition: 1) to have knowledge before hand 2) to foreknow 2a) of those whom God elected to salvation 3) to predestinate prog-in-oce'-ko (Strong) From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, FORESEE: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
DJC49 wrote: Miguel, Now 2 Cor 11:3 is about the simplicity that is the gospel of Christ ..And it's very evident to me that you did NOT read that [URL=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreseenfaith.html]]]article by John Hendryx[/URL] with any understanding at all. .. But if you had any sense, honesty, and integrity whatsoever, you'd KNOW that every single, individual tenet in the Reformational creeds are cited with an abundance of Scriptural verses and passages.
Wow, it's been going fast and furious since I've been gone!
DJC49, That 2 Cor.11:3 refers only to the gospel is purely your opinion. Notice the words "in Christ" and then look at what it refers to in other places. You still have not explained how God foreknowing us would not mean that He would foreknow our decisions also and how foreknow came BEFORE predestination and election.
Why do feel the need to talk in such a harsh way to me? Is it because your arguments have little substance? Just because I have a different view then your artice does not mean that I have no sence, am dishonest, and have no integrety as you say.
Also, anyone can tack a few proof verses onto something and misapply a few passages a la JW's. That does not make it Biblical.
There is Hope, Sorry, but I'm not going to continue repeating what I have already posted every time someone wants to misconstrue it. I've already stated what I believe about all of this. If you want to continue argueing against something that I don't even believe you are welcome to, but don't expect me to continue responding.
DJC49, (2 Cor 11:3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ.
God is not the one who makes things complex. Thanks for the article as it helps me to understand your view better, but I see it is also full of its own "theological presuppositions" and "logical inconsistencies". He is confusing God's knowing the future with the future being predetermined, two vastly different ideas. Also, if God foreknows people, as he says, wouldn't their decisions also be included in that? You can't just ignore it, but that is what he seems to be doing.
You're right, I'm not dealing with Catholics, I'm dealing with Reformed Catholics.
I could give you much more then a definition of Fundamentalism, but what would be the point? And, BTW, I think it's good that you can have a certain diversity (within limits) from church to church rather then just a blind adherence to a man made creed.
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Solace, Thanks for at least saying you'll see me in heaven. Some of these guys would like to burn me at the stake I think.
DJC49, I stand by my comment that most Calvinists believe in their theology first and the Bible second. That's why when a verse plainly contradicts TULIP the Calvinist begins to do interpretational gymnastics rather then just accepting what the Bible clearly teaches. The JW's also claim that their heresy is based on the Bible, but try telling them otherwise.
As to Fundamentalism, I feel no need to defend it. If you are really interested in knowing more about it I suggest "In Pursuit of Purity" by David Beale. If not, then feel free to continue in your present condition.
To the rest of the TULIP'ers, I think you guys are clouding the issue. No one here is doubting how profoundly depraved and sinful man is. The issue is:
1) Does that mean that man is UNABLE to come to God.
2) Does spiritually dead mean he is unable to choose to come to Christ.
That is the unbiblical extreme of TULIP that I refered to, not as to how sinful man is. Just look out your window and you can see how sinful we are.
So you guys are argueing in favor of something that at least I have never said anything against, and appear to be avoiding the real issue.
rogerant wrote: Doesn't it say somewhere that there will curses heaped upon those who ADD to Scripture? He foreknew "WOULD BELIEVE IN CHRIST"? "For those He foreknew He also predestined" I am sorry but you are adding your own bent into the text. BTW The word "knew" in foreknew is gnosko, not gnosis in the greek. Gnosis means "knowledge of". Gnosko comes from the hebrew word, "yadaw" which means "to know with approbation, intimately" example, Adam "knew" Eve. You can't force "knowledge of" into the text.
That's a good one, a Calvinist accusing someone of adding their own bent into a text.
"Gnosis" or "gnosko", either way it does not change what I said about the text. Of course God also knows and even knew us intimately.
DJC49 wrote: BTW, how did you vote in this particular survey? Perhaps *Biblical Fundamentalism*? ...I mean, what defines a Biblical Fundamentalist anyway? ... other than they "believe the Bible."
DJC49, That's how I voted and your comment here just reinforces the fact that most Calvinists believe primarely in their theological system and not in the Bible. What's wrong with believing in the Bible? It's a whole lot better then saying I believe in Calvin.
As to total depravity, man is without a doubt totaly depraved. But TULIP takes it further to an unbiblical extreme that Paul never taught.
FR, With all respect, I think you need to take off the TULIP glasses too and just ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what God's word says. When we think of predestination we cannot forget that it is based on God's foreknowledge of who would and would not believe on Christ. (1 Peter 1:2) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,... I'm going to make it real simple for you..God ELECTED and PREDESTINATED those who He FOREKNEW would believe on Christ, to salvation and glory. I don't really expect you guys to agree with that, I just wanted you to see how simple it really is. All Calvin did was make a complicated mess out of something simple
Faithful Remnant wrote: Yes, but Mike what about Ephesians 2:1.. You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. And in Romans 7, Paul says "Sin revived and I died." Evidently it is a fatal sickness.
FR, Consider the context and think about what you are saying. Paul is talking about struggle of a saved man with the sin nature. If death is what the Calvinist says it is this would mean we could lose our salvation, i.e., "I died."
Even if this was refering to a lost man, as someone else on here claimed it was, that would mean a lost person was "alive" without Christ. Or alive and dead, alive and dead... How would you interpret that?
Tulipistheway, Your theology has blinded you from seeing the plain, clear teaching of the word of God. Until you take off your TULIP glasses and desire to simply know what the Bible teaches you will never see things clearly.
(Acts 7:51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (The Jews resisted the Holy Spirit. Is He not God?)
(Matthew 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Israel resisted God's will.)
I think the only thing "weedy" (?) here is your understanding of Scripture.
You say, "BUT Miguel you deny Christ - In that you say in your book, that this is not true???"
Where? What is not true is the twisted TULIP interpretation of those verses.
The verse you cite about the natural man is refering to understanding the word of God, look at it in it's context. It has nothing to do with what I said a sinner can experience and resist. Don't take my words out of context.
If we are going to continue this lets try and keep calm and not throw out false accusations of "denying Christ", ok?
enough already wrote: Jeremiah 17:9 says,'the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick, who can understand it?' In the original language, 'desperately sick' means 'incurable'. We all have an incurable disease, SIN. Our hearts are sinful and wicked, and we are not able to fix them. Our very nature is sinful; it is humanly impossible for vile, wicked sinners to have a 'change of heart' apart from divine intervention.
EA, I'm not sure if this was a reply to my comment, but I was not talking about a change of heart, but rather God's word and Spirit working within a person to produce conviction and godly repentance. I can say that I agree with everything you say here (apart from not using the KJV ) and do not see how it would go against my earlier comments. If this wasn't directed at me, my apologies.
tulipistheway wrote: Each of these verses contain a qualifying characteristic. 1] labour/laden. 2[ thirst. 3] draw - see John 6:44. 4] heareth/athirst. The "dead in sin" - sinners in their natural estate - do not experience these characteristics therefore cannot respond spiritually. You have ignored these terms in the verse to qualify works based religions. They who are predestinated, elect and effectually called unto salvation, are so by the work of grace and the Holy Spirit.
I haven't ignored them. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that a person cannot come to Christ unless there is a work of the Holy Spirit going on in that person's heart to produce conviction and repentance. Those terms are signs of that work, but I do not believe that that work is "irresisable" or that it is only for the "elect". In other words, God invites people to come who will resist and not come. That was my point, sorry if it was not clear.
I'd like to see you prove with only the Bible that "dead in sin sinners" never experience these characteristics. I seem to remember something about Paul "kicking against the pricks" BEFORE he was saved (Acts 9:5).
Rod - shêbeṭ From an unused root probably meaning to branch off; a scion, that is, (literally) A STICK (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan: - X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.
Considering the Bible's teaching on a parent's responsibility to train up their children, it has to be the parents and their own children. I have no responsibility before God for someone else's children's behavior, so I don't have a responsibility to discipline them either.
Example; God does not discipline the devil's children, only His own (Hebrews 12:5-11).
tulipistheway wrote: Jesus does not TELL those who are unable to enter in, - to enter. EG:...
tulipistheway, I think you are compareing apples and oranges here because there are many very clear passages where God invites all to come unto Him. That does not mean that all will, but it does contradict your claim that God does not invite to come in those who "cannot" (or will not I would say).
(Matthew 11:28) COME unto me, ALL ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Do only the elect labour and feel heavy laden?)
(John 7:37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If ANY MAN thirst, let him COME unto me, and drink. (Were all of these people elect for Jesus to say "ANY MAN"?)
(John 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me. (Is elect spelled "all" now?)
(Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, COME. And let him that heareth say, COME. And let him that is athirst COME. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely. (I wonder what kind of circular reasoning the Calvinist uses to get out of this one.)
DJC49 wrote: a] Incorrect. Amillennialism was the predominant eschatological system held by nearly ALL in the Church (etc.)
"Premillennialialism was extensively held in the early church, how extensively is not definitly known...it was largely replaced by the 'spiritual' view of Augustine. It reappeared in extravagant (?) forms at the time of the reformation, notably among the Anabaptists. Bengel and Mede were among the first modern scholars of distinction to advocate it." - Oswald Allis (amillenarian)
"The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risensaints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of disting uished teachers." - Philip Schaff
Michael Hranek wrote: DJC49 Amillenial Theology is so "neat", but how in the World do they explain away the two witnesses of Revelation?
Amillennialism is based on a nonliteral or spiritualized interpretation of the Bible. Instead of just believing what the Bible plainly teaches they look for some other meaning, limited only by thier usualy very active imaginations. Some point to Origen, a heretic from Alexandria, as the one who popularized the allegorical method. The reformers, along with a lot of other Catholic baggage, brought amillennialism with them when they left the Catholic church.
A literal interpretation of the Bible will lead one to a premillennial view.
DJC49, To spiritualize Revelation where it is not called for (where the context does not make it obvious that the language is symbolic) will lead you to making the same errors as the JW's do, who also heavily spiritualize Revelation.
DJC49, Glad you asked. 1) Why mention the 2600 years? Is God only able to give short term prophecies? You should know also that much of the Bible's prophecy concerning Israel has to do with "that day" or the last days, a time that is still to come.
2) Where in the entire 28th chapter of Isaiah is Egypt, or Babylon, or the captivity of Judah even mentioned? It's not there at all. To the contrary, it speaks of a "consumption...determined upon THE WHOLE EARTH." (vs.22) Sounds like tribulation talk to me.
3) Judah was judged by sword, famine, and pestilence in the case of the captivity (Jer. 14:12). Verse 17 mentions hail and water. There will be judgements involving hail and water in the tribulation.
4) Given Israel's long standing and continuing idolotry and involvement in the occult, is it ant suprise that they will make an agreement with the anti-christ? He will be Jewish after all, an imitator of the real Christ.
5) I was not spiritulizing this passage at all and see it as very logical that it would refer to the future agreement of Israel with the antichrist.