Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

You said this:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Here.

We've been round and round about it, and you've never been able to justify that statement of God's lack of omniscience. Instead of rational thought, you always react with emotionalism, as you did above. That alone should serve as a warning to anyone who hears you that yours is an indefensible theology.

Yes, that is an incorrect opinion of what I said. I never said anything about "lack of omniscience".

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

You said this:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Here.

We've been round and round about it, and you've never been able to justify that statement of God's lack of omniscience. Instead of rational thought, you always react with emotionalism, as you did above. That alone should serve as a warning to anyone who hears you that yours is an indefensible theology.

Yes, that is an incorrect opinion of what I said. I never said anything about "lack of omniscience".

How can an omniscient God not know that you are calling on him? That is a contradiction in terms -- either he knows, or he is not omniscient.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

You said this:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Here.

We've been round and round about it, and you've never been able to justify that statement of God's lack of omniscience. Instead of rational thought, you always react with emotionalism, as you did above. That alone should serve as a warning to anyone who hears you that yours is an indefensible theology.

Yes, that is an incorrect opinion of what I said. I never said anything about "lack of omniscience".

How can an omniscient God not know that you are calling on him? That is a contradiction in terms -- either he knows, or he is not omniscient.

Back up brother, you're missing the first cause.. no man can even come to Christ unless the Father first draw that man. And no man can have faith itself unless given to that man by the grace of God. So in essence, it's supposed to be believed that God chooses a person, gives them faith in His Son Jesus Christ, then apparently doesn't have a clue who they put their trust in and call upon, and then is held hostage to save them because of the faith that He gave them because they didn't get baptized by someone who said just the right words in the right order.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Only according to your incorrect opinion of what I said.

You said this:

Jesus is His correct name, you have not provided evidence otherwise. It does not need to be pronounced perfectly, just close enough that God knows that you are calling on Him.

Here.

We've been round and round about it, and you've never been able to justify that statement of God's lack of omniscience. Instead of rational thought, you always react with emotionalism, as you did above. That alone should serve as a warning to anyone who hears you that yours is an indefensible theology.

Yes, that is an incorrect opinion of what I said. I never said anything about "lack of omniscience".

How can an omniscient God not know that you are calling on him? That is a contradiction in terms -- either he knows, or he is not omniscient.

Back up brother, you're missing the first cause.. no man can even come to Christ unless the Father first draw that man. And no man can have faith itself unless given to that man by the grace of God. So in essence, it's supposed to be believed that God chooses a person, gives them faith in His Son Jesus Christ, then apparently doesn't have a clue who they put their trust in and call upon, and then is held hostage to save them because of the faith that He gave them because they didn't get baptized by someone who said just the right words in the right order.

Well, yeah, that makes his theology even worse, but I'm still puzzled over the parts that are contradictory outside of theology -- the impossibility of an all-knowing God not knowing something that is deemed critical (by TrueJew, not by me, I stand by my argument that it doesn't matter.)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

no man can even come to Christ unless the Father first draw that man.

Jesus was not talking about us today, but was addressing the Jews who were grumbling about what he was saying about himself.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44

He was not giving a lecture on how we are drawn to faith, he was basically equating himself with God.

And no man can have faith itself unless given to that man by the grace of God.

Paul, in Romans 10:17 says,

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

God's Grace sent to us Jesus. That is a gift to the entire human community. It is not us sitting around waiting for God to grant us grace. We already received it back when Jesus came. We just need to hear about it.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That would make God a respecter of persons. "No man" is quite definitive, it means no man. Past, present, or future. A.W. Tozer writes:

"Christian theology teaches the doctrine of prevenient grace, which, briefly stated, means that before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man. Before a man can think a right thought of God, there must have been a work of enlightenment done within him. Imperfect it may be, but a true work nonetheless, and the secret cause of all desiring and seeking and praying which may follow.

We pursue God because, and only because, He has first put an urge within us that spurs us to the pursuit. The impulse to pursue God originates with God, but the outworking of that impulse is our following hard after Him. All the time we are pursuing we are already in His hand: "Thy right hand upholdeth me.""

"The Pursuit of God, The Human Thirst for the Divine", A.W. Tozer, pp. 11-12.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That would make God a respecter of persons.

This is what I was talking about yesterday, how you make these enigmatic statements without any explanation, leaving the reader guessing as to what you mean.
It seems as if you go to these cult brainwashing sessions and they load you up with all these slogans that you recite on cue but don't even understand yourself enough to be able to explain.

What is a "respecter of persons", and what did I write that makes you think that I am making God whatever that is?

To me, what you are doing is supporting a cult theology by mining "proof texts" out of the Bible with no regard to their context or how the author was using that phrase which has been conveniently 'cherry picked' out of the text.
What you are doing, by quoting something from a book about the term “prevenient grace”, is supporting a type of predestination, where the subject of this action from the Holy Spirit is unable to resist, in that he has been 'chosen' from people in general to be "saved".
That is so much theory (as in: not a biblical teaching) by people like Calvin, regardless of your "proof text", which is not describing the mechanism of individual grace, but is supporting the legitimacy of Jesus as the agent of salvation from God and for God, in the face of his detractors who, of course, saw Moses and his Law as the only agency of salvation ratified by God.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Um, prevenient grace is a theological concept from the Arminianist camp, not John Calvin. Furthermore, you might be confusing it with some sort of predestination doctrine, which it's not, because the Bible says it's not God's will for any man to perish, and Christ said all men would be drawn to Him.

Should I also read "all men" as some esoteric figure of speech as you expect me to read the words "no man"? Is A.W. Tozer now a false Christian cultist as well?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . not John Calvin.

Calvin was one of the people creating salvation theories in the Reformation, where you had people trying to figure out how it can happen without passing a judgment of your works.

. . . you might be confusing it with some sort of predestination doctrine

I said that it was predestination.

. . . which it's not

That's your opinion.

. . . the Bible says it's not God's will for any man to perish

So?

. . . Christ said all men would be drawn to Him.

If he be lifted up.

Should I also read "all men" as some esoteric figure of speech as you expect me to read the words "no man"?

I didn't say that "no man" was an esoteric figure of speech.
It just wasn't the main subject of the verse, where Jesus was, and his role, and his authority and the truth of his claims for himself.
As for the "all men" in John 12:32, the word, men, is added to the English translation, so again the emphasis and the main subject of the verse is Jesus, with the "all" being there to show his mission.
You create, or rather your cult does and you mimic, theories (which the Bible doesn't explicitly teach), then take things out of context to try to support them .

Is A.W. Tozer now a false Christian cultist as well?

That's not a term that I use.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
What you are doing, by quoting something from a book about the term “prevenient grace”, is supporting a type of predestination, where the subject of this action from the Holy Spirit is unable to resist, in that he has been 'chosen' from people in general to be "saved".

No, that is not what prevenient grace means. It means that we are given grace by the Holy Spirit that enables us to accept salvation, but does not ensure it. That is not predestination, Arminians are directly opposed to Calvinists in that regard.

God's prevenient grace is with us from birth, preparing us for new life in Christ. "Prevenient" means "comes before." Wesley believed that God places a little spark of divine grace within us that enables us to recognize and accept God's justifying grace.

Today some call God's justifying grace "conversion" or being "born again." When we experience God's justifying grace, we come into that new life in Christ. Wesley believed that people are free to accept or reject God's justifying grace.

Wesley believed that, after we have accepted God's grace, we are to move on in God's sustaining grace toward perfection. Wesley believed the people could "fall from grace" or "backslide." We cannot claim God's salvation and do nothing. We are to participate in what Wesley called "the means of grace" and to continue to grow in Christian life. (John Wesley on Grace)

reply to post by adjensen

It means that we are given grace by the Holy Spirit that enables us to accept salvation, but does not ensure it.

If it is only given out to certain people, then I would call that predestination.

reply to post by palg1

A really enlightening book that goes much deeper is 'The Problem of God' . . .

I commented on this earlier and said I was going to read the book. I'm looking at it right now. I found the text of the book online,
woodstock.georgetown.edu...
so no one needs to buy a copy. I copied and pasted it into a Open Office text file so I can do word searches on it. palg1 had brought this up in relation to the idea of Jesus' "perfect divinity" being essential for our salvation. The book does not actually use that term, but it does say, "full divinity". That is actually what the verse in Colossians is talking about where the word "godhead" comes up in the English translation. So I don't think that Jesus' full divinity was in dispute in the so-called Arian controversy. More likely would be some sort of philosophical argument from Athanasius about how Arius' description somehow removes Jesus' full divinity, based on Athanasius' definition of what "divinity" means.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

It means that we are given grace by the Holy Spirit that enables us to accept salvation, but does not ensure it.

If it is only given out to certain people, then I would call that predestination.

It isn't given out to "certain people" -- where do you find that in Wesley or Arminius' writings?

Arminianism is counter to the five points of Calvinism, and Prevenient Grace is the counter to Irresistible Grace. See The Five Points of Calvinism.

reply to post by palg1

As for the act of setting us free... Without the "perfect divinity" the sacrifice he made on the cross would have served no purpose. With His divinity established, that sacrifice becomes the means by which all the sins of man can be forgiven. He took the bullet for us as it were.

Anyway, this is a partial quote from this post and I excerpted the relevant part to what I brought up in my last post.
I don't see how this explanation would have to be true.
I'll see if Murray has a reason, in his "God" book. OK, reading into the book some, it looks like what he is saying is that only God is our savior. Again, my counter is what I just said in my last post, Arius was not saying that Jesus was not somehow "god", but Athanasius was saying that Arius was in effect, making Jesus not "god" by his description of Jesus coming out from the Father in a process of being 'begotten'.
To me, the question is irrelevant because the New Testament has salvation ultimately coming from God, through Jesus. You can, as a Christian, call Jesus your saviour but you can also say Jesus is your God, as Thomas did in the Gospel of John. I don't think that anyone's particular view of what went on inside the trinity before the universe came into existence matters in the big scheme of things at all, which is maybe my main point on this entire topic. It was, back in the fourth century but that was because of the nature of people's thinking back then where philosophy was a more important component than it is today.

reply to post by adjensen

It isn't given out to "certain people" -- where do you find that in Wesley or Arminius' writings?

If it wasn't, then everyone would be saved. Do Wesley or Arminius think that? I doubt it.

Arminianism is counter to the five points of Calvinism, and Prevenient Grace is the counter to Irresistible Grace.

It's still predestination, either way.
What the Bible teaches, as explained by Paul, is that faith comes from hearing. All this other stuff is so much philosophy designed to get around that we live, then we die, then we go to a judgment that is based on our works. They set up some other methodology for salvation which takes the responsibility out of the hands of the person, and puts it into the hands of some outside force. I would define that as Predestination. You may have another definition for the philosophy and have a good time with that and I am not going to bother myself with the intricacies of it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

It isn't given out to "certain people" -- where do you find that in Wesley or Arminius' writings?

If it wasn't, then everyone would be saved. Do Wesley or Arminius think that? I doubt it.

Why don't you try reading next time, instead of just speculating about something you obviously don't know anything about? You claim to be "freed from the cult" and on a quest to rediscover Christianity, and yet you make inane statements like this that make it extremely clear that you're still up to your neck in a cult -- but it's a cult of your own design and preconceived notions.

No, Wesley and Arminius didn't think that meant "everyone would be saved", because it specifically says that it enables but doesn't ensure -- it gives the individual (every individual) the ability to be saved, but it is still up to them to accept or reject it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

It isn't given out to "certain people" -- where do you find that in Wesley or Arminius' writings?

If it wasn't, then everyone would be saved. Do Wesley or Arminius think that? I doubt it.

Arminianism is counter to the five points of Calvinism, and Prevenient Grace is the counter to Irresistible Grace.

It's still predestination, either way.
What the Bible teaches, as explained by Paul, is that faith comes from hearing. All this other stuff is so much philosophy designed to get around that we live, then we die, then we go to a judgment that is based on our works. They set up some other methodology for salvation which takes the responsibility out of the hands of the person, and puts it into the hands of some outside force. I would define that as Predestination. You may have another definition for the philosophy and have a good time with that and I am not going to bother myself with the intricacies of it.

edit on 6-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

So basically we save ourselves by our works? Is that an accurate understanding of what you just said. Our works are judged and we are given a pass/fail grade depending on the number and or motive of good works, or a preponderance of good over bad works?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Is that an accurate understanding of what you just said. . . . ?

No.
Judgment is biblical.
My point is that these old philosophies invented in the 16th through the 18th centuries are not relevant as far as I am concerned and their only relationship to the Bible is in how the supporters of these theories cherry-pick proof-texts from it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Is that an accurate understanding of what you just said. . . . ?

No.
Judgment is biblical.
My point is that these old philosophies invented in the 16th through the 18th centuries are not relevant as far as I am concerned and their only relationship to the Bible is in how the supporters of these theories cherry-pick proof-texts from it.

I didn't ask about judgment. I asked if I read correctly that the OUTCOME of said judgment was based entirely on our works. And it appeared that you implied that we save ourselves, like it's up to us based on how good we are.

Is this an accurate assessment?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Is this an accurate assessment?

All you are doing is asking the same question.
The answer is the same, No.
God saves us. I mentioned that earlier just a few posts ago.
I haven't reversed my theology in the last 12 hrs.
I know what you believe, which is so much philosophy, and not the Bible.
You believe that you have no judgement, despite the verses in the Bible that says there is a judgment that everyone has to go through.
You should have no questions regarding the judgment since you believe you are not going, based on what your cult has brainwashed you into believing. You can rest in the complacency that your cult has lulled you into and not concern yourself with what only other people will have to face.