Yes or no? Yea or nay?
ECT Q for those who believe in salvation by grace thru faith in Christ w/o works
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Yea!
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Ignores Past Responses
Jerry Ignores Past Responses
1. http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887532&viewfull=1#post4887532
2. http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4888293&viewfull=1#post4888293
In fact the second response above includes a pointer that settles the matter:
https://bible.org/seriespage/appendix-6-exegesis-john-2031
See also:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887532&viewfull=1#post4887532
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ch-is-of-God&p=4886893&viewfull=1#post4886893
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4888045&viewfull=1#post4888045
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887489&viewfull=1#post4887489
Claiming you have found no responses regarding the passage is but a tactic to distract others in hopes of showing yourself to be ignored. You have not. We have responded. Ignoring you until you can actually interact with responses given to you as you are wasting everyone's time.
Starting threads repeating the same assertions made previously, not acknowledging that you have actually been answered is dishonest and rude, Jerry.
AMR
Jerry Ignores Past Responses
Both of my responses to this same passage you keep appealing to have been quite clearly interpreted:
1. http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887532&viewfull=1#post4887532
2. http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4888293&viewfull=1#post4888293
In fact the second response above includes a pointer that settles the matter:
https://bible.org/seriespage/appendix-6-exegesis-john-2031
See also:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887532&viewfull=1#post4887532
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ch-is-of-God&p=4886893&viewfull=1#post4886893
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4888045&viewfull=1#post4888045
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...Open-Theists&p=4887489&viewfull=1#post4887489
Claiming you have found no responses regarding the passage is but a tactic to distract others in hopes of showing yourself to be ignored. You have not. We have responded. Ignoring you until you can actually interact with responses given to you as you are wasting everyone's time.
Starting threads repeating the same assertions made previously, not acknowledging that you have actually been answered is dishonest and rude, Jerry.
AMR
Lon
Well-known member
Thanks, what was your interpretation?
Thank you Jerry!
I was beginning to think we might have lost the plot here. 
In theory you might be able to think that the atonement was limited to the elect of it were not for the evidence of scriptures that teach the opposite of that, that claim Messiah lifted up His life for all men. Logic cannot be allowed to supersede the written word. We are not to go beyond what is written.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at the meaning of the Greek word hina found in these two places here:
"But these are written, that (hina) ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that (hina) believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).
The Greek word hina means "to the intent that; to the end that, in order that" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
In the first instance we see that these words are written "in order that" ye might believe.
In the second instance a person believes "in order that" he might have life.
This means that life comes as a result of believing.
Despite this the Calvinists teach that life comes before believing.
What is your interpretation of the meaning of the passage?
It depends upon what you mean by the elect. Whenever I read "the elect" I just think "the Church," and I have no trouble accepting that the Lord died only for the Church, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph5:26-27KJV). He didn't do this to everybody, just His Church.
Lon
Well-known member
Salvable in that sense is Calvinistic. We do believe Christ's work sufficient if all men universally called upon the Name of the Lord. We are saying He saves all who will be saved and loses none. It is mostly a question of God's purposefulness in reaching the lost, unwilling that any should perish. Despite the narrow road few travel, He seeks and saves the lost. Everyone but the universalist believes in some kind of limitation as well as recognizes few come the narrow way.
I think the same efficacy of the cross only happens for His church.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Okay with some of this expiation. "Propositionally would result" is agreed. It is stating John's purpose for writing the Gospel of John, that it would lead to
Careful, lest 'our belief' saves us. It is rather the work of Christ that saves us, agree?
Belief is part of Salvation, not it and of itself as I hope you agreed above.
This illustration breaks down with too much scrutiny, but I think it will help in this instance:
I am in the water swimming, along with all that came off the sinking ship. Several pregnant women give birth to children, thus inherit this disastrous predicament. There are signs everywhere. One guy is eaten by a shark, another, stung by a jellyfish, and a real sign that says 'no swimming' floating in the sea. The Coast Guard comes from land that no one in the boat has ever seen. Prior to the Coast Guard coming, there were instructions to build a boat. Some built a few, none of them floated. When the Coast Guard came, these were saved first, and then came the desperate attempt to rescue anyone else. Only those who held the lifesaver believed they were in trouble and needed to be saved as well as be coached on how to grab the life-ring, something they'd never done before with swimming hands.
In a sense, perhaps, faith could be seen as an element in saving: They had to hold on and stop trying to swim. How much was the Lord? The guy and gal had to be coached through everything, including the need to be saved in the first place.
The Calvinist in this case is of the opinion that the guy couldn't believe without being taught how to believe in the first place. Faith comes by hearing... Realize too, a Calvinist see salvation as more than the day you or I called upon the name of the Lord. He/she also believes God planned our salvation long ago, so he/she believes God 'saved us, before we realized or believed.' It is seeing our actual experience as negligible compared to all Christ had done and is doing. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
A couple of points:
1) for most of my life, I've been Amyraldian, which is about as you suggest here. I just think the Calvinist was logically right in saying even I believed in a Limited Atonement, and was rather a conscientious objector to 5 Point Calvinism, rather than 'not' a Calvinist. They were correct in that because, logically, Amyraldian is inconsistent Calvinism.
2) Amyraldian, as far as I know, is RC, so I was already all alone among conservative evangelical Protestants.
3) I try and explain things from my previous perspective because it helps others see Calvinist points. Calvinism does offend the senses and is counter-intuitive if one shares few or none of its tenants.
4) I think, really, we are all Calvinists-light unless we are universalists. It is just the logical way we all organize scripture believing the Lord Jesus Christ had to die to seek and save the lost. We all know the many will not come to Christ. We all believe His plan was to reach those He would or could. By necessity, even by history example, that number is few and the road is narrow. So, even if one is adamantly against Calvinism, I see him rather as Calvinist-lite. I may be anathema to him, but he/she is my brother in Christ and our respective understandings of 'how' we are saved does not and cannot stop Christ from saving. I just believe some of us are wrong, and sure, it could be me. I am Calvinist because it makes the most sense. I wasn't for a long time, because it really offended my senses. I love the lost, but I'm most concerned about the Church, His people. -Lon
Derf
Well-known member
The context, if you read it, is about whether all that are saved will stop sinning, willingly. Your poll question seemed to be about stopping of sin and its correspondence to salvation. Here is your poll question again: Must one be willing to stop sinning or he won't get saved?
I asked a couple of responders to my posts about whether we will be sinning for eternity or not. Here are their replies:
Thinking through logically, I believe all here would agree that we will not be sinning for all eternity. And salvation is about living for eternity with Christ, isn't it? ([1Pe 1:5 KJV] 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.)
So the answer to your question is: Of course, there is nobody that will be saved in the end that has not stopped sinning in the end.
John seems to think so: [Rev 21:8 KJV] 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Peter seems to think so: [1Pe 1:15 KJV] 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; AND [1Pe 2:1, 24 KJV] 1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, ... 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. AND [1Pe 4:17-18 KJV] 17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
Jude seems to think so: [Jde 1:18-19 KJV] 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
The author of Hebrews seems to think so: [Heb 10:26 KJV] 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Paul seems to think so: [1Ti 1:9-11 KJV] 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
AND [1Co 5:11 KJV] 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
And we know what James thinks.
All these writers seemed to indicate that those kind of activities are not what God desires for us. And no one will be doing those things in heaven. Will this be forced? Will God turn us into robots? I think we're all in agreement that we are all going to be sinless in heaven and we will want to be that way.
So when does it happen? Is it an instantaneous thing that we suddenly both have the ability to be sinless and also WANT/WILL to be sinless at the time of our resurrection? Maybe, but if so, then those epistles mentioned above are pretty meaningless to us, don't you think? If they are telling us that people who do those things are not allowed in, and we are doing those things purposefully and willfully, are we ready to have such an abrupt change in our will--is that really free will or is that forced on us at that instant.
Sanctification has been described to me as the process by which we are made more like Christ. And it's a lifelong process, or at least lifelong as long as we are Christians. If true, then it seems to be that God is preparing us all our Christian lives to be able to enter His presence without wanting/willing to sin. When does sanctification start? I'd say it starts at least as early as when we are justified--certainly not any later. Some would likely say it starts earlier, and I'm inclined to agree with them, though not necessarily for the same reasons.
Can we agree that sanctification starts the moment we are justified?
So if we agree on that point, that sanctification starts at least as early as justification, and sanctification is the process of being made more like Christ, and Christ was always willing to do the will of the Father, how can we say that a willingness to repent is something that is far away in time from being "saved", which I think is used in the same way as I am using "justified"?
Some of you may have seen some of my conversation on this thread earlier, asking about whether someone who is "saved" can become "unsaved". I guess I have a hard time pinpointing when we are saved unless it is at the moment when we are resurrected (like my quote of 1 Pet 1:5, above), but I understand the concept. According to the answers I received, most of you on this thread seem to believe in the security of the believer.
Spoiler
Let's put those two thoughts together:
A true believer is one who will end up with Christ for eternity.
All true believers will be sinless in eternity.
All true believers will be like Christ in eternity, wanting to do the will of the Father.
That process starts at least as early as when a person "gets saved".
This is backed up by Jesus, who said: [Jhn 14:15 NIV] 15 "If you love me, keep my commands."
By John, who said: [1Jo 2:3, 5-6 NIV] 3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. ... 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.
By Paul, who acknowledged that the new creation we hope for in eternity is already here: [2Co 5:17 NIV] 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! [2Co 6:1, 14, 17 NIV] 1 As God's co-workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain. ... 14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? ... 17 Therefore, "Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."
By the author of Hebrews: [Heb 10:26, 36 KJV] 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, ... 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
By Peter: [1Pe 1:2 NIV] 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
By Jude: [Jde 1:24 NIV] 24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy--
Admittedly we are not able to save ourselves from sin, either the penalty or the commission or sin. But salvation seems to be all about being WILLING to not sin. And no one who doesn't agree with that will be saved, imo.
And we all know how James feels about it: [Jas 1:15, 20-22 NIV] 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. ... 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. 22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
musterion
Well-known member
That's a good point -- but then you don't see "willing" defined in any of the many gospel tracts that use the line "be willing to turn from sin," or something like it, as a condition of salvation.
How do you turn over to Him what IS Him? Col 3:4
I don't see how anyone can be saved without having already done that when they believed the Gospel of grace.
musterion
Well-known member
This is what's at the bottom of the OP...how one defines "repent." There's two basic choices:
a. Stop sinning, or be willing to do so
b. Change your mind
Which one is chosen will determine very different concepts and presentations of the saving Gospel (if the saving Gospel is even presented).
musterion
Well-known member
Let's nail this down.
The way he laid it out back in the '90s (and he didn't invent it, btw, it's been around a LONG time) set the tone for a lot of ministries in the years following, including the one I had the misfortune of being saved in back in college.
Hard core LS folks say,
(a) the unbeliever must "repent" [be willing to turn from sin] as well as believe the Gospel (Sproul, Washer, pretty much all Reformed, plus Ray Comfort, Jack Chick) and
(b) the believer must continue to "repent" in order to "make their calling and election sure." 1 Jn 1:9, etc
See, THAT is what LS is really about...reducing "false conversions" of the lost, thereby proving as much as possible the election, thus the salvation, of those who believe. How? By misdefining repent as "stop sinning." That's where you get so many on TOL saying "If you don't stop sinning, you aren't/won't be saved."
But it all boils down to works added to the Cross.