The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I have always believed the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It tells us it was inspired and I believe God has taken many steps to keep it as it was written for the last 2,000 years, in spite of all those who have tried to destroy it.

Likewise I don't believe the physical attempts to eliminate the Bible are the reason for so much dissent and errors in the meaning of the Bible we have today. God has kept the Bible from being physically destroyed and even as it was being written He has tried to keep from having it changed by those who did not like what it said and I believe He has succeeded, at least in the written word.

It began as it was being written. Although Jesus was a Jew and all the apostles he selected were Jewish, He could not get the Jewish people as a whole to accept what He was trying to tell and teach them. For example, Peter was considered the leader of the apostles and after Jesus left, it should have been Peter who tried to teach the other apostles what Jesus wanted taught but that didn't work out as they did not even know what Jesus was talking about most of the time while He was here and even Peter didn't understand what Jesus wanted.

The biggest error of the apostles involved the Law of Moses. Jesus said He had come to fulfill the law, not to do away with it but Peter and the others didn't know what Jesus meant. Peter and the other apostles were following Jesus' instructions of course by preaching to the Jews only. They preached the Kingdom of God but never preached of the Gospel of Grace. In Peter's sermon at Pentecost, he preached that Jesus was the son of God, was crucified and had risen. He did this to show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah they had expected but yet they didn't believe Him.

Many scholars believe that if the Jews had received Jesus as their Messiah, Jesus would have returned and set up His Kingdom on earth as He promised. However since they did not accept Him, he delayed His return and did not come again when expected Him to and instead found another to preach to the gentiles instead of the Jews.

Saul of Tarsus was the one chosen as Paul was the one who had persecuted the Jews for believing Christ was the Son of God. We all know of the conversion on the road to Damascus and what happened after that. However even with Paul teaching his gospel, others, Jews, were still preaching that in order to be saved you had to obey the laws of Moses and they claimed Saul, who by now had been named Paul by Jesus, was not telling them the truth because they had to be circumcised in order to be saved. I always believed Jesus commissioned Paul because the apostles weren't doing the job and He was ready to give up on the Jews.

Peter and the other apostles were also teaching the gospel to the Jews and insisted they had to follow the Law of Moses. This of course, led to the meeting that finally decided that Paul and Barnabas would teach the gentiles and the other apostles would teach the Jews and that continued for some time.

We should be teaching what the Bible tells us instead of attempting to change it to fit some special ideas. Am I the only one who believes Christianity has changed so much?

God the Son did not accomplish something? He was not able? Is God not able to accomplish what He purposes to do? (Job 23:13; Job 42:2; Dan. 4:35; & Eph. 1:11). But He said He accomplished (Jn. 4:34; Jn. 5:36; Jn. 17:4) the work God gave Him to do.

This is called conjecture and has no Biblical support IMO. Seemingly the very point I think you're trying to make.


I disagree have you checked Matthew 28:18-20? What of Mark 16:15? What of Luke 24:46-48?
Once again God cannot accomplish His plan if men do not participate? So His coming was thwarted and we are now on God's "plan-B"? His back-up plan? A position very close to the Openess of God theology and quite dangerous IMO.

I believe that God is soveriegn and in complete control working all things for the purpose of His will. (Romans 8:28 & Ephesians 1:3-6)

Blessings,
Randy

No, I'm asking you if you're implying (or rather if you meant to imply) that Jesus failed to accomplish what was divinely intended for Him to do on earth?
What Scriptures affirm that all of the nation Israel was decreed by God to accept their Messiah?
How can you say this above AND say "Jesus could not get the Jewish people as a whole to accept..."? Either it was His purpose and He failed to accomplish it or it was not His purpose at all. Which are you saying it is?
What of Acts 15:7? I believe the plural "Gentiles" clearly implies more than just Cornelius. I take the entire book of 1 Peter as a pretty good indication as well. (My view is that Peter is writing a [predominately] Gentile church [see 1 Peter 1:18]). I also take the entire book of Revelation a pretty good indication. Further the commisioning and acceptance of Paul's mission by the Apostles is pretty clear. Further, along the lines of your thinking, there is no scripture which says the Apostles never preached to any Gentiles. Frankly church history and tradition says otherwise as well as what the scriptures indicate. The Gospels of Matthew and John clearly represent the universality of the gospel. The Gospels of Mark (which tradition takes as a direct result of Peter's discipleship) and Luke are clearly indicative of the Apostolic teaching of the universality of the gospel. Paul went to the Apostles in Jerusalem to ensure he was not "running or had run in vain" (Gal. 2:2). As stated before, Paul was accepted and given the "right hand of fellowship" (Gal. 2:7-9). Also there is indication that it was intended for Peter to go to the circumcised and Paul to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7).

First, yes I believe firmly that Saul/Paul was all a part of God's singular and wholly effective plan laid out before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-6; see also Gal. 1:15-16 where Paul was set apart before he was born.). I take the existence of the church today as proof that the Apostles went to the Gentiles along with my argument laid out above.
According to what I see above your definition of "sovereignty" has removed the "sovereign" part. IMHO Luke 13:34 (as well as Matthew 23:37) is an expression of God's preceptive will, not His decretive will. As defined by John M Frame:
As I have said many times before, men are free only to act within the confines of their nature. A fallen nature can never choose God's offer of salvation. A redeemed nature cannot help but to freely choose God's salvation because the very heart of their nature is quickened and changed by the Spirit and drawn to the Father through the sacrifice of the Son.

Blessings,
Randy

Mmmmm. Frame.

Cal, your whole argument here smacks of Open Theism.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

I'm not sure of your definition of Theism. Perhaps you should explain it to me. If a Theist believes in God, then surely I do.

I believe it to be a description of God's attributes and I see Him as all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), unchanging (immutable), perfect and eternal. If that is what you call Theism them I confess. I believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

However I believe God leaves much to man to decide and I don't believe everything that ever happened pleased Him. For example I find Him discussing what He wants to do and also changing His mind in the OT.

You believe God to be "unchanging" and yet "changing" His mind?
God leaves much to man to decide.
This is indeed indicative of a form of Theism...That being Open Theism. A mixed bag of contradictions, circular arguments, and an anthropocentric (man-centered) focus. Where God is perfectly unable to accomplish much witout man's agreement and participation.

Blessings,
Randy

God's master plan does not change but He does change His mind sometimes on how to get there especially when it involves man. The Bible has numerous incidences where God changed his mind.

Should He have built robots instead of man with a free will? Should man stop praying to God for those things which he desires? Certainly if God knows every thought in man's mind and everything man is going to do, including salvation, why didn't He just make robots? Do you believe God knew when He put man on the earth that it would turn out so bad He would have to destroy mankind except for a few?

Are you saying that some are born to be saved and others are born to lead a sinful life and be damned? Isn't that a little Calvinistic?

Just curious, How can one believe God is "perfect" and change? If He changes He is either improving (thus He wasn't perfect) or changing (from perfect to imperfect). How do you reconcile that you believe He is immutable and yet changes. Is that not a contradiction? How can He be omniscient and His plan change? How is it you say you believe and confess these things and yet then say just the opposite? Where does the Bible affirm the doctrine of "free-will"?
Yes, That would be because He is omniscient. Thus we were Chosen "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:3-14 esp.v. 4). In regards to that choice I said this in another discussion regarding the Atonement a few months back:

I say that all are sinners and born with a fallen nature inherited from our father Adam. Some He predestined and wrote in His book to be saved. The others remain in the wrath that all rightly deserve. I believe that God will have mercy and compassion upon whomever he (that being God only) wishes (Romans 9:15-16). Whether or not these things are labeled "Calvinism" I really am not concerned. I think they are correct and Biblical.

Blessings,
Randy

Randy

From your last comment you said you believe all are born sinners and some ar predestined to be saved and some not. Why then should we have churches and preach to the masses? Why should anyone bother with whether they can be saved or not as it is already predestined? Aren't we just wasting time when we tell people they can be saved but if they are not on the list already they are just wasting their time? Why did Jesus tell the apostles to go into all the world and preach the Gospel if it would be in vain?

How can you question man's free will? The Bible talks of free will all the way from Genesis to Jude. We are given the choice of whether there is a God or not, whether we believe Him or not, the freewill to worship Him, the freewill to do our best to live a holy life and we also have the freewill to turn away from God, to mock Him or to even spurn Him. Is that not freewill? Are you sure we are just wasting our time? That's Calvinism!

In the beginning, in Genesis, God says in Genesis: GE 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."KJV

Are you going to insist Adam and Eve did not have the freewill to do either? Of course they did. To think otherwise is certainly not Biblical.

What about Cain and Abel? Did they not have freewill? Let's look at the Scriptures and see what they say.

Genesis 4:6-10 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” [NIV]

The Lord told Cain it was up to him to do what is right or what is wrong.

Surely it would have been easier for God to just make everyone perfect like Him so we would have a perfect world but I don't believe God wanted obedience from us that was blind. I believe He wanted us to love Him, become His children because He gave us that opportunity just as He gave us the opportunity to turn away from Him. He wants us to become the Sons of God and if he had wanted robots, with no freewill or free mind, He would have made a world of cattle or something. That would have produced unquestionable obedience for sure.

There are other instances, several in fact, where the Bible tells us that God changed his mind and in one case, he even bargained for a solution of a particular problem. Are you not familiar with Genesis chapter 18 where God bargained with Abraham?

You seem to be proving my point of this thread. During the past 2,000+ years, it is obvious people have changed what Scriptures mean when they are quite clear by saying things like, "God didn't really mean that". We don't have to search and search to find out what some Scriptures mean when they are quite clear in what they say and because of the different writers we usually are able to confirm a Scripture in another place.

Maybe God knew which choice Adam and Eve would make but it is quite clear He gave them the choice to go either way. I for one do not believe God wanted it any other way. I believe He wants us to prove our devotion to Him by living as He wants us to and following what He teaches.

Not theism, Open Theism. Open Theism in a theological system that teaches God is not unchanging (and therefore not perfect). He changes His mind and can be wrong about things. In my opinion, it is the logical end of the free-will system, since if man actually has a free will, God cannot possibly know for certain what each individual will do. Open Theists argue that God is basically the best gambler ever. He is the wisest and most knowledgeable being in the universe, so He can predict each individual's actions 99.99% of the time - but He isn't perfect. Sometimes He gets it wrong and must adjust. Your subsequent comments show you hold a lot of agreement with Open Theism.
Many people (including me) think Open Theism has an unorthodox, bordering on heretical, view of God.
Notice he didn't show it Randy, he just re-affirmed his argument.
1. Because Jesus told us to preach the Gospel to the whole world. (That should be enough)
2. Because no one knows who is predestined and elect except God. If you preach to someone and they believe, they are elect and predestined to do so. If they never believe and die in unbelief, they were not elect and not predestined to believe. I have yet to get an answer to this question, and I doubt I ever will: What is different about those who believe (if you believe all people have free-will)? And they are better in this system because they chose to believe. What makes them better than those who don't believe? (By the way, this was Luther's question to Erasmus - which as far as I know also went unanswered, and shows this is not just a Calvinist thing). I happen to believe the Bible - that we are all fallen and all incapable of believing on our own. Or is it the quality of the preacher? If we simply had a million Billy Grahams would we have tens of millions more believers? That seems pretty mean of God, not giving us more great preachers. I happen to believe it is not the skill of the preacher, but the choice of God.
Why should we have churches? To worship and glorify God, teach others about Him, and fellowship with other believers.
Because the Bible teaches, as Randy rightly pointed out that all people "are sinners and born with a fallen nature inherited from our father Adam." We are slaves to sin (John 8:34-36; 6:16-23) and dead in sin (Gen 1:15-17; Eph 2:1) before being born again. Slaves cannot free themselves, and the dead cannot raise themselves. Do a simple word search on "choose" and "chosen" in the NT in reference to God and man. Every instance will be God choosing us, not the other way around. We do have some freedom of will, by the way. We decide if we are going to eat. We decide if we are going to obey the law. I decided to check bible.org today. But in reference to choosing God, we are simply unable because of our fallen, sinful nature.

But that is before God restores our will. Most of what you said is true of believers. As Christians, we are free to choose to obey or to sin. But just as we are not able to come to Him, we are not able to leave Him. You also cited Adam. True. He did have free-will - until he disobeyed God and died. Since he didn't die physically, either God lied or something else in Adam died. Paul said Adam's soul died - and that death "spread to all men."
Do you normally interpret the Bible in such an unnaturally wooden way? Do you think God has actual, physical hands and arms (Isa 40:10; 41:10-13; Ezekiel 35:3)?
So you believe in the same kind of god as Baal, Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, and all the other gods of the world who demand works to earn their love?
What about interpreting the Bible in a way that is foreign to those who wrote it? Is that not a change?

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

Because of space limitations I must answer and delete your post. Please refer to your recent post to follow my answers. Thanks!

From your definition I cannot be an open theist. I haven't said that I believe God can be wrong but the Bible is clear that He has changed His mind. I dont see how you can read the Scriptures I gave and say that He hasn't. Do you make the claim that He did not change His mind in the examples I gave?

Notice he didn't show it Randy, he just re-affirmed his argument.

I certainly did show the Scriptures that showed God gave man free will. Why didn't you read them? It is very obvious He gave Adam and Eve the freedom to accept or defy His instructions. I believe to say He did not do that would be heretical as the Scriptures are quite clear about this.



RTCrudgi wrote: 1. Because Jesus told us to preach the Gospel to the whole world. (That should be enough)
2. Because no one knows who is predestined and elect except God. If you preach to someone and they believe, they are elect and predestined to do so. If they never believe and die in unbelief, they were not elect and not predestined to believe.

This one really is strange. You're basing your point on the fact that if one "believes" then he is one of the elected. If he does not "believe" then he is not one of the elected. That seems difficult to understand and I can't believe you actually believe that as you have said it is already predestined.

The reason God gave instructions for the apostles to go and preach to the world was because people needed to hear the gospel and the Bible tells us that if we don't believe the gospel we can't be saved. I agree with you that we have to be chosen by God to become His but I do not believe that was predestined but is done when we believe, just as the Bible teaches.

I also agree that we need churches to halp save the lost as well as give us an opportunity to fellowship with other Christians and to worship God publicly.

Because the Bible teaches, as Randy rightly pointed out that all people "are sinners and born with a fallen nature inherited from our father Adam."

But that is before God restores our will. Most of what you said is true of believers. As Christians, we are free to choose to obey or to sin. But just as we are not able to come to Him, we are not able to leave Him. You also cited Adam. True. He did have free-will - until he disobeyed God and died. Since he didn't die physically, either God lied or something else in Adam died. Paul said Adam's soul died - and that death "spread to all men."

[b]So freewill went away after Adam died spiritually.......And then you say that as Christians we have freewill to sin or not but as we are not able to come to Him we are not able to leave Him.....This gets stranger and stranger and I believe helps make my original point.

I wish you would have cited the Scripture where Paul said Adams soul died because that didn't happen for over 900 years.[/b]



Can you read about Abraham and tell me God did not bargain with him over destroying Sodom and Gomorrah?

Do you normally interpret the Bible in such an unnaturally wooden way? Do you think God has actual, physical hands and arms (Isa 40:10; 41:10-13; Ezekiel 35:3)?

How can you possibly accuse me of that when it is you who are not paying any attention to the Scriptures and reading them as you want instead of reading what they actually say?



So you believe in the same kind of god as Baal, Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, and all the other gods of the world who demand works to earn their love?

Now you aren't being nice.
What about interpreting the Bible in a way that is foreign to those who wrote it? Is that not a change?[/quote]

I had hoped we could discuss what Scriptures actually say rather than what someone else thinks they say. Can't we discuss the Scriptures? You have accused me of reading them in a "wooden" manner but I believe they aren't that hard to read. I would like to know how you can read Scripture that says God gave Adam freewill to do or not to do and then say man does not have freewill. I would also appreciate you commenting on Abraham and God bargaining for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Cal, if you aren't going to read all of what I respond to you, I see no point in continuing further. When I first became a Christian, I believed as you did, but as I read the Bible and studied, I was forced out of my wrong opinion to where I am now. I realized that I had been seeing the Bible through the lens of humanism. I encourage you not to let the world's philosophies cloud your reading of the Bible.

Calred,
The only support you cite is Genesis 18. Nowhere does this passage say God changed his mind (Notice Gn. 18:20-21). Did Abraham intercede for the righteous? Yes! As Gn. 18:17-19 shows, God gave Abraham the opportunity to intercede for the people and show the heart of a servant of God. The chapter you've cited does not show God changing his mind.
How, pray tell, do you interpret the following passages?
Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; or James 1:17
Earlier I asked a specific set of questions regarding your contradictions on the immutability of God which you've ignored. Will you please answer?

No, you pointed to Adam & Eve. P-bob has agreed that our parents (Adam & Eve) had free-will. I agree with P-bob. After the fall men have been in bondage to sin. Their will is subject to that bondage. They are totally free to act within the confines of their nature. The problem is that their nature is dead and so even all their righteous acts are as filthy rags.

Please answer this: If men are totally free and able to choose good, for what purpse did Christ die? If I am able to completely follow the righteous law (assuming that my will is totally free and therefore able to choose good) of God then why is it necessary for me to have the righteousness of Christ? I don't know why you find this hard. If it grows pecans, it's a pecan tree. If it grows peaches, it's a peach tree. If a person accepts the gospel of Christ, they were chosen by God and he breathed life into their dead soul. They were unable to believe antil His Spirit breathed life into them and then, they believed. He chose, Hecalled, The person then responds in belief.

I've answered this with Ephesians 1:3-14 above and the comparisome to Romans and 1 Peter. Your statement above removes the soveriegnty of God. the choice of God is leterally dependant upon the acceptance of man. You have yet to provide any passage which teaches this view which you hold. You cite "the Bible teaches" but have not clearly shown this as of yet.

So act upon your hope. Name the passage and lets discuss it. I cited passages above...shall you answer the points? BTW any "discussion" would by definition include the thoughts of men regarding the Word of God.

Blessings,
Randy