Discussion of a Foundational "Evangelical" Teaching

[Josiah]

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yup.


One can egotistically CLAIM that they will enter heaven because of THEIR will and choice, because THEY decided to follow Jesus - in which case who is the reason why why are going to heaven? Self. So who is the Savior? Self. Seem deceptive (at best) to call Jesus the Savior if Jesus saves no one but each dead atheist saves SELF by making a good choice (some "Evangelical") or by doing enough loving works (some Roman Catholics).

GOD gives life - faith - the Holy Spirit. Each dead self doesn't steal it for self. Dead Lazarus was given the miracle of life, the dead man didn't steal it for himself. He gained life because of Jesus' will and love, not the choice and decision of the dead Lazarus stinking in the tomb.

WHO is the SAVIOR? The one self sees in the mirror (by his/her decision or works) or Jesus? Who GIVES the "free gift" of faith - spiritual life - Holy Spirit? God or self? IF you are heaven-bound because of what YOU did, decided, chose, accomplish then who is the Savior of you? The foundational point of Scripture is that we need SAVING and that JESUS is the Savior. Not self. We are GIVEN life, dead atheist don't steal it. We are born again not by the will of atheistic, dead, enemies of God but by the LOVING, giving, will of God. Where should we look for the SAVIOR - to the one we see in the mirror or the one we see on the Cross?




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Lord, Jesus Christ, asked the apostles if they wanted to stop following him. The implication being that they could stop following him if they wanted to.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:67-69​

Choosing to abandon what we have is not the same as choosing it in the first place. I didn't choose physical life but I can choose to terminate it. I didn't choose to be an American citizen but I can renounce it. I didn't choose to be a male but I can renounce that, change my identity and have a few surgeries. You are simply confusing entirely different issues. Insisting, "BUT choosing can be done in totally DIFFERENT things" is not addressing the issue here. No one is suggesting a universal Greek philosophy of fate, no one is suggesting we can't choose to have cheese with our hamburger or not.

You object to the idea that a person chooses to accept the message of the gospel?

==============================================================================================

Post #114:


Here we see a very good example of human logic being overlaid on Scripture, to make Scripture agree with an idea of human origin.

The highly selective choice of situations (above) in which a lack of choice is inherent, actually highlights the lack of Scriptural evidence that the Selector believes he has at his disposal.

By way of contrast: I had a choice whether or not to undertake the rigours of tertiary studies. I had a choice regarding what to study. I chose the jobs I have had. I chose the lady I asked to marry me. Etc., etc. The human situation is not a valid source of parallels in this instance.

Why don’t we have a look at a scripture which proves to be signature on the subject – bearing in mind that its meaning is constantly twisted to support a doctrine of human origin.

==============================================================================================

John 1:11-13 (especially John 1:12-13) is a mainstay of the “Born Again” segment within Christendom. Individuals and churches maintaining that stance, state that those verses proclaim that believers are “born again”. But that simply proves to be an example of how superficiality leads to error (or error of human origin leads to superficiality).

What do those inspired statements actually tell us? (ESV)

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. He came initially to the Jews, then (indirectly) to the rest of mankind.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God Note: The believers did not automatically become children of God. God gave believers the right/authority/power/privilege to become children of God. There was and is a second step involved. It is not compulsory. It requires counting the cost (as Jesus tells us). It is a step requiring choice.

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. This was and is the result of taking the second step, of actioning the privilege. And remember, the Greek word covers the whole process of conception to birth. The idea could well be that of conception, with growth continuing throughout the “Christian life”. The amount of effort dedicated to a person’s growth is also a matter of choice.

==============================================================================================

The matter of choice was very clear to the Apostolic church. It is also revealed very clearly in unfiltered Scripture.

==============================================================================================

Interesting sequence of posts. Pedrito makes a good point when he observes that logic can be improperly applied with the result of nullifying what is stated in holy scripture.

One example of misapplied logic is the way John's statement about will is handled. Saint John contrasts human will resulting in birth (by the physical union of a man and woman) and the will of the Holy Spirit resulting in the birth from above of a human being.

John 1:9-13 9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.​

It is those who received the Lord to whom the right to become the children of God is given. And their birth is not from the physical act of a man and his wife producing a child, no, their birth is from God.

 

[Josiah]

John 1:9-13 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. ​

.

Agreed.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Agreed.

:smirk:

 

[atpollard]

I find the calls for comparing the number of verses for each side both puzzling and more than a bit concerning. What is it that is proposed to be done once one position has been determined to have provided more scripture verses? Are we to cross out all of the opposing verses with a sharpie since they must be wrong and non-inspired?
:O_O:

:sadface:

 

[MoreCoffee]

I find the calls for comparing the number of verses for each side both puzzling and more than a bit concerning. What is it that is proposed to be done once one position has been determined to have provided more scripture verses? Are we to cross out all of the opposing verses with a sharpie since they must be wrong and non-inspired?
:O_O:

:sadface:

Maybe it is using inductive reasoning to prove doctrine in the case of verse counting and deductive reasoning in the case where doctrine comes first and then holy scripture is considered from the perspective of settled doctrine. What do you think?

 

[atpollard]

The Lord, Jesus Christ, asked the apostles if they wanted to stop following him. The implication being that they could stop following him if they wanted to.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:67-69​

I cannot say definitively that it was (or was not) Jesus’ intent to inquire if the disciples had also chosen to abandon him ... nor can you, since scripture does not record Jesus’ thoughts or intent.

I would only ask you to consider the possibility that Jesus asked the question to build up their faith by having Peter reveal to all of them the reality that they were all feeling. Jesus relationship with his true disciples (the Apostles that the Father gave and Jesus called) is stronger and more permanent than the relationship that Jesus had with the “good time Charlies” that came for free food and to be entertained with miracles.

A lesson not too different from any church I have ever been in (Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical or Church of God).

 

[MoreCoffee]

I cannot say definitively that it was (or was not) Jesus’ intent to inquire if the disciples had also chosen to abandon him ... nor can you, since scripture does not record Jesus’ thoughts or intent.

I would only ask you to consider the possibility that Jesus asked the question to build up their faith by having Peter reveal to all of them the reality that they were all feeling. Jesus relationship with his true disciples (the Apostles that the Father gave and Jesus called) is stronger and more permanent than the relationship that Jesus had with the “good time Charlies” that came for free food and to be entertained with miracles.

A lesson not too different from any church I have ever been in (Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical or Church of God).

What you've proposed as a possibility is possible yet not so likely given the context. The authors of the gospels never write an inner voice narrative for what is going on in the Lord's mind. The nearest to that in the gospels is in this very passage where saint John observes that Jesus knew who would betray him. But the context for the Lord's question to the twelve was the departure of many of his disciples who said that Jesus' teaching was just too offensively hard to accept and they they would not listen to it any more. They walked away. So the Lord asked the twelve do you also wish to go away?. The effect of his question was to draw from saint Peter the affirmation that Jesus has the words of life and if they left where else could they go and still receive the life giving words that the Lord spoke? So I am inclined to see the question as a reasonable response to what happened with the defecting disciples. What was surprising was saint Peter's response, it surprises me but I am sure it did not surprise the Lord.

 

[atpollard]

Maybe it is using inductive reasoning to prove doctrine in the case of verse counting and deductive reasoning in the case where doctrine comes first and then holy scripture is considered from the perspective of settled doctrine. What do you think?

What do you do with the contrary verses?

I have found that the strength of one’s doctrine is revealed in how one responds to verses that appear to contradict what one believes other verses clearly teach. At the bottom of the scale is “Scripture pong”. Only slightly better is “it really means the opposite of what it says because ...”. I am only impressed when one can demonstrate from proper exegesis (the original words, the broader context, original cultural frame of reference) that the obvious meaning is too simplistic for a verse conveying a deeper truth.

Often as not, I find myself forced to admit no adequate explanation, but to rely on the more clearly literal text (choose a Gospel quote over a vision in Revelation, or choose a statement in an Apostolic letter over someone’s interpretation of a parable, or choose a NT quotation over an OT quotation).

 

[Josiah]

But the context for the Lord's question to the twelve

Why do you believe the Twelve were void of faith, life and the Holy Spirit - not Justified, not Christians? Why do you believe these were dead pagans? I find it far more likely that they (generally) were Christians. And so the issue is not coming to faith/life/Holy Spirit but rather STAYING in such (an issue beyond the scope of this thread). Only a few Calvinists would deny at least the theoretical possibility of failing away, but that's a whole other issue.

the departure of many of his disciples

Why do you hold that Jesus' disciples where not saved, void of faith - spiritual life - the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't it be more likely they were Christians? And thus the issue is not becoming justified but rather not falling away from the faith, an issue not a art of this discussion?

They walked away. So the Lord asked the twelve do you also wish to go away?. The effect of his question was to draw from saint Peter the affirmation that Jesus has the words of life and if they left where else could they go and still receive the life giving words that the Lord spoke?

I hold that is it quite likely Peter was a Christian. And that the answer he gives to Jesus' question gives evidence that he was not at this point a dead, pagan, atheist void of faith in Christ, spiritual life and the Holy Spirit. I think Peter had justification. But of course, all but a few Calvinists hold that it IS possible to fall away (just as one GIVEN physical life can yet commit suicide - but that doens't negate that the life they choose to terminate was a free gift of another). But again, that's way off topic. I'm just curious about your view that Peter was not a Christian, I thought most hold that after His appointment as an Apostle anyway, he was a Christian, one WITH the gifts of life, faith and the Holy Spirit (justification).

"
To place this with the opening post, yes - Lazarus could have committed suicide. But that would have NO BEARING at all on the reality that Jesus GAVE him life... dead, stinking Lazarus in the tomb didn't choose himself to life, didn't will himself to life, didn't love himself to life - Jesus performed a miracle and GAVE him life. As we say in the ancient creed, "The HOLY SPIRIT is the Lord and GIVER of life." I agree. Not self. And the Holy Spirit doesn't OFFER life but as the Creed says, GIVES it. Just as we see with Lazarus (although that was physical life).



.

 

[Arsenios]

.
Sometimes God GIVES us what we need...
Agree? Disagree?

- Josiah

Disagree -

God is ALWAYS giving us what we need...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

God is ALWAYS giving us what we need...

... then God doesn't offer anything. There is no "BUT you gotta ask or it.... you gotta grab it.... you gotta take it from Him.... you gotta.... you gotta..... you gotta." Your proclamation is a powerful denounciation of synergism and semi-Pelagianism and an equally powerful embrace of monergism. I agree with you. God GIVES.... I agree with the ancient Creed that the HOLY SPIRIT is the Lord of spiritual life (not self, not a bit, not at all) and that the Holy Spirit is the GIVER of this life (not offerer).


We NEED salvation, we NEED spiritual life, we NEED faith, we NEED the Holy Spirit - and you are 100% correct, GOD GIVES IT.

 

[Arsenios]

But that throws a bucket of cold water on the idea that
BECAUSE God called dead Lazarus to come,
THEREFORE dead LAZARUS could do it.

Agree? Disagree?
- Josiah

This is not the story of Salvation in Christ but is one of the resuscitation of a corpse, which was a pre-figuring of the Resurrection of Christ...

The premise that we who are walking about are in the same state and condition as dead and stinking Lazarus in the tomb is just plain false... 'Tain't true... Never was... Never will be...

There is a vast difference between a living person in the flesh and a corpse stinking in the grave...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

... then God doesn't offer anything. There is no "BUT you gotta ask or it.... you gotta grab it.... you gotta take it from Him.... you gotta.... you gotta..... you gotta." Your proclamation is a powerful denounciation of synergism and semi-Pelagianism and an equally powerful embrace of monergism. I agree with you. God GIVES.... I agree with the ancient Creed that the HOLY SPIRIT is the Lord of spiritual life (not self, not a bit, not at all) and that the Holy Spirit is the GIVER of this life (not offerer).


We NEED salvation, we NEED spiritual life, we NEED faith, we NEED the Holy Spirit - and you are 100% correct, GOD GIVES IT.

God is ALWAYS giving us what we need...

That we should attain more that we need...

Can't just bury your talent in the dirt...

Or what we think we have will be taken from us...

And given to one more deserving...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What stands out to me about the dead being unable to respond in Lazarus' case is that it was not unto a resurrected life. He received from God to show God's power, just as the blind from birth recieved his eyesight. That's the same with Cyrus being prophesied to do certain things to achieve God's purposes. That is the highest form of grace.

It doesn't tell us what happened to Lazarus after Jesus' death, but we know he was a follower of Jesus so I imagine him to be amongst the 120 gathered in Jerusalem when grace was newly poured out to those there.

He went on to die again - Became a Bishop [Episkopos] on Crete, as I recall, and because of what he had seen in hell for those 4 days, he almost never smiled again... I think he reposed in old age, and was not martyred...

You are right that this was a healing from death itself, and as such it was also a Typos of the Resurrection of Christ so soon to follow... Christ healed the blind, the lame, the demon-possessed, and with His beloved Lazarus, He even healed the 'four days dead'...

Christ called him forth at the direction of His Father, and therefore he had the Grace needed to do what Christ called him to do... He loved Christ...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

How typical.
So anyway, are any of the denominationalists or relgious authoritarians going to answer the questions about Lazarus. When was he saved/born-again? When did he become a believer? Was he water-baptized? Before or after Jesus ? Did he take communion? Did he believe the bread and wine were symbolic, or did he think he was literally eating and drinking Jesus?

He became an Episkopos who served in Crete, as I recall...

Does that count?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There MUST be some reason why some are SO passionate against ...
the "Jesus is the Savior" position

I have yet to find even one Christian who proclaims:
"Jesus is NOT the Savior"...
The big difference between some of us and some of you
is our relative underestandings of the MEANS
that Christ uses to save us...

Ever read: "Ask, and ye shall receive..."
Some of us ask for Salvation daily...
You seem offended by this...

Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do you believe the Twelve were...

None of the accusations that you bring in your posts is what I believe.

 

[Josiah]

I have yet to find even one Christian who proclaims:
"Jesus is NOT the Savior"...

I have. Very often.

Sometimes outrght, as in one teacher in my Catholic parish (he taught science in our parish school) who said (this is a verbatim quote), "technically Jesus saves no one but makes it possible for all to be saved." Then there are other ways of saying that, such as when our Catholic teachers taught us, "Jesus opened the door to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it by what you do." "We are saved by grace.... grace is like 'gas' that God puts in your 'tank' so that YOU can get YOURSELF where you need to be." All of those, of course, deny that Jesus is the Savior.

Then I've heard many (and read their posts) say, "Jesus OFFERS salvation but you gotta will it and/or request it and/or accept it" which obviously means that the effectual part of salvation is what self does making self the Savior (or to put the very best construction on this even possible, Jesus would be PART Savior, the part that doesn't actually save anyone, and self is PART Savior, the part that actually saves).

I find a lot of Christians who say, "Jesus is the Savior BUT......." and whatever comes after the "BUT....." entirely negates what comes before it.

I agree, this SHOULD be the one issue for all Christians that should be the most clear and certain, but some denominations have muddied this up SO badly that a lot of Christians seem profoundly confused and thus uncertain.

Rev. Dr. James Kennedy, a Presbyterian minister in Florida some years ago, did door-to-door evangelism in his Florida town (dominated by Catholics and "Evangelicals and where church attendance was high). This was in the 1950's I believe. He asked just one question: "If you were to die tonight and stand before the gates of heaven and you were asked, "Why should I let you into my heaven?" what would you say?" He wrote that almost always (regardless of whether the person was Catholic or "Evangelical" - made little difference) the response was nearly always either 1) Blank.... total silence... deer in headlights... NO CLUE OR 2) A long chain of "I...." "I tried to live a good life" "I love my neighbor more than myself" "I don't sin much" "I go to church most Sundays" He commented that RARELY was Jesus even mentioned - even mentioned at all - for anything. Now, this was back when the USA was a far more religious country and when most went to church (especially in the South) but RARELY was Jesus even mentioned. I've found that too. Or He's mentioned but NOT at all as the Savior. He may have opened the door to heaven (Possibility maker) .... He may be the one who OFFERS salvation (Offerrer).... He may be one of the helpers or enablers (Helper) but none of those are embracing Jesus as the Savior. It's simple, isn't it my friend? If Jesus is the Savior then Jesus does the saving. If Jesus is the Savior then self is not.


Interesting.... this topic comes up OFTEN at CH (as it does at many other sites). Some (like me) are clear that Jesus is the Savior. And when we state that, a firestorm results - pages and pages and pages of debate, rebuttals even ridicule. One might expect that at a secular site but it happens more at Christian sites. And of course, it's been like that for 500 years. IF people agreed, "yup, you're absolutely right - Jesus is the Savior and NOT me" then there wouldn't be the persistent, constant debate, the 100+ pages but people disagreeing and debating that.



Thank you.


- Josiah







.

 

[Albion]

I have. Very often.

Sometimes outrght, as in one teacher in my Catholic parish (he taught science in our parish school) who said (this is a verbatim quote), "technically Jesus saves no one but makes it possible for all to be saved." Then there are other ways of saying that, such as when our Catholic teachers taught us, "Jesus opened the door to heaven but you gotta get yourself through it by what you do." "We are saved by grace.... grace is like 'gas' that God puts in your 'tank' so that YOU can get YOURSELF where you need to be."

Regardless of who likes hearing it (or not), that ^ is all true.