Discussion of a Foundational "Evangelical" Teaching

[Rens]

See post #55






Of the recorded miracles of Jesus, you found one of the very few where Jesus does that. Of course, you ignored the rising of Lazarus - a case of one being dead (as all non-believers, non-saved are) being raised to life (which is what justification is, only spiritual rather than physical life).



- Josiah

His sisters invited Jesus lol.
In the other cases they asked Him or laid on matrasses on the street for Him to pass by or Bartimeus calling Him.
Where did someone get saved without responding or asking?

Acts 2
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.’

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Cassia]

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.

See post #55



Of the recorded miracles of Jesus, you found one of the very few where Jesus does that. Of course, you ignored the rising of Lazarus - a case of one being dead (as all non-believers, non-saved are) being raised to life (which is what justification is, only spiritual rather than physical life). Was Jesus wrong to GIVE Lazarus life, as a miracle of grace, the free gift of God lest any should boast?
- Josiah.

One is all that is needed to cast doubt. You only give acknowledgement to that which serves your cause. Jesus is not about causes, causes you will have always.

 

[TurtleHare]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

"And that not of yourselves". Doesn't get any more clearer than that even the Holy Bible insists you don't provide in your salvation but, hey, let's have another 30 pages of this anyway cuz it's fun.

 

[Rens]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

"And that not of yourselves". Doesn't get any more clearer than that even the Holy Bible insists you don't provide in your salvation but, hey, let's have another 30 pages of this anyway cuz it's fun.

60 pages is even more fun Turtlehare, admit it.

 

[TurtleHare]

60 pages is even more fun Turtlehare, admit it.

For sure cuz I live to see drama on Christian forums

 

[Josiah]

Some seem to say, "Jesus is the Savior BUT you gotta do x, y, and z in order to be saved."


The ".... BUT YOU GOTTA" negates the "Jesus is the Savior." In that declaration, Jesus is not the Savior. He MIGHT be part Savior (thus your always ignored question of what percent Savior is Jesus and what percent is self).... He might be the Enabler (as some here have proposed) a view that actually is far more aliened with modern Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism than Christianity.... He might be the Possibility-Maker (also as has been proposed here at CH) in that He makes it possible for self to save self..... He might be the "Doorman" who opens the door to heaven to those worthy, those who have done enough well enough, those accomplishing it.... but obviously if Jesus doesn't save us then Jesus is not the Savior. Obviously. Ain't complicated. Posters trying to evade that (so persistently) doesn't change the reality.


I admit I'm surprised to see Christians so upset over what you, Tigger, Turtlehare, myself and others have proposed: That Jesus is the Savior and thus it's Jesus that saves us. I believe that Jesus is the Savior - no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it. I always thought that is the very core, the very foundation, the central and defining point of Christianity. It is the Gospel. Amazing to see CHRISTIANS offended by it (and yes, we're seeing offense!).


I keep thinking maybe they are confusing justification (the issue here) with sanctification: what Jesus does to cause life in us, to bring faith to us - with what THEN, how we respond to this gift of life and faith, how we then "live out" or "work out" this gift. But no..... they are persistent.... the issue is GAINING life, faith, salvation - it's OUR stuff (some indicate it's all our stuff, some partly our stuff, our accomplishment, our works). In several of the posts here, there's not only offense at the Gospel but the Gospel has been eliminated entirely!!! People stating their position on justification without so much as a mention of Jesus or the Cross or mercy or grace.... just self (perhaps enabled, perhaps not). Surprising! And IMO, disturbing.


Of course, as I've posted many times (always entirely ignored) there is great MYSTERY here..... we aren't told and don't know all the dynamics of HOW God gives this, HOW God changes us. I think maybe some are pressing their "theories" and trying to make God and Scripture agree with them.... that alone is troubling but the Gospel is being denied or destroyed in the process, THE key point of Christianity, the whole point on which it stands or falls, is being at least threatened: Jesus is the Savior and Jesus does the saving. I had hoped some would see that, but no. I've TRIED (sincerely!) to understand how Christians can be so upset, so offended by the position you, I and others have stated: Jesus is the Savior and Jesus does the saving. I have sincerely TRIED to see why that offends them, why they feel SO passionate about negating that. But to no avail. Now were getting personal flaming in stead of any attempt to explain. I'm surprised. Amazed.


.

Where did someone get saved without responding or asking?

I know of no cases where the dead brought themselves to life, where those who cannot know God caused self (though dead) to know God. I think the conversion of Paul is what always happens (although his was rather dramatic).


I never raised the issue of RESPONDING to the "free gift of God lest any can boast." Nor did Lamm or Tigger or Turtlehare. It's not what this thread is about and would be hijacking. But as I noted when others tried to change the subject, OF COURSE one who is alive is to live, OF COURSE one who has faith thus is to repent and confess his/her sins and faith, OF COURSE one who has faith is to DO very much (love perfectly, live perfectly, repent, serve, give, minister, make disciples of all people.....) No one has REMOTELY stated otherwise. But again, friend, the issue of this thread is not what those with faith are to do, it's about COMING to faith, COMING to life, a changed condition from DEAD (and stinking and incapable of doing anything spiritual because they are DIED) becoming alive, being "regenerate" (the word means "coming to life"), being saved in this sense of justification. Or to use the illustration I've been using (apologies to Jesus in his discussion with Nicodemus): When I was GIVEN physical life - I did nothing, contributed nothing, asked for nothing (dead people CANNOT ask.....) but God GAVE me life, a miracle of grace, HIS doing.... but obviously, if we were to change the subject to "what do living people DO?" then I'd add that immediately I began doing things (by the empowering of God). But my breathing is not what caused my coming to life, my coming to life meant I could breath. Or to use the example of Lazarus (used by me because the point was if we are called to do something ERGO we must be able to do it and doing it is OUR work, OUR accomplishment) Lazarus did nothing to cause his being raised from the dead, given life, changed from dead to alive. It was a miracle of GRACE, all Jesus' doing. Obviously, of course, undeniably, as soon as he became alive, he did things (came out of the tomb) but his coming out of the tomb is not what caused life to come to him, no, life coming to him enabled him to come out of the tomb.

Acts 2
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the Lord

Again...... your premise is illogical and false. Just because someone is CALLED to something doesn't mean ERGO they can or will do it. Read John 11:38-44. It's just not true or biblical or logical that if one is called to do something, ergo it is manditory THEY can do it. As has been stated many times, the bible says the dead can't do it (the dead can't do anything).... yes, Jesus clearly CALLED Lazarus when he was DEAD - but Lazarus didn't do it, Jesus did. Can you see that? A divine call certainly means it needs to happen, but it's illogical and unbiblical to argue that thus the one being called can do it (and of course, there's no need for a Savior - Rescuer - Life Giver - Miracle Worker if we could). Can you see that?

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Yes. Because when JESUS calls, Jesus saves.

And again, here's your other false premise. It's grammatically wrong and it's biblically false. The word "and" is a connector, it associates things. It does NOT mandate chronological order, much less abilities. Friend, I think you are simply deleting the word you are quoting (and) and then replacing it with a foreign word found nowhere in the text ("then"). Can you see that?



- Josiah



.

 

[Rens]

Can you see that?



- Josiah



.

No.
God bless!

 

[Josiah]

I know of no cases where the dead brought themselves to life, where those who cannot know God caused self (though dead) to know God. I think the conversion of Paul is what always happens (although his was rather dramatic).


I never raised the issue of RESPONDING to the "free gift of God lest any can boast." Nor did Lamm or Tigger or Turtlehare. It's not what this thread is about and would be hijacking. But as I noted when others tried to change the subject, OF COURSE one who is alive is to live, OF COURSE one who has faith thus is to repent and confess his/her sins and faith, OF COURSE one who has faith is to DO very much (love perfectly, live perfectly, repent, serve, give, minister, make disciples of all people.....) No one has REMOTELY stated otherwise. But again, friend, the issue of this thread is not what those with faith are to do, it's about COMING to faith, COMING to life, a changed condition from DEAD (and stinking and incapable of doing anything spiritual because they are DIED) becoming alive, being "regenerate" (the word means "coming to life"), being saved in this sense of justification. Or to use the illustration I've been using (apologies to Jesus in his discussion with Nicodemus): When I was GIVEN physical life - I did nothing, contributed nothing, asked for nothing (dead people CANNOT ask.....) but God GAVE me life, a miracle of grace, HIS doing.... but obviously, if we were to change the subject to "what do living people DO?" then I'd add that immediately I began doing things (by the empowering of God). But my breathing is not what caused my coming to life, my coming to life meant I could breath. Or to use the example of Lazarus (used by me because the point was if we are called to do something ERGO we must be able to do it and doing it is OUR work, OUR accomplishment) Lazarus did nothing to cause his being raised from the dead, given life, changed from dead to alive. It was a miracle of GRACE, all Jesus' doing. Obviously, of course, undeniably, as soon as he became alive, he did things (came out of the tomb) but his coming out of the tomb is not what caused life to come to him, no, life coming to him enabled him to come out of the tomb.


Again...... your premise is illogical and false. Just because someone is CALLED to something doesn't mean ERGO they can or will do it. Read John 11:38-44. It's just not true or biblical or logical that if one is called to do something, ergo it is manditory THEY can do it. As has been stated many times, the bible says the dead can't do it (the dead can't do anything).... yes, Jesus clearly CALLED Lazarus when he was DEAD - but Lazarus didn't do it, Jesus did. Can you see that? A divine call certainly means it needs to happen, but it's illogical and unbiblical to argue that thus the one being called can do it (and of course, there's no need for a Savior - Rescuer - Life Giver - Miracle Worker if we could). Can you see that?



Yes. Because when JESUS calls, Jesus saves.

And again, here's your other false premise. It's grammatically wrong and it's biblically false. The word "and" is a connector, it associates things. It does NOT mandate chronological order, much less abilities. Friend, I think you are simply deleting the word you are quoting (and) and then replacing it with a foreign word found nowhere in the text ("then"). Can you see that?


.

No.

If you accept that one being called doesn't necessarily have the ability to respond (see John 11:38-44 for just one example) then your first premise vanishes. It's false.

If you let the word in the texts you quote stand (the word "and") and not delete and substitute instead a foreign word ("then") then your second premise vanishes. It's false.

Where did Paul show his acceptance of Jesus as the Savior before he believed, when he was spiritually dead? Where does Acts record him saying to Jesus (whom he hated and denied), "Okay, you have my permission to give me life, to give me faith, to save me?" Where did dead Lazarus give Jesus permission to raise him from the dead?

And we must wonder..... why all the pages and pages of offense to what Lamm, Tigger, Turtlehare, myself and others hold: Jesus is the Savior and Jesus saves - no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it? Why the passionate fight against that? What is behind this passionate rejection of the idea that Jesus is the Savior, that Jesus saves us? Why promote instead that Jesus might be the Enabler or Possibility-Maker or Doorman or maybe even PART Savior (self being the other part, the part that actually causes us to be saved)?



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus is the Savior and Jesus saves - no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it?

The wonderful thing about this is the assurance we have in our salvation. It didn't matter about our sincerity or if we didn't believe enough. It's all about God.

I have a friend on FB who is constantly saying she's giving herself to Jesus the following Sunday because she didn't really mean it the first how many times and didn't think she was saved. Isn't that an awful defilement of the Gospel message that was thrust upon her?

 

[Tigger]

 

[Rens]

I'm on Facebook. New girl in the group. Hello sweet people. I am looking for God. Does anyone know how I can get close to Him? Have you prayed the sinner's prayer yet? someone asks. No a sinner cannot do that she says. Aaaargh.
That's why I hate that teaching. It keeps people from God.

 

[Lamb]

I'm on Facebook. New girl in the group. Hello sweet people. I am looking for God. Does anyone know how I can get close to Him? Have you prayed the sinner's prayer yet? someone asks. No a sinner cannot do that she says. Aaaargh.
That's why I hate that teaching. It keeps people from God.

Why not share the Gospel with her? Christ's death and forgiveness of sins? It's the Gospel that the Holy Spirit uses to convert man from unbeliever to believer.

 

[Rens]

Why not share the Gospel with her? Christ's death and forgiveness of sins? It's the Gospel that the Holy Spirit uses to convert man from unbeliever to believer.

Oh already 20 people responded and one guy from a church in my city is gonna talk to her in private. It'll be okay.

 

[atpollard]

"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of attacks." - Malcolm X

 

[Pedrito]

Lazarus was not the only human restored to life in Bible history.

Those restorations to life (resurrections if you like) had two things in common:
1. They were temporary in nature. Those restored to life ended up dying the death talked about in Hebrews 9:27 anyway.
2. The people to be raised were not actively sentient beings. They were dead. There was no way they could have responded. They were awaiting the resurrection of the “last day” as Jesus had taught Martha (John 11:24; John 6:39,40,44,54).

So to attempt to extrapolate doctrine from those specialised occurrences of temporary rescue from physical death, and apply it to the rescue of conscious, sentient beings from spiritual death, is clearly stretching things – stretching things a lot.

And how does the argument about people’s free will (or lack thereof) to respond to the Gospel or otherwise (especially considering the notable disagreement about what happens to people who have never heard the Gospel), actually tie in with the original apostolic Gospel?

The original apostolic Gospel appears when the Sacred Writings are carefully read verse-by-verse, to determine what each verse actually says (in the more word-for-word translations) as opposed to what that verse is normally said to mean (i.e. what it has to mean to support cherished doctrine).

Pedrito once again floats the thought that if that is done honestly (which includes the emotionally difficult task of casting off significant preconditioning), most if not all the current inter-denominational squabbles regarding doctrine and practice (and the intra-denominational ones), vanish away like overnight mist. The passages that are currently “difficult to explain” all fall into place, too.

Would anyone like to try to prove Pedrito wrong, by actually doing that?

 

[Josiah]

So to attempt to extrapolate doctrine from those specialised occurrences of temporary rescue from physical death, and apply it to the rescue of conscious, sentient beings from spiritual death, is clearly stretching things

People who are spiritually dead are dead. Just as dead as those who are physically dead. Yes, you have a point, if they are alive then they are not dead, but this thread is not about those who are alive, it's about those who are dead.

It seems to ME that dead Lazarus did not "chose" to become alive, did not even ask to be alive, did not do or think or say or feel anything whatsoever to bring about his life. Seems to me, it was quite likely ENTIRELY Jesus' doing, ENTIRELY what Jesus thought and felt and did... seems to me it was a miracle. A miracle performed by Jesus. A miracle done for Lazarus. A miracle of grace. IMO, this at least places into question the foundational theology that Jesus can't or won't do anything without our prior consent, will and merits..... that Jesus can't love or bless or give to anyone without the receiver FIRST given their consent, willing it, permitting it, requesting it, and therefore making it possible (if not actually meriting it). IMO, God loves because God is love. IMO, miracles happen.... including the miracle of life (physical and spiritual).... the grace of God is the functional point, not the permission/request/merit/work of people. Perhaps we just disagree.

 

[Pedrito]

OK.

We have been presented with the proposition that the allocation of salvation (to use a descriptive term) is all God’s doing, and people are saved whether they like it or not. They have no say in the matter. No response is required. It is a done deal (at least in the first instance).

If that is so, then I request help in understanding a couple of things.

1. How do we handle Hebrews 2:3 when it says “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...”?

And in the light of “...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”, what was the salvation that Jesus Himself personally preached, and that was confirmed by others as being appropriate in a continuing fashion?

2. If 2 Peter 3:9 is really true – “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” – and if humans have no say in the matter, why does God not bestow salvation on everyone as a matter of course?

 

[Arsenios]

People who are spiritually dead are dead.
Just as dead as those who are physically dead.

So you understand the human fallen condition as identical with dead and malodorous Lazarus?

Inert Lazarus, no longer sinning, no longer loving Jesus?

Not a breath coming from his nose?

Bound in the linen of the grave?

I see men and women doing good and evil breathing and moving all the time...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

OK.

We have been presented with the proposition that the allocation of salvation (to use a descriptive term) is all God’s doing, and people are saved whether they like it or not. They have no say in the matter. No response is required. It is a done deal (at least in the first instance).

If that is so, then I request help in understanding a couple of things.

1. How do we handle Hebrews 2:3 when it says “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation...”?

And in the light of “...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;”, what was the salvation that Jesus Himself personally preached, and that was confirmed by others as being appropriate in a continuing fashion?

There is no conflict at all with God's elective process. The author of Hebrews, just like us, has no idea whom it is that God chooses. Therefore his retorical question is met with the same answer..."you cannot escape." God's justice will prevail.

2. If 2 Peter 3:9 is really true – “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” – and if humans have no say in the matter, why does God not bestow salvation on everyone as a matter of course?

2 Peter 3:9 is speaking to the elect, not the unregenerate. We know this because of Peter's introduction in chapter one. Therefore not one of the elect will perish.

You seem to think one tree changes an entire forest.
View the Bible as a whole rather than creating a philosophy from a couple sentences, taken out of context.

 

[MennoSota]

So you understand the human fallen condition as identical with dead and malodorous Lazarus?

Inert Lazarus, no longer sinning, no longer loving Jesus?

Not a breath coming from his nose?

Bound in the linen of the grave?

I see men and women doing good and evil breathing and moving all the time...

Arsenios

Paul addresses this in that God has given rebels the ability to act kindly toward other rebels. This does not mean they are capable of choosing God, however. Having a set of virtues is not synonymous with being spiritually alive.
Atheist's often set their own morality by utilitarian concepts. They determine what is right or wrong by what benefits the most rebels. Recall Spocks famous line in Star Trek: "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." You are merely speaking to a utilitarian rationalism.