Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Jack... stop it!  What a can o' worms... btw, I received your card
    yestterday :-)!  You have a lovely family!
    
    Simple Answer: NO = in response to title of note.

Hello Jack,

�    and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

This, to me, reads as certainly truly converted people.

�    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
�    they crucify unto themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an
�    open shame."

In my NIV, the word 'seeing' is translated 'because', with an alternative 
of 'while' in the footnote.  ie, it is impossible for someone to be renewed 
to repentance at the same time as they still nurture the sin in their heart.

ie:
 "It is impossible .... if they fall aawy to be brought back to repentance, 
  while, to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God.."

This is how I have heard it expounded in a consistent manner.

�    At what point or what sin committed is the last straw, where the Spirit
�    then departs and refuses to return?

I also believe that an eternal work of salvation done in the heart is not 
reversible.  If our sins (past, present and future) are washed away by
Jesus' blood when we ask Him into our hearts, how can we reach a place 
where He can say "I forgave it all, but this is too much, even though I saw 
knew it before the foundation of the world..." cf Ephesians 1:4.  Either He 
knew us as saved, or as unsaved.  No room there for a change of mind.  If 
He knew us as 'unsaved, a transient 'saved' period could not be genuine - 
it wasn't going to result in eternity.
 
There are those who believe that this view gives license to live sinfully
(or may be interpretted so by the weak), but that is totally inconsistent
with the temporal function and action of our salvation, which is to feed an
appetite to be more like Jesus.  (ie - we want to be like Him; not
indulging in sin). Romans 6:15 explains that someone who acts in this way
has reason to doubt that they  were ever saved, because there is active
evidence that the LORD Jesus is *not* ruling in their hearts. The
relationship we have with Him is one of obedience from a heart of love and
desire to please Him; not from fear of rejection. 

� I believe in the context of Hebrews, this is directed toward Judaizers
� who hear the gospel and reject it.  

I recently heard a very good exposition of Hebrews by Arnold Fructenbaum,
explaining this book in the context of the people to whom it was addressed.
 It was directed towards Jews living in Israel at a time of intense
persecution by their fellow Jews.  One way out of their dilemma was to
revert to original Judaism for a time, and then, when the persecution had
passed, to return to Christianity.  Arnold presents this as demonstrating
the impossibility of this, because Jesus could not be 're-crucified' for
them. 

							God bless
								Andrew

I do not regard the question as so much, would the Father ever reject his
prodigal son, but rather, is it possible for someone who remains unrepentant
of serious sin, or who has rejected God in apostasy, to be saved?

Notice that the Prodigy Son repented, turned back, and sought his father's
mercy. Would the same thing had happened if he had never repented or came back
to his father?

In any case, we never need to worry about losing our salvation because God
rejects our repentance; Scripture says that if we repent, then we will be
forgiven.  But if we remain in serious unrepentance or apostasy, will we be 
saved? Is God not also just as well as merciful?

It is my opinion that Heb 6:4-6 is definitely talking about people who had the
fullness of faith, not those who never were really saved -- because it refers
to such people as "having been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift,
who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of
God..."  I think the term "enlightenment" in this context refers to an inner
revelation of faith and a true experience of salvation.  Sharing in the Holy
Spirit certain sounds like a characteristic only of a person who has received
salvation. 

Let's look at some of the verses after this.

"Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop
useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But the
land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being
cursed. In the end it will be burned." (v. 7-8)

"We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to
make your hope sure.  We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those
who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised." (v.12)

Hence, not only must we have faith and believe, we must be diligent until the
end, and through BOTH faith and patience -- or perseverence -- inherit what has
been promised, i.e. salvation. Those who do not persevere -- who do not bear
fruit but rather thorns and thistles -- will not inherit what is promised, but
will be burned up as useless branches in the end.

Hebrews 10:38 "But my righteous one will live by faith.  And if he shrinks
back, I will not be pleased with him.  But we are not of those who shrink back
and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved."

"Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.  For if God did not spare the natural
branches, he will not spare you either.  Consider therefore the kindness
and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you,
provided that you continue in his kindness.  Otherwise, you also will be
cut off. " (Romans 11:21)  

Hence those who fall away -- who shrink back and fail to persevere until the
end -- will be destroyed and cannot be saved, whether or not they made at some
point a profession of faith. We must continue in the kindess of God, remaining
in him and persevering, otherwise, like the unbelieving Jews at the time of
Christ, though we were grafted into the tree of life (i.e. saved), we will be
cut off again.

Finally, 2 Tim 2:13: "If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we
endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will disown us; if we
are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself."

If we disown Christ through apostasy or even implicitly by our unrepentant,
sinful actions, he will disown us.  But though we are unfaithful, God will
always remain faithful and earnestly await our return: but that faithfulness of
Christ in the midst of our unfaithfulness does not mean that he will save us
despite our unfaithfulness.  It means that we can always return to him if we
are repentant.

Note that the original verse in question said that those who fall away after
all these things cannot be brought back to repentance -- it doesn't say that
they will not be saved though they repent, it basically says that they will be
unable to repent.  Hence it is not a contradiction to say that God always takes
back those who repent, no matter what the sin, but that there is sin that so
grieves the Holy Spirit that we will never repent from it, and will have
permanently lost our salvation.

A final note: someone mentioned the concept of our sins being forgiven, past
present and future.  I once believed that, because I found it to be a very
attractive doctrine, but subsequently having thoroughly studied Scripture, I
realized that this concept has no Scriptural basis whatsoever. Forgiveness is
conditional upon repentance, and repentance is a choice of our free will. God,
because of his justice, cannot forgive sins for which we remain stubbornly
unrepentant.

Eric

Hi Eric,

Bear in mind Ephesians 1:4, which states that the LORD God chose us before 
the creation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight.  From 
eternity, He sees our total life span.  Not centred on a time 'now', as we 
perceive it.  That is how we can be confident that Philippians 1:6 will be 
fulfilled :
 "Being confident of this, He that He Who began a good work in you will carry 
  it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."

� God, because of his justice, cannot forgive sins for which we remain
� stubbornly unrepentant. 
If these remain in a person's life, there is reason to doubt their original 
salvation.  1 John 1-3 says a lot about sin not having an ongoing grip on 
the Christian.  3:6 says that "No-one who lives in Him keeps on sinning.  
No-one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."  From 
comparison with the context, these refer to persistent sins, rather than 
sin which is dealt repented of and dealt with before the LORD immediately.

However, there is a situation where a Christian may refuse any further 
work of grace in his life, referred to as the sin which leads to death, in 
1 John 5:16.  An example is seen in Acts 5:1-11, with Ananias and Sapphira.
Loss of rewards, not loss pf salvation.  But also, loss of everything they 
had put above God in their lives.

							Andrew

> Bear in mind Ephesians 1:4, which states that the LORD God chose us before 
> the creation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight.  From 
> eternity, He sees our total life span.  Not centred on a time 'now', as we 
> perceive it. 

This is true of God's perspective, but not man's perspective.  Sure, those who
are saved, from God's perspective, have all of their sins throughout their
entire life forgiven, but this is not based solely on their first conversion,
but on their continued repentance.  I.e., the argument usually goes that when
we first accept Jesus, this causes all of our sins, past, present, and future
to be forgiven.  I argue that it only causes past and present sins to be
forgiven.  At the end of our life, if we die in repentance, then all of our
sins throughout our whole life are forgiven, but we cannot know that we will
die in repentance until we breathe our last.

> If these remain in a person's life, there is reason to doubt their original 
> salvation.  1 John 1-3 says a lot about sin not having an ongoing grip on 
> the Christian.  3:6 says that "No-one who lives in Him keeps on sinning.  
> No-one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."

In studying 1 John very closely, although I find it one of the most marvellous
books of the Bible, I'm fairly convinced that John is speaking hyperbolically
here, i.e., he is using such absolute statements as a means of emphasis, not
necessarily to be taken at face value, otherwise what he says conflicts with 
a great number of Paul's words and teachings of the Gospel.  All of us continue
to sin, but that does not mean that we were never saved.  I think John says
these things to exhort us to perfection, to motivate us to seek holiness. Hence
I don't think that we can carelessly apply John's words to say that everyone 
who falls away was never saved in the first place; other Scripture writers to
discuss the possibilty of truly knowing God and then falling away.

But suppose John is to be taken strictly literally. It means that we still
cannot know if we have "truly" been saved, because we don't know if we will sin
in the future.  If we sin in the future, or fall into repetitive, unrepentant
sin, then that's proof that we aren't saved now and never were saved (if you
accept your argument), but since we cannot know the future, we cannot know now
whether we have been saved, because sometime in the future we may sin and prove
ourselves to be unsaved.  This is, in effect, exactly the same thing (from
God's perspective) as saying that we can fall away: that is, if we fall into
unrepetitive sin, we are not saved, either because we fell from grace after
having committed that sin, or because our having committed that sin proves that
we were never saved in the first place.  Either way, we cannot know whether we
will eventually persevere to the end and be saved, because we either cannot
know that we will not fall from grace, or cannot know that sometime in the
future we will prove by sin that we were never saved in the first place. In
either case, whether we are eventually saved depends on the sin in our lives!

Which brings us to another question: Would you say that those people you say
appeared to be saved, but never were, knew that they were never saved, or were
under the impression that they were saved and were sincere in their belief,
but really weren't saved in the first place?  In other words, do you insist
that those who appear to fall away are all insincere believers knowingly 
carrying on a deception?

> An example is seen in Acts 5:1-11, with Ananias and Sapphira.
> Loss of rewards, not loss pf salvation.  

We do not know whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved or condemned.  We know
that Judas was condemned, but then we could argue over whether he ever really
believed in the first place.


Eric

Hi Eric,

It doesn't seem constructive to argue from a difference in perspective.  
It's certainly not constructive to base one's everyday life on a "doesn't 
matter, it's forgiven anyway" approach, which would only seem likely to 
come from someone who does not possess salvation.  For someone who is 
saved, the pain of sin lies in hurting the One we love above all, because 
of His love expressed for us in bearing the punishment for that sin.  The 
'forgiveness' requirement is no longer the prime issue; the issue has 
become sanctification.

� but we cannot know that we will die in repentance until we breathe our last. 
This is the arminian approach, which negates our confidence in the LORD's
assurances of a completed work being performed the work in us (as in John 
10:29-30, Ephesians 1:14, Philippians 1:6, etc - by no means on writer 
only).  

The initial repentance, which opens our hearts to the LORD's entrance, is a
permanent change, done in His strength, not our own.  I gather you hold the
view that we can be saved and lost again, dependent on a transient state of
the heart.  This has been srgued many times in this string of conferences,
and is not profitable to spend much time on again.   I'd rather not
rat-hole on it! 

								Andrew

      Hi,
    
        God's love is unconditional; it doesn't depend on anything
        we do.  He loves me, He loves Satan, He loves all of us.
        God *is* love.
    
        God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son;
        He did not die only for those that will end up saved.
    
        I believe that since God is love and He loves everybody, His
        will is not always established.  I do not believe God wills for
        anybody to end up unsaved.  I do not believe He created all
        intelligent creatures who will ultimately end up unsaved with
        a desire (will) for them to be unsaved.
    
        God created us with the capacity to choose.  Lucifer was able to
        choose.  He could remain with God or reject Him.  He was not 
        created in such a way that He had to sin.
    
        When the Bible pictures anyone as being unsaved, I believe it 
        refers to those who reject God and not those who God rejected.
    
        Everyone's salvation is due to God's initiative.  Everyone's
        lost status is due to their own initiative.  God never initiated
        anyone's condemnation, although holding to the doctrine that God's
        will is sovereign implies that He initiiated the condemnation of
        all who will be lost.
    
        The flip side of this coin is that one can reject God.  If Lucifer
        the covering cherub in the midst of the throne of God could, so
        can you or I.
    
                                                      Tony 

    From the skimming I have been able to do, I agree with Eric and
    actually liked how he put it; God's perspective (choosing us from the
    creation of the world) and our perspective (free will to accept or
    reject).
    
    This predestination vs. the ability of the saved to apostasize rehash 
    has been resolved in my mind as one of the paradoxes of scripture,
    where an infinte God interfaces with finite and limited-view people.
    In other words, both view co-exist.
    
    I also believe that God's love is unconditional, but that one can
    reject that love and His definition of right and wrong.  I believe that
    in rejecting God's way, God's judgment and condemning action is based
    on that refusal of the Truth, just as God's judgment and rewarding
    action is based on our acceptance of that truth.
    
    I believe that John 3:16 presents a conditional gospel; conditioned on
    the choice of believing to the point of changing a person and living
    out that belief in everyday life; a conditional gospel based on
    unconditional love - a covenant between two parties to be accepted or
    rejected.
    
    MM

    All those elected by God to salvation will be saved.  His will is not
    thwarted by men.
    
    jeff

>    All those elected by God to salvation will be saved.  His will is not
>    thwarted by men.

All those who choose to reject God will be damned.  His love will not
twart the free will He gave to man so that man could give love back.

MM  :-)

    If all who are to be saved are already predestined to be saved, then
    why do we bother to evangelize?

    I do not believe that predestination is so easily explained as .9

    Glenn

God will save those who choose salvation as has been
predestined from the beginning.

    So, it's like being accident proned, right?	;-)
    
    Glenn
    
    

There are a number of Scriptures that teach predestination.

There are a number of Scriptures that teach free will.

I don't deny either, so I accept both.  I'm just not sure
how they fit together.  

    So, Collis, you're saying that God predestinated us to have a free
    will? :-)
    
    Mark L.

    To say "I don't understand them" is the only honest answer.
    
    Glenn

    Re: Note 373.11 by POLAR::RICHARDSON

�    If all who are to be saved are already predestined to be saved, then
�    why do we bother to evangelize?
    
    For one thing, we are commanded to do so. For another thing - actually,
    there is no need for another thing.
    
    	BD�

    re .12 (PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON)
    
>God will save those who choose salvation as has been
>predestined from the beginning.
    
    	Unbeknowst to many (except to Jack, who opened the basenote), this
    topic was a spin-off to a reply of mine in the CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    conference.  I don't really want to wage a full battle in defense of my
    posting either here or there, but Colin's remarks (though made somewhat
    in jest) have prompted this entry.
    
    	I'm not a predestinationist, either, but as I see it, a certain
    degree of 'predestination' does fit into the picture; it's just that
    it's NOT at the individual level.
    
    	"Before the founding of the world" (which Witnesses, and much to my
    surprise, some early 'church fathers' take to mean after Adam and Eve's
    creation, but before their first child was conceived in sin after their
    fall), God made a decision to send his Son to earth to die as a ransom
    for mankind (to undo the effects of Adam's sin).  As we know, God
    anointed Jesus to rule as his King (for "Christ" means 'anointed one');
    but he also decided to have some from earth rule with him [cf. 1Cor
    4:8; Rev 5:10, 20:4,6].  What was predestined was the number of those
    who would rule with Christ in heaven.  Once chosen and 'sealed with
    Holy Spirit', they were guaranteed this position, provided that they
    did not turn away (ref. Heb 6:4-6) to the point of 'no return.'
    
    	Naturally, this fits in very nicely with the Witness view that only
    144,000 are privileged to receive the "heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1)
    [whereas the majority of faithful mankind would continue to live on
    earth, forever].  The whole arrangement has been 'predestined', such
    that nothing will prevent it from coming to be; but again, it's only
    the number of 'slots' that was predestined -- the identity of the
    individuals who would fill them was not.
    
    	I'm sure the moderators would prefer this not open up into a debate
    about Witness views, so I'll gladly receive all e-mail followups. 
    Regardless of how well it's received, I just wanted to express the
    thought that it IS possible to resolve the two notions of free will and
    the 'fixed nature' of the heavenly calling.
    
    
    							regards,
    							-mark.

    re .17 (DYPSS1::DYSERT)
    
>�    If all who are to be saved are already predestined to be saved, then
>�    why do we bother to evangelize?
>    
>    For one thing, we are commanded to do so. For another thing - actually,
>    there is no need for another thing.
    
    	As a follow-on, however, the Bible itself *does* explain the role
    that evangelizing has in the salvation of the individual.  Quoting
    Joel, Paul said:
    
    		"Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord
    		will be saved" (Rom 10:13 RSV).
    
    He then went on the logically establish that a person only gets to this
    point by having heard the Christian message from those who went out and
    preached it (vs. 14-17).
    
    
    								-mark.
    
    		"

    re: Note 373.17 by DYPSS1::DYSERT
    
    |�    If all who are to be saved are already predestined to be saved,then
    |�    why do we bother to evangelize?
    |
    |    For one thing, we are commanded to do so. For another thing -actually,
    |    there is no need for another thing.
    
    I agree 100%. So we shouldn't be downcast when people reject what we
    preach. 
    
    The point I was trying to make is that the will of God cannotbe fathomed 
    by us, so we shouldn't try to explain it with our limited minds.
    
    Glenn
    

Like Collis, I accept both views, and see it as the intersection of 
time and timelessness, finitude and infinity; they don't fit well
together in our heads, but we have been given the capacity to know
or sense eternity in our hearts.

As for evangelizing, I have heard that you then become the instrument of
awakening the call of the elect, or some such thing.  Funny how our sides
come to the same issue from different sides.

Scripture is full of paradoxes - things that don't seem to be able to coexist,
but they do - like the paradox of giving means you receive more, and 
withholding means you receive less; completely backwards to the world,
yet it is God's economy and a paradox that works and has been tested time
and again.  With simpler paradoxes, it helps me to accept, even when I cannot
fully comprehend, some of the deeper paradoxes.

Mark

    Re: .18 (Mark S.)
    
>    	I'm sure the moderators would prefer this not open up into a debate
>    about Witness views
    
    I suspect you're right. :-)
    
    Actually, I agree with your view on predestination, to an extent.  I
    believe that the scriptures where "predestination" is used refers to
    God's purpose and plan for those who are saved (rather than God's
    pre-determining who will *be* saved).
    
    Mark L.

>    I agree 100%. So we shouldn't be downcast when people reject what we
>    preach. 
 
I heard a wonderful talk on this very subject.  Wait...  yes, see 49.4.
Mmmm good stuff!
   
>    The point I was trying to make is that the will of God cannotbe fathomed 
>    by us, so we shouldn't try to explain it with our limited minds.

Shouldn't try?  I don't mind the trying part; it's the part about
explaining it to a finite definition that bothers me.  No one can
know all there is to know about God, but anyone can always now more
about God because He is infinite!  The point is that we can grasp
some of the things we see (through the glass darkly) and compare 
our notes against the Word, and increase our knowledge and intimacy with
God, recognizing that we won't ever sign, seal, and deliver all there is
to say about the mysteries of God.

mark

    re .21 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
    I just can't help taking note of a little irony ...
    
>As for evangelizing, I have heard that you then become the instrument of
>awakening the call of the elect, or some such thing.  Funny how our sides
>come to the same issue from different sides.
    
    A little over 100 years ago, this was the view of the people who
    founded the Bible-study group that became Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    
    								-mark.

I think D.L. Moody said it best, something like this...


	As you enter the gates of eternity you will see the words "Whomsoever
Will". Once through the gates look back and you will see the words "Chosen
Before the Foundation of the World".

	In any case, The Lord doesn't charge us to figure out who's been
pre-destinated and who has not. We are to speak for Him and He takes care of the
rest.

ace

    I have recently been attending an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (its not
    as bad as it sounds ;).
    
    Of one thing I am certain; the quality, depth and biblical integrity
    of Reformed theology (which exposits predestination, among other things) 
    cannot be matched by Arminian theology (from my experience).
    
    If, over time, I become more knowledgeable and people are intested, we
    can discuss this stuff (nicely and calmly, I hope).
    
    jeff

>    Of one thing I am certain; the quality, depth and biblical integrity
>    of Reformed theology (which exposits predestination, among other things) 
>    cannot be matched by Arminian theology (from my experience).

Hey mods, I thought you said no personal jabs!  ;-)
    
>    If, over time, I become more knowledgeable and people are intested, we
>    can discuss this stuff (nicely and calmly, I hope).

I expect when you become more knowledgable, you'll see the better way of it,
Jeff.  Not that you'd enjoy the reading, but have you read John Wesley's
sermon on Free Grace?  I have a copy.  ;-)

Mark

================================================================================
Note 227.23     Once saved always saved versus falling from grace      23 of 553
TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"       17 lines  10-APR-1992 21:24
                      -< One can be a dead [to God] son >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marshall, I am not promoting a salvation by works doctrine.
    Sw, explains that well.

    but onward...

    One of the stories the OSAS people like to point out is the prodigal
    son.  He was still a son of the father when he went into the far
    country, no?  Well, yes he was.

    But look a little farther into the story. (Paraphrase)  "My son who was
    dead is now alive."  When we choose to leave God, we may be a dead son.


    I can see where the predestination easily sits in the OSAS camp, but I
    would have expected it to be Saved forever, no matter what, for the
    elect.  (That is, not *once* saved at all.  but that is a gross
    under-generalization, eh, Marshall?)
================================================================================
Note 227.24     Once saved always saved versus falling from grace      24 of 553
WR2FOR::HOPKINS_DA "Sw, worshipping the Son of God"  21 lines  10-APR-1992 21:54
                          -< furthering the further >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hey Mark,

    you can even take your "onward" a little further...

    the dead son didn't have to come back. He could have stayed out there,
    and died outside of the father's house. He, then, would have been
    "eternally separated" from dad. Never having reconciliation, not
    because the father did not want to give it, but because the son never
    sought.

    Jesus said "all who come to me..." and "come to me, all you who are
    weary..." and "come to me all you who thirst..."

    If we'ns don't come, we'ns in big trouble!

    gettin out (I guess)

    Luvs

    Sw

    Mark,
    
    Several months ago, I read John Wesley's Free Grace sermon that you
    made available.  Very good.
    
    I'm in the process of reading the collected works of Jacobus Arminius,
    having spent some time with Calvin's Institutes.
    
    More and more I'm convinced that the temptation to remove the tension
    in the scriptures regarding God's sovereignty and man's freedom to
    choose is not in our best interest.  I too am convinced that the
    "problem" is a function of our finite experience constrasted with God's
    infinite ways.
    
    Thoughtful scholars of both Arminian and Calvinist schools are very
    close to each other, and show a healthy respect for each other. 
    Partisans on both sides seem (to me) to be less credible, less
    thoughtful, more willing to accept "strained" interpretations of
    scripture on these points. 
    
    In this case, I think that being "in-the-middle" is a virtue, not
    cowardice.  In fact, it takes some guts to stand in the middle when all
    round you are urging a committment to one view or the other.  Usually,
    I a radical; on this issue I'm moderate.  Ho Hum.......
    
    regards,
    
    David
     
    
    Though

    I liked your note, David.  Yes, let's keep that "tension" because 
    is it just right!  :-)
    
    Mark

    
    
    Where does faith come from?
    
    This is a question that God has answered.  It is his gift, lest any
    man boast - note Ephesians 1 and 2.
    
    I have found the views of Augustine, and the Protestant Reformation to
    be consistent with Scripture here.  God does not force us to have faith in
    him, but we are all so lost in sin, that only when he turns our hearts
    toward him can we exercise faith and believe in him.  If it were not
    for the act of God, we would all be lost in sin.  Only because of
    his sovereign purpose and action can we respond to the call, which does
    go far and wide.
    
    I have found the doctrines of Reformed theology (as summarized in the
    Westminster Confession, for instance) to be life-chaging in helping me
    to love, serve and praise God.
    
    With gratitude to the God who rescued and keeps me by his almighty
    power-  Steve
    
     

    Re: a few back (.26 -- Jeff Benson)
    
>    I have recently been attending an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (its not
>    as bad as it sounds ;).
    
    Ah, the OPC -- I grew up (until I was 8) attending the Westminster OPC
    in Eagle Rock, California (not far from Pasadena).  Definately "not as
    bad as it sounds" -- the "orthodox" stands in quite stark constrast to
    some of the other synonyms that get associated with "Presbyterian" (at
    least, from what I know from 34 years ago!).
    
    However, I am not in agreement with some of the doctrines of
    Calvinistic thinking.  Though the logic is virtually flawless, I
    believe that the fault lies in the premises.  Those who favor doctrines
    of "sovereign grace" make the premise that the single greatest
    attribute of God is His sovereignty.  The danger here is that though it
    is true that God is indeed sovereign, to place this attribute above all
    others is a human reasoning.  The Calvinistic view claims that God's
    sovereignty precludes free choice by man.  I believe that the sovereign
    God has chosen to give man the ability to choose or reject His
    salvation.  God is infinately sovereign, but He is also infinitely
    just, and infinitely love.  God will never unjustly condemn, and this
    is the reason why I believe that He gives every man the opportunity to
    choose or reject Him.  Of course, God also has a perfect foreknowledge
    of who will choose and who will reject, so He is perfectly capable of
    using (and does use) this according to His purpose.
    
    This is my take in a nutshell.  As others have said, the attempts by us
    limited mortals to comprehend the Infinite is feeble indeed.  "For now
    we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."
    
    Mark L.

Though I am still bothered by the issue of predestination (one's salvation
is determined by God), have a certain peace about it now that I have not
always had.

The issue for me was always about God's fairness and goodness, rather than 
as an opposition between free will and predestination.  By this I mean that 
if God determines, if we do not have the equal capacity to choose
life or death which He has placed before us, then how can God be a loving,
just God ?  If a person is held accountable for their actions without having
had a true choice, then God is capricious and playing with us as puppets.
That was my thinking and dilemna at one point in time.

The answer that I received from the Calvinist side of the argument didn't
help me much.  My understanding of their answer is that one should consider
God merciful that He would choose anybody, since we are all corrupted by
sin and deserving of death.  That He should predestine some to being washed
clean of sin is an act of love.  And in some ways, this argument seemed to 
have the backing of Scripture with statements about the potter and the clay,
and other times when God has answered the question about his fairness
by pointing out that we are in no position to judge Him.  But this just did 
not answer for me how God could be called good, fair, and loving when he 
created some people for the seemingly express purpose of being punished with 
burning annilation, and chose other people to live in eternity in His presence,
washed of sin, and enjoying all the wonder and abundance that God can provide.
It did provide for a sovereign God, however.

On the other hand the Armenian argument that we, in and of our characters and 
selves have the ability to equally choose between God and ourselves, between 
life and death did not mesh with my experiences, nor with some of the Scripture
I'd read (though I've also read some Scripture that would seem to support this
position).  I know there is no special goodness within myself that somehow made
me better so that I was able to see the truth and choose God.  My feeling is 
that God has been guiding me and calling me, opening me up so that I would 
know Him.  I attribute my faith and salvation to God's work, not some deserving
goodness on my part.  The Aremenian position left me with the question as to
why would one person accept the truth of the gospel and not another when one 
seemed no better morally or brighter intellectually, or different in cir-
cumstances than the other?  And then came the question of fairness again.
If a person had been abused, neglected, died young, did not have the opportunity
to hear of God and make that decision, then how was God fair to condemn them
to burning annilation when their life circumstances never provided that equal
opportunity to them ?  How could they be held accountable such that God could
in fairness judge and condemn them ?  And yet the Bible clearly seems to 
indicate that some will be condemned and some will be blessed.

I've never really had an adequate answer to any of these questions.  What has 
changed then, that makes me less shattered over the issue of predestination, 
God's fairness, and our accountability?  It's something that I read in the 
book, "Our Father Abraham" by Dr. Marvin Wilson.  I think the author called it
Hebrew Block Logic.  Hebrew thought allows for paradoxes to exist side by side, 
both sides equally true even though one would seem to rule out the other, and 
we should live our lives based on both being true, content in the knowledge 
that somehow these two opposing sides are met and intermesh in God in a way 
that we cannot understand from our perspective.  

So God is sovereign, He has called and saved me, it is nothing innate within 
myself that enabled me to choose Him and life.  It is not my personal goodness,
intelligence, etc. that has redeemed me.  It is God Who has done this for me.

At the same time, I can be held fairly accountable for the real choices that I 
make, and I do have that ability to make true choices.  I am not a puppet on a
string.  My choices have an impact on the world that God has created.

Both are equally valid and equally true, despite that they appear to contradict
one another.  There integration point is in God, thoughI cannot see how they
are both true at this time.  This gives me a certain level of peace about the
issue of predestination and free will.

Leslie

 Original note question : Reject No, chastise yes

 I'm also of the reformed covenant persuasion. 
 I have experienced the "curse" of Hebrews 6.

 My witness : 

 When I was first converted things were just fine, then slowly over the years 
 i began entertaining the sins of my former existance (in my mind). I had 
 became like Agag thinking in my heart "well im saved and safe...". Then 
 one day I heard (so to speak) "can a man take fire into his bossom and not 
 be burned?" I fell as it were "like a bird from a tree" and like Agag was 
 "hewn to pieces". I was absolutely convinced that I had lost all and could 
 never again be saved (I had been osas then and am now). Shortly thereafter 
 I ran headlong into Hebrews 6 and the word "impossible" constantly ate away
 at me. I sought help from both worlds, but no one could help me. I searched 
 the Scriptures and found only more misery in Jude, II Peter etc. The Proverbs 
 especially were torture for me. The more I read the Bible looking for relief 
 the more hopeless things seemed. This went on for about 3-4 years. I finally
 put the Bible down never to look at it again (so I thought). Then as slowly
 and imperceivably (sp) as I had slipped away, things became better.

 I began reading the Bible again and one day i dared to look at Hebrews 6
 and when I read vs 3 "and this we will do, IF GOD PERMIT" (that is to
 "renew them to repentance") The light came on and i left my prison house.

 Hebrews 6:4 should be read thusly "for it is impossible (unless God permit)
 ...to renew them again to repentance..."

 In my case Our Father permitted it.

 If Our Father deals with us in this manner we will either reap the peaceable
 fruit of repentance or death (physical). This is not the normal Christain 
 experience, but the sentance past upon "wanderers" (imo-via experience)

 And what you may ask for those who die unrestored under this "curse" whose 
 end is to burned...    They will be saved "YET SO AS BY FIRE".
 "thou shalt die without knowledge"
 
 "Take heed..."  "Be ye holy..."   "whom I love, I chastise and rebuke.."

                                 Hank

    re: last few - Predestination vs. Freewill
    
    My husband, Steve, and I had a conversation about this with his
    brother, Keith, on Christmas.  My husband's family is not christian
    as we, here in notes land, understand it.  They are catholic and 
    believe that if you're baptised as an infant, you ARE saved.
    (Although, Keith has been away from the church 5 - 10 years.  I
    always knew he was into something "different" - found out that
    evening he thinks he "relates" to buddhism, zen, God knows what else.)
    
    Keith, my brother-in-law, has a very scientific, mechanical mind.
    Doesn't matter what the issue is, you have to PROVE it to him.  He
    gave Steve a book for Christmas, don't remember the title, but it
    was how to prove certain historical facts using math.  Here we go.
    They get into it - the rub, "my way (world view/personal philosophy)
    vs. your way."
    
    Certain key tenants of the christian faith came into question:
    (1) How was the world created in 6 days?  (2) How could Jesus
    be born of a virgin?  Basically we told him that, in our human
    minds, we know we cannot make these things happen, but this is where
    faith comes in, and for me, it comes down to "blind" faith - I 
    don't understand the mechanics of how God did it, but He said He
    did, so I accept that.  I don't even care how - it's not important
    to me.  However, I do realize that there are some "inquiring minds"
    who want to know (prove-it-to-me.)  So poor Keith is hung up on 
    the first chapter in the Old Testament and the New Testament!
    
    The conversation jumped around to many areas of religion - then
    came freewill vs. predestination.  He asks:  "Ok, do you believe this 
    conversation was predestined?  Steve says:  "Yes, I've been praying 
    for it." :-)
    
    Actually, I believe it is a paradox:  While God has known from the 
    beginning of time what will happen, who will choose Him, He doesn't 
    use that foreknowledge to "twist our arm" - He won't violate our 
    free will.  Predestination and free will co-exist.
    
    Karen 

      re: .32
      
        Hi Mark,
    
          I really like your reply.  To go a tad further, I have come
          to believe that wrapped up in the truth that God could only
          be satisfied with an intelligent creation that can discern
          between good and evil (and thus has free will) is a certain
          spiritual reality.
    
          That reality is that if any sin resides in the mind, one cannot
          look _behind the veil_.  One simply cannot see God fully and
          live.  "But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."
    
          When one sees God in deeper light, one sees the sinfulness of
          of sin in deeper light, and one dies (bears the guilt).
    
          All of the above is a result of God's character of love.
    
          Thus the unsaved are not arbitrarily singled out for destruction.
          There comes a time when God simply removes the veil.  And the 
          fire that Meshach, Shedrach, and Abednego basked in, the
          Babylonian guards standing further off were destroyed by.
    
          The fire that the pure in heart bask in, the unsaved are
          destroyed by for that fire activates the full destructive force
          inherent in sin.
    
                                                    Tony

    .33 Leslie - great note!  There is nothing in these last three
    paragraphs that conflicts explicitly with Calvinistic doctrines as I
    understand them.  Unfortunately, the errors of the implementation or
    expression of Calvinistic theology in many cases have received the
    greatest attention over time (a long time now).  Hyper-Calvinism is an
    error, in my opinion, for it leads to ignoring other parts of the Bible.
    
    Anyway, I like these last three paragraphs especially and read loosely
    they generally represent my current (forming and changing) beliefs on
    the subject of God's sovereignty and man's free will.  Fortunately, I'm
    in a church which does not require a litmus test on Calivinism to be a
    member (more would be required to be an elder however -which I hope to
    be some day).
    
>So God is sovereign, He has called and saved me, it is nothing innate within 
    >myself that enabled me to choose Him and life.  It is not my personal 
    >goodness,intelligence, etc. that has redeemed me.  It is God Who has done 
    >this for me.

>At the same time, I can be held fairly accountable for the real choices that I 
>make, and I do have that ability to make true choices.  I am not a puppet on a
>string.  My choices have an impact on the world that God has created.

>Both are equally valid and equally true, despite that they appear to contradict
>one another.  There integration point is in God, thoughI cannot see how they
>are both true at this time.  This gives me a certain level of peace about the
>issue of predestination and free will.

    
    Interesting note Hank!  I'm encouraged by your testimony.
    
    jeff

    I am just now caught up on all the replies and appreciate all the
    input.  I am somewhat in the dark regarding Calvanism.  I was
    approached last week by one of our deacons and he asked if I know the
    five points of Calvanism?  I said, Gee, I'm afraid not!  He then asked
    me if I believe in the doctrine of the elect, (I think that's how it
    was worded.)  I told him that I believe God has chosen us but that I
    also believe in 2nd Peter chapter 1 where it says, "But his
    longsuffering to usward not willing that any perish but that all should
    come to repentance."  I believe Jesus died for the sin of the world and
    that it was up to our volition to accept or reject.
    
    Is this Calvanism or not?
    
    -Jack

  Hi Jack,

  Five points : TULIP

  (T)otal depravity
  (U)nconditional election
  (L)imited atonement
  (I)rresistable grace
  (P)erseverance of the Saibts

  response to "is this Calvinism"

  No, unless you make it known that your "choice" was *after* God enlightened
  you.

  In "Calvinism" you are either "chosen in the Beloved" or "appointed to
  wrath".

  A short explanation of TULIP :

  T - All of humanity is totally depraved, the gift of "common grace" 
  constrains this depravity and keeps anarchy from reigning. No one can 
  receive  "Sancitying Grace" until the Father bestows it at His will.

  U - Our Father has elected His Saints with no other condition than "after
  His own council".

  L - The benefit of The Atonement is limited to the elect.

  I - None of the elect can resist the grace of God, they can appear to resist
  the gospel, but only because God has not enlightened them yet.

  P - the elect will ultimately be "saved" in spite of all appearances.


  Short and crude, plus there are several types of "Calvinist" :
  Hyper, modified, four point, etc, etc...

  Personally I prefer "reformed" rather than a mans' name...

                         Hank
 

I couldn't remember TULIP last night as I parsed through the acronyms in
my brain.  Thanks, Hanks.  ;-)

Here's a couple, too

Forsaking    (pretty arminian, I'd say)
All
I 
Take
Him

God's        (can go either way)
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense

Jesus        (The only way to have joy is to put Jesus first,
Others        and others ahead of yourself.  This is the principle
You           of the greatest commandment.)

    Those are Great!
    
    And...
    
    Let
    Overcoming
    Victoriously
    Endure
    !
    

    and yet there is at least one more,
    
    
    
      People
      Everywhere
      Are
      Created
      Equal
    
      -PDM

    Christ
    Has
    Risen
    Instead of
    Self
    Today,
    I 
    Am
    Naught

    What if the prodigal son, returns home, and not only acknowledges he is
    not worthy to be a son, but is also not worthy to be a servant?
    
    Bob

 None of us are worthy to be a servant..that is the wonder of God's grace.
 He has forgiven us and called us to serve Him.  Our unworthiness is no longer
 a question..


 This prodigal son recently spent some time meditating on Colosians 2:13-14,
 and Romans 8:1, which opened a number of doors.



 Jim

    re -1
    
    Amen.
    
    Bing

    Absolutely Jim, could you possibly share a little bit more about this
    subject?

�               <<< Note 373.47 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>
� None of us are worthy to be a servant..that is the wonder of God's grace.

cf John 1:27b 
"He is the One..., the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."

Untying the sandals was, I understand, one task which is was considered too 
demeening to require a Roman slave to perform.

John the Baptist saw that the glory of the LORD Jesus was so great that we 
are less than nothing before Him.  Yet He elevates us to be children of 
God.  His brothers ... Hebrews 2:11...

What a wonderful LORD we have....

							Andrew

 Re .49


 Funny you should ask....




 Will do in a little bit.


 Jim

    Amen to that!

    Re: Note 373.46 by ROMEOS::SHALLOW_RO

�    What if the prodigal son, returns home, and not only acknowledges he is
�    not worthy to be a son, but is also not worthy to be a servant?
    
    Fortunately, it isn't up to the son to decide. The son may feel
    unworthy but the love of the father has priority.
    
    	BD�

>    What if the prodigal son, returns home, and not only acknowledges he is
>    not worthy to be a son, but is also not worthy to be a servant?

Thsi "what-if" is answered in scripture, isn't it?

> This prodigal son recently spent some time meditating on Colosians 2:13-14,
> and Romans 8:1, which opened a number of doors.



  There is sin in my past for which I know that God has forgiven me.  However
  as many of us are aware, while God forgives us, we are often left with a
  smoldering mess behind that reminds us.  In this case the smoldering mess
  is the destruction of my family, my kids falling away from the Lord and me
  being unable to forgive myself.  While I see my kids making progress, my
  effectiveness in serving the Lord is diminished.

  As I heard recently in a message by Andy Stanley on the subject of 
  "Making peace with your past", we can forgive those who sin against us..
  we can make peace with those against whom we have sinned by making restitution
  or confessing our sin to them, or otherwise settling accounts..but we tend
  to get stuck in a loop of trying to forgive ourselves because there is no
  way we can make restitution to ourselves, short of undoing the act of sin,
  which of course is impossible..we see no way out of that loop.

  As a result of this message, I spent some time on the passages mentioned
  above...Colosians 2:13 and 14 tells us that ALL of our sin has been forgiven,
  our debt to God nailed to the cross..ALL includes sin against our Lord, sin
  against our neighbor, family and sin against ourselves..our standards..all
  of it nailed to the cross..and Romans 8:1 tells us that there is now no
  condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..if God does not condemn me
  and I continue to condemn myself, I am arguing with God!  God has given
  me a "paid in full" statement, and I'm trying to give it back! 
  

  A simple lesson, perhaps, but I have truly been stuck in this loop, convinced
  as in Bob's note that I am unworthy to serve Him..and I'm not, however..He
  has forgiven me, I can forgive myself and I can resist Satan's attempts
  to drag me away from that which God has called this unworthy servant...and
  I can serve Him knowing that I am doing so at His calling because of His
  grace..

  "When Satan reminds you of your past, remind him of his future"


  Jim 

    .55
    Amen Jim!  Ieeded to hear that too!
    

>> "When Satan reminds you of your past, remind him of his future"

What a great line!!

Ben

 I saw that on a bumper sticker a while back, and Andy Stanley used it
 in the message I spoke about.




Jim

    >> "When Satan reminds you of your past, remind him of his future"
    
    Its also a line from one of Carmen's songs.  
    
    Great note Jim!  Romans 8:1-2 is my favorite passage in scripture. 
    Christ has done everything that ever needs to be done for me to be
    accepted by God.  There's nothing I can do to add to that, or take away
    from it.  We have been set free from the law (which is the power of sin)
    to live in the spirit of life in Christ!   God has dealt, once for all
    with my past, present, and future sins.  I have been set free from
    slavery to walk in newness of life!
    
    Bing
    the slavery of

    re -1
    
    The line after my name was a mistake, please ignore it.
    
    Bing