Lastige belemmering.Kónden de Joden dat dan, Christus ontvangen? Nee: Niemand kan tot Mij komen, tenzij dat de Vader Die Mij gezonden heeft, hem trekke.”
All the promises in the gospel are for awakened sinners
-
ego flos
-
ego flos
-
ego flos
Da's kras. Lees Joh. 6:44 en 45. Het lijkt me dat Jezus bedoelt wat Hij daar zegt.ego flos schreef:Nee, dat snap ik, dat je het niet snapt.
Jij zegt dat Jezus een belemmering opwerpt:Dat is jou interpretatie van wat Jezus zegt: Tenzij etc .Kónden de Joden dat dan, Christus ontvangen? Nee:
Maar dat heeft Jezus vast niet bedoeld te zeggen.
-
ego flos
Niemand kan tot Mij komen, tenzij dat de Vader, Die Mij gezonden heeft, hem trekke; en Ik zal hem opwekken ten uitersten dage.
Er is geschreven in de profeten: En zij zullen allen van God geleerd zijn. Een iegelijk dan, die het van den Vader gehoord en geleerd heeft, die komt tot Mij.
En dat betekent dan dat de Joden niet konden komen?
Er is geschreven in de profeten: En zij zullen allen van God geleerd zijn. Een iegelijk dan, die het van den Vader gehoord en geleerd heeft, die komt tot Mij.
En dat betekent dan dat de Joden niet konden komen?
Jazeker. En ze liepen ook allemaal weer weg!ego flos schreef:Niemand kan tot Mij komen, tenzij dat de Vader, Die Mij gezonden heeft, hem trekke; en Ik zal hem opwekken ten uitersten dage.
Er is geschreven in de profeten: En zij zullen allen van God geleerd zijn. Een iegelijk dan, die het van den Vader gehoord en geleerd heeft, die komt tot Mij.
En dat betekent dan dat de Joden niet konden komen?
-
cannabis
I'm back, but chronically out of time again. A few comments:
Arrow:
Regarding Rev 22:17. No one has the will to come to Christ unless regenerated. Coming to Him implies complete submission to Him, and only grace will make us submit to God. My example of the warden was poor, but I am not very imaginative in making up examples. If we "come" to Christ for deliverance alone, our motives our selfish and we have no regard for Him.
If God gave the gospel to all mankind, what benefit is it for those who He reprobated from eternity? Is God mocking man by offering him something He never intends to give him? How serious is His offer?
I dont want to use "a whole array of adjectives". Just enough to distinguish truth from falsehood. I love that line from Joseph Hart (or is it Berridge?). "To understand these things aright/ This grand distinction must be know/ Though all are sinners in God's sight/ There are but few so in their own/ A sinner is a sacred thing/ The Holy Ghost has made him so." I quote from memory and may be off.
A very great thing happens to a sinner when he is awakened. He learns to know that he has sinned against a great, glorious, holy, and loving God, and this will grieve him more than the fact that his sins must be punished and that he must suffer eternal hell for them. I cannot imagine that you actually believe there is no difference between a regenerated and an unregenerated sinner. The one repents and sorrows for sin, the other does not. For the one Christ's righteousness has value, for the other it is no more than a means to escape hell.
We can never earn "promising adjectives". Grace must make us alive; we cannot earn eternal life. We cannot make ourselves mourn for the moral evil of sin, only for the natural evil of sin (i.e. for the consequences).
Your idea that it is your duty to "embrace Christ" first and conclude later that it was grace smacks of rank presumption (not to mention arminianism). We start the process ourselves, and then conclude that we didnt. We "come to Christ" as it is called, because we want to escape the blows, and later thank God for His deliverance.
Wim:
If God works in us because we started ourselves, the arminians are right. Christ is then just waiting for us to start so He can help us. Good thing some people are willing to come to Him of their own accord! Obviously not all people hate God.
The Bible tells us to repent. Of course. We must all keep the Ten Commandments to our best ability. The Covenant of Works has been maintained. Again, I did not say that we must prepare ourselves to be fit for the promises. The Holy Spirit must work all things in us, both to do and to will. Without His unction, we have no will to come to God. "But ye would not."
Hypercalvinists do not underappreciate God's word. Nor does God's word do anything by itself, as you suggest. The Holy Spirit uses the Bible to convert people. The Bible by itself is but a book (though, of course, a holy and perfect one). I am quite persuaded that people assume hypercalvinism is a terrible doctrine, never really, objectively having understood what it means or teaches.
Pim:
The first words out of Christ's mouth, when He started preaching, was "repent." So did John the Baptist. And to those who repented, they added "and believe". Although I belong to the GGiN, I understand (and appreciate) some of the criticisms levelled at us. I, too, wish that the emphasis is still placed on "Repent and believe." But Christ preached more than these two words. He also said, "No man can come unto me unless the Father draw him." Then most people left Him. Harsh doctrine. Probably made men "careless and profane", eh? Jesus ended up asking His diciples if they were going to leave too, but they understood that He had "the words of eternal life". Imagine, the doctrine of predestination was understood by Peter and John as the words of eternal life. Today such emphasis is probably called hypercalvinism, and a misachting of God's word.
Arrow:
Regarding Rev 22:17. No one has the will to come to Christ unless regenerated. Coming to Him implies complete submission to Him, and only grace will make us submit to God. My example of the warden was poor, but I am not very imaginative in making up examples. If we "come" to Christ for deliverance alone, our motives our selfish and we have no regard for Him.
If God gave the gospel to all mankind, what benefit is it for those who He reprobated from eternity? Is God mocking man by offering him something He never intends to give him? How serious is His offer?
I dont want to use "a whole array of adjectives". Just enough to distinguish truth from falsehood. I love that line from Joseph Hart (or is it Berridge?). "To understand these things aright/ This grand distinction must be know/ Though all are sinners in God's sight/ There are but few so in their own/ A sinner is a sacred thing/ The Holy Ghost has made him so." I quote from memory and may be off.
A very great thing happens to a sinner when he is awakened. He learns to know that he has sinned against a great, glorious, holy, and loving God, and this will grieve him more than the fact that his sins must be punished and that he must suffer eternal hell for them. I cannot imagine that you actually believe there is no difference between a regenerated and an unregenerated sinner. The one repents and sorrows for sin, the other does not. For the one Christ's righteousness has value, for the other it is no more than a means to escape hell.
We can never earn "promising adjectives". Grace must make us alive; we cannot earn eternal life. We cannot make ourselves mourn for the moral evil of sin, only for the natural evil of sin (i.e. for the consequences).
Your idea that it is your duty to "embrace Christ" first and conclude later that it was grace smacks of rank presumption (not to mention arminianism). We start the process ourselves, and then conclude that we didnt. We "come to Christ" as it is called, because we want to escape the blows, and later thank God for His deliverance.
Wim:
If God works in us because we started ourselves, the arminians are right. Christ is then just waiting for us to start so He can help us. Good thing some people are willing to come to Him of their own accord! Obviously not all people hate God.
The Bible tells us to repent. Of course. We must all keep the Ten Commandments to our best ability. The Covenant of Works has been maintained. Again, I did not say that we must prepare ourselves to be fit for the promises. The Holy Spirit must work all things in us, both to do and to will. Without His unction, we have no will to come to God. "But ye would not."
Hypercalvinists do not underappreciate God's word. Nor does God's word do anything by itself, as you suggest. The Holy Spirit uses the Bible to convert people. The Bible by itself is but a book (though, of course, a holy and perfect one). I am quite persuaded that people assume hypercalvinism is a terrible doctrine, never really, objectively having understood what it means or teaches.
Pim:
The first words out of Christ's mouth, when He started preaching, was "repent." So did John the Baptist. And to those who repented, they added "and believe". Although I belong to the GGiN, I understand (and appreciate) some of the criticisms levelled at us. I, too, wish that the emphasis is still placed on "Repent and believe." But Christ preached more than these two words. He also said, "No man can come unto me unless the Father draw him." Then most people left Him. Harsh doctrine. Probably made men "careless and profane", eh? Jesus ended up asking His diciples if they were going to leave too, but they understood that He had "the words of eternal life". Imagine, the doctrine of predestination was understood by Peter and John as the words of eternal life. Today such emphasis is probably called hypercalvinism, and a misachting of God's word.
Laatst gewijzigd door cannabis op 08 okt 2005, 06:10, 1 keer totaal gewijzigd.
-
cannabis
Corydoras
Actually, this is not at all gezocht. Special relativity is above my understanding, but not against it. Much of modern physics is. Schrodinger's cat, that is against my reason.
God is not subject to our reason. But He revealed His will (in His Bible) to us in such a way that we could understand it. What was the point of having a Bible otherwise. A book of riddles no one could understand? That is not very useful. You probably like the Three Forms. The Belgic Confession has something about the entire creation showing God's wisdom. If nature and its laws did not make sense, how could we see God's wisdom in it? The original image of God we were created in included reason. It was a faint transcript of God's intelligence (if I may so call it). And though marred by the noetic effects of the Fall, we have enough left to "leave us without excuse".
If things dont make sense to us, it is either because it is a mystery God did want not reveal, or, in the case of Bible doctrine, because we are not understanding things correctly. Calvinism has a little of this problem. Hypercalvinism doesn't. And, by the way, hypercalvinists also start with the Bible. That is why Gill completed his authoritative commentary before he started his body of divinity.
"Nogal gedurfd om God zo ter verantwoording te roepen. Nogmaals, besef dat ook de regels van de logica door God gegeven zijn en Hij daar dus niet aan onderworpen is!"
I dont call God to account. I want people to look at the contradictions in their doctrines and try to solve them. God does not contradict Himself in His word. Else He would be imperfect. If there are apparent contradictions in doctrine (as in modern-day Calvinism), it must be because we are wrong.
Afgewezen:
What is the point of saying we have the right to "come to Christ" if we dont have the ability? Dead people having a right to come to God? Do spiritually dead people have rights? We have lost our rights when we deliberately turned from God. God is not giving us a second chance in the form of a second probation period. Let's not emphasize this "rights" business.
God did not give Christ for any but those whom He ordained to eternal life. (Hence the importance of justification and adoption from eternity.) What profit do the reprobate have of Christ's merits? God never intended to save them through Christ. Would God have sent His Son to die for their sins? Obviously not. Can the reprobate have a right to come to Christ if His salvation was not intended for them? Of course they dont know that they are reprobate, but do they have an imaginary right? Does God say, you have the right to come and plead for mercy at Christ's footstool, if He has determined they will never get it? Is this not mocking man?
The bread of life was giving to those who hunger after God's righteousness. Not just because they want to be saved, but they want to be holy as God is. They love God for Who He is, and want to be conformed to His image. Christ preached to all, because the elect were in among the reprobate. For those who want to be restored to God, because they love Him above all, Christ alone has value.
When we listen to the proclamation, we either accept it or despise it. In order to accept it we must have the Holy Spirit work in our heart, and therefore must already be regenerated. Else we reject it, either by saying "what profit can it do me" or by presumptuously laying hold of Christ's merits for your deliverance alone. Many people seem to do the latter. 9 of the 10 lepers, and 5 of 10 virgins did too.
Faith a duty? Faith is a gift of God. How can a gift be a duty? Until you people understand the critical difference between faith and believing, you are going to remain confused and inconsistent. Believing is a duty, however. In Paradise, we could believe all that God revealed. How? Because we had faith. Faith is an ability, not an act. The object of faith (actually, of our believing) was God alone, not salvation by Christ, for no salvation was necessary. We lost our divine image in the Fall, lost our spiritual sight of God. This is only restored, in part, in regeneration, when the entrance of God's words give spiritual light, give spiritual discernment, allows us to see in a glass darkly, enable us to behold with open face the glory of God, etc. And then we can believe. Then our souls cannot doubt, when the Holy Spirit reveals things to us and enables us to see them. I discussed this at length a year ago on OSW (my only other visit here).
I wrote: "Why God did not prevent sin while He could? To increase His glory by displaying His justice , mercy, wisdom and sovereignty." I do not say here that God is the Author of sin. God is sovereign and under no obligation to man. He could prevent or not prevent sin. It was His prerogative. From our point of view it looks close to blaming God. The key is to remember He could do as He wanted to. We can never fathom any of the "why's" in God's hidden will. Nor may we, else they would not be hidden. Bible doctrine is not hidden, nor meant to be.
Our believing must have an objective foundation in Scripture. I agree. The Holy Spirit must reveal to the soul that the truth contained in Scripture is for us, personally. Then we have objective grounds to believe.
Man is not forbidden to love himself and seek his deliverance. We must love our neighbors.. as ourselves. But self must take second place to God. God's glory must be the most important thing in our life. And that includes the glorification of His law and maintainance of His justice. Submission to God means taking second place, putting God first, putting your own salvation second. But putting it second does not mean forgetting about it.
As to Brakel, all people have a soul that is searching and restless until it finds rest in God (Augustine). Because we were made with an infinite capacity to love. I mean, the capacity to love the infinite. Which is our purpose.
Finally, you write "when we come, must we bring something with us, our being thirsty, and offer it to God? We have the duty to come, but we don’t come before we feel thirsty. That’s the question."
We cannot come unless God the Holy Spirit brings us. You will agree to this. And when He regenerates us, we will be thristy. For God (Psalm 42) and for righteousness (Matthew 5). It is not something we have to try to produce, it is a mark of life. And without life we will not come. We dont have to offer anything to God. Toplady: "Nothing in my hand I bring/ Simply to Thy cross I cling..." Again, natural man has the duty to repent from sin and keep the law and believe all what God has revealed, but that is not the same as believing that Christ is our personal Saviour. To believe that we must have that great and blessed truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Actually, this is not at all gezocht. Special relativity is above my understanding, but not against it. Much of modern physics is. Schrodinger's cat, that is against my reason.
God is not subject to our reason. But He revealed His will (in His Bible) to us in such a way that we could understand it. What was the point of having a Bible otherwise. A book of riddles no one could understand? That is not very useful. You probably like the Three Forms. The Belgic Confession has something about the entire creation showing God's wisdom. If nature and its laws did not make sense, how could we see God's wisdom in it? The original image of God we were created in included reason. It was a faint transcript of God's intelligence (if I may so call it). And though marred by the noetic effects of the Fall, we have enough left to "leave us without excuse".
If things dont make sense to us, it is either because it is a mystery God did want not reveal, or, in the case of Bible doctrine, because we are not understanding things correctly. Calvinism has a little of this problem. Hypercalvinism doesn't. And, by the way, hypercalvinists also start with the Bible. That is why Gill completed his authoritative commentary before he started his body of divinity.
"Nogal gedurfd om God zo ter verantwoording te roepen. Nogmaals, besef dat ook de regels van de logica door God gegeven zijn en Hij daar dus niet aan onderworpen is!"
I dont call God to account. I want people to look at the contradictions in their doctrines and try to solve them. God does not contradict Himself in His word. Else He would be imperfect. If there are apparent contradictions in doctrine (as in modern-day Calvinism), it must be because we are wrong.
Afgewezen:
What is the point of saying we have the right to "come to Christ" if we dont have the ability? Dead people having a right to come to God? Do spiritually dead people have rights? We have lost our rights when we deliberately turned from God. God is not giving us a second chance in the form of a second probation period. Let's not emphasize this "rights" business.
God did not give Christ for any but those whom He ordained to eternal life. (Hence the importance of justification and adoption from eternity.) What profit do the reprobate have of Christ's merits? God never intended to save them through Christ. Would God have sent His Son to die for their sins? Obviously not. Can the reprobate have a right to come to Christ if His salvation was not intended for them? Of course they dont know that they are reprobate, but do they have an imaginary right? Does God say, you have the right to come and plead for mercy at Christ's footstool, if He has determined they will never get it? Is this not mocking man?
The bread of life was giving to those who hunger after God's righteousness. Not just because they want to be saved, but they want to be holy as God is. They love God for Who He is, and want to be conformed to His image. Christ preached to all, because the elect were in among the reprobate. For those who want to be restored to God, because they love Him above all, Christ alone has value.
When we listen to the proclamation, we either accept it or despise it. In order to accept it we must have the Holy Spirit work in our heart, and therefore must already be regenerated. Else we reject it, either by saying "what profit can it do me" or by presumptuously laying hold of Christ's merits for your deliverance alone. Many people seem to do the latter. 9 of the 10 lepers, and 5 of 10 virgins did too.
Faith a duty? Faith is a gift of God. How can a gift be a duty? Until you people understand the critical difference between faith and believing, you are going to remain confused and inconsistent. Believing is a duty, however. In Paradise, we could believe all that God revealed. How? Because we had faith. Faith is an ability, not an act. The object of faith (actually, of our believing) was God alone, not salvation by Christ, for no salvation was necessary. We lost our divine image in the Fall, lost our spiritual sight of God. This is only restored, in part, in regeneration, when the entrance of God's words give spiritual light, give spiritual discernment, allows us to see in a glass darkly, enable us to behold with open face the glory of God, etc. And then we can believe. Then our souls cannot doubt, when the Holy Spirit reveals things to us and enables us to see them. I discussed this at length a year ago on OSW (my only other visit here).
I wrote: "Why God did not prevent sin while He could? To increase His glory by displaying His justice , mercy, wisdom and sovereignty." I do not say here that God is the Author of sin. God is sovereign and under no obligation to man. He could prevent or not prevent sin. It was His prerogative. From our point of view it looks close to blaming God. The key is to remember He could do as He wanted to. We can never fathom any of the "why's" in God's hidden will. Nor may we, else they would not be hidden. Bible doctrine is not hidden, nor meant to be.
Our believing must have an objective foundation in Scripture. I agree. The Holy Spirit must reveal to the soul that the truth contained in Scripture is for us, personally. Then we have objective grounds to believe.
Man is not forbidden to love himself and seek his deliverance. We must love our neighbors.. as ourselves. But self must take second place to God. God's glory must be the most important thing in our life. And that includes the glorification of His law and maintainance of His justice. Submission to God means taking second place, putting God first, putting your own salvation second. But putting it second does not mean forgetting about it.
As to Brakel, all people have a soul that is searching and restless until it finds rest in God (Augustine). Because we were made with an infinite capacity to love. I mean, the capacity to love the infinite. Which is our purpose.
Finally, you write "when we come, must we bring something with us, our being thirsty, and offer it to God? We have the duty to come, but we don’t come before we feel thirsty. That’s the question."
We cannot come unless God the Holy Spirit brings us. You will agree to this. And when He regenerates us, we will be thristy. For God (Psalm 42) and for righteousness (Matthew 5). It is not something we have to try to produce, it is a mark of life. And without life we will not come. We dont have to offer anything to God. Toplady: "Nothing in my hand I bring/ Simply to Thy cross I cling..." Again, natural man has the duty to repent from sin and keep the law and believe all what God has revealed, but that is not the same as believing that Christ is our personal Saviour. To believe that we must have that great and blessed truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.
-
Arrow
If we come for deliverance alone (at first), Christ we still be exalted, because we (driven by the Holy Spirit) acknowledge salvation is of Him alone. John Bunyan, in 'Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ', describes different motives of sinners coming to Christ. One of them is 'to be saved from eternal damnation' (in my own words).cannabis schreef:Regarding Rev 22:17. No one has the will to come to Christ unless regenerated. Coming to Him implies complete submission to Him, and only grace will make us submit to God. My example of the warden was poor, but I am not very imaginative in making up examples. If we "come" to Christ for deliverance alone, our motives our selfish and we have no regard for Him.
God didn't give the Gospel for the benefit of everyone. In the gospel He proclaims His mercy for those who will turn from their wicked ways and believe in His Son, whom he sent to save all His children. The whole plan of salvation is directed at the glory of His name, even the eternal perdition of the reprobates. So, the giving of the gospel is not intended primarily for the benefit of mankind, but for the exaltation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.cannabis schreef:If God gave the gospel to all mankind, what benefit is it for those who He reprobated from eternity? Is God mocking man by offering him something He never intends to give him? How serious is His offer?
In essence an awakened sinner is still a sinner. The tag 'awakened' has no added value. An awakened sinner is not a regenerated sinner, he is not (yet) cleansed by the blood of Christ. And if someone is cleansed by the Saviours blood, he is no sinner anymore, in the sight of God. Because this cleansing is perfect. The point I tried to make is: The distinction made between sinners by applying the adjective 'awakened' to some of them, can give those the false idea that they're almost saved, because they repent and sorrow for sin, but their neighbour doesn't. They might say: "I'm (paradoxically) a better sinner than they, I'm on my way to salvation, and they'd better awake too, or else they will perish." So be careful with labels.cannabis schreef:I dont want to use "a whole array of adjectives". Just enough to distinguish truth from falsehood. I love that line from Joseph Hart (or is it Berridge?). "To understand these things aright/ This grand distinction must be know/ Though all are sinners in God's sight/ There are but few so in their own/ A sinner is a sacred thing/ The Holy Ghost has made him so." I quote from memory and may be off.
A very great thing happens to a sinner when he is awakened. He learns to know that he has sinned against a great, glorious, holy, and loving God, and this will grieve him more than the fact that his sins must be punished and that he must suffer eternal hell for them. I cannot imagine that you actually believe there is no difference between a regenerated and an unregenerated sinner. The one repents and sorrows for sin, the other does not. For the one Christ's righteousness has value, for the other it is no more than a means to escape hell.
Why do you want to distinguish truth from falsehood? Isn't that the prerogative of God? There are so many cases of 'verifying' the faith of others, that came out wrong. His wisdom is higher than ours, so don't try to be a self-appointed deputy judge.
Of course it is our duty: Isaiah 45, 22: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." If that isn't a command, a call to duty, please give me the revised definition of 'duty'. If we don't start the process ourselves (even if our motive is only to escape hell), we're disobedient to many commands of the Lord God. Should we wait until we discern the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives? Just sit and wait (spiritually)? How do we recognize His work? Maybe we stir our own feelings, by staring at our navel too long. Do we decide at what moment we have the right to believe? We're not dealing with mathematics here!cannabis schreef:We can never earn "promising adjectives". Grace must make us alive; we cannot earn eternal life. We cannot make ourselves mourn for the moral evil of sin, only for the natural evil of sin (i.e. for the consequences).
Your idea that it is your duty to "embrace Christ" first and conclude later that it was grace smacks of rank presumption (not to mention arminianism). We start the process ourselves, and then conclude that we didnt. We "come to Christ" as it is called, because we want to escape the blows, and later thank God for His deliverance.
The Lord's name will also be honored when we acknowledge we didn't start looking for God. He looked for us first. Genesis3, 9: "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" You can't and don't need to be perfect before meeting Christ.
If you don’t like the word ‘right’, use the word ‘permission’. 'A second chance'. Jij verwijst hier denk ik naar de neonomianen (Baxter). Of het Evangelie een 'second chance' is of niet, weet ik niet. Ik weet wel wat er in Joh. 3:16 staat en daar hebben wij mee te doen. Omdat wij allen verloren zondaars zijn en niet meer zijn zoals wij zijn geschapen, namelijk goed en naar Gods evenbeeld.What is the point of saying we have the right to "come to Christ" if we dont have the ability? Dead people having a right to come to God? Do spiritually dead people have rights? We have lost our rights when we deliberately turned from God. God is not giving us a second chance in the form of a second probation period. Let's not emphasize this "rights" business.
Ja, jouw verstand zit je aardig in de weg. Als Christus zegt: “Mijn Vader geeft u…”, dan zeg jij: “Nee, hoor, want…” en dan komt er een reeks redeneringen die mij wel bekend zijn, maar die ik onbekommerd naast mij neerleg, omdat de Bijbel zo ook niet spreekt.God did not give Christ for any but those whom He ordained to eternal life. (Hence the importance of justification and adoption from eternity.) What profit do the reprobate have of Christ's merits? God never intended to save them through Christ. Would God have sent His Son to die for their sins? Obviously not. Can the reprobate have a right to come to Christ if His salvation was not intended for them? Of course they dont know that they are reprobate, but do they have an imaginary right? Does God say, you have the right to come and plead for mercy at Christ's footstool, if He has determined they will never get it? Is this not mocking man?
Staat dat in Joh. 6? Past dit in het betoog van Christus, Die spreekt tot mensen who aren’t hungry at all?The bread of life was giving to those who hunger after God's righteousness.
Natuurlijk, en zo klopt je systeem weer. Maar als je goed leest, zie je juist een verwijtende ondertoon in Christus’ betoog: Mijn Vader geeft jullie dat Brood en jullie verwerpen het!Christ preached to all, because the elect were in among the reprobate.
Ja, in het Koninkrijk van God kan dat. Daar kunnen allerlei dingen, waarvan wij vinden dat het níet kan. Omdat Gods gedachten hoger zijn dan onze gedachten.How can a gift be a duty?
Dat spreekt vanzelf. Maar daar loopt deze discussie niet over. Jij zegt: als God het geloof (faith of believing) Zelf moet werken, hoe kan Hij het dan eisen? Ja, dat is een misschien een filosofisch probleem. Maar de Schrift houdt zich niet zo met filosofische problemen bezig en veroordeelt een ieder die niet gelooft. Onrechtvaardig? Vul het zelf maar in.And then we can believe. Then our souls cannot doubt, when the Holy Spirit reveals things to us and enables us to see them.
Precies, dat bedoel ik nu. We moeten erkennen dat ‘our point of view’ zeer beperkt is. Maar jij hangt er je hele theologie aan op! Jij zegt: “I want people to look at the contradictions in their doctrines and try to solve them.” Ik zou zeggen: “Be careful en don’t try to solve too much!”From our point of view it looks close to blaming God.
Repenting also is een gift of God, such as faith. Waarom is het eerste een 'duty' en het tweede niet?Again, natural man has the duty to repent from sin and keep the law and believe all what God has revealed.
-
cannabis
Arrow
I dont think it is possible for any to come to Christ unless they have been made spiritually alive. Till then we are haters of God. When the Holy Spirit gives life, He also gives faith and love. Is it God-glorifying if we come to Him for our own ends alone? I dont think so. But if there is spiritual life, God will become more important to us than our own salvation. This does not mean that the latter isn't very important to us. I've read the work of Bunyan you refer to. The Holy Spirit leads people in various ways, but we must always consider our motives and deepest reasons for our imagine love to God. Is it because He is worthy, or because He has saved us? I think Bunyan would agree that those who come to God for deliverance alone will not be accepted by God. He makes this clear in his Pilgrim's Progress. And by the way, Christian was on the narrow way and through the gate well before he saw the cross and lost his burden. Incidentally, only then was he accepted in a church (house beautiful).
I agree with your statement that God gave His Son for the exaltation of Himself. Still, it is not wrong to consider what the use or purpose is for the reprobate. Whom He will He hardeneth. Hearing the gospel only aggravates their misery later. But for the elect, Christ is of infinite benefit.
You say that an awakened sinner is still a sinner. True, and he will remain a sinner until the body of death, the old man, dies. Being awakened does not make him better in his own eyes. Indeed, only then he sees what sin really is and how corrupt he truly is. But since awakening is a work of God, God delights to see His Own work in the sinner. An awakened sinner and a regenerated sinner are the same. If the two differ, is awakening worked by the Holy Spirit? Are these common workings? Can an awakened (but spiritually dead, as you suggest) sinner come to Christ? Does God not see a person who has been brought to and who has accepted Christ as a sinner? Why are they often chastised for their sins after their conversion? Why does God hide His face from them because of their sins. It would be better to say that God sees them as sinners in themselves, but as perfect and righteous in Christ.
You make the following point: "by applying the adjective 'awakened' to some of them, can give those the false idea that they're almost saved, because they repent and sorrow for sin, but their neighbour doesn't. They might say: "I'm (paradoxically) a better sinner than they, I'm on my way to salvation, and they'd better awake too, or else they will perish." "
This is a very valid criticism. I believe there are many people who think they are on the way to salvation, and think that are actually spiritually alive already, because they consider themselves awakened sinners. They may reason thus: "I see my sins, I see that they must be punished, I must be regenerated else I would not see and feel these things. Things will turn out OK with me in the end, though I do not know Christ, etc." This would be very dangerous. However, if a person is regenerated and sees their sins, they will never be satisfied with the knowledge of misery. Warburton calls this satisfying the hungry with hunger and the thirsty with thirst, and calls it foolishness. The awakened will not conclude that they will are saved, till this is revealed by God Himself through His word. Their are many external fears of death and sin and hell that have nothing of salvation in them. Indeed, the damned in hell feel all this. Stoddard, in his Guide, is clear that we must look for the root of their misery. A sorrow after God, or a sorrow after the results of sins. This point is belaboured by Shephard in his Parable, Edwards in his Affections, Bellamy in his True Religion, Owen in his work on the Holy Spirit, vander Groe in his Bekeering, Lodensteyn in his sermon on God's light shining into the heart, and many, many others.
You say: "Why do you want to distinguish truth from falsehood? Isn't that the prerogative of God? There are so many cases of 'verifying' the faith of others, that came out wrong. His wisdom is higher than ours, so don't try to be a self-appointed deputy judge."
Edwards makes clear that none but God can judge. There is but one rule: the tree is known by the fruit. It does not become me to judge. Nor was I pretending to. It does behoove us all to search the Scriptures and see if the doctrines we teach are correct. What upsets me is when people claim that the promises are for all and all we must do is take them. The Bible makes clear that this is not so, and describes what true sorrow for sin and longing for God is. That is all I try to present.
You quote Isaiah 45:22. I believe it is the duty of the regenerated, sensibly lost sinner, who has Christ revealed to his soul by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ. But there is nothing he would want to do more. It is a command, a duty, for these. But not for the unregenerated hearers. Else God would command the reprobate to accept Christ while determining that they never will. This is a fundamental inconsistency.
You say, "if we dont start the process ourselves...". This implies that we can do so. In other words, that we can make ourselves alive. For in the process of coming, I suppose you'd argue, we'd be made alive. So God helps us save ourselves. Sounds like Jefferson's maxim: God helps those that help themselves.
Should we wait and "stare at our navel". I dont like staring at my navel. It is not all that attractive to me. But seriously, we should beg for salvation and repentance. I wrote this before. This is not the same as coming to Christ and laying hold of His righteousness. An awakened sinner does not make a cold, rational decision that s/he is now ready to accept Christ. Christ is hidden from him until the Holy Spirit reveals Him. And they he cannot but accept.
Then you contradict yourself a little when you say that God sought us first. It reminds me of when I was with the Christian Reformed. They argued that we start, and then conclude that because we were able to come to God, He must have made us willing to start. Tightest circle in reasoning I've yet encountered.
Finally, you say "You can't and don't need to be perfect before meeting Christ." None will be, none will consider themselves to be.
I dont think it is possible for any to come to Christ unless they have been made spiritually alive. Till then we are haters of God. When the Holy Spirit gives life, He also gives faith and love. Is it God-glorifying if we come to Him for our own ends alone? I dont think so. But if there is spiritual life, God will become more important to us than our own salvation. This does not mean that the latter isn't very important to us. I've read the work of Bunyan you refer to. The Holy Spirit leads people in various ways, but we must always consider our motives and deepest reasons for our imagine love to God. Is it because He is worthy, or because He has saved us? I think Bunyan would agree that those who come to God for deliverance alone will not be accepted by God. He makes this clear in his Pilgrim's Progress. And by the way, Christian was on the narrow way and through the gate well before he saw the cross and lost his burden. Incidentally, only then was he accepted in a church (house beautiful).
I agree with your statement that God gave His Son for the exaltation of Himself. Still, it is not wrong to consider what the use or purpose is for the reprobate. Whom He will He hardeneth. Hearing the gospel only aggravates their misery later. But for the elect, Christ is of infinite benefit.
You say that an awakened sinner is still a sinner. True, and he will remain a sinner until the body of death, the old man, dies. Being awakened does not make him better in his own eyes. Indeed, only then he sees what sin really is and how corrupt he truly is. But since awakening is a work of God, God delights to see His Own work in the sinner. An awakened sinner and a regenerated sinner are the same. If the two differ, is awakening worked by the Holy Spirit? Are these common workings? Can an awakened (but spiritually dead, as you suggest) sinner come to Christ? Does God not see a person who has been brought to and who has accepted Christ as a sinner? Why are they often chastised for their sins after their conversion? Why does God hide His face from them because of their sins. It would be better to say that God sees them as sinners in themselves, but as perfect and righteous in Christ.
You make the following point: "by applying the adjective 'awakened' to some of them, can give those the false idea that they're almost saved, because they repent and sorrow for sin, but their neighbour doesn't. They might say: "I'm (paradoxically) a better sinner than they, I'm on my way to salvation, and they'd better awake too, or else they will perish." "
This is a very valid criticism. I believe there are many people who think they are on the way to salvation, and think that are actually spiritually alive already, because they consider themselves awakened sinners. They may reason thus: "I see my sins, I see that they must be punished, I must be regenerated else I would not see and feel these things. Things will turn out OK with me in the end, though I do not know Christ, etc." This would be very dangerous. However, if a person is regenerated and sees their sins, they will never be satisfied with the knowledge of misery. Warburton calls this satisfying the hungry with hunger and the thirsty with thirst, and calls it foolishness. The awakened will not conclude that they will are saved, till this is revealed by God Himself through His word. Their are many external fears of death and sin and hell that have nothing of salvation in them. Indeed, the damned in hell feel all this. Stoddard, in his Guide, is clear that we must look for the root of their misery. A sorrow after God, or a sorrow after the results of sins. This point is belaboured by Shephard in his Parable, Edwards in his Affections, Bellamy in his True Religion, Owen in his work on the Holy Spirit, vander Groe in his Bekeering, Lodensteyn in his sermon on God's light shining into the heart, and many, many others.
You say: "Why do you want to distinguish truth from falsehood? Isn't that the prerogative of God? There are so many cases of 'verifying' the faith of others, that came out wrong. His wisdom is higher than ours, so don't try to be a self-appointed deputy judge."
Edwards makes clear that none but God can judge. There is but one rule: the tree is known by the fruit. It does not become me to judge. Nor was I pretending to. It does behoove us all to search the Scriptures and see if the doctrines we teach are correct. What upsets me is when people claim that the promises are for all and all we must do is take them. The Bible makes clear that this is not so, and describes what true sorrow for sin and longing for God is. That is all I try to present.
You quote Isaiah 45:22. I believe it is the duty of the regenerated, sensibly lost sinner, who has Christ revealed to his soul by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ. But there is nothing he would want to do more. It is a command, a duty, for these. But not for the unregenerated hearers. Else God would command the reprobate to accept Christ while determining that they never will. This is a fundamental inconsistency.
You say, "if we dont start the process ourselves...". This implies that we can do so. In other words, that we can make ourselves alive. For in the process of coming, I suppose you'd argue, we'd be made alive. So God helps us save ourselves. Sounds like Jefferson's maxim: God helps those that help themselves.
Should we wait and "stare at our navel". I dont like staring at my navel. It is not all that attractive to me. But seriously, we should beg for salvation and repentance. I wrote this before. This is not the same as coming to Christ and laying hold of His righteousness. An awakened sinner does not make a cold, rational decision that s/he is now ready to accept Christ. Christ is hidden from him until the Holy Spirit reveals Him. And they he cannot but accept.
Then you contradict yourself a little when you say that God sought us first. It reminds me of when I was with the Christian Reformed. They argued that we start, and then conclude that because we were able to come to God, He must have made us willing to start. Tightest circle in reasoning I've yet encountered.
Finally, you say "You can't and don't need to be perfect before meeting Christ." None will be, none will consider themselves to be.
Laatst gewijzigd door cannabis op 08 okt 2005, 20:58, 1 keer totaal gewijzigd.
-
cannabis
Afgewezen:
Permission to come to Christ. Before I want to consider this, we must define what it means to come to Christ. I've done this repeatedly, and think I differ fundamentally with most posters. It means having Him revealed to the soul, by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel. It is not an exercise in logic. Else, presumption.
I'm aware of Baxter et al. The idea of second chance is arminian. Hypercalvinists love John 3:16 too. All who believe on Him. But none will believe unless they have spiritual life given first.
My mind is not in the way. I like to give it a proper place however. Reason should control emotion, not vice versa. We have a reasonable service. You can disagree with qualifications, but then you disagree with the Bible. Christ came to seek and save those who were lost. In a sense all are lost. But He didnt come for all. In another sense (the right reading of this passage), only those are lost who have been shown by the Holy Spirit that they are lost. He came for them, and is presented by the Holy Spirit to them. I've held your point of view, but objectively considered alternatives. I was willing to change my mind when I saw the Bible supported the hypercalvinist point of view. These are hard decisions to make, require courage, but are necessary to be honest with oneself. Do not reject an argument out of hand because it contradicts what you have always believed or because it requires self-sacrifice.
We can reject while not being able to accept. Those who have no spiritual life hate God. They rejected His Son. In a sense they couldn't do otherwise. But they also did not want to do otherwise. And their unwillingness made them guilty. Ye would not.
When Christ preached, the listeners either saw Him without form or comliness, or as the express image of God full of grace and truth. The same is true when there is a proclamation of Christ in a sermon today. The difference is that the Holy Spirit "opens to eyes" and "opens the heart" as in Lydia. Faith was present, but only then is Christ held up to the view of faith (if I may put it so). This causes the lost sinner to accept Him and love Him above all, because He is the express image of God, the chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely. That is fundamentally different from preaching that all must and can come to him. In the former the word is used by the Holy Spirit, in the latter the word is used by a person himself, while Christ's beauty is not seen.
Gift vs. duty. I've answered this elsewhere on this forum topic. It is the duty of the regenerated to believe. But it is also their greatest desire to do so. Again, an ability cannot be a duty. An act of that ability can be. Someone can make it your duty to look through your eyes, but not to have eyes.
We used to have spiritual sight (faith) in Paradise, and therefore God may justly hold us accountable for not having it now.
We are both trying to understand Scripture. So we both are using our reason. When you see an inconsistency, you say that there is no solution and say it is hidden from us. I look for an answer in Scripture, and find one. Because it was there for us to see. I'd advise you to do the same. I am not twisitng Scripture, only explaining what it really says. Please dont accuse me of over-rationalizing God's word.
Repentance is a gift of God. We will only repent truly if we have spiritual life. Repentance means that we love God with all our hearts, etc., and this was our duty since creation. This duty has been maintained. It was part of the Covenant of Works that we broke, but whose demands remain.
Permission to come to Christ. Before I want to consider this, we must define what it means to come to Christ. I've done this repeatedly, and think I differ fundamentally with most posters. It means having Him revealed to the soul, by the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel. It is not an exercise in logic. Else, presumption.
I'm aware of Baxter et al. The idea of second chance is arminian. Hypercalvinists love John 3:16 too. All who believe on Him. But none will believe unless they have spiritual life given first.
My mind is not in the way. I like to give it a proper place however. Reason should control emotion, not vice versa. We have a reasonable service. You can disagree with qualifications, but then you disagree with the Bible. Christ came to seek and save those who were lost. In a sense all are lost. But He didnt come for all. In another sense (the right reading of this passage), only those are lost who have been shown by the Holy Spirit that they are lost. He came for them, and is presented by the Holy Spirit to them. I've held your point of view, but objectively considered alternatives. I was willing to change my mind when I saw the Bible supported the hypercalvinist point of view. These are hard decisions to make, require courage, but are necessary to be honest with oneself. Do not reject an argument out of hand because it contradicts what you have always believed or because it requires self-sacrifice.
We can reject while not being able to accept. Those who have no spiritual life hate God. They rejected His Son. In a sense they couldn't do otherwise. But they also did not want to do otherwise. And their unwillingness made them guilty. Ye would not.
When Christ preached, the listeners either saw Him without form or comliness, or as the express image of God full of grace and truth. The same is true when there is a proclamation of Christ in a sermon today. The difference is that the Holy Spirit "opens to eyes" and "opens the heart" as in Lydia. Faith was present, but only then is Christ held up to the view of faith (if I may put it so). This causes the lost sinner to accept Him and love Him above all, because He is the express image of God, the chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely. That is fundamentally different from preaching that all must and can come to him. In the former the word is used by the Holy Spirit, in the latter the word is used by a person himself, while Christ's beauty is not seen.
Gift vs. duty. I've answered this elsewhere on this forum topic. It is the duty of the regenerated to believe. But it is also their greatest desire to do so. Again, an ability cannot be a duty. An act of that ability can be. Someone can make it your duty to look through your eyes, but not to have eyes.
We used to have spiritual sight (faith) in Paradise, and therefore God may justly hold us accountable for not having it now.
We are both trying to understand Scripture. So we both are using our reason. When you see an inconsistency, you say that there is no solution and say it is hidden from us. I look for an answer in Scripture, and find one. Because it was there for us to see. I'd advise you to do the same. I am not twisitng Scripture, only explaining what it really says. Please dont accuse me of over-rationalizing God's word.
Repentance is a gift of God. We will only repent truly if we have spiritual life. Repentance means that we love God with all our hearts, etc., and this was our duty since creation. This duty has been maintained. It was part of the Covenant of Works that we broke, but whose demands remain.
-
Arrow
cannabis,
I'm not going to comment on everything you wrote, these posts are growing way too long. Every answer wil raise new subtopics we have different opinions on.
I'm not going to comment on everything you wrote, these posts are growing way too long. Every answer wil raise new subtopics we have different opinions on.
I agree with you on that, but in my opinion it is not possible for the sinner to be able to verify it is the work of the Spirit. The sinners judgment will be earthly and subject to personal interpretations. So you'll never know for sure you have the right to embrace Christ, if you keep searching inside for promising signs. You're always and in every circumstance welcome to Christ.cannabis schreef:I dont think it is possible for any to come to Christ unless they have been made spiritually alive.
I think 'regenerated sinner' is a contradictio in terminis. How can someone who is generated anew be sinful? This regeneration is a work of the Spirit and thus perfect. Someone who is regenerated will still be a sinner in his own eyes, not in God's. God's chastening is directed at His children when they sin again and again, but God's wrath against them is gone, because He has accepted them as His children in His Son Christ Jesus. The sins of the regenerated are already paid for, the moment they are committed.cannabis schreef:An awakened sinner and a regenerated sinner are the same. If the two differ, is awakening worked by the Holy Spirit? Are these common workings? Can an awakened (but spiritually dead, as you suggest) sinner come to Christ? Does God not see a person who has been brought to and who has accepted Christ as a sinner? Why are they often chastised for their sins after their conversion? Why does God hide His face from them because of their sins. It would be better to say that God sees them as sinners in themselves, but as perfect and righteous in Christ.
Do you still read the Bible?cannabis schreef:Warburton. Stoddard. Shephard. Edwards. Bellamy. Owen. vander Groe. Lodensteyn.
Again, how do I know I'm a regenerated, sensibly lost sinner? When do I know for sure that Christ is revealed to my soul? What do I have to feel, what are the words to describe my feelings, so people like you will pronounce me a sensibly lost sinner? Isn't the Word of God sufficient? Doesn't Christ reveal Himself when He says: John 6, 48:I am that bread of life. If that isn't a revelation, what do you call it?cannabis schreef:You quote Isaiah 45:22. I believe it is the duty of the regenerated, sensibly lost sinner, who has Christ revealed to his soul by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ. But there is nothing he would want to do more. It is a command, a duty, for these.
All hearers are ungenerated at first, even those who will eventually be regenerated. So, what you're saying here, the gospel message isn't directed to anyone. Another inconsistency.cannabis schreef:But not for the unregenerated hearers. Else God would command the reprobate to accept Christ while determining that they never will. This is a fundamental inconsistency.
I am with the Christian Reformed (CGK), but it isn't exclusively an CR thought. You tell me I can't do nothing, can't start, can't finish, can't do anything in between. I'm spiritually dead. So far you're in line with Scripture. On the other hand, when I read the Bible, Jesus Christ calls me to believe unto Him. Should I say now: 'Wait a minute, I'm spiritually dead, I can't do anything You command me to. Are You speaking the truth? Because it conflicts with other statements in Your Word, where You say I'm a corpse, not able to do anything.' Your answer to this dilemma is to decide to limit the group of addressees the message is intended for. My 'solution' is: I agree I'm spiritually dead, but Christ calls me to salvation. Will He ask something of me that is impossible for me? Knowing I'm dead, I'll still try to reach Him, because He invites, even commands me. If I can't do it in my own power, He will give me power to do it.cannabis schreef:Then you contradict yourself a little when you say that God sought us first. It reminds me of when I was with the Christian Reformed. They argued that we start, and then conclude that because we were able to come to God, He must have made us willing to start.
Nothing tight about it, it's a matter of perspective. At first this perspective is limited to myself. When I know Christ, this perspective will broaden; then I learn to see (some of the) things the way He sees them. I think the problem in your reasoning lies in mixing the different points of view. You view all these matters at once from the perspectives of man and God and are thus trying to force the plan of salvation in a theological system. At the same time you are in danger to limit Gods sovereignty.cannabis schreef:Tightest circle in reasoning I've yet encountered.