'Theology Discussion Group'

With the recent discussions involving 'ShowMe' and those who are want to acknowledge the biblical doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity, the 'Article of the Month' for March will be of great interest to most. In addition, the even more recent topic of the Holy Spirit makes it even more apropos. This month features a chapter from the beloved Iain Murray's latest book, Pentecost Today? by Banner of Truth Trust. You can surf over to the article by clicking here: Charles G. Finney: How Theology Affects Understanding of Revival May the Lord God bless this article to your hearts and enrich your minds; being filled with the knowledge of God.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Although you have said many good things above and have pointed out the fallacies of trusting other men, it is my personal opinion that you go too far. As I have said elsewhere, there is this infectious 'individualistic' mentality taking over many who profess to be followers of Christ. It has not restricted itself to any particular denomination it seems but is widespread throughout Christendom. Further, it is made even worse by those who rightly would speak out against the RCC and Orthodox for their doctrines, particularly where they have appointed themselves to be the source and bastion of all truth. However, the end result is an error that is no less odious and harmful than that which is on the 'other side'. The problem is a failure to recognize the biblical doctrine of the Church in its fullness. Yes, the Church is made of individuals whom God has predestinated to be joined together with Christ. But this joining is not just with God, but with the Saints of old as well as those who live with us and those to come. (1Cor 12:27; Heb 12:22, 23) It's a 'body' which means it is a corporate and living organism where different parts contribute to the life of the whole (1Cor 12:12ff; Eph 4:16). Thus it is the Church as a whole that holds the keys to the kingdom through its officers who come from the 'rank and file'. Truth is found in God's Word alone, to which we all should affirm together. And it is also true that the Holy Spirit indwells each and every true believer and works within each individual to bring to their understanding the truths of God's Word; AS HE WILLS. And this is an important point to notice; that not each person has been given the same measure of ability which others have. The body of Christ is not some communist utopian community where everyone shares everything in common, including talents, material goods and intelligence. That there are many things which all do have in common is not to be disputed or questioned, but one of the things they do not have in common is autonomy to DETERMINE truth for others. Rome of course misconstrues the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be sure. However, the horrors of rash individualism which they deduce from their own 'strawman' figure of Sola Scriptura is a reality. And this has come about because those who would claim to be within the 'tradition' of Sola Scriptura are actually denying the reality of that biblical and Reformed doctrine and living out the 'strawman' which Rome fabricated as a distortion of the real doctrine. The balance and harmony of Sola Scriptura has been lost for the most part in our day and a counterfeit lie has been embraced which casts off the proper place and authority of the Church as an organization under the headship of Christ for Satan's; 'and you will be as god, knowing good and evil'. The authority of the Church is well established by Paul in many places and others. And we need to return to this understanding today if we hope to have some stability and uniformity in life and doctrine. This is why the Confessions were written in part; to provide a check and balance document whereby, positively, the truth would be guaranteed throughout generations, and negatively as a safeguard against heretical preachers/teachers within the church and to expose the errors and attacks from the world without. When one joins a Confessional Church (ideally to be sure), he or she has already considered the doctrinal foundation of that congregation which is contained in the Confession; whether it be the Westminster, Belgic, Savoy, London, Augsberg, etc. And if there is anything within those Confessions or in an official statement of the church which would lead one away from Christ, THEN..... THEN, the individual being bound to CHRIST, first and foremost, is bound to reject the false teaching of that church. But unless one can show from Scripture that the teaching is false, then the Church and its officers are an authority and are to be trusted and believed as they too are under the headship of the HEAD of the Church, Who appointed them by His Spirit to the office they hold. As I pointed out to Christopher in a response to him below. ALL the Confessions affirm that the Holy Scriptures are the one and ONLY source of truth and authority by which men are to judge all matters of faith (doctrine) and practice (living). Even the confession itself where this affirmation is to be found, is subject to it, and thus the various writers of these documents realized that their Statement of Faith in the confession was subject to scrutiny by the Spirit and His Word by the Church. It is not enough to 'feel that you know' or to make a confession that 'the Spirit is one with my spirit, and thus I know for sure that 'such and such' is a true doctrine.' Truth is not subjective, it is objective and it is not to be discerned subjectively, but objectively. One may come to an assurance about a particular doctrine which is said to be true, but that doesn't make it true. Paul indeed was aware of this fact when he spoke about the zeal of his fellow Jews (Rom 10:2. 3). We are told to be subject 'one to another' (Rom 12:5f; Eph 5:21; Col 3:16; 1Pet 4:10, 11; 5:5, 6) in all things, including teaching of truth. No blind obedience to man or document will serve to replace an individual's responsibility to 'search the Scriptures to see if these things are true.' But the Spirit of God does not alienate nor individualize 'truth' to individuals apart from the rest of the body. (1Cor 14:31, 32) Thus we can look down through history and read of the many various differences of doctrine that are held by various groups, but we can also look and see an great unity in doctrine among these groups as well. And this is a firm testimony that the Spirit has indeed worked among men and revealed the truth of God to others besides 'ME'. Therefore we have the 'essentials' and 'non-essentials' over which decisions of fellowship can be made or broken. A strong view of the Church will surely curb one from 'thinking to highly of oneself' (Rom 12:5) as one rejoices in the fact that they are a MEMBER of a glorious BODY wherein the Spirit of Christ guides, gifts and governs all who dwell therein. There is a place for individual study, thinking and disagreement. But it should not override the reality of the organism which is organized by Christ Himself as having delegated authority over individuals and responsible for them by preaching/teaching the truth according as the Spirit opens the Word to those appointed to serve the Lord Christ the Head. It's a 'both/and' and not an 'either/or' answer here to the question of 'how and can we know truth'!!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

No blasting, but only awe in that you have blatantly disregarded what the Special Revelation of God says about the Natural Revelation of God. First, while 'the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament His handiwork' (Ps 19), it is critically limited in its testimony (Rom 19, 20) to reveal only the Godhead of the Creator and His wrath against all mankind. Second, the creation itself was subjected to corruption due to Adam's transgression and thus it is 'distorted' in its witness of that which it was revealed before the Fall. Third, the depravity of soul with which all men do inherit 'distorts' their vision; so much so that they 'cannot see the kingdom of God, etc.' (Joh 3:3; Rom 8:7, 8; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-19, et al). Therefore, God condescended in pity upon man in giving him His Special Revelation; His infallible and inerrant Word with which men are able to discern the truth OF creation. But it is certainly not the case that the Natural Creation is the 'witness/light' by which we are to know TRUTH. The Spiritual (Scripture) ALWAYS interprets the Natural. To reverse this is to fall into vain philosophy, such as that embraced by Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, et al. Lastly, the Scriptures albeit infallible and inerrant are indiscernible to the 'Natural Man' due to his corruption of mind, body and soul. Thus the possession of the Holy Spirit, Who ALWAYS works in conjunction with His Word, is a fundamental necessity.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim Joh 17:17 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

I have tried on many occasions to try and explain this to you and without much success. But I shall try once again. The difference between what I wrote, as you quoted from me above, and what you are subscribing too is like night and day. My 'illustration' of the 'body' was nothing more than what Paul wrote by inspiration. What I wrote was nothing more than an exposition upon what was already written. Expounding upon a text and then applying it is certainly a biblically valid use of the Scriptures as can be clearly shown from various passages found in the Scriptures themselves, (cf. 2Chron 30:22; 35:3; Neh 8:5-8; Lk 24:27; Matt 5-7; Acts 18:25, 26; 1Cor 1:21; 2:6-16; 2Cor 1:12, 13; et al). Another good example of what I am trying to convey is Daniel's interpretation of dreams. What was seen in the 'dreams/visions' was earthly, and the meaning was sought not in the objects seen, but from God. The interpretation of the dreams was spiritual, the content of the dreams was earthly. Thus we are to learn that we cannot nor should we seek 'truth' in the earthly, but only from God; his Written Word. We must ALWAYS interpret the material world FROM the Scriptures and NEVER imagine to find 'truth' in the material world and thus interpret the Scriptures from it. And this is the crux of the matter which divides our two views. You would propose that we are able and should seek to find 'spiritual truths' in the material world. Whereas I believe that the material world is insufficient to reveal ANY truth in and of itself, but rather we come to understand the material world only in God's written Word. As laz succinctly put it, to try and project some 'truth' from observing the material world is nothing more than speculation. And as I tried to point out in my first response, to go from the physical world to the spiritual is Philosophy. To go from the Scriptures, which are spiritual, to the material creation is Theology. The earth has been subjected to corruption (Gen 3:17, 18; 5:29; Isa 24:5, 6; Rom 8:20-22), thus even if man were 'pure in heart' and possessed 'all wisdom' he would not be able to discern anything other than a distorted image of reality. Further, man himself lost true wisdom and knowledge (Col 3:10; Eph 4:17-19; Rom 1:19ff). Therefore it is foolish to seek 'truth' in the things which are made, for God's Word alone is the source of all truth, wisdom and knowledge. (Joh 17:17; 2Tim 3:16, 17). Science may indeed discover the composition of physical things and devise ways of using them, but it is powerless and unable to discern anything further. That which is spiritual is spiritual. And that which is earthly is earthly. God did not create the earth as a 'book' from which man is to 'discover' truth. (Job 28:28; Ps 19:9-12; 111:10; Prov 1:7; 2:1-7; etc.). The creation is to be subservient and understood by the wisdom of God which He has been pleased to put into writing in His inspired, infallible and inerrant Word, being opened by the working of the Spirit within those whom He has been pleased to resurrect from the dead.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

If I may interject here by way of your invitation from below. Although you loudly protest against the Roman state church, and to this I can certainly agree, with it's preposterous claims of being 'the authority' of truth, etc., there is much similarity between the Orthodox and Rome to which the Reformers and myself perceive. The manner of expressing where you find 'truth' in the Orthodox is certainly unlike what Rome says, but in essence the end is the same; i.e., extra-biblical authority. Now, since you have been so gracious to acknowledge that some of us are truly busy with other things and don't have the available time to participate here and/or in the manner we would really desire to (I am particularly referring to myself here among others), I sometimes must resort to the writings of others who, having had to deal with like topics/subjects have written some things which I feel are exemplary and useful to share with others. And so I will do so at this time. Consult the following if you would please as relevant words of which I would have written; given the time and talent! :-) Creeds and Confessions Sola Scriptura by Dr. Godfrey Protestant Tradition? YES You may have already read one of more of the articles referenced above. And you may protest that some of them are more directly applicable to Romish issues of authority, etc. But again, knowing that this will doubtless cause you some consternation, there exists a commonality between Rome and Orthodox versus Protestantism in the matter of authority and Scripture and the relationship between these and the 'Church' the 'faith once given to the saints'. Lastly, you simply and quickly dismissed the reality of historical progressive dogma, resting comfortably upon a presupposition that the Orthodox have in their possession the finality of all truth which was allegedly codified evidently before the end of the first century? And thus no development of dogma has taken place over the history of the New Testament Church. Well, I certainly protest and think that such a statement flies in the face of common knowledge and even common sense. Pray tell, can you give me a date whether relative or exact when all dogma was finalized; per the Orthodox of course! :-) Thanks.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

I am maintaining that the 'faith once delivered unto the saints' has not changed one iota! And I am also maintaining that the formulation of those doctrines in their details came about progressively in history. Thus the 'Councils' are to be either accepted or rejected on the basis of the Scriptures. Councils do err, since they are the product of fallible men. However, once their accuracy is determined, then they become a secondary authority in the church(es). This may leave you with an uneasiness to be sure, since that would mean that some of the 'sacred' doctrines and practices of your new found religion could be erroneous. Therefore, I am indeed maintaining BOTH, that there is ONE TRUE TRUTH, and that it was 'rediscovered, refined and restated' at various times in history. :-) I have virtually NOTHING in common with the assertions of authority and infallibility of the Roman state church. :-) Again, the three articles I referred you to set forth briefly some of the aspects of that which I hold to be true.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Tom wrote and you replied: Are you saying that the Orthodox do not place men's writing on par with scripture? --yes If so, are you also saying that, although the Orthodox do not place men's writings on par with scripture, they have the correct understanding of scripture? --yes Then this begs the question which YOU must answer: 'How do YOU KNOW that the Orthodox has the correct interpretation of Scripture? On what BASIS have you determined this? If it is not the infallible and inerrant Word of God, then you are trusting in fallible men!' :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Now that is truly a novel approach! :-) I don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all, but to base your trust in the 'seven ecumenical councils' upon the gathering of Apostles, prophets and disciples at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is intriguing indeed. For you see, that my 'trust' in the great Evangelical Confessions and Creeds as SECONDARY sources is far less that your 'trust' in the 'seven ecumenical councils'. Secondly, my 'reliance' in the historic Creeds and Confessions is tempered by the fact that they are 'sub-authoritative' to the Scriptures, which ALONE are to be 'the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice.' And to this truth all the Confessions of the Evangelical Church affirm; e.g.,

The Westminster Confession of Faith: CHAPTER I: Section IV. 'The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.' (II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2.) Section IX. 'The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (Acts 15:15; John 5:46; II Peter 1:20-21). Section X. 'The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29,31; Acts 28:25; I John 4:1-6). CHAPTER XX: Section II. 'God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13] 10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29 11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24 12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1 13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15 The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article VII The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith: 'We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.' The French Confession: Article V: 'We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded from God,[1] and receives its authority[2] from him alone, and not from men. And inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth,[3] containing all, that is necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it.[4] Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures,[5] but, on the contrary, all things should be examined, regulated, and reformed according to them.[6] And therefore we confess the three creeds, to wit: the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian, because they are in accordance with the Word of God.' 1. II Tim. 3:15-16; II Peter 1:21 2. John 3:31, 34; I Tim. 1:15 3. John 15:11; Acts 20:27 4. Deut. 4:1, 12:32; Gal. 1:8; Rev. 22:18-19 5. Matt. 15:9; Acts 5:28-29 6. I Cor. 11:1-2, 23

As you can easily see from these Confessions, to which I could add many more from various time periods, countries and of different denominations, they are unanimous in their affirmation that it is not the Confession itself that is to be trusted, but the Holy Scriptures ALONE; which are to be known by the inner working of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Confession is of secondary authority and its verity is to be judged by the very foundation on which it too rests: the teaching of the Holy Scriptures ALONE. And perchance you have read to this point, I would like to ask you to exegete for me that portion of Acts 15 which you feel lays the universal precedent for all following councils to be entrusted with divine authority and ability to determine and declare what is truth for the entire church of God? And more specifically, where in Acts 15 is the teaching that declares that the Eastern Orthodox church and its 'seven councils' are the bulwark of the truth for all believers? I will thank you now in anticipation of your reply. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Surely you are now resorting to 'humor' when you state that ' I have several questions that I was hoping could be answered here.'? Questions? All you have done since your entrance on this forum is state that one of the cardinal doctrines on which this web site is founded upon and one which ALL the churches of ALL the major denominations which came out of the Reformation have echoed, regardless of their other differences is 'unnecessary and harmful and unbiblical'. You haven't asked a question at all. This doctrine has been affirmed as being the teaching of the Word of God from the beginning although it wasn't officially put forth in a succinct manner until the Council of Orange in the sixth century. But you come along and in one fell swoop and with no biblical evidence whatsoever think to topple the giants of the church and their theology. I don't know what you have gained over your 30 years of 'studying the Bible', but one thing I DO know you haven't learned.... humility. I have often been amazed at people such as yourself, who can't find a handful, or in your case, even ONE single individual who holds to what you propose. Further, I would give almost anything to be able to see you stand face to face and toe to toe with some of the great and godly men which the church has been blessed with, e.g., John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, William Hendriksen or John H. Gerstner and tell them that their views are 'unnecessary and unbiblical', ROFL... If it were possible, they would show you to be more of an arrogant man than you are. You been SHOWN both the truth and how your unique heresy is wanting both from Scripture and reason. But it is very clear that no one is going to show you anything. Me thinks that you have become a legend in your own mind! Narcissism is not an attribute to be coveted. I suggest you reconsider both your view(s) and your spiritual state.

In His Electing Grace, Pilgrim 2Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Please forgive me for using a message I posted in this forum several months ago, but my time is limited at present and thus I am not able to answer you extempore. The matter of John 3:16 was thrashed out here at that time and a couple of months later and here are my replies. With all due respect to Dr. Carson, who I admire in most things, I feel, that if he holds that John 3:16 teaches ANY form of universality concerning the love of God, he is in error.

* * * * *

Well, I do think it would matter indeed if it referred to 'all mankind' in the sense of every single individual that was, is and ever will be. The other problem is that as you have rightly stated, other Scriptures define who these believers are, i.e., all those who were given to the Son and to whom it is given the ability to have faith. Thus, there would be a contradiction here, and we know that God doesn't 'stutter' or speak with a 'forked tongue'! :-) As I have laboured to show, this text, so misunderstood today due to the rampant Semi-Pelagian influence which has swept the churches, speaks of God's 'PURPOSE' to rescue 'the elect in all the world, i.e., believers' from perishing. The MEANS for accomplishing His purpose was in the sending of His Son to atone for them. And the motivation to do this was His incomprehensible love. This is how the text is properly rendered grammatically and exegetically. The 'world' can indeed be viewed as encompassing the entire human race 'generically', that is as a conglomerate made up of sinners. But this also does not in any way connote 'all mankind indiscriminately and inclusively', but rather it is a perspective of God as He views men as fallen creatures GENERALLY. As one considers the totality of the passage and then keeping true to the immediate and far context, it is without doubt speaking of certain individuals, (believers: without discrimination) who populate the world. The 2 preceding verses set the tone and the parameters for the proper interpretation of verse 16. It is a reference to the historical occurrence of God's sending venomous snakes into the midst of the Israelites, of whom many were bitten and died. Moses was instructed to lift up a bronze figure of a serpent on a pole with the injunction that whoever should gaze upon this inanimate object, they would not perish from the poisonous bites. Now this is reminiscent of several other events which were designed to cameo the power of God to deliver people from horrible diseases, e.g, leprosy (Naaman), death etc. The prerequisite to obtaining the deliverance was simple obedience by the individual who was afflicted. We know, e.g, that dunking oneself in the filth Jordan River seven times is totally inefficacious to the curing of one of leprosy. The act in itself was not the issue at all, but what was the issue was the trusting of that person in the sovereign power and mercy of God, who was able to do as He had promised. The lifting of the serpent in the wilderness is used to illustrate something very special indeed in the case of the Lord Christ. For in itself, the death of an individual has no efficacy to deliver one from the judgment of God and hell. There have been untold thousands who have given their lives for the sake of others, yet not one of their deaths could atone for the sins of another. In fact, even the sacrificial lambs, goats and bulls had no efficacy to save, but rather they pointed to God's sovereign mercy to justify sinners. In the case of Christ, to whom the Moses account points, it serves to emphasize all three of these elements: 1) God's willingness and ability to deliver sinners from the judgment to come, 2) the effective MEANS of apprehending the salvation offered, and 3) the efficacy of the sacrifice itself, since it was none other than God incarnate who makes the atonement for those who 'look unto Him for salvation' in faith. Thus, verse 16 begins, at least in the English translation with the preposition 'For. . .' which is meant to indicate that what is about to follow is to be understood from what has preceded it. The world 'so' in the English today is taken to mean something far different than the actual Greek world 'outws'. A more accurate translation of this word would be 'in this manner. . . God loved the world'. It thus sets forth HOW God demonstrated His love for sinners, i.e., in the sending of His Son to make atonement for them..... Now for whom did the Son atone? We know incontrovertibly, that Christ atoned ONLY for those whom the Father gave to Him, those to whom it was 'given to know the mysteries of the kingdom (the gospel), to those whom the Son willed to reveal Himself and His Father (Matt 11:25-27), for whom the Son prayed intercessorily (Jh 17:9), etc. The next word of note is the Greek word wste which can be properly rendered as 'for this reason/purpose'. The KJV simply translates it as 'that', which if understood as it was written by inspiration gives 'purpose' again in this text. And finally, there is yet another important word to consider, and that is, hina. Again, the English translation simply gives us the world 'that whosever believeth. . .' This little word again connotes strongly the element of purpose and is properly translated by the phrase, 'in order that'. When we take the near context of John 3:16, and then exegete the text grammatically as it was written by inspiration, we cannot avoid the clear emphasis of God's words here, and that is, PURPOSE...... INTENT.... and what God 'purposes to do; what He intends to do, IS ALWAYS ACCOMPLISHED! So by the simple plugging in the emphasis of this text and then considering what has been the view of some here, it is all too apparent that the 'world' of which God is said to have loved cannot mean, by any stretch of the imagination, ALL men inclusively without exception. Well, I hope this helps you to understand at least why I asserted what I did concerning this text below in the other threads. Right or wrong, this is my own exegetical work which I have done on my own many years ago, without the aid of 'tradition',!! Nevertheless, there are more than enough scholars in the conservative 'tradition' that would validate my conclusions. :-) Another exegetical study which albeit approaches John 3:16 from a different perspective, results in the same conclusion as that of my own can be seen by clicking on it here: John 3:16 by Rev. David Engelsma

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

I would never accuse you of being Arminian! It's too much of an insult. . . to Arminians! My quoted message is EXEGETICAL in nature and thus a valid one to which I would challenge you to refute. I just love it when someone throws out that over-worked refrain, 'the plain reading of the text'! Please.....!! My reply to this childish nonsense which is most used by those who have their 'man-centered philosophy' pricked is 'A text out of context is nothing less than PRETEXT!' Does a 'plain reading' of Ps 91:4 'He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust:' mean that God is a chicken, that we should only have a reason to trust is if we are snuggled under his plumage? To turn this around, do YOU take the 'plain reading' of such texts as:

Ps 5:5 'The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.' and Ps 11:5, 6 'The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.' and Mal 1:2-4 'I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.'

You ask, Does God desire that men sin? In a real sense, the answer is YES! It is God's desire/will/determination/foreordination that men sin. Are men yet accountable for their sins as it transgresses the 'Preceptive Will'? Indeed, YES! That God has a 'secret will' which concerns His eternal and immutable counsel is everywhere taught throughout His Word. And it is also true that what God has determined for man to render obedience we call his 'preceptive will' for it sets forth those things which men are responsible to do to glorify their Creator. Was it God's will that Christ should be crucified?

Acts 2:23 'Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:'. . . Acts 3:18 'But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.' . . . Ac 4:27, 28 'For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.' Isa 46:9, 10 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:'

My 'philosophical system' as you have referred to my view is based soundly upon the written Word of God. But not only do you err fully in calling it 'philosophical' you also err further in referring to it as 'my' philosophical system, for it is not 'mine' as if I were the author of it, but it is rather the 'faith once delivered unto the saints' which the church throughout history has recorded in its various and myriad Confessions and Creeds. Therefore it is YOU who is embracing a 'philosophical system' which is self-serving, i.e., self-exalting as a fallen man. And by rejecting the 'plain reading' of the Scriptures which the analogy of faith has since the beginning been found to conclude that which I hold to be true, you have effectively put yourself 'outside the camp' and alienated yourself from the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Well, I for one understood exactly what Rod meant by his reply. It's not that he's 'arrived' in the sense that he has exhausted all the possible renderings of John 3:16, but rather that there are just so many possibilities to be had. And the majority of them are man exalting and contradictory to the analogy of faith, thus they can be summarily excluded from serious consideration. Also, over a period of years, one does get the opportunity to hear and read many of these offerings, which by and large can all be lumped together as being again, 'man-centered' and contradictory to the plain teachings of God's Word. Thus, it is basically a waste of time to rehash old news. One surely is sometimes given 'deeper' insight which BUILDS UPON THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED TRUTH of a text, and that is to be always sought after.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim