Friday, September 24, 2010

Did Your Baptism Please God?

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration will, in my experience, typically acknowledge the following:
  1. When they were baptized in water they pleased God
  2. When they were baptized in water they were subjecting to God's commands
  3. When they were baptized in water they did so having understood the commands of God
  4. One who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit is saved
Keep this in mind as we read God's Word together:

(Romans 8:5-8) "5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

God tells us that there are two kinds of people: Those who are in the flesh, and those who are in the Spirit. The former cannot subject themselves to the commands of God, and cannot please Him. Now look at what God goes on to say about these two kinds of people:

(Romans 8:9-10) "9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."

So what is the difference between these two kinds of people? What distinguishes those who are in the flesh from those who are in the Spirit? The indwelling presence of the Spirit of God. This means that one's baptism in water can only be a sincere subjection to God's commands, can only please Him, if one is already indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is quite clear.

(1 Corinthians 2:10-14) "10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

Who reveals "the thoughts of God" to a man? "No one knows [them] except the Spirit of God." Only the Holy Spirit can reveal to a man the things of God. Hence, one in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell "cannot understand them." If one is baptized in water understanding its importance, one was already indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Readers, God has spoken, and it is God's opinion--not mine--that if you were sincere in your baptism, you were already saved, having been regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. After all, since only God understands the thoughts of God, He must reveal them to you. After all, since the one who is in the flesh has his mind set on the things of the flesh, he cannot please God, and therefore one must have had his mind set on the things of the Spirit by the Spirit dwelling inside him.

To those whom I've been debating here on my blog and privately, I am not trying to best you in an argument, I do not think I am better than you. I care about you, and if we will not submit our beliefs to the very words of God breathed out through the men He inspired to write precisely what they wrote, we are in a very dangerous position. I love you, and I care about your souls. Please prayerfully and carefully consider these, the opinions, not of me, but of God.

33 comments:

  1. Great point here Chris in showing that only the regenerate can perform good works. Otherwise, those good works must be repented of (Isaiah 64:6).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris, you have lost it. You are equating your interpretation with the unquestionable will of God.

    Do you even understand the context of Romans 8? The reason you continually get it wrong is because you spend too much time looking for proof-texts and not enough time trying to understand passages in their own context.

    But I know, you won't respond to my points until I first admit you are right...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, I most definitely understand the context of Romans 8, and it changes not my argument above. As for responding to your points, I don't want you to admit I'm right, I want to see you, like Terry has, acknowledge the Truth of the Word of God, that the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved prior to water baptism. Then I will know that there's at least the possibility that we can reason from the Scriptures together.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What differecne does it make if the Godfearers in Acts 10 were saved prior to baptism or not. The point is that they got saved. The way God chose to save them is the way God chose to save them. It only proves God is sovereign. The way that they were saved is not a definition of how to be saved, it is just a story of how God chose to save that particular household. They were still commanded to be baptized because that is the entrance into the body of Christ. They could have refused baptism, unless you want to deny free will. But obviously God being sovereign and not being restricted to time and space foreknew that they would be obedient to the Gospel and be baptized in the name of His son.
    So I am not sure exactly what is the point you are trying to make?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you totally miss the point of what Paul is saying. In these epistles he is talking to Christians, people that are already saved and looking back on what they have already received from God. They have already been baptized into the body of Christ and Paul is reflecting back on what they already received being baptized in His name and having already received the gift of the holy spirit.

    So again, what is your point?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Terry, we will discuss the implications of Acts 10 later. As I said, I commend you for submitting yourself to the clear Word of God, and as such I have hope that you and I can reason together from the Scriptures.

    Because Steve, however, denies this simple and clear truth, it is evident that he is unwilling to conform his beliefs to the Word of God, and as such, what good would it be for me to respond to his arguments? That's the point re: Acts 10. In the post above I don't mention the Godfearers at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now, as for what Paul is saying in Romans 8, I agree with you concerning the audience of his epistle. However, you are missing his point. What does he say in verse 2? "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." So he's talking about having been set free by the Spirit, which is why there is no condemnation in Jesus Christ (v1).

    He goes on to introduce a contrast between two people in verse 4, saying God condemned sin in the flesh "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." His audience, then, those who, as you put it, "are already saved," are those who walk "according to the Spirit." This is in contrast to those who walk "according to the flesh."

    He elaborates on that contrast in verse 5: "5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." You see, these are not two categories of Christians. The requirement of the Law has not been fulfilled in those "who are according to the flesh;" it has only been fulfilled in those "who are according to the Spirit."

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  8. So with the simple fact in mind, that those according to the flesh are not believers for whom the requirement of the Law has been fulfilled, and that those according to the Spirit are believers for whom the requirement of the Law has been fulfilled, look what Paul further says about them in verse 9: "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

    Terry, do you see? Those who are believers, those for whom the requirement of the Law has been fulfilled, are those believers in whom the Spirit of God dwells. In contrast, those are according to the flesh are unbelievers, for whom the requirement of the Law has not been fulfilled, and in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell. And such a person does not belong to Christ.

    Now, look back at verse 5 again. Those who are according to the Spirit, those for whom the requirement of the Law has been fulfilled, those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, they have their minds set on the things of the Spirit. But those who are according to the flesh, those for whom the requirement of the Law has not been fulfilled, those in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell, they have their minds set on the things of the flesh.

    That is the context of verses 7 and 8, where we're told, "7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Those whose minds are set on the flesh are those who are according to the flesh, who are not those in whom the Spirit dwells, are those for whom the requirement of the Law has not been fulfilled. They are not Christians.

    (Continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, unsaved Christians, those in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell, those for whom the requirement of the Law has not been fulfilled, do not subject themselves to the will of God, and cannot please Him. If one is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, his baptism is but filthy rags, for it is not done in genuine subjection to the will of God. There simply is no way around this.

    With that information, go look again at 1 Corinthians 2. In verse 11, Paul says no one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, and in verse 12 says "we have received...the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God." One who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit cannot truly know the things freely given by God. And in verse 13, "a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

    One in whom the Spirit does not dwell, a natural man, will not accept the truth of Christianity, indeed he cannot even understand it, because it's spiritually appraised. If one is baptized having sincerely understood what has been freely given by God, he could only have done so having already been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, having the things of God revealed to him by the Spirit. There simply is no way around this.

    No, baptism in water is not a prerequisite for salvation. The saving indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for a genuine baptism in water.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not sure if I have ever heard anyone use the term unsaved Christian. I know I am being picky, I just thought that was unique. Still, Paul is talking to Christians, so one would assume these are people who have repented, have received the HS, have been baptized in water already. I totally agree, if one is being baptized to impress a girl, or join a church, or some selfish motive whatever that might be, he is just getting wet, God would regard it as a "filthy rag" as you say. I think we all agree with that.

    What point are you really trying to make, that one cannot truly repent unless they are first filled with the Spirit? That one cannot call on the name of the Lord unless they are first filled with the Spirit? That one cannot believe in the ressurrection unless they are first filled with the Spirit?

    I am almost tempted to agree with Steve(that you have lost it) but I am trying my best to keep a lighter tone.

    I think you seem to be proving over and over that all you are really trying to do is find verses where you can read your version of the Gospel into the text.

    For example:

    In a post you did back on April 7th you said:
    The jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" How did they respond? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31). He didn't tell him to be baptized, he said merely to believe.

    You conveniently leave out verse 32 where we read, "Paul spoke the word of the Lord to him". On the day of Pentecost, we have the FULL gospel message by Peter. Calling on the name of the Lord, repent, be baptized, forgiveness of sins, receiving of the HS. Could someone please give me a good reason why the phrase "spoke the word of the Lord" would not include the message Peter gave. It seems clear the Jailer was told by Paul to be baptized because in the following verses we see him IMMEDIATELY being baptized. Therefore baptism is part of the Gospel message.


    [You quoted a blog a guy named Jim did where Jim commented] "the teaching of baptism must be taken from the understanding of the teaching of the gospel."
    [and you responded] Okay, but then Paul's summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is strangely devoid of this essential requirement. Not only does he leave baptism out of it altogether, but he also says that we're saved by it "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you" (verse 2). He doesn’t say, "if you hold fast the word which I preached to you and are baptized." If baptism is such a requirement, it is strange that Paul leaves it out of both the gospel summary and that which is required to be saved.

    Well, I could say the same thing about faith(pistis)
    The word faith is noticeabley absent from Peters first sermon. In fact, in the book of Acts, the word faith does not even appear until chapter 3 vs 16.

    In 1 Cor 15:1-8 Paul says, "the gospel I preached to you". Well which gospel is that. Could it be the same one Peter gave at Pentecost where he included baptism? Could it be the same one Paul himself gave to the Jailer(spoke the word of the Lord) which also included baptism? Could it be the same one Phillip gave to the Eunich, which included baptism? Could it be the same one Annanias gave to Saul(22:16), which included baptism?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chris, by your refusal to address my points, I sense fear in you. You used to try to answer my points, but after I demonstrated your views on Acts 2:38 go against the plain reading of the text, the context, and the overwhelming consensus of scholarship, you have been making excuses not to respond. Also, even before you started making up excuses not to address my arguments, you never addressed my argument from the passages you supplied - Acts 2, Joel 2, & Acts 10 that support my view instead of yours.

    As was the case before, the reason you continue to get it wrong is because you spend your time looking for proof-texts rather than looking at CONTEXT. Sober exegesis will trump your eisegesis everytime. Your argument from Romans 8 is another case in point. Once these verses are put in context, you're interpretation is clearly false.

    I easily agree with all 4 of the items Chris has listed, but it doesn't help his argument. The reason why Chris' argument in Romans 8 completely fails is because Paul has not divided the entire world into two groups in Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul is only speaking of Jewish Christians. By "Jewish Christians," I am not making any claims to their salvation status; I merely mean that in the sense they were Jews who claimed to be Christians. (In Romans 8:12-13, Paul does not state that his audience was lost due to incorrect theology; some were at least on the edge of being lost while wrestling with false teaching - they were to judge themselves in light of what Paul was teaching here in Romans).

    These Jewish Christians are divided into two subgroups here in Romans 8. There are those Jewish Christians who trust in Christ alone for salvation (apart from their genealogy according to the flesh, circumcision in the flesh, and continued observance of the Law of Moses) vs. Jewish Christians who still, even after hearing the Gospel & following it to some degree, think they are at least better or "more saved" because of the flesh (genealogy, circumcision, observing the Law of Moses).

    So the passage never even considers Gentiles, or even non-Christian Jews. The entire context of Romans through chapter 8 is directed towards Jews who call themselves Christians. This passage does NOT teach that people without the Holy Spirit cannot obey God in any meaningful way (which is essential to Chris' argument).

    That Romans 8 is only speaking of Jewish Christians is seen in the context.

    In Romans 1, Paul focuses in on two sins that were common among the Gentiles, but not for the Jews at that time: (literal) idolatry, & homosexual acts. Paul points out that the Gentiles didn't need Scripture to know that the idol you just made isn't the God that made you, and nature itself makes it obvious that man was made for woman and woman for man. At this point, the Jewish Christians (who took pride in their "flesh" over the Gentiles) were cheering Paul on. Paul does this to reel them in. Then, after setting them up in chapter 1, Paul sucker punches them right between the eyes in Romans 2:1. You Jewish Christians are no better than the Gentiles, for you sin too! See Rom. 2:17 - they claimed to be Christians, yet they trusted in their flesh. Paul stresses the equality under God's judgment towards sin for both Jew & Gentile (Rom. 2:12-16, 25-29).

    That Paul is speaking to Jewish Christians conceited against Gentiles, also see Rom. 3:9, 27-30.

    (to be continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  12. In chapter 4, Paul points to Abraham, that he was saved prior to circumcision, and that Abraham is the spiritual father of both Jews and Gentiles - to anyone who seeks God according to faith, rather than those who depend upon circumcision & physical genealogy.

    In chapter 5, Paul points out that salvation is a gift. The Law of Moses didn't come to bring an end to sin, but actually increased sin (Rom. 5:20). The grace of Christ trumps the Law of Moses.

    In chapter 6:1, Paul anticipates an objection from the Jewish Christians who still insist upon the Law of Moses. If we are not saved on the basis of how well we keep the Law of Moses, doesn't that promote immorality? Paul says no, because the whole point in coming to Christ was to escape from sin. When they were baptized into Christ, they died to sin. In fact, in chapter 8, Paul will point out that those who depend upon faith are led by the Spirit and are putting sin to death, but those focused on observing the Law of Moses are led by the flesh and living under sin.

    In chapter 7, Paul tells the Jewish Christians that they died to the Law of Moses when they were joined to Christ (they died to the Law when they were baptized). Rom. 7:4 makes it clear that Paul is still speaking to Jewish Christians, because Gentile Christians were never under the Law of Moses in the first place, therefore they could not die to it. Paul then points out that, on the contrary, the Law of Moses didn't fix the sin problem. What the Law of Moses DID do was arouse the sinful passions within us. The ultimate solution to our sin problem comes through Jesus and not the Law of Moses. When Jesus resurrects/transforms our body at the resurrection, our bodies will be changed by Jesus and will no longer desire the things of this world (this covers the end of chapter 7 and into chapter 8, also compare 1 Cor. 15:43-49).

    So the two groups Paul compares in Romans 8 are those Jewish Christians who rightly place no confidence in the flesh (genealogy, circumcision, observance of Law of Moses) and depend upon Christ vs. those Jewish Christians (like those in Acts 15:5) who have their mind on the flesh (they depend upon their genealogy, circumcision, & observance of the Law of Moses for their standing before God).

    This is why mid-way through Romans 8, Paul speaks of suffering for Christ. Those Jews who stand on salvation through Christ vs. the Law of Moses will be persecuted by their fellow Jews, just as Paul was severely persecuted by his fellow Jews for teaching salvation through faith in Christ apart from the works of the Law of Moses. See Rom. 3:28, 9:8, 30-33; Gal. 2:15-21, 6:12-17; etc.

    Context defeats proof-texts and assertions every time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have no fear of the Word of God, Steve. Quite the contrary; I praise God when He reveals to me truths I've denied. It's happened several times since I was born again. However, I've demonstrated your unwillingness to conform your beliefs to the truth of Acts 10. I gave you several passages which prove that the Godfearers received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit whose presence sealed them as children of God and promised them redemption and resurrection. You are wrong, plainly and simply.

    I look forward to interacting with your arguments once there is evidence that you conform your views to Scripture when you are demonstrated to be false, which you have been re: Acts 10.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's correct, Terry. The Scripture demonstrates that it is the operation of the Holy Spirit inside us that moves us to repentance, faith, and yes, even baptism. Sure, we can falsely repent. Sure, we can express false faith. Sure, we can submit insincerely to baptism. But if it is genuine repentance, genuine faith, genuine baptism, it is the work of the Holy Spirit who first regenerated our hearts.

    This passage in Romans clearly teaches that, as do numerous others. You can say I'm losing it, fine. Those of us who stand up for the Word of God are often ridiculed, as was Christ. Ad hominem attacks are meaningless; I will only be moved by the Word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Terry, let me reiterate that I am impressed by the humility you demonstrated by accepting the truth about Acts 10, even though we disagree about the implications of what you've come to accept. I have a suggestion, and I wonder if you might take me up on the offer.

    As you may or may not be aware, those like Gene, Michael, myself and many others believe the Scripture very clearly teaches what I've claimed Romans 8 teaches, and that it does so throughout the whole of Scripture. I remember when I was first challenged by this position, how it seemed so utterly ridiculous to me. But as I began to consider it, I discovered that it leaps off the pages throughout the Bible.

    If you're at all familiar with this position, I'm sure you can imagine how it would impact how we come to these various baptism passages. It might behoove us, then, to interact with each other on this doctrine, since it undergirds how we understand others. Would you be interested, then, in discussing it, putting baptism aside temporarily?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, I should make that more clear. The position I'm talking about is predestination, otherwise known as Calvinism, the Reformed view, the Doctrines of Grace, what have you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That should be easy, many of Calvins views are clearly not biblical.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Note that I only pointed to "Calvinism" as a descriptor for the position I wish to discuss. I don't want to discuss Calvin; I want to discuss the Bible. I will publish a post soon that proves one particular point, and you can comment in response. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was re-reading some of these last posts. Clearly the Bible teaches repentence leads to salvation. Paul taught in Acts that people should repent and prove their repentence by their deeds. Clearly Acts 2:38 says to repent and then you will receive the HS. In John it says "by that He meant the HS, whom those who believed in Him were LATER to receive".
    Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
    Clearly genuine faith & repentence precede the gift of the HS. The HS is our promised seal after we have come to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As I pointed out to you in another thread, John's words simply cannot be used in the way you've attempted to. John recorded words Jesus spoke before Pentecost, when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to all Christians began. He was talking about the Holy Spirit which the Church would later receive; He was not giving a formula for the Church throughout all time. I hope you'll discontinue using Jesus' words in John in this way.

    As for Acts 2:38, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit had only just begun, and took place in stages: first the Apostles, then the rest of believing Jews, followed later by Samaritans, Godfearing Gentiles and lastly all Gentile believers. The fact that the Jews in attendance at Pentecost hadn't yet received the Holy Spirit when Peter was speaking to them is irrelevant; it was long after this that Paul wrote these words in Romans, where he says the Holy Spirit inside a person is what gives them the understanding necessary to truly repent and please God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Now, what you could do is object to how I've interpreted Romans 8 by saying that the disciples pleased God through faith in Jesus Christ before Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus makes it clear, as I pointed out in the other thread, that the disciples exercised faith because God inwardly revealed the truth of Christ to them first. He "drew" them to the Son, as it were. In other words, even before Pentecost, the teaching of Scripture is clear: genuine faith and repentance results from an inward work of the Holy Spirit; it's not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So are you saying that in Acts 2:38, those Jews were special in that they did not need the drawing of the HS to repent and believe. But that after Pentecost only those who were truly drawn and indwelt by the HS first, that only then they were able to repent and believe.

    Are you also saying that the indwelling of the HS precedes the gifts of grace and faith?

    ReplyDelete
  23. In Acts 2:38, the New Covenant outpouring of the Holy Spirit had only just begun. No, the Jews were not special, and yes they required the drawing of the Holy Spirit to repent and believe. As Jesus teaches clearly in John 6, the inward revelatory operation of the Holy Spirit is required for any sinful son of Adam to repent and believe, and this was the case with the Jews in Acts 2:38. Even the Apostles themselves were inwardly given faith in Christ by God Himself (Matthew 16:17).

    But this inward work of the Spirit was a precursor to the New Covenant baptism of the Holy Spirit which began with the disciples at the beginning of Acts 2, continued with the rest of Jewish believers later in Acts 2, continued with Samaritan believers in Acts 8, continued with Godfearing believers in Acts 10, and was broadened to all believers in Jesus with the Gentiles in Acts 19. Because at that point the baptism of the Holy Spirit had been demonstrated to be for all believers in Christ, regardless of descent and culture, following that time what previously was a more subtle inward work of the Holy Spirit (if not a genuine indwelling thereof lacking the manifestation of gifts) has since been the New Covenant indwelling of the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself through gifts and leading to repentance and faith.

    So both before Pentecost and after, yes, the inward operation of the Holy Spirit is what results in repentance and faith, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ever since I began to see this it hasn't ceased to amaze me how tightly we shut our eyes to this, despite the clear teaching of the Word. Look at the analogies we're given in the New Testament.

    In John 3 Jesus says we must be born again, and while we could talk about whether or not that's referring to water baptism, does a baby choose to be born? No, a baby is born without any choice on his or her part.

    In Ephesians 2 we're said to have been dead in our sins and trespasses, and that we were made alive with Christ. Did Lazarus choose to obey Christ's command to rise from the dead? No, Lazarus was made to rise by Jesus without any choice on his part.

    In John 10 Jesus says His sheep hear His voice. Do sheep hear their shepherd and then become his sheep? No, they become his sheep and then hear their shepherd. And note that in this passage Jesus' sheep go through the door that is Christ because they are His sheep; they do not go through the door to become His sheep.

    This is why Paul can say what he says in Romans 8. Those without the inward work of the Holy Spirit cannot please God, for they do not understand Him because they are not Jesus' sheep. No man can come to the Son unless the Father draws him, and those are the sheep. Having been drawn by the inward work of the Spirit and having been shown the truth of their need for Jesus Christ, they believe and repent. It is God's work inside the elect who believe and repent.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So anyone who believes what you have decided is not the truth of Scripture must not and cannot be of your "elect" and therefore are not and cannot be saved because God did not give them the HS and therefore did not draw them? At least, that is how I understand this latest absurd teaching you seem to believe.

    Chris, I think you really have 'lost it' and this belief is truly disturbing. You don't believe Scripture is the authority, you believe you are, that is quite clear from your demeanor and interpretation of the Bible.

    Terry, I think you may want to do as I am going to do and simply monitor without commenting.

    I think the mind has jumped ship on this vessel.

    Goodbye

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, Aaron. And I'll try and not take offense to your calling me insane. In John 6 many of Jesus' disciples stopped following Him because they didn't like this teaching.

    I do think, however, that you should reflect upon why it is that you could not biblically demonstrate this to be wrong, and instead had to resort to insulting me. I know you believe Scripture is not my authority, but once we started talking about election, it is virtually only I who have been appealing to Scripture.

    Aaron and Terry, you're both welcome to do as you please. Aaron, I consider you my friend and I love you, and Terry, I've been impressed by your humility regarding Acts 10, but if either of you are no longer comfortable commenting, I'll miss the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I said you have lost it. I did not say you are insane. Your view of truth is not the view of the Bible. At every instance you are trying to find scriptures to explain your view, not letting the Scripture tell you what your belief should be. That is what you have lost, the Truth which you evidently misread constantly and consistently. I don't need to refute a position, the Bible refutes it. READ THE WORDS.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I think the mind has jumped ship on this vessel."

    Anyway, I understand how you feel, Aaron. When I was first presented with the biblical teaching of election, I fought it tooth and nail. But like now, I could not back then allow my understanding to be dictated by fallen men like me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think you went a little too far saying many disciples left because He was teaching predestination and election. They left because He was teaching that "He came down from heaven" and that he was giving them "his flesh to eat". Notice after teaching this He did not correct them and say, "wait, come back, I was just speaking metaphorically" No he was speaking literally, that is why it was such a "hard teaching".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Terry, in verse 65 Jesus says "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father," and in the very next verse John records that "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore."

    ReplyDelete
  31. This time you are dead wrong.
    Verse 66 is summarizing the entire dialogue that began back in verse 25. Verse 42-43: they were grumbling beacuse he said he'd come down from heaven. Verse 52: they argued sharply because he said he would give his flesh to eat. Verse 60: says this is a hard teaching, referring back to 55 & 58 where he repeats coming down from heaven and that his flesh is real food.

    Verse 66 says they left because of ALL that was said from 25-65

    The idea of them grumbling or arguing due to the fact he said the father must enable them is never singled out or referred to. Here you are clearly reading your supposition into the text.
    Let's at least be fair on this one.

    Just logically what is harder to swallow, His claim that a carpenters' son came from heaven and that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or that God enables men to understand certain things if He so chooses?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fair enough. The disciples were troubled by both Jesus' statement that His flesh and blood must be consumed, and His statement that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him.

    Nevertheless, the meaning of John 6 cannot be ignored. Mankind is divided into two groups: those who are not chosen by God to believe, and thus, having been left to their own devices, never come to genuine faith in Christ; and those who are chosen by God to believe, and have their hearts opened, like Lydia, to the truth of the gospel. The meaning of "drawn" in this passage cannot be explained away.

    ReplyDelete