I’m truly sorry that a careful handling of the Bible is seen as a desire to debate. The very statement that “salvation is a gift to all who believe” is consistent with God’s sovereignty and election. God’s grace is by definition an unmerited gift and is the only reason for sinners to have hope. It is supremely comforting to know that God is both the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2 KJV). Not only do we have hope, but complete assurance that Jesus will finish the work He begins in us (Philippians 1:6).

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]It is supremely comforting to know that God is both the Author and Finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2 KJV). Not only do we have hope, but complete assurance that Jesus will finish the work He begins in us (Philippians 1:6).

Greg

It’s not comforting for those who are not selected. The obvious comment is..those who aren’t the elect wont’ know any better. They will reject the message anyway. I disagree with this.

What about those who come to Christ and then fall away? Election and OSAS would say ‘they were never truly saved to begin with’. However, at the time, they felt they were sincere. In looking at their life, one could say a weak faith, trials and temptation and discouragement drove them away. The bottom line would be that they were never one of th elect to begin with.

This would mean that not every person who wasn’t elected automatically ignored the message. Some played with Christianity, thought they felt the love but were really deceived into false security.

How cruel of God to allow this charade to decieve those who thought they were part of God’s kingdom and those looking in at their lives thinking the same thing.

Guibox, so how do you read the texts I quoted? Is God only the co-Author and co-Finisher of our faith? Is He only able to complete the work that He helped us begin, as long as we help Him?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic or engage you in a debate, but I’m trying to get us back to looking at the biblical text. If we stay at the level of “God would be unfair if...” without grappling with what the Bible actually plainly states, we are really never getting to the heart of the matter. I don’t like to argue about these doctrines, but even worse is arguing from our human logic without consulting what God has already said.

So again, I’d like to see how the texts quoted by me and also by Gabriel earlier today are used inappropriately. This is an open question for anyone, and it is sincere.

Greg

Deacon, Guibox, and DeeAnna,

I have a question for you. I am working on the assumption that you have accepted Christ, and therefore are saved. If this is the case, don’t you find it exciting that you were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world?

Ephesians 1 is so very clear:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as HE CHOSE us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 HE PREDESTINED US for ADOPTION as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of HIS WILL. 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood,....”
------------------------------------------------------

Why do you want to fight against the fact that you were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world? The verse above says that we were chosen according to the purpose of HIS WILL, and not our wills. The verses above from Ephesians 1 just make me want sing and shout about His glorious grace. The above verse cannot possibly mean that every person on earth was chosen. This concept is simply not in the Biblical text.

To those who oppose the doctrine of predestination, I would like to ask this:

On what basis are you going to heaven, and maybe your relatives or friends are not going to heaven? Is it because you made the choice to be saved, and the others did not?

This is important, because if we believe we are going to heaven because we accepted Jesus, and the others did not, then in effect we are boasting of something good we have done.

Ephesians 2:8:

8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING; it is the gift of God,
------------------------------------------

I guess I am puzzled by the hostility towards what the Bible is clearly teaching.

Stan

[quote author="Greg"]If we stay at the level of “God would be unfair if...” without grappling with what the Bible actually plainly states, we are really never getting to the heart of the matter. I don’t like to argue about these doctrines, but even worse is arguing from our human logic without consulting what God has already said.

Unfortunately I think it’s very, very difficult for a faithful Seventh-day Adventist to get past the idea that God must be proven to be fair when the Great Controversy theme is so central to Adventist theology.  So much ties into this—the role of the Law in the life of a believer, the Investigative Judgment, original sin, etc. 

But we can be absolutely confident that God is worthy of our praise because He is holy.  Arthur Pink writes:

This perfection, as none other, is solemnly celebrated before the Throne of Heaven, the seraphim crying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” (Isa. 6:3).  God Himself singles out this perfection, “Once have I sworn by My holiness” (Psa. 89:35).  God swears by His “holiness” because that is a fuller expression of Himself than anything else.  Therefore are we exhorted, “Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of His, and give thanks at the rememberance of His holiness” (Psa. 30:4).  “This may be said to be a transcendental attribute, that, as it were, runs through the rest, and casts lustre upon them.  It is an attribute of attributes” (John Howe, 1670).  Thus we read of “the beauty of the Lord” (Psa. 27:4), which is none other than “the beauty of holiness” (Psa. 110:3).—The Attributes of God, p. 41-42.

If “the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works” (Ps. 145:17), then we know that all of His actions cannot be anything but just, fair, right and good because He is absolutely perfect and holy. I take great comfort in knowing that whatever a holy God wills will be the right thing even if my sinful, unholy mind can’t wrap itself around it and I certainly don’t have the ability or authority to determine what is right for God to do or not do.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Romans 3:21-26

This is wonderful news!  Nothing else could possibly be needed in addition to the cross and the blood propitiation Christ made on our behalf there to prove that God is just.  What amazing grace!  What a Savior!

Soli deo gloria!

Aaron

[quote author="Stan"]The verses above from Ephesians 1 just make me want sing and shout about His glorious grace.

Stan, our joy in God and assurance comes precisely from the fact that our salvation is entirely in God’s hands. If it youd imply our hands which often tremble before God’s holiness, our hopes and assurance will raise no higher than our shaking faith.

Before coming to know the doctrine of election which is closely associated with the imputation of Christ’s righetousness, I was in constant insecurity regarding my standing before God, and I was the prisoner of doubts regarding my forgiveness. I found too little comfort from Jesus’ love in his dying on the cross, since I knew at that time that the great majority for whom Jesus supposedly died will be lost. I was taught that Jesus did all he can by giving his life for sinners, it was up to me to appropriate the benefits of his sacrifice.

What I soon discovered was that it was impossible to know for sure if the benefits of Christ’s death are applied to me. All I did was questionable. I was involved in the business of confessing my sins with all my heart and sincerity, but afterward I discovered myself doing the same sins, even willingly. Since this cycle repeated hundreds of time, questions regarding the genuity of my confessions sprung up, certainly not without help from the devil: “How can you think that your repentance is genuine, when you willingly are doing the sins you confessed again, and again, and again? Were you really sincere when you felt sorry for your sins? It seems that you enjoy the temporal pleasure of your sins, otherwise you will refrain from doing them again willingly. What motivated your confession? If it was not a true sorrow for sin, it seems that you are just deploring the consequences of your deed. In reality you are just afraid of punishment, your conduct after confession proves that you didn’t really felt sorry for your sins. Your confession is a sham, and God had not accepted it, how can you believe that you’re forgiven?”

This parallels Luther’s experience and the experience of many other children of God when they understood the subjectivity of their experience and how far are they from the standard required by God. They discovered that the same unbelief and unrepentant spirit is present in them, as in those who openly and willfully rejected God and are forever lost. They discovered their hands to be too weak in order to reach God’s hands, and their resolutions too weak.

I found the door to life when I understood what Luther said:

“When Satan brings to you a long list of sins and says ‘You are a sinner, you must go to hell’, say “Yes, I admit that I’m a sinner, but Jesus CHrist died for sinners’”

I knew this episode from Luther life a long time ago, but I had not understood its significance. This happened because in the list of sins I had not included the sin of unbelief. According to the premises of an Universal Atonement, Jesus dying for all people, the sin of unbelief was not included in the sins for which Christ died. True, consciously I believed that Christ died for all sins of all people in the world, but unconsciously I had not included the sin of unbelief, since unbelief was something for which people will be condemned (John 16:9). It was the capital sin, the sin for which was not forgiveness. According to my former view, Jesus could not die for unbelief, the sin for which he would condemn the world, otherwise this sin, being washed in Jesus blood would not condemn anybody, and Universalism will be true. But if Jesus died only for all the sins of a certain class of people, they will surely be saved, because their unbelief will not condemn them.

When I understood that Jesus died also for my sins of unbelief, my eyes turned from what happened inside me to what happened on the cross, from what I was doing to what Jesus did, and God did. I udnerstand that it was entirely God’s decision to save sinners, and my salvation does not depend on my ability to repent, have faith, exercise my will, but on God who shows mercy. My eyes were turned from what happened inside me, since what I saw inside me was shaky ground: sorrow for sin, but also love for it. What I saw in me was sin, especially unbelief.

My eyes were directed to what God did in Christ, and I found myself believing entirely in Jesus Christ for salvation. Not Christ plus my repentance, not Christ plus my faith, but Christ alone. I’m still repenting for my sins, but what happened inside me is no longer linked with God’s act of justification. It was God’s decision to justify me, and my salvation depends entirely on his decision. Justification by an imputed righteousness is linked with election, because both eliminate any subjective, internal process from the picture, putting instead Jesus Christ’s external righteousness and God’s elective for his children.

It does not depend on our decision to stretch our hand and grasp God’s hand, it depends on God who keeps our hand firmly in his hand. We are not applying the benefits of Jesus death to us by using the faith as an instrument in our hands, instead God is applying to us these benefits through faith. Not mine decision, his decision. God is the one who opens our eyes to see Jesus Christ dying for us as individuals, not as groups (Gal. 2:20), and this spiritual seeing is similar with the healing look toward the bronze serpent(John 3:14,15). He turns our eyes from what is internal in us (sin, unbelief, doubts) to what is external, Jesus Christ’s sacrifice in our place which brings justification in the place of condemnation. In ourselves we are still sinners, our flesh loves sin and hates God, distrust, unbelief, but because our sins and our unbelief is washed in Jesus blood, our unbelief does not condemn us, as is the case with the unbelievers who are lost.

Gabriel

Stan

Of Course, But don’t you find it a travesty that God would
willfully deny salvation to anyone by denying them the opportunity to even hear the invitation of Jesus?

To reject the invitation is one thing to deny the invitation is anti-Gospel.  Recall Jesus said: “Go out into the highways and byways and invite all to the wedding feast and He would provide the wedding garment. It is the arbiitrary denial of salvation. Universal means saved regardless of consent or agreement with the New Covenant.

The thread at times seems almost gleeful in putting down any Arminian thinking. I believe I am safe in the Arms of Jesus, my work is to bring others into the family circle not gloat that I am priviledged above all others.  Tom

Greg, Stan, Gabriel, Dennis-

This is the study we should be sharing with the world. 

Background:

King Saul was dead by his own hand in the thick of battle.  His sons died with him.  There was a period of turmoil in Israel until David consolidated the kingdom and was made King in place of Saul.  During David’s life in King Saul’s court, David and Jonathan had become fast friends and had pledged their lives to each other.  With Jonathan dead and David secure on the throne, David looked to see how he could honor his pledge to Jonathan.

2 Samuel 9 tells the story:

1Now David said, “Is there still anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?”
2And there was a servant of the house of Saul whose name was Ziba. So when they had called him to David, the king said to him, “Are you Ziba?”
He said, “At your service!”
3Then the king said, “Is there not still someone of the house of Saul, to whom I may show the kindness of God?”
And Ziba said to the king, “There is still a son of Jonathan who is lame in his feet.”
4So the king said to him, “Where is he?”
And Ziba said to the king, “Indeed he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo Debar.”
5Then King David sent and brought him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo Debar.
6Now when Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, had come to David, he fell on his face and prostrated himself. Then David said, “Mephibosheth?”
And he answered, “Here is your servant!”
7So David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your grandfather; and you shall eat bread at my table continually.”
8Then he bowed himself, and said, “What is your servant, that you should look upon such a dead dog as I?”
9And the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him, “I have given to your master’s son all that belonged to Saul and to all his house. 10You therefore, and your sons and your servants, shall work the land for him, and you shall bring in the harvest, that your master’s son may have food to eat. But Mephibosheth your master’s son shall eat bread at my table always.” Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.
11Then Ziba said to the king, “According to all that my lord the king has commanded his servant, so will your servant do.”
“As for Mephibosheth,” said the king, “he shall eat at £my table like one of the king’s sons.” 12Mephibosheth had a young son whose name was Micha. And all who dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants of Mephibosheth. 13So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem, for he ate continually at the king’s table. And he was lame in both his feet.

Some forty years later, David son, Solomon is on the throne. In his Song of Songs Solomon reprises the David/Mephibosheth story.  The king befriends a vine keeper’s
daughter.  In the song she laments her sun blackened skin and her work worn hands.
Despite those flaws, she becomes the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valley. In verse four of the second chapter we read of the reprise of Mephibosheth. “He brought me into the banqueting hall and his banner over me was love.”

Two simple stories peal out the Gospel theme.  We, sinners all, lame in both feet, blackened with sin, and worn with the cares of this world. God, through the blood of Jesus, has kept His covenant and brought us into the banqueting hall and covered us with his robe of righteousness.

The Shepherd’s Psalm is an anthem to that Grace: “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.”

The Gospel is simple as it is true. Let us think on these things and tell it on the mountain. 

The Deacon Tom

[quote author="Tom Zwemer"]
The thread at times seems almost gleeful in putting down any Arminian thinking. I believe I am safe in the Arms of Jesus, my work is to bring others into the family circle not gloat that I am priviledged above all others.

Tom, I honestly don’t know how you can conclude this. We are sharing what we sincerely believe the Bible teaches. I have asked you to explain how the interpretation of the texts we presented is incorrect. Instead of doing this, you have charged us with acting arrogant and boastful. Why do you continue to ignore these texts and instead rely upon ad hominem arguments?

Greg

Greg

I guess we are on two different wave lengths.  You quote Eph. 1.  I answer with Eph. 2.  It seems obvious to me
That the Chosen ones of Israel rejected Jesus Christ as the
One who fillfilled the Everlasting Covenant. In the process Christ broke down the barrier between “chosen” and the “stranger”.  Now there grace is open to all.  Paul was called to be the apostle to the gentile world.  I also answered that Peter understood that no man was unclean. All were open to the saving Grace of God.  I don’t know how I could have been more clear.  “What disturbed me was the prolonged discussion on the cultism of Seventh-day Adventism.  Why beat on a dead horse?  With a Mast Head “For the Gospe"l:  I thought that is where we were heading.  Instead the emphasis was on who was wrong and who was lost.  Given what my parents understood, I am very grateful for the Christian environment of my home and my education. I of course, see the Great Controversy in a much different light that either E.G.White or Dispensationalism. That is why the Gospel has such a pull on me.  As for ad hominem arguments--I believe an unbiased reading of the past three weeks would indicate that I have been the butt of those attacks.  If I have attack anyone personally, I certainly apologize. The only thing I can recall is the “Smart Ass” comment. As great an evangelist Spurgean was, he also played the grand stand and made some provocative remarks.  Gabriel used one to put me down and in a peak I responded in kind--for with I apologized. As I recall, you rejected my attempts at reconciliation.  The piece I just submitted
was my final attempt at getting the discussion back to the Witness to Jesus Christ who so loved the world that He gave His life for it and us.  Tom. 

I came across an interesting article online called “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism” by Grace Community Church’s Phil Johnson that may shed some light for some of you.  True Reformed theology does not espouse the fatalistic view of the sovereignty of God that some here label as “Calvinism” that is in actuality “Hyper-Calvinism”. 

I have followed this thread and its predecessor with interest, and often times chagrin over these last several weeks.

I haven’t felt I have had anything worthwhile to add that would have benefitted anyone, so have kept quiet.

Seems to me that way to often we get bogged down on contemptuous interpretations of theology, and fail to focus on the simplicity of the Gospel. I guess it is human nature to try and make simple things complicated.

My understanding continues to be “That whosoever believes in Him, shall have eternal life”. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Tom, I have often considered “smart ass”, as a term of endearment. You are good in my books, and I have certainly appreciated your thoughts regarding the gift of salvation.

Greg, Stan, and Gabriel, you have all shared a line of theological understanding that has been new to me and you have given me much food for thought. I thank you all for your willingness to share.

Peace and love to all this Christmas season,

Your brother in Christ,

Randy

Randy wrote:

“Seems to me that way to often we get bogged down on contemptuous interpretations of theology, and fail to focus on the simplicity of the Gospel. I guess it is human nature to try and make simple things complicated.”
-------------------------------------------------------

I have been so busy lately that I lost track of this discussion a bit.

Hi Randy,
Could you please clarify what you mean by “contemptuous interpretations of theology”?

Since many readers of this blog are former Adventists as I am, may I just express a concern that is on my mind?

There is a tendency during the transition out of Adventism and in the post transition period a mindset that loves to concentrate on what is wrong with Adventism rather than on moving on and disciplining ourselves to really get into the meat of the Word of God.

Theological discussions are considered divisive and instead many develop the attitude of “Let’s all just love Jesus and not discuss theology.” And any discussion of what Jesus actually taught in scripture is considered divisive.

Hebrews 5:11-14:

11"We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”
-----------------------------------------------------

At some point in our Christian experience and transition out of the SDA church, we need to be weaned away from only the milk of the word, but to go on to the meat of the Word. I think this is what we have tried to do on this forum. There are other former SDA forums that discourage theological discussion and concentrate on the flaws of Adventism and do a lot of “demonizing” and name calling. That type of discussion will certainly draw a lot more participants to a website, but will do very little to edify people and help them grow in their walk with the Lord.

Now Randy, if you have noticed, we have mostly quoted the direct words of scripture to support our view of the great truths of sovereign grace. We have quoted from the direct words of Jesus all thru the book of John and elsewhere supporting our positions.

If the doctrines that the reformers fought and died for are just “contemptuous theological discussion”, then please tell us why Jesus and the apostles and later the reformers thought these doctrines to be so important?

Why is it that most of the Christian church (not just former SDAs) want to sing praise songs to Jesus accompanied by hard driving rock rhythms, yet ignore the teachings of Jesus, and relegate the serious truth of God’s Word to some back room or hidden portion of a website? The MEAT of the Word is being ignored.

There is no way just to skip over the portions of scripture that don’t make sense to us, or that makes us not like what we read.

The reason I love talking about these great themes of grace and election, is the fact that these wonderful themes are truly practical in today’s world. These rock solid truths of God’s absolute sovereignty sustain us when the storms of life hit. These great truths of God’s Word have meant even more to me in a practical way with my wife’s illness.

I am both puzzled but at the same time not surprised why the discussion over whether God is really in control of our destinies causes such heated arguments and discussions. I think it boils down to whether we really believe that scripture is inerrant and infallible, and whether we can really take literally the actual text of scripture.

The didactic portions of scripture in Romans, Ephesians, and John, and really the whole of scripture, are abundantly clear on what is really meant by “salvation by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.”

My prayer is that we not fear examining these portions of scripture which really make us dig deeply into the great themes of salvation. After vigorously opposing these doctrines, like so many others and for so many years, I came to know real peace and joy when I finally came to the realization, that I could not have possibly come to salvation unless God literally raised me up from a dead spiritual condition. It was none of me, but all of God.

Amazing grace, indeed!

Soli Deo Gloria

Stan

Stan,

Your point is well taken. I used the word contemptuous when I meant to say contentious.

There is a distinct difference in meaning as the first indicates contempt. That is not what I have seen here, nor meant to imply.

Contentious to me means, areas of differing interpretation even of a reading of the same verses or text. This differing interpretation while potentially irksome to the proponents of each, should not be devisive regarding the simplicity of the Gospel.

Often times both interpretations deemed to be contentious, can be supported with other texts and the package is considered as a whole. Like I said, a lot of this is new to me and I am not dismissing it, but rather I am considering it, as I do all things.

Some require the texture of the meat to feel fulfilled, while others continue to grow on the milk.

The great truths of Scripture can be found in both.

Stan, I am praising God, for Marti’s continuing improvement. I am also deeply moved by your strength throughout this trial.

I continue to pray.

Kindest Christian Regards,

Randy

As Stan wrote:
‘There is a tendency during the transition out of Adventism and in the post transition period a mindset that loves to concentrate on what is wrong with Adventism rather than on moving on and disciplining ourselves to really get into the meat of the Word of God.’
For me, as I transition out of Adventism, I eventually found it wasn’t sufficient just to leave, I had to have somewhere to go - a destination.
At the beginning, besides the web sites that contain a wealth of information detailing the theological errors of Adventism, I participated on a couple of forums which excel in contentious rebuttals of Adventist beliefs, which I liken it to throwing rocks and gleefully contributed. I soon became dissatisfied as it became apparent that spending my energies in this manner meant that I had to stay facing Adventism, I was at a standstill - I wasn’t going anywhere! Also, while quite satisfying to hear the loud crash, It also occurred to me that throwing rocks at the Adventist glass house could injure those inside and cause them to retreat further in. I concluded that it would be in my best interests to find for myself what God reveals and to leave it to Him to remove walls, so I turned my energies to discovering what was right rather than what was wrong and was lead to Reformed Theology. Along the way I ‘stumbled’ upon 4TG which has become my favorite forum to read (being a novice and scripturally illiterate I have little to contribute). I am amazed at the gentleness and forbearance extended to the rather heated repudiation of Reformed Theology expressed by the few and am rebuked when I compare this to my own reaction upon reading the same posts.
God bless you,
John Douglas