Archive for the ‘Irenaeus’ Category

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

Monergism versus Synergism or do we have too many "isms"?

April 25, 2007

Monergism versus Synergism or do we have too many “isms”?

Now in the “heat” of a recent attack it was stated I did not believe in Monergism and that I believed in Synergism… Here I admit I mistakenly understood Synergism as a different term than was thrown at me. Yet, I do and am a Monergism… but maybe not in the traditional sense or at least by the “Calvinist” defintion.

In fact I see that the Calvinist view is opposed to the Biblical view as I have stated already.

Yet, saying that, the traditional definition of Monergism is:

Monergism (literal “one work.”)
Monergists correctly assert that conversion is the single work of God. It is God who saves through Christ. It is God who creates faith through the hearing of the Gospel.

As opposed to synergism.

Synergists believe that conversion is a cooperative work between man and God (see “Pelagianism”).

Pelagianism
The fifth century heresy of Pelagius who taught that man is not totally corrupt and can be saved by an act of his own will (see “Arminianism,” “Monergism,” “Revivalism,” “Total Depravity”).

Now, I know in the past I held a more traditional Armininian view that man was not totally corrupt, yet I see in scripture that all men have sin and no one is righteous. I do see though that the idea of the Calvinistic “Total depravity” may not be as biblical as is supposed.
I see in scripture that man can choose. If one reads Irenaeus they will see that he taught man does know the difference between good and bad… yet it seems mankind has a short coming as far as man being neutral and knowing good from evil yet losing his path and choosing not to come to Christ for salvation… I see that man being neutral chooses his own way, and in that without the Holy Spirit to come to call us out of the path that leads to death one will be doomed to the penalty of his sin… no matter the man more good than bad, sin demands its payment of death. To sin once is to forfeit eternal life…

Many think that man is immortal and the I Scripture clearly states Jesus alone was immortal. This death then is the end of a man… yet with Christ alone man is redeemed. Redemption is the sole act of God. A man seeking after God and His goodness will find that he hears the Calling that leads to repentance and conversion, redemption and salvation.

To say that regeneration takes place first misses that regeneration is the act of the transformation of sinner to saint… it is not that act of Grace that for a moments opens a sinners eyes, for that is Mercy and Grace showing the Loving Kindness of God… this then leads to repentance…

To place regeneration is a grave misunderstanding that confuses the atonement with salvation. Some take justification and salvation as the same and to me they are not. We were justified/atoned at the Cross, this was the sole act of Christ and there is nothing we can add to it. We are also only redeemed by the power of the Resurrection as it is by Christ’s very Life we now Live… for the redemption unto salvation is solely the work of Christ alone and it is that He lives His life in and though us. To think we can add our own “works” to gain more sanctification misses that the reason se are sanctified is that Christ is living in us and these works are His and His alone… they are not ours.

So, I do not make a good Calvinist, yet I do believe that it is the total working of the Calling of the Holy Spirit that we are saved. Our response is only that… a response that we agree that there is no work we can do to be saved and not a work in that we are part of the process of salvation. It is not in our “turning” we are saved, it is in the calling that we hear and respond… and our total surrender that we realize there is no way to salvation except by God’s Mercy and Grace.

There is a joke that illustrates this:

A man died and came to Saint Peter at the gate of Heaven. Peter told them man that he will be awarded points to enter in… he only needed 100 and he would be able to enter into heaven freely.
So the man stated proudly, “I never cheated on my wife.”
Peter replied, “Very good, that is worth 2 points.”
The man stated, “I never stole anything from anyone.”
Peter looked and smiled and stated, “Very good! You now have three points!”
This went on for about an hour and the man wearily looked at Peter and stated, “I have nothing else… it looks like I can only enter by the Grace of God.”

Peter smiled brightly and hit a button… and the Gates opened wide… as Peter stated, “That is the only right answer! Enter in!”

Now remember that is a joke to illustrate a point and I do believe we need to accept Jesus to receive that Grace… this “joke” falls short on many levels yet the point that we are at God’s mercy… and Grace… is the point. If a man thinks there be any other way, he is deceived… and the Truth is not in him.

As far as Synergism or being a synergist… I see that salvation alone is of God… the only part we play is that we come to an end of ourselves and turn to God through Jesus and cry out “Lord, save a poor sinner like me.”, and in that moment are brought into a relationship… is the of desperation a “work” of us? No, I see it a realization of our condition… that being a moral agent we do not have the tools to carry through.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “shame” and which is our condition, and in that we can be shamed by most anything so it is not the resolution as it is acquired and learned… Yet, it is in the recognition of our disunion that we find this condition if left on our terms, on reconcilable. It is not that we are totally depraved, but ill-equipped to be able to sustain a “righteousness” that is of God’s approval on our own… we in a sense see what we are to do, but as Paul laments do not do as we ought to do.

This condition is the recognition of having a sin nature… a nature that runs contrary to the good that God desires for us. If left unchecked God then turns one over to their depraved thinking and in that we only earn the wages that sin offers. If given that we have the realization that we are moral agents that have lost their moral grounds, we then turn to Christ Jesus, we find in that the Calling, and in that the Voice of One Who calls out forgiveness and a new way of Life… it is in this Kindness we find redemption as we repent (which means to turn around) which can be either tears of sorrow and thanksgiving or tears of rejoicing and gratitude… repentance in not a formula, but a heart changed by God Himself.

Some may now criticize that I have not given Bible references… and if that is you, then you don’t need them… go and search and then prove me wrong if you need to. Yet, I know there are those who may not have read the Bible… and I commend you for getting past all the “isms” as I hope that an “ism” does not keep you from Jesus. If you have never read the Bible before, start in John, or any of the Gospels… read them as a story of a friend you have just met… and just try to get to know Him… you will be amazed at how much you will grasp with just an open heart. Most who have walked with Christ often assume they know the Gospels…yet, in them even if you do not understand what is going on, Jesus will still speak to you clearly in what you need to know now. In that I hope that the Life that Christ Jesus lived will come to be Life itself for you also.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

Monergism versus Synergism or do we have too many "isms"?

April 25, 2007

Monergism versus Synergism or do we have too many “isms”?

Now in the “heat” of a recent attack it was stated I did not believe in Monergism and that I believed in Synergism… Here I admit I mistakenly understood Synergism as a different term than was thrown at me. Yet, I do and am a Monergism… but maybe not in the traditional sense or at least by the “Calvinist” defintion.

In fact I see that the Calvinist view is opposed to the Biblical view as I have stated already.

Yet, saying that, the traditional definition of Monergism is:

Monergism (literal “one work.”)
Monergists correctly assert that conversion is the single work of God. It is God who saves through Christ. It is God who creates faith through the hearing of the Gospel.

As opposed to synergism.

Synergists believe that conversion is a cooperative work between man and God (see “Pelagianism”).

Pelagianism
The fifth century heresy of Pelagius who taught that man is not totally corrupt and can be saved by an act of his own will (see “Arminianism,” “Monergism,” “Revivalism,” “Total Depravity”).

Now, I know in the past I held a more traditional Armininian view that man was not totally corrupt, yet I see in scripture that all men have sin and no one is righteous. I do see though that the idea of the Calvinistic “Total depravity” may not be as biblical as is supposed.
I see in scripture that man can choose. If one reads Irenaeus they will see that he taught man does know the difference between good and bad… yet it seems mankind has a short coming as far as man being neutral and knowing good from evil yet losing his path and choosing not to come to Christ for salvation… I see that man being neutral chooses his own way, and in that without the Holy Spirit to come to call us out of the path that leads to death one will be doomed to the penalty of his sin… no matter the man more good than bad, sin demands its payment of death. To sin once is to forfeit eternal life…

Many think that man is immortal and the I Scripture clearly states Jesus alone was immortal. This death then is the end of a man… yet with Christ alone man is redeemed. Redemption is the sole act of God. A man seeking after God and His goodness will find that he hears the Calling that leads to repentance and conversion, redemption and salvation.

To say that regeneration takes place first misses that regeneration is the act of the transformation of sinner to saint… it is not that act of Grace that for a moments opens a sinners eyes, for that is Mercy and Grace showing the Loving Kindness of God… this then leads to repentance…

To place regeneration is a grave misunderstanding that confuses the atonement with salvation. Some take justification and salvation as the same and to me they are not. We were justified/atoned at the Cross, this was the sole act of Christ and there is nothing we can add to it. We are also only redeemed by the power of the Resurrection as it is by Christ’s very Life we now Live… for the redemption unto salvation is solely the work of Christ alone and it is that He lives His life in and though us. To think we can add our own “works” to gain more sanctification misses that the reason se are sanctified is that Christ is living in us and these works are His and His alone… they are not ours.

So, I do not make a good Calvinist, yet I do believe that it is the total working of the Calling of the Holy Spirit that we are saved. Our response is only that… a response that we agree that there is no work we can do to be saved and not a work in that we are part of the process of salvation. It is not in our “turning” we are saved, it is in the calling that we hear and respond… and our total surrender that we realize there is no way to salvation except by God’s Mercy and Grace.

There is a joke that illustrates this:

A man died and came to Saint Peter at the gate of Heaven. Peter told them man that he will be awarded points to enter in… he only needed 100 and he would be able to enter into heaven freely.
So the man stated proudly, “I never cheated on my wife.”
Peter replied, “Very good, that is worth 2 points.”
The man stated, “I never stole anything from anyone.”
Peter looked and smiled and stated, “Very good! You now have three points!”
This went on for about an hour and the man wearily looked at Peter and stated, “I have nothing else… it looks like I can only enter by the Grace of God.”

Peter smiled brightly and hit a button… and the Gates opened wide… as Peter stated, “That is the only right answer! Enter in!”

Now remember that is a joke to illustrate a point and I do believe we need to accept Jesus to receive that Grace… this “joke” falls short on many levels yet the point that we are at God’s mercy… and Grace… is the point. If a man thinks there be any other way, he is deceived… and the Truth is not in him.

As far as Synergism or being a synergist… I see that salvation alone is of God… the only part we play is that we come to an end of ourselves and turn to God through Jesus and cry out “Lord, save a poor sinner like me.”, and in that moment are brought into a relationship… is the of desperation a “work” of us? No, I see it a realization of our condition… that being a moral agent we do not have the tools to carry through.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “shame” and which is our condition, and in that we can be shamed by most anything so it is not the resolution as it is acquired and learned… Yet, it is in the recognition of our disunion that we find this condition if left on our terms, on reconcilable. It is not that we are totally depraved, but ill-equipped to be able to sustain a “righteousness” that is of God’s approval on our own… we in a sense see what we are to do, but as Paul laments do not do as we ought to do.

This condition is the recognition of having a sin nature… a nature that runs contrary to the good that God desires for us. If left unchecked God then turns one over to their depraved thinking and in that we only earn the wages that sin offers. If given that we have the realization that we are moral agents that have lost their moral grounds, we then turn to Christ Jesus, we find in that the Calling, and in that the Voice of One Who calls out forgiveness and a new way of Life… it is in this Kindness we find redemption as we repent (which means to turn around) which can be either tears of sorrow and thanksgiving or tears of rejoicing and gratitude… repentance in not a formula, but a heart changed by God Himself.

Some may now criticize that I have not given Bible references… and if that is you, then you don’t need them… go and search and then prove me wrong if you need to. Yet, I know there are those who may not have read the Bible… and I commend you for getting past all the “isms” as I hope that an “ism” does not keep you from Jesus. If you have never read the Bible before, start in John, or any of the Gospels… read them as a story of a friend you have just met… and just try to get to know Him… you will be amazed at how much you will grasp with just an open heart. Most who have walked with Christ often assume they know the Gospels…yet, in them even if you do not understand what is going on, Jesus will still speak to you clearly in what you need to know now. In that I hope that the Life that Christ Jesus lived will come to be Life itself for you also.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

Why I am not a Calvinist part 3

April 18, 2007
Why I am not a Calvinist part 3

Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the Apostle John clearly taught man has a free will. Some Calvinists will state that man does have a free will on a minor level… yet man is not a moral being… and is totally depraved.

Irenaeus stated:

“ But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.”

He then adds:

“No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief.”

What we see here in the writing of a disciple of the direct linage of John the Apostle the very opposite of the crux of which is the Calvinist argument… does man have a free will?
On one hand man has never had a “free” will as he is either a servant to sin or a servant to Christ… yet even in that bondage and freedom God gives man a choice to choose and believe or not to believe. Now the Calvinist will challenge this and state, “Then you are preaching works!” To that I state this plainly if a man sees he is lost and in need of salvation from death… note I am stating death not sin as God gave the Israelites the sacrificial system… a way for forgiveness, yet in that there was not way to eternal life and salvation from death. This is an area that the Calvinist often misses also… that we are not being saved from sin into heaven… but from death into life… and that life is eternal I am not saying that the sacrificial system was a way to permanent forgiveness as God has always looked not at the blood of bulls and goats… but at the repentant heart that turn in faith that God alone will save him. Yet, if it was just forgiveness man needed… then Christ could have died and stayed in the grave… yet it is in the Resurrection we have Life… God has a free will and as stated in the first part to subject God to a system then denies God to have a free will and makes him no longer sovereign. Yet, as God has a free will so also man in His image has one also.

Irenaeus states a bit later:

“If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
“And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee; “thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth; “and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”

The issue then is was man perfect in the Garden… or was he innocent? We are not told that man was ever perfect… only that he was good. Genesis 1: 31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.”
Man and woman made in the image of God were made good… yet it never says perfect. Man and woman were perfectly innocent I will give into…

Now the Calvinist will state that before the fall man was perfect…though if he was then he would not have fallen…so it seems that man was not yet perfected… but rather had something still to learn. I suspect that was what the walks in the Garden were, times of intimate teachings.

Yet, before this could happen man fell. Now, there are scriptures to support that the sin of Adam is imputed to us. Yet there are also scriptures that clearly state man is to be held guilty for his own sins…. A man who sins dies is the point. Deuteronomy 24: 16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”

This makes sense as we can only die ourselves… we cannot die for someone else… unless we are immortal beings which we are not… only Jesus is. (1 Timothy 6:16)

Romans does speak of how the sin nature that man inherited at the fall is past on… 1 Cor 15: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. For as in Adam… or as Adam sinned and died we too sin and die…yet this does not mean the same thing as total depravity. Man is blinded we are told… he is given over to his own wicked desires and in that deserves God’s wrath… yet God has given a way of salvation to all mankind… as all have sinned and are cursed to die, all have been given the gift of salvation… contingent on if we receive that gift. A man must still choose… Life or death. The sin nature is not passed on as some Calvinists teach through the blood of the man.

Again, this is not works… it is taking God at His word and having faith in a Hope… A hope that is not seen. And in that Hope is salvation itself.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

Why I am not a Calvinist part 3

April 18, 2007
Why I am not a Calvinist part 3

Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the Apostle John clearly taught man has a free will. Some Calvinists will state that man does have a free will on a minor level… yet man is not a moral being… and is totally depraved.

Irenaeus stated:

“ But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.”

He then adds:

“No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief.”

What we see here in the writing of a disciple of the direct linage of John the Apostle the very opposite of the crux of which is the Calvinist argument… does man have a free will?
On one hand man has never had a “free” will as he is either a servant to sin or a servant to Christ… yet even in that bondage and freedom God gives man a choice to choose and believe or not to believe. Now the Calvinist will challenge this and state, “Then you are preaching works!” To that I state this plainly if a man sees he is lost and in need of salvation from death… note I am stating death not sin as God gave the Israelites the sacrificial system… a way for forgiveness, yet in that there was not way to eternal life and salvation from death. This is an area that the Calvinist often misses also… that we are not being saved from sin into heaven… but from death into life… and that life is eternal I am not saying that the sacrificial system was a way to permanent forgiveness as God has always looked not at the blood of bulls and goats… but at the repentant heart that turn in faith that God alone will save him. Yet, if it was just forgiveness man needed… then Christ could have died and stayed in the grave… yet it is in the Resurrection we have Life… God has a free will and as stated in the first part to subject God to a system then denies God to have a free will and makes him no longer sovereign. Yet, as God has a free will so also man in His image has one also.

Irenaeus states a bit later:

“If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
“And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee; “thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth; “and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.”

The issue then is was man perfect in the Garden… or was he innocent? We are not told that man was ever perfect… only that he was good. Genesis 1: 31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.”
Man and woman made in the image of God were made good… yet it never says perfect. Man and woman were perfectly innocent I will give into…

Now the Calvinist will state that before the fall man was perfect…though if he was then he would not have fallen…so it seems that man was not yet perfected… but rather had something still to learn. I suspect that was what the walks in the Garden were, times of intimate teachings.

Yet, before this could happen man fell. Now, there are scriptures to support that the sin of Adam is imputed to us. Yet there are also scriptures that clearly state man is to be held guilty for his own sins…. A man who sins dies is the point. Deuteronomy 24: 16 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”

This makes sense as we can only die ourselves… we cannot die for someone else… unless we are immortal beings which we are not… only Jesus is. (1 Timothy 6:16)

Romans does speak of how the sin nature that man inherited at the fall is past on… 1 Cor 15: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. For as in Adam… or as Adam sinned and died we too sin and die…yet this does not mean the same thing as total depravity. Man is blinded we are told… he is given over to his own wicked desires and in that deserves God’s wrath… yet God has given a way of salvation to all mankind… as all have sinned and are cursed to die, all have been given the gift of salvation… contingent on if we receive that gift. A man must still choose… Life or death. The sin nature is not passed on as some Calvinists teach through the blood of the man.

Again, this is not works… it is taking God at His word and having faith in a Hope… A hope that is not seen. And in that Hope is salvation itself.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

The "Rule of Faith" as recorded by Irenaeus:

April 9, 2007

The “Rule of Faith” as recorded by Irenaeus:

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .