Depart Out • Harold Camping • End of the world • church age • Family Radio • View topic

Joined: 12 Jul 2010 Posts: 85

The passage John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." (NRSV). For God so loved the WORLD... we'll stop right here and look at the word "world". The word for world used here is "Kosmos", which translates as "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family" or "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ". Christ died for the WHOLE world, and without His sacrifice we would be no where. we have nothing without His sacrifice and atoning death on the cross. He offers this gift to us and we have the FREE WILL to accept it, and if we do, we become one of God's ELECT as we follow the life that God desires for us to live.

Living the example that Christ lived. Free will and election both exist and work together. Christ was the ultimate atoning sacrifice, and it is only through him that we can be saved. The Father and Holy Spirit can work in and through our lives and through our conversion and belief in Christ and his sacrifice we are saved. There was however no extreme version, no "lottery" before the world began. If there was, and it didn't matter what we did, we would only be saved if we were chosen, then what would the point be of living our lives for Christ. I have been told I need to beg and plead for mercy, but that man has no part at all. If we have no part, then why plead? unless someone is insinuating that we can affect our election status by begging and pleading.

Secondly, I John 2:2 says "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. " (NRSV). So Christ's atoning death on the cross paid for our sins. The word John uses here for "ours" is "hemeteros" which means "ours, yours". So John is saying that Christ's death was not just for him, but also for his audience, which was the body of believers he was writing to. Now not only was his sacrifice for the sins of those he was writing to, but the ENTIRE world. The word used for world here is "Kosmos again, which translates "the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family" or "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ". So Christ's death was for the whole world, not a lottery election before the beginning of time. Free will and election work together, you cannot have one without the other. God exists outside of time, he knows who is going to chose to accept his gift, and those who have the free will to chose not to accept it. Those he works in and he knows will accept it and do accept his gift of eternal life are his elect.

Christ died for all man, and it was not before the foundation of the world that sin was atoned for...IT WAS ON THE CROSS.
Revelation 13:8 does talk about the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. At first glance if you just read it you could argue that it means Christ death on the cross did not bring atonement, because he was slain before the world (as you and most following camping's teaching seem to believe), but when we correctly look at the verse, using hermeneutics and go back to the Greek, we can get a better understanding. The Greek word used for foundation in this passage is "Katabole", which translates as "a throwing or laying down" or "a founding (laying down a foundation)". So when it says that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, it means that the Lamb was slain from laying down his life. The lamb threw down his life for the world, and when he layed down his life in 33AD, it set the foundation for atonement and the rest of God's plan

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

I think a good way to understand election vs. free will is to say that the human will is free but bound. We make free choices as human beings, but we can't choose something that goes against our nature. For example, a lion is a carnivore and by nature desires to eat meat. If you put a head of lettuce is front of him he won't eat it. It's not that his will to eat has been removed. It's that his will is bound by his nature as a carnivore. It's no different with people. We have free wills but we don't choose against our nature. Our nature is to choose sin over God. The Bible says that if we are not born again, we cannot choose God:

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

Human beings have free wills, but their wills are bound by their sin nature. Once God regenerates a person, their nature is changed so that it is no longer a slave to sin and unbelief. They are then free to choose God. The problem with Arminianism is that it believes man's will is not bound at all. It believes the unregenerate are able to choose God by their own power but that is contrary to the Bible. The problem with Hypercalvinism is that it wants to remove human choice from the entire equation and say our wills have nothing to do with salvation. That also is false. We don't cause our salvation by an act of our human will, but once God regenerates us (and he only regenerates his elect), then the result of that is that we do choose to follow Christ.

Joined: 10 Jun 2010 Posts: 184

As I have stated on another thread, I grew up in a church that was strongly Arminian. It has only been within the last year or so that I have been "rethinking" my own beliefs after much study and several conversations. We often refer to "election v free will" or "the election/free will debate", but I feel those terms are misleading. Expanding on what has been said so far, election and free will do not contradict each other; they complement each other. Two very insightful illustrations have been shared with me which I would like to repeat once again. (1) Think of salvation as a door. As you approach the door, the sign above it reads, "Whosoever will may come." After you go through the door and turn around, the sign above reads, "Chosen from the foundation of the world." (2) Think of a ceiling. God is above the ceiling, we are below. Two ropes go through holes in the ceiling; one is labeled "election", the other "free will". From below the ceiling where we are, it looks as if the ropes will never meet. We won't know where they go until we are above the ceiling. For all we know from where we are, they might just go over a pulley above the ceiling. These are examples of the fact that we will never be able to understand the mind of infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God with our feeble, finite mind. To try to do so would be to attempt to "put God in a box". Both free will and election are supported in Scripture. Do I understand how He uses them together? No, and I dare say no one does.

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

paulh wrote

As I have stated on another thread, I grew up in a church that was strongly Arminian. It has only been within the last year or so that I have been "rethinking" my own beliefs after much study and several conversations. We often refer to "election v free will" or "the election/free will debate", but I feel those terms are misleading. Expanding on what has been said so far, election and free will do not contradict each other; they complement each other. Two very insightful illustrations have been shared with me which I would like to repeat once again. (1) Think of salvation as a door. As you approach the door, the sign above it reads, "Whosoever will may come." After you go through the door and turn around, the sign above reads, "Chosen from the foundation of the world." (2) Think of a ceiling. God is above the ceiling, we are below. Two ropes go through holes in the ceiling; one is labeled "election", the other "free will". From below the ceiling where we are, it looks as if the ropes will never meet. We won't know where they go until we are above the ceiling. For all we know from where we are, they might just go over a pulley above the ceiling. These are examples of the fact that we will never be able to understand the mind of infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God with our feeble, finite mind. To try to do so would be to attempt to "put God in a box". Both free will and election are supported in Scripture. Do I understand how He uses them together? No, and I dare say no one does.

Good points Paul. I believe Charles Spurgeon frequently used (or perhaps even invented) the #1 illustration you gave. And he was no Arminian. Nor was he a Hypercalvinist. Spurgeon had no problem commanding men to repent and believe as we see modeled for us in Acts 16.

Whenever I bring up Acts 16, the response from the Hypercalvinists is always "yes but we need to look at what the rest of the Bible says" too. What they really mean by that is "we have to ignore Acts 16:31 and look at other passages that are more friendly to my hypercalvnisitic doctrine". The truth is yes, we do need to look at everything the Bible says about salvation. That means we have to harmonize Acts 16:31 with the rest of the Bible, not ignore it. "Repent and Believe" is either the right answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" or it's the wrong answer. There is no third alternative. If it's the wrong answer, then Acts 16:31 is a lie. Deep down many Camping friends know this which is why the only explanation they can offer is that Acts 16:31 is a "testing program" for the church. So in other words, God supposedly let an inspired apostle tell a lie to people in the first century and misled them into perdition all in order to test the end times church! That is preposterous!!

I'm afraid Camping and other hypercalvinists have taken something that is relatively simple and made it exceedingly complex in order to leave people confused and without any assurance of their salvation. God is the author of salvation. He has chosen those whom are to be saved before the foundation of the world. God providentially ordains that his elect will have the gospel preached to them at some point in time. This is clearly illustrated in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10 and explained to us by the apostle Paul in Romans 10. After the gospel is preached to an elect person, God opens the heart of that person so that their nature is changed and they irresistably respond to that gospel message with repentance and belief. For those who are non-elect, that gospel message will either be rejected outright or accepted only superficially but without any real heart change accompanying it. This is all illustrated by the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. All of this illustrates how we can harmonize all that the Bible says about salvation. The only way Arminians and Hypercalvinists can defend their gospels is to stick to certain Scriptures which taken apart from the rest of the Bible may seem to argue for their point of view. The only way to truly understand salvation is to harmonize everything the Bible says. In addition, we also have to understand the nature of paradox. For example, take

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phil 2:12-13)

The hairs of the heresy hunting Hypercalvinist's heads stand on end whenever they hear language of men working or doing anything when it comes to salvation. They hear any talk of action on the human end when it comes to salvation and they think they've earned one more feather in their cap for exposing another works gospel! But the Bible is not uncomfortable about speaking of human action in the context of salvation. The truth is Phillipians 2:12-13 is a paradox. It says we work but ultimately that work we do is God working in us. We repent and believe, but it is God's work within us that causes us to repent and believe. There is nothing meritorious in our "work" of repenting and believing. It is our irresistable response to the gospel message. Since it can't be resisted if God has regenerated a person, man gets no credit whatsoever for his response. The Bible is not nearly as afraid as the Hypercalvinists are to command and talk about human action when it comes to salvation. That's because the Bible is not uncomfortable with paradox. Those on both extremes of the election spectrum (Arminians, Hypercalvinists) cannot deal with paradox. They want a nice tidy doctrine that they can fit neatly into a box. The Arminians tell us things like "God is gentlemen, he doesn't force his will on someone when it comes to salvation". The Hypercalvinists tell us that salvation is all of God, so that means any talk of human action in regard to salvation is a works gospel. The problem with both sides is that they do not understand biblical paradox. So they stick to all the passages that best prove their doctrine, and ignore or offer lame explanations for all the passages that present difficulty for their doctrine. For all their talk of "looking at everything the Bible says" about something, they fail to do that very thing themselves.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

How do these three passages differ, if at all?

Mat 5:48 KJV - Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
...
Mar 1:15 KJV - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
...
Rev 18:4 KJV - And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Anwer: they don't differ insofar as we are commanded to do these things, all required for salvation, that we are not capable of doing of our own free will.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

Christ does ALL of the work.

Why would you want it any other way?

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

didymus wrote

Christ does ALL of the work.

Why would you want it any other way?

I don't hear anyone on this forum saying they want it some other way. What many of the Camping friends don't seem to understand is that explaining salvation is not something that can be reduced to neat little slogans. You can't just chant "Christ does ALL the work" and then slam people down the minute you hear them talking about men doing any work in the context of salvation, convinced that you've just destroyed another salvation by works argument. How many subjects have the action verb "work" linked to them in Phil 2:12-13? I see two.....man and God. That does not mean salvation is some 50/50 deal where man does half the work and God does the other half. God does all the work ultimately, but God's work manifests itself in us doing things. As another poster has said, the picture of God dragging the elect into the kingdom kicking and screaming is unbiblical. It is true that by nature man is hostile to God. But once a person is regenerated, the inclination of their will is changed so that they want to repent and believe. God commands us to repent and believe, not so he can wait for us to respond and then regenerate us. Nor does he do it as a "testing program". He commands us to repent and believe so that he can then regenerate us and thereby empower us to repent and believe . The gospel call is what he uses to elicit the very response he empowers us to make.

We just can't keep pouncing on each other's arguments based on semantics. It's not just the words people use that matter, it's what they mean by those words that matters. Two people can utter the same sentence and based on what they really mean one person can be saying something true and the other person can be saying something erroneous. The statement "We must repent and believe in order to be saved" is a perfect example of that. If someone says that and what they mean is that we repent and believe, and then God makes us born again, then that is error. If what they mean is that we repent and believe, and by doing so demonstrate that God was already at work in us, then that is not error. That's why the Bible is so full of paradoxes and apparent contradictions. Words alone don't tell the story. We have to explore what is meant by certain words. If we keep attacking each other's arguments over words, then the debating will never end because each side can point to words in the Bible that make their case. The issue is not that some of the language of the Bible is true and other language is a trap, and we have to figure out which is which. That's Camping's absurd escape route from the dilemma. The issue is that everything the Bible asserts is true and we have to harmonize it all by trying to understand what all the language really means.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

Phil 2:12-13 does not contain a paradox. God does the work first. Working out one's salvation doesn't have anything to do with that first work. His work is not "mixed in" with our action of believing. This is one of the ways mankind tries to sneak in his own efforts into the equation. The initial action of salvation is not not a team effort.

Christ did not require our assistance in paying for sin, and he doesn't accept our assistance in imputing His righteousness to the elect. Good works are the result of this action, but have no part in it.

And it is not just a matter of semantics. We need to be careful to give all glory to Christ.

Again, believing is a result of that work of Christ; it is not part of it, or simultaneous with it, or anything of the sort. This needs to be clearly and unambiguously asserted without diluting it with discussions about paradox, etc.

Look at this verse and the sequence of events:

Eph 1:13 KJV - In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Believing is not primary: it is hearing that is primary. How do people hear when they are deaf? The examples of Christ healing and causing blind to see, deaf to hear, lame to walk, etc. are examples of his initial action. The hearing that is required results from a miracle. After this miraculous work is done we can hear and, after that, we then can believe and are sealed by the spirit of promise. The "hear" part is not physical but spiritual.

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

didymus wrote

Phil 2:12-13 does not contain a paradox. God does the work first. Working out one's salvation doesn't have anything to do with that first work. His work is not "mixed in" with our action of believing. This is one of the ways mankind tries to sneak in his own efforts into the equation. The initial action of salvation is not not a team effort.

Christ did not require our assistance in paying for sin, and he doesn't accept our assistance in imputing His righteousness to the elect. Good works are the result of this action, but have no part in it.

And it is not just a matter of semantics. One must be careful to give all glory to Christ.

Why are you putting all kinds of words in my mouth? When did I say anything about us giving assistance to Christ in paying for sin? When I did I say anything about mixing our works with his? The work Christ does and the work we do are two separate things. But they both exist. You say that "Good works are the result of this action, but we have no part in it". That is a contradiction. Paul commands us to do something in Phil 2:12-13. How can we not be a part of something we are doing? You are confusing Christ's payment for our sin with the work of sanctification that begins the moment of salvation. We have absolutely no part in Christ's payment for sin. He did that all on the Cross. But we do have a part in our sanctification. We get no credit for it, because it's only by the power of His Spirit that we are even able to respond in faith, belief, and good works. So he does get all the glory. Nevertheless we are not robots or puppets on strings. We exercise our wills once we are born again. Those wills have been changed. They were once in bondage to sin but once God regenerates us our wills are free to respond to God. God uses commands like repent and believe to elicit that response from us.

To use an illustration, let's say I'm a billionaire and I open some fancy country club in poverty stricken city. I tell everyone in the city they are free to join the club as long as they show up on opening day with a one million dollar check as an entry fee. I know that no one in the city can pay this but I want to have some people in my club, so I mail out a hundred checks to random people throughout the city with a note saying that it's a gift from me so that they have the money to join my club. So on opening day, a hundred people show up with their checks and pay their fee. Did they do what I "commanded" them to do (ie. bring a check)? Yes they did. Do they get any glory or credit for doing what they did? No. I gave them the very thing I asked them to give to me. That's what God does for us. He gives us the power and desire to do the very thing he commands us to do. The issue is not that we have no part or we don't do anything. The issue has to do with merit. Any part we play is simply a response to God's work for us. Our works have no merit. Our faith has no merit. Our believing has no merit. But nevertheless we are exercising our wills when we repent, believe and do good works. We do not become mindless robots operated by remote control when we become born again.

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

For those without ears to hear - they who are deaf - they haven't heard the postman, so don't see anything in their "mail box". Can a deaf man "choose" to hear? No. He needs to be given his hearing. After hearing he shall believe and be sealed. Hearing comes before believing and sealing. God starts the work and he finishes it (Phil 1:6).

Joined: 10 Feb 2008 Posts: 2060

Most of you undoubtedly have had experiences with the elderly. Sooner or later all of the elderly reach a place where their mind and mouth plays the same "tapes" over and over.

I suspect Harold has, quite naturally reached that stage. He is now playing the same tapes over and over.

You hear one Harold program these days? You've heard them all.

A function of his age.

Joined: 03 Jul 2010 Posts: 1908

didymus wrote

For those without ears to hear - they who are deaf - they haven't heard the postman, so don't see anything in their "mail box". Can a deaf man "choose" to hear? No. He needs to be given his hearing. After hearing he shall believe and be sealed. Hearing comes before believing and sealing. God starts the work and he finishes it (Phil 1:6).

immediate regeneration is not an uncommon doctrine certainly not "revealed" to FR

Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 2819

oneeternalgospel wrote

didymus wrote

For those without ears to hear - they who are deaf - they haven't heard the postman, so don't see anything in their "mail box". Can a deaf man "choose" to hear? No. He needs to be given his hearing. After hearing he shall believe and be sealed. Hearing comes before believing and sealing. God starts the work and he finishes it (Phil 1:6).

immediate regeneration is not an uncommon doctrine certainly not "revealed" to FR

THanks, but I'm not the FR spokesman so you don't need to point that out to me.

Joined: 03 Jul 2010 Posts: 1908

didymus wrote

oneeternalgospel wrote

didymus wrote

For those without ears to hear - they who are deaf - they haven't heard the postman, so don't see anything in their "mail box". Can a deaf man "choose" to hear? No. He needs to be given his hearing. After hearing he shall believe and be sealed. Hearing comes before believing and sealing. God starts the work and he finishes it (Phil 1:6).

immediate regeneration is not an uncommon doctrine certainly not "revealed" to FR

THanks, but I'm not the FR spokesman so you don't need to point that out to me.

right i was pointing your post out as evidence to the FRers that non FRers hold the doctrine - WT/TB seem to think its unique to the FR canon

Joined: 05 Nov 2009 Posts: 1604

didymus wrote

For those without ears to hear - they who are deaf - they haven't heard the postman, so don't see anything in their "mail box". Can a deaf man "choose" to hear? No. He needs to be given his hearing. After hearing he shall believe and be sealed. Hearing comes before believing and sealing. God starts the work and he finishes it (Phil 1:6).

I don't know what the point is continuing this discussion with you Didymus. Like the rest of the Camping friends, you insist on debating with a strawman on this issue. Everything I say just goes in one ear and out the other it seems. I'm a churchgoer so I must believe that our works contribute to salvation in some way, right? How many times do I have to say that regeneration precedes faith. That means God gives us the ability to hear, respond, believe, repent.....and everything else the Bible commands us to do in connection with salvation.