Why is John the Baptist the least in the kingdom of heaven?

[me again]

Jesus said that John the Baptist is great, but he is still "the least in the kingdom of heaven."

What did Jesus mean by that? Why did He say that? :smart:For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. (Luke 7:28)Click here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%207:19-30;&version=9;31;45;) to read it in context.

[John Oscar]

John was the last Old Testament prophet, and would not live to see the Kingdom of God, manifested on this earth through the Church of Christ that was established through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Matt 11
12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

[me again]

So contextually, you're saying that a born again Christian is greater than John the Baptist because the N.T. Christian is filled with the Holy Ghost, whereas the O.T. saints weren't??? If that's what you're saying, then yes, I understand. :salute:

[Tom]

No!

Old Testament prophets such as John the Baptist and other "spiritual leaders" were indwelt by the Spirit. John Q. Israelite wasn't but the prophets were.

John the Baptist is least in the Kingdom of Heaven because he never had any choice in what he did. He was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." See Luke 1:15. He had even less free will than we do.

Our free will cannot negate our salvation but we can grieve the Spirit and cause ourselves a lifetime of heartache and trouble. John couldn't even vary to that degree because he was here on a specific mission concerning the Messiah.

[John Oscar]

Tom,
I would disagree....the OT heroes had the Holy Spirit on them for impowerment for their ministries, not in them:

Judg 6:34-35
34 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him.

Judg 11:29

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites.

2 Chron 20:14

14 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly.

1 Sam 10:6
6 The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person.

(Prime example- Saul given a kingship anointing of power, but his heart was not changed.)


The difference between John and you, Ed, or myself is that we have the double portion, the Holy Spirit in us, giving us new life and identifying us as children of God and upon us in power to be a witness

the Holy Spirit in us -John 20:22 And with that he (Jesus) breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit upon us- Acts 2:1-4
2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Blessings

[Tom]

Tom,

(Prime example- Saul given a kingship anointing of power, but his heart was not changed.)


Blessings

No, his heart was not changed, he was never elect.

Scripture clearly states that John the Baptist was indwelt.

Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.

[John Oscar]

Actually, the Greek word for filled there might be better translated "furnished" or "given"

But either way, he only had one portion of the Holy Spirit, not two, which still makes him "less" in the sense of todays overcoming Christian.

[me again]

Actually, the Greek word for filled there might be better translated "furnished" or "given"

But either way, he only had one portion of the Holy Spirit, not two, which still makes him "less" in the sense of todays overcoming Christian.About a month ago, I talked to a Presbyterian (PCA) preacher and he said: Those who lived during the O.T. era did not have infilling of the Holy Ghost. An exception to this was the prophets, who were temporarily filled by the Holy Spirit to accomplish His will.
The Holy Spirit had not been released during O.T. times and that is why Jesus said just prior to his death, "It is important that I go, so that the Holy Spirit may come."
After Jesus died and was resurrected, the Holy Ghost came and now infills every born again believer forever.If the Presbyterian (PCA) preacher is accurate (and I do believe him), then when Jesus made the comment that John the Baptist was the least in the kingdom of heaven, it was accurate because the O.T. saints weren't filled with the Holy Ghost 100% of the time, at least not in the same way as the N.T. saints are.

I acknowledge the scripture that Tom pointed out about John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit from birth -- and I agree with that -- and I agree with Tom's analysis that John the Baptist didn't have the same measure of free will that N.T. saints have.

Euwe, this is a sticky topic!!! It's very difficult to put into writing!!! :eek:

[Randy S]

I think if you go back and read the context of Jesus' statement, it is clear that John was having a crisis of faith. Since faith is necessary to be saved in God's kingdom, losing one's faith means losing our citizenship in God's kingdom.

John sends two of his diciples to ask Jesus if he is really the One they are waiting for, or whether they should look for someone else. This is AFTER John has decalred that Jesus is the Lamb of God, and AFTER John has heard the voice from heaven testify of Jesus, and had seen the dove alight on Christ at His baptism. John had lost his faith. Being thrown in prison can do that to a man. Read the story of Jerome, sometime. I'm sure it was tough for John to understand why he would be in prison if the Messiah had really arrived.

Jesus' message to John through John's disciples was to tell John about the evidence that Jesus was providing that he was the One. Jesus also gave John a graciously worded warning at the end of his message: "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." Encouragement, evidence, and a warning, designed to strengthen John's faith.

Being a prophet doesn't mean that one maintains their memebership in the kingdom. Read about Baalam, through whom the prophecy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem was given. His name became a byword in Israel for his rebellion against God. Or consider the story of Jonah, who was not only a prohet in Israel, but prophesied to Assyria at Nineveh as well. After Nineveh was saved, the story continued, the focus shifting to God's efforts to save Jonah, which I suspect He did, since Jonah probably wrote the account, though the end of the story leaves one hanging because Jonah still has a very un-Christlike attitude towards his fellow man. John the Baptist had to decide whether he was going to trust God or not, just like each and every follower of God has to do.

I believe the evidence is that John subsequently decided to place his faith in Jesus as the Messiah. You can bet that when God's people are assembled before the throne, John will not be considered to be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

[me again]

Randy,

Your writing is very eloquent and interesting, to say the least. Informative too. How in the world did you deduce those thought processes? :eek:

Are you saying (essentially) that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the least in the kingdom of heaven because his faith had waivered (at the time that Jesus made that statement)? If so, then that seems like a plausable explanation.

[Randy S]

Are you saying (essentially) that Jesus said that John the Baptist was the least in the kingdom of heaven because his faith had waivered (at the time that Jesus made that statement)?

Actually, since Jesus said that even the least in the kingdom was greater than John, then John couldn't be in the kingdom. If John were in, but the least, Jesus would have said that John was the least in the kingdom. Instead, the way Jesus said it requires that John not even be in the kingdom at that time. That's the key point.

There are two explanations for this as I see it. The first has already been suggested by others: that no one on earth could be in the kingdom because it hadn't come yet. The second is that John had lost his citizenship in the kingdom because he had lost his faith. I believe it is the latter that is correct.

I am equating being a citizen of the kingdom with being in a saving relationship with God. We are told that we are saved by faith. Therefore choosing not to have faith in God negates salvation. God provides salvation, and even faith is a gift of God, but it is our choice to exercise faith or to disbelieve, and the Bible teaches that without faith we cannot be saved.

There are books in heaven that keep track of those who have life and those who do not: i.e. those who are in saving relationship to God and those who aren't. These are the citizenship lists of the Kingdom. When Jesus sent out his disciples on one of their first missionary journeys during his ministry, they came back rejoicing that they were able to do miracles. Jesus told them that they should be rejoicing, instead, because their names were written in that Book in heaven. That was the more important thing.

Jesus talked about his kingdom. He said his kingdom was not of this world. But that does not mean that no man could be in God's kingdom just because they were living on earth rather than in heaven. Jesus told his followers that they were not of this world. That's because they were subjects of God's kingdom. I believe that's the point that the writer of Hebrews is making in chapter 11 when he lists many Old Testament men who were saved by faith and then points to Abraham and specifically points out that he did not consider Palestine his home, but looked for the City whose Builder is God.

John had been convinced that Jesus was the One. He had publicly proclaimed that Jesus was the coming Messiah. He had heard God's voice literally declare that Jesus was the Son of God. And now, from prison, he sends messengers to Jesus to ask if he really is the One. He has lost faith. He has lost the faith that is necessary for salvation. Jesus, the source of faith, seeks to restore John through the message he sends back to him through the disciples.

While God's kingdom had not yet come in the literal sense (and still hasn't), people throughout earth's history have been able to claim citizenship in God's kingdom through faith in God. Hebrews 11 talks about that. When Elijah complained to God that he alone was left faithful, God corrected him and let him know that He had ten thousand Israelites who were His. God knows who are in his kingdom and who are not. We are even told that there is a Book with a list of the names. In Enoch's day it was no problem for God to move Enoch physically from the earth to the literal Kingdom, because Enoch was already a citizen of the kingdom. It was merely a transportation issue, so to speak. So I do not believe that the reason John the Baptist was not in the kingdom was because it wasn't available to him. Rather, I believe it was because John had lost his saving faith. That's demonstrated by both the question that John asked Jesus, and the response that Jesus gave to the question.

[me again]

John had been convinced that Jesus was the One. He had publicly proclaimed that Jesus was the coming Messiah. He had heard God's voice literally declare that Jesus was the Son of God. And now, from prison, he sends messengers to Jesus to ask if he really is the One. He has lost faith. He has lost the faith that is necessary for salvation. Jesus, the source of faith, seeks to restore John through the message he sends back to him through the disciples.

So I do not believe that the reason John the Baptist was not in the kingdom was because it wasn't available to him. Rather, I believe it was because John had lost his saving faith. That's demonstrated by both the question that John asked Jesus, and the response that Jesus gave to the question.Wow, what a correlation!!! :eek: How did you make that correlation? The reason I ask is because I've read those scriptures a thousand times, but it's always gone over my head (woosh!!!!!) -- I always missed it -- until right now. Remarkable. :eek:

You're absolutely right: John the Baptist had declared that Jesus was the Messiah. With that in mind, why would John [later] send his disciples to Jesus asking Him if he is the Messiah? Answer: Because John was in prison and his faith was waivering??? Yes, if I were thrown into jail, I would lose face and credability [to many] and it would definately try my faith. John was probably no different. It's something that I never previously thought about, until now.

[Tom]

Why is Randy's explanation not possible?

First of let's find out the source of all faith.

Ephesians 2:8- For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast.

First all faith comes from God. Now, being the Arminian that Randy is I'm sure he will never agree that God withheld faith from John. It would have to be solely a matter of John's "free will." So then we would be forced to believe that John had enough faith of his own to stand up for the things of God to the point he was arrested and placed on "death row" but not enough to stand up under the stress of incarceration. So, God disowned him and cast him into hell because he had a moment of weakness before his execution.

It is unlikely that someone who spent their life in such dedication that they lived the desert, wearing primitive clothing and eating bugs and honey would lack faith in God. It is evenmore unlikely that God would throw away one his beloved whom he gave his son to redeem because they lacked for a moment in time something that scripture clearly states of which he is the only source.

John just wanted to make sure he didn't screw it up. He wanted to make sure he had the right one. Hence his statement, "Are you the one or do we look for another?" He knew God and and he knew that God would send the Christ and he never doubted that, he was working out his own salvation with fear and trembling.

You see this is the problem with Arminian theology, it makes salvation the work of man. If it was everybody would blow it.

[John Oscar]

I think that most Calvinists have a misunderstanding of what true Arminianism teaches, just like most Arminians don't understand the shades of Calvinism out there. There are the extreme cases of each, and I think Tom is coming form the extreme Arminian side...

As you know, I'm in the middle of these two theologies.

I would never hold that John was in danger of loosing his salvation because he doubted for a moment(as Randy postulates). To "loose ones salvation" according to contempory Arminian theology requires an act of will to totally reject Christ, His lordship over you, and His saving work in your life. To do that would blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and we all know what Jesus said about that.

I do not hold that our salvation is based at all from our works, with the exception of the above.

Most strict Calvinist's have that misunderstanding of what Arminius taught on the subject of eternal security.

I always give the example of the comic Sam Kinison. He was a pastor for years before he and his wife divorced. After his divorce (because of AG bylaws holding that a divorced man cannot hold ministerial credentials), he walked away from the faith and became a rather vulgar comic, and lived a life of drugs, drinking, and debauchery. He died in that condition in an auto wreck.
So, we are left with two scenarios concerning his eternal destiny-
1. He was never saved, and faked his way through being a pastor, and moving in the Holy Spirit. It's possible, but unlikely that he could fool that many people (including the eldership at the district level) for that long.
2. He was saved, and even though he walked away from Christ, and verbally mocked and blasphemed the church, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, because he was elected, he still went to heaven.

The answer- I have no idea. I would say (or guess) he was saved, and choose to walk away from Christ. If that is the case, he is in hell...

[Randy S]

You see this is the problem with Arminian theology, it makes salvation the work

of man. If it was everybody would blow it.

I haven't studied exactly what Arminian theology is, but I think the Bible is very clear on the relationship of faith, works and salvation, though it is a subject which is apparently widely misunderstood. Here is one relevant text which proves that man has a work to do in his own salvation:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

It must be very difficult to argue that man has no part in salvation with a text like that. People often argue that this text contradicts what Paul writes about being saved by faith. That is a complete misunderstanding. There is no contradiction at all. Paul never wrote that man has no role in his own salvation. What Paul said is that man cannot save himself: that man cannot earn salvation through his own merits. That is, of course, absolutely true. It is God alone who has the power to save mankind. Without that salvation man has no hope.

That does not mean that man has no role to play in his own salvation. God gave man free will, and God chose not to use force to save but rather to appeal to man's free will as He explains in Zechariah 4:6: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit”.

Paul understood this perfectly when he wrote: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye 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 which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

This shows the correct relationship between God's power of salvation and man's responsibility to choose to cooperate with God in faith. The perfect agreement of James and Paul is easy to see when we notice that both men use exactly the same example for their two famous lines:

Paul: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.

James: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Both men point to the same event: Abraham's choice to believe God. Paul points out that Abragam was saved by choosing to believe, which is an exercise of faith, not by keeping the Law. James points out that choosing to believe (exercising faith) is somethinmg that Abraham did, and that is by definition a work. They are in perfect agreement that no sinner can be saved by keeping the Law, which is what Jewish theology taught, but rather it is through faith that salvation is obtained. Faith is a gift of God, but man must choose to accept the gift. That is the responsibility that comes with free choice. And that is why man is accountable for his own decisions, including the decision to trust God and accept salvation or not.

Paul understood that these decisions to exercise faith are a work that continues throughout life, which is why he mentions that he runs the race to win the prize, lest after peaching the gospel to others he himself should be lost (1 Cor. 9). Jesus spoke to this point Himself, as recorded in Mark 13, when he said "You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."

John was in danger of not persevering to the end. Jesus warned him and gave him evidence to restore his faith.

[st_michael]

I think the Bible is very clear on the relationship of faith, works and salvation, though it is a subject which is apparently widely misunderstood.

Very good... you have a good grasp on the situation. If all would understand as you have stated we would have more unity.

[Tom]

The resident Catholic supports your doctrine. Does this indicate anything to you?

[me again]

Why is Randy's explanation not possible?

First of let's find out the source of all faith.

Ephesians 2:8- For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast.

First all faith comes from God. Your grasp on this issue is unprecedented.

Now, being the Arminian that Randy is I'm sure he will never agree that God withheld faith from John. It would have to be solely a matter of John's "free will." So then we would be forced to believe that John had enough faith of his own to stand up for the things of God to the point he was arrested and placed on "death row" but not enough to stand up under the stress of incarceration. So, God disowned him and cast him into hell because he had a moment of weakness before his execution.

It is unlikely that someone who spent their life in such dedication that they lived the desert, wearing primitive clothing and eating bugs and honey would lack faith in God. It is evenmore unlikely that God would throw away one his beloved whom he gave his son to redeem because they lacked for a moment in time something that scripture clearly states of which he is the only source. I agree with everything Randy said, with the exception of John the Baptist waivering to the point of temporarily losing his salvation; and then regaining it by the message that Jesus sent back to him through his disciples. I'm sure that the message that Jesus sent definately encouraged John the Baptist, so that it made facing death a little bit easier, if that's possible (I just can't imagine being beheaded).

John just wanted to make sure he didn't screw it up. He wanted to make sure he had the right one. Hence his statement, "Are you the one or do we look for another?" He knew God and and he knew that God would send the Christ and he never doubted that, he was working out his own salvation with fear and trembling.What is your explanation for: John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and declaring that he is the Messiah and then later
sending his disciples to ask Jesus if He is the Messiah?Do you have an explanation for this? :nervous:

You see this is the problem with Arminian theology, it makes salvation the work of man. If it was everybody would blow it.100% agreed. We were predestinated from the foundation of the world to enter His kingdom, even as Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. :good:

But still, how do you reconcile what John the Baptist did? :nervous:

[me again]

Most strict Calvinist's have that misunderstanding of what Arminius taught on the subject of eternal security.

I always give the example of the comic Sam Kinison. He was a pastor for years before he and his wife divorced. After his divorce (because of AG bylaws holding that a divorced man cannot hold ministerial credentials), he walked away from the faith and became a rather vulgar comic, and lived a life of drugs, drinking, and debauchery. He died in that condition in an auto wreck.

So, we are left with two scenarios concerning his eternal destiny-

1. He was never saved, and faked his way through being a pastor, and moving in the Holy Spirit. It's possible, but unlikely that he could fool that many people (including the eldership at the district level) for that long.

2. He was saved, and even though he walked away from Christ, and verbally mocked and blasphemed the church, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, because he was elected, he still went to heaven.

The answer- I have no idea. I would say (or guess) he was saved, and choose to walk away from Christ. If that is the case, he is in hell...I am inclined to believe that he was unsaved because of his daily evil fruit. :eek:

There are many people who know how to "walk the walk and talk the talk," just as Judas Iscariot and Sam Kinison did, but from the begining, they were of their father the devil. The only caveat is that only the Lord knows who are wheat and who are tares and it won't be 100% revealed until the end of the age.

[Tom]

What is your explanation for:
John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and declaring that he is the Messiah and then later
sending his disciples to ask Jesus if He is the Messiah?
Do you have an explanation for this?

Yes, I think I do.

John was doubting himself. I'm sure it was easy to declare Christ the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world while standing by the river on a sunny day.

As he sat in the dungeon awaiting his execution I'm sure the same doubts came over him that would come over us. The same faulty thought process.

Is God angry with me? Did I blow it? If God isn't angry with me then why I am in this predicament? At a time when he felt totally alone and abandoned he cried out for reassurance and Jesus gave it. Thw sick are healed, the blind receive their sight and the gospel is preached to the poor. I have no doubt that message soothed John's troubled soul and he thought to himself, "OK, I got it right."

It has been my experience that when people of God find themselves in dire straights they question themselves long before they question God. I think that is what he was doing. It was the old, things are bad so God must be mad at me and I better find out why scenario. The fact is bad things happen to God's people all the time and seldom is it because he is angry.

[me again]

Yes, I think I do.

John was doubting himself. I'm sure it was easy to declare Christ the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world while standing by the river on a sunny day.

As he sat in the dungeon awaiting his execution I'm sure the same doubts came over him that would come over us. The same faulty thought process.

Is God angry with me? Did I blow it? If God isn't angry with me then why I am in this predicament? At a time when he felt totally alone and abandoned he cried out for reassurance and Jesus gave it. Thw sick are healed, the blind receive their sight and the gospel is preached to the poor. I have no doubt that message soothed John's troubled soul and he thought to himself, "OK, I got it right."

It has been my experience that when people of God find themselves in dire straights they question themselves long before they question God. I think that is what he was doing. It was the old, things are bad so God must be mad at me and I better find out why scenario. The fact is bad things happen to God's people all the time and seldom is it because he is angry.
Yep, you have an unprecedented understanding of the situation. Thanks so much for sharing. :preach:

[Tom]

I am inclined to believe that he was unsaved because of his daily evil fruit. :eek:

There are many people who know how to "walk the walk and talk the talk," just as Judas Iscariot and Sam Kinison did, but from the begining, they were of their father the devil. The only caveat is that only the Lord knows who are wheat and who are tares and it won't be 100% revealed until the end of the age.


Yes, I agree. If he fell into alcoholism and drug use I could see that as a grievous sin that one of the elect could possibly fall into for a time. When people are hurt they do crazy things.

However, I believe it impossible for the elect to mock any of the Godhead, if that is what he did. I never heard or saw him do either.

[me again]

I used to watch Sam Kinison (sp?) before I got saved and I thought he was soooooooo funny. He always had me rolling in laughter.

[John Oscar]

I actually met him during my (unsaved) days of working at a radio station in Milwaukee as a producer/engineer. I picked him up at the airport to take him to an interview and then to an event he was performing at sponsered by the station, and the first words out of his mouth were, "I want booze, coke, and *&%$^" (a very inappropriate word for women) He got all three by the end of the night.

He was every bit in real life his stage act, at least from what I saw.

I also thought he was hilarious at the time(the way he used to do that primal scream was awesome)....now I see a soul that was dying and desperately crying out for help. It's too bad he turned to the world's answers...

His legacy has always haunted me somewhat....a person that was initially so close to God fell into that kind of sin....a warning to all of us to keep our heads on Christ's chest and let the flame of love for HIM grow throughout our lives...

Blessings

[Randy S]

The resident Catholic supports your doctrine. Does this indicate anything to you?

No, that doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it bother you if Michael writes that he agrees with you that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God.

It is true that if someone believes that a person who has found Christ can never choose to rebel against God and thereby lose their salvation, they would not be able to accept the explanation that I gave in response to the original question. I have provided several Bible texts to support my explanation, and the context of how they fit together. I did not see anyone comment on this evidence or provide any Bible evidence of their own. Perhaps I overlooked it, as I may have missed a response on the first page.

It's interesting that Paul writes that he believes it is possible, even for himself:Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

Again I point to Jesus' own words in Mark 13 to the effect that only those who persevere to the end will be saved.

I can understand the appeal of believing the we are simply chosen by God to be saved, and that we are not responsible for any part such as choosing to accept the gift of salvation, or choosing to cooperate with God's work in us. But this is a very dangerous belief, as we risk not even running the race that Paul refers to, let alone failing to persevere.

Many Christians believe that they will never face judgment, even though the Bible clearly states that every man will face the judgment. Many Christians seem not to know that they will be judged on works: the choices that they have made, even though the Bible is clear on that point as well.

It's a very dangerous thing to believe that we are "in" just because we are "chosen". This is what the Jew of Jesus' day believed. And many of Jesus' parables were aimed at showing that such a belief is false. It is also dangerous to believe that once we are right with God that we can never make a choice that would change our situation.

[Tom]

The reason noone replied is the subject has been addressed ad nauseum in previous posts. There are even more scriptures which counter your position.

You are correct that Arminianism is really just catholicism minus infant baptism and veneration of the saints. Catholicism and Arminianism for all practical purposes are the same.

[me again]

Regarding salvation...

The flesh will never be able to achieve perfection, no matter how hard we try; therefore, our flesh and our actions in our flesh can never be an accurate gage of our salvation, nor can any fleshly action cause us to lose our salvation because we are not depending on the actions of our flesh to achieve salavtion. Instead, we (the sheep) are completely dependant on what Christ did at the cross to achieve salavtion. The flesh can never achieve sinlessness and neither can any action in our flesh achieve salvation. The Apostle Paul said something to the effect that "It is not I that sin, but it is my flesh." There is a distinction between our born again spirit and our flesh. These two will never be reconciled until translation day.

I agree that all of God's sheep that were ever born, to include the O.T. saints, will be judged at the Judgement Seat of Christ. However, this is not a salvational judgement because we are already slated to enter His kingdom at that point. I speculate that that judgement will simply be to give us a ranking in His kingdom and we will all be satisified with our assigned rank because we know that His judgement is true. We will simply be satisified to be in His kingdom.

[John Oscar]

The reason noone replied is the subject has been addressed ad nauseum in previous posts. There are even more scriptures which counter your position.

You are correct that Arminianism is really just catholicism minus infant baptism and veneration of the saints. Catholicism and Arminianism for all practical purposes are the same.


That's a horribly simplistic way of putting it, as you can't get much further apart from Catholism then AG's theology and still be Christian...

[Randy S]

The reason noone replied is the subject has been addressed ad nauseum in previous posts. There are even more scriptures which counter your position.

That's an interesting response. In a PM prior to any of these responses, I pointed out to another member why some people can't see the explanation to the question (because they believe in "once saved always saved"), and that the reason they believe that is because they take one set of texts, while disregarding another set that contradict that position, failing to change their thinking to a position which would reconcile ALL of the texts.

Both of these points have now been demonstrated in subsequent replies.

At the risk of boring others, perhaps you would post at least one or two scriptures which counter the Bible evidence that I have provided for my belief. When I have posted scriptures in support of my belief and you don't address them or argue that my understanding of them is wrong, and then you post that there are other scriptures which counter these, without posting any of them, you imply that the Bible contradicts itself, which is something I do not believe. A good Biblle student must accept the entire Bible, and take it as a whole, modifying their own understanding until all the texts fit, not discarding the texts that don't fit their view.

In a previous post, I gave an example of two that many people feel contradict: Paul writing that we are saved by faith and not by works, and James writing that we are not saved by faith alone. I showed how these two statements are in perfect agreement, when understood properly, but it requires one to believe that man has a role to play in his own salvation: the "work" of choosing to trust God, which is the exercise of God's gift of faith.

There are many similar examples in the Bible where people take only a portion of what the Bible teaches on a topic, form an opinion, and then reject the remainder of what the Bible says since it does not fit their opinion. None of us have perfect understanding of God's Word, no doubt, but it certainly helps to take the Bible as a whole. Perhaps you would share some of the texts which you say contradict, so that we can see if they don't fall into this same category.

[Randy S]

By the way, those arguing that John was in a saved state when he doubted that Jesus was the Christ are missing the logic of Jesus' response. If the LEAST in the kingdom is GREATER than John, then John cannot be in the kingdom at all, otherwise John himself is the least in the kingdom.

[Randy S]

The flesh will never be able to achieve perfection, no matter how hard we try; therefore, our flesh and our actions in our flesh can never be an accurate gage of our salvation, nor can any fleshly action cause us to lose our salvation because we are not depending on the actions of our flesh to achieve salavtion.

Me Again, that's a terrific statement. Would you mind using it to start a new thread? I would do so myself but I would like your permission to use your quote as the thread topic.

If you do post it as a thread, could you expand on what you mean by "actions in our flesh " and "fleshly action"? Because if you are including the choices that we make in that category of fleshly action, as opposed to just our outward behaviors, then we could potentially have a very productive discussion, as the Bible is very clear that it is possible for us to choose to have complete faith in God, which is the only "work of salvation" that we are discussing in this thread.

Even there, we have to keep in mind that faith is a gift of God. Our only "work" is to choose to accept that gift and to choose to exercise that gift. That is something that is absolutely possible, or Jesus and the apostles would not have exhorted us to reach perfection in that regard.

[John Oscar]

By the way, those arguing that John was in a saved state when he doubted that Jesus was the Christ are missing the logic of Jesus' response. If the LEAST in the kingdom is GREATER than John, then John cannot be in the kingdom at all, otherwise John himself is the least in the kingdom.

John never lived to see the new covenant (kingdom of God). He was the last Old Testament (Old Covenant) prophet. That's what Jesus was saying.

[me again]

By the way, those arguing that John was in a saved state when he doubted that Jesus was the Christ are missing the logic of Jesus' response. If the LEAST in the kingdom is GREATER than John, then John cannot be in the kingdom at all, otherwise John himself is the least in the kingdom.It could have been that John, in his mortal state, was obviously the least in the kingdom of heaven (at that time). :noidea:

[Randy S]

John never lived to see the new covenant (kingdom of God). He was the last Old Testament (Old Covenant) prophet. That's what Jesus was saying.

As I said in my original post, that's the only other reasonable alternative that I can see. The primary problem with it is that it makes what Jesus said nonsensical: Why would Jesus say that the greatest prophet that ever lived was less than the least person in the Kingdom, if was not possible for any man to be in the kingdom?

The other probelm is that Jesus talked of the kingdom as if it already existed and was available to mankind:"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.

And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. {4} Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.")

There is probably some confusion since the definition of kingdom probably differs among us. I think of being saved and being a citizen of God's kingdom as one and the same thing. If you are saved you belong to God. So there is no citizenship change when God translates Enoch before the flood and takes him to heaven. Nor when God translates Elijah long before the time of Christ. Nor when he resurrects Moses and takes him to heaven.

It is true, however, that the kingdom does not literally come to this earth until it is pictured in Revelation 21, when the Holy City, the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven to rest upon the earth. This being the city that the Bible says Abraham was looking for when he walked this earth, which God built and not man. Do you really believe that Abraham wasn't already a citizen of that kingdom, Paul and James both having pointed out that Abraham was already saved by having chosen to place his faith in God?

In another sense Jesus brought the kingdom of God to this earth in bodily form, as Paul identifies the kingdom as righteousness, peace and joy. I speak of the kingdom in terms of salvation and citizenship. There has only been one eternal kingdom of God, and man has been able to enter it through faith ever since the fall of man. Abraham is a prime example, and Abraham lived long before John.

[Tom]

Sure Randy. I'm off to work now but when I return this evening I will be happy to post the scriptural evidences if you are interested.

[Tom]

John 6:37-40 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

The he mentions this statement in his prayer to the Father with a disclaimer for Judas.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name,which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John 17:15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.

John 17:20 I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word.

So, is it your contention that this is the prayer of Christ that God refused to honor?

As far as your statement alerting us to the "dangers" of the doctrine of election, evidently God does not share your concern.

He states in Romans 9:11-12
though they were not yet bornand had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call- she was told the older will serve the younger. As it is written, "Jacob I have loved but Esau I hated."

[me again]

He states in Romans 9:11-12 Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call - she was told the older will serve the younger. As it is written, "Jacob I have loved but Esau I hated."Wow, that's a particularly good one. :eek: If you want to read it in several different versions, then click here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:11-12;&version=9;31;45;47;) and scroll down. :good:

:snicker: However, you forgot one where Jesus said:I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (John 17:9)

[me again]

Regarding God's selection of the elect before their birth that is referenced in Romans 9:11-12, I found the following in a commentary:Isaac had two sons, but only one received the promise. This was determined before their birth. Although God may have chosen Jacob because he foreknew Jacob's heart, the point here is that God has the right to choose among the chosen line. (Keener, 1993, 432)I found it in a book called "The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament."

[Tom]

Choice based upon foreknowledge is not what scriptural election is about and when it comes to God it doesn't hold water. God is all knowing and controls all of the things that forms a person into a vessel of honor or dishonor. The fact is if he desired everyone to be saved they would be. The Arminian argument to this is God doesn't want robots worshipping him. However, Scripture teaches man is a robot of evil already in his natural state. He is a slave and is dead in his trespasses and sins. He is incapable of good until God changes his heart.

[Tom]

The verse that completely sums up Biblical election.

Ephesians 1:3-5 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, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ according to the purpose of his will.

[John Oscar]

But completely ignores other biblical evidence to the contrary....

(I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this...but I can't help myself...)

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Both the English and the Greek strongly indicate a foreknowelege based from belief...not of an arbitrary choice...

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Rom 3:22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

1 Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Gal 3:5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

All of these scriptures indicate choice. The problem with a strict Calvinist interpretation of election is that it blames God for sin, since "He ordains everything that was, is, and is to come". Even Augustine in his writings acknowleged man's free will (liberum arbitrium), and Calvin mentions this in his Institutes of Religion (although Calvin recommended that term be expunged from Christian thought).
Arminius acknowelged the total depravity of man. He also, however, acknowleged that the choice for salvation orginates with God in his doctrine of prevenient grace:
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

I'm not trying to debate per se, but just to properly defend the Arminian theology from the misconceptions of Calvinists...

[Tom]

Like I said, we've been through this a thousand times.

[me again]

But completely ignores other biblical evidence to the contrary....

(I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this...but I can't help myself...)

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Rom 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Both the English and the Greek strongly indicate a foreknowelege based from belief...not of an arbitrary choice...

Rom 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Rom 3:22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

1 Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Gal 3:5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."[b] 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

All of these scriptures indicate choice. The problem with a strict Calvinist interpretation of election is that it blames God for sin, since "He ordains everything that was, is, and is to come". Even Augustine in his writings acknowleged man's free will (liberum arbitrium), and Calvin mentions this in his Institutes of Religion (although Calvin recommended that term be expunged from Christian thought).
Arminius acknowelged the total depravity of man. He also, however, acknowleged that the choice for salvation orginates with God in his doctrine of prevenient grace:
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer.

I'm not trying to debate per se, but just to properly defend the Arminian theology from the misconceptions of Calvinists...
Q: Who is a "whosoever" in the above scriptures?
A: Only the elect are whosoevers.

The above scriptues say that all who believe in the Lord Jesus with all their hearts shall be saved, but exactly who are they??? They are the elect. The children of the devil are never able to come to a saving grace of belief in Jesus, at least not to the level of becoming saved. None of this is happenstance. There is great order in all of this and it is being orchestrated by the Lord.

It was impossible for Judas Iscariot to ever get saved. Why not? Because he was not elect. He was always a child of his father, the devil. Todays children of the devil are no better off than Judas Iscariot because it is impossible for them to get saved. They would be better off if they had never been born. :eek:

Some people say that they could never serve a God of this caliber, but they are in rebellion by challenging His rule -- because this is His sovern rule. You can either join him or rebel against his sovernity. If you are elect, then He will guide you.

:preach:

[st_michael]

It was impossible for Judas Iscariot to ever get saved.

I strongly disagree with this line of thought... God does not take away any persons free will even if he knows beforehand what the person will choose...

Each and every person, including Judas Iscariot has a choice to accept salvation or not... If this is not the case Christianity would be a false religion and we are all doomed.... This is not the case... Christianity is True and Jesus came and wants ALL people to be saved! Love is a two way street. Jesus loves us totally. We must accept this love totally to be saved... I believe Judas choose not to accept this love. His Choice... not predestined!

my thoughts... :D

[Tom]

Excellent post MeAgain. Right on the money.

[me again]

It was impossible for Judas Iscariot to ever get saved.I strongly disagree with this line of thought... God does not take away any persons free will even if he knows beforehand what the person will choose... Then how do you explain the O.T. prophetic scriptures that referred to Judas Iscariot? :smart:

[John Oscar]

Q: Who is a "whosoever" in the above scriptures?
A: Only the elect are whosoevers.

The above scriptues say that all who believe in the Lord Jesus with all their hearts shall be saved, but exactly who are they??? They are the elect. The children of the devil are never able to come to a saving grace of belief in Jesus, at least not to the level of becoming saved. None of this is happenstance. There is great order in all of this and it is being orchestrated by the Lord.

It was impossible for Judas Iscariot to ever get saved. Why not? Because he was not elect. He was always a child of his father, the devil. Todays children of the devil are no better off than Judas Iscariot because it is impossible for them to get saved. They would be better off if they had never been born. :eek:

Some people say that they could never serve a God of this caliber, but they are in rebellion by challenging His rule -- because this is His sovern rule. You can either join him or rebel against his sovernity. If you are elect, then He will guide you.

:preach:


Definition of whosoever (Webster's):
: whatever person : no matter who -- used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive <sells to whoever has the money to buy>

Strongss: including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:

Why would Jesus go out of his way to intentionally send confusion, division, and strife down 2000 years of church theology and history?

Unless, of course, he actually met what He said?

No offense, but your reading your theology into the Word, not letting the Word govern your theology.

[me again]

Definition of whosoever (Webster's):
: whatever person : no matter who -- used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive <sells to whoever has the money to buy>

Strongss: including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:

Why would Jesus go out of his way to intentionally send confusion, division, and strife down 2000 years of church theology and history?

Unless, of course, he actually met what He said?

No offense, but your reading your theology into the Word, not letting the Word govern your theology.In John 17:9, what did Jesus mean by the following:
(KJV) I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

(AMP) I am praying for them. I am not praying (requesting) for the world, but for those You have given Me, for they belong to You.Contrast this with John 3:16 where it says that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but should receive eternal life.

Q: If Jesus died for the world, then why does He not pray for the world? :eek:

A: Because He only prays for the elect. :eek:

Jesus' death on the cross is a witness to the world and it will be used against them, but he does not pray for the salvation of the non-elect. The non-elect are murderers, thieves, whoremongers, liars, fornicators and, generally speaking, they are all-around bad people that will not be redeemed. :what:

When I preach, I am casting seeds (the Word of God) out into the wind, but it is the Holy Spirit who will make it take root into the hearts of the elect. When the seeds fall onto the hearts of the non-elect, it is like falling onto a rocky surface and it will never take eternal root. I do not know who the elect are, but God does; and I know his correct theology. :laughhard

[John Oscar]

The scriptures that you posted, placed in their proper context, refer to the people that were immediately in the upper room with Jesus (the 11 disciples as Judas had left), not any elect. If you are to take the scriptures to mean the whole elect, then it doesn't make much sense for Jesus to then pray for the whole world/those who will believe his message. The entire prayer is building upon itself, and is progressive in it's nature when you read it as written and not read a theology into it.

If you look at the NKJV or the NASB, they divide the prayer up for you....

I do note that there has been no answer to the obvious Greek and English definitions I previously posted....

[me again]

John,

I think (?) we both agree that nothing is happenstance and that the Lord knows what will transpire in the future, to include the most minute of events. He knows who will be saved and who will be damned. Before I go further, do I understand correctly that this is what you believe? :eek:

[John Oscar]

Absolutely, but that foreknowelge is based from His omniscience in knowing the past, present, and future. God knew from eternity past who would accept the offer of salvation, and "elected" them based from that decision they would make.

Calvinist doctrine believes that God simply chose some to be the elect (for who knows what reason), and choose the rest to be damned. That's not the God of the bible....