Pilgrim's Progress

[Joshua's Gen]

Has anyone read this/enjoyed it? By John Bunyan..

Apparently it's the most widely read english literature underneath the bible. :freaked

I had no idea. I just started reading it, and actually enjoy it..

[HeIsEnough]

Excellant read, definetly a must read for believers.

[Joshua's Gen]

Amen.

I'm actually about halfway through it.

It's definitely given me a few new, healthy perspectives on this journey we call life. :B:

[HeIsEnough]

When you get to Vanity Fair, remember: don't buy a house. :P:

[Joshua's Gen]

:heh

Past Vanity Fair. :bolt

I think the imagery, symbolism used speaks volumes.. pretty neat. :thumb

[fefeh]

I've read it, in High School. Don't know how much I enjoyed it :laugh

In my Christian school it was required.

[Samer]

Right after the Bible, huh? I'll need to read it sometime! I just hope it doesn't have much Calvinism in it.

I would've figured Foxe's Book of Martyrs would be...perhaps it's #3.

[Patty T]

Never heard of it, but will try to find it. Thanks Joel.

[antsinmypants]

I've read it, in High School. Don't know how much I enjoyed it :laugh

In my Christian school it was required.


Same here. I remember trying to muddle through it because I knew after reading a "reader's digested 20 pages" of the book, that i'd have about 100 questions from the mennonite literature course I was using, and I was trying to get out of my school EARLY, and was bored with Longfellow "the old man and the sea" and "daddy killed my sheep dog because it didn't work like he should have... and kept getting loose and in the neighbor's yard" (:violin) and that sort of thing.

Give me a McGuffy's reader anyday!! But not 11th/12th grade Christian Light Literature course :lol


I do need to re-read it. The little I was reading didn't make much sense to me because I was speed-reading.

[blitzkreig]

Right after the Bible, huh? I'll need to read it sometime! I just hope it doesn't have much Calvinism in it.I would avoid the Book of Romans as well then :B: :heh

[blitzkreig]

For those interested here is the entire John Bunyan Library on the Web.

Truly an amazing man of God ... in and out of prison so many times due to this faith ... He wrote Pilgrims Progress I believe on his 3rd stint in prison ... His fourth was the 12 year term... Everyone just has to read the "comments" column on the Sermons and Allegories link.

John Bunyan Library (http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/)

Sermons and Allegories (http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/)

[Samer]

Ah, yes, Romans, the one that says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Good book.

[blitzkreig]

Ah, yes, Romans, the one that says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Good book.Ah! but who is whosoever? Who will call? Can they of their own accord earn the right?

Rom 8:29-30
(29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.Paul must have read about that awful Calvin guy... or did Paul read John Bunyan "stuff"?


.

[Joshua's Gen]

*grins*

[Samer]

Um, "whosoever" means whosoever. no need to complicate things. It plainly says that whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
None of us have the right to go to Heaven...God extends His grace unto all who will accept it, and He draws all men to Him.
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Romans 12:3 says that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith, that we may accept His call.
Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of who will trust Christ and accept the gospel. Whom he foreknew, he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. Romans 8:28-30 is talking about those who love God, not a select few that God loves. It may appear that way, but we must compare it with other Scripture, like 1 Tim 2:4, that God wants all men to be saved.

I think it's important to include Romans 8:28 -- And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

The gospel is our call...
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Servant]

The only thing I know about Pilgrims Progress is that Meg, Joe, Beth and Amy all got a copy of it under their pillow for Christmas at the beginning of Little Women.


:B:

[matheteou]

Um, "whosoever" means whosoever. no need to complicate things. It plainly says that whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
None of us have the right to go to Heaven...God extends His grace unto all who will accept it, and He draws all men to Him.
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Romans 12:3 says that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith, that we may accept His call.
Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of who will trust Christ and accept the gospel. Whom he foreknew, he predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son. Romans 8:28-30 is talking about those who love God, not a select few that God loves. It may appear that way, but we must compare it with other Scripture, like 1 Tim 2:4, that God wants all men to be saved.

I think it's important to include Romans 8:28 -- And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

The gospel is our call...
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.Then I ask you, who was Paul calling "...brothers..." in Romans 12:1, believers or unbelievers or both? If the all you are referring to is both, then we have a problem of universalism, if believers, you have a problem with who is elect and who is not.

Now let me as these questions which I posed in Apologetics:
As believers, do we have the ability to choose that which is always spiritually correct or do we need the Holy Spirit to guide us?

If we need the Holy Spirit to guide us, how does an unregenerate person make a spiritually correct, "free-will" decision?

[Samer]

I don't see a conflict with believing Romans 12:1 refers to believers and Romans 12:3, so perhaps you could elaborate your point because I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Romans 12:3 is Paul talking to believers, sure, but it says God has dealt to EVERY MAN the measure of faith. However, it is man's responsibility to respond to the convincing of sin. God will not do it for us--we have to do it of our own free will.

Here's a very interesting verse on election:
2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

As believers, we need the Holy Spirit to guide us as to the particulars of all faith and doctrine. I assume you agree with that. But on the second point, I think there's a distinction. Sure, we as believers have and need the Holy Spirit to come into full understanding, but I believe those unbelievers who are not indwelled with the Spirit are still convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and are dealt a measure of faith so they are blameless before God.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:8 And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

The Holy Spirit convicts an unregenerate person of their sin. They can respond by their free will if they so choose, but ALL men are drawn to God by the Holy Spirit (again, John 12:32).

-Samer

[blitzkreig]

The Holy Spirit convicts an unregenerate person of their sin. They can respond by their free will if they so choose, but ALL men are drawn to God by the Holy Spirit (again, John 12:32).-Samer So you recon God's arm is too short to save all? Eph 1:4-12
(4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
(5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
(7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
(8) Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
(9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
(10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
(11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
(12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

I only bother to point this out as I think every young buck needs to know what I know... that I am not worthy. If it were not for the Lord having condescended to the depths to save, even me, there would have been no hope. Certainly not on my nickel. Certainly not as a result of ordinary everyday graciousness.


.

[Samer]

No. I reckon God can hold everybody. Whosoever shall call upon Him, in fact. If everybody wills to be saved, they can be, and, although God wants them to be (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11), men can refuse God's will.(Matthew 23:37, Isaiah 65:12).

Look at Ephesians 1:1. Paul is writing to the FAITHFUL in Jesus Christ. To all those who believe and remain faithful, God predestinates unto them adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself. God has ordained this, that believers in Him will be holy and without blame, before the foundation of the world.

Here's another interesting verse in Romans:
Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Did Christ die only for the elect? If so, please explain this verse:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

-Samer

[blitzkreig]

Did Christ die only for the elect? If so, please explain this verse:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. -Samer :twitch

That is an odd one... this would be better for you cause... take this down ;):

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

or this

1Ti 2:3-4
(3) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

or maybe this

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The issue Samer is "who will believe". Not that... "should any of them believe what will happen to them". That part is a given.

By the way 2 Peter 2:1 has to do with the heresy of "universalism"... all "inclusiveness salvation" ... as Peter goes on to say the following to remind those who might deny that God will send the damned to hell...
2Pe 2:4-6
(4) For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
(5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
(6) And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly... Read the whole chapter in context...

Edit to add please join us Samer in Bible Study Forum. We have a thread started entitled "Let's discuss 'free will'..." . We could use some fresh blood. :heh

[Samer]

I believe the damned to Hell go of their own free will--God is not the creator of sin, and I believe they all have had an actual chance to accept the gospel of Christ, and that they rejected God. An interesting thing at the end of 2 Peter 2...Compared with preservation of the saints, it doesn't seem to add up...
I had already cited 1 Timothy 2:4 twice and 2 Peter 3:9 once in reference to limited atonement. Since we're talking about Calvinism, and TULIP basically sums Calvinism up, I figured I'd bring up the Calvinist notion that Jesus died only for some people and that only some people can be saved. 2 Peter 2:1 discusses people who have denied the Lord that bought them. So Jesus died for the damned as well as the saved. I wanted to see what you or others thought about this...I don't see what's so odd about it, really...a legitimate question. I gave the chapter a good read, and I think I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't see how any of it affects what 2 Peter 2:1 says about Christ's death...Perhaps you could help me out, eh? I'll check out that thread as well. Should be interesting.

It seems to me that Calvinism is trying to build a complicated and scholarly philosophy to tie everything together, but, in doing so, they have to interpret Scripture in light of Calvinism isntead of in light of Scripture...Like, yeah, I'm sure you mentioned 1 Tim. 2:4 because you think "all" doesn't refer to everybody, but I don't buy that...

Who will believe? Of course, the same people whom God foreknew would believe. But I do not accept Calvinism and I reject TULIP. Election based on foreknowledge is different than election based on sovereignty--the choice of God. God's knowledge of a person's future choices does not in effect create those choices, nor does it take that person's free will away. The Bible teaches that "whosoever" will believe will be saved. Even if God foreknows that somebody will reject the gospel, that person had a true opportunity to be saved, and my understanding is that Calvinism does not accept this fact, and does not believe that Christ died for this person to allow him to be saved.

Free will thread, eh? Vewy, vewy interesting, hehe.

-Samer

[blitzkreig]

I believe the damned to Hell go of their own free will-- hmmm ... ask them after they been in hell maybe a few thousand years and see if they agree with you. I believe that we are slaves to sin before salvation.

Since we're talking about Calvinism, and TULIP basically sums Calvinism up Have you even read Calvin? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds to me like you are repeating something you were told. I have read Calvin quite thoroughly. "TULIP" has never actually been mentioned in any of his books. And certainly doesn't "sum him up".
It seems to me that Calvinism is trying to build a complicated and scholarly philosophy to tie everything together, but, in doing so, they have to interpret Scripture in light of Calvinism instead of in light of Scripture...Like, yeah, I'm sure you mentioned 1 Tim. 2:4 because you think "all" doesn't refer to everybody, but I don't buy that...Calvin never said a thing that Augustine said... and Paul before him. Point to an actual quote from Calvin which is not Scriptural and I will be prepared to stand corrected.Who will believe? Of course, the same people whom God foreknew would believe. But I do not accept Calvinism and I reject TULIP. Election based on foreknowledge is different than election based on sovereignty--the choice of God. Do check this out with one of your profs... if you are declining directly that God is Sovereign... "foreknowledge" is not a "Kreskin" like future telling... it is synonimous with "foreordain".
The Bible teaches that "whosoever" will believe will be saved. Even if God foreknows that somebody will reject the gospel, that person had a true opportunity to be saved, and my understanding is that Calvinism does not accept this fact, and does not believe that Christ died for this person to allow him to be saved. And who will?

Question to think about. Did Jesus die for the sins of those who will die in their sins? Or did Jesus die for the sins of those who will ultimately believe? So how does "foreknowledge" differ from predestination in an omniscient God? Is it possible for God to have foreknowledge and yet something fail to happen?

Rom 9:11-24
(11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
(12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
(13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
(15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[Samer]

Well, since the Bible says God will have all men be saved, and there are people who don't get saved, the only logical conclusion is they do it contrary to the will of God, and instead by their own will.

I've never read Calvin. I get my doctrine from the Bible. From everything I've heard, I've picked up that TULIP sums up five points central to Calvinism. Do believe TULIP? I don't care whether or not Calvin made up the acronymn TULIP...But are you saying he didn't write in great deal about what the five points represent? That would be news to me, but I suppose I don't know much about Calvin beside TULIP, so go figure.
I never mentioned Augustine. But now that you mention it...Calvin never said a thing that Augustine said?

"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."

Again, I haven't read Calvin, but it seems he often refers to Augustine as the "holy father." Now, I have read some Augustine, and there is very little to convince me the man was even saved...

"No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."
I agree with Calvin on this notion...And, yes, I am getting a bit confused now on exactly what Calvinism is...I still haven't found out what exactly you believe on the points of TULIP...

"For there is no one so great or mighty that he can avoid the misery that will rise up against him when he resists and strives against God."

This notion that one can strive against God seems contrary to TULIP theology. So...I'm not really sure exactly what I'm supposed to be arguing against, lol...

I'd say Calvin's acceptance of infant baptism isn't Scriptural, among other things...but that's a whole 'nother story.

Here's an unscriptural Calvin quote:
"If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight." ;-)
Of course, the Biblical response to heresy is a good Scriptural rebuke, not a murder.

I'm in computer science, so none of my professors will prove much help, I'm afraid.

You don't think God is soverign enough to give His creatures free will, while remaining omniscient in that He could know what they would choose? Anyway, this is arguing the logic of election by foreknowledge vs. soverignty, and, sure, it's probably above my understanding, but the philosophy and logic isn't the important thing. The important thing is the Bible both teaches foreknowledge and it teaches that anybody can be saved, God wants all to be saved, etc., so I take what the Bible says, don't try to overrationalize it, and, ok, election by foreknowledge. It doesn't necessarily need to make perfect sense.

Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked and wishes for them to turn from their evil ways and be saved. Yet God is sovereign over all and foreknew all. Does that really make any sense? Well, it's Scripture.

Whose sins did Jesus die for? Well I already mentioned 2 Peter 2:1, and you never really answered it except for telling me to read the chapter in context, which doesn't change the fact that it clearly says Jesus died for all.
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN.
Notice it doesn't say "every elect man." If the Holy Spirit meant "every elect man," he could easily have inspired the Bible say "every elect man," but it says "every man." Likewise, John 1:29 says "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin OF THE WORLD."
1 Timothy 2:5,6: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
1 John 2:1,2: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Isaiah 53:6, 1 Timothy 4:10, and so on.
While I'm at it, might as well chuck John 3:16 onto the pile. God loves everybody.

Good ol' Romans 9. You'd have a point if it were about salvation as opposed to God's election of the Jewish nation. Did God unconditionally elect Jacob to Heaven and Essau to Hell? The elder shall serve the younger. Seems like it's talking about a different type of election here.
Keep reading in the passage and you get some more really good stuff:
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

You seem to be agreeing with "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" because it's in the Bible, but then you add a condition and say "Well, but in reality, this unelect 'whosoever' will never actually call on the name of the Lord." There isn't really much point to the inclusion of Romans 10:13 in the Bible if Calvinism is true...It seems to me that it would be a worthless placebo verse.
But every verse has a purpose and a reason for its inclusion. And every last jot and tittle in the Word of God has a purpose as well, and God is very careful about which words to use so as not to confuse believers. When God says "all," he mean ALL, and when God says the world, the means the world.

-Samer

P.S.: I checked out the free will thread, and, honestly, it's a bit much for me. Maybe I'll actually get around to reading it sometime, but it would just be way too time consuming. Although I'm sure it is a very good dissertation you wrote. ;-)
I'll try to get in on the conversation if it ever gets exciting though, hehe. Maybe I'll do some skimming.

[Average Joey]

I am just happy that God`s gracious arm reached to the farthest distance and grabbed me. :nod

I only read half of Pilgrim`s Progress because I lost it at work. :cry

Wonderful book by the way.Even Armenians will and do also enjoy. :):

[cindyw]

Well, since the Bible says God will have all men be saved, and there are people who don't get saved, the only logical conclusion is they do it contrary to the will of God, and instead by their own will.

But now that you mention it...Calvin never said a thing that Augustine said?

The important thing is the Bible both teaches foreknowledge and it teaches that anybody can be saved, God wants all to be saved,

Rom 9
(16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I think this portion in scripture shows precisely that it is not within man's own power or "will" which saves, but it is according to God's determined mercy.

Also, I think Blitz made a typo when he said Calvin never said a thing that Augustine said. He meant that Calvin only repeated what was taught by Augustine and Paul.

Back to the topic, My 10 year old son and I read Pilgrim's progress a month or so ago and my son never wanted to stop. It is a must read for Christians----it is also very convicting. :thumb :):

[Joshua's Gen]

So, Samer... what'd you think of the book? :heh

:B:

[Samer]

The context clearly isn't talking about salvation.

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

It's about Esau and Jacob as the federal heads of nations in their individual places in or out of the Messianic line. It's about the elder serving the younger. I don't think the Bible ever says Essau wasn't saved.

Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
No man can make God have mercy on him. This isn't in the context of salvation.
Nowhere do I see an eternal *decree* before the world began that some would go to Heaven and some would go to Hell.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

It's dependant on who loves and hates God...conditional!
We can't force God to show mercy on us, but all we have to do is meet his already existing standards. God will show mercy on anybody who believes in Jesus Christ. If I believe in Jesus Christ, I know God will show me mercy, yet I am not making Him do it. All I am doing is following His command for obtaining mercy.

Exo 5:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
Exo 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

God is not going to give somebody a direct command and then force that person to refuse it. This isn't some schizophrenic God we're dealing with. Pharaoh acted of his free will.

Yeah I know, I said free will. It's a Biblical term. The Bible speaks of FREEWILL offerings 16 times...because the people offering them had free will...tricky tricky. Here's another one:

Ezr 7:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

If God has unconditionally predestined people to Heaven and Hell, then it doesn't follow that Hell wasn't created for men:
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

"I am just happy that God`s gracious arm reached to the farthest distance and grabbed me."
amen. regardless of our views on Calvinism, that's the most important thing.
I agree with Calvinism that it's such an awesome thing that God has extended His mercy to us, sinners.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

hmm, yeah, cindyw, you're probably right about the typo about Augustine, which is unfortunate, and true. Calvin took all his theology straight from Augustine, the greatest father and doctor of the Catholic Church.
“If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22).
if that doesn't speak for itself...

Ephesians 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Can we really believe that "true Christianity" is derived straight from the theology of the spiritually blind, unsaved Catholic heretic Augustine? Christians should be separated from unbelievers, not unequally yoked, etc. This is a far cry from taking their theology. And I understand Calvinists believe Calvin goes all the way back from Paul, but he only goes back to Augustine's faulty interpretation of Paul.

Ooooooooooh, were we talking about a book? Hehe, guess this is getting sidetracked. Fun fun. Yeah, I'll have to check it out eventually. :-D

[cindyw]

The context clearly isn't talking about salvation..

Don't you believe "vessels fitted for destruction" is a description of those who will eternally perish----especially since that is contrasted to "vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory"?

I don't think the Bible ever says Essau wasn't saved..

You're correct. I don't think that's clearly stated either. However, scripture does state that God hated Esau, while He loved Jacob.

No man can make God have mercy on him. This isn't in the context of salvation..

I disagree. I believe the Rom.9 passage relates very much to salvation.

Nowhere do I see an eternal *decree* before the world began that some would go to Heaven and some would go to Hell..

Eph. 1:4-5, Mt. 25:34, Rev. 13:8, Rev. 17:8

It's dependant on who loves and hates God...conditional!

God is not going to give somebody a direct command and then force that person to refuse it. This isn't some schizophrenic God we're dealing with. Pharaoh acted of his free will..

Yet, that is exactly what scripture says God did to Pharoah. He hardened his heart so that he disobeyed what Moses called him to do.

If God has unconditionally predestined people to Heaven and Hell, then it doesn't follow that Hell wasn't created for men:

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: .

I am not entirely convinced that "angels" necessarily always mean angels (fallen kind/demons). In II Cor. 14-15 speak of Satan and his "ministers" of righteousness.........angel in the greek can be pertaining to the real angelic host or it could mean a 'pastor' or messenger, which in the case of II Cor. 14-15, that is what the ministers of righteousness appear to me---pastors. Also, concerning God's foreknowledge, He did know who would go in the eternal lake of fire, did He not? So to me, when it was created, it was created for ALL who would go there. God is not surprised by the part of mankind which will be lost eternally.

"Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

It appears that ALL men HAVE seen the light of Christ (Rom. 1, Jn. 3:19-21), I just don't believe that God "give eyes to see" to all in repentance---which is also a gift, not something we can muster up in our dead state. Remember, the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. How do you think that those who are perishing are able to see?

Can we really believe that "true Christianity" is derived straight from the theology of the spiritually blind, unsaved Catholic heretic Augustine? Christians should be separated from unbelievers, not unequally yoked, etc. This is a far cry from taking their theology. And I understand Calvinists believe Calvin goes all the way back from Paul, but he only goes back to Augustine's faulty interpretation of Paul.

Whole lot of well respected people also believe in the Sovereignty of God----Spurgeon for one, Darby for another and they also believe that Calvin was espousing the teachings of Paul.............

[blitzkreig]

Samer I can't believe a person could hold such strong opinions of either Calvin or Augustine without have actually read either one thoroughly.

Of course being 19 years old you likely haven't had a LOT of free time to study Church history or even Systematic Theology.

But God's use of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli pretty well founded the Protestant Church as we know it today.

[blitzkreig]

This isn't some schizophrenic God we're dealing with. Pharaoh acted of his free will.
Exo 4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, When you return into Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all those miracles and wonders which I have put in your hand; but I will make him stubborn and harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.

[TonyLee]

Amen.

I'm actually about halfway through it.

It's definitely given me a few new, healthy perspectives on this journey we call life. :B:

Pilgrim's Progress part two is also very good. It's about his wife and family on their journey in life.

[TonyLee]

I believe the damned to Hell go of their own free will--God is not the creator of sin, and I believe they all have had an actual chance to accept the gospel of Christ, and that they rejected God. An interesting thing at the end of 2 Peter 2...Compared with preservation of the saints, it doesn't seem to add up...



How did a Pilgrim's Progress thread turn into this debate?

I don't discuss this issue on the board anymore as it is just the same every time.

Some believe that God pre-selected people to go to hell before they were born, and there is nothing they can do about it, and some people do not believe that. Neither side is going to get the other to budge regardless of what is said, so why even get into that in this thread?
:):

edit to add: Pilgrim's Progress part one and two are both very good.

[blitzkreig]

How did a Pilgrim's Progress thread turn into this debate? I'll need to read it sometime! I just hope it doesn't have much Calvinism in it. Samer has a "Sovereign" allergy.


.

[Samer]

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

(2 Peter 1:16)


*****************
Don't you believe "vessels fitted for destruction" is a description of those who will eternally perish----especially since that is contrasted to "vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory"?
*****************
As the context shows, the purpose of this election is not to elect one individual over another, but to bring about his people, Israel. Verse 10 begins with "And not only this," speaking of the birth of Esau and Jacob AFTER the birth of Issac. The individual Esau did not serve the individual Jacob. Rather, the Edomites served the Israelites. It was finally fulfilled in 2 Samuel 8:14.

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

It's more than one vessel--a group of people, a nation. The Jews contrasted with Gentiles.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Anywho, vessels of wrath have prepared themselves. Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? God does not make men His objects of wrath apart from their own wickedness. God is responding to the will of those who have chosen darkness (In Romans 1, God gives them over to their own hearts' lusts). Being "fitted for destruction" is in the sense that they're choosing their path of destruction by disobediance and rejection of the gospel. There's a good reason God said "afore prepared unto glory" in regards to vessels of honor, but didn't say "afore prepared unto destruction" with regards to vessels of wrath.

*****************
You're correct. I don't think that's clearly stated either. However, scripture does state that God hated Esau, while He loved Jacob.
*****************
"G3404
μισέω
miseō
mis-eh'-o
From a primary word μῖσος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful)."
Same word used in Luke 14:26, where Jesus tells us to hate our family. What do you make of that verse?

*****************
Eph. 1:4-5, Mt. 25:34, Rev. 13:8, Rev. 17:8
*****************
Eph. 1:4-5 says nothing about Heaven or Hell. Those who are in Christ are ordained tobe holy and without blame before Him in love.
Mt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Check out verse 41:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Omits the words "of my Father," and, instead of saying Hell was prepared for them before the foundation of the world, it clearly says, again, the it was prepared for the devil and his angels, NOT humans. Not to sound like a broken record, but I have yet to see a reasonable Calvinist defense to 1 Timothy 2:4.
Rev. 13:8? Rv 3:5 Rv 22:19 and Ex 32:32,33 show that names are blotted from the book of life. How do you explain God blotting people out of this all-entailing book of life is He has predestined people to Heaven and Hell? I think Scripture makes it clear that all are initially in the book of life, destined for Heaven, until sin causes God to blot us out.
Rev 17:8? Same as 13:8. Names are blotted out from the book of life. Looking closely at the grammar, although the book of life was from the foundation of the world, the names are not necessarily absent from it since then.

*****************
Yet, that is exactly what scripture says God did to Pharoah. He hardened his heart so that he disobeyed what Moses called him to do.
*****************
God predicts He will harden Pharaoh's heart. (Ex. 4:21, 7:3)
Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart. (Ex. 7:13, 8:15, 19, 32)
The LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart. (Ex. 9:12)
Pharaoh hardened his own heart. (Ex. 9:34)
The LORD hardens Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10)

God's hardening is always in response to man's initial rejection.

*****************
I am not entirely convinced that "angels" necessarily always mean angels (fallen kind/demons). In II Cor. 14-15 speak of Satan and his "ministers" of righteousness.........angel in the greek can be pertaining to the real angelic host or it could mean a 'pastor' or messenger, which in the case of II Cor. 14-15, that is what the ministers of righteousness appear to me---pastors. Also, concerning God's foreknowledge, He did know who would go in the eternal lake of fire, did He not? So to me, when it was created, it was created for ALL who would go there. God is not surprised by the part of mankind which will be lost eternally.
*****************

God obviously wasn't surprised, but He didn't INTEND for Hell to be for humans. When He created it, His *intentions* were for the fallen angels to inhabit it. Foreknowledge of people going to Hell does not negate the fact that He did not want them to go there in the first place. As for "angels" not meaning "angels," whatever they are, pastors, messengers, they're not people, because, either way, they are pastors, ministers, of Satan. If Hell was prepared for humans as well, I don't see the point of the Holy Spirit including that last part of Matthew 25:41.

*****************
It appears that ALL men HAVE seen the light of Christ (Rom. 1, Jn. 3:19-21), I just don't believe that God "give eyes to see" to all in repentance---which is also a gift, not something we can muster up in our dead state. Remember, the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. How do you think that those who are perishing are able to see?
*****************
All men have seen the light, but not all men have eyes...You need eyes to see...
God has measured an amount of faith to all men, that they are without blame. God doesn't make people incapable of believing in Him and the condemning them for not believing in Him.
I think this is a nice tie-in to irresistible grace though...How does John 12:32 make sense under the believe that man cannot resist if he is drawn by God?

*****************
Whole lot of well respected people also believe in the Sovereignty of God----Spurgeon for one, Darby for another and they also believe that Calvin was espousing the teachings of Paul.............
*****************
Again, here's a Calvin quote:
"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."
Calvin is not following Paul directly, is what I'm saying...He's only following an interpretation of Paul that BEGAN WITH AUGUSTINE (forgive me if I'm wrong, but, from what I understand, Augustine's ideas were original among professing Christians).
I disagree with all of the well-respected Christians you mention. My authority is God alone, and I DO believe Him to be sovereign. Please understand that I believe in the sovereignty of God. People can only sin against God because He allows them to. It was a completely sovereign act of God to make people with a free will to disobey Him, and thus, in some sense, limit His own sovereignty. Making people with a free will makes God no less powerful and mighty.

Blessings and love in Christ (despite our disagreements :): ),
-Samer

[Samer]

In response to blitz:
I believe their fruits are contrary to the Word of God, and, honestly, I am not that big on Protestantism. There was much persecution of Bible believers by Catholics and Protestants alike, despite the fact that Protestantism got back to the gospel (w00t w00t!). I do not care to fully study everything in depth, but I know enough to know where I stand on them. For future reference, people/groups I'm big on: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Anabaptists, Waldenesians (not the Peter Waldo salvation-by-works kind though). Hehe, I guess I was a little rough on old Augustine, but I was just trying to make the point that I don't think he's a valid source for a Christian to derive his theology from.

Regarding Proverbs 21:1, I think the very important thing about that verse is where it says "as the rivers of water." Just as God doesn't reverse rivers, He doesn't reverse a person's will. God ("nature") nudges rivers in a direction, and by forces of "nature," brings it closer to a specific place to accomplish a purpose. The river that nature modifies keeps going in its original tendency--not a full 180-degree reversal--and the king affected by God is affected the same way. A tendency toward sin remains a tendency toward sin, for example, but perhaps some specifics may differ.

I mentioned God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart in my previous post, btw.

I must say, I strongly disagree with your medical diagnosis of me!
I am only allergic to tulips, that's all! I believe in God's sovereignty and I believe in the Word of God to boot. And there's still this matter of God's will that all will be saved. By the way, I am still wondering what you think about 2 Peter 2:1--the phrase "denying the Lord that bought them" in reference to the unsaved false teachers in regard to limited atonement.

I didn't intend to turn this into a debate, but it is interesting, so no regrets, hehe. Although...all I did was state my concern that the book might have some Calvinism in it, to which you implied I didn't believe the book of Romans. I know it was in gest, but, go figure, I just couldn't let that statement go unanswered, hehehehe, but no hard feelings. Although, after all this has transpired, I'm really going to have to make it a point to read Pilgrim's Progress!!!

Blessings in Christ...and keep looking for that rapture! (That is, after all, why we're here :-D),
-Samer

[Samer]

TonyLee: I don't think anybody expects anybody else to really budge, but it's really interesting to share ideas. I know it's really challenged me and gotten me in the Word a whole lot.

Say, I never did find out...Are there any Calvinistic ideas in Pilgrim's Progress? Perhaps somebody could tell us some of what they think about the book?
While this is quite amusing, part of me (a teeny tiny small part, hehe) feels guilty for hijacking this threat.

Soooo, the book in question is, what, some sort of loose autobiography? What kind of applications does it have for Christians in general that it has become so popular?

Blessings in Christ,
-Samer

[matheteou]

TonyLee: I don't think anybody expects anybody else to really budge, but it's really interesting to share ideas. I know it's really challenged me and gotten me in the Word a whole lot.

Say, I never did find out...Are there any Calvinistic ideas in Pilgrim's Progress? Perhaps somebody could tell us some of what they think about the book?
While this is quite amusing, part of me (a teeny tiny small part, hehe) feels guilty for hijacking this threat.

Soooo, the book in question is, what, some sort of loose autobiography? What kind of applications does it have for Christians in general that it has become so popular?

Blessings in Christ,
-SamerMaybe you ought to take a break from your compilers, OSes, MASMs, boolean logic, karnaugh maps, and microcode, and read the book. Then you can come back and give us YOUR thoughts on it.

[TonyLee]

Here are a couple of sections from Pilgrim's Progress part two.


By this time Christiana was got on her way, and Mercy went along with
her: so as they went, her children being there also, Christiana began to
discourse. And, Mercy, said Christiana, I take this as an unexpected
favor, that thou shouldest set forth out of doors with me to accompany
me a little in the way.

MER. Then said young Mercy, (for she was but young,) If I thought it
would be to purpose to go with you, I would never go near the town any
more.

CHR. Well, Mercy, said Christiana, cast in thy lot with me: I well know
what will be the end of our pilgrimage: my husband is where he would not
but be for all the gold in the Spanish mines. Nor shalt thou be
rejected, though thou goest but upon my invitation. The King, who hath
sent for me and my children, is one that delighteth in mercy. Besides,
if thou wilt, I will hire thee, and thou shalt go along with me as my
servant. Yet we will have all things in common betwixt thee and me:
only go along with me.




This part is at the salvation gate:


Then Christiana made low obeisance, and said, Let not our Lord be
offended with his handmaidens, for that we have knocked at his princely
gate. Then said the keeper, Whence come ye? And what is it that you
would have?

Christiana answered, We are come from whence Christian did come, and
upon the same errand as he; to wit, to be, if it shall please you,
graciously admitted by this gate into the way that leads unto the
Celestial City. And I answer, my Lord, in the next place, that I am
Christiana, once the wife of Christian, that now is gotten above.

With that the keeper of the gate did marvel, saying, What, is she now
become a pilgrim that but a while ago abhorred that life? Then she
bowed her head, and said, Yea; and so are these my sweet babes also.

Then he took her by the hand and led her in, and said also, Suffer
little children to come unto me; and with that he shut up the gate.
This done, he called to a trumpeter that was above, over the gate, to
entertain Christiana with shouting, and the sound of trumpet for joy.
So he obeyed, and sounded, and filled the air with his melodious notes.

Now all this while poor Mercy did stand without, trembling and crying,
for fear that she was rejected. But when Christiana had got admittance
for herself and her boys, then she began to make intercession for Mercy.

CHR. And she said, My Lord, I have a companion that stands yet without,
that is come hither upon the same account as myself: one that is much
dejected in her mind, for that she comes, as she thinks, without sending
for; whereas I was sent for by my husband's King to come.

Now Mercy began to be very impatient, and each minute was as long to her
as an hour; wherefore she prevented Christiana from a fuller interceding
for her, by knocking at the gate herself. And she knocked then so loud
that she made Christiana to start. Then said the keeper of the gate,
Who is there? And Christiana said, It is my friend.

So he opened the gate, and looked out, but Mercy was fallen down without
in a swoon, for she fainted, and was afraid that no gate should be
opened to her.

Then he took her by the hand, and said, Damsel, I bid thee arise.

Oh, sir, said she, I am faint; there is scarce life left in me. But he
answered, that one once said, "When my soul fainted within me I
remembered the Lord: and my prayer came unto thee, into thy holy
temple." Jonah 2:7. Fear not, but stand upon thy feet, and tell me
wherefore thou art come.

MER. I am come for that unto which I was never invited, as my friend
Christiana was. Hers was from the King, and mine was but from her.
Wherefore I fear I presume.

KEEP. Did she desire thee to come with her to this place?

MER. Yes; and, as my Lord sees, I am come. And if there is any grace
and forgiveness of sins to spare, I beseech that thy poor handmaid may
be a partaker thereof.

Then he took her again by the hand, and led her gently in, and said, I
pray for all them that believe on me, by what means soever they come
unto me. Then said he to those that stood by, Fetch something and give
it to Mercy to smell on, thereby to stay her faintings; so they fetched
her a bundle of myrrh, and a while after she was revived.

And now were Christiana and her boys, and Mercy, received of the Lord at
the head of the way, and spoken kindly unto by him. Then said they yet
further unto him, We are sorry for our sins, and beg of our Lord his
pardon, and further information what we must do.

[TonyLee]

Samer,

I have a text file of both parts of this book if you would like it. They are both very good reading, and I think you will like it. (I agree with you about the predestination subject, but will not get into that anymore here.) I like Pilgrim's Progress.

[HeIsEnough]

Say, I never did find out...Are there any Calvinistic ideas in Pilgrim's Progress?

I could look for you, but the purpose of the book has nothing to do with calvinism, imo. It has more to do with allegorizing our christian walk with the world we see, and the people we meet. Not everything necessitates a doctrinal bent. The first book truly is a christian classic that you will identify with immediately. Well, I suppose you have to walk with the Lord for a while before you get it though.


Tonylee, Are you saying you have the second book on computer? If so, I would like it. :):

[TonyLee]

Tonylee, Are you saying you have the second book on computer? If so, I would like it. :):

I was on a John Bunyan site a while back, and it had this text file with parts one and two in it. It is a little below 600,000 bytes. I'll send it to you if you want to pm me an email address.

edit: I split the file into two for each part. Would you like both of them?

[HeIsEnough]

I was on a John Bunyan site a while back, and it had this text file with parts one and two in it. It is a little below 600,000 bytes. I'll send it to you if you want to pm me an email address.

edit: I split the file into two for each part. Would you like both of them?

sure, comin at cha.

[cindyw]

http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=640

Although much of Bunyan's theology is essentially Calvinist, in the English style, the process of his conversion from a doctrine of works (doing things, religious observances) to faith (relying on God's grace) is recognisably Lutheran. Indeed, he praises Luther's commentary on Galatians as “most fit for a wounded Conscience” above all books except the Bible. Bunyan did not read that many books, though. He once wrote that the Bible and concordance were his only “library” in his writings, emphasising that the authority of his works did not come from human sources, but from God. He admits to reading a few popular romances in his youth, and Foxe's Acts and Monuments, that enormously influential Protestant martyrology. He had some grammar school education, but was really an autodidact, and in some ways fits into that set of working-class visionaries, including Blake and perhaps D. H. Lawrence, whose imaginative education came from the Bible and nonconformist worship. He began writing and preaching around 1656. His first two works defended the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith against the new Quaker sect, active in Bedfordshire in this period. His first major work, A few Sighs from Hell, or the Groans of a Damned Soul (1658) evidences his imaginative power, especially in the descriptions of the acoustic tortures of hell. On Christmas Day, 1659 he preached at Yelden church, whose rector, William Dell, was also Master of Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, and an opponent of university degrees (as opposed to the work of the Holy Spirit) as a means of recognising who was qualified to preach. Bunyan, as “the tinker of Bedford” was already becoming an icon of the unlearned, popular preacher. He had already disputed with the Librarian of Cambridge University as to whether knowledge of the original tongues was necessary to understand the Bible. In this, as in subsequent controversies, he took the line that spiritual insight was superior to “humane learning..........

[Samer]

I read the excerpt, and it seems pretty interesting. I've never really read real Christian literature, unless you count C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters, which I read at the urging of a friend. You mentioned, TonyLee, you got it from a website, so I got on google and hopped on over to www.JohnBunyan.org and am downloading it right now--thanks.
You don't have to look, HeIsEnough; I was just wondering what sort of book it is, because I wouldn't like to read a book if had themes I disagreed with. For example, there is some talk about Christians losing their salvation in the Screwtape Letters. I dunno, I get paranoid sometimes.

"Well, I suppose you have to walk with the Lord for a while before you get it though."
Cute.
But, yeah, I'll check it out eventually...Although I've got plenty of coding to do, and those OSes won't install themselves! Right now I'm finishing a very interesting book on Secret Societies.

Blessings in Christ,
-Samer

EDIT: Cool beans. Just the Bible is definitely the best education a person can have and Foxe's Book of Martyrs is pretty spiffy as well.

[HeIsEnough]

Cute.
But, yeah, I'll check it out eventually...Although I've got plenty of coding to do, and those OSes won't install themselves! Right now I'm finishing a very interesting book on Secret Societies.


Hey Samer, I didn't mean that as anything towards you, I don't even know you for heavens sake! Bunyan relies heavily on spiritual metaphor in the story, so if someone can't connect with what he is saying, it will seem like an odd story. With literature like this, I personally do not look for deep spiritual insight. So I suppose if one were to look very critically at the story, they can probably find some doctrine they do not agree with. My suggestion is just to read it and enjoy, and get your doctrine from the scriptures. :thumb

[Samer]

Hey Samer, I didn't mean that as anything towards you, I don't even know you for heavens sake! Bunyan relies heavily on spiritual metaphor in the story, so if someone can't connect with what he is saying, it will seem like an odd story. With literature like this, I personally do not look for deep spiritual insight. So I suppose if one were to look very critically at the story, they can probably find some doctrine they do not agree with. My suggestion is just to read it and enjoy, and get your doctrine from the scriptures. :thumb

Oh, you know what, I totally must've read past the "for a while" part in my head. Ooops, sorry. :doh

[blitzkreig]

If you want to avoid any of the "Doctrines of Grace" there are quite a number of authors you are going to have to avoid. Many of them were old time theologians ... pre-1950s. I suppose we could develop a list ... so people knew where to avoid going. But if you just avoid all of the old time theologians you will do well...

And yet there are quite a number of religious humanists left for you to read who are authors I suppose. Most of them are fairly modern writers ... and they sell their books instead of them being fairly accessable on-line.

As for me I read everything which comes my way. Everything.

I already know what I am getting for Christmas... the Fruchtebaum book "Israelology"... because I ordered it myself :lol

But I also want that new release "Debating Calvinism : Five Points, Two Views"... even through I understand it is a bit of a disappointment.

Oh yea, and I want the "Christ Clone Trilogy" ... (this is quickly turning into my Christmas wish list :pound )


.

[Samer]

Hmm, yes there are a GREAT deal of great Calvinist preachers and theologians. Perhaps I should take back my blanket refusal to read Calvinism. I can appreciate some stuff like Spurgeon, and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, while not agreeing 100% with the theology. Maybe I should say...I don't want to read toooo much on Calvinism by Calvinists, hehe, if that makes any sense, just because I don't think it would, to me, be very worthwhile or edifying to be immersed in something I disagree with. I really enjoyed Lee Strobel's books, but when I got to the part where he took the fire out of Hell in The Case for Faith, somehow it tainted my perception of all the good things I'd read in that book, which is a shame. I should get my hands on a copy of Debating Calvinism. They should make more debates into books...Gets more in depth than just some guy writing a long treatise on a subject without any challenge.
I've never heard of the Christ Clone Trilogy, but, looking online, seems like maybe an interesting alternative to Left Behind.
You should make a list. That would be pretty cool. I often find myself googling people to find out where they stand on such issues.

[toddlemom]

"Pilgrim's Progress" was extremely popular in its day. Kind of the "Left Behind" series of the 17th century, I believe.

You can find allusions to it in old hymns, such as the chorus added to "Alas and did my savior bleed ..." about "at the cross, at the cross wehre I first saw teh light and the burden of my heart rolled away ..."

Pilgrim/Christian's heavy back pack (of sin) rolled into the tomb early in the story.

And I was hooked.

But I have two copies -- one is the abridged junior high version :lol and the other is unabridged

Hope you enjoy it if you get a chance to read it!
YSIC
Ann

[blitzkreig]

You should make a list. That would be pretty cool. I often find myself googling people to find out where they stand on such issues.You wouldn't like my list as the first thing I would do is recommend you list all of your "holy cows" and then go "cow tipping". Set aside all your presuppositions and get hold of a good "systematic theology" reference study by someone you disagree violently with ... and ask the Lord to take it from there ... You might be surprised.

If I were you right now... and based on our exchange... I would be concerned the Lord might have you read Calvin's great thesis "Institutes of the Christian Religion" ... all four volumes to help you hone your position. Or maybe just for the workout ... :freaked















:lol

[Samer]

Oh ok...I thought you were saying just a quick list of names...It's interesting to see among the famous people, who is a Calvinist.
I have no presuppositions and I need no "systematic theology" to put everything together for me and logically tie in everything. I came to Christ with a blank slate--absolutely zero knowledge of pretty much everything except the essentials necessary for salvation--and had no presuppositions. Heck, just over a year ago, I thought there were five gospels--yecch!
As to your suggestion, well, I think I promised some nice missionaries I'd read the Book of Mormon first and pray for that burning in the bosom, so, priorities, priorities.
And, of course...that one book...Oh yeah, Pilgrim's Progress!

[gzusrulzme]

Im starting to read it today again. Ive had it on the bookshelf for a year, read a few chapters and never got to finish it.

I have read the Foxe's book of Martyrs though.....amazing book!



isn't there another book also that Bunyan that describes what he see's in a vision of heaven/hell? maybe im confused? Im pretty sure that there is, because after I read it, I bought this one.... :confused

[Ladybug]

Im starting to read it today again. Ive had it on the bookshelf for a year, read a few chapters and never got to finish it.

I have read the Foxe's book of Martyrs though.....amazing book!



isn't there another book also that Bunyan that describes what he see's in a vision of heaven/hell? maybe im confused? Im pretty sure that there is, because after I read it, I bought this one.... :confused

Mr. Bunyan appears to have been quite a busy guy. :lol http://www.johnbunyan.org/ There's one item on here called "Some Sighs from Hell". Perhaps that's what you're thinking of. :):

[blitzkreig]

I have no presuppositions and I need no "systematic theology" :lol Everyone has presuppositions.

Now I know you need to look at things systematically. :wave

[Samer]

I just told you, I knew nothing of the Calvinism debate when I became a Christian. Then I read the Bible. I don't believe in Calvinism. A PREsupposition would be believing Calvinism is wrong before seeing what God has to say about it. Systematic theology is an invention of man, and what I believe on this subect doesn't end in "ism."
I'll get to Calvin once I've finished praying over the Book of Mormon.
-Samer

[blitzkreig]

I just told you, I knew nothing of the Calvinism debate when I became a Christian. Nobody does.

Then I read the Bible. I don't believe in Calvinism. A PREsupposition would be believing Calvinism is wrong before seeing what God has to say about it. From what I can tell from your posting you have not read Calvin enough to even understand what God has or hasn't said against it. Which is my point exactly.

One thing you should know is that Calvin was VERY Scriptural. That was his calling card. He had to be, as he was in open revolt from the Vatican. Now... one may, or may not agree with his conclusions, but nobody who I have ever met (who knew what they were talking about) claimed that Calvin was "unscriptural" or didn't base his whole thesis on Scriptures.

It took me nearly two years reading his Thesis and checking all of his citations.

Compared to Calvin, Arminius was a "light" read.

Systematic theology is an invention of man, and what I believe on this subect doesn't end in "ism."Systematic theology is a method of bible study... in an organized fashion. Every Bible school uses one.

The only theologian I have read who claimed to get it all (100%) straight from the Bible without ANY reliance on anyone else (no school, no mentor, no minister) excepting God, ... was Herbert W. Armstrong. You don't want to go there...

.

[Samer]

I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to know what God says about it.
What I mean by "unscriptural" is not that he doesn't use Scripture. I just downloaded the Institutes a few days ago while talking to you and have seen plenty of Bible citations...If a Catholic were to tell me Matthew 16:18 says Peter is the Rock, I would call that unscriptural, as in, not in accordance with the Bible, even though they cite the Bible for it. What I was saying about "isms" is that I don't need a thick commentary/systematic theology/whatever to read along with my Bible and help me understand it. Saying 100% from the Bible, as Herbert Armstrong might have done, I think kinda misses the point that the Holy Spirit of God is the best mentor one can afford. If Armstrong has that, I figure things would have turned out differently. I must confess...I also have a pastor, although I haven't heard him preach a sermon on Calvinism yet, but I know where he stands, or I wouldn't be in his church. Two years is a long time for me to spend reading something I already have come to disagree with. Maybe something lighter...That 5-point Hunt/White debate you mentioned seems interesting.
-Samer

[blitzkreig]

My point is do not disregard or disrespect anyone or anything until you have researched it thoroughly.

New and modern is not often God's way. Check out old and tried. Stand upon the shoulders of great men of God. Darby, Scofield, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitfield, Knox, the Pilgrims and yes even mouldy old John Calvin. If you leave everyone out who is or ever was either Lutheran or Presbyterian you will certainly miss the greater part of Christianity.

One additional note ... if you don't "like" something does not mean that it isn't of God.

I know folks who can't even deal with reading the Book of Job or the Book of Judges, as that does "seem" like God as He is depicted today. But to get a complete picture you have to take it all in...

PS... if you think two years is a long time to read something... it took John Calvin a whole life time dedicated to writing that treatise. And it was used in Christian Education as the primary learning tool for hundreds of years after that... I would say that it was likely required reading at Princeton, Yale, Harvard and every other Presbyterian school in the US for a very long time...

[Samer]

Have you read Herbert Armstrong's books?
My 67th favorite book is Many Infallible Proofs by Henry M. Morris, but if he writes a book on Calvinism, I wouldn't read it--I don't think it'd do me much good, just like I wouldn't care to read a Catholic book on transubstantiation, and what, historically, is a greater (numerically) part of Christianity than Catholicism?
I dislike something because I believe it is not of God, not the other way around!
Lombard's Sentences was the principal university textbook--for a long time in the middle ages, but, nevertheless, I neglect that required reading in favor of a better "primary learning tool," the Bible.
-Samer

[blitzkreig]

Have you read Herbert Armstrong's books? Some ... I can't racall the name of the one book I read just now... but actually I used to hear him on the Radio from time to time ... that's the old man not Jr. I think Hootmon was a member of the WWCG for some time ... do I have that right Hootmon?

I neglect that required reading in favor of a better "primary learning tool," the Bible. -Sameryou say that I have missed the point and "that the Holy Spirit of God is the best mentor one can afford"... and in that I agree.

But ...am I to presume then that you read Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew? Or do you not rely on translations, commentaries and concordance?

I have to confess that I have Bible software with the current count of 14 different translations, 17 different commentaries and concordance and 11 dictionaries. And sometimes God still has to jack-hammer a point or two home to me with a physical rebuff.

Perhaps I am just slow I guess... but I do know what you mean. I too knew a lot more when I was 20 than I do now ... :B:

[Samer]

Oh...I was trying to make a point, but it doesn't really work if you actually HAVE read everything you disagree with! Well, more power to ya I guess, but I'm not that disciplined, hehe.
I believe God has preserved His Word in the English language through the King James Version, but that's a whoooooooole 'nother story, although I wonder if you use your 14 translations for comparision, or for reading/study? I do use Strong's occasionally.

[pilgrimian]

I believe God has preserved His Word in the English language through the King James Version, but that's a whoooooooole 'nother story, although I wonder if you use your 14 translations for comparision, or for reading/study? I do use Strong's occasionally.

Why do you need to use Strong's if God preserved the Scripture so well in the KJV? You're using an errant work of man to understand the inerrant Word of God. Something's wrong here.

[blitzkreig]

Oh...I was trying to make a point, but it doesn't really work if you actually HAVE read everything you disagree with!
And the point I was trying to make is how do you know what "you disagree with" until you read it ... gossip from others? You expressed an opinion without having read Calvin. You got someones summary of 5 points. Then you tell me you just downloaded some of his thesis and you still disagree with him. :lol

Perhaps you could point me to a bit of your disagreement (by book and chapter number please) with his great thesis "Institutes".

I have never actually met someone who disagrees with all of Calvin. That would really be something to behold.

The only reason I am teasing you so much is to get you to see how stating absolutes in who you agree with or not is not possible. There is no Christian I disagree with totally... that is simply not possible by definition :doh

And further denying that you rely on others to help form opinions is not the truth either. Everyone relies on everyone else.

Roman Chapter 12 explains about the whole of the Body (Church) and how everyone in it functions as a unit... even if there are different rolls. Yes even Old John Calvin is a part of the Body.

I disagree with fully 1/2 of what John Calvin wrote. His Eschatology and even his Ecclisiology seems to me off base. And he seems to have missed entirely the Dispensational aspect of the New Testament!

But I may run into him some day in the buffet line in heaven and have to defend myself as to what I liked and didn't like about his books :pound

[Samer]

I only said I use Strong's occasionally. The KJV can be understood without it, but it's useful if somebody comes and tells me Jesus commands us to hate our family, for instance. Have there been errors found in Strong's? What is there in a dictionary or a concordance that puts a certain man's interpretation on the Word of God?
Disagree with all of Calvin? Well, sure I agree with Calvin on the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc...Seems to me Calvin is most famous for his predestination arguments, which I generally disagree with...Let's just say I'm a 0-pointer, but, from the limited stuff I've read, the 5 points generally interconnect and can be an all-or-nothing thing. I think there's a certain line where you are likeminded or you aren't likeminded with somebody, and I would say, in general, Calvin and I aren't likeminded, although that doesn't necessitate absolute disagreement.
Book, chapter and line? Sorry, I'm just throwing a quick reply in between homework...But let's see, Book IV, Chapter 16, or whatever the one on pedobaptism was, left me disagreeing on many points; I believe Acts 8:37 and other verses show belief is a necessary precursor to baptism.
John 16:13a Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...
I mentioned I have a pastor I learn under, for what it's worth. I'd rather not base my doctrine off a man's systematic theology. I had thought that's what you were doing, since you challenged me to cite up a single point in which anything of Calvin was unscriptural. It's good to hear that you compare it all with the Bible, and I gotta say, I'm really surprised you disagree with half of what Calvin wrote. What kind of stuff did he believe about eschatology? With ecclisiology, are you referring to the church-state ties of Geneva, or more of leadership within the church?
I'm sure God will settle all the doctrine once we're up in Heaven.
-Samer

[blitzkreig]

I only said I use Strong's occasionally. Hey I didn't say it was wrong to read other's opinions knock your self out ... it was you who proudly stated you do not ...
Disagree with all of Calvin? Well, sure I agree with Calvin on the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc...Seems to me Calvin is most famous for his predestination arguments, which I generally disagree with...Let's just say I'm a 0-pointer, but, from the limited stuff I've read, the 5 points generally interconnect and can be an all-or-nothing thing. I think there's a certain line where you are likeminded or you aren't likeminded with somebody, and I would say, in general, Calvin and I aren't likeminded, although that doesn't necessitate absolute disagreement. Now that certainly makes more sense ...
Book, chapter and line? Sorry, I'm just throwing a quick reply in between homework...But let's see, Book IV, Chapter 16, or whatever the one on pedobaptism was, left me disagreeing on many points; I believe Acts 8:37 and other verses show belief is a necessary precursor to baptism. And I said I disagree with Calvin's Ecclesiology... including much of his 4th book by the way...
John 16:13a Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth... God speaks to us through his word :nod But the Holy Spirit is not available for personal revelation on your own terms... it just doesn't work that way.
I mentioned I have a pastor I learn under, for what it's worth. I'd rather not base my doctrine off a man's systematic theology. I had thought that's what you were doing, since you challenged me to cite up a single point in which anything of Calvin was unscriptural. It's good to hear that you compare it all with the Bible, and I gotta say, I'm really surprised you disagree with half of what Calvin wrote. What kind of stuff did he believe about eschatology? With ecclisiology, are you referring to the church-state ties of Geneva, or more of leadership within the church?
I'm sure God will settle all the doctrine once we're up in Heaven.
-Samer Systematic study you will eventually trip over... there is time. Calvin would have been classically "Covenant" ... I am Pauline Dispensational. I would not know the difference if I hadn't studied both.

[Samer]

I mentioned Strong in response to pilgrimian.
Please don't accuse me of pride when I say I try to derive my doctrine from the Word of God and not the word of man.

When I say I disagree with Calvinism, I don't mean I disagree with everything Calvin believed, e.g., virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc...I mean I generally disagree with Calvin's ideas on predestination.

"And I said I disagree with Calvin's Ecclesiology... including much of his 4th book by the way..."
???

Earlier, you didn't mention you disagrred with the ecclesiology, or anything in the 4th book, so I was under the impression from what you said that you agreed with pretty much all of his Institutes.
"Calvin never said a thing that Augustine said [typo? didn't say?]... and Paul before him. Point to an actual quote from Calvin which is not Scriptural and I will be prepared to stand corrected." Or maybe I'm having semantic difficulties here...

Personal revelation on my own terms? I agree with you that God speaks to us through His Word...That's what I meant by quoting the passage...
Heh, wahtever.

-Samer

[blitzkreig]

Heh, wahtever. -SamerI think I am beginning like you ... :heh Stick around. Seriously. Please. We need fresh thought and you think on your feet.

PS that doesn't make you right about John Calvin ... :lol

[pilgrimian]

I only said I use Strong's occasionally. The KJV can be understood without it, but it's useful if somebody comes and tells me Jesus commands us to hate our family, for instance. Have there been errors found in Strong's? What is there in a dictionary or a concordance that puts a certain man's interpretation on the Word of God?

Words can be interpreted differently. It's not unheard of.

Disagree with all of Calvin? Well, sure I agree with Calvin on the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc...Seems to me Calvin is most famous for his predestination arguments, which I generally disagree with...Let's just say I'm a 0-pointer, but, from the limited stuff I've read, the 5 points generally interconnect and can be an all-or-nothing thing. I think there's a certain line where you are likeminded or you aren't likeminded with somebody, and I would say, in general, Calvin and I aren't likeminded, although that doesn't necessitate absolute disagreement.

The five point system is a system that a man did put together. I'm an Amyraldian, by the way. I don't believe that it was a limited atonement. I also tend to believe in the other four points differently than most Calvinists (unfortunate that this word has such negativism about it thesedays...like tomorrow's Sproulists!). Here's some interesting reading: Amyraldianism (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/amyraldi.htm)

I'm sure God will settle all the doctrine once we're up in Heaven.
-Samer

Don't you mean the Messianic Kingdom? Heaven's not the end of the road, thankfully.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[blitzkreig]

Don't you mean the Messianic Kingdom? Heaven's not the end of the road, thankfully.I'll take the High road and you take the Low road and I'll .. never mind ... I sing poorly :tsk

Heaven might be the end ... but it might also only be only the beginning ...

[blitzkreig]

I'm an Amyraldian, by the way. I don't believe that it was a limited atonement. An Amyraldian is a Calvinsit who can't count to five :heh

[pilgrimian]

An Amyraldian is a Calvinsit who can't count to five :heh

:pound

Very funny! Yes, I call myself a "moderate Calvinist." I only refer to being an
Amyraldian because of the website you pointed me to so many moons ago!

Godspeed,
Matthew

[cindyw]

An Amyraldian is a Calvinsit who can't count to five :heh


:spit :clap

[Samer]

hmm, perhaps 7 years during the tribulation will be plenty of time to sort things out in Heaven before the millenial reign of Christ, eh?

[blitzkreig]

Well I am only a full 5 pointer on even numbered days but on odd numbered days I am like you a Amyraldian. As today is the 26th... :B:

[blitzkreig]

hmm, perhaps 7 years during the tribulation will be plenty of time to sort things out in Heaven before the millenial reign of Christ, eh? Now yer gettin' the program Brother... er Sister? :thumb

[Samer]

bro would be correct, heh.

[Samer]

So gang, I just read Pilgrim's Progress. I really like how it explains salvation...fleeing the wrath to come, and earnestly seeking to rid ourselves of the burden of (the guilt of) our sins. That man that takes up religion for the world will give up religion for the world...The key of promise was pretty awesome too. And I like how he quotes the Bible frequently (several times per page, I reckon). Good stuff. And the town of Morality with the man named Legality, hehe...Awesome.

[blitzkreig]

Samer have you scanned down some of Bunyan's other writings? There is quite an online library ...

http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/

[Samer]

Wow, thanks. All else I knew he wrote was The Holy City and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.
Edit: and the hell book.http://rr-bb.com/images/smilies/shocked.gif

[pilgrimian]

Never heard of it, but will try to find it. Thanks Joel.

Recently, there was an updated version in Contemporary English, for those who are interested. I enjoyed it.

[blitzkreig]

Recently, there was an updated version in Contemporary English, for those who are interested. I enjoyed it.Written by Eugene Peterson? ... ;):




:lol

[kgreen20]

The only thing I know about Pilgrims Progress is that Meg, Joe, Beth and Amy all got a copy of it under their pillow for Christmas at the beginning of Little Women.


:B:



LOL. Read the book sometime and then re-read Little Women; you'll find that it's full of PP allusions! =)


Kathy G.

[Benja32one]

:wave
Yes, I read it when I was in grammar school. It was required reading! 1950!
:faint