That is NOT what the bible says. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Why do you continue to say that God takes pleasure in "passing" people by? Why do you Cal's keep denying scripture?????
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why I left Calvinism after 10 years...
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Amy, here's their scripture:
Westminster 3:3
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Westminster 3:7
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Westminster 3:3
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Westminster 3:7
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Huh? That is not Scripture. I have never read the Westminster Chatechism although I do have it from one of the years of homeschooling.
I get my theology from Scripture. Scripture like Romans 8, 9, 11; Ephesians 1, 1 Thess. 2.
Tom Butler
New Member
I anticipated the argument that Romans 8:7-8 and I Corinthians 2:14 were written to believers. It is an argument that leaves me confused.
Let's see. Romans 8:7 For the carnal mind is enmity against God. So a believer, washed by the blood of the Lamb, saved to the uttermost, is an enemy of God For it is not subject the the law of God, neither indeed can be. A believer, washed by the blood of the Lamb, saved to the uttermost, is not subject to God's laws, and can't be.
See why I'm confused?
Right before that, in 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death.... See why I'm confused?
Explain, please, why, if this refers to carnal Christians, believers, washed by the blood of the Lamb, that Paul says they CANNOT be subject to the law of God, while you insist that even unbelievers have that ability.
See why I'm confused?
We are also by nature enemies of God as well...and we still have that nature, hence the need to die and shed that nature.
I can tell you right now when I let my carnal, fleshly, animal man mind rule, my actions are clearly at enmity with God. Any sin is. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your confusion
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Tom Butler
New Member
We are also by nature enemies of God as well...and we still have that nature, hence the need to die and shed that nature.
I can tell you right now when I let my carnal, fleshly, animal man mind rule, my actions are clearly at enmity with God. Any sin is. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding your confusion
Actually, I agree with the bulk of your post. My confusion is with the view that assigns the ability to please God to unbelievers, but not to believers, who they say are the subjects of Romans 8:7-8.
Robert Snow
New Member
Why are so many of you Calvinists so quick to make accusations and jump to conclusions?
I don't have a problem with God being who He is, Sovereign!
I also don't have a problem with God allowing those who will respond to the Gospel do so.
Are you saying that those who respond to the inner work of the Holy Spirit are the called? And that those who don't respond are the non-elect?
I am not a Calvinist. I adhere to the Doctrine of Grace and understand this a little different than Calvinists do. And you're right, I snap quick, but that's because certain posters here make unfair insinuations against Calvinists and those who hold to the Doctrine of Grace and I guess it's up to us to defend ourselves and I don't know whether you're one of "them" or not. I make no apologies and for as long as subtle innuendoes against each other are not disallowed, I will continue to snap quick.
Robert Snow said:
I hope that includes being sovereign in the matter of who He wanted redeemed and who He bypassed. There are many here who say the same thing you do, yet to them the buck stops where God is the One who decided who are to be redeemed and saved for Himself for eternity.
Robert Snow said:
There is no Scripture that says God allows or prevents anyone from responding to the gospel. And if responding to the gospel is the yardstick by which one is measured "saved" or "unsaved" then bear in mind that human response is a flimsy yardstick.
I've seen, in 37 years as a believer, many come to the front bawling like a baby and then go back to their filth in less than a year, and I've seen many who had to be pulled by those who invited them to church to the front and guess what, they stayed till death under the teaching of the gospel while those who invited them over fell by the wayside.
Bottom line: It is God who sees the heart, who regenerates His own, and who knows those who are His.
Robert Snow said:
No. I don't know who the elect are, and make no judgment on any person to be non-elect. I only say what the Bible says about the elect: the Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are the children of God, they love the Word, they love the word, they love their brethren, they will never fall, and they are preserved in the blood of Christ.
Wow, talk about painting a broad brush dipped in unrighteousness. Amy, I love you like a sister, but that comment was way over the top.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is the word IF. This makes your statement theoretical, because where is the Scripture that directly or indirectly speaks of God giving generic man the ability to make a free moral choice in salvation, and let me clarify that by salvation, of course, you mean eternal salvation, as in the One that Christ secured at the cross, right ?
skandelon said:
I guess you will agree that we all agree that what we believe stands subordinate to what Scripture clearly teaches and reveals, after proper division ? If so, where is the Scripture that shows God created man to be of Free Agency ?
Skandelon said:
This is a confusing statement. Who did God made more sovereign ?
Skandelon said:
I don't think there is any Calvinist, or Doctrine of Grace adherent, on this board, so far, who have espoused or hinted at Double Predestination (is that what you mean by God controlling our "puny desires" ?) or that God is a robot master.
Perhaps it slipped your mind that man is already under judgment, just as the god of this world was judged and defeated at Calvary, and that both are simply awaiting the time when judgment at the Great White Throne shall be pronounced and rendered ?
Because from the statements made by many on your side of the soteriological fence, and maybe even those in my side of the fence, it sounds like damnation and salvation (of the eternal sense) is something that is future, something yet to be done.
But remember that Jesus already went to the cross, already shed His blood, already resurrected, ascended to Heaven, sat at the right hand, and is currently an intercessor for those whom He redeemed (all these are found in the Bible).
Therefore, the "puny desires" of generic, fallen mankind, is nothing that God controls, for these are results of the fall, and emanates from their fallen nature, and God took care of this problem in behalf of His people, at the cross, in Christ, while those who are not numbered among His people, will answer for their sins at the Great White Throne.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Well, I dealt with I Cor 2 because you told Webdog you could see how the Romans passage could be taken that way, but if I need to cover this passage too, no problem.
Suppose I was talking to my wife about my son and said, "As long as he keeps lying to me I cannot be pleased with him."
Does that mean he does not have the ability to repent when I confront him with his sin and his need to be reconciled with me? Of course not. It simply explains his current condition. It says nothing about his ability or inability to respond to my efforts to reconcile our relationship.
Now, what is it about this verse that communicates that the Natural man does not have the ability to respond in faith once he is confronted by the powerful Holy Spirit wrought gospel of truth?
The only thing this verse tells us is that a natural man can't please God in that carnal condition. Just as we, as believers, do not please him when we act carnally (i.e. the Corinth brethren we just discussed).
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ability is implied in the command, the expectation and the punishment for not believing (as Calvinistic scholars even acknowledge). Thus it's incumbent upon you to show otherwise. However, since you asked I can provide several passages that indicate our ability in this regard. I will pick just one for the sake of simplicity:
Acts 28:24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"
This passage, which is quoted from the OT several times in the NT, explains that the Jews hearts had GROWN calloused. THEY WEREN'T BORN CALLOUSED. It also clearly explains their ability had they not become hard. "OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE." He even goes on to contrast the Gentiles who "WILL LISTEN."
So, not only do you need to deal with the implications of the passages such as John 3:16 that calls whosoever to come/believe but you must deal with the explicit passages such as this that clearly shows mans ability from birth to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.
If this phrase were the only thing posted, I would agree with you, however in context of what else she stated in her dialog with Jim, she is dead on. Scripture states God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and Jim clearly twisted that around to say He does.
Point taken. I might have jumped to a conclusion there that she was addressing everyone, where no such thing was intended.
Two Questions For Revmitchell (or any other Free Willer for that matter)
You unabashedly express your opinion of the 'L' in TULIP. I assume since you are supposedly a Baptist that you accept the 'P' in TULIP.
Question #1: Do you have the same disdain for the 'T', and the 'U', and the 'I' of the TULIP doctrine as you do the 'L'?
You refer to the 'L' in TULIP as " one of the most damnable heresies to ever be spread across the earth".
Question #2: Do you consider it as 'damnable heresy' because you believe that the Calvinist Theology is sending people to hell?
Both questions require only a simple yes or no answer.
You unabashedly express your opinion of the 'L' in TULIP. I assume since you are supposedly a Baptist that you accept the 'P' in TULIP.
Question #1: Do you have the same disdain for the 'T', and the 'U', and the 'I' of the TULIP doctrine as you do the 'L'?
You refer to the 'L' in TULIP as " one of the most damnable heresies to ever be spread across the earth".
Question #2: Do you consider it as 'damnable heresy' because you believe that the Calvinist Theology is sending people to hell?
Both questions require only a simple yes or no answer.
David Michael Harris
Active Member
I need to learn my alphabet.
I need to learn my alphabet.
nice quote from John Elias, who in this board, if he were with us, will be considered a hyper-Calvinist.
David Michael Harris
Active Member
Indeed. But he preached with the fervour of John Wesley, that's why I like the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists
I am a predestinarian too. It's sort of a paradox I guess, but for me the Gospel is just that.
I would also disagree with Mr Elias on his Sabbath keeping teachings btw.