Association of Reformed Baptist Churches

If someone held a gun to your head and commanded you to deny the doctrine of unconditional election or they would shoot. What would you do?

 

So, let's take this statement then as your thesis. Can we have some support now? :thumbs::smilewinkgrin:

 

I would not deny. However, your statement was based upon my previous statement that did not even infer such a denial.

 

Nor did I imply such a denial. lol Brother, I was making the point that the doctrines of grace IS a hill we will die on. But it is not a doctrine that prevents me from loving my brothers.

Nevertheless, I would not join a Church that did not hold to the five points of Calvinism.

 

Love the declaration on the home page on Sola Fide

 

I am saying there is a calling that is universal. This may be a preacher who preaches the Gospel and it is clearly heard by a multitude of lost people.

Yet, I am also saying there is an internal calling that sometimes accompanies the external calling. This is called the effectual calling. I cited John 6 in which God says:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

and

And again:

In other words, after Jesus taught them the Gospel (universal/external call), they still did not believe because "no one can come to [Jesus] unless it is granted him by the father." People didn't believe because God the Father did not grant it.

So, while we recognize an external calling, there is required an internal drawing. We know all those who are drawn will come and we know that only those who are drawn will come. That is effectual calling.

 

GB,

I would be glad to. In fact, my Masters (first Masters) Thesis was on the final year discourses from John 6-12 in which I took the Jewish context and background and examined these texts. It was about 162 pages (Turabian Style). This research is partially why I became reformed.

I saw 6-12 as more reformed. When I completed the research, I was still not reformed but I tended to interpret the passages more reformed but intellectually I still had questions and could not reconcile everything, but I was leaning that direction. A partial reasion I originally took on the project was to show reformed theology was wrong. I was, however, convinced otherwise.

 

Be interested in reading that thesis. I feel the same way about Covenant Theology at the moment. I lean in that direction, but I am not there yet.

 

When you can actually make a Biblical argument instead of a lot of hyperbola, I will address those issues. Just saying something is wrong does not either prove it or make you right.

I am amazed that we keep addressing the Bible and what it does say. For that, I am proud of our reformed theology.

 

You asked me questions, but you did not provide any exegesis to what it says. I can cite Scripture without truly expositing it but that would be useless. There cannot be a rebuttal of a belief is no positive viewpoint of the scripture is made. That is just basic rules of debate... one cannot discount a belief on a certain item when no belief has been advanced.

Since I do not know how you would interpret I Samuel, I do not know what point you are trying to make. Do I think that Saul was ever saved? No! Do I think that Balam's Ass was saved? No! Do I think Judas was saved? No! Yet, I am not sure what point you are making unless you actually make a point. As well, to build an entire theology on this verse is not appropriate in any traditional exegesis methodology. Didactic teaching takes precedence over historical recounting.

 

You are using Samuel and trying to get an interpretation of Greek culture? There are several problems with that interpretation but since I was not here or not read your interpretation, I will not go into it.

Yet, would you agree with almost all traditional scholars that didactic teaching takes precedence over historic recounting?

If not, then I would suspect you have much greater errors than just disagreeing with Reformed Theology. Oh, and you seem to slight the idea of the sufficiency of Scripture too. that is another reason I am reformed. While we may disagree on various interpretations, we agree that Bible is sufficient in itself.

 

Then you know little about us. I do read my own books, but I read others as well. When I used to do book reviews for publishers, I read a myriad of books from a variety of sources. Even this year, I have read more Christian books by non-reformed authors than by reformed.

Your ad-hominem attack shows you do not know much about us. If I may remind you, I went to a non-reformed seminary taught mostly by non-reformed professors. I respect them and they respect me. Thus, your little attacks show your ignorance of not just me but of the entire reformed community. I actually read your books by your authors and studied in their seminaries. Do you read mine and have you studied in my seminaries?

 

The problem of evil,for you gb93433
http://www.sgbcsv.org/literature/ProblemOfEvil.pdf:type:
let us know what you think of it