Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It is not God's will that all are to be saved without condition. It is God will that all come to faith and repentance so as to be saved. There is a difference.
-
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!
Who would be examples In bible Of Those Shown Able To "resist" Grace/Calling Of God?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
It is not God's will that all are to be saved without condition. It is God will that all come to faith and repentance so as to be saved. There is a difference.
I don't see how the Gospel's intended purpose is to just make an appeal. It's purpose is to save - and it has not returned void, as many are saved and have been saved. You and I have different glasses in our view on this.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Because Paul said so, "20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."
But in your view the gospel (which is the Word of God), does return void for most of humanity (all the non-elect), because doesn't accomplish salvation in them. In my view, it accomplishes its purpose EVERY TIME.
IF it was really the will of God that none would perish though, and ALL would receive jesus Christ, and IF Jesus ationed for whole world sins...
Why are ANY Lost?
That is why Cals tend to say that UNLESS God grants you the means to be saved, you will stay lost, as that is your"natural" state...
God gives the free offer to believe and be saved, but either He foreknows those who will not come, or cant come...
Eithewr way, is that really saying God desires that ALL come to saving faith, yet He cannot have All come to that?
Sure, by the way you've defined the terms, of course it accomplishes its purpose in your view. Pretty convenient for you.
And couldn't we say that the appeal has been pretty unsuccessful, since most of humanity has rejected that appeal?
But we both know that God's purpose is to actually save people, not just present them with an appeal.
It is important not to confuse the act of grace by God, and direct commands to serve such as with Jonah. He was already saved, but he didn't want to obey a direct order to minister to a specific people.
The act of grace happens even before we realize it, even in eternity past.
Cheers,
Jim
The act of grace happens even before we realize it, even in eternity past.
Cheers,
Jim
just wondering how the Bible, specifically the Gospel, can be effectually and accomplish its work "all the time" when most of the time, people reject jesus?
Always wondered how God "gets the glory" IF he sent Jesus to die/atone for mankind, yet left it totally open to us to accept/reject, so had no REAL assurance that any would come to get saved?
is it better That God directly intervened and causes SOME to be able to accept Christ and be redeemed, or leave it open that potentially NONE could receive Him?
psalms109:31
Active Member
Scripture
I know someone already presented it, but I like to show the scripture.
When we do see it as impossible for us, us With God nothing is imposible so turn to Christ or another way to see it trust in Him and He will direct your path. You can trust in Him and the word tells us we will not be disappointed or put to shame.
I know someone already presented it, but I like to show the scripture.
When we do see it as impossible for us, us With God nothing is imposible so turn to Christ or another way to see it trust in Him and He will direct your path. You can trust in Him and the word tells us we will not be disappointed or put to shame.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Actually, Paul's words defined it, remember? I quoted him.
A
Just as was prophesied: Broad is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the way to life and FEW ARE THOSE WHO FIND IT.
You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive. God's purpose is to save through making an appeal to be reconciled and allowing people to freely respond to his message. That is what makes them responsible for their response.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It's not his Sovereignly unchanging decree that all shall be saved, otherwise all would be. It is God's desire or pleasure that all are saved, in the same way it his desire that you never sin. You still sin, even if its not God's will, right? In the same way, God desires the salvation of mankind, but he doesn't desire to effectually save all mankind. He desires for them to respond in faith and humility and submit to him and worship him. That is where he finds delight in us.
I quoted him too. Same passage, v. 19 - "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." It is finished. Reconciliation has happened, is happening and will continue to happen - it is not just a theoretical possibility.
Hello Andy.. long time since we discussed much. Nice to you popping in again :thumbs:
Quick questions:
1. In what Greek lexicons do you ever find the word 'World' used to describe God's elect?
I realize there are commentators who make such a leap, but what Greek authorities can you send me to which makes such statement.
2. The term 'world' when speaking of the spiritual state of men, is always in reference to godless sinners. Thus you have scripture repeatedly stating things like - love not the world.. be in the world but not of the world.. Woe unto the world.. the world does not know him.. (speaking of the Holy Spirit) the world can not receive him..if the world hate you.. the world loves its own.. ect.
The word can not mean both A and Non-A any more than the term Christian can also mean heathen.
My point is simply that the verse you quoted does not 'establish' your view of no hypothetical or potential salvation.
In fact, scripture deals specifically with those who are condemned yet it also states they 'could be saved' (2 Thes 2:10-12). Or the passage about false prophets that were purchased.. ect. -- ANYWAY
not getting into that at present.I'm only stating that the 'verse' you gave actually lends no weight to your argument. Anyway.. Hope all is both good and well with you brother.
Last edited by a moderator:
God does take "delight" whenever a sinner in reborn and becomes a saint, but think difference in our approaches is that you see man as "having worth" intrisctly, due to being in image of God, while I tend to see us as having "worth" to god once redeemed byt he Lord...
other words, Arms tend to see it as God love motivating Him to save us thru the Cross, He gets glory when sinners believes and become a saint..
Cals tend to see it as main reason God did the cross was to bring glory to Himself thru act of providing means of salavation, regardless IF sinners will believe and receive it...
Arms to a degree has man 'sharing" in the glory of God, as we "cooperate" with him by responding correctly to His offer, Cals would say the glory already established in/by the Cross, not dependent on our responsse to it!
psalms109:31
Active Member
John 15
The Vine and the Branches
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
Romans 8
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[ The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture; also in verse 23.] And by him we cry, “Abba,[ Aramaic for father] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God andco-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Well, Paul said "WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS", not "after we were redeemed" that he loved and died for us. He came for the sick not the well, thus the worth is established by God for the lost in his love and pursuit of them.
Can you show me one place in scripture where someone is rebuked for taking glory from God by "humbling themselves" and "putting their hope in God."
Now, I'll agree that this "decision theology" that the seeker sensitive movement (beginning back with Finney) has created does put too much emphasis, glory and attention on man's response. Another one of the reasons I left the non-Calvinism movement and went to Calvinism in the first place. It wasn't until I studied the more scholarly views of historical non-Calvinistist that I saw the best of both worlds: A theology which remains true to both sides of the biblical revelation regarding man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. One that highlights God's glory and man's sin nature and need for Him. I think most Cals (especially young ones in college) turn to Calvinism because of their distaste for the seeker sensitive, decision focused, mile-wide-inch-deep theology. I want them to know there is a more biblical alternative.
Good to talk to you too, Allan.Hello Andy.. long time since we discussed much. Nice to you popping in again :thumbs:
Quick questions:
1. In what Greek lexicons do you ever find the word 'World' used to describe God's elect?
I realize there are commentators who make such a leap, but what Greek authorities can you send me to which makes such statement.
2. The term 'world' when speaking of the spiritual state of men, is always in reference to godless sinners. Thus you have scripture repeatedly stating things like - love not the world.. be in the world but not of the world.. Woe unto the world.. the world does not know him.. (speaking of the Holy Spirit) the world can not receive him..if the world hate you.. the world loves its own.. ect.
The word can not mean both A and Non-A any more than the term Christian can also mean heathen.
My point is simply that the verse you quoted does not 'establish' your view of no hypothetical or potential salvation.
In fact, scripture deals specifically with those who are condemned yet it also states they 'could be saved' (2 Thes 2:10-12). Or the passage about false prophets that were purchased.. ect. -- ANYWAY
I'm only stating that the 'verse' you gave actually lends no weight to your argument. Anyway.. Hope all is both good and well with you brother.
I guess I'm looking at it differently. For one, I never said that the use of "world" in II Cor 5:19 referred to the elect. I don't know any Greek, so I'll take your word that it refers to "godless sinners." But that doesn't change the way I read the verses. God is reconciling from among the world godless sinners. Not universalism, though. V. 19 says "not imputing their trespasses against them." Even the beginning of v. 18 says, "Now all things are of God..." I can't help but look at this from a God-centric view - that He is the one reconciling - it will happen in the world of godless sinners. I see no hypothetical salvation in these verses.
I mentioned this above to Skan - we both wear different glasses when viewing these verses. II Cor. 5 will not likely resolve the C/A debate - both sides have come to their conclusions based largely on other Scriptures/the whole of Scripture, I would think.
Ok.. On that I agree...He IS the one doing the reconciling (though in truth, the passage does narrow the scope of persons being reconciled but in fact expands the scope using the term 'world').. and yet, while God is doing the reconciling (the work through Christ) apparently there is also a human aspect regarding it's imputation and that is not done by God but man by believing or better receiving what God is doing and has done. It is for this reason you have Paul pleading immediately there after 'be ye reconciled'.
Therefore the one to whom He is not imputing to are those who believe and become reconciled. The passage here is pretty general as it might equate better to my view with the usage of the term 'world' (All sinners), the passage itself does not necessarily state it as such but does lend a bit more weight this way, than the Reformed view.
So how do we bring this to a totally God-centric view when man is being pleaded with to allow this to happen? For it to be totally God-centered or another way of stating it - all of God.. man would have no say. Even if man is changed to desire to have God reconciled .. the very fact God must wait on man to desire, no longer makes it 'all of God' because to some degree (no matter how small) it can only be done with man's permission. Thus the work is in fact all of God yet the imputation of that work is when man believes to 'become' reconciled. Faith is not a work and thus the work remains His alone.
Does that makes sense or am being very confusing??
I do agree we will see things from different perspective but the question is, can we see what the other is saying and where they are coming from (even if we don't agree).
Last edited by a moderator:
Allan, I agree there is the human element - the avenue of faith by which the reconciliation is received. I think there are other Scriptures that better support hypothetical salvation, but I just don't see it in these verses.
It's hard for me to see phrases like "Now all things are of God" and to think that I still need to give Him permission before He acts first. I know you believe God acts first - but you know what I mean - not in the same sense that I do.
Peace, brother.
It's hard for me to see phrases like "Now all things are of God" and to think that I still need to give Him permission before He acts first. I know you believe God acts first - but you know what I mean - not in the same sense that I do.
Peace, brother.
LOL.. that was my point.. It really lend very little weight to the issue one way or another.. but it does give a 'little' more this way. I agree however there are better passages to be offered.