how do you always have double posts? I thought the board had something to help prevent that. I know another board I'm on will sometimes come up and say you can't post within a few seconds of each other to prevent it. Weird.
-
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!
No one is righteous = No one can believe???
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
how do you always have double posts? I thought the board had something to help prevent that. I know another board I'm on will sometimes come up and say you can't post within a few seconds of each other to prevent it. Weird.
I'm sorry, but where exactly does it say that Cornelius wasn't saved? i just read Acts 10 and didn't see anywhere about Cornelius not being saved.
No, no. If god is trying to save everybody, if he intends for everybody to be saved and most are not; if he has gone to great lengths to save everybody and most are not saved- that is the essence of failure.
Then you believe that it is God's purpose for MANY to go to hell, right?
Which he failed to do- at the very least his means are VERY ineffective.
Because his desire for his own glory is far greater than his desire for all men to be saved.
In the end of chapter two he is expounding his ministry being one of Spirit power rather than carnal power. He is saying that he did not come with excellency of speech, etc but in the power of the Spirit. But the natural man, who almost EVERYONE agrees in unregenerate, CANNOT receive the things of the Spirit of God.
A Christian can be carnal but an unregenerate man cannot be anything BUT carnal.
And so long as they are enemies they are not reconciled. Romans 8 is very clear- the carnal mind is always enmity against God and CANNOT be subject to the law of God.
So the carnal mind must be regenerated so that it can be transformed from carnal to spiritual.
Read from verses 34-43, Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
This is the gospel my friend. And what happened next?
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17), and we receive the Spirit by the hearing of faith (Gal 3:2).
This is when Cornelius was saved. Why would God send Peter to preach the gospel to Cornelius if he were already saved?
The problem is that Calvinism has made the scriptures nonsensical to you.
Thanks, I'll go back and re-read it again.
couple of quick thoughts...
1. There were more people than just Cornelius.
2. The gospel is for saved people just as much as unsaved people, though in this context it was being used to bring people to Christ for salvation.
Last edited by a moderator:
What? A saved person needs to hear the gospel? Why?
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
The scriptures say a believer is supposed to go forward, not keep hearing the gospel over and over again. The gospel is for unbelievers, not people who have already heard it and been saved.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
You are not listening Luke. Please re-read what I wrote. God's desire is not to save everyone without condition as this accusation presumes. He desires to provide the means for salvation to everyone.
If you desired your daughter to sit down in a chair but chose not to use physical force, but instead decided to allow her to have the freedom to respond to your voice. Are you a failure if she chooses not to sit down? Are you less strong? Of course not. You still have the ability to use brute force, but because you have chosen not to doesn't make you a failure, it only makes your daughter responsible for her actions. Now, if you tried to force her and she flipped you over on your back like Chuck Norris and stepped on your chest as she walked out the door then you would be a failure. Because THEN her will and strength overpowered yours. If your will is for her to respond freely (without physical force in this analogy) then regardless of how she responds (positively or negatively), then it is still according to your will.
Now do you understand the distinction?
Actually the bible teaches that Hell was created for the devil and his demons, not man. And I have no idea how you concluded this from what I said. ???
I said, " He is always successful at accomplishing his purpose, we just disagree as to what that purpose is." You apparently missed the part where I describe what we believe God's purpose is. Please go back and read it more carefully.
*Sigh* Luke, work with me brother. I'm trying to be patient. Even Calvinistic scholars who debate Arminians in journal's acknowledge this point.
In our view God successfully provided the means by which all men may be saved. If you are going to debate me you have to deal with what we actually believe, not some false conclusion based on a premise that we don't even adhere to. Understand?
You say that as if those are mutually exclusive concepts??? Even you have admitted to believing both of these truths, right?
You do know they didn't have chapter and verse divisions when they wrote the letter, right? I mean we are talking literally 3 sentences after your proof text where Paul calls the believers in Corinth carnal/natural/unspiritual men who can't receive these things of the Spirit, yet you insist they aren't related and that Paul must be speaking about unsaved people's inability to believe the gospel? Even though the gospel isn't even mentioned in the context. Instead, the "deep things of the spirit" is referenced (vs. 10).
Where does it teach that man's inability to be subject to God law makes him unable to willingly accept God's grace when approach by the powerful gospel appeal to be reconciled?
You have just stated the bad news:
"Man cannot subject himself to God's law."
But you have now turned the good news into bad news. Why? Because the good news is: "Jesus fulfilled the law once and for all, whosoever believes upon him will be saved by grace."
And you turn that good news into very BAD NEWS: "Because man cannot subject himself to God's law, he also cannot willingly believe upon Christ (the law's fulfillment) and be saved."
Wow, really sad to hear that from you. The gospel should be central to our lives. It is extremely important in the life of a Christian.
So then God has no desire to save those who do not meet this "condition", right?
If he is always successful at accomplishing his purpose and most men do indeed go to hell then he must have purposed that most men go to hell.
Spare me this crud. It is snotty and insulting and misplaced.
You, apparently have not thought through the implications of the claims you are making here.
Do not sigh at me for pointing this out.
Cut that snotty mess out and we will continue.
psalms109:31
Active Member
This is such an important verse with that.
Hebrews 5:
Warning Against Falling Away
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Right (assuming you mean what I think you mean)
God doesn't desire to save those who chose to remain unbelieving and unrepentant. He desires that men freely (contra-causal freedom I mean) choose to come to him in response to his appeal.
What is his purpose Luke? It is different for each of us and thus you can't presume your purpose upon our system.
Calvinist believe it is to effectually save a select few, thus it would be true that he purposed for the rest to be left in their Totally Depraved condition and thus sent to hell without hope of salvation from birth.
Arminians believe His purpose is to make an appeal to all mankind: "Be reconciled to God." And then allowing them to freely respond to his appeal. Thus, His purpose is redemption, it is not condemnation. Condemnation is the result of those who freely choose to resist the appeal. He doesn't delight in the perishing of the wicked, but his purpose is to allow them to make that choice.
I only expressed my frustration at your apparent unwillingness to read my responses. I did so without name calling or insult. People can sigh and say "work with me brother" in a causal conversation without it being interpreted as "snotty and insulting." Could it be you read something into my tone that wasn't intended?
Oh, but I have; and have made that abundantly clear if you will carefully read what I've written and respond to my actual points. Did you read the analogy about a dad choosing to allow a daughter to sit without physical force? I thought that made the distinction about as clear as it could be made, yet you didn't address it. Why?
I love to hear the gospel, it is the message that saved my soul, and our pastor almost always presents it at the end of service and invites folks to come down and find out from the scriptures how they can be saved. I always pray for people that they might come down, but I don't go down myself, I received Jesus many years ago. A person only gets saved once.
Of course you only get saved once and I'm thrilled that you are saved. But the gospel is still central to the life of the Christian. I'll start another thread later on with some thoughts on why the gospel is still important. I'm going to be busy the next few days, but may have some time.
Couple of points here...
BOTH Cals/Arms teach that mankind is "dead" to God, by virtue of being born "In Adam" We are depraived in ourselves, no rightous in us to present to God, and that are Unable to come to God "on our own"
So God HAS to send to us His grace, enabling us to be in a spiritual stae actually able to receive jesus Christ by faith and be saved/reconciled to God...
So basic question comes down to this...
Did God choose to directly intervene by electing out of a reprobate race His chosen people, by giving them the Grace/enabling to respond by faith, and they shall be saved... God ultimate source/basis of salvation
OR
Did God freely chose to "limit" Himself, in order to allow sinners to have their "free will" as the determining factor if one gets saved or not?
remember that even Jesus said that broad is way to destruction road MANY will freely choose to travel, and that "few" will be those who find the narrow way/road to Eternal life..
We believe that God will make sure those "few" will indded find their way, as He will be direct causal to them getting saved!
convicted1
Guest
I agree with this post, Brother. When I hear the gospel preached in a God sent message, it recharges my batteries, and makes my week go by so much better.
I just want to be clear- because I am actually thrilled to hear you say this- it makes you seem more sensible to me than those who have God trying to save everybody and failing miserably.
Answer as clearly as possible: Are you saying that God is NOT trying to save everybody?
Does he love those who do NOT choose Christ as much as he loves those who DO?
You do believe in unlimited atonement though right?
I think you believe in substitutionary atonement- ALTHOUGH that is NOT the classical Arminian viewpoint, is it?
But you just believe that Christ suffered unspeakable agony for TRILLIONS of sins that would STILL be punished on the heads of most of those who Christ died for- so you think he died- NOT TO SAVE- but just to make salvation possible, right?
What do YOU think his purpose is?
I think his primary purpose is ALWAYS the same- to bring him glory.
That is the right reason to do anything, whether you are a man, an angel or God- to bring God glory is the highest good in the universe.
It is just RIGHT to do what you do for God's glory. So it is right for God to do what he does for God's glory.
You keep tossing around that word "few" as a stinger, I guess. I guess it makes you come across more winsome to some folks and us Calvinists come across as haters or something.
But the fact of the matter is that MANY Calvinists believe as Spurgeon and I do that all babies who God plans to take in their childhood God has elected.
Thus- MOST humans are elect. Heaven will be more populated than hell, if what MANY of us Calvinists believe is true.
I believe that too!:thumbs:
I believe that too!:thumbs:
No. Not according to what you are saying above. According to what you are saying above his purpose is just to OFFER redemption to all- to make it possible and OFFER it. But he has NO PURPOSE, nor has he EVER had any purpose of ever saving the vast majority of accountable humanity.
You are saying, at least in what you have said in the last few posts, that God has no PURPOSE to redeem many BILLIONS of humans. He ONLY had a purpose to OFFER- to OFFER, I'll say it again so we can be clear- you are saying his purpose was just to OFFER salvation to every man.
That is how you say he never fails.
Because, Skan, God can't PURPOSE to redeem every single person on earth and have MOST of them go TOTALLY unredeemed and be a success.
No. If God's purpose is to REDEEM every single human being on earth, then he is FAILING miserably.
But your position doesn't make God any more palatable to the man-centered religious masses than mine when you break it down, does it?
No, it just makes MOST- and I mean MOST of Christ's suffering absolutely senseless.
Why? Because you have Christ SUFFERING for every single sin of every single human being and MOST- I mean the VAST majority of that suffering does not actually ever atone at all.
We believe this too! :thumbs:
No. I sigh at my children because I grow weary at times of their insolence. That is why we sigh in a conversation. It is snotty when you do it to someone who is at least your equal.
Because it is not applicable. The father is too human in your illustration to be able to represent the Almighty and his eternal purposes and his bringing to pass his will perfectly in every instance at all times.
This father wills in an ultimate fashion his daughter to sit. She does not. He has NOT brought his will to pass. His ULTIMATE plan has been thwarted by this stubborn little girl. This father is thus most CERTAINLY not analogous to Almighty God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If God wanted to just save everybody he would and Universalism would be truth. Of course God doesn't just want to effectually make everyone believe and be saved. I'm really not sure why anyone would be confused by this.
He wants people to come to faith and repentance FREELY (by their own choosing --- contra-causal freedom), so that they will be saved. He is not up there in heaven trying to make people into believers and saying over and over, "OH DANG IT! I CAN'T MAKE THAT ONE BELIEVE!" while he snaps His fingers in frustration. His will is that men CHOOSE. I honestly don't know why that concept is not clear even from those who don't accept it.
I prefer the term "provisional atonement."
The sins (breaking of the law) were paid once and for all by the death of Christ making righteousness by grace through faith possible for all mankind.
Same for me, but we disagree as to what HE himself has revealed is his redemptive plan to bring himself glory.
If it stings while being true then the truth hurts.
You know full well that you don't mean "freely" in the manner that I do.
No you don't, not "freely" in any real sense of the word.
You must be a better man than me then; having never sighed at anyone but children. I actually don't expect as much from a child so I rarely if ever sigh at them. I sigh at those I know should understand something I've painstakingly written time and time again, but yet somehow either ignore it or don't understand it. I guess that is something I need to work on.
Of course the father is not supposed to represent every quality of God. No analogy about God, even biblical ones, meets that criteria. An analogy is meant to show one point. This one being that a person with the strength to force another may choose, by his OWN will, not to use his strength to accomplish a particular desire or pleasure.
An example would be God's desire for you, a believer, to resist temptation. If you are tempted and you sin tomorrow does God fail? No, because you agree that God has not forced you to be sinless. Could He? Of course. But he permits you to still sin. Does that make him a failure?
No. You are not clarifying. Be very clear here.
Does God want to save everybody or not.
Don't continue to deflect.
Is it true or false that God, before he built the universe, INTENDED for many to perish?
True or false, Skan. Just answer it without deflection- without introducing terminology that muddies the water like "God did not purpose to effectually make everyone believe"
That is another issue.
This is the issue here.
Did God intend to save everybody before he built the universe?
Did God intend for many to perish in his original design?
But he does not want to save those who do not, right?
He always intended for those people to perish before he made the world, right?
He never had any purpose to save those people who he knew would not believe, correct?
He always intended for those people to perish, right?
Then he is not TRYING to bring everyone to faith, right?
So you DON'T believe in substitutionary atonement!!
You do NOT believe he died in the sinner's place!
Then enlighten me as to what you think he designed in this universe to bring him glory.
How does the destruction of the impenitent bring God glory in your mindset?
Yea, but since I've corrected you I know you'll abandon using that term.
We have as many people in heaven as you do. You do not have one more. If we only have a few- so do you. Sorry.
Yea, because you deny God his Sovereignty in the choices of men.
And you have a freedom that is philosophically untenable.
Uh... yea, I do:
The NUMBER ONE definition for freely is EXACTLY how I mean it.
See. You are addicted to snottiness. This statement is snotty.
If you don't want me to slam you and to be aggressive and if you want me to be kind in our exchanges- stop being snotty. I am not sanctified enough to be sweet to people who are being snotty.
You are not brilliant enough to justify such snottiness.
Well good. I hope you will.
And he DOES NOT get his way. That is why your analogy is impotent.
No, because he intended me to fail before he built the universe. He purposed it.
Now listen- I can't explain that. I never will be able to explain it- probably not even in eternity.
Somehow I am truly responsible for my failure and rightly accountable for it. God is not pleased with me for my failure. He is in fact displeased with me. But at the same time, I DON'T know HOW they work together, but the Bible teaches them both (which is why I am a compatabalist), God is bringing his will to pass- that very will he forever in eternity past had- that very thing he has ALWAYS intended to happen.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I give up.
Luke, I read the first three lines of your post and I hit the wall. I can't do it anymore bro. I love you but I can't spend any more time explaining the same thing to you over and over. This is not near as difficult as you are attempting to make it. Study what we believe from good reputable scholars and when you can restate, in your own words, what we believe on this subject then I'll reengage, but I can't get on another merry-go-round with you right now.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but there is only so much a person can handle... I wish you well!
Luke, I read the first three lines of your post and I hit the wall. I can't do it anymore bro. I love you but I can't spend any more time explaining the same thing to you over and over. This is not near as difficult as you are attempting to make it. Study what we believe from good reputable scholars and when you can restate, in your own words, what we believe on this subject then I'll reengage, but I can't get on another merry-go-round with you right now.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but there is only so much a person can handle... I wish you well!
- Status