Did Paul really have a choice to say to the risen Lord Jesus"Thanks, but no thanks?"Do you really want to make it a conditional statement by saying that you can overpower and prevent God from pushing you off the bridge and falling into the water?
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!
Did Paul really have a choice to say to the risen Lord Jesus"Thanks, but no thanks?"Do you really want to make it a conditional statement by saying that you can overpower and prevent God from pushing you off the bridge and falling into the water?
The divine act of regeneration is what shatters the barrier of depravity; only then can someone who hears the Gospel truly call out to God. What you're claiming is traditionalism that began in Rome and, unfortunately, has made its way into Evangelical circles.
The truth is that the Son must liberate those who are bound by sin. Only after this liberation can they have the inherent desire to seek God within their new nature.
Matthew 1:21 (ESV)
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Jesus said that WILL save His people from their sins. Do you believe that what He promised is merely hypothetical and that His intentions can be obstructed by the will of the creature?
Do you really want to make it a conditional statement by saying that you can overpower and prevent God from pushing you off the bridge and falling into the water?
Did Paul really have a choice to say to the risen Lord Jesus"Thanks, but no thanks?"
You place God regenerating the person as the act that breaks that barrier, which means that person did not hear and believe the Gospel before they were regenerated. The cart is before the mule in this scenario.
This is Hyper-Calvinism and I had hoped you were not one of them.
Who said anything about overpowering God but it still comes down to a condition even then. "IF" God pushed someone of a bridge into the water then they would get wet. The condition is "IF".
Even your question of whether I could overpower God is a condition. "IF" I could have overpowered God then He could not have pushed me into the water.
We both agree that some form of divine intervention is necessary to "awaken" fallen humanity, so to speak. You may view the Gospel as the means for that. However, in what way does it serve as the power of God for salvation?
Perhaps you believe that it as a power that is equally potent for all, but individuals have the option to resist that force. I view it as a power available only for those who can respond positively to it. Those who can respond positively to it find themselves unable to resist, as they have lost the desire to do so.
Regarding Hyper-Calvinism, I don't identify as one of them. I firmly believe in the universal invitation to repentance, but in the end, it's not my role to determine who God has enabled to embrace it.
The hearing of the Gospel is where the faith comes from. Remember Paul saying, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God?
Remember Christ saying He would leave and send the Comforter, and He would convict of sin and of judgment.
I believe you will agree with me that salvation is all of the Lord, man plays no role in His Grace, man can only accept or reject what God has set in order for man to be saved before the foundation of the world.
Agreed.
A person may be convicted of their sin; however, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will ever want to repent of their sin.
The part I reject is the idea that a person's cooperation is the initial requirement that enables the Lord to save.
Yes, we agree the conviction of sin doesn't mean one will repent, they have free will to choose.
We disagree on the cooperation part, this is where you lean to Calvinism and I reject it.
"Whosoever will" is what I read in Scripture many times.
God will not save anyone against their will, it must be a decision by the individual.
Total Depravity is where I see Calvin going wrong, that's where the theory begins and leads to the other 4 points.
From the very beginning salvation has always been justified by faith!
The Law of Moses pointed to Christ in the inability to be accepted by God in any other way.
If those under the Law were honest with themselves they knew they were guilty before God in doing their best.
That is what the Sacrificial System of the Law was for, they found forgiveness of sin in Slayed Lamb.
All of God's elect, those He chose before the world began, from Adam onward, have been saved by God's grace and God's grace alone. As the Bible says in Acts 13:39, no one can be justified by the law of Moses.
Justification has always been and will always be by the blood of Christ:
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
"Being justified by His Blood" can only take place by faith.
All of God's elect come under the hearing of the gospel during their lifetime, and the Holy Spirit regenerates them and grants them the gift of faith in the blood of Christ, His finished work on the behalf of God's elect.
So there is no possibility that the blood of Christ will fail to accomplish its purpose in the life of any of God's elect.
The God of the Bible never fails to achieve His desires, regardless of the claims of those who say that God does fail.
"This free will system of doctrine sets forth a god who is a wimp. He loves everybody (in spite of clear Bible teaching that God has set His love only on His elect people). The god of this theological system is trying to save everybody, but cannot because they will not let him. Therefore this god is a failure!
Most often, adherents to this Catholic system of theology deny vehemently that they teach that their god is a failure. However, occasionally one of their preachers will say in words or substance, "God has done everything He can do to save you. The rest is up to you". Or perhaps their preaching takes the slant that you must "let God" do this or that in your life. If you do not "let God" He cannot accomplish His purpose in your life, according to the god-is-a-failure theory.
As further proof, we quote one prominent "Baptist" (BBF) preacher of some years ago as representative of this Thomist/Arminian view. He wrote, ". . . hell is a ghastly monument to the failure of the Triune God to save the multitudes who are there . . . sinners go to hell because God Almighty couldn't save them! He did all He could. He failed." [Noel Smith, "Universal Atonement," Defender Magazine, Springfield, MO., U.S.A., December, 1956]."
- excerpt from Is God a Failur
We disagree on the cooperation part, this is where you lean to Calvinism and I reject it.
"Whosoever will" is what I read in Scripture many times.
God will not save anyone against their will, it must be a decision by the individual.
I want to reiterate once more that, without divine intervention, no one would ever cooperate. However, I am grateful that God decided to show mercy to some rather than allowing all of humanity to face the justice that we rightfully deserve.
Yes, I understand that you seem to think that there's a universal invitation implied there. The "whosoever" in view are those who have been born anew, as stated in John 3:3.
If God truly left it up to man to decide for themselves, every single one of us would choose to follow Satan.
You may not be aware of it, but you're going to great lengths to elevate the creature over the creator. If God has determined what's going to happen, then it will happen.