Salvation Is Unconditional... Because...

Thanks, Brother Glen. I especially appreciate the Scripture references.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Note also that not only the sheep are determined
before the foundation of the world;Eph. 1:4-11,so
also was the reprobate actively ordained by God to this condemnation. Jude 1:4,Rom. 9:10-18

 

Amen, brother!

 

*sigh* I sense im going to have to do a lot more praying

Salvation is NOT unconditional (except if God puts conditions on it)

Salvation being unconditional would mean that everyone would have it. And not everyone that God picked not because they're special but because they want to espouse doctrine that is not properly preached or taught. God picking people IS a condition

Ie You will be saved ONLY if God picks you

[Language edited]

No one is immediately saved at birth. Everyone transitions from heathen to Christian. Unless you care to argue that the elect are like Christ and without sin or have NEVER sinned?

Thus must the blood of Christ be applied to every electee, and since I have never heard the exact measurement of blood used in the washing, Im going to make the foolish assumption that the amount doesnt matter, that even only a single drop of the Messiah's blood could wipe away the sins of all creation. I really hope no one argues with that thought.

God so loved the world - the whole stinkin, war-torn bleedin mess - with the dictators, rapists, and Baptists, that He gave His only begotten Son,
that if the thickheaded, ugly bags of water got it through their skulls and believed, that He would gladly give them the salvation for which His Son bled and died.

Now as to the rest of us non-elected baptists - although I do believe I was elected, Im going to give up that "title", that "prestige", and ask you all some questions. What would happen if "free will" and election both existed simultaneously? Would it destroy the Word of God?
Would it make God more or less powerful?

Here are my answers #1 - Nothing would happen, because that is what is

#2 - No, it would solve a lot of "conflicts" of doctrine, and readjust some attitudes that need some serious rubbing in something.

Man is not supreme God is!
So You're elected - I'm not what does that say about you?

#3 - It would make MY God even more powerful - in that His elections - can thwart the free will of man. That no matter what choice we make; God has a contingency plan for every single possibilty that has, is, and will ever happen. Think of the power and knowledge of that God

____________________

Language such as used in this post (now edited) will not be tolerated. If you cannot discuss these matters decently, then refrain from participation. Thanks.

[ August 21, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

They do. NO one is saved against their will. When you misdefine free will, you end up with the view that you have. When you define free will consistently, you end up believing in election.

n/a

This is a common attempt that falls short. First, it does not increase his power. It makes at best, no statement about his power. In your view, God is not exercising power, he is simply reacting. But even in that, he is not doing anything at all. Every is caused by prior choices so God just sits back and watches. His contingency "plan" involves only the natural consequences of the "free choices" of man. This is in contradiction to a God who "works all things after the counsel of his own will." But more than that, you have a God who knows a bunch of useless information. He has to sit back to wait and see which scenario will happen. Then the other billions of scenarios for that given instant just lie "known" but "unused." That is simply logical absurdity. God knows all things that might have ever happened, but he knows them only as possibilities, not as actualities.

 

Do you not state that free will is simply acting within one's nature? Isn't it possible that we could disagree with that "nature," insofar as the Holy Spirit enlightening all men?

Your words would better be stated, I think, "When you define free will as I do, you end up believing in election."

 

Well I presume it is possible. The question is, Is it consistent (the word that I used). Consider this: the unsaved man does not have a new nature. That is why he is unsaved. Therefore he can only make choices in accordance with the nature he has (the old sin nature). I do not find the idea that the Holy Spirit enlightens all men in Scripture. The "light" in all men (John 1:9) is the image of God that everyone has. It does not save but it does communicate a knowledge of God that man rejects. 1 Cor 2:14 talks of the unsaved man who "cannot understand" spiritual things. IT is a word of ability and it precludes understanding God, sin, salvation, and Christ.

Second, and more importantly, God is free, but he cannot make choices contrary to his nature. If you define free will consistently, you have to 1) assert that unsaved man has a new nature (which calls into question the need for salvation); 2) assert that God is not truly free (which calls into question the nature of God); 3) agree with me ...

 

Sularis is right.

 

Or 4)disagree violently with you

Free Will - Election as methods of salvation are in opposition to each other and thus cannot be in affect for a single person - Either a single person is saved by election - or he is saved by free will - but another person could be saved by free will; while the first is saved by election

As to the verse requirements you posted verses
for election somewhere I assume on this board

Well then there's my proof for election existing part

And there are verses posted on the board defending "free will" - thus I dont have to defend that part existence either

Im not saying "Free Will elections" - but rather Im stating that God has 2 paths up to the gate that is His Son.

One is the path of God presents evidence of here I am, and gives the grace so that man may choose against his fallen nature. (prevenient grace)

Two is the path that God seeing a set of choices coming up that He wants to make sure never happens, He divinely forces His Will upon His creation giving His grace in that manner.

The problem is that everything God does is logical, rational, just not immediately understandable; since most or all of us will have to wait until heaven to get the basics down proper

 

The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion, especially since John didn't have the light at all, but was merely the witness to the light in the previous verse?

Joel 2:28 to the end of the chapter states that God would pour His Spirit on all people, and he separates His servants from all people, drawing a distinction that seems to show that both groups would at least experience in some way the Spirit.

We still have a problem with the definition of nature. If nature means something different, then even a "consistent" reading of free will could lead to the Arminian theology.

 

Salvation is conditioned by only one thing. [John 1:12]

 

The nature of man:

1) Evil
2) Unable to do good or choose good unless it be for evil reasons; or there's so much direct evidence otherwise.
3) Capable of reason but biased towards evil
4) Not anxious to change ones state

 

This is simply wrong. I don't know how else to put it. Ask any Calvinist. They do not believe that God saves people against their will or sends people to hell against their will. You have been listening to people who do not know what they are talking about.

So if you admit you don't understand it, why do you "violently disagree"?? What if you are wrong and I am right? After all, I have shown Scripture and theology in support of what I have said?

 

You miscited it. John was not the light but was sent to bear witness to the light.

Everybody now experiences the Spirit in some fashion. That is not at issue. But all are not effectually called by teh Spirit to salvation.

A nature is a complex of attributes. There is no problem there. A consistent reading of free will will never lead to arminian theology unless you suggest that it is possible for God to sin. If God cannot sin, then under your definition, he cannot be free. I think God is totally free and I think God cannot sin. "Freedom" is limited by the nature, not by the ability to choose from theoretical possibilities.

 

*Cough* *Cough*

Larry - If the Spirit is involved in calling

non-effectual calling - the reprobates
effectually calling - the elect

What makes it effective? The choice of man?
In that case free will
Or the Spirit in that case FORCED - unless you come up with a refutation

Election is not a gentle process - its not God walking up to man and saying "Hi, I like you, guess what yer saved"

Salvation depends on a choice
God's - which I define both as having done and ongoing - done in that He sent His Son to pay for the entire world's sin *(see note) - ongoing He sovereignly determines the course of creation - by imposing His will - whether or not He does that directly or indrectly is still a matter of debate

*note - If man refuses God's payment - He goes to Hell

An example my semi-blasphemous brother came up with - is that it seems that God's payment is like a limited time voucher - its issued to every man, woman, child - and its good for one free salvation - but man has to cash it in - If he doesnt its worthless - And the problem is that that the voucher has an expiry date - its called death
So Larry, Im willing to admit I dont understand everything - but Im willing to state that I know as least as much as you, and shouldnt have to put with you putting words into my post while I was TRYING to be polite and less confrontational - [inappropriate personal comments edited. If you have personal issues, then deal with the personally]

Why repost verses that have been posted to death?
I need not prove the existence of Free Will or Election since the verses have already been posted

I am merely making the suggestion that if both exist - then they somehow they have to work together - and thus I dont have to disprovc the validity of one or the other - just fanatics who refuse to admit the other's existence

[ August 26, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

We can't reconsile every verse in the Bible, but that does not mean that they are not true.

I mean... who are WE? His ways are far above our ways..God refers to the elect...but not to a SELECT...HE also says that Whosoever...We may not be able to place those two concepts hand in hand, but God does and can. Two statements that have helped me (and they weren't on any of these threads):

1. God's door of predestination swings on the hinges of foreknowledge, Not election.

2. The sign over the door of salvation says 'whosoever.' After walking through it, and looking back over the top of the door, it says 'elect.'

Agrippa, the rich young ruler, the crowd in Acts 7:51 all had the opportunity to be saved, but they rejected it. That doesn't mean that God didn't die for them. His own chosen race rejected Him, that doesn't mean that Jews can never be saved.

Again, 2 Peter 2:1 proves that Christ died for false prophets that rejected Him. IT doesn't get any plainer. I reject Calvinism, Arminianism, and any thing else that goes against obvious verses in the Bible.

 

Can a person dead in sin elect himself unto salvation?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

change the word elect

Here's the biggie - is the concept of prevenient grace valid? If it is - then the whole bunch of Calvinist-like people need to re-evaluate their theology - If it isnt - God still has another surprise for you