Salvation of Mankind

You are still failing to make the biblical distinction between justification accomplished and justification applied. God does not appear to justify non-existent people. Nor would he give the Word of Reconciliation to be preached to people who did not need it. Nor would he declare that faith comes only through the Word of Christ if indeed there was another way.

The more you quote from primitive baptist, the more I question primitive baptist theology. Rather than being persuasive, it is becoming increasingly unclear as to why anyone who knows Scripture would follow what you have cited here.

To cite Paul, It pleased God through the foolishness of hte message preached to save those who would believe. It does not come any other way. That in no way minimizes or renders 'helped' the death of Christ. There is definitely a focus on some passages in your comments and I appreciate your commitment to the sufficiency of Christ's work. However, I cannot appreciate your minimization of other passages that clearly teach what you wish to ignore.

 

Dr. Berrian:
Once a person's salvation is said to begin to when, where, and how he heard the gospel, that is
"gospel regeneration", regardless of how severe your objection may be.

As for the scriptures you cited, please take note that most were being written to recipients who
are already saved. These were being told of how they were saved, not how they will be saved.
The good news, or gospel, if you will, is the finished fact of salvation, and the call to worship Him who made it possible.
It is not the good news of a possible salvation depending on one's response.
If one responds to the preaching of the gospel it is because he already has a regenerated heart, and now, conversion follows. Will you say that regeneration and conversion are the same ?
All whom God purposed to save, whom God has given to Christ, past, present, future, are saved, none are lost, save the son of perdition.
You say the atonement only was finished ?
I say the atonement, the redemption of His people,
and their eternal security were all finished in the cross.
The cross was a completed work. 100%.
The cross secured everything it intended to secure for all it was intended.
I do not have the any title before my name, Dr. Berrian, but I thank God He chose the "foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base (of whom I am basest: Pinoy Baptist speaking, not Paul), and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence."

 

Will you please answer this quetion please?</font>[/QUOTE]The charge cannot be made against those who are his elect. Did you become elect when you believed?

However, once again, you fail to address the Scripture that expressly refutes your position. Why do you do this?

The term "gospel regeneration" is thrown around but it is non-issue. It is a term coined by those who do not like the fact that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ, the we are born again by the word ... that lives and endures forever that was preached to us.

It is Scripture that is at issue and I do not have the liberty to simply redefine what Paul said. When Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that we are justified by faith, it is not left open to man to disagree with that. If you contention is true, than the Great Commission serves no purpose. Yet that Great Commission came straight from the mouth of Christ who would have had reason to know what was necessary for salvation.

 

pinoybaptist,

You said a lot of true statements in your post. Yes, the Cross secured a perfect atonement for all of God's people. Thanks be to God! If salvation were achieved by my struggles with trying to be perfect--mature I would surely fail everyday. I get frustrated with my lapses.

God made the Gospel very simple so that no one has to miss Heaven not even the alleged non-elect. The Prophet Isaiah in the thirty-fifth chapter reminds us that even ‘ . . . wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.' There is no excuse coming from human beings that God is satisfied with relative to people not making it to Heaven. No excuse for even a wandering fool.

I Corinthians 1:20 & 27 was a good quote that you offered. God used simple men like Peter but most of the New Testament was written by a doctor who was converted from the Old Covenant faith [Luke 2:46; 5:17]. In the latter reference, apparently, there were more than a few doctors because they gathered, having come from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem. The Greek word for 'doctors' is {didaskalos} meaning an instructor, master, or teacher. Another rendering means, expounder of the Jewish Law or Rabbi. Jesus must have been equivilent to a doctor because the people called Him Rabbi. As you probably know, the Pharisees were even more influential than the Sadducees or the Essenes. The Apostle Paul was a Phaisee [Philippians 3:5] and like Peter, the less knowledgeable, was mightily used by Almighty God. The Lord has a place for everyone of us in His Kingdom.

I don't think you were trying to take a pot-shot at Christian people like Dr. Bob Griffin and I were you?

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

Not so by any means. Once again, you fail to make a distinction between accomplished and applied. Furthermore you fail to deal with the implications of your position for the Great Commission passages. Furthermore you still fail to deal with the passages that explicitly refute your position. Again, I ask, Why??

Jesus justified them because they were elect. They believe because they are elect. This is a false dichotomy that you have set up.

 

pinoybaptist,

Would you agree with me that God determined that Adam and Eve have a limited sovereignty over the Garden? They were to care for the Garden which was their responsibility. Another task that He gave them was to name all of the animals. If God were totally sovereign He would have done these things without the aid of His created beings. He does not autocratically deal with all things in our lives or the rest of His created beings.

While He secured salvation for every living human being [I John 2:2 ; I Tim. 2:4 & 6] He has given human beings the responsibility for their never dying souls. The promise of God is that He will convict people of their sins [John 16:8] and point them to the only Mediator [I Tim. 2:5] who can forgive their sins [John 5:24].

It is because God moves toward and on a person that they are so inclined to believe in Him [John 5:24]. The sinner must first hear the Gospel and then yield His life to the Lord our God. Yielding to Him initiates the ministration of the Spirit to make that person one of His elect, one of God's people [Romans 8:29].

Just as God planned that Adam would dress the garden and name each animal, so too He has foregone a portion of His sovereignty so man has the responsibility to bow to His sovereign Creator. He has decreed the free agency of human beings so that one day He can judge us as to how we used our accountability toward Him [John 5:22].

The free will of man takes the accusation off God that He has decreed the everlasting torment of the majority of His created beings, who are made after His likeness. Humans who are made after His resemblance would never be autocratically placed in a devil's Hell.

Hearing, believing, and accepting the Son beings everlasting life. [John 3:16] Human beings must come to Him [John 6:35; John 5:40].

Unconditional Election/Special Election is the contrivance of an erring, finite man, John Calvin, in explaining how election takes place. A decreed election is an evil, distortion of man about God who because of His love, goodness and justice/fairness came to save all who believe in Him.

This is a humanistic view of the worst sort.

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

Christopher, you have misinterpreted scripture. in Roamns 9:33 the Elect is Christ. the verse does not read who will "charge" God's elect. it says lay to the Charge. a charge is just not a acusation but it is also a requirement or and obligation. The verse Has NOTHING to do with any fabricated "elect people of God" It reads..

Who shall lay anything to the Charge ( what was Jesus Charged to do?) It is God that Justifieth..

If the verse did mean man it would not be correct. even christians can be charged with sin and crimes will you say then that God justifies sin?

And in case you have a question about why the elect isn't capitialized..it isn't in this verse either yet you Know Jesus is being talked about and referred to as God's elect.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

As far as faith goes it is not a gift of God, any one can have faith..eph 2:8 says salvation is the gift.

For by grace are ye saved (how?) THROUGH faith; and not of yourselves (you don't save yourself):
it (salvation) is a gift from God.

I 100% agree with Ray in his opinions about the Calvinist doctrines.

 

Romans 8:33

THE charge of God's elect.

aside from obligation or requirement "charge" also means: to impose a task or responsibility on. just some more to think about.

 

What??? Matt 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-47; Acts 1:8 are all commonly called the Great Commission passages. Are you denying that Scripture teaches taht we should go into the all world preaching the gospel (repentance for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus), baptizing, and teaching them to observe all things which Christ commanded?

Why?? What good will that do? The people who are of the elect in India have already been justified so these guys would appear to be simply wasting money on something that doesn't need to be done.

 

Charge in Rom 9 is not a requirement or obligation. It is the word egkaleo and it is used 7 times in the NT, every time with reference to a legal charge for wrongdoing. Furthermore, it does not say "lay to the charge." It says, "tis egkalesei kata eklekton theou." "Lay to the charge" is an interpretation of egkalesei and it means the same things as bring a charge, hence bring an accusation. When a person goes to go, the prosecutor brings a charge. In the legal justice of God, the question is who can bring a charge, an accusation, against God's elect. Again, not that God's elect (eklekton theou) is not some fictional group as you suggest. It is was Paul calls the people against whom no charge can be brought.

If Christ paid for your sins, then how can you be charged with them?

You have hit the nail on the head when you talk of "Ray's opinions" for that is all they are.

 

No it doesn't. You have participated here in several hermeneutical fallacies. First the fallacy that I call the truckload fallacy. You have tried to assert every meaning of the word "charge" as a meaning for this one usage. Yet a word can only have one meaning in a given context. It cannot mean more than one thing in a given context. It can mean something else in another context however. The second fallacy is simply that of building your case on a English word. The word taht should be considered is teh word that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the word that a 17th century translator chose under the auspices of King James of England.

 

This thread is rather lengthy and so I am going to shut it down. If you wish to further address an idea from this thread, feel free to start a new one. If you do, try to have a new perspective so we are not just rehashing old ideas again.

Moderator.