" Biblicists " . Do You Agree With This ?

I think you know this, but the last statement contradicts the first.

 

According to 1 Peter 1, God elects "in accordance with" foreknowlege, not "on the basis of" foreknowledge. The explanation is this: because God has a simple (undivided) nature, we can't separate his election and his foreknowledge.

But guys, don't you think this is endless? Why must we constantly go round and round the mulberry bush on all this?

 

because us new guys haven't had a chance to get our ride, yet.

 

Well you new guys enjoy.

 

God elects or rejects depending on what you do with His Son. This is Bible doctrine.

Christ died to pay the penalty of sin for every person. If He actually died for every person, you would have universalism. Only those who have faith in Him are saved.

Playing word games, are we? Divine grace is necessary for salvation, not faith or any good deed, as God has given every man ability to have faith. "Good deed" needs more clarification.

 

Another way to confirm that it can't mean "on the basis of" is to compare this verse to Romans 8.

If it was "on the basis of foreknowledge" then Romans 8 would not use the word "proginosko", which means "to know intimately", not "to know what someone is going to do".

So it is erroneous to draw from Biblical text the idea that God elects based on the fact that he foreknows what people will "choose". That's not how "foreknow" is used in the Bible.

 

Chapter and verse?

If the penalty has been paid for everyone, why does anyone end up in hell? Notice, you said the penalty was paid, not the penalty was potentially paid if they respond in faith.

Is faith part of the gift of God in Eph. 2:8? You might want to consult a Greek grammar before you answer.

 

Yes. This [having been saved by grace through faith] is the gift of God.

 

Mar 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

They didn't accept the gift which is salvation. If I bought you a DVD from best buy, you can reject the gift or accept it. Either way, I already paid for it.

I've posted my reply to this along with commentaries from calvinsts and non calvinists alike numerous times. If you believe that faith was the gift being offered, you are in the minority. "This" or "that" is in reference to the previous phrase "by grace you are saved through fatih", which is salvation, not an individual gift of faith. You might be the one who consults a greek grammar book if you think "that" is in reference to "faith".

 

[That] refers back to the entire concept [having been saved by grace through faith].

The gift therefore includes faith. Free willers like to derail this by pointing out the part that says "not of works" and then say "faith is not a work". But that's a misreading of the text. The point is that you didn't earn [having been saved by grace through faith] by works. It is a gift. You are not given the gift of [having been saved by grace through faith] because of something you did.

 

Cool. Then I shouldn't have to pay for it again even if I don't accept it. Universalism. We're all going to heaven no matter what, because our debts have all been paid whether we accept the gift or not.

 

Cool. Then I shouldn't have to pay for it again even if I don't accept it. Universalism. We're all going to heaven no matter what, because our debts have all been paid whether we accept the gift or not. </font>[/QUOTE]This makes absolutely no sense! If you didn't pay for the gift initially, how do you get "I shouldn't have to pay for it again"? If you wanted the DVD after you rejected it, you would have to buy it on your own. The offer of salvation is good until you die. After that, your are "buying the DVD" on your own!

 

[That] refers back to the entire concept [having been saved by grace through faith].

The gift therefore includes faith. Free willers like to derail this by pointing out the part that says "not of works" and then say "faith is not a work". But that's a misreading of the text. The point is that you didn't earn [having been saved by grace through faith] by works. It is a gift. You are not given the gift of [having been saved by grace through faith] because of something you did. </font>[/QUOTE]This is more nonsence of redefining terms and phrases. "Through faith" is the gift, also, besides God's grace? Yes, only in that it is a human trait, and if you have ever breathed a breath as a human, you posses the ability to have faith in something! Where in the Bible does it say that "faith" is not a human trait given to all men? Faith is never separated as "saving faith" and "daily use faith". There is faith that saves, but no separate "saving faith" that is given to some as a gift, and whitheld from others. This is not Scriptural, and needs to be rejected.

 

What if, before anyone could post on any topics revolving around the battle of Biblicist/Fundamentalist/Calvinist/Arminian they had to witness to someone first? I mean, all out give the gospel and invite them to accept Christ as their only way to heaven. Each time you had anything from a thought provoking question to a stinging repartee you had to witness first before you could put your question/comment on the BB. Do you think we could win the world for Christ? Boy, with all the energy burned up on this BB, alone, we could have revival by the end of the week!

I think sometimes we get too caught up in the clouds and forget to do the main thing. And, yes, I really DO have strong opinions on this topic. But I think we would get more accomplished for God and feel more respect for each other if there was a place on the BB where we could write out the testimony of someone we either shared with or actually won to Christ before we post on any of these topics where we’ll never convince the other side(s) who is right. We could post the testimony then get a ticket to post on one of our favorite arguments or pet soap boxes.

I’m just sayin’ maybe we should spend more time on what matters to God (Luke 19:10) and less time arguing over something that 75% of the people on this board have wrong and no one knows who the other 25% are. Curtis Hutson once said that, when the rapture comes, we’ll all be pre-trib. I think, also, when the rapture comes we’ll all know what the right answer is to all this Biblicist/Fundamentalist/Calvinist/Arminian stuff.

The one thing that we ALL can agree on is that there is an entire world out there running straight to hell and we are the only people on the planet that know how to keep them from it.

PS: I don’t mean to step on any toes and I’m not implying that anyone on this BB never witnesses. And my viewpoint may be skewed a bit (at least that’s what my wife says) since I only interface with ya’ll through your comments on the BB. But I’ve seen tons of talk on this topic and I really haven’t seen much talk at all on getting on with God’s business of winning the world for Jesus since I’ve been hangin’ out with ya’ll.

 

My, how you guys blend biblical concepts. What does this verse say about election? Absolutely nothing. You said, "God ELECTS or rejects based on what you do with His Son." I asked for a chapter and verse and you give me one that doesn't mention election or rejection but uses the terms saved and condemned. Do you see the problem here?

We are not talking about a DVD for Christmas. We are talking about a penalty for a crime that has been committed. If I go to court because I have committed a crime, and someone else pays the penalty for that, it would be unrighteous of the judge to make me pay for it as well.

I didn't say faith WAS the gift. I asked if faith was PART of the gift. Get it straight before you answer. Paul says, "by grace you have been saved through faith." The next phrase says, "that (or this) is not of yourselves." "That" (or this) refers to being saved by grace through faith. Grammatically, in Greek, that is the only thing possible, since "that" is neuter and each noun in the previous phrase is feminine.

 

Bob, good timely reminder. I am passionate in what I believe, as is everyone else around here! How passionate are we in pleading with men to be reconciled to Christ?

 

The only nonsense is to say that I'm suggesting that we are born incapable of the attribute of faith. We can have faith in our own ability to earn our way into heaven, for example. It's not going to work, but it's faith.

You are the one who is splitting out faith from the rest of the equation. Calvi rightly points out that [that] is neuter and cannot refer back to [faith] or [grace] (the latter would be redundant anyway). It must refer back to the opening phrase in its entirety, which is:

[For by grace you have been saved through faith]

The only thing I would add or amend to what Calvi said is the fact that the tense is rendered more accurately:

[For by grace you are having been saved through faith]

The tense becomes important when you look for the reference for [that], which is [having been saved (by grace) through faith].

I don't know how much more clear it can be. The fact that we are having been saved through faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. So faith is part of the gift. This is reinforced by Philippians 1:29

It has been granted to us to believe in Him. It wasn't something we granted to ourselves.

But nobody here (as far as I know) would say we can't have misplaced faith without the gift.

 

Rip, the first point of the remontrants sounds calvinistic by today's standards. At least it recognizes the role of God in salvation, howbeit ever so incorrect.

We live in the age which the Dordt-er's predicted: semi-pelagianism only leads back to plain old pelagianism and thereby Rome. Salvation by human merit. Just "get saved" whenever YOU decide to. God is cowering in the corner, wringing his hands, hoping that somehow, in your own nature, you'll find the compassion within yourself to feel sorry for God and "believe" in him by your own natural ability.

Finney was an outright heretic, yet he is lauded and honored by today's "revivalists" who wish to duplicate his short-lived yet sensational revivals, all based on raw emotionalism and shallow doctrine. That's where we are today. Today's arminian or "biblicist" can't understand why every kind of flake and nut arises out of their own ranks, proclaiming every sort of fantasy, from "saving" a million souls in Texas (Longview Baptist Temple) to solving world hunger (Saddleback). Now Calvinism has its flakes, too, but at least within the calvinist system, it's easier to identify those that are straying from the center. And most of them are flaky because of their eschatology (as in Harlod Camping), not due to their soteriology.

It all comes back to doctrine, to theology. When are we going to turn back to God?