Amen to all that, Pastor Larry.
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!
But here again you show your (already confronted) misunderstanding. You tried to float this a while back and it didn't work then either. The question for you is, Why do they form false religions instead of turning to God? The answer is their own depravity. They are seeking for the idea of a god, not for God. This is completely in line with our understanding and totally contrary to yours.Originally posted by Helen:
If Calvinists were correct about the nature of man in terms of being unable to believe or to seek at all anything other than evil, then they are going to have a tough time explaining other religions, all of which seek to improve man in some way or another. If there were no concept of something better than what we are, then those multitudes of religions would simply not exist.
I would differ on why laws are created but that is immaterial. What you have said is again a testimony to depravity. Why do they establish laws? Because they understand sin and will not turn to God because of their depravity.Laws are precisely man's effort to change or at least control his own nature. They would not come into being if man were not aware that there was something wrong with his nature that needed, at the very least, controlling!
Another often refuted misunderstanding. No one has said that man is only capable of evil thoughts in contrast to civil good as you would imply. What we have said is what the Bible teaches ... namely that the heart is deceitful, that man is turned against God and out of the way, and that apart from a unilateral, effectual call of God, man will not be saved.If man were truly incapable of any thoughts or ideas but evil in his natural condition, then there would be no laws except the law of the jungle:
Big difference between us and the Evolutionists. We believe the Bible and can defend our position from the Bible. I have not seen real ad hominem attacks though I have cautioned some to back off the rhetoric. What I have seen is people committed to the truth and willing to confront error when they see it.I have begun to put the Calvinists in the same class as evolutionists in a CERTAIN way - their tendency to go for the ad hominem attack when confronted by something they don't like. Interesting…
thank you for your answer, pinoybaptistOriginally posted by pinoybaptist:
Yes, Aki. There is a basis for which God chooses those who will enter His rest. The Law pictures God's requirements, do you know of any mortal man able to keep all the points and requirements of the Law ? Hear David in Psalms 3-4:
"Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD ? or who shall stand in his holy place ?
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn
deceitfully."
Do you think anyone, elect or not, qualifies ?
And God never violated His own precepts and law and requirements.
He extracted punishment for sin.
Jesus Christ paid that penalty, took that punishment, shed His blood, got spat on, beat on, took the flogging and had His very skin torn.
Right there is the difference between the Ruler of the Universe, Holy and Righteous, and the rulers of this planet.
The former chose to be merciful to many, without bypassing the satisfaction of His laws.
The latter pardons without anyone else suffering the retribution of the crimes of those they pardon.
I don't think we are told exactly how we can make real choices that are nevertheless determined by God. And I will grant you that it is seemingly paradoxical. But I do think that is the picture that scripture paints for us: We make real choices for which we are really responsible, and yet those choices are choices that are governed by God.Please help me understand, because I really want to.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a misrepresentation of Calvinism to say that Calvinists don't believe that poeple have a choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If election is true, how can salvation be a choice in anything other than meaningless sophistry?
All the Bible tells us is that is it according to His purpose. God has His reasons, His purpose that He is working out through His choices, but what those reasons are, we are not told. We are told a couple of things that are not reasons for God's choice--physical descendency (who your parents are--or what nationality you are), anything good or bad we do, or our will (our choice) .my concern really is why a person, in accordance to the Calvinist/Electionist doctrine, was chosen for salvation while the other is not. what has been God's reason for electing some and not the others?
in other words, i am not asking what is God's basis to accept a person. it is already clear - perfect righteousness. but rather i am asking what has been God's basis for electing those He elected while others he did not. i am sure it is out of His pleasure, will and sovereignty, but if that is the only answer i'd say it will not satisfy, for it is God's will that all should come to repentance.
or is the bible silent concerning what has been God's reason for choosing those He chose?
well thanks, russel, for your answer. of course i do not totally agree when you say that our will is not a reason for God's choice because there are times that it is.Originally posted by russell55:
All the Bible tells us is that is it according to His purpose. God has His reasons, His purpose that He is working out through His choices, but what those reasons are, we are not told. We are told a couple of things that are not reasons for God's choice--physical descendency (who your parents are--or what nationality you are), anything good or bad we do, or our will (our choice) .
Therein lies the problem. Man wants to know why.i am sure it is out of His pleasure, will and sovereignty, but if that is the only answer i'd say it will not satisfy
The complete text reads:for it is God's will that all should come to repentance.
My advice, Aki, is read the entire book of Peter 1 and 2, and remember to stay within context.The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance....
2nd Peter 3:9
Well, I thought we were talking specifically about God's choice in election. I base my statement on Romans 9, where, speaking specifically of election (or God's choice to whom He shows mercy), it says it is not "of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." In other words, election is not based on our positive choice (him that willeth), or on our good effort (him that runneth), but on God's choice to show mercy to whom He will.of course i do not totally agree when you say that our will is not a reason for God's choice because there are times that it is.
I believe that all of us were born condemned. God elects some out of that already condemned group to bring to salvation.1. is it your belief that God elected some for salvation while some for condemnation? or, do you believe that God created some men simply to send them to Hell, according to His pleasure?
No answer to that question is given.2. is it stated in the Scriptures why God has chosen to elect only a few....why not then elect everyone?
I agree with the poster above me. That little bit of scripture needs to be put in context.given that it is not His will that any should perish and that all should come to repentance?
When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in His image and likeness - holy and sinless.1. is it your belief that God elected some for salvation while some for condemnation? or, do you believe that God created some men simply to send them to Hell, according to His pleasure?
And what about Justice ? Adam was given a choice.2. <snip, answered in another post> why not then elect everyone? <snip, answered in another post>
When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in His image and likeness - holy and sinless.1. is it your belief that God elected some for salvation while some for condemnation? or, do you believe that God created some men simply to send them to Hell, according to His pleasure?
And what about Justice ? Adam was given a choice.2. <snip, answered in another post> why not then elect everyone? <snip, answered in another post>
Where does the Bible teach this? This is once again, just our trying to justify certain interpretations of passages.The Gospel is to be announced to every creature for either of two purposes, for... the confirmation of the damnation of the non-elect. in their natural unbelief. This so that they will continue to be "without excuse."
I base this on the way people glibly promote this doctrine of reprobation or preterition, and that how only a few are determined to be saved, like hey, it's no skin off anyone's nose. I'm saved, that's all that matters to me. (Then this is forced into various passages that are not even talking about the reprobation of individuals, as if we want to make the scriptures say that we were saved while others were passed over. Then we wonder why people "ask why God won't save all". So you say "God decides to save certain people from the damnation they brought upon themselves, and man asks, "Why. Why should you save others and pass the rest by. Give me a reason. Satisfy me," instead of falling before God...". But we are not questioning God in this, but rather human interpreters who are telling us this is what the Bible means, including the idea that theyWhoever said hell is a good thing, and we ought to celebrate others going there. Not me.
Your side consistently assumes that our opposition is all about our belief in our own goodness in saving ourselves. There may be some like that, but I know that I, and it appears, the other objectors here, are driven by compassion to the lost. So yes, we seem to be "tugging at God's sleeve like a spoiled child, and begging that He also save everybody else." Isn't this the attitude we all should have? (Because sin is against God, and not us, so who are we to delight in the idea of preterition of others because we think it's God's will.) Look at the very Romans 9 passage that is so misused, but the context ignored: Paul said he wished he could be accursed for the sake of those "vessels of wrath" he describes. It is the opposite of "Praise you Lord that He saved me and will roast those non-elect dogs for your glory", and then trying to mash everyone's face in this and expect them to gleefully accept it. If this is not what people may feel in their hearts, it sure is the way it comes across in this repeated failure to understand the motives of the objections.No. Man cries out give me a reason.
What is it that you want to hear, my friend ? That God says He knows you are really a good person at heart, and that He knew you would repent at hearing the gospel message, and based on this he rewards your inherent inclination to God, and all the rest do not have the God-inclined heart that you have so they will not repent and so He must punish them ?
So it's man's idea that God lives up to His character perfectly. But in His sovereignty, He can contradict Himself sometimes if He so chooses. In that case, He can lie and sin, and send us all to Hell even after promising to save us. Everyone would deny this, but that is where that idea leads to.God's sovereignty means that He live up to His attribute and character in a manner satisfactory to Himself, not to man.
I discussed that verse already.Oh, yeah ? Well, if Jesus says no man can come to me except the Father draw him, and somebody says, of course, they can come to God because they have the free will to do so,
isn't that contradicting God Himself ?
What do you mean by this?What I want to know is what do you believe about the triune God, considering we have your testimony.
This may have a big point, but the same can be said of eternal decrees of election, which calls into question whether the person was ever really lost to begin with. Especially when you insist (contrary even to other Calvinists here): "Their salvation is a finished fact, whether or not they hear the gospel." This is where I say we cannot explain this. It deals with the timeless realm of God, and is not what we are told top worry about. We people try to postulate either foreknowledge or reproabtion, (which is only for the sake of this debate), they are transcending scriptural boundaries.If God foresaw their response, and saved them because He knew they will repent on that time, therefore it follows that God foresaw something good in them, and that is, that they have a heart for the gospel, and therefore, a love for God.
These men do not fall under the category of Romans 3:10-18 because they have not really gone astray, they have some sort of fear of God, and they will do good because they will choose Christ on that given day God foresaw.If so, then it is not of grace that they have been saved, but of merit. Or, if you will, works. This is why in all my arguments I have insisted that Arminians believe there is an iota of good in man which is contrary to what the Bible says about man.
Now this seems more like a more intersting way of putting things. Would you have been the one who a few months ago said something about "all the possible realities" and how God chose one of these which was best or something like that. I thought it was maybe posttrib (I remember it was someone who isn't an everyday participant), but couldn't find the message again. That view, though posed by someone posting on the Calvinist side seemed to be the concordence point of the two sides, as is Larry's "primary/secondary causes". God's timelessness and how His decrees (primary causes) play out is above our comprehension. The only thing I fault Calvinism with is it's insistence that people have no possible chance to be saved, and reading this into various scriptures. (It has nothing to do with my taking credit for my own salvation, as my testimony tried to show). The real paradox is not that God delights not in the death of the wicked but does it anyway, but that God is sovereign and omniscient, but people are truly condemned because of their own rejection of a salvation that was open to them, and not simply their inability to repent. I wish we could just leave it at that instead of insisting something else and trying to spell out His primary causes.I believe the positive choice someone makes to God's offer of salvation is similar. Those who are elected to salvation willingly choose to follow Christ. At the point they make their positive choice, they make the choice that seems absolutely best to them--the choice they want most. They make that choice out of a genuine love for God and a genuine desire for spiritual things. They have no idea what choice God has determined for them, so, from their viewpoint, all options are truly open to them; even though they invariably make the choice that God has determined they will make.
How does this work? I really don't know, and I'm not sure we're supposed to (or capable) of understanding exactly how it works. It does help to remember that every single element that goes into our making choices is within God's control. He can influence our choices through intangible means. He never has to FORCE us to do anything, but can simply arrange things so that we willingly do what he has determined we will do.
should read: in that sense, the purpose of the gospel is not to propose salvation to God's people, it is to proclaim their salvation to the glory and honor of God. Sorry.In that sense, the elect's salvation does not bring about the salvation of God's people, it proclaims their salvation.