Since I don't think the cals are making a case for demons being elected to salvation, I'm not sure this distinction is worth making.
-
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!
2 opposing questions:
- Thread starter 12strings
- Start date
- Status
The fallacy here is this: You preach the gospel to someone, and say, "God elected them to be saved." I preach the gospel to someone and say, "God saved them." (I say "I" because I don't presume to speak for all arminians or other non-cals) Either way, God saved them.
If they aren't saved, you say they were not elected; I say they rejected the free gift. Either way, they're not saved.
The only real difference between us is the matter of predestination...and neither of us will actually know until we sit at the throne and have it explained in person by the author Himself.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Nonsense
In the passage, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 Paul says natural men cannot understand spiritual things or things of the Spirit, but it does not tell us whether all spiritual things or just some spiritual things are in view. But then Paul clarifies it for us by telling us Paul had to speak to babes in Christ as men of flesh, because they could not understand the meat of the gospel, only the milk.
Therefore this passage demonstrates for anyone who can read, that fallen men can understand the fundamentals of the gospel, sufficient to become born anew.
No, it teaches they cannot.
In the passage, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 Paul says natural men cannot understand spiritual things or things of the Spirit, but it does not tell us whether all spiritual things or just some spiritual things are in view. But then Paul clarifies it for us by telling us Paul had to speak to babes in Christ as men of flesh, because they could not understand the meat of the gospel, only the milk.
Therefore this passage demonstrates for anyone who can read, that fallen men can understand the fundamentals of the gospel, sufficient to become born anew.
Yes, and Gal 3:2 agrees.
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This verse proves men can hear and believe the gospel before they receive the Holy Spirit. Eph 1:13 also says these persons first heard the gospel, then believed, and then after believeing were sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Knowing this, now go to 1 Cor 2:12;
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
These "things of God" cannot mean the gospel, because Paul shows in Gal 3:2 that the Spirit is received by faith, Eph 1:13 also confirming this.
Natural men are able to understand and believe the gospel, and when they do they receive the Spirit that enables them to understand "the things of God" described in 1 Cor 2.
Webdog
The word of God is quick and powerful...sharper than any two edged sword ...agreed.....
I do not think it can be measured in terms of hours of bible study and prayer as if...time spent means sure results. If a person spends much time wrongly dividing the word...they will just be more confirmed in their error.
Harold Camping spent 50 years developing his ideas but departed from the historic faith and all safeguards....time did not help him.
You are one who claimed to at one time hold to the doctrines of grace if I am not mistaken. At one time I tried to meet with you for a coffee and see what you were about as far as where you believed you were then and what has led you to where you are now. It did not work out...maybe some day it will.
My confidence is not in myself....but rather in God and His word.
if we meet some time...it will be us, our bibles and the Spirit of God.
Sounds good to me. I have no secrets and if you can offer scriptural correction that would be great.:thumbsup:
Is he? I can't really tell by what he's posted so far. Either way, my statement was, "Calvinists don't worry so much about the why of God's ways. They focus more on what He has done." Never said no Calvinist asks why. Some do because they fall into the trap of wanting to reconcile God's ways with carnal notions of justice and mercy.
Careful here. Christ is the Son in the true sense of the word. It's not something that can be conceived in the mind of man, so many will scoff at the notion. But Christ is the only begotten of the Father, and this has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Without beginning of days and end of life, yet begotten of God.
humblethinker
Active Member
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I think you avoid asking why because to do so would reveal the weakness of your dogma.
Plus, if asking why God does what he does is wrong, then explain these passages where God actually addresses the question of "why?":
I guess you think scripture is just trying to "reconcile God's ways with carnal notions of justice and mercy?"
But you're not satisfied with God's answers. "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy." You have to make God's election contingent upon some quality in or response of the individual, and NOT, as God and His apostle have told us over and over, simply God's will. Your why's are invalid. They're sent to indict, not to gain wisdom. Always and anon your argument is that election is unjust. What more can I say than what Paul has said? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, WHY hast thou made me thus?
Paul has undone your entire frame of reference.
I realize this, I was merely showing that it is impossible to correctly interpret any single verse without considering the whole teaching of scripture.
Certainly appropriate. . .but in regards to this subject, is it cause for division, strife, the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude we often see expressed on this board (to which I'm as guilty as any other). . .much less a question of one's salvation?
[
this why exactly how/why to God be the glory, as He alone is able to make a spiritually dead man get quickened and enabled to than be actually able to place faith in the Christ that giod provided as the atonement for ourSins!
God has election based SOLELY upon HHIS Sovereign Will, and those whom are the saved of god realise that it is TOTALLY based upon God from start to Finish!
that is why the great Apostle paul found himself unable to even record down the words appropiate to describe the Gift of God to save us!
[/QUOTE]
this why exactly how/why to God be the glory, as He alone is able to make a spiritually dead man get quickened and enabled to than be actually able to place faith in the Christ that giod provided as the atonement for ourSins!
God has election based SOLELY upon HHIS Sovereign Will, and those whom are the saved of god realise that it is TOTALLY based upon God from start to Finish!
that is why the great Apostle paul found himself unable to even record down the words appropiate to describe the Gift of God to save us!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm fine with God's answers, but silly me I insist on allowing those answers to be interpreted and properly understood within their context.
You take this phrase to mean "I will have mercy on a select few chosen individuals to the neglect of all others," while I appropriately read all the context of Paul's statements where he starts this chapter expressing extraordinary love for his fellow countrymen who are being "hardened in part" while the Gentiles are being grafted in. You would suggest that God hates these people, while Paul is willing to be accursed for their sakes, thus making Paul more merciful and loving than the God who has inspired his writings.
Thus, I understand this phrase to mean that it is God's prerogative as God to use some Jews for "noble purposes" and some for "common use," as he has hardened some Jews in their rebellion while choosing others (like Paul) as apostles...and he chooses them based on his OWN purposes in election and not based on any merit. I also understand that Paul is showing that God is showing mercy to "the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."
See how Paul begins the chapter and ends the chapter? That is called CONTEXT and it is essential to understand intent.
Here is a lesson on hermeneutics for those who care to understand the context and intent of the author:
1. Ask WHO is being addressed: Who would be making this objection?
2. Ask WHAT is their condition: What is the condition of these people exactly?
Answer: The Jew who has grown calloused (Rm 10:21) and who is now being "cut off" from the tree and blinded in his rebellious condition while the Gentiles are being "grafted in." But, who hasn't stumble beyond recovery because they may be provoked to envy and saved. (Rm 11:11-14)
All that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. IOW, the elect.
They're saved, but still somewhat carnal in their thinking.
The "calloused Jew?" :laugh::laugh: He ain't even listenin' to Paul. Paul ain't talkin' to him.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "
Clearly in this diatribe Paul anticipates the objection of "us" or "me" (those "formed"). Why would an elect person chosen and formed to be saved make this objection?
- Status