A Challenge to prove...

[Scott J]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
All I and Ken and all the other brethren of the Calvinist persuasion are saying is that the man you are talking about has no ability because he is DEAD!... Now how many idioms of DEAD are there?... The reason he has the will and the to do is because he is saved already and not to be saved... I don't see it as you do... He is not drowning he is DEAD!... Ezekiel 16 will tell you how dead he is!... Brother Glen

From what I have read in these threads, I would not personally classify you and Ken together. If your analogy is to be accepted then God not only wills salvation, He wills damnation and sin as well. These last two propositions are contrary to scripture. Along with a sometime belief that some people can be elect and go to heaven without hearing or accepting are markers of hyper-calvinist.

I consider myself a Calvinist in the vein of Spurgeon and Edwards- never to the point of denying or twisting scripture. Man only has the will to accept Christ when the Holy Spirit gives him the faith. Nonetheless, belief and repentance are commanded. To say that a man is completely passive (and maybe even unaware) defies countless scriptures. Here are some samples: Mark 1:15, 5:36; John 1:7, John 1:12, 3:15-18, 36; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 4:4, 8:37, 10:43,11:21, 16:31, 18:8, Romans 3:3,22,26, 2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 2:5.

My grandparents were Primative Baptists and Hyper-Calvinists. My grandmother declared that one of my uncles was born to go to hell from the time he was a baby. He lived a hellish lifestyle. One day he flashed several thousand dollars in a bar. He was found dead later in a one car crash... the money was never found.

Was my uncle's godless lifestyle a result of God's choice, his, or my grandmother's? The Hyper-C might not actually say God but that would be the result of their logic. The Arminian would possibly lay some of the blame on my grandmother since she inhibited him. The classic Calvinist would say his by an act of his own free will... that God sovereignly chose not to intervene in.

 

[Eric B]

Being "dead" they are already alienated from God and under His wrath. They don't have to do something to to be in that position. The first Adam put us in that position to start with.

What we received from adam is our sin nature, which makes us sin, and thus alienates us from God and puts us under His wrath. If "death" is taken to too far an extreme, then even this has no meaning. (God is just throwing dead corpses into everlasting punishment, --yet they're really living, feeling souls).

Pinoybaptist said:

Anybody able to repent of his sin on his own, to choose between God and Satan on his own, deserves salvation, because such a one will not want to go to hell,

Where do you get this from? Once a person has sinned, He is under condemnation and can do nothing to make it up or pay for it. It's the realization of precisely this point that leads one to accept Christ, but his accepting this does not pay for it. Besides, one does not just out of the blue repent "on his own". God is the one who is drawing. These false assumptions are why Calvinists keep accusing non-Calvinists of having people earn salvation.

 

[tnelson]

Psalm 65:4
Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Of Your holy temple.

This verse is a very rich one. We have election, effectual calling, access, acceptance, and son-ship.

We are chosen of God, according to the good pleasure of His will, and this alone is blessedness. Then, since we cannot and will not come to God of ourselves, He works graciously in us, and attracts us powerfully; He subdues our unwillingness, and removes our inability by the almighty workings of His transforming grace. This also is blessedness. Furthermore, we, bye His divine drawings, are made nigh by the blood of His Son, and brought near by His Spirit, into intimate fellowship. Acceptance leads to abiding: God does not make a temporary choice, or give and take; His gifts and calling are withour repentance. He who is once admittted to God's courts shall inhabit them for ever; To dwell in the courts of the Great King is to be ennobled; to dwell there forever is to be emparadised: yet such is the portion of every man whom God has chosen and caused to approach unto Him, though once his iniquities prevailed against him.
c.h. spurgeon: The Treasury of David, vol.2 pg. 91

by HIS GRACE
mike

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Being "dead" they are already alienated from God and under His wrath. They don't have to do something to to be in that position. The first Adam put us in that position to start with.

thus, to you, all those who go to hell are so punished because of Adam. their personal sins really are not the issue because they already had the cause to be "dead" due to Adam. and since, to you, Christ did not pay for that, those who will receive the second death are so punished primarily because of somebody else's fault. it cannot be personal sins, for before the personal sin that anybody commits, there is already the spiritual death the cause of which, to you, was that Adam has put us to that position to start with.

Originally posted by Eric B:
What we received from adam is our sin nature, which makes us sin, and thus alienates us from God and puts us under His wrath.

what we received from Adam is the nature to sin. but then from God everyone was imputed the so called original sin. The original sin that God imputed to us has caused our spiritual death. thus, God does not wait for someone to sin to condemn him. rather he imputes the original sin to that person and thus place him under condemnation - even before he commits his first personal sin.

 

[doug44]

all of humanity recieved a physical and spiritual death sentence because of Adam's sin...that is the "curse" of sin....once we are born into this world we are on physical and spiritual "death row"...we inherit Adams sin nature and are guilty of our own individual sins but the curse of sin began with Adams original sin...the pardon from the curse of sin was made by Christs death on the cross...He took our place to pay that price...when we believe and repent of our sins and trust in Jesus Christ to save us...we recieve that pardon from the curse of sin.... ( im not trying to talk down to anyone or be condescending, just laying out on the table the big picture as best i can so there is a better understanding on the question of where the curse of sin and its consequences began ) also apologize for getting a bit off the track from the topic of this thread but i hope my point has relevance to the last few posts...

 

[doug44]

to finish my own thought from previous post...the pardon brought by Christs sacrifice on the cross is the gift of eternal life...we still sin after we are saved...but the difference is we are justified by Christ..."just as if i never sinned" still sinners but given the blessed hope of salvation...our sins now covered by the blood of Jesus Christ...and when we do sin as believers we should be grieved in our hearts over our sin against God...seeking his forgiveness.

 

[Ray Berrian]

doug44,

I agree with your post dated July 26--12:51.

 

[absturzen]

Scott J,

Praises and rejections...

First let me say, I liked your water analogy. A reprobate will say, "There is no water, there is rope, there is no one saying 'grab the rope', and I am not even wet."

Along with a sometime belief that some people can be elect and go to heaven without hearing or accepting are markers of hyper-Calvinist.

Not necessarily. We can only say what we know. We know that those that believe are elect and saved and those that reject the gospel till the end are not of the elect.

By your quote; all infants that die go to hell because they can't hear the gospel. NOW, I know you didn't have any intend to imply that and that isn't what you believe. I am just pointing out the error in the statement itself.

This is traditional Calvinism... That all those that are elect that are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Gospel shall be saved. What the limits of incapability are is solely defined by God and His decree. Who the elect are is solely defined by God and His decree.

My grandparents were Primitive Baptists and Hyper-Calvinists.

I could be wrong but I see a suggestion that all PBs are hyper. I am primitive Baptist and I am not hyper.

Is hyperism in the PB? Yes.
Is it in the Reform churches? yes.
Is it in the Presbyterian churches? yes.
Is it in the Landmark or Calvinist Baptist churches? yes.
(I know I left a bunch of folks out, but your group is included too

)

(I know the above is a blanket statement and is debate forum no no. But you get the drift.)


Stevie

[ July 27, 2002, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by absturzen:

Not necessarily. We can only say what we know. We know that those that believe are elect and saved and those that reject the gospel till the end are not of the elect.

I would disagree. I believe that scripture teaches that the elect will hear and believe. Belief is prerequisite for eternal life.

By your quote; all infants that die go to hell because they can't hear the gospel. NOW, I know you didn't have any intend to imply that and that isn't what you believe. I am just pointing out the error in the statement itself.

That would definitely be reading too much into my statement. However, I have never seen anyone build a biblical case about what happens to infants that die. It cannot be used to disprove my statement since scripture does not declare it.

I personally believe that anyone who is not capable of making cognizant moral judgments will not be condemned. But at best, this can only be inferred from the Bible.

This is traditional Calvinism... Who the elect are is solely defined by God and His decree.

As I understand it, I don't have a problem with this statement.

I could be wrong but I see a suggestion that all PBs are hyper. I am primitive Baptist and I am not hyper.

The ones I have been exposed to personally were. My dad who grew up in a PB home certainly thought they all were. Can you PM me the PB distinctives not related to hypercalvinism?

 

[absturzen]

Good Morning Scott J,

I would disagree. I believe that scripture teaches that the elect will hear and believe.

Totally agree. The elect will hear and believe. Maybe miswording on my part. Let me reiterate that those that have heard the gospel, it is a perquisite to believe and they will believe if they are reborn. How could they not ? (which I will get to)

Belief is prerequisite for eternal life.

This is what I have a problem with. Which goes back to my original statement; what about those who that are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Gospel?

If belief is prerequisite for these then they are all damned. This would include babies, small children and those that are mentally incapable.

The safe answer is; that all the elect will be saved. This we know.

...But at best, this can only be inferred from the Bible.

Very true. Totally agree.

Now, for my “How could they not ? “ question...(which I think you’ll agree. But just for a public statement for myself)

After regeneration, the person will "accept" Christ. This is due to the truth being revealed to him through rebirth. The reprobate cannot see this truth nor does he have any desire for it. The regenerated person will see it and believe. It can be called a "choice" but it is more of a realization and agreement with what God has already done.

The unregenerated man is bound by his sin nature therefore he would not believe thus could not believe. The regenerated man has a new nature. With this new nature, he can see what he could not see before.

It would be like me asking someone, "Well, I can beat you in the head with this hammer or I can give you an ice cream cone."

The unregenerate will say there is no hammer, there is no ice cream, and you don't exist either.

Like I have said before in this forum, I have never met or heard of someone saying that they believe that the gospel is true but decided to reject it Christ anyway.

The elect will believe when they are regenerated (they may try to fight believing it for a while but eventually will accept the truth).

The reprobate will think the gospel is total nonsense.

Don’t know if your in history stuff but here’s historic statements about babies and election. If not, good public info for passer-bys.

I want to be a Spurgeonite too
Stevie

Cannons of Dort , 1619

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 17. Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the
covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.

Westminster Confession, 1646

CHAPTER X. III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

1689 London Confession

Chapter 10 . 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;(10) who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;(11) so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith 1742

Chapter 10 . 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by doug44:
question??? the elect are those who Christ foreknew, who would be saved by freely accepting His call to be saved? or are the elect who Christ foreknew would be saved because of what was already predetermined? thats why pastor Larry sees a reference (that isnt there) to 2 groups of the elect. as far as i understand...only a calvinist would think it was predetermined who would be saved.

You said, "....God is in control but his elect are those who freely believe in Him....who were convicted by the Holy Spirit to choose Spiritual Life over Spiritual Death...NOT some predeterminded select segment of humanity...all of humanity is called to be saved...to repent and turn to Christ from their sins...." The "not" makes a distinction that cannot be made. Those who freely believe in him are the ones who God has chosen. Apart from God's choosing, none of humanity would believe. They would all chase their own free choices of self-indulgence and self-exaltation.

 

[Eric B]

First let me say, I liked your water analogy. A reprobate will say, "There is no water, there is rope, there is no one saying 'grab the rope', and I am not even wet."

It would be like me asking someone, "Well, I can beat you in the head with this hammer or I can give you an ice cream cone."

The unregenerate will say there is no hammer, there is no ice cream, and you don't exist either.

Like I have said before in this forum, I have never met or heard of someone saying that they believe that the gospel is true but decided to reject it Christ anyway.

The reprobate cannot see this truth nor does he have any desire for it.
The reprobate will think the gospel is total nonsense.

What about the person who turns out to be "reprobate" because he did not "persevere until the end"? They didn't "think it was nonsense" but did once say it was true (and may still say it's true. Remember, it's not just "perseverance in faith", but in "holiness" or Christian living).

 

[absturzen]

What about the person who turns out to be "reprobate" because he did not "persevere until the end"? They didn't "think it was nonsense" but did once say it was true (and may still say it's true. Remember, it's not just "perseverance in faith", but in "holiness" or Christian living).

Every person I every met that says they are a ex-christian had no real comprehension of the gospel. There are a bunch of people that say they believe or did at one time but they show no understanding , no love for the scriptures, nor show any fruits to justify that 'belief' they claim to have. (1st John 2:19)

Perseverance in the faith is the prove of the pudding. They are not elect because they held fast to the faith but the rather them holding fast to the faith shows as evidence that they truly believe and are elect. And I must say that the credit of them holding fast goes to God and not themselves. He gives us the ability to presevere.

Just like John 6:56-68. Others thought they believed and they kinda liked the ideas of Jesus but when they heard the truth they left. They left thinking Jesus was crazy (nonsense).

Now one has to ask themselves what is "perseverance of the Saints?"

If it is...
you must not sin anymore, or
you must live and act like a "Christian" at all times, or
you can never "backslide";

then back a bag because we ALL are going to hell. None of us can do that. Weakness is not total denoncement. The description of Peter's three-time denial shows us that. But God will strengthen us has he did him.

"perseverance of the Saints" means He will keep us not we will keep ourselves.

Thanks
Stevie

[ July 27, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

[Eric B]

Every person I every met that says they are a ex-christian had no real comprehension of the gospel. There are a bunch of people that say they believe or did at one time but they show no understanding , no love for the scriptures, nor show any fruits to justify that 'belief' they claim to have. (1st John 2:19)

My point was, this still doesn't quite seem like the total abhorance I see all non-elect charged with (under the premise of "total inability")
It's like you're admitting "oh yeah, the non-elect really can seek God after all, but it just won't be real or complete or with understanding".

[ July 27, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by absturzen:

<snip>
Now one has to ask themselves what is "perseverance of the Saints?"

If it is...
you must not sin anymore, or
you must live and act like a "Christian" at all times, or
you can never "backslide";

then back a bag because we ALL are going to hell. None of us can do that. Weakness is not total denoncement. The description of Peter's three-time denial shows us that. But God will strengthen us has he did him.

"perseverance of the Saints" means He will keep us not we will keep ourselves.

Thanks
Stevie

Which is why I'd rather not refer to it as perseverance of the saints but preservation of the saints ---- in the blood of Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

 

[absturzen]

It's like you're admitting "oh yeah, the non-elect really can seek God after all, but it just won't be real or complete or with understanding".

Man doesn't seek after God. Romans 3:9-11

Now man does look for "gods". All the false religions in the world shows us that. But no man seeks after God in his spiritual dead nature.

God reaches down to us; we don't reach up to Him.

Thanks
Stevie

 

[absturzen]

Wrote by pinoybaptist:

Which is why I'd rather not refer to it as perseverance of the saints but preservation of the saints ---- in the blood of Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

Amen! I agree. Preservation is a far better word.

Stevie

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
this still doesn't quite seem like the total abhorance I see all non-elect charged with (under the premise of "total inability")
It's like you're admitting "oh yeah, the non-elect really can seek God after all, but it just won't be real or complete or with understanding".

I don't think "total abhorrence" is the best way to put it. I think natural man does seek after the idea of God but they do not seek after the true God. The plethora of false gods have been created by man who intuitively know that God exists but who are unwilling to submit and seek the true God. Thus they create a god in the image of man.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

"...they create a god in the image of man." -Larry

If one looks carefully, that phrase almost seems as if it spells "Arminianism."

 

[Eric B]

But I'm not talking about "false gods". I guess this assumes every Christian who doesn't persevere was really believing in someone else or just some 'idea' all along, but in that case, the idea of him not "persevering" (or being "preserved", pinoy) in something would be moot.

And BTW, one could equally say Calvinism is "god made in man's image", when that side keeps thinking it can explain how God's "primary causes" play out according to our world of time.