A little about MY belief....

The thing with your example is you presume the recipient will get into the car on his own.
If Jesus buys somebody a car, it is because He knows the recipient needs the car, so He Himself puts the recipient in the car, and He Himself drives the car, all the way to the destination.

Gift giving is never indiscriminate, whether in the Bible, or anywhere else.

You send gifts to those you know and love or respect, and long before God sent His gift to this fallen world, He knew for whom He intended the gift to be.

 

Having replied to SFIC's post, I now turn to IAKOPA.
My advice is never say never, except by the grace and strength of God.
Remember that we are what we are by His grace only.
If you mean the beliefs, the core beliefs of Primitive Baptist churches, then I stand with you, with regards to election, God's sovereignty,God's independence of means as to the salvation of His people, the gospel not being an instrument unto salvation but an instrument unto time salvation, and so on.
However, the time may come when you may differ with your own fellowship circle of PB churches with regards to certain issues dividing the PB's of our time, and needless to say, after all have been said and done, they are theological issues.
Missionism is a theological issue, tithing is a theological issue, salaried ministers is a theological issue, all of these are theological issues where one must take a firm stand.
These are spoken in love and with all due respects.

 

Perhaps our friend iakopa needs charm school, but I would like to ask about this theory of yours if I may. To whom did Christ pay the debt that He did not owe, you or the Father? If I go down to the power company and pay your bill the only thing that matters is whether they accept it. You have no say in the matter. Christ paid the debt to the Father. The only thing that matters is whether He accepted Christ's payment on your behalf or not. Did the Father accept the Son's payment or not?

 

The Lord Jesus Christ told Nicodemus, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"--John 3:17-18

Now---if the whole world believes--thats fine! But we know that that won't ever come about---not everybody will believe---not everyone is going to repent and receive!

 

This analogy is SO TIRED, and so impotent, it makes me want to scream.

How about if I deposit $100 into your bank account? You now have the money, and you didn't have to do anything whatsoever to receive it. Here, let me save you the trouble. If you're a true free-willer, you'll respond with "I could reject that money and send it back to you." But you still have to admit you did nothing to receive it, but you had to actively reject it. And so on...

These analogies are idiotic. How about quoting the Bible instead of making up inane analogies to support your opinions?

 

I know, don't tell me...but you will try to change ours won't you?

 

Have you ever read John 12:48?

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him
in the last day."

 

What? You wrote

Do you mean that God isn't sovereign enough to get to to accept His calling yet? Isn't your will in play here?

[ May 09, 2006, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

This analogy is SO TIRED, and so impotent, it makes me want to scream.

How about if I deposit $100 into your bank account? You now have the money, and you didn't have to do anything whatsoever to receive it. Here, let me save you the trouble. If you're a true free-willer, you'll respond with "I could reject that money and send it back to you." But you still have to admit you did nothing to receive it, but you had to actively reject it. And so on...

These analogies are idiotic. How about quoting the Bible instead of making up inane analogies to support your opinions? </font>[/QUOTE]Would you deposit $100.00 in my bank account?

If you do I'll say something nice about Calvin.

Calvin was a good dancer

(I'll e-mail you my account #)

 

I advise to you is not to get too bent out of shape over secondary issues that Christ himself does not want us to divide over (John 17:22).

And this type of difference should in no way be compared to Catholicism that has been an enemy of the Gospel to the destruction of souls for 1700 years.

 

iakopa, for what it's worth, I like it when people say what they really think, as long as it's not vulgar or personal.

I think one called Frenchy has recently been banned from the BB because she couldn't cap off her emotions. I think I've come close to that myself a few times. It's a shame because I enjoyed her perspective on things, even when I was in disagreement. In fact, she straightened me out on an issue by PM for which I was greatful.

So I would caution you to not let your passion get you in trouble, but please do continue to post. And BTW I happen to favor the doctrine of regeneration apart from means.

 

iakopa, I would like to inquire about your beliefs concerning evangelistic work. Should we or should we not be promoting, preaching, calling to the lost, praying for them to be saved? Or are our efforts to enlarge God's kingdom totally ridiculous?

 

iakopa reminds me of me. When I discovered the doctrines of grace, it was Pow! right in the kisser! I wanted to talk about it with everybody I came in contact with. My pastor rolled his eyes when he saw me coming.

If others are like me, new Calvinists embrace it with an intense passion. We newbies don't understand why others can't see it as clearly as we do.

We are vulnerable to becoming obnoxious and arrogant if we aren't careful.

With a little maturity, I came to realize that I was making a pest of myself, and that understanding of spiritual things is a gift from God, not because of our smarts.

I'm no less passionate, but I hope a whole lot less obnoxious and arrogant.

 

Age of accountability is only Catholic? I don't think so. Guess its time to throw a different slant on this subject. Scripture of age of accountability:


Romans, chapter 7
"8": But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

"9": For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

"10": And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

"11": For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

"12": Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

I too was once alive without the Law, the commandments came and I died in trespasses of sin. Where there is no law sin is not imputed. Same old argument, are babies lost? NO!! for they have not sinned. They were born with a body of sinful nature because of Adam's sin but they themselves had not sinned for Adam's sin caused them to have to die a natural death but in order to die the second death that baby has to sin and the Law is not present yet therefore it cannot sin or aborted babies in a garabage can would be lost too. "The soul that sinneth shall die" Look at the word (shall)". How could it die if it was already death at birth, impossible. When is the age of accountability, "when a person comes to the age to know to do good and does it not", and I am Baptist, not Catholic.


KJMatt.19
"13": Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

"14": But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (not going to be but "is").


Matthew, chapter 18
"10": Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven

Oh, if only we were as good as a little baby or child!!!, Amen

BBob

Here we go.

I too enjoyed Frenchy input on different subjects but we all have to restrain ourselves with our emotions. I have let go too far myself at times and hard to take back. I have learned on here to back off when it gets too hot.

 

If predestination is true how could your father be in hell because of free will. If he were not one of the elect he would be in hell because God predetermined he would go there, regardless of his free will. Some consistency would be nice.

Bro Tony

 

Wow! I thought you said your father was in hell because of free will, now he taught the truth of God's elect. Which one is true? Or did your dad have a split personality?

Bro Tony

 

There is a major problem with using this passage in reference to babies or even whether Paul was a sinner or not: The Law showed up about 2000 years before Paul was ever born. Paul does not say, "Up until the point I understood the Law, I was ok." He says, "The commandment came." He is talking in general about what the law does to the mind's understanding of sin, not to the soul of infants. He is not arguing over whether sin is there or not. He is saying that sin is there, but people don't know it until they see the law.

Besides, isn't God's law (which man has broken) eternal? This does not mean that it just goes on into eternity future. It means that it exists in eternity past. The Law is the revealing of God's character, also called His glory. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, whether they have ever seen (or heard) the ten commandments or not.

The second major problem here, is that if you take this passage to mean what you do, then we should NEVER evangelize or take the Law of God to those who have never heard. They may die physically, but if they have never heard the Law, then they will go to heaven because they are still in innocence.

Obviously, this is patently untrue. Those who have never heard the law or the gospel are dead in tresspasses and sins just like those who have heard it. Therefore, your understanding of this passage is in error.

 

Hmmm...
The "ignorance of the Law is no excuse" argument then.

 

Calvibaptist;
You make my point. The Law was around but yet Paul didn't have it. Why? if the Law was around 2000 years did Paul not have it. He was "alive" when he did not have it, so when was it. At the time He was talking to us he did have it and sin revived and he died. Here was Paul and he was "alive", even though some say he had to be dead in sin when he was born but yet Paul said he was "alive". Wonder when that was? Where there is no law there is no sin for sin is transgression of the law. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. The wages of sin is death. So when was Paul "alive"? Could it of been when he was a child he was "alive"? Could he been born in a sinful nature but not sinning therefore he was alive inwardly? Could it be when he come to know to do good the law had enter and sin revived and he died? Could it be he then needed Christ to redeemed him from that dead state and make him alive again in Christ Jesus. hmmmm, I wonder.