Why does one believe? Or rather, why does one not believe? Jesus Christ told some men in John 10:26 "ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep." Notice the cause and effect. If belief is a condition of salvation, or becoming a sheep, then why does Jesus say this? Instead of saying belief is a condition of becoming a sheep, He says the exact opposite. Being a sheep is a condition of belief. These men didn't believe because they weren't sheep. Those that do believe do so because they are sheep. You believe in Jesus Christ because you are one of His, chosen before the world began unto everlasting salvation. In time He hath born you of His Spirit and given you faith, whereby you now believe the testimony of Him.
-
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!
Are the five points Biblical or man made?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
- Status
I don't disagree with the above and don't dispute that 'whom' is a person or as some might hold a group.
The 'whom' isn't the issue at all but what 'knew' means, and it is not and has never been 'loved'. Yes, God knew them just as He knows all men, yet there is toward this group or person knowledge that establishes something different about them to seperate them from the others God knows.
IOW - God seperates this person or group of individuals from the others based upon what?? We both agree that this answer revolves around the word 'foreknew", but what did He foreknow? It doesn't state here, it only states that according to his knowledge before-hand that had He purposed to predestinate this person or group of persons to be conformed to the image of His dear Son. And then goes on to declare the manner through which He brings it all to pass.
John Gill was a great man and had much good to say but he was also greatly mistaken on many counts as well, like all Godly men through out the ages. The word here is simply means 'faithfulness' as is seen in his first sentence and acknowledges that this is how it is viewed by others.
The fruit of the spirit does not mean that unsaved men can not have these attributes which in fact they do. The difference is the consistant state of being within these attributes that believers walk.
However I can pull just as many commentaries of reputable men which contradict his view on this as well so it comes back to what does the word mean in context. Scritpure states that faith is gift in 1 Cor 12 but it also states that all believers do not share the same gifts - now where does that leave us with respect to faith being a gift?
Latly: it is only by faith that we are declared righteous, and thus biblically we are not righteous prior to faith.
Last edited by a moderator:
Before I get into this and a few other of your posting (about being saved first and then believing).
Do you hold to the Primitive Baptist views of eternal salvation and temperal salvation? IOW - Do you hold that all Gods elect are saved eternally without respect of belief but that they may also be saved temporally (now) and walk in truth and faith thus declaring God salvation to the world as well.
To one who would say that God foreknew something I would do, such as place faith in Him, I point you towards Psalm 14 and 53. There David says that God looked down on the kingdom of men to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. His conclusion? Everyone of them is gone back, they are altogether become filthy, there is none that doeth good, no not one. Paul, of course, uses this in Romans 3 to argue to both Jew and Gentile that they were both under sin.
God knew in a cognitive sense that every single man and woman were sinners under condemnation. Foreknowledge of God must not be based on cognition of something either in me or something I did, because I was a child of wrath even as others. I was under the dominion of sin, free from righteousness, and unwilling and unable to come to God. I had no desire to seek after Him, was not hungering and thirsting after righteousness, was not laboring and heavy laden, and certainly wasn't mourning over my sins. I was following the course of this world, and the prince of the power of the air, fullfilling the desires of my flesh and my mind. As a pig is happy in his slop, so was I in sin. And, but the grace of God had called me from that condition, I'd still be there. All praise and thanks be to God who hath called me by His Spirit.
God knew in a cognitive sense that every single man and woman were sinners under condemnation. Foreknowledge of God must not be based on cognition of something either in me or something I did, because I was a child of wrath even as others. I was under the dominion of sin, free from righteousness, and unwilling and unable to come to God. I had no desire to seek after Him, was not hungering and thirsting after righteousness, was not laboring and heavy laden, and certainly wasn't mourning over my sins. I was following the course of this world, and the prince of the power of the air, fullfilling the desires of my flesh and my mind. As a pig is happy in his slop, so was I in sin. And, but the grace of God had called me from that condition, I'd still be there. All praise and thanks be to God who hath called me by His Spirit.
Are you saying it was never God's intentions/plan to save the whole world, only those represented (actually saved) by christ???
That being the case, where is the "exclusion" for "Any" to be lost in the following verses?
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Ro 5:20 But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
For Grace to exceed sin, it would have to have the ability to save the whole world, all have sinned.
That's what we find in scripture, but If God has provided a way for all men to be saved, then why isn't all men saved,
Predestination interprets scripture to say God never had any intentions of saving the whole world, only a "few".
The other side says God provided for the whole world to be saved, "BUT" required man to "SHOW FAITH" in Jesus before God would save. (grace through faith)
What is the different in believing you are saved by the "works of the law" or by "Predestination"???
neither one of the above requires "YOU" to "SHOW FAITH" in Jesus prior to being saved.
Israel had "FAITH" (zeal) in God and believed in "predestination", being Abraham's descendants, but it didn't save them.
Saying we're saved by "predestination" is as "BAD" as saying we're saved by "works of the law",
because neither requires a "personal faith" from "US".
That doctrine didn't work Israel, it won't work for anyone else either.
And his purpose was that all might be saved and not any perish. :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, concerning fruit of the Spirit, consider this. Say I have an orchard and I say I have the fruit of a peach tree growing in that orchard. This must mean that I have a peach tree in that orchard, for how can fruit grow without a tree? Thus it is with fruit of the Spirit. One must first be born of God, have the Spirit of Him that raised up Christ dwelling in him, before He can have the fruit of the Spirit. He must first have the tree before the fruit, otherwise why does Paul use the example of fruit here.
Secondly, salvation is a broad term in scripture. If one does not agree with that one cannot gain a consistent view of scripture. I've given the instance before of Paul telling Timothy he could do something to save himself and them that hear him. Timothy was already in the ministry. Does one think that Paul would want an unregenerate in the ministry? Obviously, the term saved as used here doesn't refer to being born again and saved everlastingly to heaven. It must mean something else, and it appears that the application appears timely. Now, you asked to I hold to the Primitive Baptist view of salvation, and I do. However, you, and sometimes PBs do as well, break salvation down into two categories, thus separating them. However, that isn't really a scriptural way to do it. The best way to describe salvation is to say that it is a board term covering things like regeneration, justification, preservation, resurrection, glorification, etc. The way to tell what one has been, is being, or shall be saved from when one comes across the word saved in a text is to observe context.
Secondly, salvation is a broad term in scripture. If one does not agree with that one cannot gain a consistent view of scripture. I've given the instance before of Paul telling Timothy he could do something to save himself and them that hear him. Timothy was already in the ministry. Does one think that Paul would want an unregenerate in the ministry? Obviously, the term saved as used here doesn't refer to being born again and saved everlastingly to heaven. It must mean something else, and it appears that the application appears timely. Now, you asked to I hold to the Primitive Baptist view of salvation, and I do. However, you, and sometimes PBs do as well, break salvation down into two categories, thus separating them. However, that isn't really a scriptural way to do it. The best way to describe salvation is to say that it is a board term covering things like regeneration, justification, preservation, resurrection, glorification, etc. The way to tell what one has been, is being, or shall be saved from when one comes across the word saved in a text is to observe context.
Isaiah 46 - I have purposed it, I will also do it.
If God purposed to save every single man in history, every single man in history is saved.
God didn't send His Son to condemn the world because they were already condemned. He sent His Son to save the world. Now the question is, what does world mean? You say it means every single person everywhere. Alright, what do you make of texts that say that Jesus didn't pray for the world but for those the Father gave him, that say the world hated Jesus and those that follow Him, that say the world couldn't receive the Spirit, and so forth? How about when the chief priests said the whole world was gone after Jesus? Obviously, the word world cannot mean every single person in existence without distinction every time when used. So then it must mean something else. Sometimes it is referring to believers. Sometimes to the wicked. Sometimes to the literal creation.
To equate predestination to works salvation because it doesn't require anything of us is just such an abuse till it is mind boggling. That's like Paul's critics saying, let's sin because we aren't under the law but under grace. Surely you realize that while my belief won't get me to heaven, I'm still required to believe testimony given that Jesus is the Son of God.
If God purposed to save every single man in history, every single man in history is saved.
God didn't send His Son to condemn the world because they were already condemned. He sent His Son to save the world. Now the question is, what does world mean? You say it means every single person everywhere. Alright, what do you make of texts that say that Jesus didn't pray for the world but for those the Father gave him, that say the world hated Jesus and those that follow Him, that say the world couldn't receive the Spirit, and so forth? How about when the chief priests said the whole world was gone after Jesus? Obviously, the word world cannot mean every single person in existence without distinction every time when used. So then it must mean something else. Sometimes it is referring to believers. Sometimes to the wicked. Sometimes to the literal creation.
To equate predestination to works salvation because it doesn't require anything of us is just such an abuse till it is mind boggling. That's like Paul's critics saying, let's sin because we aren't under the law but under grace. Surely you realize that while my belief won't get me to heaven, I'm still required to believe testimony given that Jesus is the Son of God.
When God says he will do anything, God "Obligates" himself to do that "anything", or break his word.
When God said it's not his will for any to perish and no one comes except he calls them,
God obligated himself not to omit/pass over "ANY" with his calling.
The gospel is to be preached to the whole world as a "WITNESS", before te end.
Faith come by the "HEARING" of the Gospel.
2 Peter 3:9 - What does Peter say there? Well, in the context he is discussing the end times. The scoffers are saying, "where is the promise of His coming?" They are mocking the fact that Jesus hasn't come back yet, though He promised to. In response to the question Peter points out that time means nothing to God by saying one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Then he states that "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence."
Ok, so Peter says that the Lord isn't slack, that there's a reason He hasn't returned yet. The reason? He's longsuffering to usward. Notice the object of his longsuffering is usward. Who is the usward here? Well, Peter begins the 3rd chapter by saying, "this second epistle, beloved, I write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance." So, the usward are called beloved, and they are the same audience as the first epistle. In the first epistle Peter says he is writing to the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The usward is the elect.
So, Peter is saying that the Lord hasn't come back yet because He is longsuffering towards the elect. He's not willing that any (of the elect) should perish but that all (of the elect) should come to repetence. Peter is stating that Jesus Christ isn't delaying His coming based on slackness, but based on the fact that there are elect that God isn't willing to let perish. Jesus Christ says He'll leave the ninety and nine to go get that one sheep. Of all of the innumerable multitude He has saved eternally, He's not willing for even a one of those to perish.
Now, if Jesus Christ is delaying His coming to allow a person in a perishing condition to have a chance to come to Him (which is what your position says), then I must conclude that He will never return, because there will always be wicked men in the world unwilling to come to Christ for salvation. Instead Peter is saying that some God chose have yet to be born again, and maybe even conceived in a physical sense, and Him not being willing for that one to be lost, will not return to destroy this world and just the secrets of men until the last heir of promise is brought into vital relationship with Christ.
Ok, so Peter says that the Lord isn't slack, that there's a reason He hasn't returned yet. The reason? He's longsuffering to usward. Notice the object of his longsuffering is usward. Who is the usward here? Well, Peter begins the 3rd chapter by saying, "this second epistle, beloved, I write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance." So, the usward are called beloved, and they are the same audience as the first epistle. In the first epistle Peter says he is writing to the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The usward is the elect.
So, Peter is saying that the Lord hasn't come back yet because He is longsuffering towards the elect. He's not willing that any (of the elect) should perish but that all (of the elect) should come to repetence. Peter is stating that Jesus Christ isn't delaying His coming based on slackness, but based on the fact that there are elect that God isn't willing to let perish. Jesus Christ says He'll leave the ninety and nine to go get that one sheep. Of all of the innumerable multitude He has saved eternally, He's not willing for even a one of those to perish.
Now, if Jesus Christ is delaying His coming to allow a person in a perishing condition to have a chance to come to Him (which is what your position says), then I must conclude that He will never return, because there will always be wicked men in the world unwilling to come to Christ for salvation. Instead Peter is saying that some God chose have yet to be born again, and maybe even conceived in a physical sense, and Him not being willing for that one to be lost, will not return to destroy this world and just the secrets of men until the last heir of promise is brought into vital relationship with Christ.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The follow Scripture refutes your view posted above:
Ephesians 2:1-8, KJV
1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, [by grace ye are saved;]
6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Please note that in verses 4&5 that when we were spiritually dead in sins God made us alive. Then after having made us spiritually alive [regenerated us] that God gives us the faith to believe [verse 8].
Now, you said that God has obligated himself to call (by the gospel) every single person without exception. How can that be since not all have heard the gospel? There were some in the days of the apostle that didn't hear. There have always been some that haven't heard the gospel. There have been men in all ages that didn't have the same opportunity to hear the gospel that we have been blessed with.
How long is the "Seventh day" the MK, a "thousand years"??
So how long would each of the preceding "SIX DAYS" be, each a "thousand years"???
God has a "Schedule" for this planet, the end won't come until the "fulness of time".
Ok, I agree, but why wasn't the word "predestination" used instead of "Foreknowledge"???
Words have meaning which can't be ignored.
When the fulness (end) of time arrives, it won't matter how many or who is/isn't saved, it's over.
God gives eveyone a space of time to repent, that space of time can be from the beginning to the end of the world, like death, saved/lost, when it's time, you die.
From your view point, I can see why you believe that, but man's belief/unbelief won't stop his death or the end of the world, when the time arrives.
So your analogy is wrong, that Shepard was looking for a "Strayed Sheep", not a "lost Goat".
Who, or how many saved, doesn't "regulate" the "Schedule" for this planet,
God declared the end from the beginning.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
http://i32.tinypic.com/30a6dd1.jpg
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ will not return for the general resurrection and general judgment [John 5:28, 29] until the last of the elect is within the Household of Faith, the Church.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
So who's winning this debate?... and does anyone ever change their mind?
:laugh: But isn't that the fun part :laugh:
This is what I meant from the very beginning that it is not the immutable truths we disagree with or better the biblical concepts but it is the mechanics of how they operate whereby we disagree :thumbs:
As we have seen, no one disputes depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance/preserverance yet it seems to get hot quickly when how they are seen operating is being discussed.
Actually my dear brother what it proves is MY view, in that while we were still dead we became saved by/through His grace and that by faith
SO it is by grace that we come from death into life and as Paul establishes in this text whereby we go from death unto life and this is through faith.THus while dead it was through faith we were saved by grace and brought into Christ. And as I showed scripturally that we are not united into and with Christ except by faith, we are not justified except by faith, we are not sanctified except by faith and the Holy Spirit does not indwell us excect by faith. THerefore to try to force scripture into some other view is to contradict scripture itself. It is also the reason many Calvinists do not hold to regeneration preceding faith as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
If God Predestine all the elect to be saved, why didn't he predestine them to be saved within his "schedule",
Why would God have to "ADJUST" his schedule to give all the "elect" "TIME" to be saved???
Don't you ever "meditate" on what you believe/say???
How you ever thought it "strange" that the plan of salvation so many depend on to save them, is such a "mystery" to them???
The OT is a "Schoolmaster" pointing to Jesus/plan of salvation, but I wonder how many "Christians" can explain the plan of salvation in context with the feasts God gave in the OT.
From Passover to Pentecost, five feast, each event in the NT occurred on the "exact date" given for it's corresponding feast,
yet most Christians have no idea of what the correlation is between them, or the remaining feast.
It's no surprise so much in the NT is taken out of context, they haven't learn the proper context from the "Schoolmaster".
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
Actually i think it strange that we think that anyone - Calvinist or non-Calvinist - can systematize a God-thing like salvation. I find that both 'systems' are in Scripture and that only the God who wrote the Book can ultimately show how that both can be true yet not contradictory.
You all are, for the most part, to be commended on the civil way that the discussion has been performed. I've seen some of these discussions turn into mutual charges of the other not being saved.
- Status