cal and non-cal agreement

[DHK]

Could the statement "in sin did my mother conceive me" not refer to the unrighteous state of the mother at conception?

No, a near impossible interpretation.
Immediate Context: It is a psalm of repentance. He is sorry for his sin of adultery and murder. Those are the sins that he is confessing to the Lord, and that he is repenting from. He is overwhelmed by this after Nathan condemned him, "Thou art the man." His mother has nothing to do with this at all. It is entirely out of context.
Historical Context: This is something most people don't think about. If David was so much as inferring that his mother was unrighteous at the time of his conception, on a written document that could become public he would be disobeying the Ten Commandments, and very grievously. "Honor thy father and mother." He would be bringing shame on his mother. This is the worse possible thing that he could say about his own mother. What Godly son would bring up "dirt" about a mother that he loved, and so publicly? That doesn't even make sense, especially in that culture, at that time, by that family. David was a Godly man. He wouldn't speak about his mother like that.
He didn't live in a society like ours where we try to blame our sin on our environment, our family, our parents, our alcohol addiction, an insane defense, anything but taking responsibility for our own sin. This was a psalm of repentance where David was taking responsibility for his sin; not passing it off on his mother.

Could the statement "I was born in sin" refer to David being born in a world in which sin surrounded him.

Another translation:
(CEV) I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.

The above are fairly loose translations, in fact the latter is more like a paraphrase. But they agree with the interpretation that I give.

The question would obviously be Why? Why would Rahab respond and others about her not. The same with Saul on the road to Damascus where they all heard the voice, but only Saul was saved. Would your words not actually strengthen the thinking that God selects specifically from a group of possibilities irregardless of any personal attribute of the membership of that group?

God has made everyone of us uniquely different. I cannot tell you why some people do some things and some people don't.
Regarding your question about Rahab, we don't know, and I don't think can claim to know.
In the same manner we can't know why it was Achan that took "of the accursed thing" in Jericho, and not some other person. Why Achan? What prompted him and not some other person, that his name should be recorded for all eternity in the hall of shame?
God didn't select these people to do these things; God didn't force them. They chose. One to believe in Jehovah; the other to steal from God. God in his omniscience knew about it before time. He didn't force anyone to make any decisions.

The Scriptures do say that the heathen are "Condemned already." Condemnation doesn't wait upon death. The heathen are already condemned. The judge has pronounced sentence that the wages of sin is death. All that awaits is cessation of physical ability.

Let me put this on a very practical level.
We have a ministry to seniors who live in an "assisted-living" residence. They are all in their 80's or older, mostly in wheel chairs, and at the end of their physical lives. We started this ministry about two years ago. In the last few months we have seen eight of these people come to the Lord. Would they have come to Christ had we not gone there and started that ministry? It is doubtful. The Calvinist with his hard determinism says yes, they would. But the gospel must be preached, and often more than once.

Another mistake concerning election is that we mere mortals seem to know who is elect and who is not. Instead of going and preaching the gospel as the Lord commands we end up debating whether they are elect or not, as in my example above.

A person evangelizes out of obligation (duty) or love. A lot of folks know the "terror of the Lord" wouldn't cross the neighbor's yard to witness or care enough. Why, because of a lack of obligation or love (in my opinion).

Very true.

Does not your illustration run against the thinking against "irresistible grace?"

Did not the demoniac actually desire Christ to leave? Yet, the demons were the ones kicked out.

No, not at all. That God can save anyone is not speaking of irresistable grace, but rather the power of God and the grace of God at the same time. It was the grace of God that saved me. We are all saved his grace. But why would it be irresistable?

Just as Paul "kicked against the pricks" does not mean he was not ultimately saved in God's timing.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The two accounts are not contradictory. The others heard something, like a sound, but they could not understand words. Paul said, "they heard not the voice of him that spoke unto me."
Therefore the others could not have been saved at that time, for they heard not the gospel or the Word that Paul heard.
As for Paul, he was under tremendous conviction of the Holy Spirit.
His testimony is clear. He thought he was doing the will of God--was very religious in doing so. He was confronted with his sin, and confronted with Christ. He was brought under great conviction and immediately submitted to Christ as Lord.

I would like to present a view to you for your response. I have presented it before on the board so it isn't anything new.

I do not view Salvation as a series of this has to occur and then this will happen - as some would chart. Rather, I see that even the ability of one to be under "Godly conviction (that leads to salvation)" is as much a part of the implanting of the new nature into one who will be saved (such as you) as the resulting cry of acknowledgement be it in some "acceptance prayer" or the cry of "What must I DO to be saved."

In this, those who "are persuaded" (using Paul's term) using human reasoning may express worldly sorrow, but that is not "Godly sorrow that leads to salvation."

I have a similar view.

 

[convicted1]

You are espousing pure Pelagianism. If the soul is sinless at birth then it is possible for an infant to live a sinless life. Pelagius taught that every baby is born tabula rasa (blank slate) and only become sinners if they sin. That teaching is wrong. The disposition of infants who die in infancy seems to be influencing your conclusion instead of the plain teaching of Scripture.

I wanted to use this post again to address something, Brother Herald. I see this claim being posted on here all the time. It seems that this is the "fallback position", the "default button", etc, that gets bandied on here. There isn't Calvinism and Peligianism/semi-peligianism you know.


To make a claim such as this, you must not know what Peligianism is. He stated that man could come to God w/o any work of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. I have never made that claim, and I challenge you, or anyone else on here, to find a post where I stated such.


Semi-Peligianism states that man can search out God by his own free will w/o an unctioning of the Holy Spirit. IOW, we can come to God of our own volition and then God honors that move to Him by saving us. Again, I challenge you, or anyone else on here, to find a post where I have made such a claim. This also states that the initial faith necessary of salvation comes from man, and then God increases their faith as they grow in their christian life. Again, I challenge you, and anyone else on here, to find where I have made such a claim.

Here is how I understand it:

* Adam sinned in the Garden and he caused the sentence of death to be passed down through him.

* Our flesh, being "in Adam" has the sentence of death placed upon it, because our flesh came from the ground that God cursed. The soul dies spiritually when we knowingly and willingly sin before God.

* Before we can approach God, He must first call/convict/draw us to Him. In this drawing, it's not irresistable, but those who come to Him, He will in no wise cast out.

* I believe that faith is a gift of God. Also, none of us has the ability to believe on our own, but must be shown by the Father how we can be saved, and that's by Grace through faith, it is not of yourself, but it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Now, if that falls within the limitations of Peligianism, then call me that. If not, then call me a "Non-Cal".

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You're clueless to what is held here then. What, you've been here 6 months and so you know all that has been said in the past, correct?

Cornelius is used as an example to support their conditional election. So is the rich young ruler, who wasn't 'good' by the way. Both passages abused from their context to do so.

Innumerous out of context references are quoted to disprove the 'all mankind' indictment of Romans 3 along with indictments in Eph., Col. &c. Many have ascribed themselves good prior to salvation, that they were seeking God, and are adamant against the fact that they were ever hostile toward God &c.

A simple search of the archives would serve you well, but for you to be proven incorrect by self discovery would prevent you from being able to post things that you are completely oblivious about.

You don't know what you are talking about.

And that you don't believe it? I couldn't care less. I and many others know this is factual and has been purported by Baptists on this site.

When one has no ground upon which to stand, that one often resorts to insults, false charges, and ignorant statements. Thank you for proving that to be correct.

The length of time I have been posting has absolutely no bearing on the length of time I have been reading. I have been a reader here long before I ever joined, and I have read posts all the way back to 2001.

So, I am well equipped with the facts, and that being the case, it is clear that you are devoid of them.

So, continue in the same manner and with your baseless charges. The more you post, the more you prove me right. I greatly appreciate that.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

:applause::applause::applause:

He seems to always "disparage" others in light of his positions and theological biases. He finds it difficult, if not impossible, to simply disagree with someone's position.

Well, such must find some means to bolster their self-esteem and self-importance.

 

[Herald]

I wanted to use this post again to address something, Brother Herald. I see this claim being posted on here all the time. It seems that this is the "fallback position", the "default button", etc, that gets bandied on here. There isn't Calvinism and Peligianism/semi-peligianism you know.


To make a claim such as this, you must not know what Peligianism is. He stated that man could come to God w/o any work of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. I have never made that claim, and I challenge you, or anyone else on here, to find a post where I stated such.


Semi-Peligianism states that man can search out God by his own free will w/o an unctioning of the Holy Spirit. IOW, we can come to God of our own volition and then God honors that move to Him by saving us. Again, I challenge you, or anyone else on here, to find a post where I have made such a claim. This also states that the initial faith necessary of salvation comes from man, and then God increases their faith as they grow in their christian life. Again, I challenge you, and anyone else on here, to find where I have made such a claim.

Here is how I understand it:

* Adam sinned in the Garden and he caused the sentence of death to be passed down through him.

* Our flesh, being "in Adam" has the sentence of death placed upon it, because our flesh came from the ground that God cursed. The soul dies spiritually when we knowingly and willingly sin before God.

* Before we can approach God, He must first call/convict/draw us to Him. In this drawing, it's not irresistable, but those who come to Him, He will in no wise cast out.

* I believe that faith is a gift of God. Also, none of us has the ability to believe on our own, but must be shown by the Father how we can be saved, and that's by Grace through faith, it is not of yourself, but it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.


Now, if that falls within the limitations of Peligianism, then call me that. If not, then call me a "Non-Cal".

I am going to skip your previous post because I think this post of is more to the point. In your previous post we simply disagree with what Scripture says, and I do not think we are going to remedy that situation any time soon.

When I said you were espousing "pure Pelagianism" you misunderstood what I meant by that. You immediately thought I was bringing Calvinism into the discussion. I was not. I never once mentioned election, predestination, or free will. I was referring to Pelagius' view of the nature of man. Pelagius taught that human beings are born as blank slates, i.e. they are born without sin. They are not guilty of any sin, nor do they possess a sin nature. Yes. Pelagius' anthropology is the father of free will, but I stopped short of getting into that discussion. So, your well thought out post is really a knee-jerk reaction to something I did not say or intend.

I believe in original sin, and not because Augustine so eloquently explained it. I believe original sin, and its effects, are taught by Scripture (Romans 3:23; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10). Human beings are born sinners. Their ability to understand their sin is irrelevant.

I am quite content to disagree with you on this. It is not personal. I stand on what I believe Scripture teaches.

As to your injection of Calvinism into the discussion? Well, you brought up. I did not. I have been laying low on the Calvinism discussions lately simply because there is no agreement to be found.

 

[preacher4truth]

Look, when you refer to mankind

Willis,

Let's stick with what Scripture teaches and refer to it...

you have to break it down to the "inner" and "outer" man.

...you continue off track with theory, not Scripture Willis.

The "outer" man, is an extension of Adam, and we come from the same dust that Adam did, but after God cursed it. We have the stain of sin all over our flesh, and even after salvation, our flesh is still marred with sin oozing all over it. The soul comes from God, and it comes from Him sinless. That's why babies that die as babies go straight to Him. It's when they get to the age that they know what they're doing is wrong in His sight, that He withdraws His grace from them, and they are then in danger of eternal damnation.

...and you end without Scripture as well. You're going ad-lib and are in a faux pas and your teaching is noting but notions and is arbitrary.

We come from the corrupted seed of Adam Willis, not from the dust of the earth that is cursed. That's a misnomer that you say we come from corrupt dust, and is not well thought out brother. We come from corrupt seed.

Where does Scripture teach this above that 'our soul comes from God sinless'? Our soul comes from God and is corrupt, being in Adam at birth, Romans 3 &c, and this corrupt spirit of ours we are born with -- it doesn't become corrupt at some later date along our journey. The fact that we sin shows forth that we are corrupt within our hearts from the time we were conceived. You're teaching that the spirit only becomes corrupt after we sin. That is Scripturally incorrect. We sin because we are corrupt, we don't become corrupt in our spirits after we sin -- but due to being sinful in nature and being born with a sinful sin corrupted soul we sin. It was the spirit of man that died in Adam and this death is passed unto all men. 'We sin because we are sinners'.

Willis your theory sounds like pure emotionalism and sentimentalism to me and is taught nowhere in Scripture. In fact in all of Scripture it is teaching us that it is our spirit that is corrupt, not our actual flesh, as far as teaching us where our sinfulness stems from.

You're attempting to say that it is the flesh that sins or that it is the only thing corrupt at birth. You misunderstand flesh. Flesh means our nature, and points toward a corrupt spirit, not our corrupt hair, fingernails, or belly buttons. When God said the whole heart fails, the whole head is sick (Isaiah 1:5) He is speaking of our sinful spirit not the actual cranium and muscle that pumps blood. The spirit of man is what is sick and corrupt. That's the nature and state of man at birth.

Also Willis, nothing in Scripture teaches a baby is under grace and that at some point then God withdraws this grace. In fact the Scriptures teach that the wrath of God rests upon the entirety of the human race, Ephesians 2:5, for the entire race is under His wrath, and that it is by nature that we are this way.

Also, cognitive awareness has no play in whether a person is guilty or not. If I break a law I wasn't aware of I am still guilty, and the justice system will still prosecute.

 

[Herald]

This past Lord's Day, during Sunday School, I was asked my opinion on what a Christian should do if they have a substantial doctrinal disagreement with the church they attend. I thought it was a good question. Being the big "C" Calvinist that I am, the answer I gave may surprise some of you.

If we are a member of a local church we are part of that local body. In effect we are members of a family. Often times individuals may have a different conviction on a particular matter than the pastor and elders or what the doctrinal statement teaches. Sometimes that difference may be minor or something the individual can live with. Other times the disagreement is substantial and difficult to reconcile. Calvinism can be one of those difficult to reconcile disagreements. The individual needs to determine how important the conviction is. Maybe you believe in Calvinism or Arminianism but you just give it a shrug of your shoulders when it comes to taking a stand on it. I suppose you could fit in a church that teaches either. But what if your opinion is more pronounced? What if you consider it a serious matter?

First, do not be in a rush to break fellowship over the issue. Can you continue to worship in your church? Are you being ostracized over your conviction? Is your family being treated poorly? Do you find your soul vexed by the weekly sermon and other teaching venues of the church, or is the teaching fairly sound? There are many more questions you can ask. In the end you need to determine whether you can remain in that church without violating your conscience. If your conscience cannot be at peace in your current situation then it may be time for you to break fellowship and seek a more like-minded church. But do so seeking unity in the bond of peace. Do not go out guns blazing. Depart with humility and grace. After all, you are leaving a family. That is not an easy thing to do. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is not without deep emotion.

Whatever you do, do not remain in your local church with the intention of trying to convert them to your way of thinking. More than likely they only thing you will accomplish will be to divide the church and sow the seeds of discord.

 

[webdog]

I am going to skip your previous post because I think this post of is more to the point. In your previous post we simply disagree with what Scripture says, and I do not think we are going to remedy that situation any time soon.

When I said you were espousing "pure Pelagianism" you misunderstood what I meant by that. You immediately thought I was bringing Calvinism into the discussion. I was not. I never once mentioned election, predestination, or free will. I was referring to Pelagius' view of the nature of man. Pelagius taught that human beings are born as blank slates, i.e. they are born without sin. They are not guilty of any sin, nor do they possess a sin nature. Yes. Pelagius' anthropology is the father of free will, but I stopped short of getting into that discussion. So, your well thought out post is really a knee-jerk reaction to something I did not say or intend.

I believe in original sin, and not because Augustine so eloquently explained it. I believe original sin, and its effects, are taught by Scripture (Romans 3:23; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10). Human beings are born sinners. Their ability to understand their sin is irrelevant.

I am quite content to disagree with you on this. It is not personal. I stand on what I believe Scripture teaches.

As to your injection of Calvinism into the discussion? Well, you brought up. I did not. I have been laying low on the Calvinism discussions lately simply because there is no agreement to be found.

Can you supply a quote of Pelagius supporting your assertations? This pelagianism charge is bandied about constantly, and I cannot find anything from HIM accusing him of what he allegedly believed and taught.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think these arguments essentially come down (whether we like it or not) to the foundations laid by John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. In my opinion, both men were wrong. I could go into a lengthy discussion and not do a very good job of it. So I will rely on an article I have found by Gary Ray Branscome, who calls himself a "Lutheran Baptist," very helpful in explaining this extremely complicated subject. It is rather long, so I apologize in advance.

http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Elect.htm

WHY CALVIN WAS WRONG

Calvin’s theology rests heavily upon certain conclusions deduced from the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with that theology stems from the fact that some of those conclusions contradict the Bible. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, Calvinists reject God's Word by explaining it away whenever it does not agree with those conclusions (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Calvinists hold that if God had chosen some to be saved, then He must not want to save those who were not chosen. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11).

2- Calvinists also hold that if God had predetermined who should be saved, then Christ's death was only intended to atone for the sins of those whom God wanted to save. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19).

WHY ARMINIUS WAS WRONG

Jacob Arminius tried to correct certain problems inherent in Calvinist theology without really understanding what the root of those problems was. As a result he simply replaced one set of errors with another.

His theology tries to get around the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” by conditioning those words with certain assumptions as to why God chose some but not others (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with his theology stems from the fact that his assumptions (regarding free will) are not taught in Scripture, and lead to conclusions that contradict Scripture. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, he rejected God's Word by explaining it away whenever it did not agree with his own reasoning (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Arminius assumed that God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation (before the foundation of the world) was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to his call. Then, on the basis of that assumption, he decided that God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. However, we know that that is wrong, because the Bible plainly tells us that faith is a gift of God and that without God's help no one could or would believe (1Corinthians 12:3, Ephesians 2:8).

2- Arminius also decided that if God chose to save those whom He knew would believe, it follows that every sinful, lost human being has within himself the ability to choose to believe or reject the gospel. However, that conclusion is also wrong because the Bible tells us that, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.” (1Corinthians 12:3)

Because the view of Arminius makes salvation dependent upon a choice made by man, it shifts salvation from what Christ did to what we do. As a result, Christ is not seen as saving us, but instead as making it possible for us to save ourselves by freely choosing to believe. For that reason, every Christian should condemn it (Galatians 1:6-9).

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF ELECTION

Calvin's basic premise (the belief that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world), is Biblical (Ephesians 1:4). However, the fact that some of the conclusions drawn from that premise contradict God's Word, indicates that those conclusions are rooted in a false understanding of that premise (a false understanding of what the Bible says about election). Therefore, in order to have the correct doctrine, we must start with a correct understanding of what the Bible says about election. And, we can determine if our understanding is correct, by taking a view that does not lead to conclusions that contradict the Bible.

For example: If we assume that God first decided to save certain people and afterward decided to send Christ to die for the sins of those He wanted to save, we would draw the same unbiblical conclusions that Calvinists do. However, if we hold that God first decided to send Christ to die for the sins of all men, and then, because no human could or would believe without His help, chose to bring us to faith through the preaching of the gospel, we would not draw those unbiblical conclusions.

Therefore, a Biblical view of election starts with the fact that God did not want man to sin in the first place. However, because God knew that man would sin, He decided from eternity to send Christ to die for the sins of all mankind. Furthermore, since no one would ever know that Christ had died for their sins without divine revelation, He also decided to cause the Bible to be written and the gospel to be preached. And finally, knowing that no man left to himself could or would believe, He determined to bring untold millions of people to faith (in spite of their resistance) through the preaching of the Word. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

1- It agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that Christ died for the sins of all men. (1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 1:29)

2- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:23,32, Ezekiel 33:11)

3- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that faith is a gift of God and no one would or could believe without God's help. (Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 12:3)

4- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that no man is saved unless God chooses to save him. (John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 11:7)

5- It agrees with all of those passages that tell us that the lost are lost because of their own fault, not because God wanted them to be lost. (Matthew 23:37, Romans 10:21, 1 Timothy 2:4)

6- And, it even agrees with the passages of Scripture that indicate that we have a free will or must make a choice, because from our point of view it does look like we are making a choice. However, we know from Scripture that without God's help no man would ever make the right choice. (Revelation 3:20, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 3:7-8, 2 Corinthians 3:5)

7- Finally, it agrees with what the Bible says about time and chance playing a role in salvation. For if you think about it, a man born in seventeenth century England would have a far better chance of being saved than a man born in seventeenth century Algeria, or first century England. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

CONCLUSION

Calvinists err because they put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide atonement for the sins of mankind. Arminians err because they place God's choice of who should be saved (election) after faith (that is after He knew that a person would believe). The Biblical doctrine that I have presented avoids those errors by placing God's election between God's decision to provide atonement, and His bestowal of the gift of faith. ​

This explanation fits the five solas very well: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone); Sola Gratia (Grace Alone); Sola Fide (Faith Alone); Solus Christus (Christ Alone); and Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone Be Glory).

 

[12strings]

I think these arguments essentially come down (whether we like it or not) to the foundations laid by John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. In my opinion, both men were wrong....

...And finally, knowing that no man left to himself could or would believe, He determined to bring untold millions of people to faith (in spite of their resistance) through the preaching of the Word. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

So what you're saying is you are an amyraldian (4-point Calvinist)?

Calvinists err because they put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide atonement for the sins of mankind.

I wonder if there is scripture that shows the order of these decisions?

 

[Herald]

I think these arguments essentially come down (whether we like it or not) to the foundations laid by John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. In my opinion, both men were wrong. I could go into a lengthy discussion and not do a very good job of it. So I will rely on an article I have found by Gary Ray Branscome, who calls himself a "Lutheran Baptist," very helpful in explaining this extremely complicated subject. It is rather long, so I apologize in advance.

http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Elect.htm

WHY CALVIN WAS WRONG

Calvin’s theology rests heavily upon certain conclusions deduced from the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with that theology stems from the fact that some of those conclusions contradict the Bible. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, Calvinists reject God's Word by explaining it away whenever it does not agree with those conclusions (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Calvinists hold that if God had chosen some to be saved, then He must not want to save those who were not chosen. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11).

2- Calvinists also hold that if God had predetermined who should be saved, then Christ's death was only intended to atone for the sins of those whom God wanted to save. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19).

WHY ARMINIUS WAS WRONG

Jacob Arminius tried to correct certain problems inherent in Calvinist theology without really understanding what the root of those problems was. As a result he simply replaced one set of errors with another.

His theology tries to get around the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” by conditioning those words with certain assumptions as to why God chose some but not others (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with his theology stems from the fact that his assumptions (regarding free will) are not taught in Scripture, and lead to conclusions that contradict Scripture. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, he rejected God's Word by explaining it away whenever it did not agree with his own reasoning (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Arminius assumed that God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation (before the foundation of the world) was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to his call. Then, on the basis of that assumption, he decided that God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. However, we know that that is wrong, because the Bible plainly tells us that faith is a gift of God and that without God's help no one could or would believe (1Corinthians 12:3, Ephesians 2:8).

2- Arminius also decided that if God chose to save those whom He knew would believe, it follows that every sinful, lost human being has within himself the ability to choose to believe or reject the gospel. However, that conclusion is also wrong because the Bible tells us that, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.” (1Corinthians 12:3)

Because the view of Arminius makes salvation dependent upon a choice made by man, it shifts salvation from what Christ did to what we do. As a result, Christ is not seen as saving us, but instead as making it possible for us to save ourselves by freely choosing to believe. For that reason, every Christian should condemn it (Galatians 1:6-9).

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF ELECTION

Calvin's basic premise (the belief that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world), is Biblical (Ephesians 1:4). However, the fact that some of the conclusions drawn from that premise contradict God's Word, indicates that those conclusions are rooted in a false understanding of that premise (a false understanding of what the Bible says about election). Therefore, in order to have the correct doctrine, we must start with a correct understanding of what the Bible says about election. And, we can determine if our understanding is correct, by taking a view that does not lead to conclusions that contradict the Bible.

For example: If we assume that God first decided to save certain people and afterward decided to send Christ to die for the sins of those He wanted to save, we would draw the same unbiblical conclusions that Calvinists do. However, if we hold that God first decided to send Christ to die for the sins of all men, and then, because no human could or would believe without His help, chose to bring us to faith through the preaching of the gospel, we would not draw those unbiblical conclusions.

Therefore, a Biblical view of election starts with the fact that God did not want man to sin in the first place. However, because God knew that man would sin, He decided from eternity to send Christ to die for the sins of all mankind. Furthermore, since no one would ever know that Christ had died for their sins without divine revelation, He also decided to cause the Bible to be written and the gospel to be preached. And finally, knowing that no man left to himself could or would believe, He determined to bring untold millions of people to faith (in spite of their resistance) through the preaching of the Word. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

1- It agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that Christ died for the sins of all men. (1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 1:29)

2- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:23,32, Ezekiel 33:11)

3- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that faith is a gift of God and no one would or could believe without God's help. (Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 12:3)

4- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that no man is saved unless God chooses to save him. (John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 11:7)

5- It agrees with all of those passages that tell us that the lost are lost because of their own fault, not because God wanted them to be lost. (Matthew 23:37, Romans 10:21, 1 Timothy 2:4)

6- And, it even agrees with the passages of Scripture that indicate that we have a free will or must make a choice, because from our point of view it does look like we are making a choice. However, we know from Scripture that without God's help no man would ever make the right choice. (Revelation 3:20, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 3:7-8, 2 Corinthians 3:5)

7- Finally, it agrees with what the Bible says about time and chance playing a role in salvation. For if you think about it, a man born in seventeenth century England would have a far better chance of being saved than a man born in seventeenth century Algeria, or first century England. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

CONCLUSION

Calvinists err because they put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide atonement for the sins of mankind. Arminians err because they place God's choice of who should be saved (election) after faith (that is after He knew that a person would believe). The Biblical doctrine that I have presented avoids those errors by placing God's election between God's decision to provide atonement, and His bestowal of the gift of faith. ​

This explanation fits the five solas very well: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone); Sola Gratia (Grace Alone); Sola Fide (Faith Alone); Solus Christus (Christ Alone); and Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone Be Glory).

First, Baptist Calvinists are not followers of Calvin. The Calvinist label was meant as a pejorative by those who opposed Calvin's view of soteriology. True Baptist Calvinists are only Calvinists in the sense that they agree with Calvin on God's sovereignty and election (including predestination). We are so often accused of following John Calvin on this board due to a massive misunderstanding. Baptist Calvinists are not paedobaptists, nor do we agree with Presbyterian ecclesiology.

You wrote:

Calvinists err because they put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide atonement for the sins of mankind.

Scripture says differently:

Ephesians 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...

God chose His elect in eternity past, long before Christ secured payment for sin through His death on the cross.

 

[John I Morris]

wow

A lot of deep Theology on here, and some just rewording what they were taught in church, school, seminary, or otherwise. Just be convinced in your own mind that you are following what you believe is right, because one day you will give an account to the One who knows our inner most thoughts, the preacher, prof, friend, neighbor will not be doing it for us.
:jesus:

 

[agedman]

I have enjoyed all the responses on this thread. It has shown that although there are different views these themes resonate clearly.

1. All have sinned and come short of God's glory.

Now some may hold that such have actually been so "depraved" that even the ability of some freedom of expression always runs to futility and failure. Generally they hold that the fallen nature cannot choose more than it is naturally inclined which is always that which ends in decay and death.

Some may hold that in some way the fall has not marred the will and so the heathen have some innate ability to choose righteousness over ungodliness.

Some may hold that God intercedes and modifies the will so that it is capable of choice - but is not this a validation that without direct purposed work of God, no person would be saved? So, really there are only the two views. One is either completely lost with no hope, or they are not and have some ability to approach God.

2. All have agreed that God cares nothing about station, condition, or some self puffed up merit. God will save whom He will save, irregardless of any goodness or lack in the heathen. Therefore, no work or human effort can bring salvation.

Now there are some, who do insist that the believer must accept to be saved.

Others argue that such vocalizing is the result of and/or the reaction of salvation having occurred already in the heart.

3. All have agreed that without the direct and purpose work (election) of Christ through the Word to draw the heathen to belief, a person cannot be saved.

Now some may hold that such a one is therefore irresistibly drawn, and, because they are purposed by God to be saved, will be saved, leaving all others to run their own course in life having already been condemned.

Some may hold that Christ draws all, but the Father only chooses some, and only those whom the Father chooses will come to believe.

Some may hold that Christ draws all, it is up to the heathen to express some measure of acceptance of the gift, and that the Father has little direct input into the work.

4. All have some view that atonement is ultimately limited to those saved. That although it is sufficient to the world, it is only effective to those who actually believe.

Some will argue with this limit, but the alternative is that atonement is complete for all and therefore all will be saved, there will be no hell for the atonement applies to all creation without regard to original state. This ultimately is the pure Pelegian view, which just is fraught with danger.

5. There has been no argument against preservation (I like that term) or perseverance of the saints on the BB. Once truly saved - always saved seems to be one of the foundational truths of Baptists.

So, there is much we all can agree upon.

And I personally want to thank the BB for each post that has shown not only a disagreement but in what there is agreement.

If some consider my summery inaccurate, please do spend time with showing where there is agreement and the basic points of disagreement expressed on this thread.

 

[12strings]

Others argue that such vocalizing is the result of and/or the reaction of salvation having occurred already in the heart.

This is the Primitive Baptist view, but not the primary calvinists view. Calvinists will mostly say faith is the expression of REGENERATION, and faith is the means by which we recieve the grace of salvation...Not that we are saved first, then believe...Regeneration vs. salvation might seem like a semantic point, but it is an important one.

Some may hold that Christ draws all, but the Father only chooses some, and only those whom the Father chooses will come to believe.

I've never heard this view.

5. There has been no argument against preservation (I like that term) or perseverance of the saints on the BB. Once truly saved - always saved seems to be one of the foundational truths of Baptists.

Not really, there are many Baptist who reject OSAS. Free-will Baptists for one, and other Baptists who don't go by that name...in fact there are quite a few in my church who reject it. many early baptists did not hold to it.

 

[agedman]

3....

Some may hold that Christ draws all, but the Father only chooses some, and only those whom the Father chooses will come to believe.

I've never heard this view.

If I recall correctly, Spurgeon held a similar view as this.

Again, I am going strictly from very faulty memory, but the line of thinking was:

Christ said, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me..."

And in another place, "All that the Father gives me, will come to me..."

Therefore, in order to reconcile the two statements and to remain consistent with the balance of Scriptures, the thinking is that Christ has the sufficient power to draw all, HOWEVER, it is the Father that elects and selects who will ultimately be saved according to His purpose.

I recall there was more than one occasion the Christ expressed desire that the Father's will did not validate. That doesn't diminish Christ in any way, but does show the submissiveness to the Father's will.

One such occasion is the well known time when Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

Another such occasion is the question of His return, when Jesus pointed stated that even He doesn't know - only the Father.

Also, the reading of the sower/seed parable would be more consistent with this view than any others.

My own personal view for the longest rejected the thinking you questioned as never having heard before, but as I have become old, I can see how it may actually be valid and more consistent with Scriptures.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I think these arguments essentially come down (whether we like it or not) to the foundations laid by John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. In my opinion, both men were wrong. I could go into a lengthy discussion and not do a very good job of it. So I will rely on an article I have found by Gary Ray Branscome, who calls himself a "Lutheran Baptist," very helpful in explaining this extremely complicated subject. It is rather long, so I apologize in advance.

http://heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Elect.htm

WHY CALVIN WAS WRONG

Calvin’s theology rests heavily upon certain conclusions deduced from the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with that theology stems from the fact that some of those conclusions contradict the Bible. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, Calvinists reject God's Word by explaining it away whenever it does not agree with those conclusions (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Calvinists hold that if God had chosen some to be saved, then He must not want to save those who were not chosen. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that God wants all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11).

2- Calvinists also hold that if God had predetermined who should be saved, then Christ's death was only intended to atone for the sins of those whom God wanted to save. That conclusion is wrong because the Bible plainly tells us that Christ atoned for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19).

WHY ARMINIUS WAS WRONG

Jacob Arminius tried to correct certain problems inherent in Calvinist theology without really understanding what the root of those problems was. As a result he simply replaced one set of errors with another.

His theology tries to get around the words, “God has chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” by conditioning those words with certain assumptions as to why God chose some but not others (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with his theology stems from the fact that his assumptions (regarding free will) are not taught in Scripture, and lead to conclusions that contradict Scripture. Furthermore, instead of rejecting those conclusions because they contradict God's Word, he rejected God's Word by explaining it away whenever it did not agree with his own reasoning (Isaiah 8:20).

FOR EXAMPLE:
1- Arminius assumed that God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation (before the foundation of the world) was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to his call. Then, on the basis of that assumption, he decided that God selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. However, we know that that is wrong, because the Bible plainly tells us that faith is a gift of God and that without God's help no one could or would believe (1Corinthians 12:3, Ephesians 2:8).

2- Arminius also decided that if God chose to save those whom He knew would believe, it follows that every sinful, lost human being has within himself the ability to choose to believe or reject the gospel. However, that conclusion is also wrong because the Bible tells us that, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.” (1Corinthians 12:3)

Because the view of Arminius makes salvation dependent upon a choice made by man, it shifts salvation from what Christ did to what we do. As a result, Christ is not seen as saving us, but instead as making it possible for us to save ourselves by freely choosing to believe. For that reason, every Christian should condemn it (Galatians 1:6-9).

A BIBLICAL VIEW OF ELECTION

Calvin's basic premise (the belief that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world), is Biblical (Ephesians 1:4). However, the fact that some of the conclusions drawn from that premise contradict God's Word, indicates that those conclusions are rooted in a false understanding of that premise (a false understanding of what the Bible says about election). Therefore, in order to have the correct doctrine, we must start with a correct understanding of what the Bible says about election. And, we can determine if our understanding is correct, by taking a view that does not lead to conclusions that contradict the Bible.

For example: If we assume that God first decided to save certain people and afterward decided to send Christ to die for the sins of those He wanted to save, we would draw the same unbiblical conclusions that Calvinists do. However, if we hold that God first decided to send Christ to die for the sins of all men, and then, because no human could or would believe without His help, chose to bring us to faith through the preaching of the gospel, we would not draw those unbiblical conclusions.

Therefore, a Biblical view of election starts with the fact that God did not want man to sin in the first place. However, because God knew that man would sin, He decided from eternity to send Christ to die for the sins of all mankind. Furthermore, since no one would ever know that Christ had died for their sins without divine revelation, He also decided to cause the Bible to be written and the gospel to be preached. And finally, knowing that no man left to himself could or would believe, He determined to bring untold millions of people to faith (in spite of their resistance) through the preaching of the Word. This view of election does not lead to false conclusions, but instead agrees with all that the Bible says.

1- It agrees with those passages of Scripture which tell us that Christ died for the sins of all men. (1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 1:29)

2- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that God wants all men to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:23,32, Ezekiel 33:11)

3- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that faith is a gift of God and no one would or could believe without God's help. (Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 Corinthians 12:3)

4- It agrees with the passages of Scripture that tell us that no man is saved unless God chooses to save him. (John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 11:7)

5- It agrees with all of those passages that tell us that the lost are lost because of their own fault, not because God wanted them to be lost. (Matthew 23:37, Romans 10:21, 1 Timothy 2:4)

6- And, it even agrees with the passages of Scripture that indicate that we have a free will or must make a choice, because from our point of view it does look like we are making a choice. However, we know from Scripture that without God's help no man would ever make the right choice. (Revelation 3:20, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 3:7-8, 2 Corinthians 3:5)

7- Finally, it agrees with what the Bible says about time and chance playing a role in salvation. For if you think about it, a man born in seventeenth century England would have a far better chance of being saved than a man born in seventeenth century Algeria, or first century England. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

CONCLUSION

Calvinists err because they put God's choice of who should be saved (election) prior to His decision to provide atonement for the sins of mankind. Arminians err because they place God's choice of who should be saved (election) after faith (that is after He knew that a person would believe). The Biblical doctrine that I have presented avoids those errors by placing God's election between God's decision to provide atonement, and His bestowal of the gift of faith. ​

This explanation fits the five solas very well: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone); Sola Gratia (Grace Alone); Sola Fide (Faith Alone); Solus Christus (Christ Alone); and Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone Be Glory).

This is quite good, actually. I agree with it far more than I do with Calvinism or Arminianism. Of course Calvinists will deny the truth of it.

 

[Herald]

This is quite good, actually. I agree with it far more than I do with Calvinism or Arminianism. Of course Calvinists will deny the truth of it.

As though somehow that one post has put and end to the entire debate?

Actually I can appreciate what the poster was trying to do; to say both sides are wrong so we can all have a Rodney King moment. If he can convince himself of that, then fine. But there are others who are convinced of their position by the preponderance of Scripture. I would not say to the Arminian that he is to abandon his convictions just for the sake of unity. I would want him to change his mind based on what Scripture teaches. But that is not the way things are done on the BB, are they? Those who disagree with each other are castigated, insulted, made fun of, and (as Van's veiled attempt proved last night) have their claim to be a Christian questioned.

Here is an idea for BB members. Instead of trying to prove the other side wrong, why not prove why your view is right?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

As though somehow that one post has put and end to the entire debate?

Actually I can appreciate what the poster was trying to do; to say both sides are wrong so we can all have a Rodney King moment. If he can convince himself of that, then fine. But there are others who are convinced of their position by the preponderance of Scripture. I would not say to the Arminian that he is to abandon his convictions just for the sake of unity. I would want him to change his mind based on what Scripture teaches. But that is not the way things are done on the BB, are they? Those who disagree with each other are castigated, insulted, made fun of, and (as Van's veiled attempt proved last night) have their claim to be a Christian questioned.

Here is an idea for BB members. Instead of trying to prove the other side wrong, why not prove why your view is right?

(See bold) Where did I say that or even imply it, or suggest that debate should end?

 

[Herald]

You did not. I am just making sure that fact is underscored and understood.

 

[Rippon]

More than five years ago I had a thread(since closed) called N-C's Really Agree With Much Of Calvinism. I went through some contents of the 32 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Fath. Allan,a non-Cal agreed with much of what I posted from the WCoF. It is possible for a non-Cal after dithering and being in a nasty mood to finally examine things and exclaim"I did't know I was in agreement with a Calvinistic document!"

Of course the 1689 Baptist Confession (otherwise known as the London Confession)would bring the percentages up even more with a common consensus.

I another thread from the past I had spoken of the Golden Booklet of the Christian Life. It originally was apart of The Institutes. I dare to say that a non-Calvinist would agree with 90% of it at the very least providing they are indeed regenerate folks.