quantumfaith
Active Member
My apologies, I thought I was simply responding to the "how" and not necessarily to the "who". :smilewinkgrin:
-
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!
Conditional election
- Thread starter Dr. Walter
- Start date
My apologies, I thought I was simply responding to the "how" and not necessarily to the "who". :smilewinkgrin:
The Father draws and the Holy Spirit convicts that Jesus Christ is Lord. Through preaching the word of the gospel. And then....
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Can the draw and the conviction of the Holy Spirit be rejected?
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
They heard the truth and they REJECTED the truth. They had A CHOICE!
Quantum, never apologize for your own opinions & understanding. Hold yourself in the highest esteem:thumbs:
Dr. Walter
New Member
No. I am saying that salvation consists of sancification by the Spirit (regeneration) and belief of the truth (conversion).
This I believe also! :thumbs:
As a 4-point Calvinist, I hold to all the points except limited atonement.
I point this out simply because it has been the habit of some of the limited atonement persuasion to say that all who hold to unlimited atonement are Arminian in their theology. So I'm on the record "This simply is not so":saint:
Additional scripture:Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Unlimited Atonement
2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")
1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
I point this out simply because it has been the habit of some of the limited atonement persuasion to say that all who hold to unlimited atonement are Arminian in their theology. So I'm on the record "This simply is not so":saint:
Additional scripture:Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Unlimited Atonement
2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")
1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Being a good "non-reformist", It is my belief that regeneration and conversion are simultaneous events, if in fact they are distinct events. I am not confident enough in my defintions of all things theological to make that distinction.
quantumfaith
Active Member
"Admittedly, the theory of Limited atonement would never have been philosophically conceived were it not for another philosophcial theory: Unconditional election. What Calvinists want to know is this: if God has unconditionally elected to save only some, then to what benefit is the atonement for the non-elect? From such philosophical reasoning, Limited atonement becomes, for some, a necessary doctrine, whether or not it has explicit scriptural warrant or support. It is, in my opinion, like other Calvinistic theories, a presupposition in search of biblical authority." (William Birch)
Yes and of course,as you say these are your opinions (& Birch's). And you know that now famous theory of opinions, Right?
I suggest that you back everything up with scripture (See my post above)
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
quantumfaith
Active Member
I John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Dr. Walter
New Member
I agree there is no chronological order between them but there is a logical order that even the Greek grammar supports.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Do you suppose that your ideas concerning GK grammar and the Holy Spirit are one? Cults utilize their expertise in GK grammar as well. Do all so-called authorities of GK gammer always concur on the ability to discern, say, even the tense of verbs used? Is it always a cut and dried issue with absolute uses, all others being in error? Careful DW, we are speaking of language here and not mathematics.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Do you suppose DW, that your ideas concerning GK grammar and the Holy Spirit's witness are always one? Cults utilize their expertise in GK grammar as well. Do all so-called authorities of GK grammar always concur on the ability to discern, say, even the tense of verbs used? Is it always a cut and dried issue with absolute uses and tenses, all others being in error? Careful DW, we are speaking of language here, common parlance, a simple means of communicating ideas, not always as a 'precise science' as you seem to believe it is.
You sound akin to some I know to be in error, believing basically that one can use logic concerning words used in common parlance to divine the true and correct meaning of certain words grouped in a sentence. I for one believe you are placing far more credence in your GK skills of divining the proper meanings of texts than is wise to do so, the Scriptures being written in common parlance not always utilizing precisely defined grammar known to be in accordance to the interpetation DW places upon it. Scripture is of no private interpretation DW, and that includes yours as well as mine.
Stop for a minute and just look at all the distinctly differing translations just for starters, all believing they are translating the thoughts of the original authors, but often far from agreeing on the final translation and many times even in disagreement as to what is and what is not part of the original texts. So much for translating being an exacting science.
Has any one besides myself ever heard two English teachers debating over our own language, besides the foreign language of the GK? Language is not an exact science by any means. It is foremost a tool to be used to communicate thoughts, not always discernable by strict means of interpretation according to verb tenses etc. regardless how DW touts his own interpretations and abilities to be above question.
You sound akin to some I know to be in error, believing basically that one can use logic concerning words used in common parlance to divine the true and correct meaning of certain words grouped in a sentence. I for one believe you are placing far more credence in your GK skills of divining the proper meanings of texts than is wise to do so, the Scriptures being written in common parlance not always utilizing precisely defined grammar known to be in accordance to the interpetation DW places upon it. Scripture is of no private interpretation DW, and that includes yours as well as mine.
Stop for a minute and just look at all the distinctly differing translations just for starters, all believing they are translating the thoughts of the original authors, but often far from agreeing on the final translation and many times even in disagreement as to what is and what is not part of the original texts. So much for translating being an exacting science.
Has any one besides myself ever heard two English teachers debating over our own language, besides the foreign language of the GK? Language is not an exact science by any means. It is foremost a tool to be used to communicate thoughts, not always discernable by strict means of interpretation according to verb tenses etc. regardless how DW touts his own interpretations and abilities to be above question.
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
The only greek I know is associated with Trig, Calculus and Differential Equations. Enlighten me, and I will probe to see if you have a valid point. Although I am appreciative that one must not know greek in order to be in right relation to God through Christ.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP:Excellent point QF. :thumbs:
I also am appreciative of the fact that one does not have to know or even understand the GK to know intuitively unconditional election to salvation and blame for things done of sheer compulsion are in error and unjust.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
Ps 14:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 ¶ Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
HP: DW tries to stand this passage on it’s head in support of original sin. He fails to see that this Psalm of David is written by a man that in no way believed in original sin, for original sin had absolutely no place in the known theology of the Jews. Original sin was not church doctrine until Augustine introduced it into the church as mandated dogma.
The Psalmist in this Psalm is pitting two distinct groups of individuals against each other, just as Psalms 53, the mirror image of this Psalms clearly points out. Ps 53:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David.>> The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.
5 There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.
6 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
The two groups are the wicked and the righteous. Note how the wicked ‘eat up my people.” Note how he does not use any universal language, but points specifically to the wicked as ‘every one of them’ and speaks of them as ‘the workers of iniquity’ and those that have not called upon God. If one believes for a minute that David had not called upon God and that he did not considered himself to be of some other group than the wicked, they are simply deceived. Not only had he clearly called upon God, but considered himself as part of the righteous, not the wicked spoken of in these Psalms or any other. Listen to David. 2Sa 22:21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.” Ps 18:3 I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.
Ps 55:16 ¶ As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Ps 99:6 ¶ Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name; they called upon the LORD, and he answered them.
Ps 105:1 ¶ O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.
Ps 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
Ps 116:17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.
Ps 145:18 The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
Isa 12:4 ¶ And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
DW, you are in clear error in your interpretation and usage of this or any other Psalm in support of Augustinian original sin.
Did a suffering for the sins of the people Messiah have a place in the known theology of the Jews?
You keep using this line as some kind of qualifier for truth. It doesn't work, you should abandon it.
Dr. Walter
New Member
The Bible means nothing to you and it is plain to see. Words mean nothing to you unless they are words that fit your heresies. We have seen that "impossible" you interpret to mean "possible" and "can not' you interpret to mean "can." The Greek grammar you despise. You believe you are more inspired than Paul! Paul uses and applies Psalm 14:2-3 but you totally disregard an inspired man's application of this text. The conclusion of his application of Psalm 14:2-3 is spelled out in universal terms in Romans 3:19-20 "every mouth" "all the world" no flesh" but you could care less. You make your rules as you go. Hence, discussion with you is futile.