Cured

[Andy T.]

Andy,

You said:

"There's a reason why you don't feel smart or good or any of those things. It's because you are redeemed by the blood of Christ; you are His, and the Spirit testifies to you that you are His. That is the reason you feel the way you do, no matter how inconsistent your doctrine may be on the matter."

That is why I responded as I did. You don't think that sounds like someone who ''has it all figured out"? If you don't want to be accused of having it all figured out, don't talk down to people. What is "my doctrine"? Where are the inconsistencies? I am STILL trying to figure things out. You speak as though you already know. Convince me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to talk down to you. In fact, the majority of my response was spent confirming that I believe you are redeemed. I don't know where you are at exactly - I know you've been wrestling with the whole Calvinism thing for awhile. That is why I said, "no matter how inconsistent your doctrine may be on the matter." I probably should have used the phrase "might be", because I don't know - you'll have to clarify as you deem appropriate. I didn't intend it as a put down. I know there are plenty of times that I am inconsistent in my Christian walk and/or beliefs.

 

[skypair]

1. "be ye reconciled to God"

Good -- and how did YOU reconcile, J.D.? I'm asking YOU.

2. Nice story. However, logically speaking, you can't compare something to nothing and then rate it "better".

So something good is NOT better than nothing? Go figure. :tear:

3. Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead and put me "up the creek". I assert that the "sinner's prayer" and "going to the altar" are Baptist sacraments/rituals. Prove me wrong.

1) It is NOT required.

2) It does NOT save those without belief but it certainly lays out a pattern for receiving salvation even if, like me, you did it at home.

3) What it DOES do is it can help establish a day when one was "born again" -- when someone repented to God soul and spirit. When were YOU born again, J.D.? Do YOU remember what YOU did that convinced YOU tha was "the day?"

4) Sacrament is the pagan notion that you can receive the character of God or grace through stuff like YOU believe in -- infant baptism and communion. Communion used to be called the "Agape feast" until it was realized that the pagans understood eating the flesh and blood of sacrifices and so would naturally accept the same from a "Christian" priest who could mystically transform the "elements" into blood and flesh.

Church infant baptism was wrongly substituted for OT circumcision and considered to bring one into the "chosen" clan.

See any similarities between getting saved by infant baptism and communion and what YOU believe? YOUR church doesn't have "invitations" because, you see, they have already "saved" you in baptism and communion.

skypair

 

[Blammo]

Sorry, I didn't mean to talk down to you. In fact, the majority of my response was spent confirming that I believe you are redeemed. I don't know where you are at exactly - I know you've been wrestling with the whole Calvinism thing for awhile. That is why I said, "no matter how inconsistent your doctrine may be on the matter." I probably should have used the phrase "might be", because I don't know - you'll have to clarify as you deem appropriate. I didn't intend it as a put down. I know there are plenty of times that I am inconsistent in my Christian walk and/or beliefs.

No problem, brother, apology accepted.

At some point in the future, maybe, I can tell you my specific docrinal stands. Where I stand right now is, there are very good scriptural arguments on both sides of the issue. I had gone silent on the BB for awhile, because I thought all my objections to Calvinism had been thoughtfully, factually, and scripturally answered. Then, johnp came along...

 

[Andy T.]

No problem, brother, apology accepted.

At some point in the future, maybe, I can tell you my specific docrinal stands. Where I stand right now is, there are very good scriptural arguments on both sides of the issue. I had gone silent on the BB for awhile, because I thought all my objections to Calvinism had been thoughtfully, factually, and scripturally answered. Then, johnp came along...

Blammo,

I hope you are convinced, as I showed in that one thread, that Johnp is way off base from mainstream historic Calvinism. He even admitted to such.

 

[Blammo]

Blammo,

I hope you are convinced, as I showed in that one thread, that Johnp is way off base from mainstream historic Calvinism. He even admitted to such.

Trust me, Andy, I will continue to be open minded about it. But, I am not going to accept as truth anything that can not be clearly seen in scripture. Many of the verses used to prove the 5 points, fall short of actually doing so. I have begun to study through the Bible again with the idea that the 5 points may be proven. It is now up to the word of God and the Holy Spirit to convince me. I will not put my faith in the wisdom of men.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Unbelief is the only sin that will keep you out of heaven.

Paul addressed this issue with his discussion concerning Israel.

23. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Over and over again we hear believe and be saved (short version)

So unbelief is the only sin that will damn anyone to hell.

 

[Andy T.]

Unbelief is the only sin that will keep you out of heaven.

Paul addressed this issue with his discussion concerning Israel.

23. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Over and over again we hear believe and be saved (short version)

So unbelief is the only sin that will damn anyone to hell.

Then why will unbelievers be judged according to their works at the Great White Throne Judgment?

Rev. 20:11-15 (NKJV):

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d] 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[J.D.]

JD reply in bold.

Good -- and how did YOU reconcile, J.D.? I'm asking YOU.
My Shepard called me to Himself.

So something good is NOT better than nothing? Go figure. :tear:

That's right, sometimes. "Be still and know that I am God." Why would that make you sad?

1) It is NOT required.

Not only is it not required, but inordinant sacraments and rituals are idolatrous abominations.

2) It does NOT save those without belief but it certainly lays out a pattern for receiving salvation even if, like me, you did it at home.

It doesn't even save them WITH belief. It's like saying it doesn't save them that are not saved, but it does save them that are saved. If you believe (by God-given faith), you're saved already, aren't you? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."


3) What it DOES do is it can help establish a day when one was "born again" -- when someone repented to God soul and spirit. When were YOU born again, J.D.? Do YOU remember what YOU did that convinced YOU tha was "the day?"

I remember what God did that convinced me of my sin and led me to repentance. If the day, hour, minute, second, and nanosecond it happened is important, I hope God wrote it down. The best I can do is the Season (summer) and Year (1969). It doesn't matter what date you write down, it's what God writes down that matters.

4) Sacrament is the pagan notion that you can receive the character of God or grace through stuff like YOU believe in -- infant baptism and communion. Communion used to be called the "Agape feast" until it was realized that the pagans understood eating the flesh and blood of sacrifices and so would naturally accept the same from a "Christian" priest who could mystically transform the "elements" into blood and flesh.

That's either a joke, a lie, or the words of a fool.

Church infant baptism was wrongly substituted for OT circumcision and considered to bring one into the "chosen" clan.

Baptists don't believe that. Why do you bring it up? Red herring? Avoiding the real issue?

See any similarities between getting saved by infant baptism and communion and what YOU believe? YOUR church doesn't have "invitations" because, you see, they have already "saved" you in baptism and communion.

Same comment as above.



skypair

 

[GordonSlocum]

I think we all need to agree that:

1) unbelief is a forgivable AND forgiven sin but

2) that rejection of the Spirit is unpardonable.

There IS something man can do that is unpardonable, un-atonable, etc. -- it is denying the Spirit of God regarding salvation, saying that Christ is not the answer. You can never get "in Christ" unless you confess Him as Lord.

skypair

I guess I am missing something here. I for one believe "once saved always saved"

In my belief system the only sin that sends anyone to hell is "unbelief"

Christians sin, "he that says he has no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him" this was address to believers.

If a person believes he can be lost after he is saved then the answer will be different.

In this case there exist the debate of what sin or sins, or to what extent or how much etc - even from belief to un-belief

 

[amity]

I disagree. If Christ paid for our sins, then His righteousness is imputed to us and that is how we are saved.

If one is not saved, then one is condemned for one's own sins. Even one is enough to condemn any of us to hell.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

If one is not saved, then one is condemned for one's own sins.

I disagree. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ.

 

[amity]

I am Blessed 16 said:
"I disagree. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ."


D'ya have scripture for that?

One thing Baptist Board has taught me is that even those points I thought all Christians agreed on.... we don't!

 

[Pastor Larry]

I respectfully disagree. My argument was against those who believe in predestination, which I do not.

But friend, your argument was not about something that predestinationists disagree with you on. We all believe that "whosoever will" may come. That is not a point of distinction. So your argument is against a straw man.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God unilaterally enables ALL men to respond. Most just don't of their own free will. Some do -- of their own free will.

But there is no evidence from Scripture that God enables all men to respond. In fact, we are told specifically that he didn’t, such as with Pharaoh and Judas.

How does the call enable one and not another, Lar?? You can't explain it is the problem, right?

The call enables one and not another because the other doesn’t get the call. There is no problem to explain.

You've admitted response in some and not in others. That's free will at work.

yes it is.

No body chained your buddy to his seat. He didn't hear different words (as if his "call" was any different than yours).

You don’t understand what the call is, apparently.

Let me ask you (maybe this is the crux of the matter) -- are there a variety of experiences that can be called "responsive" to the "effectual call?" Is believing one is "elect" a response? Is "holy living" (J.M. Boice) a suitable response? What response do you consider to be "obedient" to the word and the "effectual call?"

The Bible calls is the obedience of faith.

Here's, perhaps, the point -- salvation is a "covenant relationship." Like marriage, it calls for a DECISION by BOTH parties.

Not really.

I often feel that Calvinists would be quite content to live the Christian life and hope (cause that is all they are taught they can do if salvation is "all of God") hope it all turns out by-and-by.

Hope as compared to what? Hope is often used in the Bible with respect to what believers do. That’s not a bad thing to be content with.

Let me ask you -- have you ever heard that salvation is a unilateral covenant like God with Abraham? That ALL the conditions for execution would be on God's side and none on your side?

Some say that. I don’t think there is a real parallel there.

Why do so many Calvinists not know whether they are "elect," Larry?

I don’t know any of these Calvinists. You would have to ask them.

And why do they have almost no knowledge of prophecy? They NEVER teach the Revelation.

Actually they do. I was reading recently about a amillennialist conference on making sense of Revelation. Talk about a silly conference. It was humorous to me. But many Calvinists have a great knowledge of prophecy. But that is irrelevant here since eschatology and soteriology are two different things.

I think (IMO)it is because they have changed the glory of God into an image man can understand and, in so doing ("Systematic Theology"), have become vain in their imaginations (Calvinism is for the elite of Christianity) and their foolish hearts have been darkened.

I think this is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Which would you say, Larry -- Calvinism makes one wiser about Christianity? Scripture informs Calvinism? or vice versa -- Calvinism imparts meaning to scripture? I often feel like -- what with their "strained," different vocabulary -- that the latter seems more true.

Calvinism arises form the study of Scripture.

Some say Calvinism IS the gospel. Ever hear that, Lar?

Yes. I wouldn’t put it that way but I have heard others do it. Calvinism teaches the gospel. Others do as well, but they are inconsistent in it.

 

[J.D.]

I am Blessed 16 said:
"I disagree. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ."


D'ya have scripture for that?

One thing Baptist Board has taught me is that even those points I thought all Christians agreed on.... we don't!

Welcome to BB. In another thread recently we found out that God is NOT sovereign, and now we are told that people are NOT condemned for their own sins.

I used to quote these outrageous comments on one of my blogs, but I couldn't keep up with the nonsense, and I got a lot of hate mail for it. They said I was "mocking" them. Oh well.

 

[Jarthur001]

I disagree. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ.

Check out John 3

 

[amity]

Check out Revelation 20.

 

[Tom Butler]

In your view then, Christ, can not be slain from the foundation of the world. I don't say it I know it.

The Bible is clear that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. Adam had not been created. The both of us were much further down the line form Adam, and God tells us in space and time that Christ was slain form the foundation of the world an expression that means before creation.

Why you would deny that, as they say around here, "beats me". In your view you would have to eliminate all prophetic passages from Genesis to Revelation. That would mean you would rip out in the "neighbor hood" 1/3 of the Scripture. That would border on a violation of Scripture to remove it from the Bible.

Also, to take your position is to deny God or teach that God does not have absolute knowledge, and to deny that God can know all the actuals as well as the possibilities of decisions that are or would have been and that are or might have been in the future.

Gordon, to respond to all you said in post 344 would take far too much time. But I do want to clarify what I believe the Bible teaches, even though you may say I am inconsistent.

First, Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, because the scripture says so.

Second, your view of my view of prophecy is incorrect.

Third, God does have absolute knowledge. I also suppose he also knows all the possible decisions as well as the actuals, although there's no point to it. What he knows comes to pass. There is no Plan B.

Your view makes God a puppet master, and dictator who violates His own will – thus destroying His Holiness and dethroning God. For me to take such a position as Calvinism would be to deny truth and violate God and His Holiness. I can’t do that.

Don't want you to deny God's holiness nor his on free will. I don't deny it either. And Calvinism is consistent with both. Your position is not.

We know that God's will desires all men to be saved. We know that if God's wills something He has the perfect right to do so as long as it does not violate His Holiness. But God would not will something that violates His Holiness. So if a perfect God's will is the desire of all mankind to be saved and He violates that desire by only saving some of the all then He violates His Holiness.

Those whom God desires to be saved will be saved, in perfect harmony with his perfect will and his holiness. On this we'll just have to disagree.

We know that The Light enlightens all men that come into the world. We know that in each dispensation man is required to believe in the revelation they have.

Man may wholeheartedly believe in the revelation he has, but he cannot be saved unless he hears the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am not going to tie God's hands by taking a "wooden literal" interpretation of Passages that Calvinist force on the text. The Bible is written in normal literal form

Me neither.

I know you see my view as false doctrine. Know also that I see yours as false.

Not quite. What we disagree on is the ground of election. We both believe in election, we both agree that those whom God elects he will inevitably save; and I think you agree with me that those whom he saves he justifies, sanctifies and preserves.

I state here with out reservation and with all the confidence a person can have or muster I am right and you are wrong in your doctrine.

Somehow I had missed that in your earlier posts. I'm shocked, just shocked!

Now, in Christian love, can you join me for a cup of coffee?

Sure, any time. Shoot, Gordon, my church is filled with folks who hold your views, and I love 'em all, and fellowship with them constantly. They love me, too and are extremely patient with me and my strange views.

 

[Tom Butler]

It is sad to see a brother in Christ TRY to bring discord and anger intentionally to those for whom Christ Jesus died who do not hold your view point. To grieve the Holy Spirit so and assume you did something funny, I confess - is beyond me. Let all strife, malice, evil speaking be put away from you.

Malice, no. Mischief, yes.

Discord? We already have enough of that in our friendly debates. How can I bring discord to where it already is thriving?

Anger? Can I make someone angry who refuses to be angry? One needs a thick skin to debate on the Baptist Board. I thought yours was one of the thickest, Allan.

Evil speaking? Hardly. Cheap shot? Well, maybe.

So I repeat my question. Where is the prayer wrong about the non-Cal view?

 

[pinoybaptist]

What is the benefit of Christ's being slain from the foundation of the world ?

Who is benefited by this ?

Is this a literal event or is it a picture.

Explanations please, backed by Scripture.