-
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!
"Deciding For The Lord"
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Well, you are correct with this statement, "our conclusions".
I'd bet if a person just picked up the scripture and starting reading them they would never come to the conculsion that God didn't love the "Whole world"" because Jesus died for sins of the "whole world",
if calvin's doctrine had never been published, it would be almost "unheard of" today.
Calvin's doctrine is too "inconsistance" for a "God" who professes to be "LOVE".
epistemaniac
New Member
as in all things, there needs to be balance, for Paul also said to imitate him, both his actions and his teachings...
2Th 3:6-9 esv Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
(7) For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,
(8) nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.
(9) It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate."
secondly, since it is God Himself that gives the church teachers, then it behooves us to imitate them in their teaching and behavior.... in so far as this glorifies God and corresponds to the word of God.
The problem is when people accuse others of slavishly following after a certain man's teaching. That is, believing something to be true simply because a certain person said it was. This can happen no matter what one identifies themselves as.... all the "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian" folks could just as easily be said to be of this teacher or that teacher once they identify a teacher they have been blessed by and whom they respect and have accepted some of their teachings as being faithful to the Scriptures. After all, we all have teachers we respect and have learned from at one time or another, or at least, I hope we do, and we do not think that we as individuals have all the answers such that we do not need teachers.
At any rate. obviously this (following slavishly after Calvin etc) cannot apply to every single person who writes to this part of the forum, for, we are all Baptists, therefore it is manifestly evident that we differ from John Calvin's view on baptism. So any charges that we are "of Calvin" in this negative sense, is quite obviously false. Where Calvin's teachings line up with Scripture is just as far as I can say I agree with Calvin, this has been said so many times by so many people that it is a travesty and is in fact dishonest to continue to accuse people of doing this when it has been made abundently clear that this does not happen. I challenge any one to provide documentation that says that anyone here believes something just because Calvin believed it, and they believe it for no other reason at all.
So all the typical accusations are merely empty headed words, for they attempt to assassinate others with the informal logical fallacy of guilty by association. This whole line of thinking is simply out of bounds of rational thought.
For example, John Calvin believed in the Trinity; therefore, according to some of the "mob mentality" that runs rampant here, all persons who likewise believe in the Trinity are following after a man's teaching and must immediately disavow their belief in the Trinity, simply because John Calvin also believed in the Trinity! Absurd! But that is exactly where this line of thought leads, to absurdity.
blessings,
Ken
2Th 3:6-9 esv Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
(7) For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,
(8) nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.
(9) It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate."
secondly, since it is God Himself that gives the church teachers, then it behooves us to imitate them in their teaching and behavior.... in so far as this glorifies God and corresponds to the word of God.
The problem is when people accuse others of slavishly following after a certain man's teaching. That is, believing something to be true simply because a certain person said it was. This can happen no matter what one identifies themselves as.... all the "I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian" folks could just as easily be said to be of this teacher or that teacher once they identify a teacher they have been blessed by and whom they respect and have accepted some of their teachings as being faithful to the Scriptures. After all, we all have teachers we respect and have learned from at one time or another, or at least, I hope we do, and we do not think that we as individuals have all the answers such that we do not need teachers.
At any rate. obviously this (following slavishly after Calvin etc) cannot apply to every single person who writes to this part of the forum, for, we are all Baptists, therefore it is manifestly evident that we differ from John Calvin's view on baptism. So any charges that we are "of Calvin" in this negative sense, is quite obviously false. Where Calvin's teachings line up with Scripture is just as far as I can say I agree with Calvin, this has been said so many times by so many people that it is a travesty and is in fact dishonest to continue to accuse people of doing this when it has been made abundently clear that this does not happen. I challenge any one to provide documentation that says that anyone here believes something just because Calvin believed it, and they believe it for no other reason at all.
So all the typical accusations are merely empty headed words, for they attempt to assassinate others with the informal logical fallacy of guilty by association. This whole line of thinking is simply out of bounds of rational thought.
For example, John Calvin believed in the Trinity; therefore, according to some of the "mob mentality" that runs rampant here, all persons who likewise believe in the Trinity are following after a man's teaching and must immediately disavow their belief in the Trinity, simply because John Calvin also believed in the Trinity! Absurd! But that is exactly where this line of thought leads, to absurdity.
blessings,
Ken
epistemaniac
New Member
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made your choice." written by the Candian rock band "Rush", ironically, from a song called "Freewill"
blessings,
Ken
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Joh 3: 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth (loves) truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Looks like a choice to me.
epistemaniac
New Member
Me4him... who denies that a choice is made? certainly not the Calvinist... when will you ever some to understand this simple.... basic.... elementary point? its sad to see you go on and on about something completely irrelevant, it's like you have nothing better to do than to construct straw men and then amaze yourself by knocking them down, and then, sadly, you act as if something significant has happened when they fall.... but addressing people's actual beliefs?... well... now there's a thought.... tell you what, if you really want to be informed on this issue, why not read Jonathan Edwards "A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame," ... now mind you, I am not saying that you need to ever actually agree with what he says, all I am saying is that you owe it to yourself and others to address the actual issues involved in this discussion, instead of inanely talking about choices being made, as if that was ever denied.
blessings,
Ken
blessings,
Ken
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Exactly Me4Him!
They say that there is a choice, yet they say there is no choice by saying the Grace is Irresistable.
sounds doubleminded if ya ask me.
They say that there is a choice, yet they say there is no choice by saying the Grace is Irresistable.
sounds doubleminded if ya ask me.
That's a very good question. Sin is irresistable to us when we are lost, and in the flesh, because that is our inclination. But that does not preclude choice. We choose to sin willfully. We don't want to do anything else. That's our choice.
When God changes our hearts, we choose to flee to him for refuge because that's our new nature and new inclination. This does not preclude choice. We don't want to do anything else. That's our choice.
The people in the OT didn't have a "Spirit" (comforter) to "Change them", yet they managed to do "good works" without being "transfigured into a New creature",
So under "close scrutiny", the difference between the OT/NT according calvin's doctrine would demand a fall of man almost as great as Adams fall in the garden, from "partially depravity" all the way down to "total depravity".
Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
Calvin based his "theory" about the "physical person" upon man's "Spiritual condition", but even sinners can have "high Morals", one sin in a lifetime is sufficient to condemn, and even the "GOOD" sinners do will not go unrewarded, but the "Credit" will be given to the saved.
Lu 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant.
Lu 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
Total depravity doesn't line up with the scriptures.
Any lost person can "decide" that they want to be saved - that is, they don't want to go to hell unless they're insane. But that same lost person, though they have "decided" to be saved, will not come to actuall faith and repentance unless enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit.
In effect, when people "decide" to be saved in their natural state they have in fact decided to be saved IN their sin; those enable by the Spirit to truly believe and repent are saved FROM their sin.
If there is "sufficient Good" within man to "decide" rightly, then it is only within the realm of natural revelation, not supernatural.
The Law of the OT was made for the natural man, since law is a restrainer of the natural tendency toward sin. Their "decisions" in regards to law were moral, not spiritual. Anyone can "decide", that is give mental assent, that the law is good, but only the regenerate can LOVE His Law, having received a heart of flesh, and being circumcised by the circumcision not made with hands, but by God's will.
In effect, when people "decide" to be saved in their natural state they have in fact decided to be saved IN their sin; those enable by the Spirit to truly believe and repent are saved FROM their sin.
If there is "sufficient Good" within man to "decide" rightly, then it is only within the realm of natural revelation, not supernatural.
The Law of the OT was made for the natural man, since law is a restrainer of the natural tendency toward sin. Their "decisions" in regards to law were moral, not spiritual. Anyone can "decide", that is give mental assent, that the law is good, but only the regenerate can LOVE His Law, having received a heart of flesh, and being circumcised by the circumcision not made with hands, but by God's will.
In the OT, the spirit only came to "Leaders", such as "priest, Prophets, Kings, and there is one more, which I can't think of at the present.
But OT people were not "indwelled" by the "Comforter", which is Jesus voice, he didn't speak, (as Jesus) in the OT.
The Holy Spirit is God's voice,
The Holy Ghost is Jesus's voice,
They are different, but the same.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
But OT people were not "indwelled" by the "Comforter", which is Jesus voice, he didn't speak, (as Jesus) in the OT.
The Holy Spirit is God's voice,
The Holy Ghost is Jesus's voice,
They are different, but the same.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
Wow, toss a little scripture at you and just look at the incredible backpedalling! There's hope for you yet, since you didn't just deny it! Good for you! I really mean that! Too many people here just deny the obvious because they can't admit they were wrong, and this shows you aren't that stubborn.Originally posted by Me4Him:
In the OT, the spirit only came to "Leaders", such as "priest, Prophets, Kings, and there is one more, which I can't think of at the present.
But OT people were not "indwelled" by the "Comforter", which is Jesus voice, he didn't speak, (as Jesus) in the OT.
The Holy Spirit is God's voice,
The Holy Ghost is Jesus's voice,
They are different, but the same.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
However, you simply went from...
The people in the OT didn't have a "Spirit" (comforter) to "Change them"
...to...
[yeah, SOME people had the Spirit, but] the spirit only came to "Leaders", such as "priest, Prophets, Kings.
I really don't think them refers only to leaders, prophets, kings, etc.
I could give you more examples, but if that doesn't make you go into a full retreat, then nothing will.
Deciding to be saved won't save you, especially if God's spirit has stopped striving to save you.
This is the time God said he would laugh at you when you call on him.
Pr 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
Here's the reason God saves.
1. whoso hearkeneth unto me
And here's the reasons he doesn't save.
1. hated knowledge, and did not choose
2. they despised all my reproof.
And as you see, even unsaved man isn't so "depraved" he can't/won't call on God.
1. Then shall they call upon me,
2. but they shall not find me:
This is what calvin didn't consider when writing his doctrine, He gave no consideration at all to the OT, God hasn't changed, Human nature hasn't changed, whatever people could do in the OT, without an indwelling Spirit, they can do in the the NT, but Calvin's doctrine says man is so depraved, he can't/won't, without the spirit.
but as you see, they can, they do, and without any "calling from God".
Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
The "comforter" only came "AFTER" Jesus send "HIM".
You've got a lot to learn about the "TRINITY".
I'll teach you, for a "nickle".
Ec 4:1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
The "comforter" only came "AFTER" Jesus send "HIM".
You've got a lot to learn about the "TRINITY".
I'll teach you, for a "nickle".
So you have not only misapplied the word "comforter" in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, you have to ignore the mountain of scripture that plainly says Spirit and Holy Spirit (not the ambiguous "comforter").
Oh, well. I thought we had a breakthrough coming but I guess not.