-
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!
Doctrine of devils
- Thread starter whetstone
- Start date
Who said Jesus does not want most sinners (to be saved)? Can you post the quote and give us the name of the person on this forum who said that?
Are you familiar with the terms God’s Decretive Will, God’s Preceptive Will, and God’s Permissive Will?
Ray Berrian
New Member
My statement doesn't sound nice when I say it the way Calvinists perceive the truth. 'Now we have people who tell us that Jesus does not want most sinners.'
If God ordains His elect that He also ordains those who will go into the Lake of Fire, meaning the non-elect. And since man cannot send himself to Hell, according to Calvinists we are only left with the option that Jesus decrees their eternal destruction.
Your three phrases made up of three words are merely shadows of the alleged truth. It is the Calvinists way of hoodwinking the simple minded souls.
To be honest I understand your view on all of the three sets of phrases but the middle one.
If a person cannot decide to send his own soul to Hell and God does not do it, I guess you might try to say that the Devil has control over the non-elect.
See, you cannot have it both ways. If He elects to salvation, there is no other way to see it than that Jesus sends them ultimately to the Lake of Fire.
If God ordains His elect that He also ordains those who will go into the Lake of Fire, meaning the non-elect. And since man cannot send himself to Hell, according to Calvinists we are only left with the option that Jesus decrees their eternal destruction.
Your three phrases made up of three words are merely shadows of the alleged truth. It is the Calvinists way of hoodwinking the simple minded souls.
To be honest I understand your view on all of the three sets of phrases but the middle one.
If a person cannot decide to send his own soul to Hell and God does not do it, I guess you might try to say that the Devil has control over the non-elect.
See, you cannot have it both ways. If He elects to salvation, there is no other way to see it than that Jesus sends them ultimately to the Lake of Fire.
Wrong. If 100 people are in freefall heading to the ground below and I rope 10 so that they do not hit the ground, did I send the other 90 to their deaths? No, they were already heading that direction. Likewise, if all men are on their way to hell because of sin and God saves some, God did not send those remaining to hell - they were already on their way there.
So now the commands of God don't even have to be written down for us to be held responsible for them? This gets better every day. Now, since (according to you) belief isn't a written command, you can still be held responsible for not believing. (Of course, I don't believe that, but just showing the fallacy of your logic).
Really? It is ignorance that calls it the Mosaic Law or the Law of Moses???? Can you explain Luke 24:44 and John 7:23? Was Christ ignorant when he called it that?
Sheesh, Mike, that was its name.
Why didn't you quote v. 2? It says "The woman said to the serpent, 'From the fruit of the trees of the garden you may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which was in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not each from it, neither touch it, or you will die."]Yes I can heres your proof. I believe that makes you wrong;
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
I just know you're going to say this says something else just to save face. However you are wrong yet again.
You see Mike, the Bible says that Eve said that, not God. Eve added to the word of God. What did God say about it? God's command about the tree is in Gen 2:16-17 where he said not to eat from it. God's command has nothing about touching it.
So yes, you are wrong because you ignore the context.
I already did. It is all through Scripture, such as Mark 1:15 where the Baptist is preaching and Acts 17 where Paul is preaching. You can see this all through Scripture, Mike.
Calvinism doesn't deny the necessity of faith and repentance. You are again showing how uninformed you are.
So what is the difference to God between "wrong" and "sin." Can you substantiate this difference from Scripture. And if unbelief isn't a sin, why do people receive eternal punishment for it? Helen hasn't answered yet that I have seen; perhaps you will.
Well, Mike, Let's look at the evidence. On October 27, at 1:44 pm (page 4) I posted the following:
So clearly, I have given evidence, and my statement therefore wasn't dishonest. Yours was when you accused me of not making one. You see Mike here is the difference. You say I started the dishonest charges. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the difference between you and me is that when I say it, I prove it. When you say it (such as here), you are wrong. And now on two occasions just in this post (about Gen 3 and about this command).
If Calvinism is heresy, then you need to explain why some of the greatest missions movements in world history were started by Calvinists. You need to explain the great pile of evidence of Scripture that Calvinism depends on. And if you think I am a Reformed Catholic, you have greater problems then Calvinism. That is laughable ... The CAtholics here hate me. The Reformation was a split of doctrine which is why the reformers are called protestants and are separated from the Catholic church.
No Sir you did not you only claimed to just like all your other claims they are all false.</font>[/QUOTE]yes I did. Twice in this post alone, and many times in other posts.
Where? Please provide the link there for it.
Then show where. So far, with teh book on my desk and the evidence at hand, everything has been shown correct, and you have not even managed a response apart from "You're lying."
Hunt was told that what he was saying was wrong before he published it. When someone knowingly gives a false opinion, it is dishonest.
So when Spurgeon says that it is unthinkable that people are in hell for sins Christ died for that is not limiting the atonement? You see, I quoted clear proof from Spurgeon himself, and you denied it.
As soon as I make one, I will apologize. Prove it.
yes I am. I have done it before here. I issue public apologies when I am wrong. If you can prove it, I will do it.
Show me where.
But keep the Hunt discussion in the other forum, not here. I will wait for you to come and answer those three charges and then we will move on. If you won't come and answer them directly, then we will have to assume they are true.
TC did show me that unbelief is a sin -- please see my response to him here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1619/2.html
But no, Larry, the commands of God do not have to be written for us to disobey them -- see Romans 2.
Question: if belief must come before repentance, what was John's baptism for?
But no, Larry, the commands of God do not have to be written for us to disobey them -- see Romans 2.
Question: if belief must come before repentance, what was John's baptism for?
Which brings up the next question. If unbelief is a sin, and all sin was paid for on the cross, then why do people go to hell for it?
I agree with this. I was merely entertaining and inconsistency in a prior argument.
In terms of salvation, I don't think you are prioritize them. They are two sides of the same coin. To do one is to do the other. If you don't do both, then you have not truly done either.
Larry, people go to hell for unbelief because it cannot be forgiven. They have refused the only path to forgiveness which is also the path to heaven (which is Christ, the WAY), and so there is nothing left for them. They do not go to hell because unbelief is a sin, but because there is no other option for them -- they chose that way and that is where it winds up.
Now, about repentance and belief, I can understand that for a Christian they are two sides to the same coin, but I don't think that holds true for everyone. First, repentance means, "I'm sorry for what I did and I want to change", right? It is both things, and not just being sorry for what you did. But MANY people want to change because they do not like who they are. Whether it is plastic surgery for physical change or education or meditation for mental change or religious observances and beliefs for spiritual change -- many repent. They change their thinking and way of going.
It's just that this places a burden on themselves they cannot sustain. They cannot change their natures, which is what needs changing. And this is what only Christ can do.
John baptized how many? Hundreds? Thousands? His was the baptism of repentance. "I don't like what I do. I don't like who I am. I want to change."
Which direction that change takes and under whose power is what makes the difference.
Of course, I suppose you could say that yes, repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin, but not all the coins are Christian!
Now, about repentance and belief, I can understand that for a Christian they are two sides to the same coin, but I don't think that holds true for everyone. First, repentance means, "I'm sorry for what I did and I want to change", right? It is both things, and not just being sorry for what you did. But MANY people want to change because they do not like who they are. Whether it is plastic surgery for physical change or education or meditation for mental change or religious observances and beliefs for spiritual change -- many repent. They change their thinking and way of going.
It's just that this places a burden on themselves they cannot sustain. They cannot change their natures, which is what needs changing. And this is what only Christ can do.
John baptized how many? Hundreds? Thousands? His was the baptism of repentance. "I don't like what I do. I don't like who I am. I want to change."
Which direction that change takes and under whose power is what makes the difference.
Of course, I suppose you could say that yes, repentance and belief are two sides of the same coin, but not all the coins are Christian!
So then, contrary to your previous statements, Christ did not die for "all" sin for "all time" (since he didn't die for the sin of unbelief) but rather for all sin but unbelief, which is apparently forgiven by stopping the sin.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth so please correct the above statement according to your position. I am trying to understand your position.
Since this forum is limited to a Christian soteriology, not other kinds, then we should probably limit our comments to the Christian view.
Uh, Yes, simply speaking. It is really a change of mind that resulst in a change of behavior.
None of which is biblical repentance for salvation.
In the Bible, "belief" and "repentance" are used interchangeably for salvation, such as Acts 11:17-18 (if memory serves correctly).
Larry, Christ did die for all sin. All is atoned for. But this is not the same as all being forgiven. Atonement is a legal position. If something is atoned for, payment has been made. But that does not mean the offended person has forgiven the offender. That is something else altogether.
Unbelief has been atoned for, but is the one sin which cannot be forgiven -- simply because the person has removed himself from the position of being able to be forgiven by the fact of his unbelief.
Atonement, if you will, is a one-way street. A debt is paid, justice is served, the scales are even.
Forgiveness requires two, however. If someone hurts one of my children, I can have them arrested and jailed (go with it...smile) and justice is served. However that does not mean I have forgiven the person.
The person can be sorry as anything and maybe I refuse to forgive.
OR, I can be ready to forgive and have forgiveness in my heart for the person, but the person could care less and is not at all sorry for what he did, regardless of the punishment and the fact justice has been accomplished. In that case forgiveness has been ready, but not accomplished. The person does not stand in the position of being forgiven because he has removed himself from that possibility by not repenting, not saying, at least, "I am sorry."
So yes, Christ atoned for all sin for all time.
But there remains a sin which cannot be forgiven, even though it is atoned for. And that is not because God is not ready to forgive, but because the person has refused repentance, which would put him in a position to receive that forgiveness.
It is that position which consigns him to hell. So, if you like, he is going to hell for that sin of unbelief, but not because the unbelief was not atoned for. It was. But, rather, because the unbelief removed him from a position of being able to receive forgiveness and thus he stands unforgiven for eternity -- by his own will.
Unbelief has been atoned for, but is the one sin which cannot be forgiven -- simply because the person has removed himself from the position of being able to be forgiven by the fact of his unbelief.
Atonement, if you will, is a one-way street. A debt is paid, justice is served, the scales are even.
Forgiveness requires two, however. If someone hurts one of my children, I can have them arrested and jailed (go with it...smile) and justice is served. However that does not mean I have forgiven the person.
The person can be sorry as anything and maybe I refuse to forgive.
OR, I can be ready to forgive and have forgiveness in my heart for the person, but the person could care less and is not at all sorry for what he did, regardless of the punishment and the fact justice has been accomplished. In that case forgiveness has been ready, but not accomplished. The person does not stand in the position of being forgiven because he has removed himself from that possibility by not repenting, not saying, at least, "I am sorry."
So yes, Christ atoned for all sin for all time.
But there remains a sin which cannot be forgiven, even though it is atoned for. And that is not because God is not ready to forgive, but because the person has refused repentance, which would put him in a position to receive that forgiveness.
It is that position which consigns him to hell. So, if you like, he is going to hell for that sin of unbelief, but not because the unbelief was not atoned for. It was. But, rather, because the unbelief removed him from a position of being able to receive forgiveness and thus he stands unforgiven for eternity -- by his own will.
Hi Helen,
I find it interesting that your whole answer, several paragraphs long, has not a single verse of scripture in it. That does not make you wrong, of course. I'm just wondering, though - do you have any scripture that explains this view of sins being atoned for but not forgiven, or is this position based on logic and reasoning?
Another question - would it be correct, in your view, to say that the lost are redeemed but not forgiven?
I went through it, Scripture by Scripture earlier and this is a continuation of the conversation...
Part of it is referenced above, here:
TC did show me that unbelief is a sin -- please see my response to him here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1619/2.html
Part of it is referenced above, here:
TC did show me that unbelief is a sin -- please see my response to him here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1619/2.html
Justification, theologically, is legal standing. That is what 2 Cor 5 means by "not counting their trespasses against them." If sin is atoned for, then the debt has been satisfied. It is no longer charged to the account. The distinction between forgiveness and justification doesn't really have much merit.
The sin problem is a legal problem of guilt. It is answered by legal justification.
The sin problem is a legal problem of guilt. It is answered by legal justification.
Hi again,Originally posted by Helen:
I went through it, Scripture by Scripture earlier and this is a continuation of the conversation...
Part of it is referenced above, here:
TC did show me that unbelief is a sin -- please see my response to him here: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1619/2.html
I read that thread (even posted on it), and I've read it again, and I read this thread too, and I just don't see the passages that explain the relationship (or lack of) between atonement and forgiveness. I could not think of any either. That's why I asked. Would you mind just posting the scripture references that deal with this relationship?
Also, you didn't answer my other question. Would it be correct, in your view, to say that the lost are redeemed but not forgiven? The reason the question is germane is that many Calvinists (including myself) prefer the term "Definite Redemption" to "Limited Atonement" because it more precisely summarizes what we believe.
Bumping this up so Mike won't "forget" to answer the post at the bottom of page 7. Hopefully he won't run from this like he has from others.