Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

[reformedbeliever]

I think in light of the Scripture given...the same could be said of your view.

I think I will let Scripture show the above bolded to be incorrect. Romans 1, Titus 2, Isaiah 52 and John 1 clearly show who is doing the "reaching"

One hint....... read in context.

 

[skypair]

He doesn't NEED our help. He is pleased to use us as tools to accomplish His purposes. That is our privilege and responsibility. Do you think God could not have preserved His Word without us? You have a low view of God.

Yeah -- I suppose He could have used monkeys to pass on the gospel to us. In fact, quite often I think monkeys are smarter than those here who claim to know the gospel. So you point is well taken, sir.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yeah -- I suppose He could have used monkeys to pass on the gospel to us. In fact, quite often I think monkeys are smarter than those here who claim to know the gospel. So you point is well taken, sir.

skypair

Well, look who's talkin :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[lbaker]

Yeah -- I suppose He could have used monkeys to pass on the gospel to us. In fact, quite often I think monkeys are smarter than those here who claim to know the gospel. So you point is well taken, sir.

skypair

Well here is the proof. Skypair has embraced the reverse evolution heresy! Monkeys have taken over the SBC!

 

[TCGreek]

I told you that the "dog ate my post" (or the cable company anyway). :laugh:

NO aggregious misquoting. Being a little more confident today and you not having found it, here is where I found his claim to ignorance and "mystery." (P57) "In its simplest form, mystery points to something we do not understand. The fact that something is mysterious does not mean that it is not true. It is possible that with further information we will understand it, but for the present it eludes us."

As I said, the only true mysteries given in the Bible are ones that the NT saint is given to know -- "hidden wisdom of God." Anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then -- able to "see" and "enter" the kingdom of God -- should be capable of grasping them. The only one I can think of associated with the Holy Spirit is "God in us" which we UNDERSTAND as God's indwelling us with His Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is NOT a mystery. But we being created in God's image can easily imagine what God's spirit is by knowing our spirit. Or we can fabricate one to suit our own theology, right?

skypair

1. I understand what you are saying, but don't make up a quote and then attributed to someone else.

2. That is what you have done.

 

[reformedbeliever]

There was a reason I ignored skypair long ago. I'm beginning to remember now. I've been away too long. :laugh:

 

[npetreley]

Get your hands off me, you (dang) dirty apes!

 

[Rippon]

Charlton Heston turned that line around in his last ape movie . ( I preferred him in the first one ) .

 

[skypair]

1. I understand what you are saying, but don't make up a quote and then attributed to someone else.

2. That is what you have done.

That's it? I quote them right and all you can do is remember when I had a computer problem and was in a hurry and so paraphrased Sproul??

How about debating the issue and learning from it?

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Sproul has it all figured out human logic-wise, but I can't believe he doesn't know Who the Holy Spirit is. In reading his "Mystery of the Holy Spirit," I find he gets into a circumlocution (as swaimj says of y'all) of logic that still misstates Who the Holy Spirit truly is.

He is the personality of all the wisdom, emotions, and will of God, friends.

skypair

1. Then you should have returned and correct this statement: "He[Holy Spirit] is the personality of all the wisdom, emotions, and will of God, friends."

2. Instead of giving the impression that this is what Sproul actually said, whether you were paraphrasing on not.

3. How can I then debate if you are not going to handle primary sources accurate, for that is fundamental in debating.

 

[skypair]

1. Then you should have returned and correct this statement: "He[Holy Spirit] is the personality of all the wisdom, emotions, and will of God, friends."

That was MY statement of the truth of the HS, NOT Sproul's.

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

That was MY statement of the truth of the HS, NOT Sproul's.

skypair

Please, forgive me for this obvious blunder. All along I thought that was one of Sproul's quote.

 

[Bismarck]

That, sir, is ERROR!

"Drawing" leads to "coming" but NOT irrevokably. Many will come only to "belief in vain" (1Cor 15:2) and to "them that draw back unto perdition" (Heb 10:39)

You are totally out of line with your remarks, sir!

skypair

May I add:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Hebrews 6:4-8​

Thus, it is possible — on the witness of Paul — for men to Believe, and then later to Backslide.

To wit, it is possible — on the witness of Paul — for men to Believe, but to still produce no "fruit" but only "weeds". (Indeed, the Messiah says specifically this in the Parable of the Sower, Matt 13:21-22.)

How can I possibly have mis-interpreted the plain meaning of these words? Paul would not speak of impossibilities. Paul would not speak of the moon being made of cheese, for that would serve no conceivable purpose. But rather Paul warns against Believing and Backsliding — it can, and has happened, not the least of which from the days of Aaron and the Golden Calf (Ex 32) through the books of Judges and Kings (Chronicles).

Indeed further, this is exactly why Paul wrote Hebrews to the Jerusalem congregation in c. 62 AD — for, James haTzaddik ("the Just"), the head pillar of the church, had just been murdered by the High Priest Ananias at Passover. The Jerusalem congregation was gravely demoralized, and Paul wrote to them to urge them back onto the right path.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

May I add:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.
Hebrews 6:4-8​

Thus, it is possible — on the witness of Paul — for men to Believe, and then later to Backslide.

To wit, it is possible — on the witness of Paul — for men to Believe, but to still produce no "fruit" but only "weeds". (Indeed, the Messiah says specifically this in the Parable of the Sower, Matt 13:21-22.)

How can I possibly have mis-interpreted the plain meaning of these words? Paul would not speak of impossibilities. Paul would not speak of the moon being made of cheese, for that would serve no conceivable purpose. But rather Paul warns against Believing and Backsliding — it can, and has happened, not the least of which from the days of Aaron and the Golden Calf (Ex 32) through the books of Judges and Kings (Chronicles).

Indeed further, this is exactly why Paul wrote Hebrews to the Jerusalem congregation in c. 62 AD — for, James haTzaddik ("the Just"), the head pillar of the church, had just been murdered by the High Priest Ananias at Passover. The Jerusalem congregation was gravely demoralized, and Paul wrote to them to urge them back onto the right path.

So much for the Son of God telling us that those whom the Father has given Him shall never perish...I suggest you re-think your position in light of the full revelation of God.

 

[Allan]

So much for the Son of God telling us that those whom the Father has given Him shall never perish...I suggest you re-think your position in light of the full revelation of God.

I agree! :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

So much for the Son of God telling us that those whom the Father has given Him shall never perish...I suggest you re-think your position in light of the full revelation of God.

I think maybe Bismark is talking about Calvinists being backsliders from the faith they originally professed.

Here's what Dr Rogers used to say about Calvinist "regeneration" though: "If you could have it without knowing it; you could lose it and never miss it!"

Obviously there are a couple of ways that a Calvinist could have it and not know it: 1) paedobaptism or 2) be "elect" and "regenerate" before one even believes as Calvinists insist is their sotierological model.

IOW, what Cavlinists postulate is an antinomy.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think maybe Bismark is talking about Calvinists being backsliders from the faith they originally professed.

Here's what Dr Rogers used to say about Calvinist "regeneration" though: "If you could have it without knowing it; you could lose it and never miss it!"

Obviously there are a couple of ways that a Calvinist could have it and not know it: 1) paedobaptism or 2) be "elect" and "regenerate" before one even believes as Calvinists insist is their sotierological model.

IOW, what Cavlinists postulate is an antinomy.

skypair

Skypair,

Again, I think it worth pointing out, is that what you and Dr. Rogers present is a skewed understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. Who, pray tell, is teaching a born again person is born again without knowing it?

That a person may live under the delusion that because they were baptized that they are therefore the children of God is entirely possible. That Calvinism has anything do with infant baptism you will have to explain further. And all the Calvinist Baptists on this board would like to know how being calvinists we also must be paedobaptists!

That one is born again apart from repentence and faith in Jesus Christ is contrary to Scripture and contrary to the calvinist position. As a result these points you have made are empty.

RB

 

[skypair]

Skypair,

Again, I think it worth pointing out, is that what you and Dr. Rogers present is a skewed understanding of the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. Who, pray tell, is teaching a born again person is born again without knowing it?

RB

How born again and not know it? Take Sproul who believes in "regeneration precedes faith." This is the CORNERSTONE of Calvinism, friend. Perhaps you would like now to disavow Calvinism?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How born again and not know it? Take Sproul who believes in "regeneration precedes faith." This is the CORNERSTONE of Calvinism, friend. Perhaps you would like now to disavow Calvinism?

skypair

Actually, Sproul is correct. he is saying nothing more than man cannot, from his condition of being dead in his sins and trespasses, by his own power or reason make himself come alive in Christ. This is the work of God. God must first quicken a man so that he can believe. Sproul aslo denies the Roman Catholic concept of previenent grace whereby man cooperates with God in the process.

The ground of our belief that "regeneration precedes faith" is Eph 2:5. This teaches us that while we were dead...we were made alive. And this is called "by grace have you been saved" I was dead in my sins and He made me alive. I can attribute my regeneration to none but to Christ alone.

Sproul explains his understanding here http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

I like this quote:

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

 

[Allan]

Actually, Sproul is correct. he is saying nothing more than man cannot, from his condition of being dead in his sins and trespasses, by his own power or reason make himself come alive in Christ. This is the work of God. God must first quicken a man so that he can believe. Sproul aslo denies the Roman Catholic concept of previenent grace whereby man cooperates with God in the process.

The ground of our belief that "regeneration precedes faith" is Eph 2:5. This teaches us that while we were dead...we were made alive. And this is called "by grace have you been saved" I was dead in my sins and He made me alive. I can attribute my regeneration to none but to Christ alone.

Sproul explains his understanding here http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

I like this quote:

I don't want to be a but-in-ski but I wanted to comment on one thing you mentioned here RB, more specifically here:

The ground of our belief that "regeneration precedes faith" is Eph 2:5. This teaches us that while we were dead...we were made alive. And this is called "by grace have you been saved" I was dead in my sins and He made me alive. I can attribute my regeneration to none but to Christ alone.

This does not speak in any manner about regeneration preceding faith. But states that it is by faith we are saved through His grace. It just appeared that you left off HOW we are 'saved' with regard to 'grace', which is 'BY FAITH'.

If we are saved by 'Grace alone' then, my friend faith is inconsequential, or better it is of no worth. But we are saved (as you rightly claim most often)Salvation is: In Christ Alone, by Grace alone, Through Faith alone.

So it is: "By grace you are saved through faith".

What I would like to know is simply this (and you don't have to answer it cause I think I will make another thread for it).
If we are regenerated before we are saved by faith, we have a very bibilical problem, at least from what I see.

In order to be regenerated one must be made in a right relationship with God (Justified).
In order to be regenerated one must be made seperated unto God (sanctified).
In order to be regenerated one must be made 'alive IN Christ'. (unitied IN Chrst).
and a couple more but you get the idea...

Now, the problem I see regarding all of these which entail regeneration is that scripture states these all are done or obtained "by faith" and yet the person has not yet set forth any faith thus far (by your definition) through which the scriptures state they become operational in and for the individaul. Therefore regeneration in manner which you ascribe can not be what scripture calls regeneration (from what I see)