Free will(not to derail another post)

[RAdam]

...you mean like you do with the way the OT and NT uses the word "world"?

My definition of world fits all those passages I mentioned earlier. Does yours?

The world is gone after him. World being a term that speaks of all kinds of men, fits right in, doesn't it. As a universal term, it does not fit.

I pray for them. I pray not for the world. Again, it fits, whereas a universal definition doesn't fit.

The whole world lieth in wickedness. Again, my definition fits, yours does not.

If the word hate you, ye know it hated me before it hated you. Again, a great example.

It's not theological hoops, it's called interpreting a passage based on context and applying definitions that make sense. I can apply a definition of that word which is consistent in various texts. Can you?

 

[RAdam]

...you mean like you do with the way the OT and NT uses the word "world"?

Please give specific examples.

 

[Allan]

In other words, where a universal meaning won't fit we find another meaning. How convenient.

No..
The term already has been defined in the OT..
The NT does not and has never redefined any words to which it has already established it's meaning(s).

The term world, has never, does not and will never apply in any biblical sense specifically to believers

 

[Winman]

No..
The term already has been defined in the OT..
The NT does not and has never redefined any words to which it has already established it's meaning(s).

The term world, has never, does not and will never apply in any biblical sense specifically to believers

Even a child would understand world in John 3:16 means all men. That God loves unbelievers and sinners is shown in scripture.

The young rich ruler did not get saved, but Jesus loved him.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Jesus loved and died for all men, not just those who believe.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Actually, we can insist that fellowship is meant and we can insist that He is talking to believers. How can we insist this? Because Christ said, "as many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." I find that Hebrews says this about God's chastening: "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

God chastens His children, not those that aren't His children. God doesn't chasten unregenerate men, only born again children of God. Everything in the Laodicean passage cries out that God is dealing with disobedient children. He is rebuking and chastening them. His invitation is not to eternal life, that they already have and are not in danger of losing. His invitation is that He will come in and sup. It is fellowship, plain and simple.

1. You are just doing to disagree w/o addressing any of the reasoning I put forth? Not being accusatory, I just want to know what to expect in a conversation with you.

2. What in particular in the passage indicates that God is dealing with disobedient children (and no other type of person)?

 

[dwmoeller1]

I don't why some Cists insist on taking a limited reading of John 3:16. Some of the other passages with "all", etc. I get, but not John 3:16.

Denying that "whole world" and "whosoever" is universal is
1. textually problematic.
2. not necessary for Cists doctrine
3. does not represent the majority view of Cists (from what I can tell)
4. plenty of well known and very solid Cist theologians would disagree
5. seems to me to lean towards hyper-cism
6. And finally...its contrary to Calvin's own take on the passage:

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.
- John Calvin's Commentary on John, Vol 1

 

[RAdam]

I could care less what Calvin said. He didn't originate the doctrine of grace. I don't believe in the doctrines of grace because Calvin did, and I don't read him to find out what he believed. I could care less about Calvin. I care about understanding scripture.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I could care less what Calvin said. He didn't originate the doctrine of grace. I don't believe in the doctrines of grace because Calvin did, and I don't read him to find out what he believed. I could care less about Calvin. I care about understanding scripture.

I merely point out that denying the universal nature of John 3:16 is a distinctly minority view even among Cals. Hence any claims that the non-universal reading is "clear" or "obvious", or that the universal reading has no merit are...highly unreasonable. That doesn't mean the non-universal reading is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that one should be careful in how the typify either reading.

 

[Allan]

I merely point out that denying the universal nature of John 3:16 is a distinctly minority view even among Cals. Hence any claims that the non-universal reading is "clear" or "obvious", or that the universal reading has no merit are...highly unreasonable. That doesn't mean the non-universal reading is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that one should be careful in how the typify either reading.

One thing you must understand dwmoeller, is the there are some on here that are Primitive Baptists (If I remember correctly - RAdam is one), and as such their view of reformed is not the same as the historically reformed view is.

For one, they believe the children of God are born eternally saved already, apart from faith. However, God has decreed that some of His children will be saved in the temporal through the gospel, to a righteous and changed life here and now.

Therefore you will most likely be arguing in a fruitless endeavor. Not because he is obstinate but because unless that issue is dealt with first, the other will potentially never make sense to them.

 

[Allan]

I could care less what Calvin said. He didn't originate the doctrine of grace. I don't believe in the doctrines of grace because Calvin did, and I don't read him to find out what he believed. I could care less about Calvin. I care about understanding scripture.

Well that is sad. Sounds like you have chosen not to listen to one who has good insight even if you don't agree with all he believed. That is coming from one who is neither a Calvinist nor reformed but a non-cal.

Secondly, he didn't ask if you cared or held Calvin to any standard.. however John Calvin's work is the a basic standard view of those who claim to be Reformed. As such, to quote him simply sets the stage for a discussion among those of a reformed mind. At least "I" would think so.

I'm betting he could quote other men of reformed views who would state the same.. However, even if you simply wanted to abide by the scriptures alone... you still can not get passed the universal implication made by the sentence construction.

 

[RAdam]

One thing you must understand dwmoeller, is the there are some on here that are Primitive Baptists (If I remember correctly - RAdam is one), and as such their view of reformed is not the same as the historically reformed view is.

For one, they believe the children of God are born eternally saved already, apart from faith. However, God has decreed that some of His children will be saved in the temporal through the gospel, to a righteous and changed life here and now.

Therefore you will most likely be arguing in a fruitless endeavor. Not because he is obstinate but because unless that issue is dealt with first, the other will potentially never make sense to them.

I've told you before that most PBs don't believe the elect are born eternally saved already apart from faith. You have refused acknowledge this fact, and thus consistently present an incorrect view of PB beliefs.

What most PBs believe is that the Holy Spirit of God regenerates the elect through direct operation, in other words, through no human agency whatsoever. We believe this happens at some point in the life of the individual. Hence, the elect are not born eternally saved already.

Now, you said, "because unless that issue is dealt with first, the other will potentially never make sense to them." Since you got the first issue incorrect, you have no place to exalt yourself to being my teacher. Perhaps you should actually try to understand PB beliefs before you set out to correct us.

While you are doing this, perhaps you could deal with passages like Hebrews 12:5-8. That passage speaks of how God deals with those He loves, by chastening them. Then he speaks of those who aren't chastened by God. Pretty clear implication: God loves some people, called sons in that context, and He chastens them. If we are chastened, we need to understand that God is dealing with us as sons. God doesn't chasten some people, who the author calls bastards and not sons. If God deals with those He loves by chastening and those are called sons, then those who aren't sons and who aren't chastened must not be the object of God's love.

 

[Allan]

I've told you before that most PBs don't believe the elect are born eternally saved already apart from faith. You have refused acknowledge this fact, and thus consistently present an incorrect view of PB beliefs.

What most PBs believe is that the Holy Spirit of God regenerates the elect through direct operation, in other words, through no human agency whatsoever. We believe this happens at some point in the life of the individual. Hence, the elect are not born eternally saved already.

Now, you said, "because unless that issue is dealt with first, the other will potentially never make sense to them." Since you got the first issue incorrect, you have no place to exalt yourself to being my teacher. Perhaps you should actually try to understand PB beliefs before you set out to correct us.

While you are doing this, perhaps you could deal with passages like Hebrews 12:5-8. That passage speaks of how God deals with those He loves, by chastening them. Then he speaks of those who aren't chastened by God. Pretty clear implication: God loves some people, called sons in that context, and He chastens them. If we are chastened, we need to understand that God is dealing with us as sons. God doesn't chasten some people, who the author calls bastards and not sons. If God deals with those He loves by chastening and those are called sons, then those who aren't sons and who aren't chastened must not be the object of God's love.

Sir, the fact is.. most PB's DO hold to that belief and as such I would encourage you to look more into the typical view of salvation - Eternal verse Temporal.

I'm not saying it is the only view but it IS the mainstream or majority view.
From here (Academic Dictionaries and Enclyclopedias)

Categories of Salvation

Biblically speaking, mainstream Primitive Baptists do not always interpret the word “save” as having reference to an eternal salvation. While they believe that each of God’s elect will be eternally saved solely by God’s grace, they also maintain that elect people can save themselves from the temporal consequences and practice of sin by personal obedience and discipleship. This temporal salvation associated with discipleship is often referred to as “Time Salvation,” or “Gospel Salvation.” Accordingly, the degree of one’s discipleship, and consequently his temporal salvation, does not influence that person’s eternal standing with God, but only his fellowship and peace during his life. [http://www.pbpage.org/TimeSalvation.pdf]

This is but one of Many that I can cite from PB Ministries and their overall beliefs.

Now.. let me refresh you memory of your statement.. not that you 'corrected me' but that you actually stated you AGREE with the concept of which I have previously described from here. However I will note that even then you didn't fully understand the common or majority view of most PB's:

The primitive baptists, as far as I know, don't believe in two aspects of salvation. The primitive baptists believe in many aspects of salvation, and this is becasue the bible uses the words save, saved, and salvation to refer to many things. It can refer to one getting to heaven, which is commonly referred to as "eternal salvation." It can also refer to some sort of deliverance which does not directly result in one getting to heaven, often times referred to as "time salvation." While I am in agreement with the concept, I do not like the terms, and this is because it confuses people. I also don't like the terms because it appears as if one is totally divorcing time salvation from eternal salvation, which is not always true.

Emphasis mine
So if you have changed your view.. then GREAT!
But please don't act like you have never agreed with the above, nor assume that it isn't a Primitive Baptist Concept that is a common mainstream view just because you never really heard it.

 

[HAMel]

As a result of all the discussion(s) here about this and that and one thing or another..., all I can say is..., I'm glad I'm a layman! Faith in the Lord is ALL I've got.

To me the Word of the Lord is so infinite and so broad and so deep that blind faith is about the best I can muster. To many mysteries to boggle the mind.

When Paul was caught up to paradise (2 Cor 12) he found things so astounding they could not be adequately described or expressed using earthly words. Can you just imagine that? No words available to even begin to pass along to others the glory of the Lord.

...that in itself is amazing to me.

 

[RAdam]

I haven't changed my view one bit. You simply do not understand what PBs believe. I'm going to try to be as kind as I can be, but it aggravates me to see you posting as if you have the fine points of PB belief down pat and are going to educate and correct me when you obviously don't have a clue.

PBs in general to not believe that the elect are born saved eternally. We believe the elect are saved eternally in time by the work of the Holy Spirit, and only by the work of the Holy Spirit. We do not believe God works through any other kind of medium or agency, but rather through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. This is the new birth, regeneration, quickening, etc. This is what we call eternal salvation and it is the sole work of God.

PBs believe in what is often termed time salvation, although I think that term can be confusing to those outside the PB. There are times the word save is used in the bible where it does not have being saved to heaven under consideration. This is what we call time salvation, or temporal salvation. For instance, Timothy is told that by meditating on the word of God and giving himself wholly to it, he can both save himself and them that hear him. Obviously, Timothy is already born again and heaven bound, so that is not what is meant by save. The context shows that what is meant is being saved from error and spiritual deception. This is an example of what the PBs mean by time salvation.

The source you quoted does not prove that PBs believe the elect are born saved eternally. Rather, it said that we believe that all of God's elect will be eternally saved solely by God's grace. It said absolutely nothing of being born in this state. I know of only a few PBs that believe that. It is not a mainstream view. The mainstream view is that the elect are conceived in a state of being dead in trespasses and in sins and are quickened, or regenerated, at some point in their life. That's not temporal salvation, that is in fact what we mean when we say eternal salvation. Temporal savlation does not concern being born again, but rather other things that deal with the here and now.

You need to educate yourself before spouting off about what the PBs believe and misrepresenting our views. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I'm trying to be charitable, but I would appreciate the same courtesy I extend to you. I try not to misrepresent what you believe, and I would appreciate the same in reverse.

 

[TCassidy]

For one, they believe the children of God are born eternally saved already, apart from faith.

I think you need to study Primitive Baptist doctrine a little more closely.

Here, I will help you get started:

But regeneration is a divine work which is accomplished by the direct power of the spirit of Almighty God upon the soul when it is wholly destitute of the least spark of spiritual life.

Elder W.S. Craig Reproduced from Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice

Sounds to me like Elder Craig is saying before a person is saved he is lost, and his soul is "wholly destitute of the least spark of spiritual life."

 

[dwmoeller1]

Pretty clear implication: God loves some people, called sons in that context, and He chastens them. If we are chastened, we need to understand that God is dealing with us as sons. God doesn't chasten some people, who the author calls bastards and not sons. If God deals with those He loves by chastening and those are called sons, then those who aren't sons and who aren't chastened must not be the object of God's love.

It is consistent to say that God loves everyone but not in the same way.

 

[RAdam]

It is consistent to say that God loves everyone but not in the same way.

But that's not what the text says. It says, "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

 

[webdog]

But that's not what the text says. It says, "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

It is perfectly consistent. Note that if you endure chastening, God deals with you as a son. It says nothing to the sort that only sons are chastened.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But that's not what the text says. It says, "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

It is perfectly consistent. Note that if you endure chastening, God deals with you as a son. It says nothing to the sort that only sons are chastened.

You both miss my point.

Logically speaking, Webdog is correct. Although the verse does say those who are not chastened are not sons, this does not logically necessitate the conclusion that He only chastens sons. Such a conclusion would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent.

In syllogism form, the conclusion that God only chastens sons would be:
If God does not chasten you, then you are not a son. (true)
God chastens you. (true)
You are therefore a son. (not necessarily true)

To demonstrate the fallacious nature of this logical form:
If an animal does not have hair, then they are not a dog. (true)
The animal has hair. (true)
The animal must be a dog. (not necessarily true - it might be a cat)


However, it *is* logical to conclude from this verse that God does not love everyone. The verses says everyone He loves He chastens. Thus it is logical to conclude that if one is not chastened by God, then one is not loved (in one sense at least) by God. Thus, if God does not chasten everyone, then God does not love everyone (in some sense). In syllogistic form:

Premise: All those who God loves are chastened by God.
Premise: God does not chasten everyone
Conclusion: God does not love everyone.

Unless you wish to deny the second premise, the verse necessarily leads to this conclusion.


However, this still isn't the complete picture. To use this conclusion to deny, for instance, a universal reading of John 3:16, would be fallacious. One can only use this passage to deny a universal reading if one insists that the meaning of "love" has the exact same sense in the both passages. Since love can have different senses (eg. I love to read, I love my wife) and different degrees (eg. I love my country, but I looooove my wife), insisting that the exact same sense or degree is meant in two disparate passages w/o clear textual evidence would be fallacious (begging the question).

So, can we determine from this verse that God does not love everyone? Yes.
Can we determine from John 3:16 that God does love everyone? Yes.
Are the the two conclusions necessarily contradictory? No, not if a different sense or degree of love is meant in the two passages.

 

[RAdam]

"Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth"

That's what the text said.