Gal 2:20

[pinoybaptist]

to EricB:

I apologize. I was under the impression that the forum we were both posting in was part of the Baptists Only forum. I take back what I said.
But my question about what you believe on the Triunity of God stands.
You may answer at your own leisure, or ignore it.

 

[Eric B]

First, none of the Calvinists or Electionists here gloat over the damnation of those whom God did not choose unto salvation.
I am sure that everyone of us here could wish ourselves accursed, like Paul said, for the sake of our brethren, and families, and fellow citizens, and countrymen.

As I said, sometimes it does seem like it, as I don't see any remorse for the horror in store for the people you say cannot escape it.

But, like Paul, we realize that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel", and leave all to God, just like Paul did, because "he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth". Read the entire Romans 9 before you judge us. You look at one verse and conclude that the entire chapter is in accordance with that one verse.

But it's your side that takes a few verses and ignores the whole context, which is about Israel in general, not the reprobation of all lost individuals.

In your website, you had posted the opinions of those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity and the tri-unity of God. Are they your beliefs as well?

WHO? Are you referring to the person (on the Reformed board Ray and I were on before it shut down) who said this doctrine (Calvinism/sovereignty/reprobation) was more important than the Trinity? He was not denying the Trinity, but thinks this debate was more important than it. And I was disagreeing with him, not supporting it, because that is quite ridiculous.

Having said that, let us now discuss your preposterous question of whether the elect were lost in the first place.
Yes, they were just as lost as the unelect.

Yes, but my only point there was that even though you would deny that, still, your view faces the same hypothetical possibility you ascribed to the other side (foreknowledge). My conclusion was that we cannot fully understand all that and should not try to draw some of these conclusions from it.)

 

[pinoybaptist]

EricB:

Well, I think the man who says he believes in the doctrine of election and feels nothing for those whom God had left to their condemnation has a profession of faith as questionable as one who says because he is saved by grace and eternally saved he can go ahead and live and dress and walk and talk any way he wants to.

With regards to the Triunity of God, I thank you for clarifying your side.

 

[Eladar]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
How many salvations are there as you seem to think there are only one? There is if you are speaking of Eternal Salvation. Works apply to the here and now, not the hereafter. I agree with what has been said if put in its proper perspective. The ONLY work that will get us to Heaven was performed by Jesus Christ... That's the only one that counts... That's scripture... doctrine... bible... and Gospel!... Brother Glen

I am not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. There is only one salvation and there is only one reason one could possibly be saved, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to 'work' the trick is trying to define the word. What is works? If one says that faith itself is work, then one going against scripture. According to scripture, faith is a gift of God, not works. If one says that what we do as a result of our faith is works, then once again one going against scripture. Faith is a result of a gift, therefore any result of that faith would be a gift too.

The problem comes when we start judging the hearts of others, instead of allowing their hearts to show themselves.

By our fruits we are known. Anyone who denies this, denies the words of Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Eric B]

EricB...I will not tell you where the Bible teaches anything. You have not believed what I have already told you, therefore I must leave you to your fate in the hands of God.

All you had told me before was that one cannot understand what the Bible says unless they are born again. I showed you that the problems with this. But then, if it is as you say, what the Bible really says means nothing anyway, and we can make up our own explanations (of the purpose of preaching to the lost), and it's automatically right because it justifies the position we take anyway.
My fate does not rest in that, but yes, only in God's hand and His Word.

 

[connieman]

tyndale1946...if you have any more interaction with TUOR, it will be helpful to know that he is a "two-point" calvinist...a real queer duck. He holds only to Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, he says, while denying the remainder of TULIP. Hence, TU-OR, as opposed to "TULIPer"...me, and a few others. Get it?

connieman

 

[Eladar]

Not in a very loving mood tonight are you connie?

By the way, the screen name is a character from JRR Tolkien's writings.

[ May 25, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Eric B:
.........Your side consistently assumes that our opposition is all about our belief in our own goodness in saving ourselves. There may be some like that, but I know that I, and it appears, the other objectors here, are driven by compassion to the lost. So yes, we seem to be "tugging at God's sleeve like a spoiled child, and begging that He also save everybody else." Isn't this the attitude we all should have? (Because sin is against God, and not us, so who are we to delight in the idea of preterition of others because we think it's God's will.) Look at the very Romans 9 passage that is so misused, but the context ignored: Paul said he wished he could be accursed for the sake of those "vessels of wrath" he describes. It is the opposite of "Praise you Lord that He saved me and will roast those non-elect dogs for your glory", and then trying to mash everyone's face in this and expect them to gleefully accept it. If this is not what people may feel in their hearts, it sure is the way it comes across in this repeated failure to understand the motives of the objections...."

Eric, a great point made here!
Thank you, Eric, Helen, Nelson, Ray, Chet, swaimj, and others. I do not have your eloquence and admire your ability to come to the heart of things.
I will say here, again, that a non-Calvinist does not equal Arminian. I am a Christian, a child of God, because Jesus Christ is my Saviour and Lord, and not because I agree on every point with Pastor Larry and connieman. (There will also be Arminians in Heaven, by the way, those for whom Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour.)

Karen

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by swaimj:
Chris,
Faith is a work in the calvinist tradition. That is my point. It explains the calvinists insistence that faith is a gift which man does not have naturally. Calvinists hold that faith is a work and, knowing that this makes work necessary for salvation, they weasel out of the logic of their system by concluding that man cannot believe on his own and must have a special gift of faith. My point in referencing Machen is that his view of faith--not a work, but the reception of salvation--is an exception among calvinists, not the rule.

Well now, that's a new one. Try to tell any NFL receiver he has not worked to catch all those passes!

I don't know any Calvinist who believes biblical faith is a work. In the Arminian position, as I stated, faith is a work because it must be exercised in order to receive something. If you hand me a present, and I reach out for it, I have worked (extended effort) in order to receive it. If however, the very work involved is the work of God and not of myself, the cloak of saving faith is wrapped around me by God himself and I do not "put it on", then I have not worked to receive the gift. Scripture is clear that even our faith is not our own, but a gift from God.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Karen:

<snip>(There will also be Arminians in Heaven, by the way, those for whom Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour.)

Karen

Absolutely ! As I believe there will be Catholics, Presbyterians, Seventh-Days, Seventh Day Baptists, Absolute Predestinarians, Absolute Whosoevers, Mormons, JW's, those who are not of so-called "Christendom", some from tribes in jungles that have never heard a gospel preacher come over.
The Bible says "the Lord knows those who are His".

 

[swaimj]

In the Arminian position, as I stated, faith is a work because it must be exercised in order to receive something.

I'll take it on faith that you are correctly presenting the Arminian position; not certain as to what they would say as I am not Arminian. At any rate, the quote above is incorrect because faith is the act of receiving salvation, not a work exercised in order to receive salvation. This is the position which Machen explains. His position is in contrast not only to the Arminian position you have stated but is also in contrast to many Calvinists who hold that faith must be a gift precisely because it is a work.

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
Aki said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> i am sure it is out of His pleasure, will and sovereignty, but if that is the only answer i'd say it will not satisfy

Therein lies the problem. Man wants to know why.
He would not take God when He says He "..doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest thou ?...".

He must know why. God must satisfy him and not the other way around.
</font>[/QUOTE]the question was clear as to what do Calvinists say regarding God's choice of the elect, rather than a question that attacks God's decisions. also, in context of the phrase "...it will not satisfy...", it means those answers from Calvinists. thus, no problem lies in those questions.

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:

The complete text reads:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance....
2nd Peter 3:9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My advice, Aki, is read the entire book of Peter 1 and 2, and remember to stay within context.

if the word "all" in 2nd Peter 3:9 refers only to all the elect, it would mean that it is possible for some of those all to perish. except of course if qualified that this can never happen due to the next phrase which reads: "...all should come to repentance...", which then, is questionable of going around a passage to justify a stand. or, does the perish in this verse refer to anything other than 2nd death?

God did not create anyone so He could damn one and redeem the other

Thru that sin of Adam, as the corporate head of the earthly human race, he brought condemnation on everybody else. All are under the sentence of sin.

God, motivated only by mercy, and acting in accordance with His own sovereignty, chose to save many from these condemned creatures and promised to Adam the coming of His promised deliverance in His own time.

the first two of the three statements above are true, but the third one, when digged, will end up argumentatively contradcting the first one.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Aki:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
[qb]Aki said:

the question was clear as to what do Calvinists say regarding God's choice of the elect, rather than a question that attacks God's decisions. also, in context of the phrase "...it will not satisfy...", it means those answers from Calvinists. thus, no problem lies in those questions.

Well, then, ask Calvinists here, because I am not a Calvinist, strictly speaking.
I am sure many of them will say what Paul said:
"Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth."
Translation: why scorn us and accuse us of saying God favored us more than others, God chose to do so, we did not ask for that favor.

if the word "all" in 2nd Peter 3:9 refers only to all the elect, it would mean that it is possible for some of those all to perish. except of course if qualified that this can never happen due to the next phrase which reads: "...all should come to repentance...", which then, is questionable of going around a passage to justify a stand. or, does the perish in this verse refer to anything other than 2nd death?

Please amplify further. I really do not understand what you are saying. How can the phrase "go around a passage to justify a stand" as you say ?

God did not create anyone so He could damn one and redeem the other

Thru that sin of Adam, as the corporate head of the earthly human race, he brought condemnation on everybody else. All are under the sentence of sin.

God, motivated only by mercy, and acting in accordance with His own sovereignty, chose to save many from these condemned creatures and promised to Adam the coming of His promised deliverance in His own time.

the first two of the three statements above are true, but the third one, when digged, will end up argumentatively contradcting the first one.

</font>

Pray explain, how can the third statement end up being argumentatively contradicting the first one.

 

[russell55]

if the word "all" in 2nd Peter 3:9 refers only to all the elect, it would mean that it is possible for some of those all to perish. except of course if qualified that this can never happen due to the next phrase which reads: "...all should come to repentance...", which then, is questionable of going around a passage to justify a stand. or, does the perish in this verse refer to anything other than 2nd death?

The context of this verse is Christ's second coming and why he hadn't come yet.

God, before time began, elected a group of people throughout history to bring to salvation. All the elect will be saved, but they will be saved because God will bring every single one of them to repentance and faith.

If Christ came early, before God had brought all of the elect to repentance and faith, then those of the elect who had not yet come to repentance would die in their sins--they would die as "children of wrath." The elect are "children of wrath" just like everyone else up to the point that God brings them to Him.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by swaimj:
I'll take it on faith that you are correctly presenting the Arminian position;

Gee, thanks

not certain as to what they would say as I am not Arminian. At any rate, the quote above is incorrect because faith is the act of receiving salvation, not a work exercised in order to receive salvation. This is the position which Machen explains. His position is in contrast not only to the Arminian position you have stated but is also in contrast to many Calvinists who hold that faith must be a gift precisely because it is a work.

I'll take your word on it, and then Machen is incorrect

No matter how you cut it, faith is a work, it's either ours, or God's.

 

[Chris Temple]

Let's get either back on subject, or moderators, please close this thread

No one has yet been able to answer if all people in hell can claim Gal 2:20 to be true for themselves.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Let's get either back on subject, or moderators, please close this thread

No one has yet been able to answer if all people in hell can claim Gal 2:20 to be true for themselves.

Aw, c'mon Chris, how can anyone in hell claim that verse for themselves.
The very proof that they have not been crucified with Christ and live the life they live by the faith of the Son of God is that they are burning in hell.
No.
No one for whom Christ shed His blood will ever be in hell.