God uses means

[PreachTony]

explain how this is playing semantics. "unacquainted" means not familiar with, not knowledgable about, unknown to someone or does not know someone personally.

regenerate pertains to spiritual rebirth.
I don't see semantics here.
but of course, you see what you want to see.

SNIP

Now considering that (1) Jesus was the author of eternal redemption, (2) He is the only begotten Son of God, (3) it was His blood that was shed, (4) He was the One who rose from the dead, the question is what manner of salvation ? addendum: and oh, yes, everyone for whom He died was adopted into God's family, finally, in time, and is His brother. You were Jesus' brother even before you were born.

Perhaps "semantics" isn't the choice word for our situation, but it seemed to work at the time.

Jesus is the author of eternal redemption. He is the only begotten Son of God. He shed His blood upon the cross. He not only laid down His life, but He had the power to pick it back up (and He still has the power, as He is God and He changes not).

the question is what manner of salvation ?

At some point we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. So far as I can determine, pinoy, you are the only one on this board outright supporting some doctrine of two salvations, regardless how you try to couch it as differing aspects of a single salvation.

From my study, there is one salvation. When David wrote Psalms, he consistently spoke of "thy [the Lord's] salvation." He never wrote of it as if it were two different things, even though David didn't have the scriptural understanding of salvation that is available to us.

addendum: and oh, yes, everyone for whom He died was adopted into God's family, finally, in time, and is His brother. You were Jesus' brother even before you were born.

From what I've read, you accuse others of 'weakening' or 'limiting' God by saying the people have a choice in their salvation. From what I can tell, you seem to believe that only a certain group were given the ability to "regenerate" in order to recognize their already established status as "brethren" of Jesus. But why wouldn't God have granted that ability to all mankind, instead of a select group?

Consider your statement here:

He was regenerated, quickened, born from above, PRIOR to being made acquainted with the Lord. No semantics, see ?

It's a seemingly solidly Calvinist position. So the Ethiopian was "born from above" before he even heard about Jesus? That is a direct contradiction of inspired scripture written by Paul in which faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (how shall they hear except they be sent). In your model, Jesus essentially forced salvation upon the Ethiopian without the requirement of scripture, without the necessity of working out one's own salvation with fear and trembling. In your scenario, Philip was completely unnecessary. The Spirit moving Philip to the Ethiopian's chariot was a wasted movement, as the Ethiopian was saved before he got there.

If that is the case, if God grants regeneration to people without them even knowing about Jesus, then why did Jesus send them out in the Great Commission? Why is God still calling men to preach the gospel? It's completely unnecessary, if your theology is the be-all-end-all theology. It tells me that my spiritual life is in vain. God didn't need me to preach the word, as He can just force-Save whoever He wants.

So if God can do that, then why didn't He save everybody? Why would a loving God who could rescue everyone from torment in Hell or the Lake of Fire not do so?...unless people actually are allowed by God to accept or reject His Son. This does not weaken the sacrifice of Christ. I tried to explain this to you once with an analogy about a valuable gift, but you seemed to brush my analogy aside, as it didn't follow your doctrine to the "T".

 

[pinoybaptist]

Perhaps "semantics" isn't the choice word for our situation, but it seemed to work at the time.

Fair enough.

Jesus is the author of eternal redemption. He is the only begotten Son of God. He shed His blood upon the cross. He not only laid down His life, but He had the power to pick it back up (and He still has the power, as He is God and He changes not).

Then, if, as you say He is everything you said about Him, why does every other church seem to delegate the final authority to the sinners' sin-bound, sin-laden, sin-deadened nature, by giving him the choice on whether to accept Christ or not ? Did He do what He came to do, or did He not ? Did He glorify His Father, or did He not ? Was He successful in redeeming sinners, or was He not ? Was it simply the Father's will to watch His only begotten Son bleed, suffer, and die, and finally leave the matter of redemption being realized to the sinner ?

At some point we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. So far as I can determine, pinoy, you are the only one on this board outright supporting some doctrine of two salvations, regardless how you try to couch it as differing aspects of a single salvation.

Well, no. There are other Primitive Baptists on this board who agree with me. And I suspect, there may be lurkers or active posters, too, who can see and grasp what I am really trying to say, and are just keeping quiet about it.
I think I started a thread on it somewhere on this board, and forgot all about it because of that bickering you probably read.
And I'm not trying to couch anything, that description is suggestive of subtility.
I am very open, and consistent, with what I believe, and teach.

From my study, there is one salvation. When David wrote Psalms, he consistently spoke of "thy [the Lord's] salvation."



He never wrote of it as if it were two different things,

That's why we, the readers of this age, for whose learning the Scriptures were specifically written, have the entire 66 books available for us. In order for us to compare spiritual with spiritual, Isaiah puts it this way: (Isaiah 28:9-11). Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;here a little, and there a little:

So, using this principle, if you go back to David's psalms, as well as others, you might find that not every salvation spoken of by David pertains to his eternal standing with God.

even though David didn't have the scriptural understanding of salvation that is available to us.

Again, that is to our benefit. The Lord saw it fit that we of this generation not only have the complete Torah, but the writings of others of Israel's prophets, as well as the gospels and the general epistles written by those whom Christ Himself personally discipled, and Paul's epistle, to whom much were revealed personally by Christ.

From what I've read, you accuse others of 'weakening' or 'limiting' God by saying the people have a choice in their salvation.

If it sounds like an accusation, so be it.
Paul confronted Peter when Peter showed signs of "falling from grace".
It's double-speak, if you be honest about it.
Yes, Christ is Savior, yes, Christ is redeemer, yes, to everything, BUT, you, the sinner have the final say on this matter, to you have been given the authority to put the "period" in the matter of your salvation.
Of course, it's not said that way, but that's the gist, really.

Either Christ did the whole thing from start to finish, or He did not.
Either God has the sovereign right to show mercy to whom He will, and compassion to whom He will, or He does not have that sovereign right.
Now, don't take what I said personally.

From what I can tell, you seem to believe that only a certain group were given the ability to "regenerate"

Correction.
Maybe you didn't mean it the way I read it but, no man has the ability to regenerate himself.
It is the Holy Spirit who quickens, who regenerates, and that only His own.

in order to recognize their already established status as "brethren" of Jesus.

That status was established from eternity past. See Hebrews 2: 10-12

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

aying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

But why wouldn't God have granted that ability to all mankind, instead of a select group?

Again, regeneration is not an ability.

Consider your statement here:

It's a seemingly solidly Calvinist position.

Well, I used to think so myself, until I encountered one on this board who seemed to flip-flop, seemingly supported by a friend of his, though I think the other one was simply being more loyal to his friend than actually supporting his friend's flip-flopping, so I guess you can say, if you will, it is a solidly Doctrine of Grace position.

So the Ethiopian was "born from above" before he even heard about Jesus?

No. Everybody in Israel have heardof Jesus at that point in time.
Who wouldn't have ?
A crucifixion attended by lightnings and thunderings and the renting of a very thick temple veil and the sightings of men and women known to have been dead walking around Jerusalem, then the disappearance of the crucified's body.
Woulda been big news and juicy gossip at the time it happened, and by the Ethiopian's time probably relegated to just another "superstitious" event and Person.
What he didn't know was that that Jesus is the one he was reading about, and it certainly piqued his interest, and, the difference between him and Nicodemus is that Nicodemus mocked Jesus's statement, at worst, at best, didn't believe him, while the Ethiopian Jew readily and freely admitted that he believes with all his heart that Jesus IS the Son of God, to the point of submitting himself to baptism.
Now consider the story of Simon, the old man by the temple gate, who saw the little boy Jesus, and declared that this was the salvation of Israel. Nobody told him about Jesus, but he, being a child of God, waited for the coming of the Messiah, and when he saw Him, the Spirit in him confirmed with his own spirit, that this is He whom he was waiting for.
John the Baptist leapt inside his mother's womb during Elizabeth's (his mother) visit to Mary, another indication of him being a regenerate child of God, while in the womb, not just of him being the prophet who is to be "crying in the wilderness".

 

[pinoybaptist]

That is a direct contradiction of inspired scripture written by Paul in which faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (how shall they hear except they be sent).

Regeneration comes before faith, contrary to what most will argue here.

In your model, Jesus essentially forced salvation upon the Ethiopian without the requirement of scripture,

Well, let's put this in a more practical, humanly understandable scenario. There you are, an excellent swimmer, and there is your younger friend, impetous, daring, bold.
He has gotten himself into a mess in the water.
He will definitely drown.
Do you jump into the water and save him ?
Or do you ask him to decide if he can make it on his own ?
I suppose you will jump into the water, immediately, right ?

......without the necessity of working out one's own salvation with fear and trembling. In your scenario, Philip was completely unnecessary.

So you believe you can earn your way into heaven ? Is that what you're saying ? Are you unnecessary to your conregation because you believe they can work their own salvation to heaven ? Were your father and grandfather unnecessary to your salvation since you can work your own salvation into heaven ?

The Spirit moving Philip to the Ethiopian's chariot was a wasted movement, as the Ethiopian was saved before he got there.

Then Jesus Christ is a wasteful God because He already went up to the cross, down to Sheol, up again, and already redeemed people, yet He decided He wants His apostles out there into the nations preaching about Him ?

If that is the case, if God grants regeneration to people without them even knowing about Jesus, then why did Jesus send them out in the Great Commission? Why is God still calling men to preach the gospel?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

It's completely unnecessary, if your theology is the be-all-end-all theology.

It's not unnecessary. God doesn't make false moves.
And I never said my theology is the be-all-end-all.
You said that.
For all I know, there might be one of my own people on this board, or elsewhere, who might suddenly have an alternative view on most of my theology.
I listen to most of the non Primitive Baptist preachers you probably do.
David Jeremiah, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, Vernon Mc'Gee, to name a few.
I do not agree with everything they say, but enjoy most of their sermons, and, on occassion, use their points in mine.

It tells me that my spiritual life is in vain. God didn't need me to preach the word,

And therein is the crux of this problem.
I, me, my, mine.
I say that as a friend, PreachT, and with all due respects.
had the same problem, back then.
Twice somebody waited in ambush for me to do me in because he blames me for "converting" his drinking buddies, several times we endured rocks on our roofs at the church, feces rubbed on the church door.
Once that fellow who wanted me dead pinched my nose and ears in front of his laughing crowd of drinking buddies, and it was all I could do to use him as jackhammer on the asphalt road.
My sister hated me and didn't speak to me for months because I became a Baptist instead of joining her Full-gospel church.
I was not yet fifty, my wife was abroad (Saudi Arabia at that time, then the US), and faced a lot of temptations with women, and not once flinched.
Then all of a sudden I find that God, in Christ, had already redeemed all that He wanted redeemed.
Of course, the "finding out" was not all in one dose.
I felt exactly as you did.
What about the spiritual living I did ? What about my works and faithfulness ? What about me ?

as He can just force-Save whoever He wants.

No. He didn't force-save anyone. Refer to my "drowning friend" example.

So if God can do that, then why didn't He save everybody?

Well,presidents have the power to grant amnesty to convicts, and they do so every now and then, so do governors (if I'm not mistaken). Why don't they pardon everybody ?

Why would a loving God who could rescue everyone from torment in Hell or the Lake of Fire not do so?...

because there's another side to His love: wrath.

unless people actually are allowed by God to accept or reject His Son.

Scripture showing God allows anyone to accept or reject His Son, specific, please, and not just "as interpreted".

This does not weaken the sacrifice of Christ. I tried to explain this to you once with an analogy about a valuable gift, but you seemed to brush my analogy aside, as it didn't follow your doctrine to the "T".

Because a gift is no longer a gift if it was "requested", or "suggested".
A gift is a gift whether the receiver knows he has a gift coming.

Even the secular dictionary.com says so:


1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.
2.
the act of giving.
3.
something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned:
Those extra points he got in the game were a total gift.

 

[PreachTony]

I'm only going to respond to the high points, in an effort to not be long-winded. This is not meant in disrespect. If I feel the urge to answer the points I skip, I will go back in another post.

Regeneration comes before faith, contrary to what most will argue here.

Well, let's put this in a more practical, humanly understandable scenario. There you are, an excellent swimmer, and there is your younger friend, impetous, daring, bold.
He has gotten himself into a mess in the water.
He will definitely drown.
Do you jump into the water and save him ?
Or do you ask him to decide if he can make it on his own ?
I suppose you will jump into the water, immediately, right ?

I'd like to answer this with scripture that I believe will also answer a point you make later:

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

Here we see a person in need of divine help. We see that help arrive on the scene, and yet that help doesn't just automatically heal the person in need, but instead offers him a choice. The impotent man could have refused his help. He didn't, though. I see that has God offering man a choice. I'm thinking you'll probably see it as a man already healed, and just waiting on the realization and materialization of the healing.

So you believe you can earn your way into heaven ? Is that what you're saying ? Are you unnecessary to your conregation because you believe they can work their own salvation to heaven ? Were your father and grandfather unnecessary to your salvation since you can work your own salvation into heaven ?

I never said that. Salvation is not of works. Though I am coming to understand that some people on this forum seem to think the mere act of putting forth an effort to hear the gospel is a work. We're talking about two different forms of "work." I've always understood the "works" that James wrote about to be actual deeds, such as helping the poor. I've since learned that, according to at least one poster on this board, the fact that I prayed when I was saved seems to count as a "work."

It's not unnecessary. God doesn't make false moves.
And I never said my theology is the be-all-end-all.
You said that.
For all I know, there might be one of my own people on this board, or elsewhere, who might suddenly have an alternative view on most of my theology.
I listen to most of the non Primitive Baptist preachers you probably do.
David Jeremiah, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, Vernon Mc'Gee, to name a few.
I do not agree with everything they say, but enjoy most of their sermons, and, on occassion, use their points in mine.

Just for the record, the only TV preacher I really give any time to is James Merritt, and that's only to his Bible study/teaching. His show never really shows a sermon, from what I've gathered. David Jeremiah has said things before that didn't sit well with me, so I tuned him out. Like you, I don't agree with everything they say. My interpretation of things John MacArthur and men like Charles Stanley have said leaves me with the sense they believe in degrees of reward in Heaven, which is not something that I've ever believed.

And therein is the crux of this problem.
I, me, my, mine.
I say that as a friend, PreachT, and with all due respects.
had the same problem, back then.
Twice somebody waited in ambush for me to do me in because he blames me for "converting" his drinking buddies, several times we endured rocks on our roofs at the church, feces rubbed on the church door.
Once that fellow who wanted me dead pinched my nose and ears in front of his laughing crowd of drinking buddies, and it was all I could do to use him as jackhammer on the asphalt road.
My sister hated me and didn't speak to me for months because I became a Baptist instead of joining her Full-gospel church.
I was not yet fifty, my wife was abroad (Saudi Arabia at that time, then the US), and faced a lot of temptations with women, and not once flinched.
Then all of a sudden I find that God, in Christ, had already redeemed all that He wanted redeemed.
Of course, the "finding out" was not all in one dose.
I felt exactly as you did.
What about the spiritual living I did ? What about my works and faithfulness ? What about me ?

I apologize if what I wrote came off as self-centered. I was trying to be sincere in saying that, if I followed the theology you advocate, it does seem as though the work I've done for the Lord is in vain. But, as I wrote to the other poster (who seemed to think almost any action was a work), we can only base our knowledge off our own experiences. It's very difficult to live a long physical and spiritual life without using first-person pronouns. A lot of us Baptist preachers (especially in my neck of the woods) we'll speak from the stand in terms of "we," but sometimes that's more habit than anything.

No. He didn't force-save anyone. Refer to my "drowning friend" example.

I feel like this is a big point of difference for us. At what point does salvation take effect in your doctrine?

If you say that salvation was completed at Christ's death on the cross, and that no person can positively or negatively influence their status as a saved child of God, then it stands to reason that God does force salvation upon people, as they are given no choice in the matter. Conversely, God forces damnation upon others.

I have a feeling we're going to write even more about this... :smilewinkgrin:

Scripture showing God allows anyone to accept or reject His Son, specific, please, and not just "as interpreted".

Se the above response from John 5.

 

[PreachTony]

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I read it but, no man has the ability to regenerate himself.
It is the Holy Spirit who quickens, who regenerates, and that only His own.

That status was established from eternity past. See Hebrews 2: 10-12

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

aying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Again, regeneration is not an ability.

I'll say this was a "lack of a better word" at the time of writing. I understand the position of "regeneration" being solely a power of God. I did not mean to imply that man could "regenerate" himself in the example. When I wrote "ability to be regenerated" I meant it to read as "able to be regenerated." Apologies for any confusion.

No. Everybody in Israel have heardof Jesus at that point in time.
Who wouldn't have ?
A crucifixion attended by lightnings and thunderings and the renting of a very thick temple veil and the sightings of men and women known to have been dead walking around Jerusalem, then the disappearance of the crucified's body.
Woulda been big news and juicy gossip at the time it happened, and by the Ethiopian's time probably relegated to just another "superstitious" event and Person.
What he didn't know was that that Jesus is the one he was reading about, and it certainly piqued his interest, and, the difference between him and Nicodemus is that Nicodemus mocked Jesus's statement, at worst, at best, didn't believe him, while the Ethiopian Jew readily and freely admitted that he believes with all his heart that Jesus IS the Son of God, to the point of submitting himself to baptism.
Now consider the story of Simon, the old man by the temple gate, who saw the little boy Jesus, and declared that this was the salvation of Israel. Nobody told him about Jesus, but he, being a child of God, waited for the coming of the Messiah, and when he saw Him, the Spirit in him confirmed with his own spirit, that this is He whom he was waiting for.
John the Baptist leapt inside his mother's womb during Elizabeth's (his mother) visit to Mary, another indication of him being a regenerate child of God, while in the womb, not just of him being the prophet who is to be "crying in the wilderness".

In the case of Simeon, the Bible explicitly says the Spirit was upon him and had shown him that he would live to see the Lord's salvation. Given the sheer number of babies that would be brought to the Temple for ritual things, it took the Holy Spirit telling him that this particular child was the Messiah. Simeon is described as "just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel." Chances are quite high that he had heard the prophecies all his life. He had read the old scriptures stating that a Messiah would come. I don't believe he was in the dark about the coming of the Lord.

As for the Ethiopian, do you really believe that just overhearing "big news and juicy gossip" or just "another 'superstitious' event and Person" is enough to acquaint someone with the Lord? Paul writes that it is through preaching. Overhearing another conversation doesn't really fit the bill.

I don't see Nicodemus as "mocking" Jesus. At worst, I think he reacted incredulously, as these were terms he was not accustomed to dealing with. His entire life had been dedicated to the Jewish Law, which offered little in the way of intimacy with God. Through Jesus, we're brought closer to God than ever before. This would've been brand new to Nicodemus's way of thinking, and it probably would've taken him some time to adjust to.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I'll say this was a "lack of a better word" at the time of writing. I understand the position of "regeneration" being solely a power of God. I did not mean to imply that man could "regenerate" himself in the example. When I wrote "ability to be regenerated" I meant it to read as "able to be regenerated." Apologies for any confusion.

I would like to comment on this some more for the sake of discussion, but we'll leave this at that.

In the case of Simeon, the Bible explicitly says the Spirit was upon him and had shown him that he would live to see the Lord's salvation. Given the sheer number of babies that would be brought to the Temple for ritual things, it took the Holy Spirit telling him that this particular child was the Messiah. Simeon is described as "just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel." Chances are quite high that he had heard the prophecies all his life. He had read the old scriptures stating that a Messiah would come. I don't believe he was in the dark about the coming of the Lord.

Again, I will not belabor the point here, PreachT.

As for the Ethiopian, do you really believe that just overhearing "big news and juicy gossip" or just "another 'superstitious' event and Person" is enough to acquaint someone with the Lord? Paul writes that it is through preaching. Overhearing another conversation doesn't really fit the bill.

Now this I have to comment on because it seems you are twisting what I said, which I don't really believe of you.
I never said the Eunuch's belief on Christ stems from his having heard about the 'big news and juicy gossip' etc.
If you go back and read your question, which I answered, your question was "so the Ethiopian was already born from above before he heard of Jesus ?".
I was replying to the bolded part of the question.
Everybody at some point and in some manner had heard of Jesus by that time.
Not everybody recognizes Him as the Messiah, because not everyone had the Spirit "upon" them, as you described Simeon.

Anywhere on this forum or board you go where I participated in the discussion about the eunuch, I have always said Philip taught him.
or preached Jesus to him.

I don't see Nicodemus as "mocking" Jesus. At worst, I think he reacted incredulously, as these were terms he was not accustomed to dealing with. His entire life had been dedicated to the Jewish Law, which offered little in the way of intimacy with God.

Look at it anyway you want, Jesus' own brothers and sisters in the flesh didn't believe Him, believe in Him, and believed on Him till after the resurrection.
I don't think Nicodemus was born again until much later.

Through Jesus, we're brought closer to God than ever before.

In a manner of speaking, yes.

This would've been brand new to Nicodemus's way of thinking, and it probably would've taken him some time to adjust to.

He probably shadowed Jesus a lot.

 

[PreachTony]

I would like to comment on this some more for the sake of discussion, but we'll leave this at that.

Whenever you want to go further on it, pinoy, I'm glad to talk about it with you. As I said, it was a failure on my part to properly make my point.

Now this I have to comment on because it seems you are twisting what I said, which I don't really believe of you.
I never said the Eunuch's belief on Christ stems from his having heard about the 'big news and juicy gossip' etc.
If you go back and read your question, which I answered, your question was "so the Ethiopian was already born from above before he heard of Jesus ?".
I was replying to the bolded part of the question.
Everybody at some point and in some manner had heard of Jesus by that time.
Not everybody recognizes Him as the Messiah, because not everyone had the Spirit "upon" them, as you described Simeon.

No, pinoy, I wasn't attempting to twist your words. You had described the events of Christ's crucifixion as becoming part of the news and gossip of the day, and also talk of it having lessened by the time the Ethiopian was on the scene. I was merely stating my belief that, if all the Ethiopian heard of Christ was news that had been sort of relegated to the back burner by the time he got there, then that would not be enough.

Anywhere on this forum or board you go where I participated in the discussion about the eunuch, I have always said Philip taught him.
or preached Jesus to him.

I haven't seen those threads, so I couldn't comment on them. Not saying that as good or bad. Just saying that I only had the information from this particular thread.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Whenever you want to go further on it, pinoy, I'm glad to talk about it with you. As I said, it was a failure on my part to properly make my point.

We'll just let it go, brother.

No, pinoy, I wasn't attempting to twist your words. You had described the events of Christ's crucifixion as becoming part of the news and gossip of the day, and also talk of it having lessened by the time the Ethiopian was on the scene.

Thank you. Like I said, I didn't really think you were twisting what I said. But it had to be put out there, to clear the air, so to speak.
Now, in as far as the comment about news and gossip, I said that because I was also reminded of this guy who wrote a column where he said he doesn't think Jesus really existed because he couldn't find evidence of him in any secular historian's writing. He invited comments, so I reminded him that he needs to put himself in the shoes of an unconverted historian living in those times.
Why should somebody who records secular history for posterity care to write about some Jewish carpenter who was crucified by the Romans at the request of Jews, themselves considered a strange people, in a dusty town called Jerusalem in a country ruled by the Romans, when there were other things more interesting to write about like the goings-on at Tiberius' palace, the rumors and intrigues in the Roman halls of the Senate, the current scandals in Roman and Greek societies, or the "nuggets of wisdom" from their philosophers ?
Besides, crucifixion was a dime a dozen, so who really cares ?

I was merely stating my belief that, if all the Ethiopian heard of Christ was news that had been sort of relegated to the back burner by the time he got there, then that would not be enough.

Yes. That is true.

I haven't seen those threads, so I couldn't comment on them. Not saying that as good or bad. Just saying that I only had the information from this particular thread.

okay.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I'm only going to respond to the high points, in an effort to not be long-winded. This is not meant in disrespect. If I feel the urge to answer the points I skip, I will go back in another post.

I'd like to answer this with scripture that I believe will also answer a point you make later:


Here we see a person in need of divine help. We see that help arrive on the scene, and yet that help doesn't just automatically heal the person in need, but instead offers him a choice. The impotent man could have refused his help. He didn't, though. I see that has God offering man a choice. I'm thinking you'll probably see it as a man already healed, and just waiting on the realization and materialization of the healing.

Yes, I am familiar with the pool at Bethesda account.
I used to preach that the same way you stated here.
And here is where all the confusion comes about.
Nowhere does this story prove that God gives man a choice with regards to his eternal salvation.
The benefit given to this man was of a timely one.
He was being healed of physical, not spiritual, infirmities.
I lay this confusion straight at the feet of those who would "spiritualize" what is not meant to be spiritualized.

I never said that. Salvation is not of works.

Okay, then, we'll leave it at that.

Though I am coming to understand that some people on this forum seem to think the mere act of putting forth an effort to hear the gospel is a work.

Well, I don't know the context of what you were talking about, so I'm not going to comment on that.

We're talking about two different forms of "work." I've always understood the "works" that James wrote about to be actual deeds, such as helping the poor.

That is work stemming out of a redeemed soul, a converted soul, if you will.

I've since learned that, according to at least one poster on this board, the fact that I prayed when I was saved seems to count as a "work."

He was probably talking of works expected to result in eternal salvation.

Just for the record, the only TV preacher I really give any time to is James Merritt, and that's only to his Bible study/teaching. His show never really shows a sermon, from what I've gathered. David Jeremiah has said things before that didn't sit well with me, so I tuned him out. Like you, I don't agree with everything they say. My interpretation of things John MacArthur and men like Charles Stanley have said leaves me with the sense they believe in degrees of reward in Heaven, which is not something that I've ever believed.

Never heard James Merritt before. I'll look him up. Listen to what he's got to say.
You know, I've heard my own people (PB preachers) say things that didn't sit right with me, either.
How about: if the Lord wants to save the Filipinos (timely, that is) He will do it without any American Primitive Baptists going there. Harrummph !! hrm ! ahem ! :tongue3::smilewinkgrin:
Really ?
How ?
By visions and dreams ?
lol.

But, we're all humans, so we need to give each other "breathing space".
For all we know, the Lord will correct us when we get to heaven.

I apologize if what I wrote came off as self-centered. I was trying to be sincere in saying that, if I followed the theology you advocate, it does seem as though the work I've done for the Lord is in vain. But, as I wrote to the other poster (who seemed to think almost any action was a work), we can only base our knowledge off our own experiences. It's very difficult to live a long physical and spiritual life without using first-person pronouns. A lot of us Baptist preachers (especially in my neck of the woods) we'll speak from the stand in terms of "we," but sometimes that's more habit than anything.

don't apologize, brother. like I said, I can identify with what you felt.

I feel like this is a big point of difference for us. At what point does salvation take effect in your doctrine?

If you say that salvation was completed at Christ's death on the cross, and that no person can positively or negatively influence their status as a saved child of God, then it stands to reason that God does force salvation upon people, as they are given no choice in the matter. Conversely, God forces damnation upon others.

I have a feeling we're going to write even more about this... :smilewinkgrin:


Se the above response from John 5.

Yes, if we go into that, we'll end up exactly where we probably don't want to be: long winded discussions.
:thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Then Jesus Christ already redeemed people,

Then all of a sudden I find that God, in Christ, had already redeemed all that He wanted redeemed.

The elect in the world are not born redeemed. They become redeemed. It has to happen at a certain later point of time in their lives. There are no redeemed people who have not been converted. There are no redeemed folks who have not heard the Gospel. There are no redeemed individuals who have never heard of Christ.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The elect in the world are not born redeemed. They become redeemed. They become redeemed. It has to happen at a certain later point of time in their lives.

What I see in Scriptures is what I have always stated.
The cross is past, it's not going to happen again. the blood is shed, it's not going to be shed again, the tomb is empty, Christ won't be laid in it evermore again, therefore, the redemption is over and all for whom the blood was shed, stand redeemed, born, or unborn in this time world.

Hebrews 9:12 ....but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

There are no redeemed people who have not been converted. There are no redeemed folks who have not heard the Gospel. There are no redeemed individuals who have never heard of Christ.

Yes, there are to every point.
Christ had His elect in EVERY point of the compass, in EVERY island, country, folk, culture, language, tribe,in EVERY inhabited nation, continent, sub-continent, island and islet that you could name. In EVERY date from 1 BC to whenever A.D.

That is why the eternal salvation of ALL His elect is totally passive, not dependent on hearing, seeing, or the arrival of those He sends out to preach the good news of His finished work in their behalf.

no offense, but not one of you taking that position can prove by Scripture what you just said, and implied, that (1) redemption is ongoing, and (2) redemption's outcome depends on the gospel.
Unavoidably, you will have to lift Scriptures out of their context to use them to prove your points.

Now, regeneration ?
That is ongoing, and the work of the Holy Spirit for those the Son redeemed, until there are no more of the elect that are to be born in this time world.

 

[Rippon]

Pinoy, you seem to confuse "elect" with "redeemed." The two words do not have identical meanings. They elect at some point in time become redeemed. An elect person is under the wrath of God until regeneration.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Pinoy, you seem to confuse "elect" with "redeemed." The two words do not have identical meanings. They elect at some point in time become redeemed. An elect person is under the wrath of God until regeneration.

Well, I know exactly the difference between one who is "elect" and one who is "redeemed".

The elect were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Each and every one of the elect's name was written in the Book of Life, from the foundation of the world (see Reveleation 17:8 and don't get immersed in things about the "beast").
Christ was designated the Lamb of God, and "slain from the foundation of the world".
Which means, in as far as the Great One-in-Three was concerned, there was blood that flowed from the foundation of the world.
Therefore, all the names of God's elect were, in God's eternal mind, as good as covered "from the foundation of the world".
Is there any other way one is redeemed, and one's sin atoned for, other than the blood of Christ, that could have justified God taking Enoch out and up to heaven, and Elijah, too ?
If there is, then the Scriptures have been unfaithful to itself, and God has two sets of standards, the blood, and whatever it is.
Therefore, it is not inconsistent to equate the elect, to the redeemed.
They are one.
The death of Christ on the cross and the flow of blood, here in time, is a substantiation of God's purposes, from the foundation of the world, here in time.
None of the elect have ever been bound to hell, ever.
Hell is not for them, and they were never for hell.
Hell, death, Satan, his angels, and all the unelect, are for the lake of fire.
Now, at some point in each of the elect/redeemed's life here on earth, because they like everybody else born in this time world are descended from fallen adam, therefore possessing a fallen nature, dead in sins and trespasses, they will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
And that action by the Holy Spirit is totally independent of means.
Conversion to Christ, however, is through the gospel.
Learning the gospel life, is through teaching and preaching.
Everything I have said can be supported and shown by Scripture.
They are either directly stated in the Bible, inferred, or arrived at by doctrinal conclusion.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, I know exactly the difference between one who is "elect" and one who is "redeemed".

The elect were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Each and every one of the elect's name was written in the Book of Life, from the foundation of the world (see Reveleation 17:8 and don't get immersed in things about the "beast").
Christ was designated the Lamb of God, and "slain from the foundation of the world".
Which means, in as far as the Great One-in-Three was concerned, there was blood that flowed from the foundation of the world.
Therefore, all the names of God's elect were, in God's eternal mind, as good as covered "from the foundation of the world".
Is there any other way one is redeemed, and one's sin atoned for, other than the blood of Christ, that could have justified God taking Enoch out and up to heaven, and Elijah, too ?
If there is, then the Scriptures have been unfaithful to itself, and God has two sets of standards, the blood, and whatever it is.
Therefore, it is not inconsistent to equate the elect, to the redeemed.
They are one.
The death of Christ on the cross and the flow of blood, here in time, is a substantiation of God's purposes, from the foundation of the world, here in time.
None of the elect have ever been bound to hell, ever.
Hell is not for them, and they were never for hell.
Hell, death, Satan, his angels, and all the unelect, are for the lake of fire.
Now, at some point in each of the elect/redeemed's life here on earth, because they like everybody else born in this time world are descended from fallen adam, therefore possessing a fallen nature, dead in sins and trespasses, they will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
And that action by the Holy Spirit is totally independent of means.
Conversion to Christ, however, is through the gospel.
Learning the gospel life, is through teaching and preaching.
Everything I have said can be supported and shown by Scripture.
They are either directly stated in the Bible, inferred, or arrived at by doctrinal conclusion.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What I see in Scriptures is what I have always stated.
The cross is past, it's not going to happen again. the blood is shed, it's not going to be shed again, the tomb is empty, Christ won't be laid in it evermore again, therefore, the redemption is over and all for whom the blood was shed, stand redeemed, born, or unborn in this time world.

Hebrews 9:12 ....but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

AMEN Pinoy :jesus:

 

[Rippon]

Well, I know exactly the difference between one who is "elect" and one who is "redeemed".

Therefore, it is not inconsistent to equate the elect, to the redeemed.
They are one.

You are showing your confusion. At first you say you know the differnce between the two terms. Then, you say they mean the same thing.

Again, the elect enter this world as elect --but not redeemed. They are under the wrath of God --not pardoned for their sin. They are at enmity with God. They have not been regenerated.

Now, at some point in each of the elect/redeemed's life here on earth,they will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Ah ha. So before regeneration they cannot be considered redeemed. They have not yet been ransomed from their sins.

Conversion to Christ, however, is through the gospel.
Learning the gospel life, is through teaching and preaching.

Your understanding of the "gospel" is at variance with historical biblical teaching. For instance, you think that when one believes the gospel it is for temporal benefits only -- it has nothing to do with eternity --right?

 

[pinoybaptist]

You are showing your confusion. At first you say you know the differnce between the two terms. Then, you say they mean the same thing.

Again, the elect enter this world as elect --but not redeemed. They are under the wrath of God --not pardoned for their sin. They are at enmity with God. They have not been regenerated.


Ah ha. So before regeneration they cannot be considered redeemed. They have not yet been ransomed from their sins.

Your understanding of the "gospel" is at variance with historical biblical teaching. For instance, you think that when one believes the gospel it is for temporal benefits only -- it has nothing to do with eternity --right?

Rippon, I am using my phone which has no unquote so the answer is going to be point by point.

Again, no confusion. Scripture says it is the Triune God who elected His people FROM THE FOUNDATION of the world. Redemption of this elect is a purpose of the same God undertaken specifically by the Son, the vehicle of which is the blood. Regeneration is a purpose of the same Sovereign God, a function specific to the Spirit, not the Father, not the Son.
In the mind of the Triune God, from before the foundation of the world, all these purposes have ALREADY been accomplished, except, PERHAPS, the regeneration of God's elect and the Son's redeemed. No confusion. God the Father chose, the Son redeemed both as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (covering those born before the cross) and as the Lamb at Calvary redeeming the elect during His timely existence, and those after the cross.
No confusion.
They entered this world as seeds of a fallen Adam, yes, dead in sins and trespasses as much as Lazarus was and as much as the Apostles were but elect AND redeemed, TO BE SPIRITUALLY QUICKENED in His own time by the Spirit.
And, really, I don't care about historical

 

[pinoybaptist]

Sorry...pressed send by accident.
Historical teachings of any and many churches have Lon been proven either wrong and inaccurate so I don't really care about them.
Take the Baptist churches for example. I was Arminian, then I found out no one can answer my basic question. If Jesus already went thru all that to save sinners, why is he giving the task of saving, again, to the church ? Only the PB's with their gospel salvation made sense. And to compound it some more they didn't even go to seminaries like I did.

 

[Rippon]

Again, no confusion.

No confusion.
They entered this world as seeds of a fallen Adam, yes, dead in sins and trespasses as much as Lazarus was and as much as the Apostles were but elect AND redeemed, TO BE SPIRITUALLY QUICKENED in His own time by the Spirit.

When one is dead in their trespasses and sins they are not in a redeemed state --they are not redeemed --it is yet future.

They need to hear the gospel by ear or by sight. The Holy Spirit will spiritually resurrect them at some point in their lifetime. They are not in a regenerate state until that time. At that particular time upon hearing the gospel and the Holy Spirit convicting and converting them they are given eternal life.

 

[Rippon]

There seems to be an impasse on the recent subject. Getting back to the theme of this thread of God Uses Means.

I will quote from By His Grace And For His Glory by Tom Nettles.

"Not only are persons predestined to salvation, but the means through which they are saved are likewise predestined. Several Baptist writers have stated this clearly. Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopaedia states : 'Predestination [is] the foreordination of all the elect to heaven, and of all the instrumentalities to secure their conviction and preservation until they reach the skies.'

Election is accomplished by means. The fact that God determines he should do something does not diminish the necessity of the means by which he chooses to do it. Since his electing power does not negate his justice, unconditional election does not diminish the need for atonement and redemption. If the elect are unrighteous, their sin must be punished and they must become righteous. Hence it is by means of the death of Christ that God is enabled to forgive the sins of the elect. By imputing their sins to Jesus, atonement for them is made; by imputing his righteousness to them, they stand before him 'not guilty.'

In the same manner, the preaching of the gospel brings faith to the hearer. Evangelism and missions are means through which God calls his elect. Preaching is a means that God himself has pleasurably foreknown in his infinite wisdom (1 Cor. 1:21). Unconditional election does not diminish the need for either the death of Christ or preaching the gospel." (pgs. 278,279)