I am reminded of the old chestnut, "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while." Yes, as ambassadors of Christ with the message and ministry of reconciliation, the gospel is indeed for us.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Harambe the Gorilla: A Serious Theological Lesson
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
A real reliable witness lol. No imput, like SW.....no scripture, like benjamin,no scripture, no scripture......no truth.
LOL, IT, you go from one unbiblical view to the next. I know you think Ephesians 1:4 says God chose us individually before creation. But that is not what it says. And since no charge can be brought against God's elect, how is it we were children of wrath? No answer will be forthcoming.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 says Paul sought to win some for salvation. The word "win" means "to gain any one, i.e. to win him over to the kingdom of God, to gain one to faith in Christ."
Clearly the idea is that believers are to share the gospel through word and deed, such at some might trust in Christ. When God chooses them for salvation through faith in the Truth, He transfers them into Christ. Thus no individual was chosen for salvation before they believed in God.
Could one of you Calvinists explain why it bothers you so much that other believers, saved brethren in the Lord, don't hold to TULIP? Why does that get your dander up and make you so argumentative? Anyone?
The problem isn't Calvinism. It's a few "calvinists". And I have seen this unChristian attitude on more than one side of the argument.
We enjoy the truth of scripture and are commanded to hold to it.
Turn the question around now......look at everyone who opposes these truths......they use no scripture here, just attack those who do.
Not one of the opponents can answer Protestant, Biblicist, TC, Reformed, Reformed baptist, Rippon,Blessed wife,Annsni,IT,SG. GT,.....no one can...there is a total inability to do so...
Why should we "answer" someone that creates strawmen and mischaracterizes our beliefs? It's a fools errand.
It is not as if no one can and has answered with scripture. We have seen time and time again people like TIL, revmitchel, skan, and more back up their claims. Some of us understand their objections and interpretations yet still disagree. Others simply cannot fathom disagreement between brethren without it being a matter of rejecting scripture. When we cry no one has answered then we simply ignorevrather than engage objections (to the discredit of those Reformed brethern who have defended that position before us). I've said it before - some here are like Horatio Nelson...willifully ignorant, but on the right side.
Brother Sapper Woody,
If you will delve deep into the bible, you will find many examples of regeneration via the Spirit exampled in the bible.
In Ezekiel 37, Ezekiel comes upon a valley of very dry bones. Left to themselves, they are dead, with no hope, within themselves that is, of ever living again. God tells him to prophesy and the earth quakes and bone comes to its bone, then sinew, then flesh. Yet, even after this, they are still dead. God then tells Ezekiel to prophesy and the wind(typified as the Spirit) blows upon them and they stand upon their feet. They are now alive. This is an example of us prior to regeneration. We were a 'a valley of very dry bones' inwardly, unable to choose life. Remember, Jesus told the Pharisees they were full of dead men's bone.
In Luke 7, Jesus comes upon a funeral procession. All hope was lost. They were on the way to the tomb, the widow's son fate sealed. Yet Jesus touched the bier(coffin) and tells him to arise and he does. What choice did he have when Jesus told him to arise? When Jesus says to arise, He effects it, it affects us, and we arise.
In 1 Kings 18, Elijah takes a widow's deceased son, lays him upon his bed, stretches upon him three times, praying over him, and he brings her back to him alive. What say or lot did that son have?
In Acts 14, Dorcas is dead. Peter raises her to life. In Acts 20, Paul brings Eutychus back to life after falling three stories. What say or lot did they have in being brought back to life?
Jesus said in John 5, "The hour is coming, AND NOW IS,(already occuring at that time), when the dead(Ephesians 2:1), shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear SHALL LIVE." Now, carry that over to Isaiah 55, where Isaiah said "Hear, and your soul SHALL live."
Then look at how Jesus conversed with Nicodemus in John 3. In John 3:3, John 3:5, and John 3:8, Jesus compared the moving of the wind with how the Spirit moves. None can stop it from blowing and none can thwart the Spirit moving.
When the Spirit moves within a sinner, they will hear, they will see, they will love the One they once hated after being given a new heart[Ezekiel 11:19 & Ezekiel 36:26].
But if you wish to correspond via PM, please feel free to ask me any question you wish. (snip)
It doesn't. It is when people attack the doctrines of grace that we get upset. Go back to page one.
Then, when we defend the doctrines of grace as being biblical the mashup starts.
"Calvin bad." "Calvinists bad." "Calvinism bad." And the sad part is that what the General Atonement defenders fail to understand is that their very statements prove they have no idea what Particular Redemption is really all about. Here is an excellent example:
To which I replied:
And his response? A deafening silence.But you didn't resist unto perdition, did you? You obviously didn't resist unto perdition as you are a saved man.
You just proved two points.
1. You don't fully understand the doctrine you seem to hate.
2. You are living proof that Irresistible Grace is true.
When those who believe in General Redemption argue against Particular Redemption they never seem to get it right. Just as Woody got Irresistible Grace wrong, and argued against his misunderstanding of what Irresistible Grace is rather than what it actually is.
And the same can be said of all 5 of the Heads of Doctrine from the Canons of the Synod of Dort.
I have tried, repeatedly, to get Woody to discuss the issue calmly, reasonably, while displaying Christian charity. He has repeatedly refused to do so. So, what are we to do? I can't speak for anyone else, but I take Jude 3 seriously, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I try my very best to contend for the faith without being contentious, but when I am called vile names I admit it is difficult for me to maintain my composure. I often fail. But just because I do not always succeed is no excuse for not contending for the faith.
I am, by nature, a pedagogue. God has graciously given me the gift of pastor/teacher. My gift and calling is to teach the gospel, teach the bible, and teach how we can continuously grow closer to God. My age, my health, and my admittedly sometimes prickly personality often get in the way of achieving those goals, but I will continue, until my dying breath, to try my best to please my Heavenly Father in the exercise of those gifts.
My offer is still open. I will discuss the 5 Heads of Doctrine outlined in the Canons of the Synod of Dort with anyone who cares to do so. Without name calling. Without personal attacks. Without mischaracterizing the beliefs of others.
Any takers?
I've got two Calvinists that rated my post (above) as Disagree.
So, you believe that answering strawmen arguments is a worthy endeavor? Hmmm...
Neither of which was me. But I will answer your original question. Why answer? 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."
Yes, if they are straw man arguments. Point out why you believe they are straw man arguments and correct them to be what you actually believe.
That is what I have been trying to do for a couple years on this forum but for some odd reason none of the General Redemptionists seem to want to engage in that discussion. My assumption is that if they engage in that discussion their own straw man arguments will be exposed, just as Woody's straw man regarding Irresistible Grace was exposed.
But here I am. Still trying.
Nobody's asking Calvinists. Calvinists are jumping on others and pounding them into submission.
Been there and done it a hundred times, mostly when I first joined. There's no point in continuing.
Give me a break!! Look at the strawman in question from the Op:
This has been corrected countless times!
The person who posted this garbage has been here for 3 years arguing C&A and you want to tell me he honestly doesn't know better that the above is a strawman? If after all this time you Calvies don't know your opposition's view better than that you're all a lost cause here and need to find a new line of work.
The denial, or playing dumb that a strawman has been given speaks volumes in its self as to tactics in practice here...
Last edited:
Don't get mad at me. I didn't write it.
As I said, if it is a straw man, counter it. Fix it. Tell him what you believe and why what you believe does not resemble the straw man.
If you weren't participating in the thread how did those evil Calvinists jump on you and pound you into submission? And if you are not asking Calvinists, why not?
Not with me you haven't. I would love to discuss the 5 Heads of Doctrine with you. Are you willing?
I usee to be in your camp. I know all the weaknesses therein. It is only a fool's errand from my point of view, because you will just dismiss them.
"If" it is a strawman?! ...IF??? Do you not see a problem with such denial, that I just spoke of?
Doesn't the "chase the rabbit game" ever get old for you guys? LOL
I just don't know what it is with you guys! You guys seem to be conveniently forgetting something, over and over and over... I'll give you a hint, fresh off the slate:
Back to the point:
"Give me a break!! Look at the strawman in question from the Op:
Again, "The person who posted this garbage has been here for 3 years arguing C&A and you want to tell me he honestly doesn't know better that the above is a strawman? If after all this time you Calvies don't know your opposition's view better than that you're all a lost cause here and need to find a new line of work."
Simply, those rabbits just keep springing back to life over and and over and truth is "some" here do nothing but encourage (and cover for) the repeating of the misrepresentations presented in these strawman arguments, over and over again...
- Status