• 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!

I Believe the Doctrine of Unconditional Election,

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
Pontifical assertions aside... I prefer the actual Bible.



Vitriol and acrimony have a different authority from scripture.

So I ignore it... I prefer actual scripture.
Click to expand...
No...you hate scripture when it is actually explained to you.
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
Indeed there is - "the Holy Spirit convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16
"I will DRAW ALL mankind unto ME" John 12:32

Prevenient Grace for ALL - the "Whole World"

Enabling ALL to choose.



From the definition you just quoted - it appears to be exactly John 16, and John 12:32.

How could it not be??

​

The prevenient Grace concept is as we see in John 12:32 and John 16 - the supernatural work of God on all mankind - the supernatural drawing of all mankind... the supernatural convicting of all the world - that enables choice for all mankind even though mankind has a sinful nature.

Those scriptures - are in scripture.
Click to expand...
John 16 nor John 12:32 support preceding/prevenient grace.

You will have to do better in showing the verses in context and how grace is assigned to them (which it isn't).

God rains on both the just and unjust doesn't not mean that preceding/prevenient grace is in play.

God saying to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." is not a statement of preceding/prevenient grace.

So it is with John 12 and 16. Neither are statements of prevenient/preceding grace.

Such is added because folks desire to show they are self capable of accepting or rejecting simply by an exercise of their own self will.

Such is but "vain imaginings" and has no true Scripture foundation.
 
BobRyan

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
agedman said:
In order for one to deal with the thinking of limits to election (unconditional election), does not one first need to determine if the thinking of some prevenient or preceding grace is actually found in the Scriptures?
Click to expand...

Indeed there is - "the Holy Spirit convicts THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16
"I will DRAW ALL mankind unto ME" John 12:32

Prevenient Grace for ALL - the "Whole World"

Enabling ALL to choose.

agedman said:
That is not "prevenient/preceding" grace.

This is a common definition from the web that is typical expression of the meaning:
Prevenient grace is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology, though it appeared earlier in Catholic theology. It is divine grace that precedes human decision. In other words, God will start showing love to that individual at a certain point in his lifetime.
​
Click to expand...

From the definition you just quoted - it appears to be exactly John 16, and John 12:32.

How could it not be??
​
The prevenient Grace concept is as we see in John 12:32 and John 16 - the supernatural work of God on all mankind - the supernatural drawing of all mankind... the supernatural convicting of all the world - that enables choice for all mankind even though mankind has a sinful nature.

Those scriptures - are in scripture.

agedman said:
John 16 nor John 12:32 support preceding/prevenient grace.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if you have more than "assertion" to back that up from actual scripture.


agedman said:
God rains on both the just and unjust doesn't not mean that preceding/prevenient grace is in play.

God saying to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." is not a statement of preceding/prevenient grace.
Click to expand...

True -- and probably why I don't make any mention of those irrelevant texts.

agedman said:
So it is with John 12 and 16. Neither are statements of prevenient/preceding grace.
Click to expand...

I note the repeated assertion - where is the proof?

You only followed by more "assertions" and of course you have free will to merely "assert" then prove your assertion by more "asserting" -- I was just curious if you had an actual Bible case.

We can all "assert"
 
BobRyan

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
Pontifical assertions aside... I prefer the actual Bible.



Vitriol and acrimony have a different authority from scripture.

So I ignore it... I prefer actual scripture.



more rant?? really?
I am a bit surprised.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that almost no one else responds to your vain repetitions anymore? Consider your ways...
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
you need to read the actual posts - before making stuff up..

Less vitriol... more Bible please.
Click to expand...
you repeat the same three posts over and over...no one reads them anymore...you quote yourself...you do not want the bible in context, just out of context verses over and over...we have read them, and corrected you, but you do not welcome the correction.
that leads to this;
7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,

when you can accept what scriptures are offered to you, more will follow.
 
BobRyan

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Iconoclast said:
you repeat the same three posts over and over.. .
Click to expand...

at some point - truth will enter your post... waiting

As for other posts "the ones with scripture that you avoid" they are "irrefutable" and the Calvinist response to irrefutable debunking of Calvinism via scripture is almost always "ad hominem" and eventually vitriol and acrimony.

I think you know the drill pretty well from your posts.
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
at some point - truth will enter your post... waiting

As for other posts "the ones with scripture that you avoid" they are "irrefutable" and the Calvinist response to irrefutable debunking of Calvinism via scripture is almost always "ad hominem" and eventually vitriol and acrimony.

I think you know the drill pretty well from your posts.
Click to expand...
Bob...I hate to bring bad news to you....you have never come close to anything irrefutable...not even close....
Look you sound like a nice guy. i do not want to constantly inform you of these things...what town do you live in?I will meet with you over coffee, or breakfast with open bibles ...where I can better address your ideas.....with bibles open....the keyboard is not getting it done...
 
Katarina Von Bora

Katarina Von Bora

Active Member
Iconoclast said:
Cultists have a different authority than the bible alone. That is why they cannot grasp when the bible verses are answered for them....they look to the teachings of the cult they are in and downplay scripture and the correct teaching altogether. Everytime you are given scriptural correction you cannot bear it.
Your mis use of 1pet...is not really dealing with the verse at all.
Click to expand...

I've been reading your posts, but can't figure out who you are responding to. I haven't been here too long so perhaps there is some other way to view them.
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Katarina Von Bora said:
I've been reading your posts, but can't figure out who you are responding to. I haven't been here too long so perhaps there is some other way to view them.
Click to expand...
I like your posts...sometimes I post to a specific person, sometimes I try and post to the topic itself no matter who.posts.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
Did you imagine a bunch of "Ellen White" in my post just then??

Oh yeah - that's right - when I merely posted verbatim Matthew 18 and Romans 11 - you responded that these texts posted (with the references clearly stated) - was also "Ellen White".

Just in case it is "something else" - I hope you can accommodate the real-life-fact that I don't have all 100,000 pages of her writings memorized so as to "check with it' before posting. Most people here would probably have assumed that obvious point - but you might need some clarity on that point, so am offering it.

I seldom quote anything from her - except when I find one of these "everything is Ellen White" Baptists on this board - who only want to know or imagine something Ellen White said. I don't mind posting "corrections" in that case (at least I do that a little) -- but that is about it.
Click to expand...
Are you allowed to disagree with EW on doctrines and interpretation, or not?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BobRyan said:
Chosen by foreknowledge.

1 Peter 1
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,

Not at all the "arbitrary selection" model promoted in Calvinism
Click to expand...
Foreknowledge would be as God Himself determine their election/causing it to happen, not just passive and knowing that some will accept themselves!
 
thatbrian

thatbrian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
She is viewed in same sense we would Paul or John!
Click to expand...

Here writing, according to SDA came directly from God. They are not her words. They are His words, so if one were to disagree with her, they would be disagreeing with God.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
thatbrian said:
Here writing, according to SDA came directly from God. They are not her words. They are His words, so if one were to disagree with her, they would be disagreeing with God.
Click to expand...
They than would be treating her on same par as Jesus Christ!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top