If they are going to be saved....it is the unseen work of the Spirit.
If an adult is going to be saved....it is the unseen work of the Spirit.
-
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!
Is Grace Irresistible?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
If an adult is going to be saved....it is the unseen work of the Spirit.
I read Spurgeons thoughts on this....but they cannot improve on the confessional statement. Many attempt to make such a case based on what "they perceive to be"
God's Holy nature.
The confessional statement leaves it in God's hands.
God's Holy nature.
The confessional statement leaves it in God's hands.
One day I hope to meet the son I never had the opportunity to hold, and I have this hope based on God's revealed nature (not excluding election). I believe you are correct (but I don't see enough biblical support in those verses). I also leave this in God's hands.
Okay.....I do see the support here....but you can go to Jesus High Priestly Prayer of John 17...
He asked that Father that all that were given to Him would be with Him where He is.
It will also be the full number of the Elect.
I agree, Brother, that the full numbered of the elect will be saved and regenerated. I also agree that this is the unseen work of God (the work of the Spirit). My concern (where I questioned the relevance of a passage) is another topic and I apologize for bringing it up here as it diverts from the OP and is not really a topic I desire to explore (I don't see a benefit in the topic). I agree with you that although men resist God, He accomplishes His will in each of our lives....which is why I prefer the term efficacious grace (it also helps avoid the strawmen argument that we all at one time resist God).
Last edited:
Then it's not faith alone. Many places in the NT it's stated we're justified by faith, nowhere does it say justified by faith alone, in fact it states quite the opposite. The solas were crystalized by the early Reformers to make the distinction between Protestant and Catholic salvation doctrine.
Fill in the blank:
24 Ye see that by _____ a man is justified, and not only by faith. Jas 2
6 who will render to every man according to his _______: Ro 2
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things _____ in his body, according to that he hath ______, whether it be good or bad. 2 Cor 5
And the clincher here with me is that all of you that are parroting this archaic non-biblical mantra 'faith alone' really really really don't believe in 'faith alone', especially the LSers with their overreactions to 'easy believism'. With your emphasis on the absolute necessity of personal sanctification you deny 'faith alone' all the while you're affirming 'faith alone'. Talk about stark contradiction.
Come on boys, pile those negatives on me for speaking the truth.
First when did Adam and Eve become accountable for sin? Now they had one command that command don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What happened when they ate of the tree, death came. They were separated from fellowship with God we might say, how so? They hid themselves and yet he came seeking the sinners and they were restored, how by believing the promise that the seed of woman would come and he would crush satan's head. They became accountable for their sin by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and they first confessed and believed. A beautiful picture of what everyone must do confess they are sinners in need of a savior and believe that savior is Jesus. They knew they were naked that is they knew they were guilty of sin. When one comes to realization that they are a sinner in need of salvation they are accountable, or as Jesus said in John 3:17-18, those who believe not are condemned already but those who believe are not condemned because they have believed in the Son. So when is one guilty of not believing? When they have the knowledge of good and evil that is they know they have sinned (we were naked). As I believe has been pointed out 2 Samuel 12:15-23 David stated he would go to his young infant son who had died. Until they become accountable by having the knowledge of good and evil they are in innocence because of not knowing good and evil.
I am aware of the theories of children who die in infancy. David will go to the child but the child will not return to him. This is not evidence, brother, that the child was elect (David could equally have been speaking of a shared fate in Sheol, not looking for a reunion in Heaven). So while I agree with you in terms of the fate of these children, I also disagree to an extent as there is not enough biblical evidence to build a doctrine for children that die in infancy. But this issue has no impact on the subject of the OP.
So again, I agree with you and Icon regarding the fate of these children, but I disagree that there is enough biblical evidence to form a doctrine on children who die in infancy. This is in God's hands. He is sovereign and those those who perish as children do not do so apart from His will. As doctrine, I think this is enough.
I agree that the elect will be saved (all of the elect will be saved) because this is a work of God and not of man. I also agree that some misrepresent irresistible grace (although the term itself can be misleading) in order to defeat it. So I am not arguing against your (or Icon's) conclusions - only that I do not think the biblical evidence is enough to dogmatically hold to a doctrine for children who die in infancy. Within this thread it was used as an illustration of the invisible work of the Spirit. I agree with the topic, just not the illustration. Insofar as defending efficacious grace, there are far stronger arguments than 2 Samuel 12:23, and I believe that we need to stick with the firmer ground.
Last edited:
I suspect you don't understand what sola fide means in the context of soteriology. "Faith alone" means faith without any admixture of works.
Lol, "without any admixture of works"?
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Jas 2
I suspect that you will not accept the simple truth that sola fide is in no way biblical. The 'easy believism' the LSers crusade against undoubtedly has it's roots in the non-biblical notion of 'faith alone' to begin with.
Get that?
Faith alone = Easy Believism
Explain this "admixture":
....the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2:13
...by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20
This is a complete falsehood.This is a denial of Romans 3, and rom.5
D. Scott Meadows over at Reformed Baptist Fellowship notes that the LBC1689 statement "goes beyond the Scriptural teaching, and it probably would have been better omitted from the Confession, since it is arguably dubious."
Sorry to hear that he does not understand what millions of others have. .Thanks for your sincere concern.
Big difference between being justified in the sight of God and being justified in the sight of men.
Faith saves us in the sight of God.
Works confirm our salvation in the sight of men.
I agree and in all my over 50 years in church I have never heard any preacher in the stand regarding the doctrine of election preach any infant into hell... I agree leave this in Gods hands he knows his children... Whenever I question God I remember this verse and I know God knows what he is doing!... Brother Glen
Isaiah 55: 8 For my thoughts are not your thought, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.
Really? What is "hard believism?"
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
4 Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed.
5 But to him who doesn’t work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works,
7 “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin.”
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Really? Are you really gonna use James chapter 2 in the context of Salvation? You need to go and learn the context of James chapter 2, it's talking justifying our faith before men, not being justified in the eyes of God, it has to do with someone claiming faith, but not having works.
James 2:18 is the key to understanding James 2: Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
You interpretation causes James to contradict Paul in Romans 4:5.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
I agree with Meadows. Spurgeon uses Mt. 19:14 in the same manner others use the passage to justify paedobaptism, but the passage itself supports neither. My objection is not against the belief that these children will be saved (that is my belief as well), but I question the handling of Scripture. Likewise, John 3:3-8 explains how one enters the Kingdom, not who enters. To apply this passage to infants is to carry into the text the presupposition that infants are indeed saved. While I believe that these infants and children are saved (and if they are, then they are included in the redeemed as well), it would be eisegesis to interpret the passage as proof text for my belief.
I believe that children who die in infancy are reconciled to God in Christ, based on God's own nature and sovereign will. I therefore believe that these are among those for whom Christ died to redeem, that they are purchased and numbered among the elect. But I cannot with good conscious state that this is the clear teachings of Scripture, because it is not. These children are in God's hands, in His will, and will serve to glorify His holy name. I don't understand the need to go further than that with this issue.