Believing Israel was elect and the Church was grafted in (Romans 11). Those who believe are the elect.
Those who do not believe continue with God's wrath upon them (John 3).
What Scriptures do you have that directly contradict those above?
-
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!
John 3:16
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
Believing Israel was elect and the Church was grafted in (Romans 11). Those who believe are the elect.
Those who do not believe continue with God's wrath upon them (John 3).
What Scriptures do you have that directly contradict those above?
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
The "reformed" teaching on election is what I am speaking about, which is no where in the Teachings of the Holy Bible. As if God chooses some to eternal life, while damning the rest to eternal punishment, even though Jesus' death was indeed for the whole human race, which includes EVERYONE!
You didn't provide any Scriptures to contradict what I have said.
Also, you are very hard of hearing. The thread is now at 4 pages. I don't think you need to hear from anyone else.
TCassidy is a good brother and a friend. You alienated him. I will not talk to you any further.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
I don't associate with proud, rude and arrogant people. The Bible says that we are to respect each other and have humility with each other, and show real love and care. He is your friend, that's good for you. Maybe you guys are the same!
i may be totally mistaken, but not everyone believes or posts that Christ died for all.
Would you agree that threads wrangle over this very issue.
I don't know anyone who denies that Christ died for all. That is plain in the scriptures. But most agree He died in a special way, only for those who believe.
People here will wrangle over any and everything.
The teaching on election is consistent with the Scriptures.
What is not consistent with reformed view is that the cross was for all, for the reformed would limit the cross to the elect.
It is very unfortunate that typical reform links the cross, the blood shed, for the elect only, even in some minds the whole gift of the crucifixion was limited to the elect.
The “Doctrines of Grace” with a slight modification requiring the limit of salvation not be that of a limit of blood, but of God’s sovereign purposed choice fits very well with the Scripture presentation.
To defend this view of God choosing, one needs to regard such Scriptures as found in Romans:
Chapter 8 - those with God’s Spirit are redeemed
Chapter 9 - vessels of honor and dishonor
Chapter 5 - salvation totally of God’s volition
Chapter 9 - No one able to resist the will of God
Chapter 10 - only those chosen to hear actually hear.
Last edited:
So, by your statement “He died in a special way” you qualify or modify to limit the “all?”
Why?
Perhaps I missed some place the Scripture gives this view of qualifiers indicating Christ died differently according to how a person is perhaps ungodly, or perhaps still sinful?
I need further explanation.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
I don't understand this. You say that the doctrine of election as taught by the "reformed" is consistent with Scripture. And then you say that their teaching of the Atonement which is only for the elect, is not? This is a contradiction! If Jesus Christ died for the entire human race, and not limited to the elect, then why the election of few in the first place? Surely Jesus would have not died for everyone, and yet only the elect are the ones who can get saved, which is what the "reformed" position is, as it would be pointless. The "reformed" would require that Jesus only died for them. That is why I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism falls, when Limited Atonement is shown to be wrong, and Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, mean nothing, when Limited Atonement is removed, which, even John Calvin, and other "Reformers" never taught. Please clarify.
See, just as some in the reformed do not separate the blood and salvation, you seem to lack grasping this, also.
The limit of redemption is not based on blood, but upon belief - which is a gift of God.
One can find the greatest consistency of Scriptures with the Doctrines of Grace, IF the limit is removed from the blood and placed as God’s choice according to His divine will as He gives the endowment of belief.
Christ died for all ungodly, for all are and were ungodly.
The blood was shed for all, for all are sinners.
Believers are to carry the message of reconciliation to all, not that all are to be saved, only such that are given to the Son by the Father will be saved. (All the Father GIVES Me...(John 6:37)
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
From this I take it that the "message of reconciliation", which is to be preached to all the world is insincere? God tells the whole world that they can be reconciled to Him through the death of Jesus Christ, and then says that sorry, it is not really for ALL, but only for the elect whom I have given to Jesus! This sounds like some deceit, which is not a possibility with the Lord. If Jesus Christ has died for the whole human race, then it must be equally, and ALL sinners can, if they "will", accept this offer of salvation in Jesus. If I understand the doctrine of Limited Atonement correctly. It teaches that the death of Jesus Christ actually purchased the "elect", who will be saved, and no one else was included in this. Also, if, as you say that "belief" is a gift from God, then why is God finding fault with those who don't believe, and punishing them in eternal hell for something that they cannot do? Surely is is grossly unfair, that God can hold someone accountable (unbelievers) for something that they are really "guilty" of, as they were not given this "gift" of belief in the first place? The whole "reformed" system of salvation causes huge problems because it is not based on solid Bible teaching. I also have been told many times by these "reformed", that God in His "secret will" does desire the salvation of the whole human race, but in His "revealed will", in the Holy Bible, actually does not! Seems to me that God is here double-minded!
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
God is totally above humankind thinking of what fair and unfair. He will have mercy on whom He desires and hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9)
Therefore, it is not a mater of humans to choose who or why one is made a certain way as either a vessel of honor or dishonor. (Romans 9).
What is truth to God is foolishness to man. (1 Corinthians 1)
Therefore, salvation is not a mater of human work nor of the will of mankind nor of birthright. (John 1)
All are saved because it fit the purpose of God. (2 Corinthians 5)
John states that those who are unbelievers are “condemned already.” (John 3).
I encourage you to set aside the human logic in attempting to discern this matter. The best humankind can do is to trust God know the heart, and has understanding that Christ exceeds beyond measure the capabilities of the earth’s wisest.
If one takes the English at face value all men would be saved, and believers endowed as given greater or more measure. But this kind of thinking is contrary to other Scriptures.
If one takes the statement that God is the Savior in the sense of one who delivers from fleshly tragedy, and believers are more specifically benefited, then at least that would be defensible by Scriptures.
Then there is this matter of the death of Christ presenting benefits to all, and salvation to a few. Could that be consistent with that part of John that the lost are “condemned already?”
I personally hold that the savior of all men must be understood as one who sustains (rains on just and unjust) and is also the eternal savior of those given to believe.
Such rendering presents the consistency of both the forgiveness found in the shed blood as warrant to continue good for the unjust, and the specificity of purposed redemption for the believer.
You can't be that unaware. How many years have you been on the BB yet haven't gleaned the obvious?
I certainly do not believe that Christ laid down His life for each and every person who has and shall live. He died specifically and only for His Church (His elect His,His beloved, His sheep, His possession etc.)
"...that is, of those who believe."
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with "human logic", but arriving at the truth as taught in the Scriptures.
You quote from Scripture, which is very good, but simply giving odd texts here are there means nothing as it can be out of its context.
With regards to your quote from Romans 9 that God's mercy seems to be restricted to "some", I reply from, among others passages, Romans 11, which is written about the Jews who reject Jesus Christ and God's salvation:
"In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the call of God are not to be regretted. Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience so that He may show mercy to them ALL." (28-32)
God here is said to concluded ALL to disobedience (sin), in order that He might show His mercy to them ALL. That is both the Jews as well as the Gentiles (non Jews), who make up the sum total of the entire world, are said to be the objects of God's mercy! The context very clearly is dealing with those who are hostile to the Lord, and would not be considered as being part of His "elect" people, to use Calvinistic language.
Again, from Romans 9 you refer to the "vessels of honor and dishonor". Did you notice the language that Paul uses here?
"if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory" (22-23)
You will see that when speaking of the "vessels of mercy", Paul says "which He had before prepared", which is not used with the "vessels or wrath"! Also note, that God is said to "endure with much longsuffering" with those who are "ready for destruction", which again Paul does not say that God was the cause of this. The fact that God is longsuffering with these who are enemies of His, is very clear that He desires that they trun from their sinful lives, to Him for their salvation. This is also very clear from passages like Ezekiel 33:7-11
"So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?”’ Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"
When I read passages like this, and the wonderful "Gospel in a nutshell", John 3:16, I cannot understand why do the "reformed" still insist that Jesus came only to save "some", and not the entire human race? the beauty of the Gospel is that it is for the WHOLE WORLD. have you ever read John Calvin, whom the "Calvinists" like to claim from whom their "Five Points of Calvinism" come from, actually says on the extent of the Atonement? Here are two of his own comments from his commentares.
"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life" (John 3:16)
Can you see any "limitations" in Calvin's language? The "Calvinistic" term is "all men without distinction", and yet here we have Calvin himself, using language that very clearly shows that he taught that Jesus Christ died for the entire human race!
Also on Mark 14:24, we read Calvin, "Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"
We would have here expected Calvin to use this word "many" to show that Jesus' death was not for ALL, and restricted only to the "elect". However, rightly he sees that "the whole human race" is meant to be included in the death of Jesus Christ. Andy yet the so-called "Calvinists" will still aruge, that their "Five Points" are based on Calvin's own theology! Why use his name for something he never taught or supported?
You see (I hope) that your "system" is not Bible-based, as is even shown to be by one of your own leaders!
agreed, but I wasn't quoting Scripture, I was giving Scripture reference support for each statement.
Paul clearly shows that God is completely in charge of who gets saved and when. Are you actually going to dispute that, when you showed the evidence in your own writing?
How then is the view of the Doctrines of Grace in conflict?
Are you attempting to prove God is not completely in charge of the selection and timing of salvation by showing passages that demonstrate that He is actually in charge of selection and timing of salvation?
That doesn't seem logical to try to prove something and then document just the opposite.
Again, you seem to use documentation that refutes what you are attempting to support.
Above the Scriptures state that God is willing and capable to show His just authority, yet He puts up with those who are destined (fitted) for (to) destruction, just so He can demonstrate His blessings upon the saved, "which He had before prepared for glory."
This does not discredit the Doctrines of Grace, rather supports them.
Again, the same response is in order. You are showing documentation of support for what you are attempting to discredit.
"God desires all men everywhere to repent." "Desire" does not oblige fulfillment.
To this end, God has appointed the believers as watchmen to spread the Gospel. Should such not occur, God will certainly rebuke believers, just as Ezekiel states. When the Gospel is shared, and a person rejects the appeal, "that wicked man shall die in his iniquity."
Such is still true to this day.
Men still are paid the wages of sin - death. All have sinned - all die.
Those that believe are the redeemed.
Those that do not believe are condemned - not in the future but already condemned.
To whom is God revealed?
Romans 1 says that every single person in the world: "that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."
The same is given in John 1 as to exactly who God chooses of the all to actually be the elect.
To whom is the endowment of salvation given?
John 1 says http://biblehub.com/john/1-9.htm
"9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."
Though the appeal for salvation goes out to every man, ONLY a select few are endowed with the right to believe (to become the children of God).
Yes, there are some reformers that place a limitation that I, too, do not find Scriptural. But do not confuse Johns statement as to the purposed Love of God demonstrated toward the creation as a universal appeal and ability to respond to that appeal.
One cannot take a single verse and discredit all other statements concerning the matter of which that verse mentions.
The appeal is certainly to who-so-ever, to all men without exception, to any, HOWEVER, the ABILITY to respond to that love and appeal is not coexistent with the appeal. That is found elsewhere in the Scriptures. One example is shown above.
John 3 gives is the RESULT of both the Love of God, and the RESULT of those that believe or do not believe. It is a brief that touches on the mountain tops of various aspects, but does not go into the terrain building to the aspects.
Perhaps you need to remember that the "reformers" took that which Calvin would not state and made modifications to endorse what he did not. Such is found in the limit of the blood atonement.
In my own study, it seems Calvin did not assign the elect alone to the blood, but understood that it was universal, given indiscriminately to everyone. The "reformed" generally do not have this in view.
Part of my own core is agreement with the Doctrines of Grace MODIFIED to place the limit as that which is upon redemption and NOT upon blood shed.
Others of the Doctrines of Grace are recognizing that need to correct the "reformers" in this matter.
This sight will give you a partial list of those who were/are in agreement with the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinistic thinkers) and have signed this statement of Doctrinal agreement.
IFCA Home - Doctrine
This page will give a brief history of the organization and a partial list of founding members and those who contributed to the history.
IFCA Home - History
As you read through the doctrinal statement, you will no doubt find agreement with your own views. At least I hope so.
What translation did this come from?
I consider “preserver” the one who “sustains” life, and the special life giver of the believers.
But, I don’t find a translation as you indicate.
There is no translation that reads such that I know of. I can accept particularly as a valid translation of μαλιστα, but "that is" seems a stretch.
- Status