Man’s Duty vs. God’s Elective Purpose Explained

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not agree with men like Andrew Fuller who basically taught that it is man's duty to "place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ" ( Duty-Faith ).

'God... now commands all men everywhere to repent.' What God commands it is man's duty to obey.

 

[Dave G]

'God... now commands all men everywhere to repent.' What God commands it is man's duty to obey.

I agree.
The command there, to all men everywhere, is to repent.

What Christ commanded to Israel, was their duty to obey...
to repent and believe the Gospel.

That said, it is apparent that we disagree on this fine point, my friend.
If I'm wrong, then the Lord will show me and correct me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree.
The command there, to all men everywhere, is to repent.

What Christ commanded to Israel, was their duty to obey...
to repent and believe the Gospel.

That said, it is apparent that we disagree on this fine point, my friend.
If I'm wrong, then the Lord will show me and correct me.

Oh boy! So when Peter told the Jews in Acts 2:38 to 'repent and be baptized...... for the remission of sins,' they didn't need to believe in Christ? Crackers!

 

[1689Dave]

The true gospel is an announcement (Greek = Preached) to all, that whoever believes has eternal life. It is not an offer that implies law and salvation by obedience. That is, choosing to believe with the flesh that ends with people thinking they save themselves. The challenge for those who believe is to repent and be baptized by immersion in water. This thins the herd and shows who really believes.

 

[Dave G]

So when Peter told the Jews in Acts 2:38 to 'repent and be baptized...... for the remission of sins,' they didn't need to believe in Christ?

I have no idea where you're making the connection that what Peter told them was something that God did not want them to do...
After they had believed.

If you'll notice from the passage you referred to,
Peter was speaking that to the ones that were pricked in their hearts and who had responded favorably to the preaching of the cross and Christ as Messiah and Lord...
Not to people who had not believed what was presented.

Peter was prophesying ( preaching ) the words the Lord gave him by the power of His Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Those words were believed by many in the crowd, but not all.
To me, it is clear that it is to the ones that believed, that God's commandments to repent and be baptized were given.

However, since it's very likely that you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from ( I hold that the Gospel should be preached to the masses exactly as Peter and Paul did in the book of Acts, and not as many nowadays preach it ), I'll make this my last reply in this thread...
as I have no wish to debate with you, my friend.


May God bless you sir.

 

[Silverhair]

Says you who cherry pick your verses. Then reads them backwards trying to reverse what God has declared

You go to eph1...ignore the verses from 3-12.....then offer vs 13,lol

You go to Jn6...and pick out vs.40 as if 37-44 did not exist,lol

You are disingenuous SH.

I can bury you in the bible as your error goes on like a run-on sentence. I am not here for that however.Some like you do not appear to be here to learn or interact.
What has happened is you came in to take a few shots at Calvinists, but have quickly discovered that most everyone easily answers your out of context philosophical objections. Then, being out of theological bullets you resort to saying ignorant things like I am unable to read the bible.

You have such a nice Christian attitude, for someone that does not understand what that means. Get over yourself. It does not matter how many times someone points out the errors of your theological view you still hold to it. Funny when someone posts scripture the same way that you do you mock them, look in the mirror.

I have no real problem with Calvinist it is with Calvinism. Your theology, to say the least, is.inconsistent. From what I have seen it is made of hole cloth. If you want to follow that view then go for but why get unset when someone points out the errors we find in it. Do you think you are the only ones that can read the bible?

 

[DaveXR650]

I personally have a problem with the idea of a limited atonement. But I think that maybe as humans a lot of us just can't imagine such a thing and at the same time not think that possibly, somewhere, there is somebody who would like to have come to Christ but can't and the reason is that he didn't die for them. I have studied all the arguments and even Owen on the subject and I know that that is not what they are saying but I just can't wrap my head around it. I think this is what makes a lot of folks really angry and causes a lot of the confusion over the order of salvation and so on;

 

[Iconoclast]

You have such a nice Christian attitude, for someone that does not understand what that means. Get over yourself. It does not matter how many times someone points out the errors of your theological view you still hold to it. Funny when someone posts scripture the same way that you do you mock them, look in the mirror.

I have no real problem with Calvinist it is with Calvinism. Your theology, to say the least, is.inconsistent. From what I have seen it is made of hole cloth. If you want to follow that view then go for but why get unset when someone points out the errors we find in it. Do you think you are the only ones that can read the bible?

I would rather help people. If you want to go on the attack, I can go there with you, but it will not go well for you.
You have drifted from a scriptural base, and have been attacking everyone.
Try reading some solid material from Actual Calvinists, Like John Murray, John Owen, Sinclair Ferguson, Geoff Thomas.
Learn the position even if you do not hold to it.At least then you can explain why you do not agree with them.

 

[Iconoclast]

I personally have a problem with the idea of a limited atonement. But I think that maybe as humans a lot of us just can't imagine such a thing and at the same time not think that possibly, somewhere, there is somebody who would like to have come to Christ but can't and the reason is that he didn't die for them. I have studied all the arguments and even Owen on the subject and I know that that is not what they are saying but I just can't wrap my head around it. I think this is what makes a lot of folks really angry and causes a lot of the confusion over the order of salvation and so on;

Everyone limits the atonement.
It is not complicated at all.
All the Father gives to the Son will come to Him.
He dies to save every one of them.

I think that maybe as humans a lot of us just can't imagine such a thing and at the same time not think that possibly, somewhere, there is somebody who would like to have come to Christ but can't and the reason is that he didn't die for them

No such person exists, it is not possible.

 

[DaveXR650]

I agree with the way you explain it. And I always think of the verse All that the Father gives to me will come to me and he that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out. You always have the second part of the verse. But when you put it into terms of limited atonement and combine that with election you are faced with a situation where before time even started a bunch of people are shut out of any chance of salvation and the principle reason is that the atonement was limited. If you say but people are by nature sinners and none deserve anything but justice then you are doing the same thing Armenians do in saying God forsees faith - the only difference being God forsees sin and evil - because this was all determined before time began after all.

 

[AustinC]

Everyone limits the atonement.
It is not complicated at all.
All the Father gives to the Son will come to Him.
He dies to save every one of them.



No such person exists, it is not possible.

Agreed, everyone expresses a limited atonement of some fashion, except the universalist who truly teaches an unlimited atonement.

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree with the way you explain it. And I always think of the verse All that the Father gives to me will come to me and he that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out. You always have the second part of the verse. But when you put it into terms of limited atonement and combine that with election you are faced with a situation where before time even started a bunch of people are shut out of any chance of salvation and the principle reason is that the atonement was limited. If you say but people are by nature sinners and none deserve anything but justice then you are doing the same thing Armenians do in saying God forsees faith - the only difference being God forsees sin and evil - because this was all determined before time began after all.

Biblical foreknowledge is of persons not what they will do.
Election Is a truth but we do not know who is elected so it has no bearing on what unsaved people think.
it is not fatalism.
Think of it this way;
Did God save you ,or did you save yourself?
You say God saved you....
Did God save you on purpose,or was it an accident?
God saved you on purpose.....that is election.

 

[Iconoclast]

Agreed, everyone expresses a limited atonement of some fashion, except the universalist who truly teaches an unlimited atonement.

Does anyone believe Satan or fallen angels get saved?

 

[Silverhair]

I would rather help people. If you want to go on the attack, I can go there with you, but it will not go well for you.
You have drifted from a scriptural base, and have been attacking everyone.
Try reading some solid material from Actual Calvinists, Like John Murray, John Owen, Sinclair Ferguson, Geoff Thomas.
Learn the position even if you do not hold to it.At least then you can explain why you do not agree with them.

I have read some of the material from your actual Calvinists and have found them wanting to say the least. While you may find their works uplifting I do not. When people have to read into scripture what they want to find instead of letting the text speak for itself I lose interest in that work quickly.

Although I will admit I do like Spurgeon, but then he was a good baptist. I have listened to some of the "modern" Calvinist preachers like Washer, Piper, Mac Arthur although I do prefer to read a transcript. Over all their theology is just not my cup of tea. For me they wander to far from the biblical text and twist to many verses to make them fit within the system.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have read some of the material from your actual Calvinists and have found them wanting to say the least. While you may find their works uplifting I do not. When people have to read into scripture what they want to find instead of letting the text speak for itself I lose interest in that work quickly.

Although I will admit I do like Spurgeon, but then he was a good baptist. I have listened to some of the "modern" Calvinist preachers like Washer, Piper, Mac Arthur although I do prefer to read a transcript. Over all their theology is just not my cup of tea. For me they wander to far from the biblical text and twist to many verses to make them fit within the system.

Go on sermonaudio, listen to any sermon by Geoff Thomas,let me know what you object to by him?

 

[Silverhair]

Go on sermonaudio, listen to any sermon by Geoff Thomas,let me know what you object to by him?

I have problems with my hearing that is why I like to have a transcript. I see they have PDF files so will take a look.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have problems with my hearing that is why I like to have a transcript. I see they have PDF files so will take a look.

Geoff Thomas Sermon Archive

 

[1689Dave]

I personally have a problem with the idea of a limited atonement. But I think that maybe as humans a lot of us just can't imagine such a thing and at the same time not think that possibly, somewhere, there is somebody who would like to have come to Christ but can't and the reason is that he didn't die for them. I have studied all the arguments and even Owen on the subject and I know that that is not what they are saying but I just can't wrap my head around it. I think this is what makes a lot of folks really angry and causes a lot of the confusion over the order of salvation and so on;

Limited Atonement = Salvation by grace. Universal atonement = salvation by works.

 

[Brightfame52]

Acts of the Apostles 17:30. 'God... now commands all men everywhere to repent.'
Mark 1:15. 'The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel.' Some Hyper-calvinists try to avoid the obvious universality of these commands by resorting to a wretched, mongrel form of Dispensationalism, but there is no indication of any restriction as to whom they are directed.

Those verses would pertain to sinners Christ died for, the elect, not sinners He didnt die for.

 

[Brightfame52]

I'm a Calvinist and I do not agree with this at all.

Thats fine. Its still true.