Man's nature

[Allan]

Although David was made to hope while on his mother's breast, and John the Baptist jumped for joy in his mother's womb, the way you put it is not what PBs believe.

Yes, it is 'exactly ' what PB's believe regarding salvation, and I even quoted from YOUR own source material that exact fact.

It is 100% Christ's call on when and how He deals with His children.

And when were they His children? I read from the scriptures that we are called the children of 'wrath' before we believed, at least that was the apostle Puals thought on the issue..

Take Paul for example; was his experience on the road to Damascus regeneration or conversion? (heheh, whichever it was he never had much choice in the matter)

Just because you assume Paul had no choice to believe does not negate the very fact he not only did have choice but that in fact did choose to believe, else he whoud never have done what Jesus told him to do. WHat I find most intriguing is that there is 'seemingly' no repentance on teh road to Damascus either but we both know that therr had to have been

 

[kyredneck]

.......
My point was to help her and others understand and that the Primitive Baptist view of eternal salavation regarding the elect is that they are already born eternally saved.

Yes, it is 'exactly ' what PB's believe regarding salvation, and I even quoted from YOUR own source material that exact fact.

Allan, I fail to see where you derive that conclusion from the excerpt you provided. Trust me, you've got it wrong brother.

And when were they His children?

........Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me. Heb 2:13 Before the foundation of the world, Allan, before the foundation of the world.

I read from the scriptures that we are called the children of 'wrath' before we believed, at least that was the apostle Puals thought on the issue.

Heheh, wouldn't you agree that these became children of wrath AFTER they believed?:

to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5:5

holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1:19,20

in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his [God's] will. 2 Tim 2:25,26

Just because you assume Paul had no choice to believe does not negate the very fact he not only did have choice but that in fact did choose to believe, else he whoud never have done what Jesus told him to do. WHat I find most intriguing is that there is 'seemingly' no repentance on teh road to Damascus either but we both know that therr had to have been

I'm sorry Allan, but it's quite obvious to me that Paul was 100% struck down and arrested totally against his intentions that day. I fail to see how anyone could miss that.

 

[kyredneck]

.....WHat I find most intriguing is that there is 'seemingly' no repentance on teh road to Damascus either but we both know that therr had to have been

Why do you find that intriguing? Do you think that Paul may have 'skated by' without adhering to the complete 'formula' one has to follow in order to acquire eternal life? Please explain.

 

[Winman]

My My My, how ones story changes from thread to thread.


"I have owned one commentary in my life, Matthew Henry, and that was given me as a gift. I almost never read it, and do not even know what happened to it, I haven't seen it in nearly 15 years. It may be around the house somewhere, but I don't know where."

You are something else Grasshopper. You can find Matthew Henry online (which I did), and I copied and pasted from that.

I do not normaly read commentaries, and do not rely on them to interpret scripture. I think they can be helpful on occasion.

It is only lately that I have started to read the writings of some Calvinist writers. I am tired of being told I have misrepresented or do not understand Calvinist doctrine. Solution? Go right to the source. So I copied some from Calvin here, Henry, and Pink. That way you cannot accuse me of misinterpreting scripture.

Truth is, every Calvinist seems to believe his own thing. No two are alike.

 

[kyredneck]

You are something else Grasshopper. You can find Matthew Henry online (which I did), and I copied and pasted from that.

I do not normaly read commentaries, and do not rely on them to interpret scripture. I think they can be helpful on occasion.

It is only lately that I have started to read the writings of some Calvinist writers. I am tired of being told I have misrepresented or do not understand Calvinist doctrine. Solution? Go right to the source. So I copied some from Calvin here, Henry, and Pink. That way you cannot accuse me of misinterpreting scripture.

Truth is, every Calvinist seems to believe his own thing. No two are alike.

Winman, you're back! I was beginning to be concerned about you; for real. I hope everything's ok with you.

Truth is, every Calvinist seems to believe his own thing. No two are alike.

The reformers called it 'the right of private judgment'.

It is only lately that I have started to read the writings of some Calvinist writers.

And I'm sure it's so that you can carry on in your relentless campaign to discredit the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. But, who knows, you may actually learn something. Be careful Winman, be very careful.

 

[Winman]

Winman, you're back! I was beginning to be concerned about you; for real. I hope everything's ok with you.



The reformers called it 'the right of private judgment'.



And I'm sure it's so that you can carry on in your relentless campaign to discredit the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. But, who knows, you may actually learn something. Be careful Winman, be very careful.

The holidays are over, I had to go back to work.

 

[kyredneck]

The holidays are over, I had to go back to work.

Heheh, I'm sure you wouldn't post on the BB while on the job. Surely not.

 

[Winman]

Winman, you're back! I was beginning to be concerned about you; for real. I hope everything's ok with you.

The reformers called it 'the right of private judgment'.

And I'm sure it's so that you can carry on in your relentless campaign to discredit the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. But, who knows, you may actually learn something. Be careful Winman, be very careful.

The only reason I carry on about this doctrine is that I believe it is error. Even you must admit I have submitted hundreds of scripture verses that give Calvinism a problem. The OP verse was:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This verse is speaking of unsaved Gentiles and says "by nature" they follow the law. This shows that man's nature is not 100% evil.

My whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is error. Yes, all men are sinners, we all come short of the glory of God, no man is righteous. I agree with this. But this does not mean man is utterly incapable of doing some good.

I agree with Webdog, sin is trangression of the law. That is what the scriptures say.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And take the example Webdog gave, brushing your teeth. Is that breaking God's law? Of course not. So it is not evil to brush your teeth. Now, if a man gives money to charity, is that an evil act? No, it is a good act, God says to help the poor and needy. You can't just say a man would do this with some evil motive. A man may be genuinely concerned for others and wish to help. That is a good act.

But Calvinists paint every act of man as evil as Pink said. That is just not scriptural. God said Cain could give an acceptable sacrifice and be accepted with him.

But see, Calvinism has to paint every action of man as evil, else the doctrine of Total Depravity will fail and the system will fall apart.

And that is what Rom 2:14 shows, that unsaved man can do good and obey the laws. He is still a sinner, he needs Christ, but unsaved man is able to do some good. And unsaved man has a sense of good and evil in his nature. That is what this verse is saying. The scriptures never say man knows only evil, they say he knows good as well.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Man knows what good is, and man can perform good. But no matter how good a man might be, he still must pay for his sins. And if he sins just one time, the penalty is death, and so every man needs Christ.

And the verse Webdog showed shows the same.

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

The first thing Paul says is that he observes they are very religious or superstitious. In other words, they were seeking God. And he even says that they worship the true God in ignorance, the "UNKNOWN GOD". And then Paul goes on to explain who this unknown god is.

These pagans were worshipping the true God, Paul says so.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

So, this shows that unsaved man does seek God, which contradicts Calvinism.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I fail to see where you derive that conclusion from the excerpt you provided. Trust me, you've got it wrong brother.

No, it is 100% correct as shown 'once again' from your source:

It is only the power of God unto salvation unto the man who has already been saved. The gospel will save the saved man

As I said, my point isn't about regeneration and coversion but about eternal salvation verses temporal in accordance with the PB view as illistrated from your source. Please tell me how we can be the children of God (pre-faith) and NOT be saved eternally?

........Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me. Heb 2:13 Before the foundation of the world, Allan, before the foundation of the world.

He calls them children or sons now with respect to His purpose even though they are not yet. Secondly this speaks 'back' to the OT to elaborate a point.
So No, we are NOT children of wrath 'after' we have believed, what kind of non-sense is that (not being it as harsh as it reads)?

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

As we were.. in times past.. according to the..world.. and the prince of the power of the air... who works in the children of disobedience of whom we lived like..in times past.. and were 'BY NATURE' children of wrath.

The children of disobedience were/are the followers of the prince of the power of the air in who his spirit is at work, and LIKE THEM in the past, we (people who are now believers) WERE children of wrath.

Heheh, wouldn't you agree that these became children of wrath AFTER they believed?:

Not if one believes in exegesis and understands the context of the passages in question. Scripture SPELLS out just who are the children of wrath and they are ALL, bar none, those who have not believed - this includes pre-christians.

I'm sorry Allan, but it's quite obvious to me that Paul was 100% struck down and arrested totally against his intentions that day. I fail to see how anyone could miss that.

Only if one choose to read their personal opinion into it.

 

[kyredneck]

The only reason I carry on about this doctrine is that I believe it is error.

I've asked you this before on another thread(s?); Do you believe the Calvinist doctrines are sending people to hell? You've never given an answer to that yet.

Even you must admit I have submitted hundreds of scripture verses that give Calvinism a problem.

Yes Winman, you PROFUSELY supply scriptures which usually you have totally interpreted wrong, and the length of your posts is a turn off to many, me included, from actually scrutinizing them. Maybe that's your strategy, to flood and overcome the opposition with volume and not substance. You would do well to make your posts brief, concise, and to the point, without the voluminous references of scripture. I guarantee you, most members on the BB are very acquainted with the Bible and don't need or want to read the copious proof passages you provide. Just get to the point.

The OP verse was:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Yes, these Gentiles referred to do it by nature because of the nature of the Spirit which is in them, as I pointed out in post #4.

This verse is speaking of unsaved Gentiles....

How do you know that? How can you say that? The rest of Ro 2 describes these Gentiles you say are unsaved as fulfilling the law, being circumcised in heart, and as being Jews inwardly. That doesn't sound 'unsaved' to me.

My whole point is that the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is error.

My whole point is that the Arminian doctrine that men are not totally depraved is error; but I don't believe folks are going to hell because of it. Can you say the same thing about your opinion towards Calvinism? I'd really like to know.

Yes, all men are sinners, we all come short of the glory of God, no man is righteous. I agree with this. But this does not mean man is utterly incapable of doing some good.

It means unregenerate man is totally incapacitated to approach or even begin to want to please God of his own accord.

So, this shows that unsaved man does seek God, which contradicts Calvinism.

No, it shows no such thing Winman. Maybe in your mind you've succeeded. But you've proved, or disproved, absolutely nothing, except that you are vehemently opposed to the doctrines of God's Sovereign Grace. And again, I'd like to know why. Is it because you believe these doctrines are sending folks to hell? Please answer that question.

 

[Winman]

I see a little bit of rebellion in Saul (Paul) before he repented.

Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

First, we see how hateful Paul was to the Christians, it says he breathed out threatenings and slaughter. He was zealous in his persecution of Christians. He jailed many, some were put to death. He was witness to Stephen's stoning.

When Christ appeared to him, he knew it was God. He fell to the ground.

Then, as is always shown first in salvation, he heard the word of God. Jesus said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

Here I think we see a little rebellion and stubborness in Paul, he asked, "Who art thou Lord?"

Now, that is a silly question, and does not seem very sincere. He knew quite well who he was persecuting, he had been persectuing Christians for some time. So, I believe we see a little bit of rebellion and even some dishonesty in Paul here.

But then the Lord tells Paul his name, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". And note that Jesus said he was kicking against the pricks. Paul was resisting the Holy Spirit and had been for some time. I get the impression that Paul had been under conviction for awhile. He surely saw how good and innocent those he had been persecuting were. Yet, he hardened himself in his zealousness for what he thought was the only true religion. But I get the impression that his conscience had been bothering him for awhile. I think this is what Jesus is pointing out.

But now, he could deny no longer. Jesus himself spoke to Paul. He knew his name. And now there were only two options for him, he could continue to persecute Christians, or he could repent and follow Christ. And Paul did repent, for the next words out of his mouth were, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" He confesses Jesus Christ is Lord right there, something he had not believed before. And he submits to Jesus, and is willing to be obedient.

So, Paul was not zapped to believe. He heard the word of God, then repented and trusted on Christ as the scriptures always show. And it was three days later that he received the Holy Spirit.

If Calvinism is true, then a person receives the Holy Spirit twice, which is never shown in scriptures. First, a person receives the Holy Spirit to be regenerated, and then after believing receives the Holy Spirit again.

Is this what Calvinism and DoGs believe? That a man receives the Holy Spirit twice?

 

[kyredneck]

...Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ...

....Who art thou, Lord?.....

What a dog Paul must have felt like when he realized the enormity of his error. Paul was dead serious in doing the work of God by stamping out this cult of the Nazarene.

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God. Jn 16:2

Children of God have been persecuting and killing each other in this time world down through the ages. Then they find themselves in Glory together with their Saviour. Go figure!

 

[Winman]

I've asked you this before on another thread(s?); Do you believe the Calvinist doctrines are sending people to hell? You've never given an answer to that yet.

You know I am not allowed to say that.

I believe Calvinism is wrong because it is substituting regeneration for the work that Christ did on the cross. You see, unless God regenerates you, then the work of Christ cannot do anything for you.

Now, I am pretty sure how you would answer that. You would say that non-Cals place trusting Christ before the work of Christ.

The problem is, I think Calvinists have a faulty idea of what faith is. It is not some supernatural power. And it is not a work. To depend on someone is not a work, it is depending on the work of another.

As I have given example before, jumping out of an airplane with a parachute is a pretty good example of faith. When you do this, you trust or rely on the parachute to get you down safely. You are not working at all. The parachute does the work, and by trusting you allow it to do the work. You do not flap your arms and try to fly yourself.

And faith comes before the action of jumping. You are not going to jump out of the plane unless you believe the parachute reliable to get you down.

This is what Paul means when he says, "how shall they call on whom they have not believed?. You are not going to call on Christ (which is an action) unless you first believe Jesus is the Son of God and can save you.

So, faith is not an action, it is not a work, although faith will always move you to action. But the action follows the faith.

When Jesus comes to you, he is really asking you to allow him to save you. He will not force himself upon you, but if you give him permission, he will save you. He does all the work, he has all the power. I cannot possibly save myself, I have no power. What can I do? I get no credit, if Jesus had not revealed himself to me, I could not possibly have faith in him and call on him. And I certainly have no power whatsoever to save myself.

Faith is simply believing and trusting what God has said to us. It is not a work.

But in Calvinism, it is not the work of Christ that saves you, it is regeneration. If God regenerates you, you are saved, it cannot be resisted. If he does not regenerate you, you cannot possibly be saved. This makes the gospel, the work of Christ on the cross and rising from the dead secondary.

But the scriptures say the gospel is the power of God to salvation.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes. It is like that parachute. It has all the power and ability to save you if you will rely upon it.

But if you have to be regenerated before you can believe, then regeneration is the power unto salvation, not the gospel.

 

[kyredneck]

Why won't you answer my question Winman?

Do you believe the teachings of Calvinism are sending folks to hell?

Yes or no.

 

[annsni]

If Calvinism is true, then a person receives the Holy Spirit twice, which is never shown in scriptures. First, a person receives the Holy Spirit to be regenerated, and then after believing receives the Holy Spirit again.

Is this what Calvinism and DoGs believe? That a man receives the Holy Spirit twice?

See, you see Calvinism wrongly. A person does not receive the Holy Spirit before they are saved. What happens is just what you see with Saul - that God spoke to him, opened his eyes and then he was saved upon his faith. Before God intervened, Saul would have never come to Christ even though He had heard all about Him beforehand.

 

[Winman]

Why won't you answer my question Winman?

Do you believe the teachings of Calvinism are sending folks to hell?

Yes or no.

We are not allowed to say that, and you know that. I would get banned.

Do you want me to get banned?

 

[Winman]

See, you see Calvinism wrongly. A person does not receive the Holy Spirit before they are saved. What happens is just what you see with Saul - that God spoke to him, opened his eyes and then he was saved upon his faith. Before God intervened, Saul would have never come to Christ even though He had heard all about Him beforehand.

OK, we are agreed here. But Calvinists seem to teach that regeneration is an internal work, that the Holy Spirit supernaturally makes the man born again so that he has all the abilities to be saved (desire, repentance, faith...).

Where we forever disagree is that I believe the unsaved, unregenerate man already has the ability to respond to God, he can hear, understand to a degree, repent, and believe. Yes, man does need the influence of God, a man cannot possibly believe on Christ if he has not ever heard of him. But through the scriptures we do know of Christ and can respond to the gospel.

The gospel does awaken and enlighten a man. Without God's word, I would not have a clue. I wouldn't know who the true God is, I wouldn't know who Jesus is. But it does not take a supernatural work to enlighten a man. Look what the scriptures say:

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Does this verse say a man must be supernaturally regenerated before they can come to Christ? NO. It says they must be TAUGHT of God. It says whoever hath HEARD and LEARNED of the Father comes to Christ.

Does an unregenerated man have the ability to hear? Yes. Does the unregenerate man have the ability to be taught and learn? Yes.

Now, without God first providing his word, I cannot possibly hear his word, and I cannot possibly be taught and learn from his word.

But a man does not need a supernatural work performed upon himself to hear and learn. We all have that ability. Why do we send our kids to school?

And you see, if man does need a supernatural work performed on him to come to Christ, then Christ neglected to say that. If this is so important as Calvinism teaches, then why is this not mentioned even one time in all of scripture? We are talking about a man's eternal soul, and God would neglect to tell us that we must be regenerated. And not only does he fail to mention this regeneration, he misleads us by saying all we have to do is hear and learn.

Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[grahame]

(Acts 9:15)

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

It shows in spite of man's struggle against God and however man hates God that His grace cannot be resisted. But He always works through our own senses in convicting us of sin. This is how He draws us to him. Believe me there is no virtue in us even to desiring to believe in the true God. He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world. He did not forsee that we were going to be good in choosing to believe in Him. But according to His own will he chose us.

(Ephesians 1:11)

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance , being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

(James 1:18)

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

I'm sorry, but when someone says to me that they chose to believe in Christ it always seems to come over that they were somehow virtuous in believing in him, whilst others who do not believe in him are not as virtuous as they themselves because they did not believe. But the grace of God leaves us nothing to boast about even if it is our own faith. We have nothing to recommend us to God, not even our faith.

 

[kyredneck]

We are not allowed to say that, and you know that. I would get banned.

Do you want me to get banned?

My sincere apologies to you. I promise it was not my intent to get you banned. In ignorance I did not realize the position I was putting you in, just as Paul, in ignorance, persecuted the church. For real Winman, I'm not being facetious. But I think I've a handle on where you stand on this now. It explains a lot to me. It's either you sincerely feel souls are perishing from false doctrine or you're getting paid to resist the true doctrine. I'm trying to make sense of your obsession.

 

[Winman]

Let me give you an example you might understand. The teachings of evolution. I utterly reject evolution and believe God created everything in six days.

So it is the exact opposite of 1 Cor 2:14

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I will not receive or accept evolution, it is foolishness to me. I won't listen to it. I understand what they are trying to teach, but it doesn't make sense to me. I cannot see unliving matter for no cause becoming living matter.

The unsaved understand the gospel to a degree. They make fun of it. They understand we believe Christ died for us and that we believe he rose from the dead. They understand we believe in an afterlife, that is why they call it "pie in the sky". But they don't WANT to believe it, because if they do, they know Jesus is going to tell them to give up the sins they love.

Look what John Lennon said:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Living for today...

John Lennon understood to a great degree what Christians believe. He understood heaven, and hell, and when he says "imagine all the people, living for today", he understood we have faith in the afterlife. We are giving up things in this world because we believe there is a great reward afterward. We are living for the future in faith.

So, the unsaved can understand spiritual concepts to a degree. Yes, to them it seems foolish, because they do not believe in God. They think we are wasting our time, and giving up pleasures in this life. But they know and understand what we believe. They are not utterly without understanding as Calvinism teaches.