PB's monergism vs. Reformed's monergism.

[Winman]

Always and anon, the objection is "Why doth He yet find fault?"

And, for the thousandth time, Paul has already responded, "Who do you think you are, puny human, to judge God?"

First, I would disagree with your interpretation of this verse in Romans 9.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

When Paul spoke of the Potter here, he was making reference to Jeremiah 18 where God said that if he has spoken evil toward a nation, if they repent of their sins, he would repent of the evil he intended toward them. Likewise, if there was a nation he had spoken favorably toward, if they turn away from him and sin, then God would turn from the good he intended toward them.

Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

Paul was NOT teaching Unconditional Election as Calvinism claims in Romans 9. He was teaching that God was rejecting the Jews because they had rejected Christ and attempted to save themselves through works, and that he was now accepting the Gentiles because they sought righteousness through faith in Jesus.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

God is just, he does not damn people unconditionally, but for wilful unbelief.

 

[convicted1]

Okay Brothers, let's not stray too far away from the OP's subject, okay?


Now, what, if any, are the differences in the monergism subscribed to by the Reformed and PB's? I contend that the PB's model is the only truly monergistic model out there. They have God doing it all, and w/o any input whatsoever by the receiptient(sp?), whereas, the Reformed model has man given the ability to respond after the unctioning of the Holy Ghost.

So, what differences to you see betwixt the two models?

 

[Van]

Utter false

You're emotionally opposed to it, not logically or exegetically.

You just emotionally NEED it not to be true.

That does not mean it is not true.

BTW, I don't believe dead babies perish either, but I actually have REASONS for it not just emotions.

Right. The only solution to the problem is that God can save monergistically, without the needful participation of the sinner.

But you don't get to ignore the PLAIN biblical fact that all human beings are born sinners just because it does not suit you and you don't LIKE it.

It is your system that says that faith does not save but choice. You don't actually believe people are saved through faith. You believe they are saved through CHOICE.

Faith is not something you choose. You beleive what you believe because you HAVE BEEN persuaded it is true. You are passive in the matter. you don't CHOOSE to trust in gravity. Your faith in gravity came totally apart from any act of volition. Gravity persuaded you it was trustworthy- you had no choice BUT to believe in it.

This is true of all kinds of faith. Faith is not a choice you make.

Lots of assertions concerning my beliefs, most of them false.

Scripture says we are saved by grace through faith. It is God who decides whether we believe, but if He credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He saves us.

No solution is needed, God is just and treats everyone, including the feeble-minded and toddlers justly.

Here are the facts, babies are conceived in iniquity. By the sin of the one, the many, including babies, were made sinners. Even though they have done nothing good or bad, they are condemned already because of unbelief. They are by nature, children of wrath. This is the only view consistent with all scripture. Calvinism denies this truth, saying God saves babies and the like by giving them faith via irresistible grace. Pure fiction with no support in scripture.

 

[Winman]

Lots of assertions concerning my beliefs, most of them false.

Scripture says we are saved by grace through faith. It is God who decides whether we believe, but if He credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He saves us.

No solution is needed, God is just and treats everyone, including the feeble-minded and toddlers justly.

Here are the facts, babies are conceived in iniquity. By the sin of the one, the many, including babies, were made sinners. Even though they have done nothing good or bad, they are condemned already because of unbelief. They are by nature, children of wrath. This is the only view consistent with all scripture. Calvinism denies this truth, saying God saves babies and the like by giving them faith via irresistible grace. Pure fiction with no support in scripture.

I completely disagree with your view and Luke's view. The scriptures do not say children are born children of wrath. The scriptures say men are children of wrath because they WALKED in trespasses and sins and FULFILLED the desires of the flesh and of the mind. (Eph 2:1-3). Babies are not dead in sin because they have done neither good or bad (Romans 9:11).

Paul said he was ALIVE without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. No man could say he was once alive if Original Sin is true.

Peter said that Christians have RETURNED to Jesus, the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls. If we are born sinners separated from God as you believe, then no man could be said to be RETURNED to God. You cannot return someplace you have never been before.

Jesus twice said the prodigal son was ALIVE AGAIN. Again, if we are all born dead in sin, no man could be said to be alive AGAIN, but this is exactly what Jesus himself taught.

Calvinism has it wrong, and so do you.

 

[Luke2427]

Lots of assertions concerning my beliefs, most of them false.

... It is God who decides whether we believe...

Best statement I've ever seen you make.:thumbs:

No solution is needed, God is just and treats everyone, including the feeble-minded and toddlers justly.

Who disagrees with that?

Here are the facts, babies are conceived in iniquity. By the sin of the one, the many, including babies, were made sinners. Even though they have done nothing good or bad, they are condemned already because of unbelief. They are by nature, children of wrath. This is the only view consistent with all scripture.

WONDERFUL! This is exactly right. For some reason I thought you were like some others who don't know this FUNDAMENTAL truth.

Calvinism denies this truth, saying God saves babies and the like by giving them faith via irresistible grace. Pure fiction with no support in scripture.

Calvinism is probably the biggest defender of this truth in history. It certainly does not DENY it! It is fundamental to Calvinism!

Calvinism just says that God can save whoever he wants, with or without their knowledge of it.

God can apply the merits of Christ to babies and invalids. I tend to think he does.

But your system believes that God saves through CHOICE- not faith.

One has to CHOOSE Christ.

Since babies born in sin cannot CHOOSE, then you cannot justify how your system has God saving babies.

And this salvation by grace through choice stuff is problematic, too.

 

[Luke2427]

Okay Brothers, let's not stray too far away from the OP's subject, okay?


Now, what, if any, are the differences in the monergism subscribed to by the Reformed and PB's? I contend that the PB's model is the only truly monergistic model out there. They have God doing it all, and w/o any input whatsoever by the receiptient(sp?), whereas, the Reformed model has man given the ability to respond after the unctioning of the Holy Ghost.

So, what differences to you see betwixt the two models?

It is not the only truly monergistic system out there.

If I beat you to death with my fists can you say you helped me beat you to death with my fists?

No. I monergistically beat you to death using my fists.

Now, if I take into my fists a baseball bat instead and beat tyou to death with that- is your death by beating any less monergistic just because I used a means (a bat) to beat you to death? No. Not at all.

God does all of the regenerating all by himself whenever he gets good and ready but he uses the GOSPEL (which is really the Word which is all Him anyway).

 

[Amy.G]

If I beat you to death with my fists can you say you helped me beat you to death with my fists?

Actually if you beat him to death he won't be able to say anything. :laugh:


Sorry Luke, I couldn't resist. I thought you would appreciate my attention to detail. :tongue3:

:1_grouphug:

 

[Luke2427]

Actually if you beat him to death he won't be able to say anything. :laugh:


Sorry Luke, I couldn't resist. I thought you would appreciate my attention to detail. :tongue3:

:1_grouphug:

:laugh:


___________

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Actually if you beat him to death he won't be able to say anything. :laugh:


Sorry Luke, I couldn't resist. I thought you would appreciate my attention to detail. :tongue3:

:1_grouphug:

He still could if God decreed that he could. Isn't that what Calvinists believe?

 

[Amy.G]

He still could if God decreed that he could. Isn't that what Calvinists believe?

Yes, He could. If God could make a donkey talk, I suppose He could make dead guy talk. Wait....He already did that! :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually if you beat him to death he won't be able to say anything. :laugh:


Sorry Luke, I couldn't resist. I thought you would appreciate my attention to detail. :tongue3:

:1_grouphug:

Best post in this thread:wavey:

 

[kyredneck]

...just showing everyone that only the PB's have a truly monergistic view.

Wow, a flaming free willer who apparently has actually been pondering these things. Be bery bery careful Willis, you could get flipped to 'the other side'.

Most critics would rather refer to the PBs as 'hyper-Cals' instead of 'truly monergistic'.

 

[kyredneck]

...God has chosen to regenerate sinners by the Gospel.

So when did God change?

 

[convicted1]

Wow, a flaming free willer who apparently has actually been pondering these things. Be bery bery careful Willis, you could get flipped to 'the other side'.

Flaming "FW'er"?? I've never been call that before......:laugh: I don't believe so, but I lean further that way than the other, I suppose. Just because I understand it that man has a choice betwixt "good and bad", "life or curse", to "hear or forbear", I would call that more of discernment that free will. Just because I believe God gives man a choice to believe or not, doesn't necessarily default to free will. Man has a choice between two "entities", and he is held responsible for those choices he make.

Most critics would rather refer to the PBs as 'hyper-Cals' instead of 'truly monergistic'.

That's why I don't care for labels. Sure, some on here are insistent of us giving them a label, so they have a "dartboard" to throw their darts at. The PB's have the only truly monergistic model out there. Sure, they(Reformed monergistic model, and not the PB's model) fluff it by saying that God gives man the ability to believe(and He does), but it is necessary for them to put it to use(which in their monergistic model demands that they will). So, if they have to put it to use, then that's not monergistic, is it? God may give them a ball bat to beat me to death with, but it is necessary for them to swing it. So, they had to do something, which, again, isn't monergistic. The PB's are the true monergists.

 

[Luke2427]

So when did God change?

He hasn't.

 

[kyredneck]

He hasn't.

Ok. So you don't hold to Old School SB distinction between regeneration and conversion, right?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1676873#post1676873

 

[kyredneck]

The Reformed view of monergism has God enabling man to respond to the gospel through what is called "gospel regeneration".....

Supposedly a study note from the Reformation Study Bible:

"....“When the RSB speaks in the notes of John 3 of "infants being born again," it is speaking of the work of quickening God does in them which inclines their will to Him. In Protestantism, regeneration always precedes faith and if God quickens them, the person will surely come . . .Often, regeneration and our subsequent faith happen apparently simultaneously but logically, regeneration must precede faith. An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.”..."
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1640868#post1640868

Many, maybe even most, Reformed folks hold to regeneration before profession but none hold to regeneration without profession, that is the real distinction to be made between PB and Reformed soteriology.

 

[convicted1]

Supposedly a study note from the Reformation Study Bible:

"....“When the RSB speaks in the notes of John 3 of "infants being born again," it is speaking of the work of quickening God does in them which inclines their will to Him. In Protestantism, regeneration always precedes faith and if God quickens them, the person will surely come . . .Often, regeneration and our subsequent faith happen apparently simultaneously but logically, regeneration must precede faith. An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.”..."

Many, maybe even most, Reformed folks hold to regeneration before profession but none hold to regeneration without profession, that is the real distinction to be made between PB and Reformed soteriology.

And that's why I affirm the PB view as the only valid monergistic system out there. The Reformed view has man doing something after regeneration as an "absolute necessary" from the recipient(post-regeneration------------->pre-salvation), whereas the PB model doesn't. I am not attempting to bash either view, just to bring to light their differences, and to show that both can't be monergistic, only the PB's view is.

 

[kyredneck]

...The Reformed view has man doing something after regeneration as an "absolute necessary"....

It's absolutely necessary for the regenerate to obey the gospel in order to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Van]

And the beat goes on. Scripture teaches faith before being given the right to become children of God. When a person is regenerated, they become spiritual children of God, thus regeneration gives the right to become physical children of God at the second coming.

Now lets turn to monergistic salvation. We are saved by grace through faith. Whose faith? Our faith. God credits our faith, or not, as righteousness. Thus our faith does not save us or merit salvation. It is God who credits our worthless, merit-less faith as righteousness. Hence our salvation is monergistic, because it is God who decides or not to credit our faith as righteousness.

This is the scriptural view.