Baptist_Pastor/Theologian opened this thread where he? wrote:
On the Baptist Board?? You gotta be kidding! :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:
Ed
On the Baptist Board?? You gotta be kidding! :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:
Ed
-
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!
Predestination: Meaning and Application
- Thread starter Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
- Start date
- Status
Jarthur001
Active Member
Again I ask you...even if this be the case.....Brother Bob said:
1) Does one with MUCH grace...have more grace then the guy waiting on rocks? yes or no?
And...
2) Was the Bible wrong to say..."How shall they hear, if they have no preacher?"...when they have a rock? Yes or no?
Brother Bob
New Member
Regardless of how they receive the "saving Grace" it is the same Grace. If God foreknew I am sure He saw the difference in peoples, nations. This Salvation thing is not mine but God's.
Here is your answer James, just read on down a few lines in Romans: 10. You are reading verse 14 "how shall they hear without a preacher", so just read on down 3 more lines and there is the answer to your question!!
"17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
"18": But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
I agree it is the same grace...but do some have more then others?Brother Bob said:
was that a yes?
Again I ask you...
1) Does one with MUCH grace...have more grace then the guy waiting on rocks? yes or no?
And...
2) Was the Bible wrong to say..."How shall they hear, if they have no preacher?"...when they have a rock? Yes or no?
The last time I will ask...
And all the people said... AMEN!! Brother Bob
New Member
I agree it is the same grace...but do some have more then others?
was that a yes?
Again I ask you...
1) Does one with MUCH grace...have more grace then the guy waiting on rocks? yes or no?
And...
2) Was the Bible wrong to say..."How shall they hear, if they have no preacher?"...when they have a rock? Yes or no?
The last time I will ask...
You are posting faster than I can answer but here again is my answer and also God's
Here is your answer James, just read on down a few lines in Romans: 10. You are reading verse 14 "how shall they hear without a preacher", so just read on down 3 more lines and there is the answer to your question!!
"17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
"18": But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
According to this Scripture just 3 lines below the question you asked we all have the same Grace.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Can I ask a question in regard to the other discussion concerning the gospel being heard by all.
Personally, I don't believe everyone does hear the gospel, but it seems to me that scripture teaches that men will be judged according to the level of their revelation. Paul teaches that to he who is given much, much is required. And he also says where there is no law there is no sin...there are other similiar verses which seem to indicate the same things.
I'm still working this out in my own views, but Romans 1 seems to be saying that those who saw the creation of God "clearly saw" and even "understood" the divine attributes and eternal qualities of our God and for that reason alone they will stand without excuse on judgement day. Some theologians seem to assume that all men when confronted with the natural creation will respond in this manner, but where does the text ever say that? If we look back through history we see examples of many who worshipped or feared God who had not yet heard the gospel (Lydia, Rahab, Cornelious for example). And when Paul speaks of Abraham's faith in the follow chapters he is not addressing his faith specifically in Christ, but instead his faith in what God has said. And Paul indicates that it is this faith by which Abraham is justified. It appears to me that God accepted Abraham's faith in the promises of God and not specifically in Christ, because such things had not yet been fully revealed.
Paul said, "Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness.""
Could it be that those who do see the stars and all of God's creation only and do acknowledge him as God could be justified through their faith in the revelation they have received? Christ's atonement would still have to be applied, but like Abraham they just wouldn't be fully knowledgable of that sacrifice? Thoughts?
Personally, I don't believe everyone does hear the gospel, but it seems to me that scripture teaches that men will be judged according to the level of their revelation. Paul teaches that to he who is given much, much is required. And he also says where there is no law there is no sin...there are other similiar verses which seem to indicate the same things.
I'm still working this out in my own views, but Romans 1 seems to be saying that those who saw the creation of God "clearly saw" and even "understood" the divine attributes and eternal qualities of our God and for that reason alone they will stand without excuse on judgement day. Some theologians seem to assume that all men when confronted with the natural creation will respond in this manner, but where does the text ever say that? If we look back through history we see examples of many who worshipped or feared God who had not yet heard the gospel (Lydia, Rahab, Cornelious for example). And when Paul speaks of Abraham's faith in the follow chapters he is not addressing his faith specifically in Christ, but instead his faith in what God has said. And Paul indicates that it is this faith by which Abraham is justified. It appears to me that God accepted Abraham's faith in the promises of God and not specifically in Christ, because such things had not yet been fully revealed.
Paul said, "Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness.""
Could it be that those who do see the stars and all of God's creation only and do acknowledge him as God could be justified through their faith in the revelation they have received? Christ's atonement would still have to be applied, but like Abraham they just wouldn't be fully knowledgable of that sacrifice? Thoughts?
Jarthur001
Active Member
Brother Bob said:
I agree. All men are saved by grace..and being that you never said..i will help you.
Yes...some men are given more grace then others.
Paul was right in say.."Send the preacher"...for this is one way God shows His grace for others to believe. We do not know who they are...we only Go Tell.
Brother Bob
New Member
Did you miss this part James?
17": So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
"18": But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Skandelon said:
This is called inclusivism and I do not know very much to give good debate. All i have read on it is from those that do not like it. But..I do know a few "Big Names" hold to this now. Again, before I write it off all together I need to hear the other side. As of now...I do not know that much..but what I do, I do not agree with.
Talk with Baptist_Pastor/Theologian...he seems to know a lot about it. We got into it a bit on another thread.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Brother Bob said:
You mean the bold words above? Yes...why?
Brother Bob
New Member
Just trying to help out James.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Yes...i know. thanks.Brother Bob said:Just trying to help out James.
But why do you ask? The gospel has gone out. I have said this.
All men have the stars..right?
All men have the law on their heart. right?
Now...does some have MORE WAYS of hearing Gods Word??
Did you hear Gods Word another way Bob?
In this nation in some areas we are faced with it each day. In other areas just a few times a year. Still other areas....they have the stars..and the Law. Yes...they should know. But the fact STILL is the same. Some have great grace then others.
Can you not see this Bob?
Brother Bob
New Member
I was referring to the Scripture you used about the need of a preacher made by Apostle Paul and the Scripture saying they have all heard throughout the whole world made also by Apostle Paul in the same few verses but you pick out the one about the preacher but ignore the one where Paul said they indeed have "heard". If you going to take what Paul said as being the truth then you have to take it all.
Maybe Paul knew about the "rock" also.
I guess what I am saying James is that there is just "one" saving Grace and if you get it then that will be sufficient to save you. When you are saved you are not more saved than the one who had the Stars. The Grace was delivered to us in a different way but was there more of it, I don't know James, do you?
Maybe Paul knew about the "rock" also.
I guess what I am saying James is that there is just "one" saving Grace and if you get it then that will be sufficient to save you. When you are saved you are not more saved than the one who had the Stars. The Grace was delivered to us in a different way but was there more of it, I don't know James, do you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
BTW...you are wrong Bob...just for the record.
1st..it is only one word.
2nd it means.. "rather no"
In context its a double negative, which gives you a yes.
this is not the meaning.....Brother Bob said:verily= definition of
230. alethos al-ay-thoce' adverb from 227; truly:--indeed, surely, of a surety, truly, of a (in) truth, verily, very.
281. amen am-ane' of Hebrew origin (543); properly, firm, i.e. (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially, surely (often as interjection, so be it):--amen, verily.
Just trying to help out James.
1st..it is only one word.
2nd it means.. "rather no"
In context its a double negative, which gives you a yes.
Brother Bob
New Member
Shoot Strong's is wrong again.
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for "verily":
230. alethos al-ay-thoce' adverb from 227; truly:--indeed, surely, of a surety, truly, of a (in) truth, verily, very.
281. amen am-ane' of Hebrew origin (543); properly, firm, i.e. (figuratively) trustworthy; adverbially, surely (often as interjection, so be it):--amen, verily.
ENGLISH definition
[SIZE=+1]Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[/SIZE]
Main Entry: ver·i·ly javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?verily01.wav=verily')
Pronunciation: 'ver-&-lE
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English verraily, from verray very
1 : in truth : [SIZE=-1]CERTAINLY[/SIZE]
2 : [SIZE=-1]TRULY[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]CONFIDENTLY[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Brother Bob said:I was referring to the Scripture you used about the need of a preacher made by Apostle Paul and the Scripture saying they have all heard throughout the whole world made also by Apostle Paul in the same few verses but you pick out the one about the preacher but ignore the one where Paul said they indeed have "heard". If you going to take what Paul said as being the truth then you have to take it all.
Maybe Paul knew about the "rock" also.
I guess what I am saying James is that there is just "one" saving Grace and if you get it then that will be sufficient to save you. When you are saved you are not more saved than the one who had the Stars. The Grace was delivered to us in a different way but was there more of it, I don't know James, do you?
I think Paul did know about the rock. If you look below verse 18..it says gives like 3 ways God has done this in the past. I think it is 3...I'm trying to remember..and i'm getting older.
BTW...today's my birthday...WHERE IS MY CAKE???Anyway...I'm pretty sure there is shown 3 ways God got the gospel out of old. And Paul brings this up...to show WE..the church are to be the new tool God is to use.
The point to election is that indeed some have more chances. Some maybe saved like PAUL..not even looking to be saved and God saved him..others may hear one time and believer. Still others hears for years saying no, no, no..and then believe. Others have the grace of God in the stars. Still..they have it.
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
New Member
If you want to resolve the issue of Inclusivism you need to ask yourself if you believe that sin is problem that man is unable to remedy. If so, what is the remedy? Is the remedy for sin knowledge? Through enlightenment or education can man advance beyond the short comings of sin, ie Modernism or is sin more serious than that? We will not resolve our differences by trying to appeal to the work of Christ. Why? Because I would suggest to you that the Inclusivist believes that all are saved either directly or indirectly through the work of Christ.
The irony here is that the Calvinist on this thread are arguing that it is necessary to present the gospel in order to be saved and the freewill theists on this board are arguing that the Lord will providentially save whomever he choses. I do not know if your aware of the history of this debate, but typically the Calvinist have been accused of being anti-missions and the freewillers are more prone to door to door evangelism. On this board something strange has happened. The nature of the freewill argument has been exposed and they have been painted into a proverbial corner and now they are forced to either give up the system that put them in that corner or move forward the only logical way they can. It is no coincidence that the freewillers here are becoming Inclusivist. Open Theism is the logical conclusion of free will theology. One thing open theist share in common is type of pluralism or a thoroughgoing Inclusivism.
Be very careful when you start trying to justify how individuals can be saved apart from the gospel. A theologian many hundreds of years ago made a wager. It is called Pascal's wager. The wager goes something like this, "What if what you are teaching is true? What will be the result? What if what I am teaching is true? What will be the result? Are you willing to be wrong in either case?"
Let me make an attempt to recount some of the more noteworthy distinctions that have been brought to light thus far. My view is that God is sovereign and created the world with a predetermined outcome. That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion. Sin has now entered the world and completely corrupts man's relationship with God the creator. While God elected some and not others, each one who is elect must believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who are non-elect will not believe on Jesus Christ, either due to an inability or lack of opportunity. Regardless, man's will is not coerced or forced or violated in the process of regeneration and conversion to Christ. Apart from the gospel there is no opportunity for salvation.
Now let's say that I am wrong about my assertion. I still believe in the necessity of presenting the gospel to everyone. Why? Because while God may know who the elect are, I in fact do not. Therefore it is necessary for me to appeal to all of the world to receive Christ. In the end I believe that not one will be lost who was intended for salvation. But if I am wrong and salvation is open ended and left to chance or genetics or whatever else may be the factor that determines who believes and and does not believe then what have I lost? Let's say that I am a freewill theologian. What more can I do to see everyone on earth get saved than go share the gospel with everyone on earth? I already want to do that as a reformed theologian. So I have lost nothing. Once more worse still, let's suppose that the Inclusivist are right and I am wrong. It does not really matter anyway, does it, because let's say that I try my best but still only cover 30% of the world population. Well that's okay, because the remaining 70% can thank their lucky stars.
BIG IF, but what if I am right and the freewillers are wrong about Inclusivism and the indispensable nature of presenting the gospel? That is a huge risk to take. Why? Because the remaining 70% are going to hell apart from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In order have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ those remaining 70% must have faith in Christ. In order to have faith in Christ you must be told about Christ and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead.
Romans 10:5-17 states (ESV):
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
The irony here is that the Calvinist on this thread are arguing that it is necessary to present the gospel in order to be saved and the freewill theists on this board are arguing that the Lord will providentially save whomever he choses. I do not know if your aware of the history of this debate, but typically the Calvinist have been accused of being anti-missions and the freewillers are more prone to door to door evangelism. On this board something strange has happened. The nature of the freewill argument has been exposed and they have been painted into a proverbial corner and now they are forced to either give up the system that put them in that corner or move forward the only logical way they can. It is no coincidence that the freewillers here are becoming Inclusivist. Open Theism is the logical conclusion of free will theology. One thing open theist share in common is type of pluralism or a thoroughgoing Inclusivism.
Be very careful when you start trying to justify how individuals can be saved apart from the gospel. A theologian many hundreds of years ago made a wager. It is called Pascal's wager. The wager goes something like this, "What if what you are teaching is true? What will be the result? What if what I am teaching is true? What will be the result? Are you willing to be wrong in either case?"
Let me make an attempt to recount some of the more noteworthy distinctions that have been brought to light thus far. My view is that God is sovereign and created the world with a predetermined outcome. That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion. Sin has now entered the world and completely corrupts man's relationship with God the creator. While God elected some and not others, each one who is elect must believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who are non-elect will not believe on Jesus Christ, either due to an inability or lack of opportunity. Regardless, man's will is not coerced or forced or violated in the process of regeneration and conversion to Christ. Apart from the gospel there is no opportunity for salvation.
Now let's say that I am wrong about my assertion. I still believe in the necessity of presenting the gospel to everyone. Why? Because while God may know who the elect are, I in fact do not. Therefore it is necessary for me to appeal to all of the world to receive Christ. In the end I believe that not one will be lost who was intended for salvation. But if I am wrong and salvation is open ended and left to chance or genetics or whatever else may be the factor that determines who believes and and does not believe then what have I lost? Let's say that I am a freewill theologian. What more can I do to see everyone on earth get saved than go share the gospel with everyone on earth? I already want to do that as a reformed theologian. So I have lost nothing. Once more worse still, let's suppose that the Inclusivist are right and I am wrong. It does not really matter anyway, does it, because let's say that I try my best but still only cover 30% of the world population. Well that's okay, because the remaining 70% can thank their lucky stars.
BIG IF, but what if I am right and the freewillers are wrong about Inclusivism and the indispensable nature of presenting the gospel? That is a huge risk to take. Why? Because the remaining 70% are going to hell apart from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In order have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ those remaining 70% must have faith in Christ. In order to have faith in Christ you must be told about Christ and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead.
Romans 10:5-17 states (ESV):
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Brother Bob said:
I see what your doing now Bob. Your looking up Engish words.
The word used is..menounge...meaning ..(nay surely, nay rather)
If it was a YES as you say...then it would mean no. Read what was asked By Paul. Then you will understand what I mean.
In the end...it does mean Yes indeed...or something like that
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status