Reconciling Two

[Dave G]

@Blank
As far as Lutheran baptismal regeneration, I see that as being closely related ( but not exactly ) to Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration...
Where being born again and receiving God's grace is a result of one's baptism performed in the correct manner and by the correct person.

See here: Introduction to Sacramentology: Baptismal Regeneration – a Scriptural Apology

Contrary to this,
I hold that being born again is an uninfluenced act of God towards one of His elect ( the person whom God has written in His book of life prior to creating the world ) completely independent of anyone's wishes, at some point in their earthly lives.
It very closely precedes their hearing the words of God during the preaching of them, and their believing them and being sealed ( indwelt ) with the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is simply a physical representation of that which the Lord has done spiritually to the believer in Jesus Christ.

In other words, Scripturally I would be considered a "Baptist" in my beliefs...
Specifically a "sovereign grace / pre-mil / post-trib " Baptist.

 

[Blank]

Some denominations see their partaking of them as being both physical and spiritual, such as Roman Catholics.
From reading articles and forum posts over the years, they seem to believe that the elements are imbued with His actual body and blood when they are blessed by a priest.

Yes, well I don't see it as a re-sacrificing of Christ at each Mass,

Hebrews 7:27 ASV
who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.

 

[Blank]

As far as Lutheran baptismal regeneration, I see that as being closely related ( but not exactly ) to Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration...
Where being born again and receiving God's grace is a result of one's baptism performed in the correct manner and by the correct person.

One thing is for sure, it is a form of Church growth. "Wet the tots to increase the numbers, who cares if they're truly regenerated"

Contrary to this,
I hold that being born again is an uninfluenced act of God towards one of His elect ( the person whom God has written in His book of life prior to creating the world ) completely independent of anyone's wishes, at some point in their earthly lives.
It very closely precedes their hearing the words of God during the preaching of them, and their believing them and being sealed ( indwelt ) with the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is simply a physical representation of that which the Lord has done spiritually to the believer in Jesus Christ.

In other words, Scripturally I would be considered a "Baptist" in my beliefs...
Specifically a "sovereign grace / pre-mil / post-trib " Baptist.

I come pretty close to monergism myself...

John 1:13 ASV
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[JesusFan]

I think I have read you say on multiple occasions that every individual has the opportunity to change the outcome of their destiny. If you have not said that, forgive me, I was away for a little while.

Regardless, some will say that every individual is on equal ground to either accept or reject the Gospel message. My argument is that’s not necessarily the case. As you said before, you were born into a Christian family so God had already given you a head start. God did not give that same advantage to an atheist born into an atheist family. If that’s the case, does everyone really have an equal chance?

The great news on this regardless of circumstances and settings born into, God has committed to making sure somehow and in some fashion His chosen elect in Christ shall be given the message of the gospel

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, I can.
I can tell you what I see God's word saying in many places, but I'll give you some Scriptures...
and if you're willing, let me know how you see them:

" And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region." ( Acts 13:44-49 ).

" And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and [my] Father are one." ( John 10:22-30 )

And who are those sinners who can hear and receive with joy and with saving faith Jesus as Lord and savior then? All to the Father has chosen to give unto Jesus, and saved by the working of the Holy Spirit

 

[JesusFan]

Nonsense, there is no verse that says tools for wrath.

Vessels of wrath

 

[JesusFan]

Total nonsense, false, wrong and evil.

Babes and mature refers to those now in Christ, not ones yet to get saved

 

[JesusFan]

I agree in the example of Paul. Where I caution Calvinists is that I just don't see the principle in scripture that those who do not get saved like Paul, or even like C.S. Lewis were not shown real grace by God. Grace that could have resulted in their salvation. This is where I think @Silverhair has a point. I think it is wrong to judge the amount of grace God must give and apply some standard of what we think is enough. And I think it is wrong to say that if the amount of grace given to each person is not equal then God is unfair. And, it is taught in scripture that we are cautioned not to reject any grace or calling we receive, or to harden ourselves or to consider ourselves wise or good, lest we be judicially hardened.

What I don't think is taught in scripture is that God, on his part, truly has set up most of humanity to be damned, and that this was done well before they were conceived, and that God has a natural animosity towards them that is original with God from the beginning of time. So I do believe that all men who hear the gospel are given enough grace that God can rightfully judge them if they reject the grace they have. The fact is most of us who are saved would agree, no matter what your theology, that God has acted towards us personally, with far more grace than was "owed" us and with far more patience and tolerance than we deserve. So we are kind of caught in a bind. On one hand, we don't dare say that the only reason I got saved and some other fella didn't was because I was more responsive and better. But at the same time, I just don't see in scripture arbitrary hatred of the person sitting next to you by God as the reason you are saved and not him. So in some things we have to bite our lips and be thankful.

Majority are lost due to their desires and willing to turn aside from the offered grace of the Cross of Christ, preferring darkness to the light, and even IF God granted saving grace towards all, which is n o biblcal doctrine, they woudl still al reject unless and until the Holy Spirit enabled them to be regenerated unto saving faith and turning unto Jesus as savior and Lord now

 

[JesusFan]

Well, that makes two of us.

I don't agree with the principle of "sacraments" ( sacred elements ) as to me, it comes from a misunderstanding of the Scriptures pertaining Christ's body and blood.
Some denominations see their partaking of them as being both physical and spiritual, such as Roman Catholics.
From reading articles and forum posts over the years, they seem to believe that the elements are imbued with His actual body and blood when they are blessed by a priest.

I agree with most who the RCC considers as "protestants", specifically old time Baptists, who hold that they are symbolic of His body that was broken for us, and His blood that was shed for us as His children.

That's how I personally understand all the Scriptural passages that mention them.

sacramental saving gracing would make salvation a mixture of grace and good works so is not the real gospel of Christ

 

[JesusFan]

@Blank
As far as Lutheran baptismal regeneration, I see that as being closely related ( but not exactly ) to Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration...
Where being born again and receiving God's grace is a result of one's baptism performed in the correct manner and by the correct person.

See here: Introduction to Sacramentology: Baptismal Regeneration – a Scriptural Apology

Contrary to this,
I hold that being born again is an uninfluenced act of God towards one of His elect ( the person whom God has written in His book of life prior to creating the world ) completely independent of anyone's wishes, at some point in their earthly lives.
It very closely precedes their hearing the words of God during the preaching of them, and their believing them and being sealed ( indwelt ) with the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is simply a physical representation of that which the Lord has done spiritually to the believer in Jesus Christ.

In other words, Scripturally I would be considered a "Baptist" in my beliefs...
Specifically a "sovereign grace / pre-mil / post-trib " Baptist.

very close indeed to Catholics view, with big difference being Rome sees salving grace inherit in the sacrament of water baptism, while lutheryn see it that the Holy Spirit uses that to impart saving faith to infant while water baptized. Both scripturally erronous though

 

[Blank]

The great news on this regardless of circumstances and settings born into, God has committed to making sure somehow and in some fashion His chosen elect in Christ shall be given the message of the gospel

Didn't God ordain the means as well?

 

[Van]

I don't believe Scripture would be wrong on this point. It's more of a point that we are covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Romans 3 refers more to those outside of Christ or Christ's rejectors

1) No one suggested Scripture was wrong on this point, the suggestion was your understanding of scripture was wrong on this point.

2) I did not see where you said, the lost seek God or the lost cannot seek God until enabled by irresistible grace.

3) The point of Romans 3:9-12 is we are all "under sin" because we do not always know our thought or deed is sinful and we do not always seek God, and therefore the OT says we are all under sin because we are sinning when we are not seeking God.

 

[Van]

Vessels of wrath

What was said?

Christ died as a ransom for all, both those to be saved and those never to be saved 2 Peter 2:1.

Even though scriptures states God created and made some as tools for/of wrath?
That Jesus for the sins of the many, but not for the all?

Rewrite claimed by JesusFan:
Scripture states God created and made some as vessels of wrath.

My answer:
Yes, we were all initially created as condemned vessels of wrath, but some of us obtained mercy thereby becoming vessels of mercy.

The consequence of the Fall (the consequence of Adam's sin) prepared us for destruction as vessels of wrath.

But God's redemption plan, prepared beforehand, before the foundation of the world, transformed us into vessels of mercy!​

 

[JesusFan]

What was said?

​

​

Even though scriptures states God created and made some as tools for/of wrath?​

That Jesus for the sins of the many, but not for the all?​

​

Rewrite claimed by JesusFan:​

Scripture states God created and made some as vessels of wrath.​

​

My answer:​

Yes, we were all initially created as condemned vessels of wrath, but some of us obtained mercy thereby becoming vessels of mercy.​

​

The consequence of the Fall (the consequence of Adam's sin) prepared us for destruction as vessels of wrath.​

​

But God's redemption plan, prepared beforehand, before the foundation of the world, transformed us into vessels of mercy!​

Jesus death as provision for the atonement of all those that He intended His death to atone for, as salvation was upon the Cross a done deal for His own

 

[JesusFan]

Didn't God ordain the means as well?

Yes, that means that he will make sure to somehow someway get the gospel message to His own peoples

 

[Van]

Jesus death as provision for the atonement of all those that He intended His death to atone for, as salvation was upon the Cross a done deal for His own

On and on, more false claims, more disregard for scripture. Recall Jesus "bought" those heading for destruction, 1 Peter 2:1, so the claim of JesusFan is unbiblical nonsense.

 

[Blank]

1) No one suggested Scripture was wrong on this point, the suggestion was your understanding of scripture was wrong on this point.

Then I must have misunderstood this statement of yours...
" scripture teaches no one ever seeks God, when verse after verse teaches that they do!"

I did not see where you said, the lost seek God or the lost cannot seek God until enabled by irresistible grace.

I don't believe I said that either.

The point of Romans 3:9-12 is we are all "under sin" because we do not always know our thought or deed is sinful and we do not always seek God, and therefore the OT says we are all under sin because we are sinning when we are not seeking God.

You would have to take all of Romans (not just three verses) in context, especially Romans 5, where we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

 

[JesusFan]

Then I must have misunderstood this statement of yours...
" scripture teaches no one ever seeks God, when verse after verse teaches that they do!"

I don't believe I said that either.

You would have to take all of Romans (not just three verses) in context, especially Romans 5, where we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

Van seems to double speak quite a bit, and refused to admit that in positions like God is into open theism, lost sinners do seek after God, and that Babes refers to lost sinners not saved immature followers of Christ, that He is dead wrong, and also how His strawman calvinism is that none of us really teach and believe regarding Calvinism!

 

[Van]

Then I must have misunderstood this statement of yours...
" scripture teaches no one ever seeks God, when verse after verse teaches that they do!"

I don't believe I said that either.

You would have to take all of Romans (not just three verses) in context, especially Romans 5, where we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

3) Your apparent understanding of being "under sin" because none of us always understand how not to sin, and more than that, none of us always seek God, which is a sin, results in the mistaken, out of context, claim scripture teaches no one ever seeks God, when verse after verse teaches that they do!

If you are willing to edit my statements like you did above, there is no point in attempting discussion. I was specifically addressing mistaken interpretation.

Then you again did not answer my question, but unhelpfully said you did not say.

Lastly you make a claim all of Romans somehow mysteriously supports your bogus claim. Again I see no point of continuing.

 

[Blank]

) Your apparent understanding of being "under sin" because none of us always understand how not to sin,

I am not too worried about being 'under sin' when I know Christ's righteousness and His blood covers all that.

results in the mistaken, out of context, claim scripture teaches no one ever seeks God, when verse after verse teaches that they do!

Reread Romans one and two to get a better idea of Man's depravity

If you are willing to edit my statements like you did above, there is no point in attempting discussion. I was specifically addressing mistaken interpretation.

Sorry for whatever.

Then you again did not answer my question, but unhelpfully said you did not say.

What's your question again?

Lastly you make a claim all of Romans somehow mysteriously supports your bogus claim. Again I see no point of continuing.

If you're presuppositional viewpoint sees it as bogus perhaps it would be that's not to continue.