Repentence and the elect

[Tom Butler]

Yes, except Romans chapter eight is not talking about lost people living in their depravity. Romans chapter eight is talking about saved people living carnally.

So then, you're saying saved people do not have the ability to please God, nor can they be subject to the law of God?

 

[skypair]

Is repentence necessary for the elect?

Quite obviously it is - unless the wish to continue in willful sin.

Ok, whichever, yes or no, are the elect the only ones that can repent?

Are you saying "elect" as in "saved?"

Why don't we say it this way --- No one can be saved without repenting. It is part of the "what must we do to be saved."

What happens "IF" the non-elect repent?

There is no such creature. You're either saved or not saved.

skypair

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

So then, you're saying saved people do not have the ability to please God, nor can they be subject to the law of God?

Brother Tom,

No, what I am saying is, do not take a verse out context to use it as a proof text for something. The verse to which you refer in your question to me must be kept within the context of Romans chapter eight and within the context of flow of thought within that Epistle. Out of context, a verse can be easily misrepresented to say something it does not say.

For instance, someone may quote you as saying "Lance Ketchum is really strong." If someone quotes you as saying that as they are discussing theology, it would carry a connotation that I was strong theologically. If someone qoutes you as making that statement within the discussion of what they do in their exercise program, it would carry a connotation that I was strong physically. However, if the fact that you made that statement within the context of a discussion on body odor, it would mean something completely different than the meaning you intended.

See the following study for the context of Romans 8:7: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 61.pdf

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Good day, Deafposttrib

Do you have a source for this "out of control".

Did not Jesus say in Jn 6, no man can come to me. That is a universal inabilty on the part of man.

I guess that would depend on how you define free-will, a will that is effected / constrained by external forces that it can not control is by no means "free" in the objective sense of the word.

Recommend reading "free-wiill" a slave by CH Spurgeon

"Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous"

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm

In Him,

Bill

Christ’s statement in John chapter 6 ("no man can come to me") must be understood in the historical context of the gospels in transitioning from the book of Malachi and the prophet's statements in chapters two and three into the Church Age. God had castaway the Mosaic Covenant Priesthood of Levi (corporately) because of their rejection and perversion of the gospel in the Law. Because of this, many of the Priesthood, and those they had deceived with their perversions of Truth, were now rejected of God (reprobate). God was no longer drawing them (John 6:44). Therefore, these individuals were excluded. God was drawing all others to Him (John 12:32). The reprobate were not to get a second chance. They had understood and rejected the gospel in the Law and now God had rejected them (Luke 16:27-31).

To make John chapter six refer to God electing some people to be saved and only drawing those He has elected is a misrepresentaion and distortion of what the text is saying.

 

[MB]

Is repentence necessary for the elect?

Ok, whichever, yes or no, are the elect the only ones that can repent?

What happens "IF" the non-elect repent?

In order to answer this I need to know why you believe there is a thing called non elect. You see Paul told us this;
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

In this verse as in many it clearly shows that these Gentiles will hear the gospel and that Salvation has been sent to them. The only thing left is for the Gentiles to make their calling and election sure as in;

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Please read the first 9 verse to see what things Peter is talking about.
MB

 

[webdog]

Everything is dictated by God, otherwise He wouldn't be in control, wouldn't be sovereign.

Apply this thinking to EVERYTHING including sin.

 

[bbas 64]

Apply this thinking to EVERYTHING including sin.

Good Day, Webdog

Gen 20:5 Said he not himself unto me, She is my sister? And she, even she herself said, He is my brother. In the integrity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this.
Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in the dream, Yea, I know that in the integrity of thy heart thou has done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Gen 20:7 Now therefore restore the man's wife. For he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. And if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

God can is able to withold pepole from sinning

Sure why not.....

IN Him,

Bill

 

[webdog]

Good Day, Webdog

Gen 20:5 Said he not himself unto me, She is my sister? And she, even she herself said, He is my brother. In the integrity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this.
Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in the dream, Yea, I know that in the integrity of thy heart thou has done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Gen 20:7 Now therefore restore the man's wife. For he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. And if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

God can is able to withold pepole from sinning

Sure why not.....

IN Him,

Bill

That wasn't really my point, but the fact that if everything was dictated by God, then every rape, murder and sin we commit is also in that category.

 

[pinoybaptist]

You cannot have it both ways. If you accept Calvinism's doctrine of Sovereign Grace, you accept their doctrine of indeterminate causation (God can only be in absolute control when He is the absolute cause of all things). That is a dark side of Calvinism most Calvinists want to run away from and is a point where you separate true Calvinists from Quasi-Calvinists and Pseudo-Calvinists (anything less than five-pointers).

I am not a Calvinist, Dr. Ketchum.
And why do you have to bold out your posts, if I may ask ?

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

I am not a Calvinist, Dr. Ketchum.
And why do you have to bold out your posts, if I may ask ?

I bold them to make them a little easier for me to see. On my screen, the black printing on the blue background is more gray and hard to read. If it is a problem, I will stop doing it.

I am sorry Brother for the misleading statement regarding Calvinism. Please forgive me. I was speaking in generalities. I did not mean to imply I thought you were a Calvinist. Although, it does appear from your post that you believe that certain people are elected to be saved. Am I wrong in my understanding of that?

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

To say that God dictates everything is to come dangerously close to the erroneous doctrine of Absolute Predestination.

By the way Brother, the theological name for what you refer to as "Absolute Predestination" is [FONT=&quot]Monovolitionism.[/FONT]

 

[Jarthur001]

By the way Brother, the theological name for what you refer to as "Absolute Predestination" is [FONT=&quot]Monovolitionism.[/FONT]

state your source other then yourself for monovolitionism.

I have never heard of it before.

Absolute Predestination on the other hand, is well known.

 

[skypair]

To make John chapter six refer to God electing some people to be saved and only drawing those He has elected is a misrepresentaion and distortion of what the text is saying.

Right on! Notice that Jesus is foretelling the Eucharist and what it means later in that same chapter. He is speaking prospectively of eating His body and drinking His blood that, for His disciples, there was not "context" yet!

skypair

 

[skypair]

God can is able to withold pepole from sinning

Sure why not..... l

Bill -- it's GREAT, isn't it, how God is able to predestinate His children's path! As a matter of fact, for Abraham's side, it has been noted that God did not give Abraham a true, "inheritance" son on account of his "daliances"/"concubesience" with the world this way.

skypair

 

[JustChristian]

Good Day, Baptist Believer

Not sure how germaine your comments are to the text I posted, draw some premise for me of your basis.

In Him,

Bill

This was your statement.

Repentance first must be granted, before one can repent. Those who are not given (from God) repentance will not nor can they repent.

Your saying that repentence must be granted by God. In nmy view, that's the same as saying that man cannot first choose to repent. Isn't that correct? That's the same as saying that man doesn't have the free will to repent. Repentence is "dictated" by God. That's exactly what I said.

Of course, since they have no free will everything must be dictated by God. Right?

Understand?

 

[JustChristian]

Yes, except Romans chapter eight is not talking about lost people living in their depravity. Romans chapter eight is talking about saved people living carnally.

Saved people don't live carnally. They will sin but will repent. They will not live a life dominated by sin (carnal).

 

[Tom Butler]

Saved people don't live carnally. They will sin but will repent. They will not live a life dominated by sin (carnal).

With this I generally agree. Do you also agree that this verse may refer to the lost?

Romans 8:7-8 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

.

 

[Tom Butler]

Romans 8:7-8 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Dr. Ketchum replied:

Yes, except Romans chapter eight is not talking about lost people living in their depravity. Romans chapter eight is talking about saved people living carnally.

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
So then, you're saying saved people do not have the ability to please God, nor can they be subject to the law of God?

No, what I am saying is, do not take a verse out context to use it as a proof text for something. The verse to which you refer in your question to me must be kept within the context of Romans chapter eight and within the context of flow of thought within that Epistle. Out of context, a verse can be easily misrepresented to say something it does not say.

I understand context. I simply take Paul at his word when he says the carnal mind is at enmity against God. Can a true believer really be at enmityagainst God? Paul says a carnal mind is unable to be subject to the law of God. And he says that not only does a carnal mind not please God, he can't please God.

In Romans 8:6, Paul says to be carnally minded is death.

I think the concept of "carnal Christians" is flawed. Baptist Believer is right to say

Saved people don't live carnally. They will sin but will repent. They will not live a life dominated by sin (carnal).

 

[Salamander]

Quite obviously it is - unless the wish to continue in willful sin.

Are you saying "elect" as in "saved?"

Then I can surmise that you believe that man does have a will to choose to be saved or not?

The elect are saved.

Why don't we say it this way --- No one can be saved without repenting. It is part of the "what must we do to be saved."

God said it first, so he has that authority!

There is no such creature. You're either saved or not saved.

skypair

You just contradicted yourself in that a person is not saved until they repent.

The question I have asked is it only the elect who are given opportunity to repent?

 

[Salamander]

I am not a Calvinist, Dr. Ketchum.
And why do you have to bold out your posts, if I may ask ?

Maybe he is "dictated" to do so?:smilewinkgrin: