Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to use it.
-
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!
ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
- Status
Actually, anything theologically driven must stand the test of proper hermeneutics. John's usage of the word elsewhere in his letters does not allow for it to mean "elect". In context of the passage (not to mention John's use of world elsewhere), "elect" does not fit. Whosoever of the elect does not fit either.
I agre that world means world. "whosoever of the elect" doesn't make sense because all the elect will be saved. "whosoever" is a kind of if statement. If somebody does one then thing another thing will happen. it implies that those that do it are from a larger pool of people. Whosoever of the world makes much more sense.
Tom Butler
New Member
Is it just my dirty mind or is this over the line?
It's normal to use vulgar slang for him not to mention inappropriate material (that had to be moderated).
glfredrick
New Member
How is a choiceless person held accountable for not choosing?
That is the problem, isn't it. There is no humanly rational reason. WE would love to say that God is wrong for holding people accountable for that, that we cannot fix. But alas, that is exactly the case with our sin.
One would have to take Amy G.'s position and say that we are not born in or with original sin to account for what you are trying to say here, and that flies directly in the face of Scripture that we do understand very clearly, i.e., "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." And, "The wages of sin is death..."
Yes, ALL humanity is doomed by birth -- period.
Harsh, hard, difficult, no, impossible!
But God, while we were yet sinners... Oh, praise Him. By His stripes we are healed! By His grace, we are saved!
You like the term "non sequitur." Here is a definition... is a Latin term for a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.
I'm not sure that either of us are laughing about what we write, and in all honestly, we're almost on the same page save for some fine points that are nuanced by our individual reads on the primary issue of God's sovereignty, as we talk out these great issues.
I'm only pointing this out because the use of a term like non sequitur is often used as a diversionary tactic (an intentional fallacy) during conversations like this. I'm not sure that is where you are wishing to go, and neither am I.
I understand that you may not agree with me about the ramifications of us being born in sin with no recourse save for God's actions on our behalf, but that is exactly what I read in the Bible. That does not eliminate our free expression of the will that God grants us --all along I've stated plainly that we do have free will. However, it is a matter of "position" rather than "action." Positionally, we cannot approach God. Neither can we by our actions, for that would be a work. So, in a sense, we are royally doomed by the simple fact of being alive (in the flesh). The extent of our will goes only as far as God will allow, and that seems to be in the area of moral choices, none of which mean a thing (really) before we come to Christ, and which can mean something after we come to Christ. I fully hold that as a soundly biblical doctrine, as do many today and many others down through the ages.
Are you saying that any human justice (which only comes by God, btw) as understood can be contrary to God's justice? Man's justice can be more just than God's? If God says to choose, He is either lying or we can choose.
I agree with Amy's understanding of Augusine's position, and does not contradict the passages you listed (have sinned is past tense).
I know what it means, and note it "often" is used in comedy, but that is not the sole use. In plain terms it is a conclusion that is realized by something that does not precede it. It's like me saying if you believe in Original Sin, you must be catholic. That is an fallacy either intentional or not contrived from a false conclusion, and is a non sequitur.
I've already proven why this is not so, brother. God commands us to do all kinds of things we cannot do and then holds us accountable for not doing them. You believe this. You believe that God commands all men to keep the ten commandments and those who never get saved and do not will answer to God for it. But you also believe that no unsaved person CAN keep the ten commandments.
It's time for you to move on from this line of reasoning that says that God cannot tell men to do what they cannot do.
Will do, quantum. BTW, my favorite preacher alive is stationed in Northern Ireland. I wish you could go and listen to him. His name is Ian Paisely.
Conversely, I have shown that there is a difference between commanding someone to do something they cannot possibly do and won't do.
You seem to not understand that salvation is a process. Once complete it is sealed. The truly saved person will persevere in faith. But the process to get to that point is, well.... a process.
There is an awakening of the spiritual conscience to the things of God. I call this regeneration. You believe in it but call it something else. I know you believe in it because you believe that no man just up and comes to God when they get good and ready. You believe that God must draw them. That's stage one.
Then there is conviction brought on by the Word of God.
Then there is faith.
Then there is repentance. (you may choose to order repentance before faith,; suits me either way.)
Then there is the washing of the blood of Christ. At this point the sinner is now saved and eternally secure.
But before that point, if they shall fall away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance seeing they crucify to themselves the son of God afresh and put him to an open shame. For these people it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness and to have turned from the holy commandment delivered unto them; but it is happened unto them according to the proverb; the dog is turned again to his own vomit and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. These people are twice dead and plucked up by the roots.
What? I don't understand.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thank you much, believe it or not, I like NT Wright, although he is in the UK.
I'm afraid at this point we are not on the same page...maybe not even the same book.
How is a choiceless person held accountable for not choosing?
Because the one holding him accountable is Almighty God and he does as he pleases. And if the person doesn't like it he should consider this: who art thou, oh man, that repliest against God, Why hast thou made me thus. Hath not the Potter power over the clay?
You already believe that God does this Webdog. God holds unsaved sinners accountable for commandments they cannot keep.
Why can't he hold the same sinners accountable for not choosing Christ?
And who among us is going to tell Him that he cannot??
Then you must get back to the Bible. That's where I am.
quantumfaith
Active Member
But my favorites are
William Lane Craig
Ravi Zacharias
Andy Stanley
Joel Osteen (not serious on this one)
Option 1: I command you to flap your arms and fly. You cannot and will not do it because it is not possible. My command is not a viable command and will not happen.
Option 2: I command you to buy a G6 plane and fly. You cannot and will not do it not because it is impossible, but because it costs too much. My command is a viable command, but will not happen.
Not the Bible I read. It doesn't even hint to a spiritually alive (regenerated) person perishing eternally.
- Status