The world the way John uses it NEVER refers to the "elect". His use of the phrase throughout his letters, particularly prefixed with "whole" is in regards to sinful mankind.
Get this and your theology will fix itself
-
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
Get this and your theology will fix itself
Who is the "you" are are accusing, and why do you automatically assume it hasn't been studied or understood by that "you"? What purpose does a statment like this even make, if I disagree with you it is obvious you have no understanding? Quite an arrogant approach to debate.
Do you also agree with Luke's understanding that someone can be regenerated and perish not having eternal life? If so, could it be possible there are other "you"'s that have not studied this through?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah...cool. I just didn't get that impression from the context. Thanks.
glfredrick
New Member
I thought about your final statement in this paragraph some more last night.
In a sense, you are admitting my point in saying we "strip
I am well aware of the ramifications involved in a statement of that nature, and how people will in turn then say that if ALL is in God's hands, then God Himself is culpable, but that is simply not true, and it is merely a point argued from a very (sinful) human perspective. We rightly say and know that there is no shadow of evil within God -- He is all good, all the time. So, we know (and know that it is heretical and blasphemous) that attributing evil to God, even as we attribute utter sovereignty to Him is the work of the enemy. It just cannot be so, and it is not so.
So, we end up at a point where we have some semblance of freedom of will, but that freedom is limited to moral choices, for which we are responsible, and our moral choices are tainted by the fact that we are sinners, which means that they are based in sinful thought, word, and deed. The Bible says that "all our works are as filthy rags..." That would include works related to choice in salvation. Without God, we have no salvation, and without God, any seeming choice to choose Christ is impossible, so at the end of the day, our wills are best explained (as the Bible explains them) as being either "slaves to sin" or "slaves to Christ" without further rights until the point in time when we are set free of our slave nature by the fully glorified body, when we are finally fully "saved."
Oh, am I upsetting you? LOL
No offense, but some tremendous evangelical scholars have disagreed with this.
Reformed theology is huge on grace. We need to realize that. We also need to realize that John Calvin had little to do with "5-point" Calvinism.
Again, this is an issue of perspective. It is apparent to us that we have free will, but we understand precious little about what goes on above. God is ultimately sovereign and any way God chooses to interact with humankind is okay.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are not going to answer the question and instead throw around baseless ad hominem's I would take the advice of the person living in the glass house...
Thats hilarious dog....I'm really getting a laugh at that....oh Gad, Oh Gad!!! ehhhhh.... nah, not even worth my time...go tell that to someone who cares...lol lol .....thanks for that belly laugh
glfredrick
New Member
We are not angels, nor Satan.
Adam and Eve had the same freedom of will that angels and Satan (himself an angel of the highest order) did. They had a choice. The rest of us are born, essentially, choice-less, save for God's grace extended to us by God's actions, which pay the way and make possible our life.
Why do you think the underlying Greek word for "gospel" means "good news?"
If WE are responsible for coming to God, as an expression of our free will, and/or WE are not born in sin, then WE are essentially God, but merely fail to live up to the standards required.
The Bible makes very clear that there are NO POSSIBLE STANDARDS that we can live up to, hence, we are dead without hope unless or until God makes a way for us, through Jesus Christ.
Not meant to be funny, you have an odd sense of humor. Apparently your accusations are baseless and you like to simply sow discord.
How is a choiceless person held accountable for not choosing?
As seen here, false presuppositions lead to false conclusions. Who is responsible for putting their gift of "saving faith" once they receive it? Not being born in sin due to God granting man choice is a non sequitur.
While this is true, it does not discount nor go against man's ability / responsibility.
...and have supported infant baptism, etc.
Scripture determines context, not a theologian. A proper hermeneutic approach does not allow for that understanding, nor does the greek.
Hmmm...wow, so that's it? You're right and they're wrong? Not even a hint of question that you're correct? Talk about divisive.
We've discussed elsewhere that paedobaptists have their own biblical case and follow their conscience. It's the same with this issue. There's no hint of dishonesty in interpretation, merely a different conviction.
Ohhhh, LOL....no not at all, wrong again...I just dont think it's worth fighting over, specifically if you havent thought it out. Personally I could care less about this idiocy but be my guest, reveal yourself .... It makes for quite a stunningly superficial sideshow that I enjoy watching...kind of a Springer quality to it.
Can we rip apart Catholics next? Or mess with the Jews....they are used to being scape goated.
Question for you Dog, is this what Christians do to one another? No, No its very very funny cause thats the display of love you want broadcast to the world, Right!
Pot or kettle?
Besides, if you could care less, why are you here? Trolling? You have yet to make one intelligible argument on a DEBATE forum...you really have no business calling anything "idiocy".
I was simply making a point...you read too much into it. Your point was some great scholars agreed that the "world" meant "elect" (dont' know why the Holy Spirit would not have just used elecktos there...but anyway...). I pointed out that some equally great scholars believe Scripture states we should baptize infants, so it is up to Scripture in context to dictate the meaning of a world, not a great scholar.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
The idea behind equivocating "the world" in John with the elect is theologically driven, not textually driven. The word says, and stands for, what it says in the context of the passage. There are many other places that we can make the arguments pro and con for election and salvation than John 3:16, so no doctrine is harmed in making this statement. :thumbsup:
- Status