• 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!

Saved from what ?

P

psalms109:31

Active Member
My conclusion you can't live on a piece of the truth you are willing to accept and reason your way into it.

The wages of my sin is death not faith not trust. That is the wages of my sin nothing but death will pay it. So I am saved by grace if not I still owe that debt.

That is what faith taught me. So I am saved by grace through faith. I did not get this from myself but through Him and His word. I trust in God through Jesus Christ that He paid a debt that I could not. If I paid it myself I would not be saved. So trusting in God is not a work I am secure in Christ Jesus.
 
webdog

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
pinoybaptist said:
didn't Satan use Scripture to tempt the Author of Scripture Himself ? Why shouldn't pride, which is of Satan, twist Scripture to deny God the honor and glory due to Him only,
You all want a piece of that honor and glory by stating that yes Jesus died on the cross and conquered death, yes the Father had to turn away from the Son because of the sins of His people, but in the end your acknowledgement of Him and your faith in Him clinched the deal.

that is satanic and I say that with no apologies.
Click to expand...
Maybe p4t will be along to shout "strawman" loud enough for you to hear it. Your deliberate misrepresentation is unchristlike.
 
H

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The problem is in how the OP defines "cooperate". If cooperate is meant to imply that God has half of a necklace that has saving power, and we have the other half that also contains some kind of saving power and connect them together, then yes, cooperation is erroneous because their is nothing salvific within ourselves.

HOWEVER, that's because cooperation is erroneously defined. Cooperation is merely God being the giver, and we being the receivers, but God has made receiving conditional on our doing so through faith. Faith is a response to being obedient to God's illumination and enlightenment of the gospel. (Paul "I was not DISOBEDIENT to the heavenly vision" Acts 26:19).

And again, Calvinists/Reformers arrive at this straw man argument by mischaracterizing what we Non Cals say by cooperation, and because Calvinism defines faith as a work which is erroneous. Thus because they impose the caricature of faith being a work upon Non Cals, they come to the false conclusion that being obedient in response by faith is a work.
Click to expand...

Precisely.......Naturally, if you apply a Calvinist pre-supposition to non-Calvinist ideology, you will go wrong every time, and arrive upon ludicrous conclusions.

You can't do that however, and understand a non-Cal theology. In order for two sides to debate, they have to understand the premises the other side assumes.
One main one:
1.) "Faith" is not a meritorious "work" of any kind.......it is merely a passive response.
A Calvinist cannot communicate with a non-Cal unless they divorce themselves from viewing non-Cal Theology through that supposition.
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A Calvinist, Old School Sovereign Baptist or anyone who is by in large Monergistic has to conclude that the Non-Calvinist priori presupposition does not include a totally sovereign God.

If we evaluate it that way then there will be understanding but nowhere will there be commitment from us to your POV. Thats why I believe there needs to be separation between the two belief systems & why I am against SBC initiatives. Its a bad marriage & one that eventually will end in divorce.
 
C

convicted1

Guest
quantumfaith said:
fourthed......I was a "synergist" around before you guys made synergism cool. :)
Click to expand...

fifthed.........God loved me by sending His Son to die for me.....me, the most vile, wicked, self-centered, self-loving person. He called and I began begging, crying, pleeing for Him to save me. He found me in the waste-howling wilderness, in the desert land.
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
convicted1 said:
fifthed.........God loved me by sending His Son to die for me.....me, the most vile, wicked, self-centered, self-loving person. He called and I began begging, crying, pleeing for Him to save me. He found me in the waste-howling wilderness, in the desert land.
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
salzer mtn

salzer mtn

Well-Known Member
Pinoy please explain these scriptures. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. Many cals and sovereign grace preachers explain this scripture like this. The gospel of Christ is not the gospel of the Arminians but when the true gospel is preached God can bless it with his Spirit to become the effectual call to a individual and the proof of his election is faith and repentance toward God or if at this time God does not anoint the gospel with the Spirit it becomes a general call to the individual but he is still held by God responsible. Christ also said, except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, so how could a person be regenerated by the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ but never know of Christ ? You might also take a look at Rom 10:12-17 and 1 Cor 1:21.
 
H

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Earth said:
A Calvinist, Old School Sovereign Baptist or anyone who is by in large Monergistic has to conclude that the Non-Calvinist priori presupposition does not include a totally sovereign God.

If we evaluate it that way then there will be understanding but nowhere will there be commitment from us to your POV. Thats why I believe there needs to be separation between the two belief systems & why I am against SBC initiatives. Its a bad marriage & one that eventually will end in divorce.
Click to expand...

No need to "commit" to the POV......that's not what's being discussed. Just that, in order to speak or debate intelligently and fruitfully about said POV, one must not super-impose given assumptions ONTO the back of a system which DENIES those assertions. You can't correctly guage the coherence of a system of belief if you insert pre-suppositions which that system denies.

No one would suggest you ACCEPT those assertions....just that you only judge the coherence of that system from it's own premises and not YOURS. That's what Dr. J. is talking about, and I agree.
I will give you an example:
Arminians tend to think that Calvinism has God converting men AGAINST their will.
Calvinists deny that, and maintain that he makes men "willing" (usually anyway, some don't).

In order for me to debate the coherence of a compatibilist view....I cannot import my pre-supposition of LFW INTO it.

Similarly, you couldn't guage the coherence of Arminianism if you judge it with the presumption that "faith" is a "work".
You would have to judge the systems co-herence according to it's committment that Faith is NOT a work...........

You don't have to BELIEVE that, or "commit" to it as you say. You simply judge it's coherence accordingly. Does that clear up what I'm saying some for you?
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HeirofSalvation said:
No need to "commit" to the POV......that's not what's being discussed. Just that, in order to speak or debate intelligently and fruitfully about said POV, one must not super-impose given assumptions ONTO the back of a system which DENIES those assertions. You can't correctly guage the coherence of a system of belief if you insert pre-suppositions which that system denies.

No one would suggest you ACCEPT those assertions....just that you only judge the coherence of that system from it's own premises and not YOURS. That's what Dr. J. is talking about, and I agree.
I will give you an example:
Arminians tend to think that Calvinism has God converting men AGAINST their will.
Calvinists deny that, and maintain that he makes men "willing" (usually anyway, some don't).

In order for me to debate the coherence of a compatibilist view....I cannot import my pre-supposition of LFW INTO it.

Similarly, you couldn't guage the coherence of Arminianism if you judge it with the presumption that "faith" is a "work".
You would have to judge the systems co-herence according to it's committment that Faith is NOT a work...........

You don't have to BELIEVE that, or "commit" to it as you say. You simply judge it's coherence accordingly. Does that clear up what I'm saying some for you?
Click to expand...

I understood before you even brought it up. :laugh:
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
pinoybaptist said:
1st, the god of Islam never sent anyone from his kingdom to redeem or save his adherents.
second, you, again, have completely missed what I am saying, in your blind adherence to your faith's roman catholic roots.

God's drawing of His people is entirely independent of any preaching, or witnessing, you may have heard, or experienced.

if you think you responded in faith, it is because God FIRST loved you, quickened you, drew you, and worked His will in you.

When whoever "witnessed" to you, or "preached" to you, you were RIPE for the harvest, made ready and willing by God, according to His purposes for you which is for you to be part of His CALLED OUT in whatever locality or area you were.

And you were RIPE for the harvest, because you were God's FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. You were never a goat, you were always sheep, and you can take no credit AT ALL for any hope you have.

Your faith was given to you, your repentance was a sign that you were and have always been His.

How totally depressing it is that we have to argue about something which should be a natural conclusion for blood-bought, grace recipients - that God ALONE has the credit, from start to end, for any hope of heaven we have. Unless, of course.......
Click to expand...

Not one iota of my faith comes from Roman Catholicism. Yours, on the other hand, comes from a state-churchist, baby sprinkling, soul liberty denying, persecuting murderer whose beliefs were unknown prior to him.
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Earth said:
A Calvinist, Old School Sovereign Baptist or anyone who is by in large Monergistic has to conclude that the Non-Calvinist priori presupposition does not include a totally sovereign God.

If we evaluate it that way then there will be understanding but nowhere will there be commitment from us to your POV. Thats why I believe there needs to be separation between the two belief systems & why I am against SBC initiatives. Its a bad marriage & one that eventually will end in divorce.
Click to expand...

If you and I can get along, why can't everyone else? :)
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Three times now within a few days, my views have been attributed to Satan.

I think what I'll do instead of leave the forum, as I considered, or getting into a p*****g contest with idiots, as I have done too often, I'll simply hit the report button. Maybe something will be done about self-righteous hypocrites who think they know the mind of God calling believers "satanic", which would seem to me to be a violation of forum policy, as an offense subject to banning. Not that I want anyone to be banned. I say let them stay and heap up piles of... well, fill in the blank.
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
Rippon said:
No,it would not. There are men of few words. You are a man of a few symbols.
Click to expand...

simplicity-quotes.jpg


It is vain to do with more what can be done with less (William of Occam)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

genesis12

Member
kyredneck said:
Actually Pinoy is perfectly capable of answering PhonyDoc on his own, IF he even wants to waste his time to do so.

From casual observance, it is a waste of time, we ALL already have our minds made up on just about everything.

We carry on these endless dialogs to break the monotony in our lives? Or something along those lines. It's definitely not to save poor souls from hell.

Everybody thinks they're defending the truth.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Yep, I can go away for 5 years, come back, and the debates are all the same. Fruitless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top