Particular
Well-Known Member
I showed you your own words that your view is Pelagian. I cannot do more than that. Live in denial if you must.
-
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!
Single Predestination
- Thread starter ivdavid
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes, I said:
You have not proven that is a denial of the sinful nature of mankind from Adam. I do not deny the sinful nature of mankind because of the Adam's disobedance. I hold a view point of total depravity of all men, Romans 3:11.
Last edited by a moderator:
Really then your an atheist how does that make you feel?. Do you think you can convince me by your insults? You need to take your medication your acting like an atheist.
Particular
Well-Known Member
If humans are born in sin, they are sinners. If they are not elect, they are not in the Lambs Book of Life. Therefore, not all humans start out in the Lambs Book of Life. If they did, they would all be born sinless, which is Pelagianism.
So, retract your statement that all humans are first found in the Lambs Book of Life or accept you have a Pelagian view.
Particular
Well-Known Member
You are wrong they are sometimes different things. Was Pharaoh not chosen to be raised up and harden.Was Judas not chosen to be a disciple. He was a Jew and was elect yet he is in hell What good did election do for him?. You can't prove your own election yet you claim you are. I say your full of nonsense and imagination.
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
You show that chosen and elect are synonyms. Pharoah was chosen (elected) to be hardened. Judas was chosen (elected) to be a traitor.
There is no reason to try water down the reality that God, by His Sovereign right, raises up evil to do His will.
Habakkuk 1:5-6 “Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told. For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own.
Your statements remind me of a nagging woman. Are you a woman? because you certainly act like a nagging woman
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
Nope Married for 45 years soon to be 46 to the same beautiful woman. And no she does not nag.
MB
Well don't flatter your self with your imagination I'm certainly not interested. I have been married for 45 years soon to be 46. My poor brother married the nag
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
As soon as you prove I'm pelagain. This board is for debate of Christian doctrines You say I'm pelagain prove that I worked for my Salvation. I can prove that Calvinist have to work to keep there's. They call it Lordship Salvation.
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
See what I meant by comparing you to a nagging old woman. The topic isn't MB but single predestination.
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
This thread isn't about control.
MB
Particular
Well-Known Member
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination.
Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.
LINK TO SOURCE: Is Double Predestination Biblical?(1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold);
(2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds);
(3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and
(4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds).
The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: “Now tell me your theology without the dialectic so I can understand it!” Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner’s view of predestination the only way to avoid “double” predestination is with the use of “double-talk.”(2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds);
(3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and
(4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds).
Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.
- R. C. Sproul
We're just going to get lost in semantics if we go down this route. There'd probably be several back and forth posts on just what each term is supposed to mean - and I'm willing to engage but do you really think this is what the contradictions that I pointed out in my last post truly hinges on?
I don't agree. The Soul is distinct from the Mind as distinguished independently in Matt 22:37. In any case, the Mind is as you said, the cumulative understanding and conscious and subconscious connection of thoughts - and this could be associated with either the flesh or the spirit depending on which nature is being walked in. Isn't the Mind associated with the Spirit in Eph 4:23?
Not entirely sure - but if I'm following this thread of thought right, you seem to be equating spirit=heart and then you're showing from Scriptures that since the spirit is perfected now, it's the same as the heart (assumed to be equal to the spirit) being perfected now - therefore disproving my belief that the regenerated heart could fall away in the non-elect?
I definitely do not hold the spirit=heart, so i don't run into the above problem. Also, where are you getting such equations from? Isn't it plain that the heart is our central core of beliefs. Every personal truth premise that I hold, rightly or wrongly, is stored in my heart and determines my belief framework. Every new belief is accepted only if it's found consistent and compatible with the already existing beliefs in my heart. If I already hold a corrupted belief such as 'my bodily pleasure over pain is the most significant determiner of my emotional well-being', then the seed of God's truth to pick up my cross and follow Him will be rejected when read in Scriptures or exhorted by preachers. This is the hardened heart towards the truth.
But when the Holy Spirit shines forth His penetrating light of truth in an irresistible manner, my existing inconsistencies are exposed (conviction of sin) and they collapse together. God's piercing truth is now enabled to be accepted after the hardened belief system is removed, and this is the regenerated heart. The thought connections are rewired as the renewed mind. These are sufficient to lead any man into repentance. But was there a further change in his nature - is he still in the flesh/self-nature or was he additionally birthed in the spirit/God's nature - that determines if he will persevere to the end as a new creature or fall away as the pig that turned to the mud again after being washed (2Pet 2:22).
I'll elaborate more only if you really find the necessity for it. Then again, this is a dialogue - I shouldn't be the only one answering your questions (which i am happy to). I'd think it fair that you too address the questions I've raised. Again, to make my intents clear - I'm not here for gotchas and scoring debate points. It's perfectly fine to acknowledge that some passages are difficult and that while you may not have an explanation yet, you still are not persuaded against your current overall convictions. Such acknowledgements do add up and provide a better context to considering single predestination as opposed to simply evading any challenge to calvinism. Besides, isn't calvinism the system that insists on being logically consistent - why doesn't it provide the explanations in all cases then?
- Status