• 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!

The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

Greektim

Well-Known Member
Not at all, and not even a fair comparison. What if someone ripped your kids from you and executed them in front of you with the sole purpose being having been born in your family? Justice?
I believe too much is put into the representation view to arrive at false conclusions.
Our conscience is God's law (justice) written on our hearts. Cultures may twist and contort it, but right is right and wrong is wrong regardless, and we instinctively know this.
To your first illustration... that is not a good equivalent for humans. However, it is a very close illustration of God's situation. God sacrificing his son to save those who were born into the family of sin is justice in the sense that sin's penalty is being carried out. But was it just for Jesus to take our place? Of course not.

I believe not enough is put into the representation view. I think even the name "adam" is closer to a title that sets him up as the representative of the adamic race.

As for the conscience, I was not referring to that. We are talking about justice. Different societies have different standards for justice and different norms for carrying out that justice. Yet we all bear a conscience. So that clearly is not the issue. Even Christians disagree about what is exactly "right is right and wrong is wrong." It is not so much instinctive as it is convictive (think I just created a word).

But as I said, I don't want to hijack this thread. This will be my last response on this issue in this thread.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Either quote me directly or represent my words correctly. I wrote:



"If" is a very important word. "If" injects either doubt or choice into a sentence. I do not believe God invites people who He has not not elected. In fact, had you taken care not to misrepresent my words you would have quoted the following:






What difficulties? If there are difficulties they reside with those who reject the DoG. I do recognize the inherent problems the DoG presents to those who don't believe them. I feel bad that they present an obstacle to believing what I consider to be biblical truth. But they are not difficulties for those who believe the DoG.



Calvinism doesn't demand that anymore than drinking water causes a person to drown. What you believe about Calvinism places you in a paradigm that produces presuppositions. I've already addressed the "invited" issue.



It is obvious that you have a skewed understanding of the DoG.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith adequately explains the sinfulness of man; both as a result of original sin and volitional sin.



Men are guilty of sin. They are sinners by omission (original sin) and sinners by commission (actual sins committed).

Yes. Mankind are born sinners through no fault of their own but through the fault of Adam. That is accepted orthodoxy in most denominations; Calvinist and Arminian. It's the semi-Pelagian view (found in some Baptist denominations) that teaches mankind does not inherit original sin.

Calvinism recognizes God's exalted and perfect personage. God is holy. He neither sins nor is the author of sin. Adam sinned as our fair and legal representative. His sin is passed on to his posterity; not because God is responsible, but because Adam is responsible.

My friend, you are closer to believing in the DoG than you know. Martin Luther lamented what he considered to be the unfair and capricious nature of God, just prior to his conversion.

Thank you for this useful post.It is direct,biblical , and accurate:thumbs:
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
One of the problems I have with your theology is the fact the Gospel preached to the "non-elect" is a mere lie and not sincere. If there was no atonement made for a particular person, and you tell them there was, how is this not a lie? I know the pat answer ("we don't know who the elect are"), but considering Scripture states the "elect" will be few compared to the many that perish, the Gospel is being presented to the many who had no provision made on their behalf.

You cannot accept or reject a gift that was never purchased for you, and a call to do just that is dishonest, insincere and a cruel joke.

is this the ole "God HAS to offer it to ALL, or else do it to NONE" in order to be "fair?"
 

Winman

Active Member
Herald, I do not agree with Augustine's theory of Original Sin. It was based almost solely on Augustine's interpretation of a flawed Latin text. Even scholars who support OS freely admit that Rom 5:12 in the original Greek is not saying Adam's sin was imputed to us. Do a little research and you will find I am telling you the truth. Other than this, OS has almost no support in scripture, and in fact there is much scripture that says God holds men accountable for their OWN sin and does not hold the son accountable for his father's sin. Read Ezekiel chapter 18 where this is repeatedly and clearly stated. Besides this, every man innately knows it is unjust to blame someone and hold them accountable for a sin committed by another person. For this reason alone (but there are MANY others) I consider Calvinism error and unscriptural. Saying this is not a difficulty for you because you simply believe is not a meaningful or valid argument, you could sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One of the oft heard criticisms levied against Calvinists is that they don't believe in evangelism. There is some truth to this charge when referring to a certain group that claims to be Calvinists, but who are not. Hyper-Calvinists have perverted the glorious Gospel of salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ by holding it captive. These are not Calvinists in any sense of the word. A true Calvinist understands that no one can be converted without first hearing, and then believing in, the Gospel.

Yes. Calvinists believe that only the elect will come to faith. We have good reasons for believing so. It is, what we believe, the bible teaches. But the Calvinist who possesses a tender heart towards the lost will not wear his Calvinism on his sleeve. He does not walk up to a sinner and ask, "Are you elect?" No. The doctrine of election is not what saves. It is the power behind the Gospel message that saves (Rom. 1:16); the applied blood of Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness into the account of the sinner. Armed with that knowledge there should be no greater evangelist than the Calvinist. God has ordained, not just the way of salvation (Christ), but also the means (the Gospel). There is no salvation apart from the Gospel. There is no such thing as spontaneous regeneration in the absence of the Gospel. If the Gospel is not preached there is no good news to proclaim. So, the Calvinist preaches it. He pleads. He almost begs sinners to believe. It is not his responsibility to ascertain whether a person has been chosen from eternity past.

Here is a worthwhile article to read on Spurgeon and evangelism, written by Tom Ascol: A LESSON FROM SPURGEON ON EVANGELISM.

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3:21

Who is it that comes to Christ? Why do they come to Christ? SOMETHING happened to them BEFORE they came to the light. What was it?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Herald, I do not agree with Augustine's theory of Original Sin. It was based almost solely on Augustine's interpretation of a flawed Latin text. Even scholars who support OS freely admit that Rom 5:12 in the original Greek is not saying Adam's sin was imputed to us. Do a little research and you will find I am telling you the truth. Other than this, OS has almost no support in scripture, and in fact there is much scripture that says God holds men accountable for their OWN sin and does not hold the son accountable for his father's sin. Read Ezekiel chapter 18 where this is repeatedly and clearly stated. Besides this, every man innately knows it is unjust to blame someone and hold them accountable for a sin committed by another person. For this reason alone (but there are MANY others) I consider Calvinism error and unscriptural. Saying this is not a difficulty for you because you simply believe is not a meaningful or valid argument, you could sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make it so.

Apostle paul used 2 men, first and second Adam, to illustrate the doctrine that ALL men are either spiritual dead in Adam, as we ALL were born as sinful beings, as Adam decided to fall from God and took ALL of us down that path, or spiritually alive again in jesus Christ

Adam represented dead men before God, Jesus represented those alive agin...

Clear teaching from the HS...

We are sinners born estranged from God, and go onto to decide to stay sinning against Him!
Sinners by birth, which is confirmed by deeds done "in the flesh"
 

jbh28

Active Member
Herald, you freely admit your doctrine makes God appear unjust and you are not surprised that many reject it.

What is surprising is that YOU believe your doctrine when YOU recognize it's difficulties.

Calvinism demands that we believe God is a liar. He calls to men and invites them when in reality they were never invited.

In Calvinism men are not guilty of sin. They are born sinners through no choice or fault of their own and are utterly helpless to escape this condition. Calvinism makes God the author of sin, men are simply being the only thing they can be, sinners. Then God unjustly punishes these men for doing the only thing they are able to do.

You are right, your doctrine makes God appear unjust. So why do you believe a doctrine that offends your God-given sense of right and wrong is true?

I guess misrepresenting is one of your favorite things.

1. God is not a liar. All are invited to him. He reject no one that comes.
2. Man is guilty of sin. What a gross representational.
3. God is not the author of sin. what a gross lie about Calvinists
4. God justly punishes men. Man is a sinner, he deserves hell.
 

Herald

New Member
kyredneck said:
Why do they come to Christ? SOMETHING happened to them BEFORE they came to the light. What was it?

Something did happen to them before they came to Christ. It is found in Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 2:4-9 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Earlier in Ephesians 2 we read that unsaved man is dead in his trespasses and sin (2:1). He is a son of disobedience serving the prince of the power of the air (Satan; 2:2). Left to his own devices this man has no hope. But then we read two of the most precious words in the bible, "But God..." Even while this unsaved man was dead and serving Satan, Christ made him alive! Who made him alive? Christ! Christ did so unilaterally. We don't read of the unsaved man choosing Christ; we read of him being made alive by a magnificent benefactor. Not only made alive but seated in the heavenly places in Christ. And lest we think the unsaved man had some part in his marvelous salvation, the Apostle Paul tells us that his salvation was by grace through faith; and not of himself, it is the gift of God.

So yes, something does happen to a person before they come to Christ.
 

Winman

Active Member
Apostle paul used 2 men, first and second Adam, to illustrate the doctrine that ALL men are either spiritual dead in Adam, as we ALL were born as sinful beings, as Adam decided to fall from God and took ALL of us down that path, or spiritually alive again in jesus Christ

Adam represented dead men before God, Jesus represented those alive agin...

Clear teaching from the HS...

We are sinners born estranged from God, and go onto to decide to stay sinning against Him!
Sinners by birth, which is confirmed by deeds done "in the flesh"

The scriptures do not say all men are dead "in Adam". The term "in Adam" is found only ONCE in all of scripture in 1 Cor 15:22. This verse does not say men are dead in Adam, it says all "die" (future tense) in Adam. You have to be alive to die, so this verse actually refutes that we are born dead in sin. Besides this, the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is clearly dealing with physical death and the future resurrection of our bodies, not spiritual death. So, you and others who use this as a proof text are pulling it out of context and misapplying it to speak of spiritual death.

That 1 Cor 15:22 is speaking of temporal life (physical death) and not spiritual death is addressed by Barnes:

All die. All mankind are subjected to temporal death; or are mortal. This passage has been often adduced to prove that all mankind became sinful in Adam, or in virtue of a covenant transaction with him; and that they are subjected to spiritual death as a punishment for his sins. But, whatever may be the truth on that subject, it is clear that this passage does not relate to it, and should not be adduced as a proof text. For

(1.) the words die and dieth obviously and usually refer to temporal death; and they should be so understood, unless there is something in the connexion which requires us to understand them in a figurative and metaphorical sense. But there is, evidently, no such necessity here.

(2.) The context requires us to understand this as relating to temporal death. There is not here, as there is in Romans 5, any intimation that men became sinners in consequence of the transgression of Adam; nor does the course of the apostle's argument require him to make any statement on that subject. His argument has reference to the subject of temporal death, and the resurrection of the dead; and not to the question in what way men became sinners.

(3.) The whole of this argument relates to the resurrection of the dead. That is the main, the leading, the exclusive point. He is demonstrating that the dead would rise. He is showing how this would be done. It became, therefore, important for him to show in what way men were subjected to temporal death. His argument, therefore, requires him to make a statement on that point, and that only; and to show that the resurrection by Christ was adapted to meet and overcome the evils of the death to which men were subjected by the sin of the first man. In Romans 5 the design of Paul is to prove that the effects of the work of Christ were more than sufficient to meet ALL the evils introduced by the sin of Adam. This leads him to an examination there of the question in what way men became sinners. Here the design is to show that the work of Christ is adapted to overcome the evils of the sin of Adam in one specific matter--the matter under discussion; that is, on the point of the resurrection; and his argument therefore requires him to show only that temporal death, or mortality, was introduced by the first man, and that this has been counteracted by the second; and to this specific point the interpretation of this passage should be confined. Nothing is more important in interpreting the Bible than to ascertain the specific point in the argument of a writer to be defended or illustrated, and then to confine the interpretation to that. The argument of the apostle here is ample to prove that all men are subjected to temporal death by the sin of Adam; and that this evil is counteracted fully by the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection through him. And to this point the passage should be limited.

(4.) If this passage means that in Adam, or by him, all men became sinners, then the correspondent declaration, "all shall be made alive," must mean that all men shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words "be made alive" must have reference to the words "all die," and must affirm the correlative and opposite fact. If the phrase "all die" there means all become sinners, then the phrase "all be made alive" must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say that the word "all," in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word "all" in the former, part of the verse. And although it has been held by many who suppose that the passage refers only to the resurrection of the dead, that it means that all the righteous shall be raised up, or all who are given to Christ, yet that interpretation is not the obvious one, nor is it yet sufficiently clear to make it the basis of an argument, or to meet the strong argument which the advocate of universal salvation will derive from the former interpretation of the passage. It is true literally that ALL the dead will rise; it is not true literally that all who became mortal, or became sinners by means of Adam, will be saved. And it must be held as a great principle, that this passage is not to be so interpreted as to teach the doctrine of the salvation of all men. At least, this may be adopted as a principle in the argument with those who adduce it to prove that all men became sinners by the transgression of Adam. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced in proof of the doctrine of imputation, or as relating to the question how men became sinners, but should be limited to the subject that was immediately under discussion in the argument of the apostle. That object was, to show that the doctrine of the resurrection by Christ was such as to meet the obvious doctrine that men became mortal by Adam; or that the one was adapted to counteract the other.

Barnes was a Calvinist, but he rightly interpreted 1 Cor 15:22 to be speaking of temporal or physical death only and presents valid arguments why it cannot be speaking of spiritual death as you and many others misrepresent the scriptures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Herald

New Member
Herald, I do not agree with Augustine's theory of Original Sin. It was based almost solely on Augustine's interpretation of a flawed Latin text. Even scholars who support OS freely admit that Rom 5:12 in the original Greek is not saying Adam's sin was imputed to us. Do a little research and you will find I am telling you the truth. Other than this, OS has almost no support in scripture, and in fact there is much scripture that says God holds men accountable for their OWN sin and does not hold the son accountable for his father's sin. Read Ezekiel chapter 18 where this is repeatedly and clearly stated. Besides this, every man innately knows it is unjust to blame someone and hold them accountable for a sin committed by another person. For this reason alone (but there are MANY others) I consider Calvinism error and unscriptural. Saying this is not a difficulty for you because you simply believe is not a meaningful or valid argument, you could sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make it so.

Winman, I was going to respond with a wordy retort; but I've decided that your own words make my point better than I ever could.
 

Ruiz

New Member
Herald, I do not agree with Augustine's theory of Original Sin. It was based almost solely on Augustine's interpretation of a flawed Latin text. Even scholars who support OS freely admit that Rom 5:12 in the original Greek is not saying Adam's sin was imputed to us. Do a little research and you will find I am telling you the truth. Other than this, OS has almost no support in scripture, and in fact there is much scripture that says God holds men accountable for their OWN sin and does not hold the son accountable for his father's sin. Read Ezekiel chapter 18 where this is repeatedly and clearly stated. Besides this, every man innately knows it is unjust to blame someone and hold them accountable for a sin committed by another person. For this reason alone (but there are MANY others) I consider Calvinism error and unscriptural. Saying this is not a difficulty for you because you simply believe is not a meaningful or valid argument, you could sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese, doesn't make it so.

So, would you call yourself or would you hold to the theology of Pelagianism?

If not, can you identify the theology you hold to? Semi Pelagianism, Semi Augustinianism?
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
I guess misrepresenting is one of your favorite things.

1. God is not a liar. All are invited to him. He reject no one that comes.

I guess misrepresenting is one of your favorite things as well. Let's recap the Calvinist double talk:

1. All are invited.
2. He rejects none that come.
3. He gives some the desire to come and not others.
4. So, God doesn't reject people, he just doesn't give some people the desire to even come in the first place.

What a crock.
 

jbh28

Active Member
You misunderstand...I believe it is sufficient for all, but in the limited atonement view it cannot be. It is speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Is Christ's death really sufficient, adequate for those He didn't die for? That's illogical.
Again, you saying it's illogical doesn't make it so. I'll explain below. It is a sufficient payment for all. Glad we agree.

Wrong! You completely miss the fact that God so loved the world in this way...that He gave His Son. His Son atoned for sin, it appeased God's wrath against sin. Whosoever (of the world) that believes will not perish. It makes no sense for that verse to say that God loved the world so much that He gave His son to believers. That rips the meaning completely from the context.
No, that's exactly what you just said. "Whosoever (of the world) that believes will not perish. The atonement will not cover the sins of unbelievers. It was never intended to save the sins of unbelievers. In that very verse alone, it was intended to save whosoever out of the world that believes.
So God loves the world so much that He gives His Son to a few while decreeing the "many" to perish?
please stick to the subject

So now the gift was bought for them?!? They have the real option to choose this gift?!? You are making me dizzy.
If I buy 10 billion Snicker bars. Have I bought a sufficient number of Snicker bars for every person in the world to get one? Yes. So it's sufficient for all. Do I have to have any intention to give anyone one of these bars? No, that's separate. Do I believe God will save anyone that comes to him? Yes, but that doesn't change the sufficiency of it at all. Intention doesn't matter to the sufficiency of the payment.
How is that a true statement if God does not empower them to believe?
please stick to the subject at hand. Please address my points and not add in other things.
This sounds deceptive. Why not tell them the REAL truth? Jesus died on a cross for the elect. If you are one you will believe and be saved, if not elect you will not believe nor can you and will perish. Isn't this what you believe the truth to be? Why deceive someone when witnessing to them...be straight forward with them!
Please stick to the subject.

What are you talking about? If anything you haven't answered my questions, you seem to always counter with one of your own.
like this entire post. You can't stay on subject
I started a thread with a question addressed to you that you still have not answered.
well, send me the link and I'll try to answer it.

From my vantage point, or my vantage point viewing yours?
what is right and what is wrong. Why on earth would I ask you to answer something from my vantage point. Just answer the question
1. I believe Christ death is sufficient (adequate, enough).
Good, so do I!
2. Christ's death is intended to pay the penalty of sin (atonement), appease God's wrath against sin (propitiation), to defeat the curse of death, to redeem the physical universe and to reconcile sinners to Himself through faith(expiation).
3. See the answer to 2.

Much more involved than just covering sins of the elect.
please use my terms. I said believers.

now, as for you number 2, does "Christ's death penalty of sin (atonement), appease God's wrath against sin (propitiation), to defeat the curse of death, to redeem the physical universe and to reconcile sinners to Himself" of unbelievers?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The scriptures do not say all men are dead "in Adam". The term "in Adam" is found only ONCE in all of scripture in 1 Cor 15:22. This verse does not say men are dead in Adam, it says all "die" (future tense) in Adam. You have to be alive to die, so this verse actually refutes that we are born dead in sin. Besides this, the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is clearly dealing with physical death and the future resurrection of our bodies, not spiritual death. So, you and others who use this as a proof text are pulling it out of context and misapplying it to speak of spiritual death.

That 1 Cor 15:22 is speaking of temporal life (physical death) and not spiritual death is addressed by Barnes:



Barnes was a Calvinist, but he rightly interpreted 1 Cor 15:22 to be speaking of temporal or physical death only and presents valid arguments why it cannot be speaking of spiritual death as you and many others misrepresent the scriptures.

Would say that if I was forced to choose between Barnes and Apostle paul, stick with paul, HINT he was the inspired one!
 

jbh28

Active Member
I guess misrepresenting is one of your favorite things as well. Let's recap the Calvinist double talk:
I never intentionally misrepresent others. If I have, please let me know. Otherwise, you have falsely accused me.
1. All are invited.
2. He rejects none that come.
3. He gives some the desire to come and not others.
4. So, God doesn't reject people, he just doesn't give some people the desire to even come in the first place.

What a [snip]

Not quite right.

1. all are invited.
2. He will reject none that come
3. None want to come
4. He gives some the desire to come and not others.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Not quite right.

1. all are invited.
2. He will reject none that come
3. None want to come
4. He gives some the desire to come and not others.

As I said...a crock. It is clear to all that aren't indoctrinated in Calvinism that this equals "God rejects".
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Something did happen to them before they came to Christ. It is found in Ephesians 2......

The clear implication of Jn 3:21 is that not only had God already wrought within them, these had also been 'doing the truth' prior to coming to Christ.

How do you explain that?
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
God doesn't reject anyone. Please stop lying. People reject God.

But, according to Calvinism, no person is ever capable of choosing God unless God programs them to chose Him. Once you get past the double talk, God rejects people.

Again, if you weren't so heavily indoctrinated in the false theology of Calvinism you would see this. You eyes are closed to the truth.
 

jbh28

Active Member
But, according to Calvinism, no person is ever capable of choosing God unless God programs them to chose Him. Once you get past the double talk, God rejects people.

Again, if you weren't so heavily indoctrinated in the false theology of Calvinism you would see this. You eyes are closed to the truth.

Sorry, but please address what I believe, not what you think I believe. No person wants to choose God. In your system(unless you are Universalist) all those that die in their unbelief did not want to choose God. Same thing. Those that do come don't come because they were any better, but God changed their heart of stone(Ezekiel 36). This is though his grace as we shouldn't have had a chance in the first place. God was not obligated to save anyone.

Rejection implies one is coming and is prevented. Calvinism doesn't teach that people are coming and God rejects them.

If you want a Christlike discussion, I'm happy to have one. If you are going to continue your hateful comments, then I won't.
 
Top