The Doctrines of Grace

[Iconoclast]

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here proves he believed a person received the Spirit AFTER believing. The rest of this passage confirms this, they believed on Jesus and were baptized, and AFTERWARD received the Spirit.

Post after post shows you have no understanding at all but oppose truth at all costs......they were OT believers...believing only Johns message.
You do not care....as long as you can write your falsehood.

 

[Winman]

Post after post shows you have no understanding at all but oppose truth at all costs......they were OT believers...believing only Johns message.
You do not care....as long as you can write your falsehood.

The fact is, they didn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit. And they didn't believe on Jesus, they believed John.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These persons indeed believed John the Baptist. But Paul told them they had to believe on Jesus Christ. It is not said here, but it is safe to assume Paul preached Jesus to them, because it is strongly implied they did not know about Jesus.

Only after they believed on Jesus did they receive the Holy Spirit.

We are told all the disciples except Judas believed on him in John chapter 2. But none of these disciples received the Spirit until 3 years later in John chapter 20.

The point is, Romans 8:9 tells us a person without the indwelling Spirit is still in the flesh, yet many thousands of people believed on Jesus before they received the Spirit. This proves the natural man can hear and believe the gospel.

You cannot refute this.

 

[Winman]

Post after post shows you have no understanding at all but oppose truth at all costs......they were OT believers...believing only Johns message.
You do not care....as long as you can write your falsehood.

The fact is, they didn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit. And they didn't believe on Jesus, they believed John.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These persons indeed believed John the Baptist. But Paul told them they had to believe on Jesus Christ. It is not said here, but it is safe to assume Paul preached Jesus to them, because it is strongly implied they did not know about Jesus.

Only after they believed on Jesus did they receive the Holy Spirit.

We are told all the disciples except Judas believed on Jesus in John chapter 2. But none of these disciples received the Spirit until 3 years later in John chapter 20.

The point is, Romans 8:9 tells us a person without the indwelling Spirit is still in the flesh, yet many thousands of people believed on Jesus before they received the Spirit. This proves the natural man can hear and believe the gospel.

You cannot refute this.

 

[Iconoclast]

you still do not get it,and posted your error twice,lol

 

[Skandelon]

We would like to think that we are smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ without the prior work of God in our hearts. - Al Mohler (quoted from the OP)

There are several problems with Mohler's argument here.

(1) If his system of thinking is correct, we are only 'thinking' what God has preordained us to think, thus if we think we are capable to respond to God's appeal then that is because its the way God made us to think, so why is he acting as if we had something to do with it, or can do something about it? If your going to be a monergist, be a consistent one.

(2) Synergists DO NOT believe, as is asserted here, that we are "smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ without the prior work of God in our hearts," because we believe the Gospel to BE a prior working of God in our hearts. Why wouldn't Mohler? Maybe what he meant was, "...smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ after the powerful appeal of the gospel called us to be reconciled." And even still that has yet another problem...

(3) Surrender, brokenness, weakness, poorness of spirit, depending on another, crying out for help, confession, and humility are never seen as boast worthy traits by the world's standard and they do not merit salvation. Mohler seems to think they do both by his use of the word 'enough.' Enough for what? To earn God's favor? To deserve his grace? Does he really think that is what we believe? If so, he is attacking a strawman, because we believe salvation is of grace alone and no one has enough of anything to merit it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Post after post shows you have no understanding at all but oppose truth at all costs......they were OT believers...believing only Johns message.
You do not care....as long as you can write your falsehood.

Also must remember that Acts is a transistion period book, from Old to new Covenants, so they would have had confirmation to the jews of being really saved by having given to them by God the tongues, just as the Jews in Upeer Room had had!

 

[OldRegular]

Back to The Doctrines of Grace

It appears to me that there are many on this Forum who do not understand the Doctrines of Grace, called Calvinism by many. My purpose in starting another thread on the Doctrines of Grace is:

1. In hope that those on this Board who believe the Doctrines of Grace will express their understanding of these Doctrines in a gracious manner, and

2. In hope that those who reject these Doctrines will respond in like manner.

Back to The Doctrines of Grace.

 

[Greektim]

Back to The Doctrines of Grace.

All men are so depraved that left to themselves will always deny and avoid God. Based on his pleasure and glory, God's efficacious grace chooses and intervenes in a group of individuals to change their heart. Jesus dies for those individuals guaranteeing their redemption. God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to repentance. The same God who chose and justified these depraved individuals is the same God who sanctifies and keeps the chosen to the day of redemption.

Maybe not the most succinct or even stated the clearest, but I just threw it out there.

 

[Yeshua1]

All men are so depraved that left to themselves will always deny and avoid God. Based on his pleasure and glory, God's efficacious grace chooses and intervenes in a group of individuals to change their heart. Jesus dies for those individuals guaranteeing their redemption. God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to repentance. The same God who chose and justified these depraved individuals is the same God who sanctifies and keeps the chosen to the day of redemption.

Maybe not the most succinct or even stated the clearest, but I just threw it out there.

Seems to be saying that its either "Will of god' that gets you saved, or its "my will to get to god" that saves me!

 

[OldRegular]

All men are so depraved that left to themselves will always deny and avoid God. Based on his pleasure and glory, God's efficacious grace chooses and intervenes in a group of individuals to change their heart. Jesus dies for those individuals guaranteeing their redemption. God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to repentance. The same God who chose and justified these depraved individuals is the same God who sanctifies and keeps the chosen to the day of redemption.

Maybe not the most succinct or even stated the clearest, but I just threw it out there.

I believe it is about as good as can be said in so few words. I would change the following: "God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to repentance."

To read: "God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to faith and repentance."

 

[OldRegular]

Seems to be saying that its either "Will of god' that gets you saved, or its "my will to get to god" that saves me!

I don't believe that is what Greektim is saying at all!

 

[OldRegular]

There are several problems with Mohler's argument here.

(1) If his system of thinking is correct, we are only 'thinking' what God has preordained us to think, thus if we think we are capable to respond to God's appeal then that is because its the way God made us to think, so why is he acting as if we had something to do with it, or can do something about it? If your going to be a monergist, be a consistent one.

(2) Synergists DO NOT believe, as is asserted here, that we are "smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ without the prior work of God in our hearts," because we believe the Gospel to BE a prior working of God in our hearts. Why wouldn't Mohler? Maybe what he meant was, "...smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough, and responsive enough to chose to confess Christ after the powerful appeal of the gospel called us to be reconciled." And even still that has yet another problem...

(3) Surrender, brokenness, weakness, poorness of spirit, depending on another, crying out for help, confession, and humility are never seen as boast worthy traits by the world's standard and they do not merit salvation. Mohler seems to think they do both by his use of the word 'enough.' Enough for what? To earn God's favor? To deserve his grace? Does he really think that is what we believe? If so, he is attacking a strawman, because we believe salvation is of grace alone and no one has enough of anything to merit it.

Perhaps Mohler did not realize that his essay would undergo your critique or he would have been more careful. Wonder whose fault that is? Calvin?

 

[OldRegular]

God does not need to gain knowledge,or convince people to "accept "anything.

I believe we have some "open theists" among us Icon!

 

[Greektim]

I believe it is about as good as can be said in so few words. I would change the following: "God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to repentance."

To read: "God's work to change hearts is without fail and always leads the chosen to faith and repentance."

duly noted... thanks for the assistance.

Seems to be saying that its either "Will of god' that gets you saved, or its "my will to get to god" that saves me!

Not at all what I meant. I'm not sure how that was communicated. If you could point out how that inference was made, I would appreciate it so as to avoid it later.

 

[Yeshua1]

duly noted... thanks for the assistance.


Not at all what I meant. I'm not sure how that was communicated. If you could point out how that inference was made, I would appreciate it so as to avoid it later.

My bad!

was stating that to me in a general sense, one has to see it either of those views regarding how sinners get saved!

 

[Skandelon]

Perhaps Mohler did not realize that his essay would undergo your critique or he would have been more careful.

Hopefully so. I'd love to discuss it with him because I think he might actually form an argument and contribute to a healthy discussion.

 

[OldRegular]

Hopefully so. I'd love to discuss it with him because I think he might actually form an argument and contribute to a healthy discussion.

It does take two. He had a healthy discussion with Paige Patterson.

 

[Skandelon]

With all due respect to Patterson, I hardly consider him a bastion of defense for my perspective. He holds to the 'foresight of faith view' after all...

 

[OldRegular]

With all due respect to Patterson, I hardly consider him a bastion of defense for my perspective. He holds to the 'foresight of faith view' after all...

I did not pick that up in his discussion with Mohler! Of course if your doctrine of Salvation is incorrect does it really matter? That view has some ardent defenders on this Forum!