The Eternal Purpose of Christ PT 3

[Rippon]

BTW, if you were a true Calvinist, a follower of the doctrines of Calvin,

You know better, but insist on misrepresentation. A Calvinist does "follow" John Calvin. A Calvinist follows Scripture. A Calvinist is one who is characterized by their soteriology --not other particularities.

you would believe as he does in baptismal regeneration,

Calvin did not believe in BR. Why say otherwise? In the Institutes Book 4,chapter 14,#17:The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

In his commentary on Ephesians 5:26 there is an extract :"The grace of God is not confined to the sign...the Spirit is bestowed on none but the elect, and the sign, as we have said, has no efficacy without the Spirit."

John Calvin no more believed in BR than R.C. Sproul does today.

He had strange doctrines that he believed that he carried over from the RCC.

Such as...?

Remember he was a "Reformer" before he became a Protestant.

What in the world does that mean? He favored Protestant ideas before his conversion which was somewhere between Nov.of 1533 and May of 1534. He didn't try to "reform" Roman Catholics. He became a traveling evangelist for more than two years before coming to Geneva in August of 1536.

He still believed in much of the Catholic doctrine.

Much huh? Such as...?

So you are a die-hard Catholic, er Calvinist, eh?

Your free-willism is shared by classic Roman Catholicism, Mormons and JWs.
And those groups are stridently anti-Reformed -- just as you are.

 

[Rippon]

I am a non-Cal, not an Arminian.

Most non-Calvinists, if they are believers, are Semi-Pelagians/Arminians. You certainly fit the bill.

An Arminian believes one can lose their salvation,

Actually, you are wrong. Many Arminians -semi-Pelagians do not think so.

In the Five Articles of Remonstrance 1610

it states"...whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or becoming devoid of grace --must be particularly determined from the Scriptures."

 

[percho]

The elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined.

Are all these speaking of the same?

YLT James 1:18 having counselled, He did beget us with a word of truth, for our being a certain first-fruit of His creatures.

The words in bold which are plural; Are they, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined?

Did they become this by being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, that is the ones who have the first fruit of the Spirit, those spoken of in Acts 15:8,9 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Jews and Gentiles. BTW Whose faith purified their hearts.

Is that not where we presently are, even today, in God's plan for salvation? Is anything, salvation wise, presently going on other than God still visiting the Gentiles to take of them a people for his name Acts 15:14? Are they, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined? A certain (kind) of first fruit?

Are these, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined (plural), a certain first fruit of (singular)?

Does not the prefix of, "first," imply, fruit of a like kind at a later time?

Now consider:

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us (the first fruit of the Spirit, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined) the word of reconciliation.

Consider:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4,5
Having made known unto us ((the first fruit of the Spirit, the elect, the chosen, the chosen in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, the predestined) the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Eph 1:9,10

Does 2 Cor 5 19 and the passages from Eph say the same thing?


Correct me where I am wrong.

 

[DHK]

You know better, but insist on misrepresentation. A Calvinist does "follow" John Calvin. A Calvinist follows Scripture. A Calvinist is one who is characterized by their soteriology --not other particularities.

Calvin did not believe in BR. Why say otherwise? In the Institutes Book 4,chapter 14,#17:The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

What does the Bible say about circumcision? Circumcision was so important to the Jews that they considered one who was not circumcised as outside the covenant and therefore unsaved. True enough?
In fact, God confronted Moses and told him if he didn't circumcise his child he would be killed. (Ex.4:24,25)

But here are some of the beliefs of Calvin from his Institutes IV: xvi, 3-6

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same. The only difference in the external ceremony.

Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony.

For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant.
But baptism is not. Calvin has it wrong. And Baptism does not confer any grace, as Calvin seems to imply.

In chapter 20 he argues against those who would administer baptism to adults on profession of their faith, and refrain from baptizing infants:

20. In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God then against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer. 4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution of God.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvii.html
His argument has no biblical basis at all. Mostly it is a rant against Baptists.

 

[Rippon]

But here are some of the beliefs of Calvin from his Institutes IV: xvi, 3-6

Your passages from Calvin don't negate the fact that he did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Calvin has it wrong. And Baptism does not confer any grace, as Calvin seems to imply.

You have very poor comprehension. he said:"The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace."

In chapter 20 he argues against those who would administer baptism to adults on profession of their faith, and refrain from baptizing infants:

His argument has no biblical basis at all.

You're still not getting it. He did not believe in baptismal regeneration. Your contention is invalid.

Calvin certainly believed in what he called 'baptism" as a sign of the covenant for babies. But your quotes of his do not substantiate your claims that he believed in baptismal regeneration.

Mostly it is a rant against Baptists.

There were no Baptists in his era. Baptists didn't exist until the early years of the 17th century.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you ever wonder why Paul never explained that to the Philippian jailer nor Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch.
Did they ever tell them: Look you have to be regenerated before God can give you this supernatural faith that you need to be saved. So listen carefully. If you don't get it, don't worry about because you might not be one of the elect anyway.

Yep, that is one foolish way of salvation, thankfully never taught in the Bible. But it seems like that is what needs to be taught by Calvinists in order to be saved. That is what you are telling me.

No, what I am saying is that the Bible teaches to us that we have the obligation to peach/preach Jesus as the risen Lord and Saviour, and that God's obligation at that point is to grant to those whom He intended jesus to save ther spiritual means to receive Him thru faith!

Do you hold the classical arminian views that states that God has granted sufficient grace towards all sinners, in order that they might freely decide to accept/reject him, and that his election is based upon Him seeing what they will decide to do?

 

[DHK]

No, what I am saying is that the Bible teaches to us that we have the obligation to peach/preach Jesus as the risen Lord and Saviour, and that God's obligation at that point is to grant to those whom He intended jesus to save ther spiritual means to receive Him thru faith!

Do you hold the classical arminian views that states that God has granted sufficient grace towards all sinners, in order that they might freely decide to accept/reject him, and that his election is based upon Him seeing what they will decide to do?

Perhaps you will have to rephrase your question since I am not a "classic Arminian."

 

[DHK]

There were no Baptists in his era. Baptists didn't exist until the early years of the 17th century.

You are blind to history. This one thing the RCC, Calvin and Luther had in common, and that was the persecution of Baptists. You certainly haven't done your homework have you?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you hold the classical arminian views that states that God has granted sufficient grace towards all sinners, in order that they might freely decide to accept/reject him, and that his election is based upon Him seeing what they will decide to do?

It may be the classical Arminian view but many who are not classical Arminians also hod to that. So it is not distinct of them alone. There are very few if any classical Arminian's on this board.

 

[DHK]

Your passages from Calvin don't negate the fact that he did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

What else should a person conclude. Even the Judaizers of the NT concluded that a believer that was not circumcised was not truly saved. Circumcision was the sign of salvation. Calvin equated circumcision with salvation. That is apparent in the quotes I gave you. It was just as important as circumcision. If it was just as important as circumcision, and the Jews equated circumcision with salvation, then what should one conclude but that baptism is connected with salvation.
His uncouth language towards those who rebaptized after a confession of faith in Christ was made is very telling. It infers that salvation was at the point of baptism which is equal to circumcision (salvation). Read the entire chapter yourself.

 

[Revmitchell]

Calvin also anticipates the objection, "how are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated?"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin's reply is that "God's work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin is cognizant of the fact that if infants are born sinners, as Scripture affirms(Eph.2:3; Ps.51:5), either they remain hateful to God, or they must be justified. While Calvin agrees that the water itself does not necessarily save, he reminds us that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb(Luke 1:15), and for Calvin this is "something he could do in others"(Inst.4, 16, 17).

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

 

[Iconoclast]

You know better, but insist on misrepresentation. A Calvinist does "follow" John Calvin. A Calvinist follows Scripture. A Calvinist is one who is characterized by their soteriology --not other particularities.

Calvin did not believe in BR. Why say otherwise? In the Institutes Book 4,chapter 14,#17:The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

In his commentary on Ephesians 5:26 there is an extract :"The grace of God is not confined to the sign...the Spirit is bestowed on none but the elect, and the sign, as we have said, has no efficacy without the Spirit."

John Calvin no more believed in BR than R.C. Sproul does today.

Such as...?

What in the world does that mean? He favored Protestant ideas before his conversion which was somewhere between Nov.of 1533 and May of 1534. He didn't try to "reform" Roman Catholics. He became a traveling evangelist for more than two years before coming to Geneva in August of 1536.

Much huh? Such as...?

Your free-willism is shared by classic Roman Catholicism, Mormons and JWs.
And those groups are stridently anti-Reformed -- just as you are.

:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Psalm 2 is a Messianic Psalm. Someday it will be fulfilled. It is not applicable right now and it does use very figurative language.

Gotta love dispensational error everywhere....:thumbs:


Those Apostolic Calvinists:laugh::laugh: were at it again in Acts 4

Again, typical of the Calvinist to throw scripture out of context.

really out of context:thumbs:

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

 

[DHK]

DHK

Gotta love dispensational error everywhere....:thumbs:

Yes, those "Chiliasts" were premillennial, that is most of the ECF. Those that learned from the pen of John and others close to him. That kind of puts you in the dark doesn't it?

Those Apostolic Calvinists:laugh::laugh: were at it again in Acts 4

really out of context:thumbs:

24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."

These two verses:
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
--They refer directly to the death of Christ. Herod and Pilate were responsible for that, and the disciples mentioned that in their prayer. What was the purpose of their prayer? To pray about election?? Hardly!

Act 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
--You totally missed out on the most important part of the prayer. What you quoted was simply a passing reference. They were praying for boldness to speak forth the Word of God, and God answered their prayer. Keep things in their context.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps you will have to rephrase your question since I am not a "classic Arminian."

Where would you differ though?

If at eternal security issue, not even arminions state that it will happen, as many of them still hold to eternal security of some sense!

 

[DHK]

Where would you differ though?

If at eternal security issue, not even arminions state that it will happen, as many of them still hold to eternal security of some sense!

I am not a student of Arminius; I am student of the Bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, those "Chiliasts" were premillennial, that is most of the ECF. Those that learned from the pen of John and others close to him. That kind of puts you in the dark doesn't it?


These two verses:
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
--They refer directly to the death of Christ. Herod and Pilate were responsible for that, and the disciples mentioned that in their prayer. What was the purpose of their prayer? To pray about election?? Hardly!

Act 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
--You totally missed out on the most important part of the prayer. What you quoted was simply a passing reference. They were praying for boldness to speak forth the Word of God, and God answered their prayer. Keep things in their context.

:laugh: you totally avoided the psalm explaining that it was fulfilled :laugh:

Then you skip to the prayer and misunderstand that also...I will get to a keyboard later today.

 

[SovereignGrace]

DHK, for someone who has stated that Acts is a book of transition, and should not be used for doctrine...if I am remembering, you stated it like that...you use it quite a bit.

1) You used Acts 5
2) You used Acts 17
3) You used Acts 10
4) You used Acts 4 as a refutation to Iconoclast's post
5) You used Acts 16


This book is one that has caused me some grief...in a good way...but grief nonetheless. Why do I say it that way? It is a truly hard book to understand. Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 2:38 Peter said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and they would receive the Holy Spirit. This is the pet verse of the CoC cult. Then in Acts 19 Paul comes upon some disciples that had been baptized and they had not even heard if there was a Holy Spirit. Paul laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. He then commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. These two places where water baptism took place, the name of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were left out in baptizing individuals. Why? I truly do not know.

Yes I have used this book some, too. But it is a tough book to truly grasp...it is for me, at least.

But I just reread one of your posts, mon ami. You said you did not believe in the phrase saving faith...paraphrasing you from memory, so if I got that wrong, please forgive me...and then you stated "Saving faith is when a person puts their confidence or trust in Christ alone for salvation." This was post #210 pg 21 in the pt 2 thread. Here' the post in its entirety. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2251072&postcount=210

 

[DHK]

But I just reread one of your posts, mon ami. You said you did not believe in the phrase saving faith...paraphrasing you from memory, so if I got that wrong, please forgive me...and then you stated "Saving faith is when a person puts their confidence or trust in Christ alone for salvation." This was post #210 pg 21 in the pt 2 thread. Here' the post in its entirety. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2251072&postcount=210

I don't normally use the phrase, and to be consistent perhaps I shouldn't have.
The faith that saves has as its object Jesus Christ. Faith always has an object.
Thus when a person pus their faith or confidence in Christ they will be saved.
People put faith or confidence in all kinds of things and people every day, just not in Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

:laugh: you totally avoided the psalm explaining that it was fulfilled

Then I didn't avoid the psalm did I?

Then you skip to the prayer and misunderstand that also...I will get to a keyboard later today.

I have no misunderstanding about their prayer. Their quotation of the psalm was a part of their prayer. It seems the misunderstanding is on your part.