• 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 Eternal Purpose of God in Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Those that believe shall have eternal life;
Those that believe Not shall be damned.

Are you sure about that? [edited: now I am]

The attribute of fairness is the attribute of being just.

The Apostle Paul is well aware of God's righteousness/fairness/being just.

Then why were his detractors accusing Paul of teaching an unjust/unfair/unrighteous God when he gave the example of Jacob's election and Esau's reprobation based on the mere good pleasure of God, foreseen faith in Jacob in no way the cause?

In the eyes of his audience, Paul was slandering God's righteousness, choosing one over the other for no apparent reason. (Romans 9:14)

Had the Lord chosen Jacob because of foreseen faith, the charge of being 'unjust' could not be argued.

Think about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PreachTony

Active Member
Looks as if you like DHK do need to get a word of knowledge on this....

here it is again;
....IT IS NOT ULTIMATELY RESISTED.... but rather it is effectual in every case

People resist God's grace. When a sermon is preached and people resist the truth...they oppose themselves...2 tim 2:24-26

So grace is not ultimately resisted, meaning man chooses to accept God's grace. But you guys say man has absolutely no input in the process. Yet if something ultimately does not resist, that means it has to give in. If you want to couch this argument as God's grace having to break through man's stubborn will, then you have weakened God. Otherwise, you admit that man must inevitably choose to accept the grace offered.

Or, you can go back to the definition that DHK, myself, and every other non-
Calvinist I know relies on, which is that God forces His grace upon the Elect, seeing as the fully monergistic position cannot allow man to accept God.
 

Protestant

Well-Known Member
Contradictory wills in God?

The Lord does not have contradictory wills.

Yet in post #279 Pastor DHK insists that He does.

The Pastor says the Lord is not willing for any person to perish. (2 Peter 3:9)

The Pastor also admits the Lord willingly damns unbelievers and is not shy in saying so. (Mark 16:16)

Herein lays the contradiction.

According to his theology God does not will that which He wills.

What man reasons so irrationally, let alone our infinitely wise God?
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So grace is not ultimately resisted, meaning man chooses to accept God's grace. But you guys say man has absolutely no input in the process. Yet if something ultimately does not resist, that means it has to give in. If you want to couch this argument as God's grace having to break through man's stubborn will, then you have weakened God. Otherwise, you admit that man must inevitably choose to accept the grace offered.

Or, you can go back to the definition that DHK, myself, and every other non-
Calvinist I know relies on, which is that God forces His grace upon the Elect, seeing as the fully monergistic position cannot allow man to accept God.


He's dead on guys. Either it is irresistible or it is not. Saying "ultimately" is giving man a choice.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But Mormons and SDAs are all Arminians.

Were they Calvinists, your point would be well made.

Why do you suppose the cults are also Arminian?

That makes no sense at all. The point is Icon looked to millions believing on Calvinism as proof it is correct.

One could make the argument Calvinism is a cult, seeing how often they preach Calvinism is the Gospel, believe it or you cannot be saved.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
But Mormons and SDAs are all Arminians.

Were they Calvinists, your point would be well made.

Why do you suppose the cults are also Arminian?
Here is the point. Go back into the history of Calvin.
All who did not follow the precepts, the laws, and adhere to principles of Calvin were damned. (This is the definition of a cult).
All who do not follow Joseph Smith and his teachings are damned.
All who do not follow Charles Taze Russell and his teachings are damned.

Now who is in the wrong boat?

If you were really consistent:
You would accept the baptismal regeneration that Calvin taught,
the infant baptism that Calvin taught,
The acceptance of magisterial baptism only that he taught,
the acceptance of a baptism from an unsaved pagan as from God (He was baptized by a Catholic priest and never saw the need to be re-baptized, nor anyone else to be rebaptized if they were baptized by an unsaved Catholic who knew nothing of salvation).
That the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ were the same baptism.
That baptism takes the place of circumcision (cruel for women)

If you are truly a follower of Calvin why not take it all the way?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
PreachTony

So grace is not ultimately resisted,

This saving grace is always effectual....or the sheep would not be saved.

meaning man chooses to accept God's grace.

No....Unsaved men mostly do not even understand theological terms in a biblical way for the most part.

I offered you the confession of faith for a reason awhile back.....it attempts to detail exactly why this grace is effectual....The godly men were very careful when they worded the document


In post 261 I highlighted how the confession describes it...I will repeat it for you now;
The theological term "irresistable grace " has been around before we were born. If you were so keen to discuss the topic.....the least you could do is do some homework and see the historical facts...do I have to do it for you?

1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life,

2]he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time,

3]effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit,

4]out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature,

5]to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;

6]enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;

7]taking away their heart of stone,

8]and giving unto them a heart of flesh;

9]renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good,

10and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;

11]yet so as they come most freely,

12]being made willing by his grace.



( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )

PT...take note...12 actions are listed....God is the one doing these things and effecting change.
No where is the man centered language of{meaning man chooses to accept God's grace} found in the statement, because it is not found in scripture!
These men derived this statement from the scriptures listed. I stand with them, I stand with the scriptural language......It is not a philosophical discussion at all....but scriptural

here is the scriptural truth on this:
4 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:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;


Paul is discussing our election and effectual calling said it this way in verse 6

wherein He hath made us...accepted in the beloved


The Father accepts the work of the Son......WE ARE ACCEPTED IN HIM.
that is the only question...are we still in Adam...or In Christ.

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone,

not from anything at all foreseen in man,

nor from any power or agency in the creature,

being wholly passive therein,

being dead in sins and trespasses,

until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit;

he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it,

and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

But you guys say man has absolutely no input in the process.

Correct and this has just been explained to you.....the hymn says...
nothing in my hands I bring....simply to the cross I cling....

Once God saves us and regenerates us as described by all these points highlighted by the confession of faith.....then.....He works IN US to will and to do of His good pleasure....we become joyful laborers in the Kingdom work.

Yet if something ultimately does not resist, that means it has to give in. If you want to couch this argument as God's grace having to break through man's stubborn will, then you have weakened God.

PT... I am not totally sure what you mean by this.....let me answer it this way....turn in your bible to Isa.6......ask yourself....did Isaiah "accept anything" or was it no contest....you are God ...I am not ...have mercy upon me, I am a man of unclean lips.....

No vain boasting about I have faith, I accept this or that, I am going to make a choice now....

5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

here is saul in acts 9.....was he accepting anything?

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man

He accepted nothing...he was crushed...and begged ...what would you have me to do?

Otherwise, you admit that man must inevitably choose to accept the grace offered.

I will not knowingly admit to the unscriptural.


Or, you can go back to the definition that DHK, myself, and every other non-
Calvinist I know relies on, which is that God forces His grace upon the Elect, seeing as the fully monergistic position cannot allow man to accept God.


I offer you that which has been made known to me...I would not turn from that to broken cisterns of carnal philosophy which can hold no water.:thumbs:


Pt...could you answer this for me?

want to get back to something you said, I am in the back of a restaurant at the truckstop, I have a pulled muscle in my back, now that I have gotten back down to Alabama. a person I was talking to told me they would be right back.. A pit bull forced me back into a corner. I hope you get back to me soon on this.
Now PT....give me a one sentence definition of the word....BACK. in the last paragraph.....what does the word mean?

Then tell me how the words world and all are not the same???
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That makes no sense at all. The point is Icon looked to millions believing on Calvinism as proof it is correct.

One could make the argument Calvinism is a cult, seeing how often they preach Calvinism is the Gospel, believe it or you cannot be saved.

Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice and determines what is right and what is wrong.....I said millions have seen these same truths and confessed them as truth.

Cults confess other Christ denying truths...that is why there is the white throne judgment.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Protestant


The Lord does not have contradictory wills.
no...that is impossible:thumbsup:
Yet in post #279 Pastor DHK insists that He does.
:laugh:....yes indeed....strange
The Pastor says the Lord is not willing for any person to perish. (2 Peter 3:9)

yes...only quoting half the verse, which changes the meaning completely.

The Pastor also admits the Lord willingly damns unbelievers and is not shy in saying so. (Mark 16:16)

correct once again :thumbsup:


Herein lays the contradiction.

According to his theology God does not will that which He wills.

Yes... I see exactly that when I read his posts...

What man reasons so irrationally,

This is quite a mystery....:laugh:
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
But Mormons and SDAs are all Arminians.

Were they Calvinists, your point would be well made.

Why do you suppose the cults are also Arminian?

Why would the Calvinism of the 16th century, by the standards of today, be considered a cult?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Go back into the history of Calvin.
All who did not follow the precepts, the laws, and adhere to principles of Calvin were damned. (This is the definition of a cult).
You post utter nonsense DHK. Real history is something you avoid like the plague.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
steaver

It is not the fault of non-Cals that Calvinism has come up with a term that has to be redefined by Calvinist in order for it to make any sense
.

Cals work to study to clarify the scriptural positions even more
I guess so they could have a catchy acronym like TULIP, since TULEP doesn't look and sound as good. :laugh:

you are corncerned with so many side issues.....leave it to Steaver:thumbsup:

Are you here to examine if Calvinism is true?

No...I know it is true and steadfast being the scriptural teaching. I come looking to grow and learn from more gifted brothers like Reformed, Protestant, SG, Rippon, OLD Regular, AA. Dr. Bob,and so many others.

I try and be helpful when I can....but it drowned out by the constant barrage of attacks from those who would oppose these truths.

Or do you have an agenda to prove Calvinism is true? Don't be a hypocrite brother. We all have agendas. Yes, even you.....

Calvinism is true so I have no agenda to "prove it". I do have an agenda to grow in grace and learn more about My Lord and Master....Jesus Christ.

If that means doing battle against gainsayers, and false teachings, and various enemies of the cross and true doctrine....we can go there.

Good one :laugh: More hypocrisy......

Speaking of hypocrisy...let me ask you Steaver...what do you post that you believe to be error???

In other words...what do you post where you say to yourself.....
This belief I have is wrong but I will post it anyway...

Everyone thinks they are correct until someone shows them the error.:type:
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
no...that is impossible:thumbsup:
No one said the Lord has contradictory wills. If someone said it then quote it. Without a quote you simply are making false accusations: Spewing words into the wind.
....yes indeed....strange
What have I insisted in Post #279. Provide the quote. Explain the context.
If you can't put a clothespin on your mouth, unplug your computer, and take the battery out.
yes...only quoting half the verse, which changes the meaning completely.
Let's look at the whole verse, shall we:

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

A paraphrase for those who are stuck in their hard-to-read KJV
(CEV) The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.
--There is no "to us-ward" here for you to get hung up on.

(EMTV) The Lord does not delay concerning His promise, as some reckon slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
--This is the English Majority Text version; fairly accurate.
Notice what the "toward us" refers to. It refers to the promises of God. One could put a period after us or at least a semi-colon. Then his will is stated.
1. He is not willing that nay should perish.
2. He wills that all should come to repentance.
These two statements have nothing to do with the promises made to those Peter is writing to. Peter preaches eternal security. Those to whom he is writing to are eternally secure in Christ. They are not the ones in danger of perishing or in need of repentance. You have the verse all wrong.
Really, Icon! Is the KJV too hard for you to understand! Try another translation!.
correct once again :thumbsup:
Yes it is correct. The one sin that Lord will send people to hell for is unbelief. Why wouldn't you believe that. Why would you even question this truth?

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

--Is there any question about this truth?

And the verse I used previously--Jesus's own words:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

--If you don't understand Jesus's words, please ask, and I will explain them to you. Don't question his words as if he is lying. He isn't lying Icon. Unbelief will keep you out of heaven and send you straight to hell.
I see exactly that when I read his posts...
God wills that all men be saved. I have posted many verses to that end.
God wills that you be without sin.
Are you without sin? Not by a long shot! Why? You have sin to deal with, like we all do. His will for you will not be accomplished until you are glorified.
His will for unsaved man cannot be accomplished unless unsaved man willingly turns to Christ and receives his gift of salvation. God will not force salvation on the unsaved man, as the Calvinist teaches.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You post utter nonsense DHK. Real history is something you avoid like the plague.

Only Rippon would dare to respond to answer to that post.
He will not admit to the true history of Calvinism but is deliberately blind to it.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
But we have reached this 30th page faster than I have expected and thus this thread must be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top