The Five Solas

[ReformedBaptist]

It would help if y'all didn't think YOU knew everything (or at least enough to be dogmatic in your beliefs) as well!

Before I reply to your post to me, and I will, I want to know your answer to my and David Lamb's question. I think it was quite clear in TC's confession to which you responded negatively toward him, then he doesn't know everything. Neither do I. Nor do I pretend to fully comprehend the mysteries of God. But, like TC, where my understanding falls short, my faith in Christ apprehends.

So, if you would be so kind, would you please answer mine and David Lamb's question? Do you, as David put it, "..have a complete understanding of God's Word" ??

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Mr. Lamb,
If all the Calvin-free will posts were as gracious and well thought out as yours, there would be no problems. Your thoughts reach a level of excellence I have not seen approached on this board.

Yeah, I am earnestly trying to imitate that. But David Lamb has 2 unfair advantages.

1. He is English. They have in-bred politeness.

2. He is old(er).

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[David Lamb]

It would help if y'all didn't think YOU knew everything (or at least enough to be dogmatic in your beliefs) as well! :laugh:

skypair

It seems we are just arguing back and forth, like a tennis ball, so I hope you won't obeject if I don't answer your points. (Most of them I have addressed previously in discussions with you.)

However, I must just say something about your final point. Can you not see that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs? You seem dogmatically to believe that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" (commonly called Calvinism), are errors. You seem dogmatically to believe that belief precedes the new birth. And so on.

You say it would help if y'all (I suppose that's your dialect for "you all) didn't think WE knew everything, but you have already berated TC for humbly admitting that he certainly does not know everything. I assure you that, firm though I am in my beliefs, I know that I do not know everything, and will not until I get to glory.

 

[skypair]

So, if you would be so kind, would you please answer mine and David Lamb's question? Do you, as David put it, "..have a complete understanding of God's Word" ??

Well, I'm sure I have It somewhere. I DO, after all, have the "mind of Christ." You haven't presented issues about which I haven't already consulted the Spirit and received an answer. I am, nonetheless, learning by our exchanges which means I have more to learn.

But I would say it is complete insofar as NT theology is concerned. And I can "see daylight" between it and Calvinism. Of course, none of that matters if you don't accept if you have no intentions of accepting my answers to begin with, now does it.

skypair

 

[MB]

It seems we are just arguing back and forth, like a tennis ball, so I hope you won't obeject if I don't answer your points. (Most of them I have addressed previously in discussions with you.)

However, I must just say something about your final point. Can you not see that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs? You seem dogmatically to believe that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" (commonly called Calvinism), are errors. You seem dogmatically to believe that belief precedes the new birth. And so on.

You say it would help if y'all (I suppose that's your dialect for "you all) didn't think WE knew everything, but you have already berated TC for humbly admitting that he certainly does not know everything. I assure you that, firm though I am in my beliefs, I know that I do not know everything, and will not until I get to glory.

The real truth is in scripture and I'll take His word over anyone elses. The problem isn't in what we know but, in what we believe and we can all be wrong about that. I've heard men argue that they have the same Holy Spirit guiding them as I have, and this may be true. However, it isn't the Spirits fault when we dig our feet in and ignore what scripture says. So many times I have heard "well that's your interpretation" of a particular verse. When I read I let the language I'm reading tell me what it wants to tell, not interpreting it into what I all ready believe. I let it confirm my hope. Interpretation is how we wind up with things like our faith in Christ saves us when Gal2:16 says differently. It's how we wind up with double predestination. We become stagnate when we let our preconceived thoughts rule over God's word. I believe the study of God's word should be done with an open heart. Letting God speak to our hearts instead of our interpretations discounting the thoughts of men.
MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You say it would help if y'all (I suppose that's your dialect for "you all)

Yes, its a southern American thing, which I live in the south. Y'all corresponds to the old english "ye"

lol

Then there is "All Y'all" to add some emphasis.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, I'm sure I have It somewhere. I DO, after all, have the "mind of Christ." You haven't presented issues about which I haven't already consulted the Spirit and received an answer. I am, nonetheless, learning by our exchanges which means I have more to learn.

But I would say it is complete insofar as NT theology is concerned. And I can "see daylight" between it and Calvinism. Of course, none of that matters if you don't accept if you have no intentions of accepting my answers to begin with, now does it.

skypair

A question, "Why/how do you have the mind Christ?" How did you obtain this, or what is the reason for your having it?

 

[skypair]

It seems we are just arguing back and forth, like a tennis ball, so I hope you won't obeject if I don't answer your points. (Most of them I have addressed previously in discussions with you.)

Nevertheless, I don't consider it wasted time to revisit them for your consideration. Much as we argue, there is a right and wrong here. And by ignoring them, we only continue in "dividing the body of Christ," as Paul said, among "Apollo, and Cephas, and [Calvin]." If you can be satisfied with that, let's don't discuss.

[quuote]However, I must just say something about your final point. Can you not see that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs?

Sure I can! BUT I have not been as intractible and uncompromising as y'all have! That, sir, is one of MY complaints! I have learned that regeneration causes faith in all BELIEVERS. I have learned that God is totally sovereign over all OUTCOMES. I have learned the difference between the soul and spirit in salvation. I have learned that most Baptist Calvinists don't believe (or at least weren't saved by believing) half of the things they espouse and its the rest that needs "unifying" with the rest of us.

Y'all basically have learned NOTHING from me -- NOTHING! I suspect to do so would unravel your whole garment.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

By skypair,

I suspect to do so would unravel your whole garment.

I would prefer David Lamb's garments remain as they are, and not unraveled

:laugh:


*end meager attempt at humor*

 

[David Lamb]

Just to avoid confusion as to who wrote what, could I just say that the words below were "Originally posted by David Lamb", not by Skypair as it appeared in MB's reply:

Originally Posted by skypair

It seems we are just arguing back and forth, like a tennis ball, so I hope you won't obeject if I don't answer your points. (Most of them I have addressed previously in discussions with you.)

However, I must just say something about your final point. Can you not see that you are just as dogmatic in your beliefs? You seem dogmatically to believe that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" (commonly called Calvinism), are errors. You seem dogmatically to believe that belief precedes the new birth. And so on.

You say it would help if y'all (I suppose that's your dialect for "you all) didn't think WE knew everything, but you have already berated TC for humbly admitting that he certainly does not know everything. I assure you that, firm though I am in my beliefs, I know that I do not know everything, and will not until I get to glory.

 

[skypair]

However, it isn't the Spirits fault when we dig our feet in and ignore what scripture says.

You're right. And so I don't let someone other than the Spirit, like some "ism," tell me which way to interpret the Spirit, either.

When I read I let the language I'm reading tell me what it wants to tell, not interpreting it into what I already believe.

This is interesting because we all ought to interpret scripture according to what we already believed in order to be saved. That was the Spirit that taught us "one body, one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,..." If, for illustration purposes, one was "saved" by Calvinism, it would follow that one would grow therein, right? One would have that knowledge as a basis for seeing the body, spirit, hope, etc. toward which they would grow. Same would no doubt obtain if one subsequently thought they were saved in the manner Calvin describes, no?

But if Calvinism was "another spirit," "another gospel," we could never come to unity could we. If there is no such thing as "decisional salvation" like we see in every biblical account in Acts, then it seems clear we must build our understanding of scripture and of each other on some other hope, baptism, faith, ... everything. Can it be any other way, DL?

I let it confirm my hope.

Exactly! Confirm your hope. What is your hope of salvation -- 'election' or salvation? Realize, Calvinism uses interchangeable terminology here for a reason. That terminology, "elect," implies that salvation is out of your hands. Is that the "spirit" whereby you hope you are saved? We really can't have any unity unless we start with the same "spirit," can we?

I believe the study of God's word should be done with an open heart.

being first assured of the foundation of our salvation, right?

skypair

 

[skypair]

By skypair,

I would prefer David Lamb's garments remain as they are, and not unraveled

:laugh:


*end meager attempt at humor*

Me too (if we're talking literally)! :laugh:

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

By skypair,

I would prefer David Lamb's garments remain as they are, and not unraveled

:laugh:


*end meager attempt at humor*

Not meager at all, especially in view of my surname BAAAAAA!

 

[MB]

You're right. And so I don't let someone other than the Spirit, like some "ism," tell me which way to interpret the Spirit, either.

This is interesting because we all ought to interpret scripture according to what we already believed in order to be saved. That was the Spirit that taught us "one body, one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,..." If, for illustration purposes, one was "saved" by Calvinism, it would follow that one would grow therein, right? One would have that knowledge as a basis for seeing the body, spirit, hope, etc. toward which they would grow. Same would no doubt obtain if one subsequently thought they were saved in the manner Calvin describes, no?

I'm just curious Skypair not trying to argue but why do men feel that The Spirit's interpretation would be different than what the Bible plainly says it is. Understanding and interpretation aren't the same thing. To me the type of interpretation you're speaking of is the explanation of what the Bible already says. It itself explains God and His Salvation to us. Then men come along and reinterpret what it says all over again when all they needed to begin with was understanding of what they read. I believe that scripture alone is letting scripture explain it self. That way we get the real message from God through the understanding He gives us.( If we but ask for it) When we attempt to explain it to our selves or reinterpret it we wind up with so many different views of the same book.

But if Calvinism was "another spirit," "another gospel," we could never come to unity could we. If there is no such thing as "decisional salvation" like we see in every biblical account in Acts, then it seems clear we must build our understanding of scripture and of each other on some other hope, baptism, faith, ... everything. Can it be any other way, DL?

No. it can only be the way it was intended and still is. Calvinism is based on what someone else interpreted. Namely Augustine. Some of it has changed from it's original view. The whole reason Calving and Martin Luther turned against the RCC was because the priest and pope had changed their doctrines. Thats why they're called reformers. Calvinism in effect is the old Catholic doctrine. If everyone would simply disregard there preconceived ideas and let scripture do to there hearts what it was intended to do by accepting it at face value the world would be a different place, a better place.

Exactly! Confirm your hope. What is your hope of salvation -- 'election' or salvation? Realize, Calvinism uses interchangeable terminology here for a reason. That terminology, "elect," implies that salvation is out of your hands. Is that the "spirit" whereby you hope you are saved?

No it isn't.

We really can't have any unity unless we start with the same "spirit," can we?

I for one am looking for unity of the body of Christ but we will never have it until the Lord returns.
I admit that we must be a willing subject for Salvation. How ever Salvation it self is entirely of God. I hope your not saying that's Calvinistic, although it isn't there Idea. It's God's. We believe that we might be saved. It's something thing we must do however it is still God that saves us. If Salvation was based on those who just believed for Salvation alone. Then the sinner would have a just argument on judgment day. He could say I believed, I just didn't do what you wanted but I believed. Salvation has other requirements one is commitment, surrender of our will to His is another. Living a Christian life and being submissive to the Lord's correction. I could go one but you get the picture.

being first assured of the foundation of our salvation, right?

skypair

Our foundation is the righteousness of Christ His faith not our own Gal 2:16.
This must be so because it's His righteousness that covers our sins. It's Christ that is seen by the Father when determining our inheritance.
May God Bless you,
MB

 

[skypair]

MB -- we "cross-posted" to Daved Lamb here. Your [quote = MB] got stuck on the front so I tried to merge it so I could add DL's name. Anyway, much of my post was intended for him.

I'm just curious Skypair not trying to argue but why do men feel that The Spirit's interpretation would be different than what the Bible plainly says it is.

The origins of everyone's enterpretation is their salvation experience IMO. If you came to salvation being a Mormon, there are certain things in scripture that you would cling to with all your might, like "works" themes. I talked to an elder in SLC about tht grace of God and, though he had tears in his eyes, he wouldn't receive it.

Calvinism is based on what someone else interpreted. Namely Augustine.

Sadly, true. And Augustine of Hippo was influenced by the Greek/Eastern culture of the Empire which IMO brought "fate" into play.

How ever Salvation it self is entirely of God. I hope your not saying that's Calvinistic,

Well, that sounds Calvinistic up front. All the work was done by God but if we don't do something, we don't get it. Last night I was reading a doctrinal book and it brought up Acts 2:38 -- "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, ... in the name of Jesus Christ ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It edited the same words I did and look what it says -- WE must repent before we receive anything from preaching. That means that "efficacious calling" isn't for the "elect" -- it is or REPENTERS. Salvation and regeneration are not for the "elect" but for REPENTERS to Christ.

Acts is full of salvation accounts like this that "all of God" seems to exclude from consideration.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

skypair wrote, "Last night I was reading a doctrinal book..."

O dear, should I resist? :tongue3: Hearing this from you is almost too good to be true!

At any rate, who were you reading?

 

[MB]

MB -- we "cross-posted" to Daved Lamb here. Your [quote = MB] got stuck on the front so I tried to merge it so I could add DL's name. Anyway, much of my post was intended for him.

The origins of everyone's enterpretation is their salvation experience IMO. If you came to salvation being a Mormon, there are certain things in scripture that you would cling to with all your might, like "works" themes. I talked to an elder in SLC about tht grace of God and, though he had tears in his eyes, he wouldn't receive it.

What ever man brings from what he use to believe before Salvation isn't of God. It's of the man and this is what I was talking about concerning our interpreting scripture. This IMO is what fouls it up. Preconceived notions.

Sadly, true. And Augustine of Hippo was influenced by the Greek/Eastern culture of the Empire which IMO brought "fate" into play.

Well, that sounds Calvinistic up front. All the work was done by God but if we don't do something, we don't get it. Last night I was reading a doctrinal book and it brought up Acts 2:38 -- "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, ... in the name of Jesus Christ ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It edited the same words I did and look what it says -- WE must repent before we receive anything from preaching. That means that "efficacious calling" isn't for the "elect" -- it is or REPENTERS. Salvation and regeneration are not for the "elect" but for REPENTERS to Christ.


Acts is full of salvation accounts like this that "all of God" seems to exclude from consideration.

skypair

My view may sound Calvinistic but I'm sure most Calvinist would certainly disagree that it is.
The will of man is important. Salvation is not forced. Therefore the man must be willing. There is nothing that a man can do for Himself other than being willing to believe. God draws man to hear His word. The man doesn't just come on His own though it may seem so to the man. Jn 6:44. Men are elected it's just not individual.
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Being chosen for Salvation as we all are doesn't guarntee our Salvation anymore than it did for the Jews. Since Christ died for the whosoevers in Jn 3:16, He died for all man kind and there by chose to die for all men and there in lays, everyones election. He chose all men for Salvation. Those who reject Him or continue to rebel against Him will die. Those who willingly believe in Him will be saved but not because they believe or because of there own faith but because Christ died for them. God called us ,God draws us, and God convicts and convinces us of Himself this is how it is all of God. Gal 2:16 shows this very clearly.

At any rate Skypair we aren't that different from each other.
MB

 

[skypair]

O dear, should I resist? :tongue3: Hearing this from you is almost too good to be true!

At any rate, who were you reading?

Guy named Evans. My late Mom's book. Hoping to get something.

MB was talking about our will in salvation. This book distinguishes between belief and faith, the difference being that the human will is involved in faith. And of course, Acts 2:38.

You know -- in Acts there is ALWAYS an offer to be accepted before being saved or regenerated. How is it you still, despite all these examples, say it's not up to us whether we will be saved or not?

Today I picked up Sproul's "Mystery of the Holy Spirit" for reading over in Kuaui Sep 11-18. I'm still trying to "get it" -- to find some area where misunderstandings can be turned into understanding. :love2: You?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Guy named Evans. My late Mom's book. Hoping to get something.

MB was talking about our will in salvation. This book distinguishes between belief and faith, the difference being that the human will is involved in faith. And of course, Acts 2:38.

You know -- in Acts there is ALWAYS an offer to be accepted before being saved or regenerated. How is it you still, despite all these examples, say it's not up to us whether we will be saved or not?

Today I picked up Sproul's "Mystery of the Holy Spirit" for reading over in Kuaui Sep 11-18. I'm still trying to "get it" -- to find some area where misunderstandings can be turned into understanding. :love2: You?

skypair

Never heard of the Evans guy. I haven't read that Sproul book before, but it sounds interesting. I am reading the new Greek dictionary I bought, John Owen, and poking through some others...as far as books go. I have been listening through the Scriptures in my truck which has been a great blessing.

I have never thought man doesn't have to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved. When I see the biblical examples in Acts I see the operation of God in those people. The Scripture you mentioned, we read just before it "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Surely we can all see that they were sensible to their sin and saw their need of Christ.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." v.41

So you can see why we don't say men are forced by God to believe. In the day of God's power they shall be willing, just like those whom the Father has given the Son, shall come. Since the Father has given them to the son in (election) and that before the world began, before they were born having done neither good or evil, how is it that we should believe that their coming to Christ is the cause of God's election?

And this is what we understand the Scripture says:

"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 47-48

Its not, as many as believed were ordained to eternal life, but as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And this God has done without any violence or compulsion to the will of man.

 

[skypair]

Never heard of the Evans guy. I haven't read that Sproul book before, but it sounds interesting. I am reading the new Greek dictionary I bought, John Owen, and poking through some others...as far as books go. I have been listening through the Scriptures in my truck which has been a great blessing.

Not OTR driver, are you? There's a ministry to supply them with good Adrian Rogers tapes (and others) at truck stops accross the MidSouth at least. The ministry is called "Highway Harvesters."

I have never thought man doesn't have to repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved.

As per your own testimony. I know. But some of these rascals do. You might be an American Baptist (liberal last time I checked) and Reform and eschew decisional salvation.

When I see the biblical examples in Acts I see the operation of God in those people. The Scripture you mentioned, we read just before it "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart...

Yes -- conviction of the Holy Spirit, but not indwelling/regenerated yet. That comes after repentance and receiving "the gift of the Holy Ghost," right?

So you can see why we don't say men are forced by God to believe. In the day of God's power they shall be willing, just like those whom the Father has given the Son, shall come.

The "day of God's power" then is when the gospel is preached because God's power is in the word (1Cor 2:4 -- "My speech and my preaching was ... in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."). And I don't see the "irresistibility" of any of this demonstrated in any of the Acts conversions.

Since the Father has given them to the son in (election) and that before the world began, before they were born having done neither good or evil, how is it that we should believe that their coming to Christ is the cause of God's election?

First off, that is not what Peter preached on Pentecost. Nor was it the message of any preaching in Acts. So do not make the analogy that they were elect by God and not by their own choice.

I also read last night "ALL the Doctrines of the Bible" which might help you in this. Lockyer quotes Scoffield saying that foreknowledge is past, election is present and predestination is future. And this past, present, and future are all the plan of God for BELIEVERS.

But as you can see from any account in Acts, believers are such by their own choice. Even the passage you just gave me shows that the Spirit and quickening power are in the preaching of the gospel -- not already in the individual. The hearer (anyone since none has an advantage) chooses of his own will to repent and receive and THEN receives the power and Spirit in himself.

and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 47-48

Its not, as many as believed were ordained to eternal life, but as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And this God has done without any violence or compulsion to the will of man.

That statement is NOT exclusive of the reverse formulation of it which you also give. They were ordained to eternal life but God knew beforehand that they would believe before His ordination to eternal life in eternity past, too. Or are you saying that He didn't know they would believe? That foreknown came before predestined?

skypair