Oh you're one of those "if you don't agree with me you're anti-so and so" people.So your complaining about this adds nothing to the debate, just as you are anti nonCalvinism.
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!
Oh you're one of those "if you don't agree with me you're anti-so and so" people.So your complaining about this adds nothing to the debate, just as you are anti nonCalvinism.
What must be understood is that the work of Christ was accepted by the Father in eternity, not in time.I do agree that no one can be saved WITHOUT the works of Jesus Christ completed, but salvation was possible PRIOR to the work of Jesus Christ.
Maybe that's why Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.The Scripture is very clear on this matter. No one was given a new heart until after the works of Jesus Christ were completed. If the OT saints went to heaven and God indwelled them WITHOUT the works of Jesus Christ completed, then there would have been no reason for Jesus Christ to actually have to come and do anything further. We could just all continue on with the promise remaining in God's mind alone and nothing would change at all.
What part of man was not affected by the fall and thus can come to God on its own merits?Calvinism's version of T is not biblical according to my research of the scriptures.
Yeah we understand that...it's Steaver (who claims he has a better understanding of God's eternal plan) that doesn't.What must be understood is that the work of Christ was accepted by the Father in eternity, not in time.
I know.Yeah we understand that...it's Steaver (who claims he has a better understanding of God's eternal plan) that doesn't.
Oh you're one of those "if you don't agree with me you're anti-so and so" people.
You did not answer my question. So what is it you see as the OT saints having not received prior to the cross?Maybe that's why Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The O.T. saints were saved by grace through faith, and that not of themselves. They looked forward as we look back.
No one can come to God on his own merits. This is a false premise. One is saved by grace alone through faith alone.What part of man was not affected by the fall and thus can come to God on its own merits?
How did you get that from my last post??? Never mind, probably the same way you got that man isn't depraved from reading the Bible.I believe that is what you began your last post with....so I guess you are talking about yourself, correct?
.... it appears you may be so anti-Calvinist that you are now becoming anti-Biblical..........Yeah, that anti-Calvinist leading to anti-Biblical thing.
You admitted to being anti-Calvinist. I commented that your anti-Calvinism (which you admitted to) is making you anti-Biblical. I haven't made a claim to be anti-Arminianism.Short memory there brother......
You admitted to being anti-Calvinist. I commented that your anti-Calvinism (which you admitted to) is making you anti-Biblical. I haven't made a claim to be anti-Arminianism.
So you agree with Total Depravity. One down, 4 to go.No one can come to God on his own merits. This is a false premise. One is saved by grace alone through faith alone.
Martin's post doesn't reference the correct passage.Uh, he gave you the scripture. And you can add Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
It all boils down to calvinism's version verses the bible's version. I believe in the bible's version of depravity.So you agree with Total Depravity. One down, 4 to go.
Me too. The "T" of TULIP IS the bible's version.It all boils down to calvinism's version verses the bible's version. I believe in the bible's version of depravity.
Me too. The "T" of TULIP IS the bible's version.
So you're on of those either/or guys huh?Oh! Then you are pro Arminianism. Good. How could I be anti-Calvinism and pro-Calvinism at the same time?