N
Nelson
Guest
1 Cor. 8:2...nuf' said.Originally posted by JAMES2:I feel really sorry for people who only understand part of what is plainly taught...the full meaning of the Reformation -- was finally made clear to me...
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!
1 Cor. 8:2...nuf' said.Originally posted by JAMES2:I feel really sorry for people who only understand part of what is plainly taught...the full meaning of the Reformation -- was finally made clear to me...
A person can accept Christ and not understand the things of God. and in fact most in that stage dont, but then when they receive him, then they begin to gain the spiritual discernment described, so this cannot be used to prove the "they must be regenerated first in order to believe" theory (which would actually render faith moot).Either God gives you the grace to understand the plain teachings of the bible (1 cor 2:14) or He hasn't.
What does this have to do with choice of salvation. Your supposed non-elect who have no free will to believe (because they are not "sustained", right?) still exist.Remember, God sustains you through every single moment of your life. If God, for one second stopped sustaining your or the universe, you and the universe would instantly evaporate into non-existence. So much for "free-will."
Once again, the Calvinist assumes the non-Calvinist is just trying/"refusing to give up" being "the captain of his ship". Some nominals may be that way, but this assertion is made up as a straw man to prove Calvinism. The reason most of us dispute Calvinism is because of it's implications regarding the nature of God in respect to the non-elect. That is the issue, not anyone saving themselves. Romans 9, as it has been proven is not even talking about some people made to be destroyed in Hell, so we are not "ignoring" it.Hang on to man saving himself all you want, For me and my household, well, we will continue to believe the gospel as taught by the Apostles, the Reformers and the other great minds of the church. Salvation is from GOD ALONE plus NOTHING from man. After regeneration comes faith, and justification, and growth in the Christian life, and finally, glorification. Thank God salvation is ALL OF GRACE.
Once again, you and your views are in the vast majority of what man has invented as their religions. EVERY single religion in the history of man, has man saving himself, in one way or another, by his "free will." Man-centered religion is the rule not the exception. Hang on to your free will all you want. Insist that man can save himself. Throw in some grace here and there, and ignore Romans 9 and the rest of the bible, and give man the glory. That's what man just can't give up. He has to be the captain of his ship, the master of his destiny. As long as you maintain that man HAS ANYTHING to do with his salvation you do not understand the gospel.
But to be consistent, if what you are saying is true about people thinking they are saving themselves, then that is not saving faith, and they are in more than error, they are still lost in their sins!Nelson, to I do not say that not believing in "Calvinsim" means you are not saved. Further to compare what the Reformers taught with the JW's and Mormons really does border on the absurd, and I wasn't going to even respond to it, but it does show desperation.
As long as you maintain that man HAS ANYTHING to do with his salvation you do not understand the gospel. Are you saved? Certainly, I never said you weren't. In error about the essentials of the gospel!! Without a doubt!!!! Go on thinking that your salvation was because you decided to accept Jesus.
Agreed.by EricB: The reason most of us dispute Calvinism is because of it's implications regarding the nature of God in respect to the non-elect.
With all due respect, allow my take here:Originally posted by Pastor Larry:The problem here though is that you are still drawing invalid implications. You have decided what those implications are without benefit of biblical reasoning. You appear to continue to accept what Scripture says about the nature of God. You are still asserting your mind as superior to revelation. When Scripture speaks, we should let it say what it does.
That is just a philosophical question that is not even addressed in scripture (why one chooses one way compared to another). The Bible tells us to give the Gospel to all, and that's it. Some will choose, others won't. Nothing about "those who don't were decreed to be lost". If you want to talk about someone being "more holy", isn't the person who was eternally decreed to be saved not not really lost to begin with, and therefore better than those created to die in their sins? (even though it is claimed "not because of anything in themselves)you still haven't answered the question. What makes some "accept" salvation and others, with the same offer, according to you, not "accept." Was it because you were superior, or you had something to boast about, or you read the bible, or you were just more holy and the other person lacked all those things? Of course not!!!
Here is another common error. Faith is not the gift, in Col.2:8, it is the MEANS. Salvation is the gift received by grace THROUGH faith. But if regeneration was independant of faith, it would be moot, because the person wouldn't be excercising faith, he would just be reprogrammed like a computer, and faith wouldn't be saving, because one is already saved before he "receives" it.Where do you find that being born again renders Justification by faith moot!!! When you are justified your whole standing with Gods changes. You go from being a condemned criminal (sinner) being a declared a child of God. It is a one time change of status. Then the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you. First regeneration, then justification. Faith most certainly is not made moot. It is GIVEN to you as a free gift.
Excuse me!!! So you are saying that you can't have saving faith unless you save yourself? Wrong, if that's what you mean. You do NOT save yourself, and you do not believe savingly, unless you have been regenerated, and then GIVEN the gift of faith. Remember, Paul says that faith is a free gift, so that you can't boast.
I've never found that anything to boast about. I was another sinner just like everyone else, yet now I've found how to receive eternal life. The point is not that I found it, but that my mission is to see to it that others find it as well. Here's something that just dawned on me. If all we are doing is just trying to boast and be better than the lost, then why would we be so concerned about the idea of them having no chance to escape Hell. (We would be happy that God chose US over those poor dogs). This is the issue, not the straw man of some supposed "boasting".Remember, Paul says that faith is a free gift, so that you can't boast. If all your friends did not accepet Jesus even tho they had the offer given to them, and you did "accept" Jesus, then you most certainly would have something to BOAST about.
Originally posted by Nelson:
With all due respect, allow my take here:
1. Larry is setting up Calvinistic/Reformed teachings as an assumed an infallible truth, far above criticism, in much the same way that Jehovah Witnesses view their teachings.
False.
2. Larry's method of Biblical reasoning is determined by and confined to the Calvinistic tradition.
False. My biblical reasoning is based on the unity of Scritpural truth and the clear statements of Scripture.
3. Larry asserts Calvinistic/Reformed tradition as "superior to revelation."
False. I have not argued calvinistic tradition. I have argued the various points of Scripture.
4. As far as what Scriptures "says," from my vantage point, it obviously does not say "Calvinism" or "Reformed."
That is why I usually do not use the term "Calvinism" or "reformed." However, in this debate it has become necessary. Calvinism is simply a shorthand name for what Scripture teaches about salvation.
What would have been proper for Larry to do is offer comments regarding my comparison of Calvinism with The Truman Show and leave it at that rather than - as usual - make baseless criticism on my approach to the Bible with the implication that I am arrogant.
I cannot do that inasmuch as I have not seen the Truman Show. Jim Carrey doesn't interest me. I think he is obnoxious. Furthemore, I try to refrain from getting my theology from pop culture. Scripture is a much better source.Additionally, I did not make a baseless criticism. I pointed out that you have based your objections on invalid implications, something I have pointed out all along and have given multitudes of support for.![]()
If he saw me drawing erroneous conclusions, he should state what they are and how they are invalid.
If he felt I lacked correct "biblical reasoning," he should point specifically where and how.
If he concludes that I display an attitude of "mind as superior to revelation," he should show where and how.
If he feels I am not taking Scripture for what it says, again, show specifically where and how.
These are contained in virtually every thread on this section of the forum.
I am trying to be charitable here but it is difficult. My comments were related directly to this discussion. You stated that your objections to Calvinism were based on the implications regarding the nature of God in the treatment of the non-elect. I commented that your implications are invalid. Thus, you can see how that is directly related to the topic of the thread.From this point on, I will only answer Larry's post if it is directly related to the subject of discussion. Any further comments that veer off and are vague or merely discuss my person will be ignored.
There was no discussion of your person. Your subtle implications about my person however are noted (that I am off topic, making baseless criticisms, making personal attacks, illogical, irrational, etc.). If you persist you will be asked to take a vacation from posting for a period of time so that you can observe.
This section of the forum has largely been characterized by charity and discussion with a few exceptions. Let us straighten out the exceptions and keep the threads in decent order.
With all due respect, in no place can it be shown where I have personally attacked anyone on this post, including Larry.by Larry: I am trying to be charitable here but it is difficult.
Originally posted by Nelson:...Larry is setting up Calvinistic/Reformed teachings as an assumed an infallible truth, far above criticism, in much the same way that Jehovah Witnesses view their teachings.I forgot to ask, does that mean that one may allow the possibility that the Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines, as they are presented (including the acronym TULIP), may be erred in one point or another in it's interpretation of what Scripture teaches?Originally posted by Larry: False...Calvinism is simply a shorthand name for what Scripture teaches about salvation.
[ March 08, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Nelson ]
In other words, such a question has no meaning except to try to prove a preconceived interpretation of scripture. I don't think I am any better than anyone and I do believe God reached out to me in a way He may have not reached out to others to open my mind to His truth, but to say that all the others were decreed to continue in darkness unto destruction is adding way too much to the scripture.I ask a simple, plain question and the best you can do is say it is philosophical? Please!!!! The free offer of the gospel is to made to everyone. Some accept and others don't. I ask you why YOU accepted and others, with the same offer did not. You reply, because, some choose and some don't. This is going nowhere. You "found how to receive salvation" and now you have a mission to show others how to "find it." Same problem, different words. How did you receive it or find it and the others did not. Just because I suppose?
And you continue to use the "man saving himself" cliche even though that has been denied as a phony straw man....but sit down, set aside the concept that man can save himself, which would make Christianity no different than any other religion of the world, and read prayfully read John 10, Romans 9 and Eph. chapter 1 and 2. If you still believe, after reading those texts of scripture that man is the one who decides to "accept" salvation or reject it, so be it.
Why would it be necessary to those who he has already changed their heart according to Jeremiah 31:31-35 to be given a choice. Show me the part of scripture that says there is that choice.Humankind has intelligence, which is God given, and a freedom of choice to receive the Son or to ignore the grace so richly offered to everyone. [I John 2:2]
I heard Mr. Camping a few days ago trying to defend Irressistible Grace and He said when God wants you He will bring you in 'even if you are kicking and flogging.