-
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!
Total Depravity...
- Thread starter Blammo
- Start date
johnp. said:I wouldn't dream of saying God is at fault, how do you reach the conclusion I did? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Rom 9:21.
This illustration is a direct reference to Jeremiah 18:1-10, in which the Prophet is speaking to God's plan and intent for Israel. In no way does the context of this passage have to do with the individual election or reprobation of an individual -- it has only to do with God's plan for National Israel.
RO 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law...
Without hearing the word of God?
Men are held accountable for what they know -- even if they have not heard the Gospel message, they have both the internal witness of their conscience and the external witness of general revelation (and common grace) by which they shall be judged. And, incidentally, though they are held accountable for the violation of their conscience and geneal revealtion, the fact that they have not heard is the fault of the Church -- and "their blood will be on our hands" (Ezekiel 3:20,21).
PS 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
This passage niether proves nor disproves the immediate or mediate creating work of God. That God ultimately "creates" all life is something I would hope we all could agree on.
Regardless of whose failure it is He knows who are going to Hell how can you say He doesn't create men for Hell? Why does He create people for fellowship with Him when He knows they do not want fellowship with Him and He knows He is going to send them to Hell?
God's foreknowledge of man's fate does not mean He predetermines it. God allows some things, He does not decree everything. If He does, He becomes the author of evil. That violates God's own revelation of Himself.
Are you speaking for all Primitive Baptists? I must refuse the title if you are as I am an evangelist.
Are you a Primitive Baptist? My Grandmother attended a PB Church when she was a child. IN NC where I am from, and where I pastored for a while, I had quite a bit of contact with PB's...
That's right but He proposed to do it through men and I proposed to take advantage of the blessings involved with the round up. If hyper-Calvinists, I take it that is what you mean, if hyper-Calvinists don't all the more for me.
But your logic is at fault. Jesus said, "If you love me you will obey Me." And He also said. "Make disciples."
Hey! I like this answer! My favorite kinds of Calvinists are inconsistent Calvinists! :thumbs: That was a joke, by the way. I appreciate that we totally AGREE on this point.
I know he did. That's what I like about Spurgeon, he occasionally ended up in the ditch. That you end with Spurgeon is a shame since you did not think it prudent to use scripture anywhere. As an evangelist I believe God does His work through His word. so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it, ISA 55:11.
And Wesley wrote, Long my imprisoned spirit lay fast-bound in sin and nature's night.
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke--the dungeon flamed with light!
My chains fell off, my heart was free!
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee!
john.
THe snide shot about my not using Scripture aside (as I've used an abundance of it in EVERY other post until this last) THIS is a good direction for the discussion -- at least I hope it is.
Blessings,
JDale
reformedbeliever
New Member
JDale said:That's good RB. I appreciate sarcasm. Rally, I do -- It's one of my spiritual gifts too -- along with facetiousness.
In attempting to turn this into an actual discussion again, what you seem to be doing is separating the "new birth" (regeneration, justification, all that this entails) from the faith of the individual. The logical question then, is, what if the one "regenerated" simply refuses to believe? Or, if he CANNOT resist, then how is that faith? Faith implies a choice, a decision, a commitment. Not to mention the fact that it is faith that is "accounted for righteousness." This was true of Abraham, David, and all the NT saints and apostles. Hebrews 11 credits the necessity of faith to please God -- the enter His promises. Why does it not rather laud "regeneration" since THAT is what produces faith, and faith means nothing unless regeneration precedes it...?
Just some thoughts to ponder. You response will be interesting...
Blessings,
JDale
Actually, i'm not separating regeneration and faith. I believe that saving faith is a gift from God. We can not have saving faith without being regenerated. I do not put a timeline on this, but rather an order. Do you think that regeneration is a result of an exercise of your will?
The bible says that all that the Father gives to the Son will come to Him.
No, I don't think that one who is regenerated will fail to come to Jesus. They may resist for a time, but ultimately, if they are given to the Son by the Father, they will come.
When one has saving faith they will come to Jesus. Now if you are saying that one can have saving faith without the Lord being the author of it, then I would have to disagree with you. There are none who seek God.
Of course faith is necessary to please God. No argument there.
reformedbeliever
New Member
webdog said:
Where did your faith come from?
reformedbeliever said:
RB:
I actually think this is funny -- if we don't separate faith from regeneration by time, but by order -- yet we both agree that they happen at the SAME time -- is there really a difference? I mean, other than on paper? :laugh:
So the "Ordo Salutis" is where our differences lie? I believe regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit in response to the faith of an individual whom God has convicted of sin, drawn to Himself and enabled to believe through prevenient grace. I hope that explains what I mean.
So, we CAN agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. I also affirm that there is none who seeks God (Romans 3), but I do believe that the "drawing" process awakens within man the desire to know more -- I think this is a part of God's prevenient grace to humans.
JDale
Right after "who hath believed our report?"
The Bible says that faith cometh by hearing. (no mention of regeneration)
The Bible says that hearing cometh by the word of God. (again no mention of regeneration)
Then the Bible says "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."
Ezekiel 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
The Bible says that faith cometh by hearing. (no mention of regeneration)
The Bible says that hearing cometh by the word of God. (again no mention of regeneration)
Then the Bible says "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."
Ezekiel 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
Blammo said:
Actually, the second part implies regeneration, because we cannot hear apart from the word (rhema, as in spoken word) of God.
I hear this preached repeatedly as if it reads, "Faith comes by hearing the (preached) word of God". But that's not what it says. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing [comes by] the utterance of God.
IMO, it's basically saying, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes when and if God says so." I know lots of people won't agree with that interpretation, but it certainly fits with Deut 29.
See? It didn't matter that they saw miracles. They couldn't grasp the truth because God hadn't given them a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear. Deut 29 doesn't say they failed to grasp the truth because they decided of their own free will not to do so, even though they were capable of deciding to grasp it.
reformedbeliever
New Member
npetreley said:
Beat me to it!
reformedbeliever
New Member
Blammo said:
There are two forms of hearing. One is in a saving way..... the other is just accoustic.
reformedbeliever
New Member
JDale said:
Ahhh..... ok now I see. You believe in prevenient grace. I understand.. ( I think) where you get that.... but to be sure, would you expound upon that idea? Where does scripture say we have prevenient grace?
reformedbeliever said:
LOL! Don't forget, let's examine the order of events with prevenient grace. Funny how it will match up perfectly with regeneration.... the only difference is that if you call it prevenient grace, it leaves salvation in the hands of man instead of God. If you call it regeneration, it's irresistable and monergistic.
Prevenient grace: A not-so-clever invention to make sure man gets the credit for making the decision.
npetreley said:
Come on npe... This is both snide AND a misrepresentation of prevenient grace.
In no way does man get any credit for his salvation. That God enables man to believe is the key. God does not FORCE one to believe. It is not an "invention to make sure man gets the credit..."
Do you think so little of fellow believers who do not hold you view? That is, if you even consider me a "fellow believer." Those who hold to "prevenient grace" did not "invent" it so they could claim "credit" for their own salvation. That's a distorted and unfair characterization of those who hold this view.
JDale
reformedbeliever
New Member
Well JDale, I look forward to discussing this further. Tonight is our prayer meeting and bible study. I hope you will enlighten me upon the scriptures that you can exegetically get prevenient grace. I've always wondered about that. Thank you brother. See you after a bit.
You're mixing the meaning of prevenient grace with my belief of why the concept was invented (I believe it is subconscious intent, but intent neverhtless).JDale said:
Yes, I consider you a fellow believer. I do not think little of people who hold to the view. I think little of the view itself.JDale said:
Is it? You didn't invent the doctrine, and I don't know the hearts and minds of those who did. But in my opinion, it is, in fact, rooted in a man-centered attempt at claiming at least SOME of the credit for one's salvation.JDale said:
How could man NOT assign some credit to himself? If God only enabled man to believe, but man believed of his own free will, then the difference between the saved and the unsaved boils down to man's free-will decision. God may have provided the means, but man is still the hinge and turning point of his own salvation. If that isn't grabbing some of the glory, I don't know what is.
Last edited by a moderator: