true or false: god CANNOT save Anyone Unless You Permit Him Too!

[Rippon]

Unless this was a play on words.

No,it wasn't. He is guilty of the vile sin of wrongly spelling the word not only today but on 5/27/11, 2/8/11 and 4/29/10 (I didn't go back in the archives any more than that.) Crabtownboy is guilty as well. It must be an Arminian affliction.

 

[gloopey1]

A four pointer is someone who is usually lacking some understanding of the L.

Studying the work of our Great High Priest usually cures it.

...Or a four-pointer might be someone who does understand the doctrine of limited atonement, but finds himself at odds with it. This is especially true in light of verses such as:

1 Timothy 4:10 (KJV)
4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

John 3:16 (KJV)
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 2:2 (KJV)
2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV)
5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Galatians 6:14 (KJV)
6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Colossians 1:5-6 (KJV)
1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Titus 2:11 (KJV)
2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

1 John 4:14 (KJV)
4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

 

[gloopey1]

No,it wasn't. He is guilty of the vile sin of wrongly spelling the word not only today but on 5/27/11, 2/8/11 and 4/29/10 (I didn't go back in the archives any more than that.) Crabtownboy is guilty as well. It must be an Arminian affliction.

Do you always speak this way about others? Do you speak this way to people within your congregation?

 

[preacher4truth]

Do you always speak this way about others? Do you speak this way to people within your congregation?

Probably less of a sin than you asking Iconoclast if his salvation is an illusion by implication. Don't ya think?

And you're a "teaching pastor?"

Uh huh.

 

[Allan]

You continue to make my case for a "God first" means to salvation. Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

Good grief.. I have not denied 'means to salvation' as God does this for all mankind... though He does so to varying degrees.

How about this:



Or this:

Nothing, in them are speaking to God 'breaking in' nor about salvation prior to faith. Since when does a unbeliever call Christ- Lord? He know that whomever it was that was before Him, was God.. I do not deny God 'manifested' Himself in a powerful way, but nothing in the text can be used to even speculate what you are contending. Even the very first line of the Timothy text you quote sets what you contend spiraling:

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service,

that in conjunction with the other passage in which you highlight this:

for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

And when exactly was he deemed - faithful?
according to Paul, in the text you quote, before He appointed him to service.
He states God was merciful to him BECAUSE he acted ignorantly in unbelief. That smacks of man-centeredness if ever there was as statement! God was not merciful because of His good pleasure absent anything of or about Paul, but was BECAUSE Paul acted in ignorance (unknowing) of unbelief.

Then this of the same passage:

But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

So the mercy given was give to him because he was acting in ignorance, and for the purpose that he should be a prime example that God is patiently waiting for those who WILL believe in Him for eternal life. I agree that those who will believe are those for whom God is waiting (the "to us-ward" passage well known), yet again, this does not stand in contradiction to God reaching out to those who will not believe in the same manner (though not always the to same degree). Remember, that God is willing for all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth - 1 Tim 2:4

Might I humbly suggest (in keeping with the scriptural answer I offered for your mistaken ideas about Paul) that you would be better off betting that Obama is the best president ever?

It might be best to rethink your thoughts.
Just how was Paul deemed faithful, and THEN appointed to ministry if prior to be appointed, he did not seek God nor cared for him? Since when does God give mercy because they were acting in ignorance.. sounds much like God is centering to much on man.

It does, but what do YOU mean by God comes first? Do you take the traditional Arminian stance, where God comes first to men whom He foreknew would choose Him,

That is not the traditional Classical/Reformed Arminian position as they hold Previent grace enables man, but not that it necessitates it makes man willing. Here is a post I recently cited regarding this very thing

or do you take the traditional Calvinistic stance, where God chooses the elect before the foundations of the earth?

While I am sure there is a small crowd out there of non-cals who favor the opposite, all I have ever known (including myself) do not dispute this.

Seeing as how you have argued against the Calvinistic position in almost every post, I have a difficult time reconciling your statement that God comes first with your other tenets. I'm sure that the difficulty is mine, but nevertheless, if you could help me (and others reading these posts) to understand the mechanism you follow in this instance, it would be very helpful.

Then you haven't been listening.. there is nothing in any of my posts that stand in contention with God coming to man first. Thus explain where you see a disconnect.

I know that this is the default position of those who see God's election as a corporate issue, but what stops this from being pure universalism?

Who said I hold to cooperate election, I have actually never 'met' a non-cal who holds this view

God makes it clear in Scripture that He elects persons as well as groups, and that we are "personally" entered into the Lamb's Book of Life, that God knows "every hair on our heads," etc., all of which point to a very personal salvation event.

Agreed

I also know that Romans 1 stipulates that "all men" are without excuse, but we know that "all men" are not saved -- at least I believe that you are not, in fact, a universalist, so at what point do you reconcile God coming FIRST and at the same time all men not being saved, though (in your system) God has made provision for all men?

Provision does not necessitate application. example.. in the OT the Atonement was on behalf of all of Israel, yet we know all Israel was not saved. We also know that only by faith is the propitiation of the Atonement applied (Rom 3:25). We also note that God reveals the spiritual truths to all men (sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come) and thus we see God dealing with all men the same as He deals with those who 'will be' of faith. He comes to man, opens men eyes, makes them to understand that which He is revealing (meaning they do KNOW, not know but not really know) because scripture states God caused them TO know and understand.

We know in Prov 1 (which Paul quotes a portion of in Rom 10 the last verse) where by God has called them, but they have refused, He stretched out his hands but no one regarded them. He is not 'trying' to save anyone.. He already knows those whom He has chosen to save.. He has done all He is going to do! He has called all to the wedding feast and provision has been made them, yet they did not.. so He called others. God can not offer to someone what He does not have to give them without violating His character and declared standard of Justice and Holiness.

You want to state that regeneration must happen first, and here is where I disagree with Classical Arminians and Calvinists. This is based upon not just what regeneration does (I agree whole-heartedly with Cals on what it does to man).. but HOW it does what it does.. and thus reveals 'WHEN' it transpires. This is what I believe is the CRUX of the issue regarding Cals and non-Cals. To understand regeneration, will make or break ones theological position as to the process of salvation.

Is Christ not "potent" to do what He set out to do, i.e., accomplish salvation for the elect? Is man's will more powerful than God? I won't chide you, but I expect that you already know the answer to those questions.

Of course, nor do I or have I ever denied it. The very fact that man rejection of a gospel that has nothing to with him nor has anything to give him, begs the very question.. why? Unless the gospel or good news DOES apply to them but.. what if.. His death not only saves those who will believe.. but also condemns those who will not receive it. Yet it can only bring condemnation to those who will not receive what was provided, since receiving it saves. Thus the Atonement has a two fold purpose, not only to save but to also establish a person in condemnation (sealing themselves) for rejecting the truth that 'could save them' (2 Thes 2:10)

I do not wish to be quick to dismiss the OT, but how is a passage dealing with following God's Law helpful in discussing a New Covenant salvation?

Because they deal with one and the same Covenant.
Under which Covenant does the circumcision of the heart come into play?
Under which Covenant, is there eternal life and a promise that God change the heart to Love God and be obedient to Him
Under which Covenant is there 'life' granted to those who believe and repent?

-- asking, "Did God really say?" then offering a counterfeit that sounds good, logical, reasonable, and do-able, to mortals who, in their sin, seem always at the ready to step in and assume God's sovereignty for themselves at any given moment.

And yet when it is God who leads men from a position that is presumed biblical, what shall we then say - It was the devil? Me thinks we can to often think to highly of our opinions

 

[Rippon]

Do you always speak this way about others? Do you speak this way to people within your congregation?

LOL! Now I've heard everything.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I'm going to pick on you just a bit here... It seems a very common theme that you respond often in your posts with a phrase like that above. That you have to use it as often as you do indicates a couple of possibilities:

1) That what you wrote is not easily deciphered and people are making mistakes because of your style, grammar, etc. (I have not found that to be the case, however).

2) That you may have "thought" something other than what you actually wrote. (We all do that on occasion, but we can only respond to the words that you key into a thread, not what you are thinking.)

3) That we actually DO understand just what you wrote, but merely disagree with your position. (I have found this to be the case most often.)

While 2 is most probable.. the question needs be asked when even after numerous posts on the same subject over and over.. I find it quite ridiculous to presume 1 or 2 people can't understand what I'm saying when I get PM's from others wondering why I continue because it is apparent the other is just being stubborn.. those messages are from both Cals and Non alike!

Disagreeing with ones position does not necessitate one constantly misrepresenting another persons view even when they 'know' they are doing it.

But you left out #4

4) The response IS silly due to the fact they did not read the post and ask you a question that is SPECIFICALLY addressed.. such as the post in question.. the very highlighted portion addresses the very fact "the SBC neither gave nor declared ANY specific theological stance as a Convention and THAT is your problem! It NEVER declared, nor alleged any specific theological stance, and STILL hasn't to this day." Then turns around and ask me to show him "one glaring document that attests to her [SBC] Arminianism in her first 50 years".

That question IS silly because he didn't actually read the post he was contending against.

I expect that you believe that the power of your words and logic are such that once you write them, you believe that you have made THE definitive answer to the question at hand.

I expect you know 'very' little about me, in fact due to the above, I can guarantee it. My statements are according to my own studies of scripture over the last 20 years. However that does not mean I am right nor do I presume I am always right.. but like you, I want/need the other person to prove it through more that just snide remarks and caustic accusations or rhetorical unsubstantiated claims. I love a 'good' debate.. but one thing you apparently DO NOT know about me is that I have often left the debate with, we can agree to disagree and Still Maintain Christian unity and love for that brother.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just out of curiosity, I have a question;
hello gloopey....I do not think we have interacted before

do you believe that it is possible for you to wake up one day and discover that your own conversion was merely an illusion?

This is an excellent question! To answer you I would tell you no because I was not looking for God,or His word, but in mercy He sought me out.
I am the last person that would have ever believed the bible years ago, but God in mercy drew me to the Son.
If I am a deceived person...God would justly cast me into hell to the praise of His glory. The same for the hypocrite.
In and by His mercy as one elected before time, I give diligence to make my calling and ELECTION sure as Peter has taught us to do.

In your other post you list the classic verses that prove what I posted earlier to be so. All of these verses when properly understood, lead to all 5 points...not 4, or three

JC.Ryle was a very godly person and struggled with the L. When you read his writings however you can hardly tell because he held everything else so strong...particularly on sanctification and holiness...that no one cared about his lack on this point,as it always shows up as inconsistent.

You will see this in time,as many posts go astray and it is easy to see where they do.
If you have any other specific questions I would be glad to respond to you on them...or anyone of those verses you posted...let me know.

 

[Iconoclast]

Gloopey
a few times each year I deliever to Peytons down in cleveland tenn...maybe we could chat live if you are available....let me know.

 

[glfredrick]

Good grief.. I have not denied 'means to salvation' as God does this for all mankind... though He does so to varying degrees.

Why the qualification? The devil is in the details... :laugh:

Nothing, in them are speaking to God 'breaking in' nor about salvation prior to faith. Since when does a unbeliever call Christ- Lord? He know that whomever it was that was before Him, was God..

I would presume that you know the difference between addressing someone who is obviously a higher power (whether earthly or heavenly) with a term equivalent in the common language of that day to our use of "sir" and saying, "Lord" as in "Jesus Christ, the Son of God," but it is now evident that you do not know that distinction.

And, again, as I asked WAY above, are you saying that Paul was already a saved believer BEFORE Christ came to him on the Damascus Road? That seems, in fact, what you are saying, but you always back down when called out on that issue.

According to Paul, in the text you quote, before He appointed him to service.
He states God was merciful to him BECAUSE he acted ignorantly in unbelief. That smacks of man-centeredness if ever there was as statement! God was not merciful because of His good pleasure absent anything of or about Paul, but was BECAUSE Paul acted in ignorance (unknowing) of unbelief.

Really? I believe that ALL believers share this with Paul. We ALL act ignorantly in unbelief, but of all people, Paul should have not been able to use that excuse! Paul was (by his own admission) one of the most highly trained individuals in Israel in the Law.

It might be best to rethink your thoughts.
Just how was Paul deemed faithful, and THEN appointed to ministry if prior to be appointed, he did not seek God nor cared for him? Since when does God give mercy because they were acting in ignorance.. sounds much like God is centering to much on man.

I see it exactly the opposite. God did what He did IN SPITE of what Paul had done. I laid out my case above.

I would be curious to know just where you do stand along that continuum between hyper-Calvinism and Pelagianism. I know that a lot of people want to disavow ANY stance along that line, but in truth, everyone falls into place somewhere -- or if they don't it is very likely that their theology is not coherent.

Who said I hold to cooperate election, I have actually never 'met' a non-cal who holds this view.

Actually, most of them seem to hold this view, which is why I am asking you about it. Skandelon just made a largish thread on this very topic. I disagreed with him there as well. Concerning you, I don't know that you do or do not hold it. I don't recall that you have said in this thread (and I'm not going to chase you down in all your other threads to find out). You have other doctrines that align with those who do hold that position, hence the assumption on my part.

Provision does not necessitate application. example.. in the OT the Atonement was on behalf of all of Israel, yet we know all Israel was not saved. We also know that only by faith is the propitiation of the Atonement applied (Rom 3:25). We also note that God reveals the spiritual truths to all men (sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come) and thus we see God dealing with all men the same as He deals with those who 'will be' of faith. He comes to man, opens men eyes, makes them to understand that which He is revealing (meaning they do KNOW, not know but not really know) because scripture states God caused them TO know and understand.

A typical Arminian take on this issue, yet you disavow Arminianism...

You want to state that regeneration must happen first, and here is where I disagree with Classical Arminians and Calvinists. This is based upon not just what regeneration does (I agree whole-heartedly with Cals on what it does to man).. but HOW it does what it does.. and thus reveals 'WHEN' it transpires. This is what I believe is the CRUX of the issue regarding Cals and non-Cals. To understand regeneration, will make or break ones theological position as to the process of salvation.

This is what I was asking for above... YOUR position along the continuum of soteriological positions. And, here, you disagree with all those who stand within the mainstream of biblical faith.

What I'd like to know is the MECHANISM used for regeneration AFTER one comes to faith. How does it work? By what means can a sin-dead individual come to God, then God starts doing a work in that individual. Moreover, how is your position different from Roman Catholicism, where justification is a work that takes a lifetime and beyond to accomplish involving human participation in "sacraments" and the like before the act of salvation is finally completed?

Of course, nor do I or have I ever denied it. The very fact that man rejection of a gospel that has nothing to with him nor has anything to give him, begs the very question.. why? Unless the gospel or good news DOES apply to them but.. what if.. His death not only saves those who will believe.. but also condemns those who will not receive it. Yet it can only bring condemnation to those who will not receive what was provided, since receiving it saves. Thus the Atonement has a two fold purpose, not only to save but to also establish a person in condemnation (sealing themselves) for rejecting the truth that 'could save them' (2 Thes 2:10)

The question was regarding Christ's potency to save those whom He died to save.

In this case, I can truly say that you are correct in your oft-used phrase... "I really do not understand what you have written."

You seem to be proposing a "what if" scenario, where the atonement of Christ is the factor that ultimately decides whom is elect and whom is damned. Yet, the Bible says, very plainly, that we are ALL damned, save that Christ comes to save the elect -- and that the elect were elected by God before the foundations of the world.

You seem to be proposing a scenario whereby we are actually okay with God (a very Pelagian concept once again) until we DO something, or fail to DO something, which is not at all the biblical position. What I read is that we can DO nothing, and that salvation is of Christ alone.

I believe that we can say that a person's rejection of Christ is a damnable sin. But I think that is sort of like frosting a cookie! We're already dead in our sin and trespasses, which implies that we've rejected Christ. You are attempting to make a special category from that rejection, yet ALL have rejected Christ if they are a born (not born again!) human being. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." "The wages of sin is death..." "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world..." "the world is condemned already..."

Because they deal with one and the same Covenant.
Under which Covenant does the circumcision of the heart come into play?
Under which Covenant, is there eternal life and a promise that God change the heart to Love God and be obedient to Him
Under which Covenant is there 'life' granted to those who believe and repent?

Perhaps your covenantal view fails to deal adequately with the Scriptures? I'm not sure that there is a "covenant" in an OT sense that promises the redemption of people via the atonement of the "Lamb of God." That is the "New Covenant" prophesied by Joel, Isaiah, Micah, etc., and fulfilled in Christ. When I use the term "new covenant" I am not invoking a covenantal nor a dispensational view of the scriptures. Don't make the mistake you accuse others of making almost constantly -- failure to read with comprehension based on the fact that one word was used in a sentence.

I asked:

-- asking, "Did God really say?" then offering a counterfeit that sounds good, logical, reasonable, and do-able, to mortals who, in their sin, seem always at the ready to step in and assume God's sovereignty for themselves at any given moment.

You respond:

And yet when it is God who leads men from a position that is presumed biblical, what shall we then say - It was the devil? Me thinks we can to often think to highly of our opinions

I am, here, speaking of the agency of the enemy of God applied in Genesis 3 to cause the fall of mankind into (God's promised) death by sin. I am offering no "opinion" in this thread that cannot be backed up by VOLUMES of theology that goes back to the Reformation, and indeed, beyond that to the very earliest days of the church.

I DO find that the enemy -- in EVERY age -- has worked to counterfeit God's distinct doctrines as found in the Scripture, and most often by the opinions of man, who just like Adam and Eve in the Garden on that fateful day, are convinced that some form of human rebellion and purported "wisdom" of good and evil, ultimately leads them astray from the VERY SIMPLE TRUTH that God alone is God, and He alone is SOVEREIGN and KING. That, in and of itself, eliminates the possibility that humankind brings something material to their own salvation party, i.e., a "choice" or "faith" before Christ regenerates them into life and gives the gift of faith.

 

[Allan]

Why the qualification? The devil is in the details... :laugh:

No qualification at all but I thought you knew that with your infinite knowledge of things. God saves some in the quite of the night and some with a blinding flash.. the point is that God reaches out to ALL men everywhere, though different means are used, the same truths are conveyed. Thus no qualification.. of a statement regarding varying degrees of means but the same process.

I would presume that you know the difference between addressing someone who is obviously a higher power (whether earthly or heavenly) with a term equivalent in the common language of that day to our use of "sir" and saying, "Lord" as in "Jesus Christ, the Son of God," but it is now evident that you do not know that distinction.

hehehe.. I do .. but the point was, so did Paul!
This wasn't an instance of some Roman legionnaire standing in front of him, or some earthly King but was indeed a supernatural event and thus Paul knew just what/who was before Him. :thumbs:

Hmm.. I would have presumed that you would know the difference between addressing someone who is obviously performing a supernatural event with a term equivalent in the common language of day referring to God, saying "Lord"; as opposed to a mortal standing before him. But is it now evident why God did this to Paul and not you.. apparently you do not know the distinction.

And, again, as I asked WAY above, are you saying that Paul was already a saved believer BEFORE Christ came to him on the Damascus Road? That seems, in fact, what you are saying, but you always back down when called out on that issue.

No..not even close. There is no other name given among men whereby you must be saved. I have stated that Paul followed the Law and sought to honor God in the way he understood it - in ignorance and thus scripture states God was merciful to him. What was that mercy? He revealed to him the truth of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ IS God the very Messiah and as any Jew of the Law knows the only one able to save His people from their sins.

What is funny is that you say, I back down, as if it is actually my contention but am afraid to state it, when in fact I stay clear cause it is no where near my statements.

Salvation has always been the same as the biblical Arminian statement of being 'saved by grace through faith" ... in Christ Jesus.

Really? I believe that ALL believers share this with Paul. We ALL act ignorantly in unbelief, but of all people, Paul should have not been able to use that excuse! Paul was (by his own admission) one of the most highly trained individuals in Israel in the Law.

And while I agree I also note you didn't dare finish out that passage. that because Paul acted in ignorance of unbelief God had mercy on him.
I agree we all act in ignorance, just like Paul, and I agree that God extends His mercy toward all men.

However with respect to your statement it wasn't Paul's "excuse" since we note is is the Holy Spirit through the hand of Paul which states that 'he received mercy BECAUSE he was acting in ignorance.

What you will never find in scripture is Paul stating God saved me when I wasn't looking, or didn't want him to, NOR that God saved him and he believed God afterward. (much like fatalism)

I see it exactly the opposite. God did what He did IN SPITE of what Paul had done. I laid out my case above.

Interesting.. scripture explicitly states one thing and you maintain the "opposite". You case was laid 'waste' by very scripture you quoted to me.
It doesn't state nor allude to the fact God had mercy IN SPITE of what he did, it says He had mercy BECAUSE (not in spite of) his acting in ignorance.

I would be curious to know just where you do stand along that continuum between hyper-Calvinism and Pelagianism. I know that a lot of people want to disavow ANY stance along that line, but in truth, everyone falls into place somewhere -- or if they don't it is very likely that their theology is not coherent.

The terms 'likely' and 'are', are to different very different things. I don't disavow any stance because I don't wish to be associated with it, I do so because I do not hold to those views that define those particular theologies. In truth though am closer to Amyraldism

Actually, most of them seem to hold this view, which is why I am asking you about it.

No, though 'some' might, that does not necessitate 'most' meaning the larger portion or majority. Since I have never ascribed to the view, and nor do the majority of non-cals I find it odd that you would place me a camp whereby NONE of my statements allude to such a view of election.

A typical Arminian take on this issue, yet you disavow Arminianism...

No.. it is the most biblical take on the issue and thus I accept it.
And yes. I disavow Arminianism and if you understood what Arminianism was you would know I can't be placed in that group any more than you can be.

This is what I was asking for above... YOUR position along the continuum of soteriological positions. And, here, you disagree with all those who stand within the mainstream of biblical faith.

LOL.. no.. I wrote it that way for a purpose and one you jumped on because you haven't been listening or caring to actually grasp what I am saying. I do not deny regeneration.. I deny how Cals define it and thus being it being 'before' a person believes, when biblically it is after. The Classical Arminians use the 'word' and thus I disagree with the word being used to describe Previent Grace.

While Cals are correct in what regeneration does to a man, but incorrect as to when it transpires. Reformed Arminians are correct in that God enables all men to believe but incorrect in using this word to describe the enabling (but not the willing). And no, I actaully stand WITH mainstream biblical faith in that regeneration IS salvation.
Salvation is an all encompassing word describing the fullness of what has transpired.
Regeneration is a word that is used to describe specifically what has to transpire in order to be made new and alive.

What I'd like to know is the MECHANISM used for regeneration AFTER one comes to faith. How does it work?

God does it. Next question.

By what means can a sin-dead individual come to God, then God starts doing a work in that individual.

None.. and since you know this isn't my view I must assume you are either willingly ignorant my views OR willingly misrepresenting them. In either case.. you are still wrong.

Another quick point however that 'YOU' bring to the table is your usage of an extra biblical definition for what 'spiritually dead' refers to. When you start with a false premise you end up with a faulty view. You initially presuppose that man comes to God.

Moreover, how is your position different from Roman Catholicism, where justification is a work that takes a lifetime and beyond to accomplish involving human participation in "sacraments" and the like before the act of salvation is finally completed?

About the same as your position being not much different paganism.
Fact is, neither even remotely compare to other and any parallels derived is purely fictional and slanderous. I thought you had more character than that?

In this case, I can truly say that you are correct in your oft-used phrase... "I really do not understand what you have written."

No.. the phrase is "'YOU' really don't understand...', not "'I' really don't understand.."

 

[Allan]

You seem to be proposing a "what if" scenario, where the atonement of Christ is the factor that ultimately decides whom is elect and whom is damned. Yet, the Bible says, very plainly, that we are ALL damned, save that Christ comes to save the elect -- and that the elect were elected by God before the foundations of the world.

Of course the elect were elected by God before the foundation of the world. However when does SCRIPTURE (not one's theological construct) state man is 'damned' or in 'condemnation' a part from rejection of Christ or truth (ie. those who never heard the gospel). You state the non-elect were damned before the foundation of the world (seems rather hyper here, if not fatalistic) Yet it is not what I see in scripture.. but don't take my word for it.. lets see when scripture states man is damned or condemned (before birth or later)

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God

The Greek as is the English pretty specific here in that for NOT believing they are 'condemned already' - meaning that a part from Christ there is no other hope before the judgment seat of God and thus there will not be another alternative for salvation. Therefore they are seen as being damned already BECAUSE they did not believe.

Mark 16;16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Hmm.. These are not considered by God to be damned since the foundation of the world but says they shall be Damned for not believing.

2 Thes 2:10-12
10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
12 in order that they all may be damned who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

In this one alone (as if the others don't state the same) you have issues.. their damnation is due to the fact they rejected the truth that could save them (and they are the worshipers of the anti-christ). In fact it states that God sent forth the delusion IN ORDER that they may all be damned WHO DID NOT believe the truth.

You seem to be proposing a scenario whereby we are actually okay with God until we DO something, or fail to DO something, which is not at all the biblical position.

Again, a presupposition based upon your false and misrepresenting assumptions. Try again, I know you can do it :thumbs:

What I read is that we can DO nothing, and that salvation is of Christ alone.

Amen! And since God does not consider faith a 'work' (whereby we earn salvation) we can say in one accord, salvation is of the Lord and man must believe.

I believe that we can say that a person's rejection of Christ is a damnable sin.

According to scripture it is the ultimate sin whereby we receive damnation.
All sin can be forgiven, but how can God forgive someone who ultimately or definitively rejects His Sons life? There is nothing left whereby forgiveness can be obtained.

We're already dead in our sin and trespasses, which implies that we've rejected Christ.

No, it states we stand separated from God due to sin. We note this quite easily via scripture above. It is not that 'being in sin' means we have rejected Christ. While you can philosophically appeal to such is a very 'general' sense, it is not the sense that scripture appeals to.

You are attempting to make a special category from that rejection, yet ALL have rejected Christ if they are a born (not born again!) human being. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." "The wages of sin is death..."

No.. only stating what scripture does, and not some theological philosophy. Scripture never once states that being in sin means they rejected Christ. In fact, scripture states the opposite of that! Those who 'reject Him' are THEN damned.. also we know those who reject the spiritual truths that God has revealed to them in nature and through the conscience.. God gives them over... or better it is for THIS REASON God gives the over to... And yes.. we have all sinned, but again, this does not equate to rejection of Christ, it means we have all missed the mark and thus are separated from God.

"God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world..." "the world is condemned already..."

I noticed you stopped short on one of your verses. He was sent into the world, not to condemn/judge the world BUT THAT the world through Him might be saved. Thus their damnation is not yet established, though I don't deny it 'is' pending but not yet final.

I'm not sure that there is a "covenant" in an OT sense that promises the redemption of people via the atonement of the "Lamb of God."

No. It rests upon the foundation of the Law regarding the Atonement and is elaborated upon by the prophets of that which is to come to do away with those illustrations of things to come.

That is the "New Covenant" prophesied by Joel, Isaiah, Micah, etc., and fulfilled in Christ. When I use the term "new covenant" I am not invoking a covenantal nor a dispensational view of the scriptures.

Ok, so... here 'you' are stepping outside the both the Reformed and mainstream Christian orthodox view. No prob.. However I was speaking to the common Reformed view that Deu 30 (specifically citing the passage about circumcision of the heart so they will love and stay obedient to God) referencing it to regeneration and salvation.

Don't make the mistake you accuse others of making almost constantly -- failure to read with comprehension based on the fact that one word was used in a sentence.

Nope, I haven't. You claimed a reformed/Cal stance and that passage is cited quite often as regarding regeneration prior to salvation. IF that passage (regarding circumcision of the heart) does in fact hold that context for the Reformed then we must look at the context in question and what it actually states as to WHEN the circumcision happens because we note that 'when' it happens, what follows is what we understand happens at the regeneration. And that WHEN is AFTER you choose Him THEN he will circumcise your heart. But if you don't hold that passage in accordance with the common teaching.. I can always provide more

I DO find that the enemy -- in EVERY age -- has worked to counterfeit God's distinct doctrines as found in the Scripture, and most often by the opinions of man, who just like Adam and Eve in the Garden on that fateful day, are convinced that some form of human rebellion and purported "wisdom" of good and evil,

Agreed and it is one of the very reason Reformed doctrine and it equal counter part Arminianism will never be a persistent predominant theological view. There will alway be a back and forth in which either God is unable to get His people to believe His truths or that God uses both systems which hold some of the truths, but are not of themselves fully biblical, to help keep the church within it's proper boundaries of holy and Godly living, mans responsibility, and God's Sovereignty.

ultimately leads them astray from the VERY SIMPLE TRUTH that God alone is God, and He alone is SOVEREIGN and KING. That, in and of itself, eliminates the possibility that humankind brings something material to their own salvation party,

Amen, IF we keep to what scripture states is 'something material' to their salvation. God said.. believe.. He said choose.. He defines regeneration as salvation.. and He declared that faith precedes regeneration and the circumcision of the heart.. if one declares otherwise, we KNOW they have stepped away from scripture for something they can limit to God, and box him up.

a "choice" or "faith" before Christ regenerates them into life and gives the gift of faith.

Ouch.. see.. there ya go! God said that faith is not a work (something brought to your own salvation) and the ONLY life that scripture states a man has in when he is IN Christ (unified with Him) Rom 6:4, 11 (and other places but that is pretty specific)

 

[gloopey1]

Probably less of a sin than you asking Iconoclast if his salvation is an illusion by implication. Don't ya think?

And you're a "teaching pastor?"

Uh huh.

I was not implying that his salvation is an illusion; I was merely wondering if he believes that it could be. Some Calvinists believe that it is within the realm of possibility to wake up one day to discover that their so-called profession of faith was never real.

 

[gloopey1]

...If I am a deceived person...God would justly cast me into hell to the praise of His glory. The same for the hypocrite.
In and by His mercy as one elected before time, I give diligence to make my calling and ELECTION sure as Peter has taught us to do...

When you say, "If I am a deceived person," does this mean you believe that it is possible? How convinced are you of your own salvation? 100%? Do you believe that it is possible for anyone to be that certain?

 

[Allan]

When you say, "If I am a deceived person," does this mean you believe that it is possible? How convinced are you of your own salvation? 100%? Do you believe that it is possible for anyone to be that certain?

YOU BET!
1 John 5:13

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

He wrote it so they would not have any need to wonder or question or speculate.. that you might KNOW you have eternal life. Can't get more 'sure' than that

 

[mandym]

You have the final say in your eternal state/situation?

yes or No?

Scripture(s) Please!

The title of the op is a bad question. I know of no one who believes that God cannot save a person unless that person permits them to. It seems to be an attempt at provocation rather than an sincere inquiry.

God being sovereign can accomplish what He wants to. In the midst of that it is often claimed that if God wants something and it does not come to fruition then He is not sovereign. This is false. God can be sovereign and allow His creation to make their own choices contrary to His own desire. That, in fact, is the prerogative of His sovereignty.

Scripture is clear that God looks for a response from man. In John 1 and verse 12 scripture shows that those who were given the ability to become the sons of God received and believed. The obvious implication here is that received and believed is the response by man to God. The reformed response to this in my experience has been that in the next verse, "nor of the will of man", is often used to refute the clear implication in verse 12. But it does not refute it by any means. The response of man to God who provides salvation when man cannot save himself is not the defining factor of who's will makes the determination. To say so is an inappropriate focus and a distraction from the truth.

While this is not the only passage that deals with man's response, it is a place to start.

 

[preacher4truth]

The title of the op is a bad question. I know of no one who believes that God cannot save a person unless that person permits them to. It seems to be an attempt at provocation rather than an sincere inquiry.

God being sovereign can accomplish what He wants to. In the midst of that it is often claimed that if God wants something and it does not come to fruition then He is not sovereign. This is false. God can be sovereign and allow His creation to make their own choices contrary to His own desire. That, in fact, is the prerogative of His sovereignty.

Scripture is clear that God looks for a response from man. In John 1 and verse 12 scripture shows that those who were given the ability to become the sons of God received and believed. The obvious implication here is that received and believed is the response by man to God. The reformed response to this in my experience has been that in the next verse, "nor of the will of man", is often used to refute the clear implication in verse 12. But it does not refute it by any means. The response of man to God who provides salvation when man cannot save himself is not the defining factor of who's will makes the determination. To say so is an inappropriate focus and a distraction from the truth.

While this is not the only passage that deals with man's response, it is a place to start.

I've never seen a biblicist (calvinist) refute John 1:12 as you say, but rather it, 1:13 is used to enhance the meaning of 1:12. That, in fact, those who received Him are His sheep from the foundation of the world. We do this instead of proof-texting from one verse as a "see!" verse, as what you have done, and instead look at it in light of the entire counsel of His Word.

 

[glfredrick]

I am very short on time so I just want to respond to this one part:

Of course the elect were elected by God before the foundation of the world. However when does SCRIPTURE (not one's theological construct) state man is 'damned' or in 'condemnation' a part from rejection of Christ or truth (ie. those who never heard the gospel). You state the non-elect were damned before the foundation of the world (seems rather hyper here, if not fatalistic) Yet it is not what I see in scripture.. but don't take my word for it.. lets see when scripture states man is damned or condemned (before birth or later)

We are BORN sinners. We are not sinners before we are born. I do not hold to a double predestination, that is akin to the quasi-universalist strawman that is often presented against Calvinism, i.e., that all is determined beforehand and nothing we do or do not do matters.

The Bible says otherwise.

Also, one brief note: THE BIBLE dictates theology, not theology dictates how we see the Bible. I've said this time and time again.

THE BIBLE says that we are born dead in our sin and trespasses. It does not get any clearer than Paul's exhortation to the Ephesians:

Eph 2:1 (KJV) And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The BIBLE says that we were dead. The Bible NEVER ONCE says that children are somehow innocent, without sin until the DO something, etc. The BIBLE says that GOD through His grace saves us and that WE can do nothing!

 

[mandym]

I've never seen a biblicist (calvinist) refute John 1:12 as you say, but rather it, 1:13 is used to enhance the meaning of 1:12. That, in fact, those who received Him are His sheep from the foundation of the world. We do this instead of proof-texting from one verse as a "see!" verse, as what you have done, and instead look at it in light of the entire counsel of His Word.

That is not what I have done. You might want to look at the end of my post. You cannot post the "entire counsel of God's word" in a single forum post. A little consideration and leeway is in order in this limited format. Being a biblicist and all.

 

[preacher4truth]

That is not what I have done. You might want to look at the end of my post. You cannot post the "entire counsel of God's word" in a single forum post. A little consideration and leeway is in order in this limited format. Being a biblicist and all.

It's exactly what you've done.

Yet another "read my entire post" implication. Save it. I read the entire thing.

The thing you fail to address is that you miss the entire context, or at least don't want to admit to and see it in all of its fullness and meaning. You failed to look at the whole body of that passage, while rebuking calvinists, wrongly so, trying to prove your point with only a portion of the big picture.

Why use Scripture to attack brothers in Christ? We look at the entire thing concerning Him choosing. At least give us that.

My post stands. It considers the entire portion of the passage, not just cherry-picking a proof text as you have done.

Consider it all together mandy. Not just the part that compliments your theology, while not considering what it means with the context and other Scriptures that bring truth to light, and further illuminate what is said.

BTW, as a "calvinist" I believe it is OK that a believer says he has received Christ...the wording isn't perfect, and neither is any of our understanding of what it means, it simply expresses that they have been saved and that God chose them, and in so doing, they have received Christ and are in Him. Galatians 1:15 is interesting here. I believe all that are saved recognize as Paul did after salvation that God predestined them and had already chose them in Him.

I won't tear someone down for that, (I received Christ) it's argumentative, and lame.