-
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!
Unconditional Election
- Thread starter thatbrian
- Start date
1833 New Hampshire Confession
1. Of the Perseverance of Saints
We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end John 8:31; 1 John 2:27-28; 3:9; 5:18;
that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors 1 John 2:19; John 13:18; Matt. 13:20-21; John 6:66-69; Job 17:9; that a special Providence watches over their welfare Rom. 8:28; Matt. 6:30-33; Jer. 32:40; Psa. 121:3; 91:11-12; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13; Jude 24-25; Heb. 1:14; 2 Kings 6:16; Heb. 13:5; 1 John 4:4.
1925 Baptist Faith and Message
XI. Perseverance
All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
John 10:28-29; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 2:19; 1 Cor. 11:32; Rom. 8:30; 9:11,16; Rom. 5:9-10; Matt. 26:70-75.
These are the two confessions of faith I fall back on. The 1925 BF&M supports your statement. Now that I look at it I believe the 1833 Confession does as well although it's a bit more difficult for me to analyze. But in reality, what is the difference?
All real believers endure until the end.
Only those who endure until the end are saved.
The "those" I'm talking about of course are professing believers. In any event, I think the second statement is the key to understanding the meaning.
Interesting. The typical calvinist response to "arminians" who state that Matt 23 is illogical is: God's ways are not our ways. But if it's related to Arminius, it's not God's ways are mysterious; it's illogical.
Do you seriously wish to discuss these things, or do you just want people to agree with your position?
You are treating Arminius' doctrines far too lightly.
“The decrees of God are the extrinsic acts of God, though they are internal and therefore made by the free will of God, without any absolute necessity. Yet one decree seems to require the supposition of another, on account of a certain fitness of equity; as the decree concerning the creation of a rational creature, and the decree concerning the salvation or damination on the condition of obedience or disobedience. The act of the creature also, when considered by God from eternity, may sometimes be the occasion, and sometimes the outwardly moving cause of making some decree; and this may be so far, that without such act the decree neither would nor could be made….A decree of itself imposes no necessity on any thing or event. But if any necessity exists through the decree of God, it exists through the intervention of the \divine power, and indeed when he judges it proper to employ his irresistible power to effect what he has decreed…Though all the decrees of God have been made from eternity, yet a certain order of priority and posteriority must be laid down, according to their nature, and the mutual relation between them.
The object of predestination to supernatural ends, to salvation and death, to the demonstration of the mercy and punitive justice, or of the saving grace, the wisdom, and the most free power of God, is not rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, and capable of salvation, of damnation, of creation, of falling, and of reparation or of being recovered. Nor is the subject some particular creatures from among those who are considered in this manner…The elect are not called ‘vessels of mercy’ in the relation of means to the end, but because mercy is the inly moving cause by which is made the decree itself of predestination to salvation.” (James Arminius, Amsterdam, March 1599)
Don,
I really do not want to get into a running duel of Arminius' quotes. Suffice to say that Arminius was a Synergist. Arminius was not as blatant as Pelagius on his view of free will and his view that man is born tabula rasa. But if there is a cooperative effort between divine grace and the human will, man does have some bragging rights in both salvation and sanctified living. The topic at hand in this thread is Unconditional Election. Unconditional Election and one's view on the atonement are inexorably linked. If God elected some to salvation, as an act of His will of decree, then the atonement is definite only for that group. If election is conditional (divine grace and human will), then the atonement is not definite.
You have easy case to prove right. Without condition means you should be able to find that Eskimo who has absolutely no knowledge of Jesus, hop up and down and say he is a Calvinist!
Here's the conditions, SYNERGY the guy has to agree to hear the gospel. Of course there is possibility of non-synergy, you can tie him up at gun point and read the gospel to him against his will.
Best advice I to help out the Calvinist camp is to center the attention on whether God has to act first.
Because most protestants will admit that FAITH is a GOD GIVEN GIFT.
In other words no one can place faith in Christ unless GOD gives them the faith.
Maybe even truncate ELECT to mean GOD GIVEN. IF God gives you anything good you would have to be elect.
Scripture does not say that anywhere....
Sure, but back to the boasting theme of the OP, Paul's warning in Romans 11:18 doesn't seem to be aimed at synergists, right?
I'm curious to hear, or rather read, your thoughts.
Felipe Rios
Member
None
What's not to understand?
If you're not going to be intellectually honest enough to examine the discussion, and be prepared to admit that maybe there's something more than what you currently understand -- then you're not encouraging discussion.
As I've shown above, Arminius wrote that it is all of God.
The atonement is most definitely for some, not all. Where the argument between cals and non-cals typically lies is with the thought of, was it for the elect, or are we elect because of the atonement?
I want everyone to hold the position I do because I am convinced it is true.
Look at all of my posts. They disprove your theory.
After spending about 25 years as a semi-Pelagian/Arminian, I made a pretty severe change, would you not agree? Has your position on any doctrine changed that drastically when being convinced of the truth?
Rob,
Romans 11 deals specifically with Israel's unfaithfulness and promise going to the Gentiles. The chapter is not a theological treatise on Monergism vs. Synergism. About the only reference to Monergism is in verse 7, "What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened". In context, Paul was giving a stern warning to the Gentiles not to be arrogant towards those who were cut off (i.e. Israel). So, while Paul's warning was directed at Gentile believers, not any other subgroup.
Yes and I am viemently opposed to them
So am I. Let me count the ways in which I am and get back to you.
That isn’t necessary. I however have limited myself from joining churches because of it...however I must stand by my beliefs and not compromise them.
I'm up to 37. . .