We don't WANT "Free-Will"

[Winman]

Winman,


This kind of post makes a mockery of the scripture. I told you as others have...we cannot hold your hand a read every verse with you.....you are wrong almost everytime....not even close...then you offer this;

What I posted were the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ! You call the words of Jesus a mockery of scripture?!

Maybe you should put aside all your Reformed books and constantly listening to Reformed teachers and listen to the words of Jesus. Jesus himself said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." I didn't say that, Jesus did.

It is your ridicule of what you do not understand ,that invites the responses you get....

OK, Mr. Genius, you explain exactly what Jesus meant when he said this. I don't want to hear what some "scholar" wrote, I would like you to explain in your own words what Jesus meant when he said either make the tree good, or else make the tree corrupt.

Your posts have been going in this direction.most do not answer you anymore because of it.

Most do not answer because they CANNOT answer without directly contradicting scripture.

So, let's hear your explanation of Matthew 12:33 in your own words, not those of another.

 

[Iconoclast]

Back to 1st grade "nuh-uh" posting I see.
Did just that on this thread, to which Allan further touched on...to which you oddly threw him the thumbs up to.
...and I summarized his eisegesis (what you refer to as "walking through"...more aptly labeled "trampling on", IMO)...to which Allan further touched on...to which you threw up the oddly timed thumbs up.


:laugh: Frustration. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

WEBDOG,

Allan makes a serious scriptural attempt to address the issue....scripturally.
I am asking you to do the same. I think you can....but i am not seeing it.
I do not always agree with Allan, or he with me...that is okay.
if you look...he always offers me what scriptures he thinks i need to consider.
I do consider what he says. there are several things we do agree about.
I like Arthur Pink...but he must be read carefully. I think many here on BB find pink helpful....on God's attributes, the beatitudes, inspiration of scripture.
Obviously on the DoG there are built in disagreements.
I am glad to see Allan particpate when he can. It is sometimes with those we disagree with that we are forced to learn from.
While I like Allan...I will not hesitate to disagree with him if I need to.
He does not just jump in to be disruptive...like several do.
He does not back down from solid posters like Archangel...he responds.

Maybe i missed it...but I did not see you respond to this;
Allan took it head on---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Archangel
Look at the whole passage:

[17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
[19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:17-19 ESV)

The main verbal idea is expressed in v. 17 is "old...passed away" and "new has come." Interestingly, "passed away" is an aorist verb (a snapshot of past time) and "has come" is perfect (denoting a present state of a completed past action).

Who has caused the old to pass away and the new to come? Look at v. 18: "All this is from God." What did God do? Look again at v.18: "Who through Christ RECONCILED us to himself." Reconciled here is an aorist participle showing the completed reconciliation (seen in the verbs of passing away and becoming new) is a completed action. In other words, we do not become reconciled to God per se when we come to Christ. Instead, when we come to Christ the reconciliation God has made for us is applied to us. But, make no mistake, reconciliation here is presented as a past completed event.

I agree with what you give above, but I disagree with where you carry it to.Yes, action (propitiation of Christ) was a completed act in the past but it is NOT applied to anyone future a part from faith.
Rom 3:25 establishes this fairly well:

Quote:
Rom 3:25 - whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (ESV)

Thus this past event is not applied to any man a part from faith, that divine act of forbearance in passing over former sins.

That is what i want to see from you....that is what I am requesting...can you do it???

 

[Iconoclast]

What I posted were the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ! You call the words of Jesus a mockery of scripture?!

Maybe you should put aside all your Reformed books and constantly listening to Reformed teachers and listen to the words of Jesus. Jesus himself said, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." I didn't say that, Jesus did.



OK, Mr. Genius, you explain exactly what Jesus meant when he said this. I don't want to hear what some "scholar" wrote, I would like you to explain in your own words what Jesus meant when he said either make the tree good, or else make the tree corrupt.



Most do not answer because they CANNOT answer without directly contradicting scripture.

So, let's hear your explanation of Matthew 12:33 in your own words, not those of another.

you just have to read two more verses to see it..it is not that hard is it?
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

There is none good but God alone. God saves sinners and conforms them to His image in sanctification...romans 8:28-30 so a good man, would be one who has been brought to repentance by God and his word.

Generation of Vipers...and you...BEING EVIL.....does not sound like it was a multiple choice test...does it now... this echoes what john the baptist had already been teaching..

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Jesus looks at the heart and gives the proper evaluation to the self righteous religious hypocrites.

 

[webdog]

WEBDOG,

Allan makes a serious scriptural attempt to address the issue....scripturally.
I am asking you to do the same. I think you can....but i am not seeing it.
I do not always agree with Allan, or he with me...that is okay.
if you look...he always offers me what scriptures he thinks i need to consider.
I do consider what he says. there are several things we do agree about.
I like Arthur Pink...but he must be read carefully. I think many here on BB find pink helpful....on God's attributes, the beatitudes, inspiration of scripture.
Obviously on the DoG there are built in disagreements.
I am glad to see Allan particpate when he can. It is sometimes with those we disagree with that we are forced to learn from.
While I like Allan...I will not hesitate to disagree with him if I need to.
He does not just jump in to be disruptive...like several do.
He does not back down from solid posters like Archangel...he responds.

Maybe i missed it...but I did not see you respond to this;
Allan took it head on---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Archangel
Look at the whole passage:

[17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
[19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:17-19 ESV)

The main verbal idea is expressed in v. 17 is "old...passed away" and "new has come." Interestingly, "passed away" is an aorist verb (a snapshot of past time) and "has come" is perfect (denoting a present state of a completed past action).

Who has caused the old to pass away and the new to come? Look at v. 18: "All this is from God." What did God do? Look again at v.18: "Who through Christ RECONCILED us to himself." Reconciled here is an aorist participle showing the completed reconciliation (seen in the verbs of passing away and becoming new) is a completed action. In other words, we do not become reconciled to God per se when we come to Christ. Instead, when we come to Christ the reconciliation God has made for us is applied to us. But, make no mistake, reconciliation here is presented as a past completed event.

I agree with what you give above, but I disagree with where you carry it to.Yes, action (propitiation of Christ) was a completed act in the past but it is NOT applied to anyone future a part from faith.
Rom 3:25 establishes this fairly well:

Quote:
Rom 3:25 - whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (ESV)

Thus this past event is not applied to any man a part from faith, that divine act of forbearance in passing over former sins.

That is what i want to see from you....that is what I am requesting...can you do it???

already did it...and yes you missed it. Just because i didn't link a sermon or copy and paste the chapter does not mean I didn't touch on the truth in the passage. You just don't like it, besides you just scolded Winman for not wanting to take his hand and walk through it, so why waste my time with you doing it? We should all be off milk at this point...your requests are silly.

 

[Iconoclast]

WEBDOG,

Allan makes a serious scriptural attempt to address the issue....scripturally.
I am asking you to do the same. I think you can....but i am not seeing it.
I do not always agree with Allan, or he with me...that is okay.
if you look...he always offers me what scriptures he thinks i need to consider.
I do consider what he says. there are several things we do agree about.
I like Arthur Pink...but he must be read carefully. I think many here on BB find pink helpful....on God's attributes, the beatitudes, inspiration of scripture.
Obviously on the DoG there are built in disagreements.
I am glad to see Allan particpate when he can. It is sometimes with those we disagree with that we are forced to learn from.
While I like Allan...I will not hesitate to disagree with him if I need to.
He does not just jump in to be disruptive...like several do.
He does not back down from solid posters like Archangel...he responds.

Maybe i missed it...but I did not see you respond to this;
Allan took it head on---


already did it...and yes you missed it. Just because i didn't link a sermon or copy and paste the chapter does not mean I didn't touch on the truth in the passage. You just don't like it, besides you just scolded Winman for not wanting to take his hand and walk through it, so why waste my time with you doing it? We should all be off milk at this point...your requests are silly.

I must drive now...if i missed it i am sorry...i will re-read the thread later.
I do not think my requesting you to put more effort into your posts are silly. Stop being lazy and if need be go ahead and cut and paste a paragraph if you think it is helpful...I will read it.

 

[Winman]

you just have to read two more verses to see it..it is not that hard is it?
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.


There is none good but God alone. God saves sinners and conforms them to His image in sanctification...romans 8:28-30 so a good man, would be one who has been brought to repentance by God and his word.

Generation of Vipers...and you...BEING EVIL.....does not sound like it was a multiple choice test...does it now... this echoes what john the baptist had already been teaching..


Jesus looks at the heart and gives the proper evaluation to the self righteous religious hypocrites.

That's your answer? That Jesus was speaking of something that doesn't exist? Why would Jesus speak of a good man that brings forth good things if no such thing exists? Wouldn't that be misleading? Why wouldn't Jesus simply say there is no such thing as a good man?

Why would Jesus say EITHER make the tree good and it's fruit good, OR ELSE make the tree corrupt and it's fruit corrupt if man has no such ability?

The fact that Jesus said a good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things shows that such a man exists.

It is true that Jesus said there is none good but God, but this is speaking of sinless perfection, it is not saying man is unable to do good. I have already posted scripture where Jesus directly said sinners do good.

And, as I showed earlier, Cornelius was not saved, he was not regenerated, he did not have the Holy Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and gave much alms to the poor. God heard his prayers and recognized his good works and sent an angel to him, instructing him to send for Peter whereby he would hear the gospel and be saved.

According to Romans 8:9, if a man does not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, then he is still in the flesh. He is a natural man. Cornelius did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet he was able to have faith in God and do many good works. Peter described him as a man that "worketh righteousness".

Calvinism loves to cherry pick select verses that seem to support their doctrine, and completely ignore MANY scriptures that refute it.

Cornelius was a good man, and he brought forth good fruit.

 

[Skandelon]

Semi-Pelagians shouldn't ask God at all, since they believe God has nothing to do with it.

Riiiight, because God sending his Son to die and be resurrected, the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, inspiring the writing of the gospel in scripture through divinely appointed apostles, carrying that gospel by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers, establishing his Bride (the Church), to spread that gospel message which is to make an appeal to all men everywhere to be reconciled, is God having 'nothing to do with it.' :laugh:

You guys really crack me up.

 

[Skandelon]

Well we could begin by turning the question back to a synergist, how can a synergist pray that God would save anyone when the deciding factor as to weather one enters the kingdom or not is the person's own choice to believe?

We are praying for God to intervene in order to 'provoke their wills' as Paul speaks of in Romans 11:14. We believe God must work on man's hearts, we just don't make the mistake of assuming that work is irresistible, thus causing all these dilemmas.

Having got that out of my system, I will try to answer your question. When the Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray he taught us to pray that God's will would be done.

Right, but in our system, His will is that all men come to repentance and be saved (Peter 3:9; Tim. 2:4 etc), and in your system His will is only that a preselected few would do so, thus this answer doesn't address the problem. If you are praying for a non-elect reprobate you are praying against God's will...you are praying to lesson his Glory. We aren't in our system, because we are praying for what we believe is the will of God.

It is no different to praying that God might send rain, when he wants to send the sun to glorify his name - does that prayer diminish God's glory, or does it simply get the answer 'no.'

This example just points out the same problem with your system regarding prayer. When we pray for rain we actually believe God hears our prayers and may respond accordingly, while you don't believe prayers change a thing. In your system, it was predetermined whether or not it would rain long before the prayers were even offered, so the prayers are nothing more than empty pleas if your system is true.

It might be worth noting that the judgement of the reprobate brings glory to God too.

If so, then your prayers for a non-elect reprobate are prayers against God's will and glory.

 

[Iconoclast]

WEBDOG,

Allan makes a serious scriptural attempt to address the issue....scripturally.
I am asking you to do the same. I think you can....but i am not seeing it.
I do not always agree with Allan, or he with me...that is okay.
if you look...he always offers me what scriptures he thinks i need to consider.
I do consider what he says. there are several things we do agree about.
I like Arthur Pink...but he must be read carefully. I think many here on BB find pink helpful....on God's attributes, the beatitudes, inspiration of scripture.
Obviously on the DoG there are built in disagreements.
I am glad to see Allan particpate when he can. It is sometimes with those we disagree with that we are forced to learn from.
While I like Allan...I will not hesitate to disagree with him if I need to.
He does not just jump in to be disruptive...like several do.
He does not back down from solid posters like Archangel...he responds.

Maybe i missed it...but I did not see you respond to this;
Allan took it head on---

already did it...and yes you missed it. Just because i didn't link a sermon or copy and paste the chapter does not mean I didn't touch on the truth in the passage. You just don't like it,

I missed it because it was two small sentences that did not address the grammar issues raised by Archangels post...

here it is again:

If it is true, as Webdog claims, that context determines understanding, then Webdog has committed a contextual error.

Look at the whole passage:

[17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
[19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:17-19 ESV)

The main verbal idea is expressed in v. 17 is "old...passed away" and "new has come." Interestingly, "passed away" is an aorist verb (a snapshot of past time) and "has come" is perfect (denoting a present state of a completed past action).

Who has caused the old to pass away and the new to come? Look at v. 18: "All this is from God." What did God do? Look again at v.18: "Who through Christ RECONCILED us to himself." Reconciled here is an aorist participle showing the completed reconciliation (seen in the verbs of passing away and becoming new) is a completed action. In other words, we do not become reconciled to God per se when we come to Christ. Instead, when we come to Christ the reconciliation God has made for us is applied to us. But, make no mistake, reconciliation here is presented as a past completed event.
So, webdog, you are quite incorrect when you say to Amy "you would need your "reconciled" that is just not there." It is quite there, just not in v. 19. It seems it is your understanding that is not dictated by context.

Now, the phrases in v. 19 "reconciling the world to himself...not counting their trespasses against them...entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" are related to v. 18 where it says "[God] gave us the ministry of reconciliation. What is the ministry of reconciliation? How are we ambassadors for Christ with God making his appeal through us (v. 20)? We tell how God, in Christ, was reconciling the world to Himself, how God does not count trespasses against those who believe.

And here's another problem for Amy.G's opponents: If you insist that "world" does indeed mean all without exception, then you have all without exception with their trespasses not counted against them. If you insist that is all without exception in the reconciliation of v. 19, then the very same v. 19 says all without exception have been pardoned, and you have universalism.

The Archangel

This was the response:

You are ignoring the fact that Christ reconciled US in v. 18. Who are the us? Believers...not the world.

I remain quite correct...reconciled "is not there" concerning the verse in question on the audience affecting (the world)

I highlighted the grammar portion....I do not see how you feel this is responsive as believers are called,and reconciled...out from the world.

 

[quantumfaith]

Riiiight, because God sending his Son to die and be resurrected, the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, inspiring the writing of the gospel in scripture through divinely appointed apostles, carrying that gospel by Holy Spirit indwelled messengers, establishing his Bride (the Church), to spread that gospel message which is to make an appeal to all men everywhere to be reconciled, is God having 'nothing to do with it.' :laugh:

You guys really crack me up.

Skan (others) I came across the following (to me) interesting paper on Pelagius.

http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cg...sw#search="actual writings teaching pelagius"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Skan (others) I came across the following (to me) interesting paper on Pelagius.

Thanks Quantum!! :thumbsup::wavey::thumbs:

It will be
impossible to get too deeply into a discussion of Pelagius without bringing in St.
Augustine of Hippo. Much of what we know to be the work of Pelagius is preserved in
extensive quotations within Augustine’s writings, particularly in his De Natura et Gratia.
The danger of bringing in Augustine in relation to Pelagius is that he looms so large in
this (and nearly every) controversy that one risks overemphasizing Augustine’s points—
which so often missed Pelagius’s point. It is my express desire to let Pelagius and his
teaching speak for themselves and bring in Augustine only to contrast with Pelagius. It
is, however, a paradoxical fact that there would have been no Pelagian controversy
without Augustine continually pressing his case against Pelagius, thus some elucidation
of Augustine’s essential critique of Pelagius will be necessary.

I have recently begun studying Pelagius and his teachings from his own mouth...to wit...I have begun to accrue selected works BY him which have not even been known to still exist for about 1600 years!....It blew my mind to realize that We have been throwing around the word: "Pelagianism"....for centuries...and that, defined only by the reports of his Theological nemeses.... My findings...thus far, are that whatever "Pelagianism" has come to mean...it wasn't Pelagius himself who taught it...but rather some of his later followers...Such as John Cassian. As far as I can tell...the word "Pelagianism" is probably better defined as "Cassianism"....Pelagius himself anathematized many of Cassian's (and other's similar teachings) publically, but it was of no use until Jerome and Augustine had him "lynched" (so to speak) without his ability to personally appear and speak for himself. After all, the several previous times the man was able to be put on record, he was exonnerated of any false teaching. But it seems that such a term is of no use to certain determinists because it is not an ex-nihilo invented cuss-word.

I was shocked to realize that any commentaries on Pauline epistles have only even been available in English for about 40 years!!! They were un-discovered for 1600!!!!! Thus, the likes of men like John Calvin, A.W. Pink, R.C. Sproul, Edwards, Hoeksema (take your pick)...had been throwing around the word "Pelagianism" and its kin "semi-Pelagianism" for ages...and they have never read a word the man ever wrote for himself. It is shocking, and incredibly sad. His works are expensive...I am working through his commentary on Romans...(it's only about 100 pages worth of text...and in paper-back, it was $45 (cheap as I could find).

 

[webdog]

I highlighted the grammar portion....I do not see how you feel this is responsive as believers are called,and reconciled...out from the world.

Of course believers are called and reconciled, what is there to touch on there? The action was completed...for believers, with it being continuous, God reconciling the world to Himself through those who believe.

Interesting that you state "out from the world" when the argument being made in that thread is the "world" is speaking of believers.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thanks Quantum!! :thumbsup::wavey::thumbs:

It will be
impossible to get too deeply into a discussion of Pelagius without bringing in St.
Augustine of Hippo. Much of what we know to be the work of Pelagius is preserved in
extensive quotations within Augustine’s writings, particularly in his De Natura et Gratia.
The danger of bringing in Augustine in relation to Pelagius is that he looms so large in
this (and nearly every) controversy that one risks overemphasizing Augustine’s points—
which so often missed Pelagius’s point. It is my express desire to let Pelagius and his
teaching speak for themselves and bring in Augustine only to contrast with Pelagius. It
is, however, a paradoxical fact that there would have been no Pelagian controversy
without Augustine continually pressing his case against Pelagius, thus some elucidation
of Augustine’s essential critique of Pelagius will be necessary.

I have recently begun studying Pelagius and his teachings from his own mouth...to wit...I have begun to accrue selected works BY him which have not even been known to still exist for about 1600 years!....It blew my mind to realize that We have been throwing around the word: "Pelagianism"....for centuries...and that, defined only by the reports of his Theological nemeses.... My findings...thus far, are that whatever "Pelagianism" has come to mean...it wasn't Pelagius himself who taught it...but rather some of his later followers...Such as John Cassian. As far as I can tell...the word "Pelagianism" is probably better defined as "Cassianism"....Pelagius himself anathematized many of Cassian's (and other's similar teachings) publically, but it was of no use until Jerome and Augustine had him "lynched" (so to speak) without his ability to personally appear and speak for himself. After all, the several previous times the man was able to be put on record, he was exonnerated of any false teaching. But it seems that such a term is of no use to certain determinists because it is not an ex-nihilo invented cuss-word.

I was shocked to realize that any commentaries on Pauline epistles have only even been available in English for about 40 years!!! They were un-discovered for 1600!!!!! Thus, the likes of men like John Calvin, A.W. Pink, R.C. Sproul, Edwards, Hoeksema (take your pick)...had been throwing around the word "Pelagianism" and its kin "semi-Pelagianism" for ages...and they have never read a word the man ever wrote for himself. It is shocking, and incredibly sad. His works are expensive...I am working through his commentary on Romans...(it's only about 100 pages worth of text...and in paper-back, it was $45 (cheap as I could find).

What so often amazes me is the intentional derision implied by many when attempting to apply the title "pelagian" to others. True, Pelagius teachings were defined as heresy by "the church".....what churh? the catholic church, and we all know what great respect our RC brothers enjoy around here.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

by "the church".....what church? the catholic church, and we all know what great respect our RC brothers enjoy around here

.

I find this humorous as well...as Baptists...the bulk of us could give a hoot about what "THE Church" [defined as RCC]...decreed (heretic or not)....unless, of course, they happen to agree with us personally on a given topic. I feel similarly about Protestant denoms...Often, they are quoted, or their confessions are, and cited as sources of authority...but we are simultaneously capable of patently ignoring what they have to say about the defining doctrine of "Believers Baptism." This is one reason why appeals to "The Historic Faith" are meaningless IMO...Firstly, because we tend to pick and choose what we like out of it, and secondly, because it invariably ignores the (also historical) fact that there have ALWAYS been groups of Christians who in no way held to the teachings of the RCC or the Protestants or otherwise....Are these same appellants going to begin citing Coptic Christians? Where is the passion for St. Basil around here anyway??? If we are to speak of the "Historic Faith"...then we need to include ALL facets of Christian Historical Theology, not merely the ones most closely aligned with our personal beliefs or traditions.

 

[Cypress]

.

I find this humorous as well...as Baptists...the bulk of us could give a hoot about what "THE Church" [defined as RCC]...decreed (heretic or not)....unless, of course, they happen to agree with us personally on a given topic. I feel similarly about Protestant denoms...Often, they are quoted, or their confessions are, and cited as sources of authority...but we are simultaneously capable of patently ignoring what they have to say about the defining doctrine of "Believers Baptism." This is one reason why appeals to "The Historic Faith" are meaningless IMO...Firstly, because we tend to pick and choose what we like out of it, and secondly, because it invariably ignores the (also historical) fact that there have ALWAYS been groups of Christians who in no way held to the teachings of the RCC or the Protestants or otherwise....Are these same appellants going to begin citing Coptic Christians? Where is the passion for St. Basil around here anyway??? If we are to speak of the "Historic Faith"...then we need to include ALL facets of Christian Historical Theology, not merely the ones most closely aligned with our personal beliefs or traditions.

Stop making sense!!!!!!!!!! It is highly controversial around here.:laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

.

I find this humorous as well...as Baptists...the bulk of us could give a hoot about what "THE Church" [defined as RCC]...decreed (heretic or not)....unless, of course, they happen to agree with us personally on a given topic. I feel similarly about Protestant denoms...Often, they are quoted, or their confessions are, and cited as sources of authority...but we are simultaneously capable of patently ignoring what they have to say about the defining doctrine of "Believers Baptism." This is one reason why appeals to "The Historic Faith" are meaningless IMO...Firstly, because we tend to pick and choose what we like out of it, and secondly, because it invariably ignores the (also historical) fact that there have ALWAYS been groups of Christians who in no way held to the teachings of the RCC or the Protestants or otherwise....Are these same appellants going to begin citing Coptic Christians? Where is the passion for St. Basil around here anyway??? If we are to speak of the "Historic Faith"...then we need to include ALL facets of Christian Historical Theology, not merely the ones most closely aligned with our personal beliefs or traditions.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

.

I find this humorous as well...as Baptists...the bulk of us could give a hoot about what "THE Church" [defined as RCC]...decreed (heretic or not)....unless, of course, they happen to agree with us personally on a given topic.

:thumbsup: Great point!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course believers are called and reconciled, what is there to touch on there? The action was completed...for believers, with it being continuous, God reconciling the world to Himself through those who believe.

Interesting that you state "out from the world" when the argument being made in that thread is the "world" is speaking of believers.

Well we are making some progress. The answer here is that the word world is like the word Kingdom.

Believers we are told are in the world....but not off it.

If we have established as Allan points out in his study that the world that it speaks of unbelievers...by default...as we are all sinners...

Then it stands to reason that at regeneration and conversion sinners who are born from above in new birth have to be spoken of with a distinction from the world of the ungodly....[as those destroyed in the flood of Noah's day}

In Jn 3:16 this is done by the terms everyone believing

Now you have the unbelieving world, and those in the world who believe.

We are told that like Noah going into the ark...[a place of safety,shielded from God's wrath] these sinners while physically in this world are given a new citizenship phil 3:20. They are in the place of safety{in Christ} but now being reconciled that are obedient servants,and sons in the Kingdom of God.

Jesus is king now,as His Kingdom has invaded this world. When someone refers to the world of the elect....they are speaking of these elect persons alive all around the world....not Israel only. The scope is worldwide, with the throne and reign originating from heaven.
The new heart given at regeneration enables us to begin Kingdom living Mt.5-7.

Your position would be that God loves ...the whole world...correct?

but .....the text indicates that it is the everyone believing and continuing to believe......that are the object of the love.

We preach to all men worldwide.....looking for...the everyone believing[elect]
The scope is worldwide....but neither one of us is a universalist....so the actually reconciliation, propitiation, and peace of God ...can only be said to be in Christ.

The gospel is offered to all men....worldwide...

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory

 

[Aaron]

Jesus also showed we have within our ability to be either a good tree or a corrupt tree.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

The words "either" and "or else" connected to the word "make" shows we have both the option and ability to choose whether we are a good tree that bears good fruit, or a corrupt tree that bears corrupt fruit.

And these were the words of Jesus himself. I will believe the words of Jesus, you can believe your Reformed "scholars".

Holy Yarn Balls, Batman!

Just wondering if the noncalvinists in this thread would care to correct this man's glaring and irredeemible perversion of the passage before I do.

If I have to, I won't exercise my signature tact and sensitivity.

 

[reformed_baptist]

It seems to me that it is worth noting that if this were a pre-deterministic world, then it is only logical that we attempt to do everything we can regardless of how selfish and then whatever events actually obtain we will then know that they were predetermined to be and all of this to the glory of God!

No one can consistently and logically argically argue that my point is not accurate and still hold to the idea that all events in this world were predetermined.

This shows shallow thinking . The problem isn't logic, it is understanding God's complete sovereignty over his creation - he works all things according to the purpose of his will, eph 1;11, so that includes means as well as actions. If the means of achieving those ends are also decreed, like for example - Jesus being killed by people! What was the emans of that, well one was the desire of Judas to betray Jesus. It is all perfectly logical.