• 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!

What do you guys think of Author Pinks handling of "Duty Faith"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Brightfame52 said:
Christ isnt the Saviour of them who go to hell for their sins. Anyone going to hell for their sins, its impossible Christ died for them.
Click to expand...
That does not make sence (and for the first millenia and a half Christians viewed those who remain lost as sinning for their disbelief precisely because Christ died for them).

A correct statement would be that it is impossible under your theology that Christ died for those who will ultimately be condemned to Hell.

But your theology is a relatively new development in Christian thought (which doesn't mean your theology is wrong, as antiquity doesn't mean correct).
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Earth Wind and Fire said:
Are you trying to warn me of something David?
Click to expand...
Probably not. If I understand hyper-Calvinism correctly, you guys think that a person is justified from eternity past, like you said, and at the right time you come to realize this. Correct me if I'm wrong but after realizing this, and coming to faith in Christ, repentance occurs just like every other orthodox Christian believes. If that is the case we just disagree on philosophy.

But some go so far with this that they believe the elect are justified from eternity and are saved whether they ever believe and repent or not. Such are not Christians.
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DaveXR650 said:
Probably not. If I understand hyper-Calvinism correctly, you guys think that a person is justified from eternity past, like you said, and at the right time you come to realize this. Correct me if I'm wrong but after realizing this, and coming to faith in Christ, repentance occurs just like every other orthodox Christian believes. If that is the case we just disagree on philosophy.

But some go so far with this that they believe the elect are justified from eternity and are saved whether they ever believe and repent or not. Such are not Christians.
Click to expand...
Whatever floats your boat
 
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Earth Wind and Fire said:
Whatever floats your boat
Click to expand...
You know. You asked a question and I answered it. I assumed that you and I have some disagreement on the order of salvation and the degree of meticulous predestination. And that's all. But the problem with all these things is where they can end up. You extreme Calvinists on here are always quick to assume that those that don't have your soteriology are bringing in works or usurping the role of God in our salvation. I have had the very person I had in mind re the above post say outright that someone who believes that they have to decide to come to Christ is flat out not saved. But I mentioned where your view can lead to and all you give a a flippant answer like that. I didn't say that you believe it, just that it could lead to that. A reasonable answer, if you had any respect for someone else's opinion would be to say "Nah, I don't go that far", or you would give reasons where I make a mistake. Do you ever answer in a conciliatory way or move an inch to try to understand someone else's view?
 
B

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
That does not make sence (and for the first millenia and a half Christians viewed those who remain lost as sinning for their disbelief precisely because Christ died for them).

A correct statement would be that it is impossible under your theology that Christ died for those who will ultimately be condemned to Hell.

But your theology is a relatively new development in Christian thought (which doesn't mean your theology is wrong, as antiquity doesn't mean correct).
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me. Christ is not the Savior of them who are never saved.
 
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The objection here is that if
we are justified from eternity that the church does not need to teach the unchurched about the the law and the wrath of God before preaching the gospel. That we are justified from eternity – always already loved by God – in spite of everything.

Guess that’s considered a bad thing in modern religion. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Earth Wind and Fire

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DaveXR650 said:
You know. You asked a question and I answered it. I assumed that you and I have some disagreement on the order of salvation and the degree of meticulous predestination. And that's all. But the problem with all these things is where they can end up. You extreme Calvinists on here are always quick to assume that those that don't have your soteriology are bringing in works or usurping the role of God in our salvation. I have had the very person I had in mind re the above post say outright that someone who believes that they have to decide to come to Christ is flat out not saved. But I mentioned where your view can lead to and all you give a a flippant answer like that. I didn't say that you believe it, just that it could lead to that. A reasonable answer, if you had any respect for someone else's opinion would be to say "Nah, I don't go that far", or you would give reasons where I make a mistake. Do you ever answer in a conciliatory way or move an inch to try to understand someone else's view?
Click to expand...
Again I am not a Calvinist, call me a strict monergist if you must but I am not at war with anyone because of different theological stances. Throwing rocks is not something expected of by Christians.
 
Last edited:
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Martin Marprelate said:
Nope. Elect from before the foundation of the world, but justified when you repeent and believe. Justification from eternity is demonstrably false.
Isaiah 12:1-2. 'And on that day you will say, "O LORD I will praise you;
though You were angry with Me, Your anger is turned away and You comfort me.
Behold, God is my sallvation; I will trust and not be afraid. For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and my song;
He has also become my salvation."'
'That day' is the day of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:10). God's anger is turned away when we trust in Jesus Christ and not before. God becomes our salvation; He has not always been our salvation.

Does this matter? I believe it does. Hyper-Calvinism renders preaching unnecessary. If folk are already justified they don't need it; if they aren't justified it won't do them any good. Yet we are instructed to 'preach the gospel to eery creature,' and we are told that 'it pleased God, through the foolishness of the word preached, to save those who beelieve.' God's elect will be saved, but they won't be saved without hearing the gospel and believing it. We must not tell people to look inside themselves to see if they're justified; we must bid them look to Jesus. The guy in post #87 didn't appear to have anything to say to unbelievers. It was just "Us four; no more; shut the door."
Click to expand...

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:

and whom he called, them he also justified:

and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:30

Being Glorified is one thing " in the Mind of God", but none of us have had it happen, practically, yet.

Same with Justification.

Jesus was, "as a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", for the benefit of Old Testament saints to be saved, by Jesus, and for God to Apply His blood to them, for their son debt, the same way we are.

However, they nor we are reckoned or credited/ counted to have the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to us, until the blood is Applied, in time under the preaching of the Gospel.

We were "the children of wrath, even as others."
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
Brightfame52 said:
It makes sense to me. Christ is not the Savior of them who are never saved.
Click to expand...

A secondary source reference from Alan:

SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

B. This theory (the Theory of General Atonement) is futile, in that it is not necessary as a basis for any scriptural fact, duty, or result, or as proof of any revealed truth.

(a) It cannot be argued that God was under obligation to provide redemption for all men without exception, for such an argument would exclude grace from the atonement.

Grace means not only unmerited favor, but also favor that is not owed.

Grace and obligation are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, if God was obligated to provide redemption for every son of Adam, He would be obligated likewise to give to each one the ability to receive that redemption by faith.

This God has not done, as we have shown in the previous chapter on election.*


"Redemption, as well as creation, must also be a purely sovereign determination of the divine will.

This is required by the necessities of the case, as well as plainly declared in Scripture.

No doctrine of redemption that in any way casts the slightest shadow over the high mountain of Divine Sovereignty can be tolerated for a moment.

All theologies that in any manner teach or imply there was any obligation upon God to do this or that for fallen, rebellious subjects of law, are unscriptural, unreasonable, if not blasphemous" (Armour, Atonement and Law, p. 20).


(b) Furthermore it was not necessary for God to provide a general atonement to make men responsible for rejecting Christ.

Men reject Christ not because of a lack of atonement for them, but because they love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), because they will not have Him to reign over them (Luke 19:14).


(c) Nor was it necessary that Christ die for the whole Adamic race in order to make God's general call sincere.

It is the notion of some that God's general call requires men to believe that Christ died for them.

This is not true.

The twenty-eight chapters of Acts, "though replete with information about apostolic dealing with souls, record no precedent whatever for that now popular address to the unconverted- Christ died for you" (Sanger, The Redeemed).

"All men are called on in Scripture to believe the gospel, but there is no instance in Scripture in which men are called upon to believe that Christ died for them" (Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, P. 146).


*Throughout this chapter we assume the truth of unconditional election as set forth in the preceding chapter.

We would not waste time trying to prove the truth as to a limited atonement to an Arminian.
 
Alan Gross

Alan Gross

Well-Known Member
I think this is still on topic and I am not hijacking my own OP, with this secondary reference, again:

SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

Alan Gross said:
I'm going to guess that he was just guessing, without a text at all.
Click to expand...

2. THE THEORY OF A GENERAL ATONEMENT


(1) The Theory Stated.


The theory of a general atonement is that Christ died for every son of Adam-for one as much as for another,* removing the legal impediments out of the way of the salvation of all men and mankind, it objectively possible for every hearer of the gospel to be saved.

"Strong says: "The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all.

"Not the atonement therefore is limited but the application of the atonement."

(There that is, again)


"Again: "The atonement of Christ has made objective provision for the salvation of all, by renewing from the divine mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to Him." Andrew Fuller.


"And when the advocates of a general atonement try to escape the implications of their position, they only contradict themselves.

"For instance, the great J. R. Graves says that Christ "did not pay the debt each sinner owes to divine law, else each one will be saved;

for the law cannot, in justice, demand payment again of the sinner;"

and yet he (Andrew Fuller) says that Christ, by His death, "removed all legal and governmental obstructions" from the way of the salvation of all."



*Some may object to this representation.

"But this statement is proved true of their theory when they state that the death of Christ made the salvation of all possible;

that it removed every legal obstacle from the way of salvation of all men.

"If He did this for all, what more did He do for any?

"If He removed every legal obstacle from the way of salvation of all, then He satisfied the law of them.

"He did not do more than this for anybody."
 
Last edited:
DaveXR650

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Alan Gross said:
"And when the advocates of a general atonement try to escape the implications of their position, they only contradict themselves.

"For instance, the great J. R. Graves says that Christ "did not pay the debt each sinner owes to divine law, else each one will be saved;

for the law cannot, in justice, demand payment again of the sinner;"

and yet he (Andrew Fuller) says that Christ, by His death, "removed all legal and governmental obstructions" from the way of the salvation of all."
Click to expand...

What Fuller said above is what Edwards said in some of his sermons, that Jesus has everything in place to save you, all is ready and only awaiting for you to come. I think it's a mistake to let a logical exercise like above where you come up with a "double jeopardy theory" and then actually try to use it in preaching. Dr. Owen came up with that, and yet some of his preaching was very evangelical and inviting. He even used the stand at the door and knocks, which so many Calvinists hate as an illustration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top