Yes it does.....but that does not address the issue at all as all those elected believe.......everyone of them
-
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 is False Teaching or a False Teacher, can we agree on This?
- Thread starter revmwc
- Start date
"By their own volition?" Isn't that works based salvation?
Yes but who is doing the work?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
HankD
Last edited:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Well, "not of the will of man" may mean like a Catholic priest doing a "baptism" in which he, a man, has saved the baby's soul from original sin.
HankD
walkinspirit
Member
I don't know any serious Arminian who holds to classic Arminianism to teach that we are born again by our own will. Where do Calvinists get this impression?
Arminius and Wesley believed that without the prevenient grace (Divine grace that precedes human decision) of God it would be impossible to believe Jesus. They didn't attribute salvation to the will of man, but only to God.
Many believe the myth about classic Arminianism, that its theology it's man centered. I find the Methodist revival one of the most God glorifying movements in the history of the modern Church.
That's a lie that has been propagated since the 17th century. I actually find in not Christ-like that Calvinists persecuted the followers of Arminius in Netherlands, even the example of Calvin who gave his consent in the death of a heretic like Servetus and who showed mercy by suggesting he be beheaded and not burned at the stake. I do find inspirational the life of many Calvinists, Im not being prejudiced just realistic.
And by the way, those who believe in TULIP ( TULIP is a 20th century acronym) or 5 points of Calvinism it came as a reaction to the 5 points of Arminianism. Calvin did not have a theology summarized in 5 points.
Arminius and Wesley believed that without the prevenient grace (Divine grace that precedes human decision) of God it would be impossible to believe Jesus. They didn't attribute salvation to the will of man, but only to God.
Many believe the myth about classic Arminianism, that its theology it's man centered. I find the Methodist revival one of the most God glorifying movements in the history of the modern Church.
That's a lie that has been propagated since the 17th century. I actually find in not Christ-like that Calvinists persecuted the followers of Arminius in Netherlands, even the example of Calvin who gave his consent in the death of a heretic like Servetus and who showed mercy by suggesting he be beheaded and not burned at the stake. I do find inspirational the life of many Calvinists, Im not being prejudiced just realistic.
And by the way, those who believe in TULIP ( TULIP is a 20th century acronym) or 5 points of Calvinism it came as a reaction to the 5 points of Arminianism. Calvin did not have a theology summarized in 5 points.
By their own volition? Or believe because we have been given the gift of faith?
How does an enemy of God, one who hates God, produce faith of their own volition?
Their volition is to hate God, not come to Him.
Tom, its obvious is it not? "this is the work of God".
It starts with God it ends with God - the author and finisher of our faith.
In my own case it was indeed passive - it happened to me in phases - I have assumed that one of those phases was the new birth.
Yes I finally made a decision, but the power to make the decision was not of my own cognition (though it might have seemed that way).
In fact the "decision" was more of a realization of who He was/is rather than deciding the same.
like my granddaughter told us "one day it just "clicked".
I think any self-examining Arminius type who is born again would have a similar experience of a realization rather than an act of volition.
HankD
Exactly! If it is the work of God it is not of their own volition.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
(although I've never had a "bris" - don't ask - look it up..
HankD
TMI.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I agree with this wholly. It isn't merely a 'disagreement' it is truth and error.
Scripture plainly shows this to be the case, but in today's day and age to make such a stand is to cause others to malign the one who makes a stand for truth.
Now, I don't want anyone to get their feathers ruffled and think that I am calling out another as a 'heretic' and consider them as 'an enemy' just because Scripture is against their teachings, and because I am against their teachings. No, no, let's just call it a disagreement, it's not serious, really, this thing called truth.
Last edited:
Oh puh-leeze!! I have shown you where you are wrong, so has IT & Iconoclast. You just bow your head and keep plodding along.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Really? You've said earlier and elsewhere that faith comes from within a person, now you say it comes from the Word. Which is it?
That is a given. I am glad you at least believe this.
Um. No. You're wrong. Don't take offense to that. John 1:13, Romans 9:16, James 1:18 all disagree with you about man's 'volition'.
Yep, and it clearly shows you to be in error.
It is interesting that you continue to rail about the fact that you only 'see it differently'. I've heard that somewhere recently, it is so familiar, that is that someone should simply mitigate it all (truth) and simply see that others only see it 'differently'.
It's not that simple, nor is truth to be dismissed in that manner. The teaching of man's volition is false. Yes, it is false teaching, it is not merely a 'disagreement'.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
(If you have a problem with moderation, please take it up with the moderators. Thank you.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The truth is never compromised. Twisted, but never compromised. When you have mysticism running rampant? Scaaaary thought.
The bible is full of this terminology, Paul especially teaches concerning it, do you fault Paul with too much information?
Though I am ethnically Jewish I was alluding to: Galatians 5:6 Acts 15.
HankD
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Um, no, not quite the same my friend. Were you on the same plain as writing Scripture when you typed out your 'TMI' via keyboard? The incidents are not parallel my friend, and there is no justification for what you stated.
Your attempt to equate them? Well, if I had a gong you'd have heard it by now.
Oh yes there is and I gave the Galatians scripture. I am an ethnic Jew and I put no value in the works of the law demanded by the religious leaders of my ethnicity especially those which are said to be of no value by the NT. Even though I have made this discovery (of my ethnicity) I don't want there to be any doubt where I stand.
I have it from a family member that my mother absolutely refused for this ceremony to be performed, she did however allow me to be "baptized" into the Catholic Church as she had converted to Catholicism.
There was never any discussion about religion except that she would send me to church and release time school and said - do what the nuns tell you.
HankD
Last edited:
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
When you have one person teaching A about a doctrine and the other teaching B about that doctrine, they are opposing views, opposite. To say that it is wrong to declare one wrong, and as false teaching, is to be myopic toward what is staring a person right in the face: If one is teaching opposite the other, then one is false teaching and is wrong. It is not merely 'a differing opinion' or just an 'opposing view'.
Except nobody is saying that. Nobody has said you can't contradict what you consider to be false doctrine. What you were told was that you could not open threads intending to troll the person you disagree with.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Do you think we can narrow it down a little more than a hypothesis, that is, as to what the passage teaches? What I am saying is that we can get from what it 'may mean' to what it 'does mean'.