What or who is predestinated?

[saturneptune]

Arthur,
It is fine is you do not wish to respond. You ask for an opinion then fail to answer, but this is a free country. By the way, the sovreignty of God vs the free will debate is seperate and apart from works vs faith salvation. I can believe in free will either by faith or by works. Election seems to me to favor faith, but these are two seperate discussions.

 

[J.D.]

Arthur,
It is fine is you do not wish to respond. You ask for an opinion then fail to answer, but this is a free country. By the way, the sovreignty of God vs the free will debate is seperate and apart from works vs faith salvation. I can believe in free will either by faith or by works. Election seems to me to favor faith, but these are two seperate discussions.

I think the freewill v sovereignty issue is another, deeper, layer of the same "onion" as faith v works. Both are soteriological issues. Faith v works deals with the means of salvation; freewill v sovereignty deals with the source of salvation.

 

[npetreley]

I think the freewill v sovereignty issue is another, deeper, layer of the same "onion" as faith v works. Both are soteriological issues. Faith v works deals with the means of salvation; freewill v sovereignty deals with the source of salvation.

And the root of both (free will and works) is pride.

 

[saturneptune]

Well, Mr King Arthur, he who always challanges others to give their view, where is yours, third call. Maybe your cut and paste option for historical preachers and theologans broke. Cat got your tongue?

 

[webdog]

And the root of both (free will and works) is pride.

I would say this is true with electionists, too. There is pride throughout any stance, dont' discount your own.

 

[webdog]

The..."you will believe the Bible" statement by me.. was addressing your statement.."this is not biblical". What I meant ....if I do back it up with the Bible and you would believe..being that you believe the Bible and not me...for it would be Biblical. Sorry for the mis-understanding

I want to be clear when I compare our views side by side with the Bible.

Are you saying that Death is separtion from God and that's it?
I guess I have never heard your full view on the fall of man. If this is it...And I know some believe this...not sure you do...but if so..then your saying man was not blinded at all to the things of God by the fall, and all man ever needed was to hear the gospel. Do I understand you right? Make sure you read this statement very well before you agree with it.

One other thing....what do you understand.."God draws / speaks" to mean? Is that just the hearing of the gospel..or something else?

I hold to the same view on total depravity (spiritual death) as Anthony Badger...

Total depravity speaks both of inherited corruption of our nature seminally through our individual fathers, leading to personal sins, and also of the imputed guilt of sin because the entirety of the human race was in Adam sinning. The result is total depravity which may be seen as a separation from the joys of God’s presence, a non-appreciation of His virtues, and an inclination to fall short of His character in our actions. The lostness of the human race, however, does not mean that man acts as badly as he is capable of, that he cannot think logically, that he cannot hear and understand the propositions of the gospel, or that he is unable to believe the truth. Man is rightly considered to be dead in sin, and by nature the child of wrath, but he still retains the image of God in his being. That image seems to carry with it an ability to believe the gospel (appropriate God’s grace channeled through the message of the cross) and, by faith alone, obtain eternal life. While man is unwilling to come to God and/or earn His favor (Jer 17:9-10), he can approach Him by faith (which is not meritorious, but the existence of which admits that there is indeed nothing that man can do to earn His favor). Since man can do that which is according to his nature, and since his nature carries with it an innate ability for self preservation and a desire for same, it follows that man may consider the claims of the gospel and believe the message. Such would be consistent with the desire for self preservation. One may not reasonably argue that since man is inclined to do nothing to glorify God in his fallen state, but act only in a selfish way, his motive to believe is insufficient to attain God’s approval. Man is not saved by his good motives, desire to glorify God, or any other meritorious deed. He is saved when he comprehends the consequences of his desperate fallen condition and, perhaps even selfishly and fearfully, believes in Christ alone as his only hope of eternal life. Believing in this way could by no stretch of imagination be considered meritorious. If anything, it is seen as just the opposite. It is in this context that God’s grace shines for His glory

 

[saturneptune]

Jarthur,
It is not appropriate for you to ever call someone down in this forum again for not giving their views. Why is it that wherever in life one goes, there is always one who points at others while being the most guilty of doing the same thing?

 

[Dale-c]

Jarthur,
It is not appropriate for you to ever call someone down in this forum again for not giving their views. Why is it that wherever in life one goes, there is always one who points at others while being the most guilty of doing the same thing?

What is the point of this post?

Jarthur has given many more views than you have....what is your problem with him?

 

[npetreley]

I would say this is true with electionists, too. There is pride throughout any stance, dont' discount your own.

You changed the subject. I was talking about doctrines. You're talking about people. Electionists, as you call them, may have pride. But there is no room for pride in the doctrine of election. It is based on God's choice, and gives glory only to God.

The doctrines of free will and works give glory to man.

 

[Dale-c]

Electionists, as you call them, may have pride. But there is no room for pride in the doctrine of election. It is based on God's choice, and gives glory only to God.

This is exactly right.
I have seen men who claim to believe in the doctrines of Grace who are very arrogant, but there is no room in the actual doctrine for any pride whatsoever.

Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Ephesians 2:9)

 

[Dale-c]

I might add that freewill by it's very nature lends itself to pride.
I am not accusing anyone that does not agree with me of being proud, just that the doctrine leads to that end.

 

[Rippon]

Have you ever noticed how often the notion of free will is espoused by worldlings ? Every time I turn around it comes out of the mouths of the unregenerate . It has even been the theme of movies by the unsaved . Shouldn't something so tightly held by non-believers give one pause ? I think mainstream evangelicals/Fundamentalists should stop and take a look around at one of their most cherished pet beliefs and see how much they join hands with the world in this regard .

 

[Dale-c]

Shouldn't something so tightly held by non-believers give one pause ?

You would think so.
This alone does not make a doctrine wrong, but does make it suspect.
The Bible makes it wrong. Alignment with the views of the world should make you want to dig a little deeper.

 

[saturneptune]

Dale C,
I was giving views on here and else where long before you were thought of. He challenges people to give views, then avoids answers. That answers your questions. Why do you blindly follow him?

 

[Dale-c]

I was giving views on here and else where long before you were thought of. He challenges people to give views, then avoids answers. That answers your questions. Why do you blindly follow him?

Since none of these statement are true, I don't see any reason to get involved with them.

 

[saturneptune]

Whatever you say. You two are basically a clown act. You pick out a victim, Brother Bob your latest, and bang him back and forth between you two like a ping pong game for sport. It really gets old.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello saturne,

Well, well, well...you have spoken...

Just when you think you have ran off a Calvinist, you find out He is not gone at all, but maybe has a LIFE. Bummer huh?
Much to your disliking...I'm alive and well. As it turns out, I do like to spend time with my wife..and others. Not that it matters, but I also took time to study my lesson. Lets see what you have been up to while I was gone..

ok, no problem with that. There is no doubt in my mind that the good ground seed was regenerated and saved. There is no doubt in my mind that the seed snatched away and the seed that fell on rocky ground are lost. The one open to discussion I think is the one choked out by weeds, etc. It is quite clear he did receive the word. I am unsure at to his state. There are many Christians that do not follow the Spirit all the time. To me, to say that this seed was without a doubt lost, is to say there is a level of behavior that we must reach to be a Christian. That goes back to a works salvation, not faith, which is kind of what Armenius taught. To be fair, I would have to know much more about his daily life. Was he choked out all the time, with no time for God? We dont know.

Most of the time I'm not this bold. But let me be very bold with you. You are wrong sir. The ground is not the saved or unsaved at all. This is very clear. As it turns out, the Bible is clear to what this is all about. I'll give you one more try..and Then I'll help you out. Deal?

Arthur,
Please dont forget to give me YOUR (not a deceased theologan) opinion of the state of salvation of the four seeds in the parable.

Who said this is about salvation at all? BTW..add a J to my name. Thanks

Arthur,
It is fine is you do not wish to respond. You ask for an opinion then fail to answer, but this is a free country. By the way, the sovreignty of God vs the free will debate is seperate and apart from works vs faith salvation. I can believe in free will either by faith or by works. Election seems to me to favor faith, but these are two seperate discussions.

I do not wish to respond? Who said that? Are you sleep typing again? I try to reply to most of the post address to me. Even when they play games like you...many times...posting bogus dcotrine views of atonement..."arthur atonement"..or some kind of joke...then placing links to bogus sites..that I click on. Its all a game to you. However, I replied. The rest of your post above is full of air..and pointless...and not worth a reply. add J please...thanks

Well, Mr King Arthur, he who always challanges others to give their view, where is yours, third call. Maybe your cut and paste option for historical preachers and theologans broke. Cat got your tongue?

King? I like that......But..no need to call me king. Jarthur will do. You can add the "001" if you want, but no need to. I'll let you use your freewill to do as you wish. I challange others to share, that do not share. This one post...one time you post and you think the world should stop and reply that moment. One time does not get it bud. But..thanks for that ONE. Give this man a star. Look at the rest of your replies. "hey Arthur...where you at arthur?? come on king...."

Its not about YOU. Maybe others have something to say. Maybe I have a life. Maybe others can say it better. Chill down...post your views..and I'll reply when I can. I'm not going to drop everything to reply to your ONE post that makes ONE point that is a wrong POINT.....when most of the time you play tricks and joke about doctrine. Sorry...not my game dude. BTW..I don't have a cat.

Jarthur,
It is not appropriate for you to ever call someone down in this forum again for not giving their views. Why is it that wherever in life one goes, there is always one who points at others while being the most guilty of doing the same thing?

Well..i'll give you this. You got my name right. Now that I have replied I will not act as a child and think you must reply. I do ask you to reply when you can. But you are very wrong about the ground. Sorry...it happens at times. Get back with me when you understand the meaning...or you can support your views. Thanks


In Christ..James

 

[Dale-c]

Whatever you say. You two are basically a clown act. You pick out a victim, Brother Bob your latest, and bang him back and forth between you two like a ping pong game for sport. It really gets old.

That is a totally false accusation and I would prefer that you stop since it does no good for anyone.
YOu do nothing to back up your wild and crazy statements. Quite frankly they are getting old.

 

[saturneptune]

Dale, there is no need to respond to you. Proverbs is full of verses about you. Arthur, without the J, you are wrong about the ground, and frankly, you have no Scripture to back up your view. If you think my view is wrong, back up your claim. As usual, you ask for a view, then give nothing in reply except cut and pastes from the 1800's or ad hominems. You two arent going to volley me back and forth.

 

[Jarthur001]

Whatever you say. You two are basically a clown act. You pick out a victim, Brother Bob your latest, and bang him back and forth between you two like a ping pong game for sport. It really gets old.

Saturn....this is not about you. You post one point in 700 post and you think we need to stop the world. Get over it. Great..you made a point. Now..back it up...