You still don't understand foreknowledge as it relates to election.
And us non-Cals could say the same about you.
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!
You still don't understand foreknowledge as it relates to election.
I think it is in reference to a saving faithQuestion.....The OP asks where does "believing faith" come from? What other kind of faith is there besides "believing" faith? Unbelieving faith? That wouldn't be faith at all would it?
You either have faith (in anything or anyone) or you don't. Faith means believing. You can't have without believing, so "believing faith" doesn't make sense to me.
Question.....The OP asks where does "believing faith" come from? What other kind of faith is there besides "believing" faith? Unbelieving faith? That wouldn't be faith at all would it?
You either have faith (in anything or anyone) or you don't. Faith means believing. You can't have without believing, so "believing faith" doesn't make sense to me.
Amy, that is a great question. According to the Calvinists here (they will say I am mistaken and do not understand them afterwards), a person must be regenerated to have faith. Now what does that mean? How can you have faith without an object of faith?
And this is what bothers me most about this doctrine. It is not faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that is foremost and primary to a Calvinist. No, it becomes secondary. Because first and foremost, they must be regenerated. They cannot possibly believe the gospel unless they have been regenerated to believe.
Most Calvinists will say Jesus did not die for the non-elect. And if their doctrine is true, this would be correct. For the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is absolutely meaningless unless you have been regenerated, if their doctrine be true.
So, they trust in regeneration, not the gospel.
Why is it necessary to believe that Jesus "died for" someone whom He knows will never believe and receive the benefit of the actual atonement? It simply becomes a tautology. Even a free willer can believe in "particular redemption." A free willer can believe that the full intent of the atonement is to save all believers. That makes sense in actuality. Why would the intention of the atonement be to save every individual person, if God in His foreknowledge knows that this has not, cannot, and will never happen? Why would God intend to do something that He "could not" fulfill. Why would the Scriptures even mention an "elect" if the intention of the atonement was to do something that could not be done? That idea seems to make God at odds with Himself.Most Calvinists will say Jesus did not die for the non-elect.
In other words: "For God loved the world in this manner--that He gave His unique Son--for the purpose that all the ones believing into him should not perish but rather have everlasting life."Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that [so that = ωστε = "in this way/manner"] he gave his only begotten Son, that [ινα = "for the purpose that/with the result that"] whosoever believeth [πας ο πιστευων = "all the ones believing"] in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Who are "his people"? Why is there even a "his people"? If the intention of the atonement is to save every single person, why would this verse even say such a thing? Sounds like "particular redemption."Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS [Saviour]: for he shall save his people from their sins.
To the free willer, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is absolutely meaningless because it has no real power in itself to atone substitutionarily for anyone. It is a symbolic gesture that does nothing to anyone without his own two cents. It had the hypothetical possibility of being an act in vain with no atoned individuals.And if their doctrine is true, this would be correct. For the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is absolutely meaningless unless you have been regenerated, if their doctrine be true.
Silly willy. Regeneration is part of the gospel (Rom 8:1-9). Regeneration is what God uses to make people who are present for a gospel presentation recipients of the gospel and of His substitutionary atonement.So, they trust in regeneration, not the gospel.
When the atonement was made once a year for the nation of Israel, was every single Israelite saved? Will we see every single Israelite in heaven someday? Well, we know not all of them will be. Think of Judas. He was an Israelite. Atonement was made on his behalf just as it was for the other disciples, but Judas is in hell. Does that mean that the atonement made on their behalf was ineffectual?Why is it necessary to believe that Jesus "died for" someone whom He knows will never believe and receive the benefit of the actual atonement? It simply becomes a tautology. Even a free willer can believe in "particular redemption." A free willer can believe that the full intent of the atonement is to save all believers. That makes sense in actuality. Why would the intention of the atonement be to save every individual person, if God in His foreknowledge knows that this has not, cannot, and will never happen? Why would God intend to do something that He "could not" fulfill. Why would the Scriptures even mention an "elect" if the intention of the atonement was to do something that could not be done? That idea seems to make God at odds with Himself.
In other words: "For God loved the world in this manner--that He gave His unique Son--for the purpose that all the ones believing into him should not perish but rather have everlasting life."
You are taking this out of context. "His people" were the Jews. "He came to His own (the Jews) but they received Him not." When the Jews rejected Him, the gospel was taken to the Gentiles.Who are "his people"? Why is there even a "his people"? If the intention of the atonement is to save every single person, why would this verse even say such a thing? Sounds like "particular redemption."
That is ridiculous! No "free willer" believes that. The atonement was a necessary part of redemption because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." But nowhere in scripture will you find salvation apart from faith. Jesus was our substitute so that we could come to God in faith. Salvation required both a payment for sin and faith in the One who paid for it.To the free willer, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is absolutely meaningless because it has no real power in itself to atone substitutionarily for anyone. It is a symbolic gesture that does nothing to anyone without his own two cents. It had the hypothetical possibility of being an act in vain with no atoned individuals.
Huh?Silly willy. Regeneration is part of the gospel (Rom 8:1-9). Regeneration is what God uses to make people who are present for a gospel presentation recipients of the gospel and of His substitutionary atonement.
Amy, that is a great question. According to the Calvinists here (they will say I am mistaken and do not understand them afterwards), a person must be regenerated to have faith. Now what does that mean? How can you have faith without an object of faith?
And this is what bothers me most about this doctrine. It is not faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that is foremost and primary to a Calvinist. No, it becomes secondary. Because first and foremost, they must be regenerated. They cannot possibly believe the gospel unless they have been regenerated to believe.
Most Calvinists will say Jesus did not die for the non-elect. And if their doctrine is true, this would be correct. For the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is absolutely meaningless unless you have been regenerated, if their doctrine be true.
So, they trust in regeneration, not the gospel.
The annual atonement in Israel was NOT a salvific atonement, and it did "cleanse" every Israelite from his sin that year (Lev 16:17,29-30).When the atonement was made once a year for the nation of Israel, was every single Israelite saved? Will we see every single Israelite in heaven someday? Well, we know not all of them will be.
If atonement is to cleanse away sins and one is paying for his own sins, then was the atonement really "effectual" for that person? Atonement (Strongs H3722, H3725, G2643) means that the one atoned is actually free from his liability. He has been pardoned.Think of Judas. He was an Israelite. Atonement was made on his behalf just as it was for the other disciples, but Judas is in hell. Does that mean that the atonement made on their behalf was ineffectual?
Where does the Bible ever say that someone is atoned for without actually receiving the benefits of it? Is atonement just some symbolic gesture that does nothing in itself and requires an outside contribution to make it work?Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly [us, before we were saved].
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled [καταλλαγεντες, exchanged through a transaction] to God by the death of his Son, [The Father and the Son made the exchange on our behalf] much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [καταλλαγην, restoration through an exchange]
My "paraphrase" is based upon the actual Greek words in John 3:16. Look them up yourself. The verse says that the manner in which God loved the world is expressed in that He gave His unique Son, and the reason for giving the Son was so that all the ones believing into him would not perish but rather have everlasting life. The reason for the giving was to save all believers. This verse says nothing positive or negative about the ability to believe, only that the purpose of the giving is to save all believers. If you want a verse for who "can" believe, you have to look elsewhere.Well, that's certainly a nice paraphrase to prove your doctrine.
The word world (kosmos) has approximately 14 different connotations in John's writings alone.If you do a word study on the word "world" you will find that it almost always refers to sinners or the sinful world "system".
Let's see. We now have a conundrum. What does the verse say? It says that He SHALL SAVE (not "attempt to save") HIS PEOPLE from their sins. If "his people" here means only Jews (and every individual in the nation of Israel), then you are saying that the angel of God lied or was misinformed. If "his people" here means every individual in the nation of Israel then this verse is a lie or a failure on God's part.You are taking this out of context. "His people" were the Jews. "He came to His own (the Jews) but they received Him not." When the Jews rejected Him, the gospel was taken to the Gentiles.
Since the prophesy already existed during this time about "a remnant" of Israel would be saved and God would call people of the Gentiles "his people," then the only valid definition for "his people" that maintains the integrity of God and fulfills His prophecy is the remnant of Jewish believers and the Gentile believers.Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
I, nor anyone I have seen here, has ever suggested that. Faith is a result of God's atonement for His people. Those for whom God atoned He teaches, draws, gives to the Son, and they come to Him and believe (John 6).That is ridiculous! No "free willer" believes that. The atonement was a necessary part of redemption because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." But nowhere in scripture will you find salvation apart from faith.
A substitute takes the place of someone else. If Jesus is someone's substitute, He pays his sin debt and the one is completely free from the penalty.Jesus was our substitute so that we could come to God in faith.
True, but the atonement effectuated both.Salvation required both a payment for sin and faith in the One who paid for it.
Then it is apparent you don't understand what 'atonement' means. If the OT Atonment was not salvic then neither was Christ's Atonement since he fulfilled the Law regarding the Atonement.The annual atonement in Israel was NOT a salvific atonement, and it did "cleanse" every Israelite from his sin that year (Lev 16:17,29-30).
See, you miss what is going on. He is not paying for his sins himself but is bringing a 'substitute' - one that shall take his place.If atonement is to cleanse away sins and one is paying for his own sins, then was the atonement really "effectual" for that person? Atonement (Strongs H3722, H3725, G2643) means that the one atoned is actually free from his liability. He has been pardoned.
No one is scripture is atoned for without them first receiving it by faith. The propitiation or atonement is not and never has been given prior to faith but is given through/by faith. Only then does a person receive those benifits of the propitiation that was made for sin on behalf of all - as the Law required.Where does the Bible ever say that someone is atoned for without actually receiving the benefits of it? Is atonement just some symbolic gesture that does nothing in itself and requires an outside contribution to make it work?
Because those statement declared definitively that those who have had these things done to them (justified, and reconsiled) have come into being through faith. IOW - To the one who has believe they have been justified and they are reconciled to God, both of which come through Christ's propitiation. These are about what has transpired after the fact, and in context, not trying to get people to believe.This passage says that the death of the Son reconciles, and the blood of Christ justifies. These statements are on behalf of those who come to God in faith and now have peace therewith. How can one read such strong and definitive statements and not see that the atonement and reconciliation of Christ's death and shed blood on the Cross is actually effectual in bringing about the faith, justification, and peace of those for whom it was made?
Amy was speaking about the term 'world' which in this case refers to ALL sinners - world. God showed His love toward 'all sinners' in this manner...My "paraphrase" is based upon the actual Greek words in John 3:16. Look them up yourself.
Exactly - world means - all sinful and unrighteous mankind.The verse says that the manner in which God loved the world is expressed in that He gave His unique Son, and the reason for giving the Son was so that all the ones believing into him would not perish but rather have everlasting life.
This is trueThe reason for the giving was to save all believers.
No, not really. Those who are sinful and unrighteous are who the giving was for, and of that group, whoever would believe would be saved. Thus the ability 'is' spoken of indirectly but the purpose of the statement is about for whom Christ was given and what happens to those who receive that gift.This verse says nothing positive or negative about the ability to believe, only that the purpose of the giving is to save all believers. If you want a verse for who "can" believe, you have to look elsewhere.
Nope. John's writing speak of about 4 basic aspects of the term world and in those there 'can' be seen other variations that relate to the original 4. Of those however only one can be contextually relevent here and that one is the one refering to all sinful and unrighteous mankind.The word world (kosmos) has approximately 14 different connotations in John's writings alone.
See this is where you find theology driving interpretation instead of scripture driving interpretation. The passage is refering to OT prophesy refer to Isreal primarily and the world secondarily, though the secondarily is not seen in these passages but others (OT on this prophesy nor this verse). Saving His people does not mean evey single person, not even close. It refers to His 'people' the group. So there is no conundrum at all except if one comes to the passage with a presupposition. The angel didn't lie but in fact spoke the truth Jesus will save His people from their sins as He is the True Sacrifice of Atonement. Paul even emphasizes this a little more in Rom 11 when he also quotes another OT prophesy saying that all Israel shall be saved. This passage does not mean every single Israeli that has ever been but the OT passage refers to those alive at that time. Which means many just might die and those left will believe that Jesus is the true promised Messiah. In in any case, none dieing or the remnant left - all of Isreal (the Nation) will be saved. Jesus will save His people (Jews) from their sins.Let's see. We now have a conundrum. What does the verse say? It says that He SHALL SAVE (not "attempt to save") HIS PEOPLE from their sins. If "his people" here means only Jews (and every individual in the nation of Israel), then you are saying that the angel of God lied or was misinformed.
No, that is not the only valid definition. Context determines what is being spoken of NOT theology.Let's look at some other Scriptures for context:
Since the prophesy already existed during this time about "a remnant" of Israel would be saved and God would call people of the Gentiles "his people," then the only valid definition for "his people" that maintains the integrity of God and fulfills His prophecy is the remnant of Jewish believers and the Gentile believers.
Again, context is not determined by some other scripture else where, but by those passages that surround the passage in question. And if that passage is refering 'back' to something else then the context of 'that' passage(s) also has great bearing on the context being spoken of. Your theology is driving your interpretation of passages rather than vise-versa. (IMO)I, nor anyone I have seen here, has ever suggested that. Faith is a result of God's atonement for His people. Those for whom God atoned He teaches, draws, gives to the Son, and they come to Him and believe (John 6).
You bet! But that substitute has to be accepted/received by the one thats place was taken. A person can choose to accept or reject the offered substitute.A substitute takes the place of someone else. If Jesus is someone's substitute, He pays his sin debt and the one is completely free from the penalty.
I guess AresMan would say that the government did not provide Social Security for the elderly unless they accept it.
Actually brother, according to their view Jesus did in fact die for sinners (though a select grouping of sinners) and if it were not for Jesus death 'for them' they could never be imparted with the new nature purchased for them and the new birth that comes with it. This is their view and how Christ died for sinners. His death prepared and set up all that was necessary to bring them to faith.In fact, if Calvinism is true, then Jesus did not die for sinners. Because if a man is first regenerated before he can believe on Christ, he is no longer a lost sinner when he believes. He has been given a new nature, a new birth according to what many Calvinists claim (they do not all agree among themselves).
Actually brother, according to their view Jesus did in fact die for sinners (though a select grouping of sinners) and if it were not for Jesus death 'for them' they could never be imparted with the new nature purchased for them and the new birth that comes with it. This is their view and how Christ died for sinners. His death prepared and set up all that was necessary to bring them to faith.
I think it would be a little harder to ascert this view, pre-death (OT) but I haven't delved that far into the view past the general regarding their view of regeneration in the OT. Now the NT I have done alot of research and work so I will let them speak for how it operated in the OT. - I 'think' it has to do with Christ's death from eternity being known. However for me this adds to teh problem since by that logic all people are also born saved - but that is something for another thread, this one has enough to deal with![]()
Notice that this New Birth is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Nothing is said about the requirement of prior faith.
I understand what you are saying but don't lump all Cal's and Reformed into one group. There are just as many various Cal groups as there are BaptistsWell, look at this statement Old Regular made in his last post.
So, as you see, he believes you have to receive the new nature before you can believe. And he does not see faith as a requirement to being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If you have already received the Holy Spirit and the new nature that comes with it, you no longer require Christ's sacrifice to save you. You are already saved. This makes the sacrifice of Christ moot, as they also do not believe he died for the non-elect.
Well, look at this statement Old Regular made in his last post.
Original Post by OldRegular
John 3:4-8
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Notice that this New Birth is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Nothing is said about the requirement of prior faith.
So, as you see, he believes you have to receive the new nature before you can believe. And he does not see faith as a requirement to being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If you have already received the Holy Spirit and the new nature that comes with it, you no longer require Christ's sacrifice to save you. You are already saved. This makes the sacrifice of Christ moot, as they also do not believe he died for the non-elect.
I understand what you are saying but don't lump all Cal's and Reformed into one group. There are just as many various Cal groups as there are Baptists![]()
Not at all. Jesus said her faith had saved her, yes. But He does not allude to what caused that faith: He only refers to the end result.
He tells us, elsewhere, that if the father does not draw you, if the father does not give you ears to hear, if the father does not give you new birth you cannot even hear the Gospel, which the scriptures say is what causes faith.
So it works like this> God opens you ears so you can hear (new birth). You hear the Gospel preached> through the Word, you believe> the Holy Spirit indwells you, and imparts the righteousness of Christ to your account.
Notice that this New Birth is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Nothing is said about the requirement of prior faith.