Well...
I "love" how we get said to be 'determinists"based upon us holding fast to the biblical doctrine of salvation being FULLY of/from the Lord, and that we just see the Bible does NOT support total free will anymore for sinful man?
-
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!
Will ANY of God's Elect "Miss Heaven"?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Well...
I "love" how we get said to be 'determinists"based upon us holding fast to the biblical doctrine of salvation being FULLY of/from the Lord, and that we just see the Bible does NOT support total free will anymore for sinful man?
Alive in Christ
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
Icon...
I have no interest in reading the "puritans"
It is the scriptures, and only the scriptures, where I basically live and feed. I suggest you do the same.
I have no interest in reading the "puritans"
It is the scriptures, and only the scriptures, where I basically live and feed. I suggest you do the same.
Think ALL here read the Bible first and foremost...
I like to also read commentaries, so to each his own!
The part about "intellectual appeal" is key to understanding the motivation and stereotypical tendencies.
It’s a pseudo-intellectualism of being able to pick up on a man-made doctrine and cherry-pick out of the scriptures passages that seem to support a theological system, thereby a false sense of pride that they are skilled systematic theologians.
BUT, they still do not possess the critical thinking skills-understand the science the logic (philosophy) well enough-have the true intellectual abilities to rationally reason for their interpretations; so they argue by fallacy and refuse to recognize simple philosophical principles of debate while trying to ride on the coattails of the traditionalist they follow rather than use the science of logic (developed methods to draw out the truth concerning premises, claims and issues) to support their claims.
The type of argument they present is representative of the nature of the rationality they possess whenever they “argue”(not in the philosophical sense, but the sense of whatever means they can continue to disagree on)…it is their nature, meaning they lack any in-depth knowledge of coming to critical understanding of the topic and in pride of possessing a "intellectual" system, while pretending to be more intellectual than they are, will resort to fallacy after fallacy that naturally involve the characteristics of being “hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive” to support their less than rational reasoning.
It is only logical that those who find a dogmatic system “intellectually appealing” and simultaneously lack the abilities to rationally reason to support it will continue in “their” methods of “argumentation” while being inflexible and irrational in their nature. It is a nature that is based in resenting “responsibility” for coming to the truth in argument (philosophical reasoning-the science of logic) and will naturally be attracted to a theological system that denies free-will actions (responsibility). The system of Determinism and such characteristics go together quite well so it is only reasonable to suspect that Determinists would be more prone to be nasty and irrational when they “argue” for their system.
Piper obviously recognizes the pattern he just stereotypically fails to recognize and reason properly why the natures “truly” go together so well. Judgment being based on true responsibility is a concept the Determinist will “argue” against at all costs and all methods available to him whether rational or not. They do not appreciate their God given abilities to reason in the same sense because they wish to avoid being responsible and are too proud to admit they have a choice. Thus, the fruits fall not far from the tree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Icon cuts off and avoids the issue and you say, or really believe it is a "nice comeback" and of "truth" ???
Do you guys have any sense ...at all ...about how truth in debate is arrived at, or have any sense of what the goal should be?!? Do you really think your (rhetorical horse-laugh) cheerleading has any validity to it, whatsoever??? Do you really appreciate the obnoxious tactics such as Icon's methods of argument that much? Your guy's critical thinking skills never cease to amaze me!!!
:sleep:
But thanks for the examples boys...
Last edited by a moderator:
glazer1972
Member
No..........
convicted1
Guest
This post right here is the most concise, in depth post in this thread. Not one of God's elect will miss heaven, period.
Benjamin,
This is not a HS debate team looking to score points,and use debate"tactics'
we are here for scriptural discussion and debate....of scripture,using scripture.
Not long winded pointless musings that profit nothing.
Bring the scriptures with you, or stay home.If the oxford Debate team calls, we will send you and ravi zacharias.
If not...we just want scriptural discussion.
There are some here...Hos, Humblethinker, quantumfaith, webdog, skan, winman, aic.....that might enjoy you starting a thread to discuss all things philosophical, speculative, open theist,and molinist.....go ahead and enjoy yourself...by all means:wavey::love2::1_grouphug::sleeping_2:
Says one that continually hides behind the traditional carnal reasoning of others, namely the 1689 LBC, blindly, and yet is unwilling to give rational reason or engage in ethical debate of how they could be true. Makes sense, not. Scripture? (Col 2:8, Eph 4:14)
The scriptural and well thought out teaching of the men of the 1689 confession cannot be touched by what you offer.
Those who come from the scripture first do not go down the rabbit trails the humanistic philosophy does...when it reasons outside of scripture by fallen men. Starting from and remaining in scripture is what makes the men of the 1689 better suited to help christians grow in grace and knowledge.
These men studied the original languages, and the scriptures themselves as God has given teachers to His church. It does not say God has given philosophers to figure out what they think about life and relay some good philosophy instead of divine revelation to the church.
the teaching of scripture is true because it is God given. We do not need human philosophy to give any reason for it,other than it is God given
I have no doubt of your salvation, nor would I.
However, you actually are proving the point I was making, that salvation is totally God's work and will, and never the believer's own volition of "free will choice."
Conviction of sin and judgement is brought to all the unregenerate. That is the Decalogue law imprinted upon every human heart - and there are those who to some level of success attain a human righteousness in which Paul speaks of in Romans. The unregenerate spend much time justifying, shifting blame, and in denial. Just as Adam did when God confronted him - hide and then blame someone else. Such was your condition before conversion, as you had no thought or desire of Godly righteousness and flaunted rebellion of any human righteousness.
However, the conviction of sin that brings a person to salvation, is more that God imprinting the Decalogue as He has done (according to the Scriptures) into every human heart.
It is "personal" conviction, tailored by the Holy Spirit using the Word to that specific person. It is a certain God awakened awareness of the awfulness of sin, the righteousness and just judgment of God, and the salvation to be found only in Christ.
That awareness is NOT available to all, for, as the parable of the sower illustrates, some dirt is not prepared for that purpose.
Romans says that belief is already in the heart and confession is already in the mouth before it is verbalized. To you it was "coming to my senses" time. To Paul, it was, "Lord, what would you have me to do?"
That means the Scriptures by work of the Holy Spirit had already implanted faith and belief that you became aware of and made confession, too. Just as Romans states. Belief must already occur in the heart for one to verbalize it as "Lord be merciful to me a sinner." Those that come to God must "first believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of those that diligently seek Him." "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
One does not express true belief unless it is first found in the heart.
In the human rationality, you may think that "decision" was freely taken and made by you, however, as you testified, without the Holy Spirit conviction and drawing, no "decision" would have been even considered.
There are some that make the "implantation of the new nature" at the point of confession.
I do not.
I view the whole as a process to being "born again" as Jesus discussed with Nicodemus. The conviction is evidence of the seed of new birth is being planted. It takes gestation and forming, matures and a New Creature in Christ Jesus is manifested being born again not of corruptible but of incorruptible. Not of flesh, but of Spirit. "He that has begun a good work in you ..."
Looking upon your own conversion experience, demonstrates it is totally of the Sovereign will and work and not one part of human volition.
However, YOUR conversion (even as shown fitting to Scriptural principle) does not prove that the natural unregenerate human has capacity to choose Godly righteousness.
You have not show from the Scriptures any historical figure, nor passage in which "free will choice" of the unregenerate was ever made that was not to ultimately fail.
Yes, I know your cult-like following of that man-made doctrine has it's rules: "No correction is welcome".
They used carnal philosophy to come to their interpretations of scriptures while force-fitting the Determinst doctrines of man (Calvin). (Col 2:8, Eph 4:14)
Sorry to inform you: They were not inspired prophets and neither are you in your following of those "teachers" of philosophy.
I did not say they were inspired prophets did I??? they are however God given teachers[who unlike you} I do not despise. They clearly speak from scripture....not calvin.....you cannot refute most anything they write, they or any of the links provided to you along the way.
you just look to be contentious and avoid the clear scriptures they offer. diverting to these wearisome arguments about disputing of words and meanings:sleep::sleep:
I find your posts extremely disingenuous; you would be so hyper critical of what others post, yet offer very little Scripture or really anything that is edifying.
Why don't you take the LBC revised by C. H Spurgeon, and spend time refuting it.
If you want to be critical of those who have systematically reduced the Scriptures into a series of major points of faith and practice (which the BB has posted as it's SoF) then at least be honest enough to address the areas that it fails to meet Scriptural muster. Compare the two SoF and show where one is in error.
You want to debate, then put something more than thin watery soup into your posts.
Put the meat of the Word of God and show some ability at exegesis and application. Perhaps, we might find you have some foothold on what it takes to actually discuss a topic with some authority.
Alive in Christ
New Member
Iconoclast, you posted to benjaman...
(Note the bolded up there, Iconoclst)
Would that include the entire page full of sciptures I provided for you a while back, proving that all men have the ability to make free will spiritual choices?
The one that, if I recall correctly, you either quickly dismissed....or practically ignored?
(Note the bolded up there, Iconoclst)
Would that include the entire page full of sciptures I provided for you a while back, proving that all men have the ability to make free will spiritual choices?
The one that, if I recall correctly, you either quickly dismissed....or practically ignored?
How do you see those of us who hold to DoG, yet are not reformed in that we have no confessions of faith?
We are seated in the Heavenlies already! I know.......deep! Deuteronomy 29:29
Last edited by a moderator: