# Baptist Confession of Faith...



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

Have any of you Baptist brethren ever read the 

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith?

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

"This ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured. We hold to the humbling truths of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone."
C. H. Spurgeon


There was a time where Baptists were Calvinistic in their understanding of sovereign grace....


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 26, 2008)

I posted all the different points of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, been awhile ago, maybe a year or 2... Didn't cause as much  as I thought it would have...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Good thing I'm a "Seeker Sensitivarian"...right rj?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

DB.....

How many Baptists on this forum do you think have ever read the Baptist Confession?  How many have ever even heard of it?  

We are quite myopic in our understanding of church history are we not?

(Huntin...  notice the inclusive pronouns again.  Myself is included, although I have been doing a lot of reading in the past few years concerning Church History.  I had never even heard of the Reformation or Martin Luther and I grew up in church.  It was a United Methodist Church.)


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

I wasn't gonna jump on ya today Banjo.  No worries.

I grew up UM as well.  But I was the preacher's kid.  So I heard all that stuff.  I still keep up as best I can.  But all the politics, etc just doesn't interest me all that much.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 26, 2008)

Banjo said:


> DB.....
> 
> How many Baptists on this forum do you think have ever read the Baptist Confession? How many have ever even heard of it?


 
Hopefully more sense I posted it before, but I wouldn't be surprised if 80-90% have never read the Baptist Confession...much less heard of it...

It is alot to absorb, so when I posted it, I posted it one section at a time... hoping more would read it..

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

> I wasn't gonna jump on ya today Banjo. No worries.



Not even if I was going to say:

What would happen if Baptists would trade in their copy of The Prayer of Jabez, The Purpose Driven Life,  and The Shack for a copy of The London Baptist Confession of Faith....


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 26, 2008)

When I was young, a new edition of the Baptist Hymnal came out.  That's the official hymnal for the SBC.

It always has a section in the back of responsive readings, which are Bible passages.  This particular one included the Apostle's (Nicene) Creed.

Man, what an uproar.  Baptists don't have no stinking creed, no one can tell a good Baptist what to believe about the Bible, creeds are Papist, and so on.

I think that Baptists emphasize the right of the individual to interpret  The Bible so much that there is too much emphasis on the "now", and not enough teaching from and about believers who have gone on before. Results in a lot time spent re-inventing the wheel.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Not even if I was going to say:
> 
> What would happen if Baptists would trade in their copy of The Prayer of Jabez, The Purpose Driven Life,  and The Shack for a copy of The London Baptist Confession of Faith....



OK...here I come!  Watch out for the ATOMIC ELBOW!!!!!!!!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Twenty five ought six said:


> there is too much emphasis on the "now", and not enough teaching from and about believers who have gone on before. Results in a lot time spent re-inventing the wheel.



First, I'm not a Baptist.  So don't read this like I'm defending the Baptist honor or anything.  But this question popped into my head as I read this:

What makes believers from the past more in tune with God than current, living believers?

Am I less qualified to read the Bible than those "greats" from the past?  

I thought most of you guys were of the opinion that the Bible is written so that even a child can understand it.  What gives?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

> What makes believers from the past more in tune with God than current, living believers?
> 
> Am I less qualified to read the Bible than those "greats" from the past?



First of all, men from the past had their problems, but I don't think they were plagued with the postmodernism that runs rampant in our churches.  

I will be the first to admit that men from earlier times, were more scholarly....as was America as a whole compared to now.

I am always skeptical of someone who comes up with some kind of "new" slant on Christianity.  I refuse to believe that God left his church groping around in darkness for thousands of years until He suddenly "revealed" something new...


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 26, 2008)

> What makes believers from the past more in tune with God than current, living believers?
> 
> Am I less qualified to read the Bible than those "greats" from the past?



And that's the typical Baptist response.

Nothing makes you less qualified.

Newton discovered the law of gravity.  The same law is as true today as it was then.  The same evidence is available to you as it was to Newton, and you can test your theory the same  way--- it's done all the time in high school physics classes.

That said, you don't have any problem accepting the fact that gravity accelerates an object at 32 ft/sec^2.  You don't have to re-establish that exact number to accept it as a universal constant.

You are not less qualified to determine that constant.  You don't have any less intellectual capacity.  It's just that it's been done, to the satisfaction of everyone in the world. You can spend all the time doing everything that Newton did, and at the end of the day, you will come up with exactly the same conclusion.

If you enjoy the exercise and the challenge, fine, but we (a lot of protestants) have developed too much of the culture of "me" at both the personal and pastoral level.  The Bible has been rigorously studied for 2000 years,  to the point of counting the occurrence of different letters in it (read up on the Jewish Kabbla).

Just as you do at all levels of school, you accept the work of others before you, so that you can more quickly go on to an advanced level of education.  I don't see why religion should be any different.

I don't think the elders were more in tune with God than anyone today.  What I would suggest is that the more "in tune" you are with God, through the reading and study of The Bible, the more quickly you realize that saints passed have already addressed many of the issues raised by some of today's Bible Thumpers as pressing concerns that only they have divined the answer to.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

I'm not sure I agree that men from earlier times were more scholarly that we are now.  Many of them had no formal training...just their devotion to God and their understanding of truth as reveal to them through scripture.  Now we have entire schools dedicated to the task of theological education.

God doesn't reveal new things to us?  

My point is that the really old timers had no more training in the understanding of the Word than I do.  So why would I assume that they understood it better than I do simply because they lived first?  I'm not saying anything bad about them or what they wrote.  I agree, those are some foundational writings.  But I think, often, we assume that just because somebody wrote something a long time ago, it's more valid than what is written today.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Twenty five ought six said:


> Just as you do at all levels of school, you accept the work of others before you, so that you can more quickly go on to an advanced level of education.  I don't see why religion should be any different.



I don't accept the work of others as fact....I read it and question it and then accept when it is revealed as truth.

You said I think that Baptists emphasize the right of the individual to interpret The Bible so much that there is too much emphasis on the 'now'".  That's what I was responding to specifically.  

There are many truths revealed in the writings of saints past.  No argument there.  But there is also the need to read, study and interpret in light of situations that occur now that were not even considered back then.

Plus, I'll be honest with you, those guys were boring!  The truth doesn't have to change when it is re-written to appeal to a newer generation does it?  It can simply be written in modern language and tone, impact the newer generation better because of that and still be the same truth can't it?


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 26, 2008)

> Plus, I'll be honest with you, those guys were boring!



God forbid that in this modern age we should be bored.

That's why we need to dump all those "begats" in The Bible.  Is there anything more boring that that.

Then 3 of the 4 Gospels tell the same story, and probably came from the same source, so why don't we get Stephen King (he's good with the supernatural) to do one definitive snappy re-write of those 3, and just use that one.

Boring is bad.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Why the sarcasm and disdain?  I'm trying to have a civil discussion here.  I've not said anything even remotely offensive.  Just giving my viewpoint.

If you have something useful to post, then have at it.





Banjo, you better jump in quick.  You're in danger of losing your favored spot!  Looks like I may have found a new friend to argue with!!!!!!


----------



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

> God forbid that in this modern age we should be bored.
> 
> That's why we need to dump all those "begats" in The Bible. Is there anything more boring that that.
> 
> ...



Or better yet, get Eugene Peterson to write a new bible that butchers the original...

Wait a minute, he did that.  I think it is called "THE MESSAGE."

I couldn't resist......


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

It's better than the OLD version!










Sorry I couldn't resist either. (disclaimer....I do not believe that...not totally)


----------



## Banjo (Sep 26, 2008)

> Sorry I couldn't resist either. (disclaimer....I do not believe that...not totally)
> __________________


----------



## PJason (Sep 26, 2008)

Just a couple of quick points:




Huntinfool said:


> Now we have entire schools dedicated to the task of theological education.



The entire University system we have today grew out of the theological schools started in the major Cathedrals and Monasteries. In fact the time spent in “theological” studies at our schools today would pale in comparison, to the time these early schools dedicated to it.



Huntinfool said:


> My point is that the really old timers had no more training in the understanding of the Word than I do.



St. Thomas Aquinas entered into training at age 5
St. Dominic entered into training at age 7
St. Jerome spent at least 13 years in theological training

The list could go on and on. Most of those “old timers” spent their lives in study and teaching and likely did little else.



Huntinfool said:


> There are many truths revealed in the writings of saints past.  No argument there.  But there is also the need to read, study and interpret in light of situations that occur now that were not even considered back then.



What situations would you mean?

One of the real importances of reading from the past is to gain an understanding of how scripture has been interpreted and understood through the years. I would say a 1st century theologian would have a better understanding of the intent and original understanding of the scripture, due to their proximity to the actual events written about in the Gospels, and within the lifetimes of the Gospel writers. Men such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, would have studied at the feet of the Apostles and therefore are able to give certain insights that those in the modern age would not be capable of. Does this somehow invalidate modern scholarship? Not at all, but without the grounding of the past, modern scholarship is weakened by a loose foundation.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 26, 2008)

PJason said:


> Just a couple of quick points:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




PJason,
I agree with you on this one.  Also, there are many issues with one who has no training, just trying to read and interpret the scriptures.  Often times, things can be taken out of context or meanings of words can be lost in translation.  That is why most Theological Seminary's require the students to learn Hebrew and Greek for their master's degree as well as two other languages for their Doctorate (most Protestant seminaries encourage Latin and German due to the large volume of early church study done in these languages).

Can a person with no seminary training learn the Bible and understand what it is saying?  Yes.  But they must be diligent to study and a good commentary is also very helpful.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 26, 2008)

I also wanted to add....How many SBC's would have a heart attack if they realized that the Baptist confession taught against Free-Will and pointed to Election/pre-destination?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 26, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I also wanted to add....How many SBC's would have a heart attack if they realized that the Baptist confession taught against Free-Will and pointed to Election/pre-destination?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

PJason said:


> St. Thomas Aquinas entered into training at age 5
> St. Dominic entered into training at age 7
> St. Jerome spent at least 13 years in theological training
> 
> The list could go on and on. Most of those “old timers” spent their lives in study and teaching and likely did little else.



I'm not talking about your saints man.  I'm talking about people like Circuit Riders, etc.  I can point to just as many "saints" of the various faiths that had zero training as you could that had lots.  The point is that there was the insinuation that only the stuff written by the "oldies but goodies" was worth reading.  I simply don't agree with that.

You guys talk I am not able to read and interpret the Bible.  Now I know that the Catholic faith would pretty much say just that.  I'm just surprised at the number of protestant folks here who would say the same.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Sep 26, 2008)

"Universities" for the study of theology pre-date Christianity by at least 4 or 5 hundred years.  They existed in Greece, India, and China.

Contrary to widely held opinions here, Christianity is not the only theology that has ever been systematically studied.



> The point is that there was the insinuation that only the stuff written by the "oldies but goodies" was worth reading.



I don't know who has been insinuating such, certainly not I.

But if you haven't read any of the "oldies but goodies", it's really hard to make a valid judgment, isn't it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

Twenty five ought six said:


> "Universities" for the study of theology pre-date Christianity by at least 4 or 5 hundred years.  They existed in Greece, India, and China.
> 
> Contrary to widely held opinions here, Christianity is not the only theology that has ever been systematically studied.
> 
> ...



I've read many of them bud.  I didn't mean to imply that theological study is new to the modern era.  What I meant was that we have people all over the world studying theology still.  Why would we assume that they have nothing new to say?

And, yeh, it was you that made that insinuation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 26, 2008)

I don't know if this can contribute in anyway to the topic at hand. But let me just say that of all the denominations I have visited, in my neck of the woods and I have worshipped with many, the baptish were always hesitant to share their history with me.

I would ask, what is the history of your church, your denomination here, and the answer was a stare in puzzlement.

I was told by a seminarist, that because of all the 1st Baptish designations in the neighbourhood, it was of no benefit to its pilgrims to risk addmission they might be the 2ed.

****I find  the style and expression of this the Baptish Confession of Faith 1689 akin to the tone and temper of the American Declaration of Independance 1776.???? But maybe it's just me.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 26, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm not sure I agree that men from earlier times were more scholarly that we are now.  Many of them had no formal training...just their devotion to God and their understanding of truth as reveal to them through scripture.  Now we have entire schools dedicated to the task of theological education.
> 
> God doesn't reveal new things to us?
> 
> My point is that the really old timers had no more training in the understanding of the Word than I do.  So why would I assume that they understood it better than I do simply because they lived first?  I'm not saying anything bad about them or what they wrote.  I agree, those are some foundational writings.  But I think, often, we assume that just because somebody wrote something a long time ago, it's more valid than what is written today.




I suspect one of the problems with our "understandings" of scripture these days may be because we think we are smarter.   I'm not so sure that all the Scholars have done us much good.  Quite often, the higher one educates himself in the scholarly ways, the further he moves away from God's intent of scripture.
I'd rather trust the old guy sitting at his dining table reading, praying, and studying the Bible.  The Bible wasn't written for scholars to figure out.  It is much simpler than many imagine.
I note that much has changed since that original Baptist Statement of Faith.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 26, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> You guys talk I am not able to read and interpret the Bible.  Now I know that the Catholic faith would pretty much say just that.  I'm just surprised at the number of protestant folks here who would say the same.



I'm not saying that you can't study the Bible on your own and that you have to have a Master's degree or Doctorate to be a pastor.

Not at all.  But, on the other hand, there are many that read something out of the NIV Bible that has butchered the original translation and think that they are reading it the exact way that Paul was intending it to be read.  That is how we have people running around thinking that words like "Predestination" aren't in the Bible.

What I am saying, is that it does not hurt to know the original language, read out of the original language and have a good concordance when studying the Bible.  So often, people read a single verse and then want to stand up and tell the world what they think that verse means.  I don't care what you think, I think or anybody thinks a verse means.  I wan't to know what God thinks and what He meant when He inspired the author to pen it on paper.  Often times, it takes more than just a simple reading of a verse to get to that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> there are many that read something out of the NIV Bible that has butchered the original translation



Trouble maker.

My dad is one of those highly educated, well studied doctorate of divinity kind of guys.  Knows the original languages, etc.

He reads the NIV and others.  But that's his primary version.  I'll stick with it and you can just consider me informed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 26, 2008)

"You guys talk I am not able to read and interpret the Bible. Now I know that the Catholic faith would pretty much say just that. I'm just surprised at the number of protestant folks here who would say the same." quote Huntinfool.
__________________

That is why there is a number of protestant.LOL


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> What I am saying, is that it does not hurt to know the original language, read out of the original language and have a good concordance when studying the Bible.  So often, people read a single verse and then want to stand up and tell the world what they think that verse means.  I don't care what you think, I think or anybody thinks a verse means.  I want to know what God thinks and what He meant when He inspired the author to pen it on paper.  Often times, it takes more than just a simple reading of a verse to get to that.




I totally agree with this.  That's why I said before that there is nothing wrong with the old stuff.  It's awesome.  What I have an issue with is the idea that there is simply nothing new left to be written.  There is nothing left to be revealed.  

On a side note, I think, pretty much, that anybody (including me...I've done it) who quotes a single verse out of the Bible and says that proves  a point they are trying to make is running around with an agenda that they know is not justifiable.  As someone said before "context is king".


----------



## gtparts (Sep 26, 2008)

Sure am glad someone asked about the SBC and the Baptist Faith and Message.  The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith is NOT applicable  to  SBC churches of today. Such use is worthless in accessing to Southern Baptist. Check out what they believe here. I'm sure you will find that many of the "fanatical" attributions are either totally untrue or grossly overstated. Are our churches evangelical? Some are more so than others. Does the SBC run all the churches with an iron fist? No, but they do draw hard lines where the Bible draws hard lines, as they should.

Dig in and have your knowledge expanded. It's all here!

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

Peace be unto you and yours.

PS   I've read it many times. For me, it expresses most of what I believe with great clarity and simplicity. Sorry but I have to go play with the serpents.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 26, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> On a side note, I think, pretty much, that anybody (including me...I've done it) who quotes a single verse out of the Bible and says that proves  a point they are trying to make is running around with an agenda that they know is not justifiable.  As someone said before "context is king".




You got that right.
Spin-doctors do it all the time.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 26, 2008)

Why does a church need it's own doctrine statement?
Why not just use the Bible?


----------



## gtparts (Sep 26, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Why does a church need it's own doctrine statement?
> Why not just use the Bible?



If that is in response to my post, many people ask what Southern Baptists believe. This explains in about a page the answer to that inquiry. Of course, if they have no Bible foundation, it wouldn't make any difference in their understanding, BUT it might get them  thinking about how little they know about the Bible. Others might find out they are Southern Baptist and didn't know it.

Wanna pet my snake? (see avatar)


----------



## Big7 (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> First of all, men from the past had their problems, but I don't think they were plagued with the postmodernism that runs rampant in our churches.
> 
> I will be the first to admit that men from earlier times, were more scholarly....as was America as a whole compared to now.
> 
> I am always skeptical of someone who comes up with some kind of "new" slant on Christianity.  I refuse to believe that God left his church groping around in darkness for thousands of years until He suddenly "revealed" something new...




What about when Luther and Calvin and all the rest did it?
From reading many of your post' I have concluded that
it was OK for them, in your mind -"after thousands of years" as you put it.

 Am I wrong here....?


----------



## Banjo (Sep 27, 2008)

> What about when Luther and Calvin and all the rest did it?



Big7...

Do you really want to go there?  They may ban me from the board.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big7...
> 
> Do you really want to go there?  They may ban me from the board.



Just a simple question.

No, I don't want you to get banned from the board,
although it happens to Catholics a good bit.

The rules are fairly simple: No name calling.
No personal attacks. No profanity.

Now, do I think it has always been metered out fairly?
No.

They are learning what pushes peoples (other than their own) buttons 
and it is getting better. That is good.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> There was a time where Baptists were Calvinistic in their understanding of sovereign grace....


 
Some still are.

I don't see anything I disagree with just scanning it.
Especially in the free will section.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 27, 2008)

Well...see, Calvinists (Baptists and Presbyterians) don't believe man is just some kind of robot. 

I think you may take issue with the "Effectual Calling" section....


----------



## Banjo (Sep 27, 2008)

> What about when Luther and Calvin and all the rest did it?
> From reading many of your post' I have concluded that
> it was OK for them, in your mind -"after thousands of years" as you put it.



After studying the Scriptures for themselves, Calvin and Luther proposed a return to apostolic teaching as the Roman Catholic church had become so corrupt.

Be nice Big7....or I will be forced to beg my husband to get back on here.  (His name was reformedpastor.)


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 27, 2008)

gtparts said:


> If that is in response to my post, many people ask what Southern Baptists believe. This explains in about a page the answer to that inquiry. Of course, if they have no Bible foundation, it wouldn't make any difference in their understanding, BUT it might get them  thinking about how little they know about the Bible. Others might find out they are Southern Baptist and didn't know it.
> 
> Wanna pet my snake? (see avatar)




Naw I wasn't refering to your post.  It's just a thought.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Well...see, Calvinists (Baptists and Presbyterians) don't believe man is just some kind of robot.
> 
> I think you may take issue with the "Effectual Calling" section....


 
10.1 Those whom God<SUP>1</SUP> has predestined to life,<SUP>2</SUP> he is pleased (in his appointed and accepted time)<SUP>3</SUP> to effectually call<SUP>4</SUP> by his Word<SUP>5</SUP> and Spirit.<SUP>6</SUP> He calls them out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.<SUP>7</SUP> He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.<SUP>8</SUP> He takes away their heart of stone, and gives to them a heart of flesh.<SUP>9</SUP> He renews their wills, and by his almighty power causes them to do what is good.<SUP>10</SUP> He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ,<SUP>11</SUP> yet in such a way that they come completely freely, for they are made willing by his grace.<SUP>12</SUP>

They come freely, but are made willing? Not sure what to think of that, but OK on the rest.
<SUP></SUP> 
10.2 This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not on account of anything at all foreseen in us. It is not made because of any power or action in us,<SUP>1</SUP> for we are altogether passive in it, we are dead in sins and trespasses until we are made alive and renewed by the Holy Spirit.<SUP>2</SUP> By this [regeneration] we are enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, this power being none other than that which raised up Christ from the dead.<SUP>3</SUP>
<SUP></SUP> 
 I am Ok here.

10.3 Infants<SUP>1</SUP> dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who works when and where and how he pleases.<SUP>2</SUP> So also are all elect persons regenerated who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.

Still agree.

10.4 Those who are not elected, even though they may be called by the ministry of the Word and may experience some common operations of the Spirit,<SUP>1</SUP> cannot be saved because they are not effectually drawn by the Father, therefore they will not and cannot truly come to Christ. Much less can those who do not profess the Christian religion be saved,<SUP>2</SUP> no matter how diligently they order their lives according to the light of nature and the teachings of the religion they profess.<SUP>3</SUP>
<SUP></SUP> 
I would probably only disagree with you on who the elect is. I say all of man, with only a few exceptions that God did not desire to save to have his purpose done, such as Esau.

http://www.creeds.net/baptists/1689/kerkham/1689.htm#Ch10


----------



## Banjo (Sep 27, 2008)

Farmasis..

Based on the above post, it seems we have more in common than not concerning effectual calling.  



> I would probably only disagree with you on who the elect is. I say all of man, with only a few exceptions that God did not desire to save to have his purpose done, such as Esau.



So are you saying that you believe in the predestination of most men?

Anyhow... I am out of here for the night.  I hope you all have a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow.  May the Lord bless us all tomorrow while we receive the means of grace and fellowship with the saints.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> So are you saying that you believe in the predestination of most men?


 
I believe all men (with very few exceptions) have been predestined with the opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal savior by choice. Not all men will, most will reject.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 27, 2008)

farmasis said:


> 10.1 Those whom God<SUP>1</SUP> has predestined to life,<SUP>2</SUP> he is pleased (in his appointed and accepted time)<SUP>3</SUP> to effectually call<SUP>4</SUP> by his Word<SUP>5</SUP> and Spirit.<SUP>6</SUP> He calls them out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.<SUP>7</SUP> He enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.<SUP>8</SUP> He takes away their heart of stone, and gives to them a heart of flesh.<SUP>9</SUP> He renews their wills, and by his almighty power causes them to do what is good.<SUP>10</SUP> He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ,<SUP>11</SUP> yet in such a way that they come completely freely, for they are made willing by his grace.<SUP>12</SUP>
> 
> They come freely, but are made willing? Not sure what to think of that, but OK on the rest.
> <SUP></SUP>
> ...




I enjoyed reading that but I still prefer reading it from the New Testament.  Some of the wording seemed a bit biased in how it stresses some things above others.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 27, 2008)

Banjo said:


> After studying the Scriptures for themselves, Calvin and Luther proposed a return to apostolic teaching as the Roman Catholic church had become so corrupt.
> Be nice Big7....or I will be forced to beg my husband to get back on here.  (His name was reformedpastor.)



Oh, I am nice -but my factual posts get edited for
some unknown reason.

He and I are old friends. 

See, PWalls  -this is the kind of double standard I have
been PM'ing you about.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 28, 2008)

> See, PWalls -this is the kind of double standard I have
> been PM'ing you about.



Big7...You asked me, so I told you.



> What about when Luther and Calvin and all the rest did it?From reading many of your post' I have concluded that
> it was OK for them, in your mind -"after thousands of years" as you put it.



If you want to discuss the Reformation...start the thread.  It would be fitting for October.

As for the corruption of the medieval Roman Catholic church, surely you would agree.  They were selling indulgences....you pay the priest money so the RC church can build another building, and in return the priest will forgive you.

No church is above corruption as they are all run by fallible men....Catholic and Protestant alike.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 28, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big7...
> 
> Do you really want to go there?  They may ban me from the board.



Well they did do it. So what is the difference between back then and someone who does it now. Based on what you have told me, you follow a denomination that went through a Reformation and THEN a Counter-Reformation.  That is at least two "new Religious re-organizations."  At what point does it stop?


----------



## Big7 (Sep 28, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big7...You asked me, so I told you.
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss the Reformation...start the thread.  It would be fitting for October.
> ...



Banjo - I'll go ahead and tell you what will happen.
I will post factual data to refute ANYTHING that a Reformed Presbyterian can post about the Catholic Church of which you know nothing about.

Problem is - when you start getting pounded, my post
will be edited or deleted. BTW - I don't use personal attacks, name calling or other violations of the forum rules so I really have a hard time understanding this, but I do
know why. I can PM you if you like, because that would get
pulled here too...

Now, If you are happy being a part of a church that "reformed" from the "reformation" GOOD FOR YOU!
If that brings you closer to Christ - GOOD FOR YOU!

I don't have a personal problem with you.
Taken a step further, I don't even care what you post.
What bothers me is the clear double standard on this forum. Myself and the other few Catholics on here are VERY offended by some of the post' that are allowed to stay on here when ours are frequently and consistently
edited or deleted because there is simply no argument.
Some on here don't like that.

You just happened to be the "next" one to post after a series of PM's to one of the mods on here.

Now to educate you a little on indulgences:

This well meaning Evangelical had heard about the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, perhaps during an Evangelical sermon outlining the "errors" of the Catholic Church. I guess the Lord is giving me a nudge to explain it. 

Actually, the phrase above "people can pay off their sins" is quite a bit off of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine has always taught that it is a sin to sell spiritual things, including indulgences, despite some wrong actions by priests 500 years ago. So I guess God is giving me the nudge to explain this to the best of my ability from a Catholic's perspective. It introduces stuff like Penance, Punishment, Suffering, Confession, Reconciliation and of course... Indulgences. I invite you to put on your "open mind" and join me. 

I've broken this article up into 2 parts. (1) The indulgences scandal of the 1500's and (2) the actual explanation of what Indulgences are. I'll start with the scandals because that's what most people email me about. Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory.
READ THE REST HERE: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/indulgences.htm


Myths about Indulgences
GO HERE: Read up! http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

For what the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches about 
Indulgences - and no it will not jive with what the Protestants THINK they know, WHICH IS NOTHING!
Go HERE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

If you need to know anything else about WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES....

GO HERE: http://www.usccb.org/
there you will find a link to here:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

Stick with Reformed Presbyterian ( Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod merging with the PCA in 1982:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_America 
and let Catholics, AD 33, take care of the "Catholic " stuff
and post what is true of The Catholic Church.Thanks, and READ UP!!


----------



## Banjo (Sep 28, 2008)

Big 7 and Dawg...

Start the thread and I will gladly discuss these things and read anything you post as proof.  I have no problem discussing these things with you all.  

I love this kind of stuff because it makes me dig, read and think.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 28, 2008)

Big7 said:


> Oh, I am nice -but my factual posts get edited for
> some unknown reason.
> 
> He and I are old friends.
> ...



I answered your PM.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 28, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big 7 and Dawg...
> 
> Start the thread and I will gladly discuss these things and read anything you post as proof.  I have no problem discussing these things with you all.
> 
> I love this kind of stuff because it makes me dig, read and think.




Me too. But a warning to my catholic brothers that if I side with the reformers it is because in my opinion, my church was big on the fire of H E L L. They saw it everywhere, within and out there and allied themselves with nationalism.  For many, the end times were just minutes away and my folk, hiccups in the mix, obliged. Someone start their engine...I'll get a battery for mine, weld the doors, take out the windshield, three point harness  and I'm off to the reformation derby.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 28, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Big 7 and Dawg...
> 
> Start the thread and I will gladly discuss these things and read anything you post as proof.  I have no problem discussing these things with you all.
> 
> I love this kind of stuff because it makes me dig, read and think.



I see no need to debate a "Reformation" of The Church
that was instituted by Jesus Christ, Himself - That would
be The Catholic Church, that also happens to be the one 
he promised to maintain and protect through His Successors.
(Notice: I did not say equal) To me, there is nothing to debate.

If you go back through my post', you will notice, for the most part, 
no "static" from me UNLESS it is in response to an attack
 on The Catholic Church, Pope, etc... All inclusive.

Now, If you want to start one, go for it! More power to ya'!



PWalls said:


> I answered your PM.



I got it. Thanks! and I answered yours.



gordon 2 said:


> Me too. But a warning to my catholic brothers that if I side with the reformers it is because in my opinion, my church was big on the fire of H E L L. They saw it everywhere, within and out there and allied themselves with nationalism.  For many, the end times were just minutes away and my folk, hiccups in the mix, obliged. Someone start their engine...I'll get a battery for mine, weld the doors, take out the windshield, three point harness  and I'm off to the reformation derby.



I have to admit, I'm totally lost here. I would welcome a little more detail in a PM, If you are so inclined or if someone starts another "Reformation thread"- ??


----------



## Banjo (Sep 28, 2008)

> I believe all men (with very few exceptions) have been predestined with the opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal savior by choice. Not all men will, most will reject.



So do you believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men (except for those few exceptions)?


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 28, 2008)

Jesus died on the cross for every evil person alive and every person who will ever live.  He died to give those people a Savior to come to...... Sadly, many will not.  Those are the ones who forsake the death of Jesus for their sins.
They will parish.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 28, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Jesus died on the cross for every evil person alive and every person who will ever live.  He died to give those people a Savior to come to...... Sadly, many will not.  Those are the ones who forsake the death of Jesus for their sins.
> They will parish.


I belong to a parish


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 28, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I belong to a parish



Sorry! should have been................ pearish


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 28, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Sorry! should have been................ pearish


Maybe for fruit salad...
Perish!


----------



## SBG (Sep 28, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Maybe for fruit salad...
> Perish!



He was referring to your body type/shape!


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 28, 2008)

SBG said:


> He was referring to your body type/shape!



I'm far from that


----------



## farmasis (Sep 28, 2008)

Banjo said:


> So do you believe that Jesus died for the sins of all men (except for those few exceptions)?


 
Yes he did, and I believe that according to scriptures.

No, that doesn't mean all men will be saved. You must accept the propitiation.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 29, 2008)

Here is where the rubber meets the road for me...

If Jesus died for the sins of ALL men, then ALL men would be saved.  His blood is that effectual.

If ALL sins are covered, and unbelief is a sin as the Bible states, then shouldn't everybody go to heaven?  

You know, there are a lot of people who have "accepted" the propitiation who are still lost.  How many people do you personally know who have had some kind of religious experience, perhaps even joining the church and getting baptized, only to fall away.  I have members of my extended family just like that.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 29, 2008)

Jesus did not only die for the sins of all but also re-aligned, retreaded the rubber that meets the road to His righteousness. In otherwords we are driving on His radials now, but lots of folk go to work as if on iron rims and wooden spokes. The old man is a slow poke.

About this falling away. Sometimes when an adept gets on the freedom train and that taste of  freedom He/she gets, it is not long that notice is made that the train runs on well worn tracks and much of the world one lives in is ignored.

It is not enough for churches to roll out the saved. Given purpose to right the injustice of the world, giving followers work to do, other than the bromide of "saving" or the "great commissioning" the church buildings will brim to standing rooms. What is the good of my salvation if my enemy cries for justice? and I do nothing? What salvation is that? I am a dinner plate that never serves food? Why can't I for the life of me use my talents to the purpose that is God's?

The elect are few because most christians like Job do nothing but attend to their souls as righteousness, while the kingdom burns from inattention. 


I


----------



## farmasis (Sep 29, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Here is where the rubber meets the road for me...
> 
> If Jesus died for the sins of ALL men, then ALL men would be saved. His blood is that effectual.


 
No 'ifs' about it if you believe the Bible to be true without applying interpretation to scripture. 
You are adding what you think the effect should be to what God says is. One has to be wrong, God's word or your application.

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). 

"Who (speaking of Christ) gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:6). 

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). 

"Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (Romans 5:18). 

and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. (2 Corinthians 5:15)

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach,[a] because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)


----------



## gtparts (Sep 29, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Banjo  View Post
> Here is where the rubber meets the road for me...
> 
> If Jesus died for the sins of ALL men, then ALL men would be saved. His blood is that effectual.



Let's for a minute accept as true, that Jesus died for all men.

I believe Farmasis has provided enough scripture to support that position.

To that I add Matthew 7:13 - 27

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 

Can both be true?

I know that they are!

Each created individual knows the will of his or her father and does it. Some are, by adoption, the children of God and some, who choose to reject God's only begotten Son, are the spawn of Satan. 

And when those who are called according to His name get to heaven, they will understand the holiness, the justness and the rightness of God and His decisions.

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 29, 2008)

The "spawn" of Satan? Them devils-demons have the fish symbol too?  Cheap devils, they could get their own. I bet they swim backwards with the current? Just for the H- - -  of it.



You don't have to go to heaven to understand all that stuff, just listen to the poor. That is enough. ( And no one tells me that is not in scripture and I made it up.)


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

farmasis and gtparts...

You know that I can produce just as many Scriptures that speak of God foreordaining individuals unto eternal life, or Jesus being given the elect by His Father...

I can solve the "ALL" verses.  When it speaks of "ALL" it means ALL THE ELECT...



> "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
> 
> "Who (speaking of Christ) gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Timothy 2:6).
> 
> ...






> "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."



He is speaking of the Christians who have died in Christ: "Now if we have died with Christ..." (Rom. 6:8); "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world..." (Col. 2:20); "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3); "It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him" (2 Tim. 2:11). The only ones who have died with Christ are the believers, not the unbelievers. Therefore, this verse can only make sense if it is understood that the "all" spoken of is not everyone who has ever lived, but only the Christians: "...that one (Jesus) died for all (the Christians), therefore all (the Christians) died..."



> For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach,[a] because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)



Think about it...If this verse teaches Christ is the Savior of ALL men, then ALL men are saved...  But if He is the Savior of ALL the elect, then ALL the elect are saved....We aren't Universalists, you and I both know there are men who are not saved.

I have no problems with these "ALL" verses...

What do you do with the ones that talk about predestination or the elect?  Search out every verse that has either of these words in them and read it in context.



> "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
> For our gospel came not unto you in word only,
> but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost,
> and in much assurance" (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5).



Do a word study on that.....You were APPOINTED by God unto salvation.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 30, 2008)

That's just circular logic though.  You say that the "all" verses refer to the elect.  Others will say that the "all" verses refer to "all"...i.e. all humanity.  

In other words...all were elect...all were appointed...etc etc.  You guys are arguing against a brick wall on this one.  There is a necessary element of interpretation and extraction on this issue.  There is nothing in the Bible that will once and for ALL prove either side of that argument because it's not there.  

Some may believe elected or appointed refers to a specific group of people.  Many others believe that God appointed all people to come to him.  There is no fully provable evidence on either side of that.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Same old re-hash over and over again.

All means all. All means everybody.

Saying it means "all" of only the Elect is like getting a hamburger "all" the way but without pickles and onions. It ain't really "all" the way then is it?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Same old re-hash over and over again.
> 
> All means all. All means everybody.
> 
> Saying it means "all" of only the Elect is like getting a hamburger "all" the way but without pickles and onions. It ain't really "all" the way then is it?



I think everyone hears what you're saying.


By everyone, I mean everyone reading this thread....not everyone in the world.

I'm going to agree with Huntinfool on this one.  Obviously, the way I believe is the correct way, but I don't think that we're going to convince non-election folks via this forum and this debate....only God can open their eyes


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 30, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> By everyone, I mean everyone reading this thread....not everyone in the world.


 

Now that is funny right there!!!!!


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

I get it...

Perhaps we can ALL agree to disagree....

By ALL I mean ALL the people on this forum....

No...I mean ALL the people on the Spiritual Discussions forum...

Wait a minute,  I think I mean ALL the people who have been reading this particular thread....

Is that it?


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I get it...
> 
> Perhaps we can ALL agree to disagree....
> 
> ...



The word "ALL" means the simple meaning of the word that is normally used. It doesn't mean "all" followed by clarifiers like "but".


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)




----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)




----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


>



I apologize. That comment reads a lot harsher than I meant it to be. I will remove it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

PWalls said:


> The word "ALL" means the simple meaning of the word that is normally used. It doesn't mean "all" followed by clarifiers like "but".





rjcruiser said:


>





PWalls said:


> I apologize. That comment reads a lot harsher than I meant it to be. I will remove it.



Maybe I should clarify...I didn't  to the first comment because of the harshness...I didn't read it that way (maybe easier for me since it wasn't about me)

I put the  because the term all has many many different meanings in different instances.  Kinda like the hebrew word yom that was discussed in the creation story.  So, how do you know what the word actually means?  Well, you must study the context and make sure it lines up with other areas of scripture.  To me, if you translate it to mean everyone in the whole wide world that has ever been and will ever be, it doesn't line up with other passages of scripture.

Again, to read it as is in the english translation with no thought to context or other scripture passages, you're doing yourself a disservice.  (PWalls, I know that you are not doing this and I can tell you are like the Bereans based on past posts...just more of a comment for the greater masses).


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Maybe I should clarify...I didn't  to the first comment because of the harshness...I didn't read it that way (maybe easier for me since it wasn't about me)
> 
> I put the  because the term all has many many different meanings in different instances.  Kinda like the hebrew word yom that was discussed in the creation story.  So, how do you know what the word actually means?  Well, you must study the context and make sure it lines up with other areas of scripture.  To me, if you translate it to mean everyone in the whole wide world that has ever been and will ever be, it doesn't line up with other passages of scripture.
> 
> Again, to read it as is in the english translation with no thought to context or other scripture passages, you're doing yourself a disservice.  (PWalls, I know that you are not doing this and I can tell you are like the Bereans based on past posts...just more of a comment for the greater masses).




How about this:  Give me ALL of your money.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> How about this:  Give me ALL of your money.



All the money in my wallet?

All the money in my checking account?

All the money in my savings account?

Again, when a thief comes up to you and says that, they're implying just what you have on you.


But the problem is that all three of those are very close in value as to the fact I have a wife and two young kids


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> All the money in my wallet?
> 
> All the money in my checking account?
> 
> ...




I'm not a thief, I said ALL of your money


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I'm not a thief, I said ALL of your money


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> (PWalls, I know that you are not doing this and I can tell you are like the Bereans based on past posts...just more of a comment for the greater masses).



I do believe that we all have a responsibility to "Rightly Divide the Word". We should do our best in that regards. I have issues with "All" and "World" in some denominational beliefs. Of course, I am sure that they have the same issues with mine as well.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

> I apologize. That comment reads a lot harsher than I meant it to be. I will remove it.



Pwalls.... I did not take the least bit of offense.


----------



## farmasis (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> farmasis and gtparts...
> 
> You know that I can produce just as many Scriptures that speak of God foreordaining individuals unto eternal life, or Jesus being given the elect by His Father...
> 
> I can solve the "ALL" verses. When it speaks of "ALL" it means ALL THE ELECT...


 
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). 

Would John be referring to the elect in purple, but the whole entire world in red? It would be kinda funny if it were translated as you would have it:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for the elect only, but also for the sins of the elect" (1 John 2:2). 




> Think about it...If this verse teaches Christ is the Savior of ALL men, then ALL men are saved... But if He is the Savior of ALL the elect, then ALL the elect are saved....We aren't Universalists, you and I both know there are men who are not saved.


 
Once again, you are applying your thoughts to God's word. If we died with him (accepted his propitiation, then we will be saved. That doesn't discount that he died for the sins of the world.



> I have no problems with these "ALL" verses...
> 
> What do you do with the ones that talk about predestination or the elect? Search out every verse that has either of these words in them and read it in context.
> 
> Do a word study on that.....You were APPOINTED by God unto salvation.


 
Those that he knew would accept him were appointed to the elect. He did not do the desicion, he did the work that fulfilled the desicion. Yes, he called us, yes he convicted us, yes he tendered our hearts, but did not force himself on us. Yes, He foreknew who would accept His offer.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

> "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"And not for ours only" is there so that Christians might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to ALL who by faith embrace the gospel.  



> sins of the whole world



Calvin:  "Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.  For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."

Doddridge:  "It seems to me that the Apostles is to be understood as speaking only of all those who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, over the whole world."

Banjo:  "Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.  This passage does not teach universalism.  Christ's propitation reaches to the elect only throughout the world (all the world).  Jews and Gentiles alike are among the elect as was prophesied throughout the OT.  

Again... if Jesus WAS the propitiation for the whole world, that would be Universalism.  Christ can't be your propitiation unless you believe... You can't believe, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates you first.



> Those that he knew would accept him were appointed to the elect. He did not do the desicion, he did the work that fulfilled the desicion. Yes, he called us, yes he convicted us, yes he tendered our hearts, but did not force himself on us. Yes, He foreknew who would accept His offer.



This is still a man-centered view of salvation.  God is dependent on man to choose Him.  What if nobody did?


----------



## farmasis (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> "And not for ours only" is there so that Christians might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to ALL who by faith embrace the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Propitiation is offered to the entire world. Everyone. But, if you do not accept it and apply it to your sins you reject it, it becomes null and void.




> Again... if Jesus WAS the propitiation for the whole world, that would be Universalism. Christ can't be your propitiation unless you believe... You can't believe, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates you first.


 
Not if you belief irrestistable grace to be another false interpretation of scripture.



> This is still a man-centered view of salvation. God is dependent on man to choose Him. What if nobody did?


 
Then God showed his love for us. 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Was the Jewish people not God's first chosen? Didn't most reject him? So, when the Bible refers to God's chosen people as the Jewish people, is it only talking about the Jews that chose to obey his commandments? No. Same with the new covenant.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

farmasis...  

http://www.the-highway.com/objections8_Boettner.html

This is better than anything I could write.

In another thread you told me to "read Paul."  I would ask you to do the same from Romans:

"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

 19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

***************************************************************

I remember when I first heard of the doctrine of election.  My first reaction was, "No Way!"  Yet, I couldn't quit thinking about it.  My husband and I would have long discussions about it and I would continue to read.  This verse is one that I would come back to....

"On the contrary, who are you, O man (woman), who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?"


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Those that he knew would accept him were appointed to the elect. He did not do the desicion, he did the work that fulfilled the desicion. Yes, he called us, yes he convicted us, yes he tendered our hearts, but did not force himself on us. Yes, He foreknew who would accept His offer.



If God looks into the future and sees that this person will come to Christ and this other one will not, then these facts are already fixed...They are determined.  God's foresight of believers' faith and repentance implies this certainty just as much as a sovereign decree.  Their destinies are still determined...

So you can't hold to this statement too:



> Not if you belief irrestistable grace to be another false interpretation of scripture.



You can't consistently hold to this view and then also think that salvation is "available to the whole world"  or that God is trying to "save every man."  If God knows who will be saved, and has "elected" them according to his foreknowledge, then it would be absurd for Him to reason within Himself that more persons might be saved than those He knew would choose Him.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> farmasis...
> 
> http://www.the-highway.com/objections8_Boettner.html
> 
> ...






> Quote:
> Those that he knew would accept him were appointed to the elect. He did not do the desicion, he did the work that fulfilled the desicion. Yes, he called us, yes he convicted us, yes he tendered our hearts, but did not force himself on us. Yes, He foreknew who would accept His offer.
> If God looks into the future and sees that this person will come to Christ and this other one will not, then these facts are already fixed...They are determined. God's foresight of believers' faith and repentance implies this certainty just as much as a sovereign decree. Their destinies are still determined...
> 
> ...




Dear Banjo,

Wouldn't it be equally absurd for me to witness to one who is NOT elected, offering the hope of salvation when in fact God never intended to offer it at all, there being no chance of him or her receiving it? Would I be telling the truth to some and lying to others?
"God loves you and wants you to repent of your sins, that you may live eternally in His presence." sounds pretty hollow, if God has already discarded him or her into the non-elect pile.

Now, I firmly believe in His sovereignty, so He can do anything anyway He wills. And I also believe that God does nothing to violate His character. Because He is love and mercy, He operates consistent to those characteristics. He is also holy, just, and right(eous) and is therefore true to Himself in regards to those characteristics also.

The key is that God has foreknowledge of that individuals free choices. That choice is pre-known by God, but it is not pre-directed by God. God's permissive will allows each individual to accept or reject and He knows what response will be made. Whether God affords one opportunity or six dozen, is entirely at His discretion, but with each rejection He also allows there to be a resistance built up within that persons' heart to  the Word of God. Think of it as an acquired, gradual "deafness". God will not be robbed of His glory; either He will receive the glory due Him from that persons' salvation choice, or be glorified by others in that persons' ****ation choice.

Quite frankly , it is a difficult thing to "wrap ones mind around". And though Paul worded it differently in Romans 9 than I have here, both ring true for me as I read God's Word and rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding.

For me, election is the result of salvation, not the other way around. Election is the fruit of salvation and thus OSAS.

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 1, 2008)

> Wouldn't it be equally absurd for me to witness to one who is NOT elected, offering the hope of salvation when in fact God never intended to offer it at all, there being no chance of him or her receiving it? Would I be telling the truth to some and lying to others?
> 
> "God loves you and wants you to repent of your sins, that you may live eternally in His presence." sounds pretty hollow, if God has already discarded him or her into the non-elect pile.



The outward call MUST go out to all.  We don't know who the elect are.  However, the elect will receive the inward call as well and thus be regenerated..

I am not for going around telling people that God loves them...

First of all, you are right,  it may not be true.

Does God love the wicked?  

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"

Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."

Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there!  Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."

Perhaps it is more biblical to tell people about Christ's death and resurrection, about his perfect life and his total obedience, about our sins and the need for a perfect sacrifice, about repentance and turning from our sins....

What do you think?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2008)

> Perhaps it is more biblical to tell people about Christ's death and resurrection, about his perfect life and his total obedience, about our sins and the need for a perfect sacrifice, about repentance and turning from our sins....
> 
> What do you think?



I think you described in more detail the love of God that I mentioned in my post.

Still don't care for the idea of passing out parachutes to everyone in the plane as it makes a rapid uncontrolled descent when you knew before the take-off that some would not open. I believe God perfectly packed all the parachutes, enough for everyone to have one. Some just ride the plane all the way to the crash site.

Peace.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> farmasis...
> 
> http://www.the-highway.com/objections8_Boettner.html
> 
> ...


 
When God takes away the will of a human to serve his own purpose, that is a good response. Is that the exception, or the rule? According to the scriptures, I say that is the exception. But, if God so desires to harden someone's heart, he has every right to do so. That does not make it his plan of salvation for everyone.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> If God looks into the future and sees that this person will come to Christ and this other one will not, then these facts are already fixed...They are determined. God's foresight of believers' faith and repentance implies this certainty just as much as a sovereign decree. Their destinies are still determined...


 
No doubt God has perfect knowledge of who will come unto Him. He will not be surprised.



> You can't consistently hold to this view and then also think that salvation is "available to the whole world" or that God is trying to "save every man." If God knows who will be saved, and has "elected" them according to his foreknowledge, then it would be absurd for Him to reason within Himself that more persons might be saved than those He knew would choose Him.


 
That is not the issue. God knows who will come, but he made provisions for all. He does not decide, but he knows the decisions. If irresistable grace were the way he operated, he would have chosen who would come and who wouldn't. Thus, unconditional election. If unconditional election, then limited atonement. To me, there is an abundance of scripture that would be made void if that were the case.

I don't see the need for a new covenant where God would have to come and die for those God already chose and would save anyway. I don't think God would send his son to die for what he planned to do anyway.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo said:


> The outward call MUST go out to all. We don't know who the elect are. However, the elect will receive the inward call as well and thus be regenerated..


 
So what is the point? God will save them no matter what, right?



> Does God love the wicked?


 
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 1, 2008)

Banjo, what if you aren't one of the elect??  You just think you are!

You are so wrong in your understanding of the scriptures concerning who the elect are.  The elect are those who accept Jesus when Jesus is revealed to them.
"It is God's desire that ALL people come to Him thru Jesus Christ."
Also, it appears to me that God only hardened the hearts of those who were already hard hearted.  Some He did. Some He didn't.
Example:  The Pharoah of Egypt. God hardened his hard heart.
Example:  The apostle Paul.  God had mercy on his hard heart.

I don't want to debate it with you but those are some things you might consider.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> You are so wrong in your understanding of the scriptures concerning who the elect are. The elect are those who accept Jesus when Jesus is revealed to them.
> "It is God's desire that ALL people come to Him thru Jesus Christ."
> Also, it appears to me that God only hardened the hearts of those who were already hard hearted. Some He did. Some He didn't.
> Example: The Pharoah of Egypt. God hardened his hard heart.
> Example: The apostle Paul. God had mercy on his hard heart.



RonnieT,

I am saying this in all kindness to you....  What I believe is a reflection of what has been believed by most throughout Church History.  It is your belief that is the modern one.  Did you know that it was even considered heresy?

If you are interested, here is where you can find what the Synod of Dordt wrote concerning it in 1618....

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

Spurgeon was correct when he said, 

"I have heard it asserted most positively, that those high doctrines which we love and which we find in the Scriptures, are licentious ones. I do not know who has the hardihood to make that assertion, when they consider that the holiest of men have been believers in them. I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitfield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of those Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing; but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they the orthodox."

Here is a start for any of you interested in reading about Arminianism:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

farmasis said:


> When God takes away the will of a human to serve his own purpose, that is a good response. Is that the exception, or the rule? According to the scriptures, I say that is the exception. But, if God so desires to harden someone's heart, he has every right to do so. That does not make it his plan of salvation for everyone.


 
So God has a different Salvation plan for each individual? Please explain...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Banjo, what if you aren't one of the elect?? You just think you are!
> 
> You are so wrong in your understanding of the scriptures concerning who the elect are. The elect are those who accept Jesus when Jesus is revealed to them.
> "It is God's desire that ALL people come to Him thru Jesus Christ."
> ...


 
hmm... How do you know that you are so right? Could you be wrong?

DB BB


----------



## farmasis (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So God has a different Salvation plan for each individual? Please explain...
> 
> DB BB


 
No, God has one plan of salvation and that is the choice to believe in Jesus for salvation. However, God can remove that and save who he wants, and deny salvation to anyone he wants (Esau).


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

farmasis said:


> (Esau).



Gesundheit !!!!!!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 2, 2008)

farmasis said:


> No, God has one plan of salvation and that is the choice to believe in Jesus for salvation. However, God can remove that and save who he wants, and deny salvation to anyone he wants (Esau).


 

That sounds like 2 types of Salvation....

DB BB


----------



## farmasis (Oct 2, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> That sounds like 2 types of Salvation....
> 
> DB BB


 

Do you think God has the right to revoke his offer at his choosing?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> Do you think God has the right to revoke his offer at his choosing?



I am not sure that I get this...  Do you mean based on what someone has done?  Or, do you mean that God first offers salvation to all mankind, and then he arbitrarily chooses to revoke that offer for some individuals?

Either of those two are pretty harsh...

If you believe this, I don't understand why you have a problem with election...  

My take on election is this.  Mankind fell in Adam.  God did NOT have to redeem ANY of us, but out of lovingkindness, He chose a people to redeem for Himself.

We ALL deserved he77.  Why would God choose to save any?  Why would God choose to save me?

When you understand election, it truly humbles a sinner.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> RonnieT,
> 
> I am saying this in all kindness to you....  What I believe is a reflection of what has been believed by most throughout Church History.  It is your belief that is the modern one.  Did you know that it was even considered heresy?
> 
> ...



Modern thought  -  - archaic thought.

Age and the popularity of ideas and understandings does nothing to confirm or deny their validity. 

The same is true of ideas and understandings which are novel or less popular.

The Synod of Dordt has been thrown out here twice in the last few days. Really, who cares about some 17th century group of men who may well have been personally invested in the product of that gathering. The Pharisees and Saducees were rather protective of their "space" and they were wrong.
What were each contributors credentials?
Were they unbiased arbiters of doctrine?  

Hardly!

They were the entrenched and anything but unbiased. The control of the protestants was at stake and they pressed the Arminians to maintain their position. 

Most all translations of the Bible in the 15th and early 16th centuries were reactionary and thinly disguised attempts to influence the struggle between the RC and the Church of England. This is "bath water".

Fortunately, some wonderful biblical scholarship was also done in spite of the "spiritual foul weather" of the day.
This is the "baby".

Separating  baby and bath water is easier when you understand that denominationalism is more "church politics" and less spiritual discernment and  good theological scholarship.

Too many here beat the denomination drum and ignore the Band Director and Composer, Jesus!

Because the KJV, NRSV, NASB, and others are fairly literal translations (word for word) and sometimes do a poor job of conveying the nuance and intent of the original source text, I also use the NIV or NLT to get better understanding of the idioms that give meaning and context to a passage. I also keep The Message, a paraphrase in contemporary language, to help my understanding and others who may be seeking.

Rather than blindly accept what you are told, I highly recommend  an unbiased look at all sides of the issue. 

Truth is often discovered when open minds are willing to reexamine past ideas and traditions.

Peace to you and yours.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Do you think God has the right to revoke his offer at his choosing?


 
So you are talking about Conditional Salvation?

God has the right to do as He wills, but to answer your question...

Nope, because if He "offers it"( to use your word), then He will Save that person... So to me it is not an "offer", it is God choosing us, not us choosing God... The Totally Depraved Human Nature will never choose God, that is what it means to be depraved...corrupt, wicked, or perverted... pick a word, or all of them...

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> Most all translations of the Bible in the 15th and early 16th centuries were reactionary and thinly disguised attempts to influence the struggle between the RC and the Church of England. This is "bath water".



From where are you getting your information....which source?

To what translations are you referring?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 3, 2008)

*Banjo*



> From where are you getting your information....which source?
> 
> To what translations are you referring?




The sources are numerous, actually from before John Wycliff, but you can start with him in the late 1300s. Dissidents of the RCC for approx. 250 years translated the Latin Vulgate or translated the translations of the Vulgate not only to put the Bible in the language of the people (High German, Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, etc.) but to effectively reduce the influence from Rome over the locals. 

Surely, you had some sense (from a historical POV) of this being an underlying motive in many of the translations, particularly English. Power is seductive. Monarchs and Popes were not always willing to share.

Wycliff or Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395)
Tyndale Bible (1522-1536)
Great Bible (1539)
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bishop's Bible 1568)
Douay-Rheims (1582-1610)
KJV (1611)

and other partial or lesser known works.

Give Tyndale credit for using Hebrew and Greek manuscripts along with the Vulgate for his efforts. His was also the first English Bible to be reproduced by printing press.

Seven very notable translations in approx. 200 years and most being based on the Vulgate... seems somewhat excessive to me. How about you?

Not ALL, but some were for "political spin" rather than correcting legitimate errors in prior translations.

Researching Bible history is fascinating sometimes.

Peace


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

gtparts said:


> The sources are numerous, actually from before John Wycliff, but you can start with him in the late 1300s. Dissidents of the RCC for approx. 250 years translated the Latin Vulgate or translated the translations of the Vulgate not only to put the Bible in the language of the people (High German, Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, etc.) but to effectively reduce the influence from Rome over the locals.
> 
> Surely, you had some sense (from a historical POV) of this being an underlying motive in many of the translations, particularly English. Power is seductive. Monarchs and Popes were not always willing to share.
> 
> ...




I thought I was the only one who noticed that trend.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I am not sure that I get this... Do you mean based on what someone has done? Or, do you mean that God first offers salvation to all mankind, and then he arbitrarily chooses to revoke that offer for some individuals?
> 
> Either of those two are pretty harsh...
> 
> ...


 
I believe scripture states that salvation is offered unto all man. God can, however, harden a heart to not choose him. I have no problem with election, but that is not God's plan of salvation. I don't see how election humbles a sinner at all. Either he is a chosen one or not. I don't see why a sinner would care about his sin at all if he felt he was chosen to election no matter what he decides to believe in.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So you are talking about Conditional Salvation?
> 
> God has the right to do as He wills, but to answer your question...
> 
> ...


 
He offered salvation to all Jewish people and choise them for his people, but is not going to save all of them. Man is not totally depraved, only prone to depravity that is why the Bible says to choose this day whom you will serve, and Jesus said many times to choose him. God didn't make robots.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 4, 2008)

> He offered salvation to all Jewish people and choise them for his people, but is not going to save all of them.



You can't say this....why would God OFFER salvation to someone only NOT to save them  ?  

On a small scale, that is like a child who holds out a piece of candy to another, only to pop it in his own mouth while saying....Naaahhhh....



> Man is not totally depraved



Gensis 6:5:  Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

That sounds totally depraved to me .



> I don't see why a sinner would care about his sin at all if he felt he was chosen to election no matter what he decides to believe in.



Not so....and an elect individual won't just believe in anything,  not when he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and has Him living within.  



> God didn't make robots.



No, and I am glad He didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh-7eZyPWtE

Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto.....


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 4, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I wasn't gonna jump on ya today Banjo.  No worries.
> 
> I grew up UM as well.  But I was the preacher's kid.  So I heard all that stuff.  I still keep up as best I can.  But all the politics, etc just doesn't interest me all that much.



x2 another UM PK here.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 4, 2008)

Banjo said:


> You can't say this....why would God OFFER salvation to someone only NOT to save them  ?


 
Why did God plant a tree that would cause man to fall? It is all about whom you choose to serve.



> On a small scale, that is like a child who holds out a piece of candy to another, only to pop it in his own mouth while saying....Naaahhhh....


 
No, it is God holding out the candy, but not everyone takes.



> Gensis 6:5: Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 
> That sounds totally depraved to me .


 
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 
9 This is the account of Noah. 
      Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.



> Not so....and an elect individual won't just believe in anything, not when he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and has Him living within.


 
How does someone who believes in unconditional election, ever know if he is saved? It is a great feeling to truely know that you have done what God has commanded to recieve salvation and not just hope that you are in the elect.



> No, and I am glad He didn't.


 
Me too.


 23 If you had responded to my rebuke, 
       I would have poured out my heart to you 
       and made my thoughts known to you. 
 24 But since you rejected me when I called 
       and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, 
 25 since you ignored all my advice 
       and would not accept my rebuke, 
 26 I in turn will laugh at your disaster; 
       I will mock when calamity overtakes you- 
 27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm, 
       when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, 
       when distress and trouble overwhelm you. 
 28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer; 
       they will look for me but will not find me. 
 29 Since they hated knowledge 
       and did not choose to fear the LORD, 
 30 since they would not accept my advice 
       and spurned my rebuke,  31 they will eat the fruit of their ways 
       and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. (Proverbs 1)


----------



## Banjo (Oct 4, 2008)

> How does someone who believes in unconditional election, ever know if he is saved?



The same way someone who believes in unlimited atonement does.

The new heart is bent on the things of God...serving Him, praising Him, living for Him...


----------



## farmasis (Oct 4, 2008)

Banjo said:


> The same way someone who believes in unlimited atonement does.
> 
> The new heart is bent on the things of God...serving Him, praising Him, living for Him...


 

 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matt 7)

No doubt a changed heart brings an attitude of servitude to God, but also those not his can also serve him eventhough they do not know him.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 4, 2008)

> No doubt a changed heart brings an attitude of servitude to God, but also those not his can also serve him eventhough they do not know him.



Perhaps that is where that "P" from TULIP comes in...

True children of God will persevere to the end... because Christ keeps them.


----------



## reylamb (Oct 4, 2008)

Banjo said:


> You can't say this....why would God OFFER salvation to someone only NOT to save them  ?



I am not even sure why I bother, but.......

If you want an example, go do the research yourself.  

In short, 2 examples of offerring a means of "salvation" where the individuals had to act.  Consider also that in these examples, salvation here is not an indication of the salvation of the immortal soul, rather an example of a form of salvation where the individuals had to act.

In the OT the nation of Isreal was under bondage in Egypt.  Moses was told that God was going to kill the firstborn of everyone.  He offered a means of salvation for the firstborn children, sprinkle the blood over the door and the angel will pass.  What would have happened to any firstborn children, even those in the house of Isreal, if they had not followed through and sprinkled the blood over the doorway?  Would the angel have still passed, or would the firstborn been killed?  God offered to everyone, but they still had to act upon the offer, otherwise suffer the consequences.

When Joshua and company were marching around the walls of Jericho the wall would crumble, and everyone would be killed.  God offered a means of salvation to the harlot Rahab, hang the rope, ribbon, out the window and be saved.  What if she had not hung the ribbon?  God offered, but if she had not acted would she have been saved anyway?  

Not to sound blasphemous, but when someone gets saved God is not sitting in heaven thinking, man, shocked by that one getting saved.  God sets the events in motion that will lead to salvation, now faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, but he does not force the reaction.  Man has the choice, accept or reject.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 4, 2008)

This may shock you... but I do agree that we have to make the choice...  however, the ability to choose comes AFTER regeneration by the Holy Spirit.  It is a fruit of regeneration.

Man is DEAD in his sins and trespasses...the Holy Spirit comes to the elect usually when the Word is being preached and quickens his heart....He is then able to respond to the gospel message.

I do believe in a mental assent to the gospel...


----------



## farmasis (Oct 4, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This may shock you... but I do agree that we have to make the choice... however, the ability to choose comes AFTER regeneration by the Holy Spirit. It is a fruit of regeneration.
> 
> Man is DEAD in his sins and trespasses...the Holy Spirit comes to the elect usually when the Word is being preached and quickens his heart....He is then able to respond to the gospel message.
> 
> I do believe in a mental assent to the gospel...


 
I guess we only disagree about regeneration. 
I feel that the Holy Spirit convicts the heart, softens the heart, and calls the soul. I don't think regeneration is complete until after the person chooses to believe.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> I don't think regeneration is complete until after the person chooses to believe.



Do you really think that God is dependent on man for the salvation of his soul?  Are the purposes of our omnipotent, sovereign God contingent on fallen man's whims?

"If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."  (Martin Luther)

"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. 
(John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70)

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." (John Owen)" 

"...the conversion of a sinner being not owing to a man's self determination, but to God's determination, and eternal election, which is absolute, and depending on the sovereign Will of God, and not on the free will of man; as is evident from what has been said : and it being very evident from the Scriptures, that the eternal election of saints to the faith and holiness, is also an election of them to eternal salvation; hence their appointment to salvation must also be absolute, and not depending on their contingent, self-determining Will." (Jonathan Edwards)

"God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so...Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe." (Augustine)

Farmasis...I have enjoyed discussing this with you.  I appreciate your honesty and your using the Bible to defend your points.  

Have you ever studied reformed theology before?  Have you ever read papers and books written by scholarly men written hundreds of years ago?   To really understand a doctrine, you have to read both sides of the argument.  If you or anyone are interested, here is a great site with articles about predestination:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Unconditional-Election/

I imagine that you and I are alike in this.  My prayer is always, Lord if I am right, give me the grace to press on.  If I am wrong, change my heart and cause me to believe truth only.  I would be willing to bet that your motives are to please the Lord as well.


----------



## farmasis (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Do you really think that God is dependent on man for the salvation of his soul? Are the purposes of our omnipotent, sovereign God contingent on fallen man's whims?


 
I believe so, according to the scriptures that I already posted. God made it contingent. Once again, if we do not choose God, then what did he come to die for? Why a new covenant? If he was going to save the ones he had already chosen, why not just go ahead and justify them and save his son from suffering and dying? And if God chose who he would save, then he also chose who would not. 

Concering limited atonement, if all, and the whole world, and all man, does not really mean all, then why does no one really mean none in total depravity (Romans 3:11)? I believe Christ's suffering was sufficient for every person who has ever lived or ever will live, but it is only effective in the one's who choose to apply the blood to their sins, those in the elect.




> "If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright." (Martin Luther)
> 
> "...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
> (John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70)
> ...


 
Wouldn't that be akin to quoting famous Marxist on Capitalism?



> Farmasis...I have enjoyed discussing this with you. I appreciate your honesty and your using the Bible to defend your points.
> 
> Have you ever studied reformed theology before? Have you ever read papers and books written by scholarly men written hundreds of years ago? To really understand a doctrine, you have to read both sides of the argument. If you or anyone are interested, here is a great site with articles about predestination:
> 
> http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Unconditional-Election/


 
Yes, I have studied Calvinism quite a bit. We had a split once because a pastor was thought to be teaching Calvinism. It was a big mess. I am a 1 point Calvinist myself, preservation of the saints. I don't consider myself a Calvinist or a Armanian, but someone who tries to follow the scriptures as revealed by the Holy Spirit and not based on the thoughts of any man.



> I imagine that you and I are alike in this. My prayer is always, Lord if I am right, give me the grace to press on. If I am wrong, change my heart and cause me to believe truth only. I would be willing to bet that your motives are to please the Lord as well.


 
I have said before, it doesn't matter what anyone believes about salvation, it will not change it. From my study of scripture, man no doubt determines his fate by accepting or rejecting Christ.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

Perhaps we should redirect this conversation here:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=247293


----------

