2 Misconceptions

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by cfolsom, Feb 4, 2003.

  1. cfolsom

    cfolsom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see two misconceptions coming up continually.

    1) This is the biggest of the two, When it comes to the idea God chose a people to save in Christ before the foundation of the world, most conceptualize it as not being fair. So, to rationalize election as being fair some view it as God had something to do with Adam's sin. I asked the question on another thread under the C/A forum and no one answered. it was, basically:

    What would happen, based on scripture, if God had never sent Christ to die on the cross?

    The biblical answer is all humanity would be lost. Why would all be lost? Beacause of Adam's sin, right? Right. It's not God's fault the human race deserves hell, is it? So, if God chose to saved some and not all, how can that be unfair? God did not cause Adam's sin. If God had not sent Christ to die, we would have been left in the state in which we were/are in, correct?

    2) Baptist and Calvinist.....true Baptist, by definition (believer's being dunked in water) were around before John Calvin. Calvin came from the reformers, while the baptist or anabaptist (rebaptisers) were around preaching and teaching Salvation by Grace since John the Baptist.

    In the USA, the baptist split in 1832, prior to the split, baptist were baptist, preaching and teaching Salvation by Grace (God does all the work in the salvation plan and man has no part in the plan of salvation.) Slowly, salvation by works began to creep in, like a serpent. As well as, other practices that are not biblical.

    I say all this because there are a few Primitive Baptist on this sight, in whom I'm thankful. Primitive Baptist are NOT Calvinist nor Hyper-Calvinist. However, we are Calvinistic. Meaning we share some of the views of Calvin but not all.....Remember, "Sovereign Grace" Baptist were before John Calvin.

    Changed like Saul,

    Elder Chris Folsom
     
  2. brandontmilan

    brandontmilan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree completely with your first point... most people think that its not fair, but as my youth pastor said one time, "God invented fair" :D ... your second point, however, i don't completely agree with, perhaps because of ignorance, though... i was under the impression that the majority of the anabaptists were much like today's penecostals, and were considered heretics by most of the reformers... of course, i'm not sure about this, though... but the reason the 'Doctrine of Grace' is referred to as Calvinism isn't because he was the first to teach it, but because he was one of the people who reintroduced it into the church... if it were to be named after the first person to teach it, then a better label would be 'Paul the Apostle-ism' or better yet 'Jesusism'... or how about Jehovahism, since He is the one who did the predestinating... ok i'm getting carried away...
     
  3. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding point 1.

    There is an assumption made here regarding the destiny of Adam and the human race. Specifically, that Adam, if he had not transgressed, would have remained eternally in his created state (i.e from the dust of the earth).

    Since we’re speaking in theories, I’d like to ask this question.

    What would have happened if Adam had not transgressed? Would Christ still die?

    Regarding point 2.

    I understand these points, however, “salvation by works” is a philosophy that began long before Christ came and established His church. In fact, I see it as a simple rejection of imputed righteousness which is arguably something that began with Cain (or perhaps before). If “election” of modern day Calvinism is Biblically sound it should also be found in the covenant people of God in the OT.
     
  4. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe you are mostly correct, although I would say they were more the direct precursors of the Mennonites. But anyway, they were mostly not Calvinistic (or sovereign grace baptists).

    But there is much disagreement on this point. I personally think it is more reasonable to trace our Baptist history through the reformation. I suppost the fact that I grew up attending Mennonite churches on and off and that I have Mennonite relatives might color my view, but I don't see the Baptists and the Mennonites as having a common source.
     
  5. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    4study
    You said -
    If ?election? of modern day Calvinism is Biblically sound it should also be found in the covenant people of God in the OT.

    Let me ask you a question. What if God chose a nation to give the writings of God and it was clearly an edge to know how to be saved, and yet he did not give those same benefits to any other nation? Would God be unjust then too?

    This is all hypothetical though. But if we were to give that nation a hypothetical name, we could call it Israel. And we could say that Abram was there father who was not worthy, but God told him to Go from his own land to another and he did so, so it was "acredited" to him as righteousness. Like I said, just hypothetically. Would that be election?
     
  6. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturgman, you are comparing the doctrine of OT election to that of taught in the NT, correct?

    Did not God elect Israel to be the nation he would use to accomplish his plan of redeemption?

    Did God elect every Israelite?

    Did God elect Abraham? Moses? Jacob? Esau?

    For what purpose did God elect some and not others? In other words, what purpose did his elect ones serve?

    Just some clarifying question.
    Bro. Bill
     
  7. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Post deleted due to being off topic. Please keep posts on topic.

    [ February 05, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  8. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    sturgman,

    I'm not sure what you're implying by saying that this hypothetical nation has an "edge to know how to be saved and did not give those same benefits to other nations". I'm assuming this is sarcasm and you're communicating a true conviction you have about Israel.

    First, how did Israel have an "edge to know how to be saved" (I assume you mean "born again" by the term "saved")? Regarding new birth, I don't see such an "edge". They were a chosen generation to carry the oracles of God and the place in which covenant relationship was established. "Strangers" from other nations could enter into this relationship as well. The thrust of this relationship was not concerning new birth but rather becoming the "holy people of God".

    Second, regarding Abraham, I seriously doubt God's command in Genesis 12 was the first time Abraham had ever thought about faith towards Elohim. Abraham, if I remember correctly, was just a generation or so removed from Noah. In fact, Abraham lived during the time of Shem. Do you think Abraham was "lost as lost could be" when God commanded him to leave his country? I don't think so. And yes, he was chosen, but not to be "born again". He was chosen to fulfil the office of "father of many nations". It was his faith in this promise (which included the promised "seed") that God "counted it to him for righteousness".
     
  9. sturgman

    sturgman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your statement was to election being in the old testement. It is all over the old testement. And the benefit is that they had the oracles of God. Paul mentions this in Romans. Romans 1 indites everyone, that God has made himself known in creation and in conscience, yet man did not seek him, in Romans 2 it was the jew that was indited saying that they are condemed not only by creation testifying, but also condemed because they has the law and still did not follow after him. I think this counts as a clear benefit. So is it not a form of election that God had in the OT? You act as if God did not elect in the OT and he did. As far as what you say about this not saving them, whay is it they had then? Why did God give the law too them? If they had "free will" as many here say, then wouldn't this be a benefit? Or even without free will, is there no benefit to them having the law? Yet God can give Israel the law of God, and ignore Canaan, but he is wrong for election now? Not only that but he told Abraham that He would destroy Canaan for all their wickedness, but Israel was just as wicked, but God preserved them, and why? FOR HIS NAMESAKE. Is this not election? Election is not a NT idea, nor is it a now idea, it was OT doctrine as well. From God choosing kings, nations, bloodlines, brothers, national powers, etc etc etc. Don't tell us that election was not stated in the OT.
     
  10. cfolsom

    cfolsom
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those Brethren who wish to understand "Election"....consider reading the following:

    http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Election/election.htm

    This is not a Primitive Baptist site, however there are some terribly good writings. I recommend the writings of A W Pink and John Gill. Some good gleaning there.

    Changed like Saul

    Elder Chris Folsom
     
  11. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adam was created in a condition of righteousness. In this aspect, although he was created from the dust, it had not been proclaimed that he would thus return to dust until he sinned and death entered. Adam, left in his original condition would not have died. The coming of Christ, however, and the completion of the Covenant of works He performed shall some day raise Adam to a much greater position, simply because Adam and Adam's race are now in Christ.

    Although I am missionary Baptist, I agree with the position of Bro. Chris and other Primitive Baptists on the board. (Sometimes, I believe, I agree more with these.)

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  12. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since we're just engaging in meaningless speculating, my speculation is that it would have been impossible to create an Adam (the kind of man Adam was) who wouldn't transgress. Thus the notion that everything would have been avoided if Adam hadn't transgressed is purely academic. But it follows that if Adam had not transgressed, then we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in, therefore there would be no need for a savior to die for us.
     
  13. William C

    William C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturgman,

    In your posts named "same song same verse" you say that you are tired of Arminians debating the same old arguements. You go on accusing them of making a few statements and when they are properly refuted moving on to another post and asking the same questions.

    Frustrating isn't it?

    Well, that what most of you Calvinists have done with my arguements. Why? Because they are new to you and you don't have a "pat answer" ready to slam me with. It's not as fun when you have to think or study to come up with a refutation; isn't it?

    Please address my questions and/or go to my post "Calvinisms Fatal Flaw" and deal with my arguements.

    Thank you,
    Bro. Bill
     
  14. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sturgman,

    I’m not proposing that election is exclusive to the NT. It is the concept of election from Calvinism that I question in the OT. As I understand, election in the sphere of Calvinism begins at the new birth. This is what I suggest should be an OT concept for the sake of being consistent. If God elects to the new birth, we should see Him doing so throughout the entire Bible.

    You said concerning Romans 1 that “man did not seek him”. I disagree. It’s not a matter of seeking or not seeking. Romans 1 say’s they “knew God” but refused Him.

    The law is a benefit to Israel but not exclusively towards the new birth. Before the 10 commandments were ever issued on Mount Sinai, the Hebrews knew who the God of Abraham was. The law concerned covenant relationship. A step further in revelation and relationship. Israel was elected to this relation. Yet who is Israel? Strangers from other nations could enter into this relationship if they obeyed the covenant statutes.

    Yes, Israel had a benefit, “much every way”. But this was not toward the new birth. It concerned covenant relationship with God.

    God did not “ignore” Canaan.

    God did not “preserve” Israel in spite of their wickedness. They received the same reward as the Amorites. They defiled the land and were “kicked out” to captivity. The only preserving God did was towards the covenant keeping minority of Israel. Yet even they had to endure the hardships of captivity as a result of the majority’s trespasses.
     
  15. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frogman,

    I Cor. 15:44 says, “There is a natural body there is a spiritual body”. Verse 50 says, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. Regarding this, in what “state” was Adam before the transgression? Was he in a “natural body” or a “spiritual body”? Was he “corruptible” or “incorruptible”?

    Was Adam’s “righteousness” inherent or imputed?

    Just food for thought.
     
  16. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Npetreley,

    Consider this; is Adam in the Garden of Eden in his pre-fallen state God’s “plan A”? Did “plan A” fail? Is Christ’s death a “plan B”?

    Also, was the Garden of Eden God’s pinnacle of purpose? If so, why isn’t the human race going to be reinstated into another Garden of Eden? Was the new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem a secondary idea when God laid the foundations of the first heaven and earth?
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but do not confuse corporate election with personal election. Both are clearly taught.

    In the OT, corporately, but not personally.

    yes yes yes no

    Eph 1 as well as other passages make clear that election is to the praise of his glory or the praise of the glory of his grace.
     
  18. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was neither inherent or imputed. It was derived.
     
  19. 4study

    4study
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    Regarding corporate and personal election: I sincerely find this interesting. When approaching scripture, how/when/where do you draw the line between the two?
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why did you ignore my speculation that it could not have turned out otherwise? Your question makes no sense in that context.
     

Share This Page

Loading...