Featured Actuality vs Potentiality?

I have addressed it 5 times now.

Which one gives them opportunity to be saved.

Calvinism - no
Bible - yes

again

foreknowledge does not imply something is predetermined.

God creates man - Man chooses God or not - Fate is determined
Gods knowledge stretches across this - However did God decide for them?

Calvinism says Yes
I disagree - Man is given a choice - God sees the end - God desires all men to be saved.

The question then becomes which one is Just.

I would say Calvinism is far from Just if Man has no chance to be saved. ever. no matter what.

 

BaptistJG

You are not a calvinist because you do not understand the teaching at all.Your speaking of God doing something "on a whim" is misguided.

This is evil speaking about God and His design.
Adam fell into sin and death. Adam reproduced mankind in his fallen image and likeness.
God warned him ahead of time of the consequence. He rebelled. Now you want to blame God? was God unjust to declare His terms? God destroyed millions with the flood...was that unjust?
A calvinist answers both sides of the issue you seek to get away from.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

No...I do not agree to disagree. Calvinists will not speak profanely about God.You error greatly in this. You should take care not to take God's name in vain in this.

You try and make it difficult not understanding the effects of the fall and God's holy hatred of sin.

Your taking 2 pet 3:9 out of context as many do is proof of that.

I do not think you can articulate the calvinist view of election , unless you cut and paste from a calvinist source.

You have not shown you have any grasp of the teaching,and yet you speak as it's judge:wavey:

This post again shows you do not know what the teaching is at all.Read and learn something about it first, then offer why you think it is not biblical.
What you are posting is not accurate at all.
listen.....this highlighted portion.....a god creates man ,but only wants some to come to him......does not reflect calvinism and the wording is horrendous.

a god creates........as if there were many gods????but only wants some to come to him......who says that? All are guilty and condemned! If God has purposed to save only one person that would be His right as creator.
The fact that he has elected a multitude is a great mercy.

Wrong....29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate

opps...Paul did not share your idea....

to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

Enlighten me then Icon. Fix my supposed ignorance, How does God decide who is elect and who isnt. Do share.

No its not - Saying that "For God so loved the world" actually means "for God so loved the select elect" is vomiting on a diamond and saying it looks better.

We fell into a sin nature - I don't agree that we are condemned at Birth - we acquire our own sins. Which we all will due to our sin nature.

When did I blame God? God was rich in mercy to offer salvation to all those who believe in Him. That is more merciful than Calvinism could ever dream of.

Nope - they were all sinners - They chose themselves over God again making a choice.

Yawn. I just answered you.

Because of unbelief not predetermined fate. Your own verses arn't workin for ya.

A warning to take heed. Not just being told whats going to happen.

Do you not see where its saying to follow in Gods goodness.. there are choices involved in this..

Is this one of those "i know you are but what am i" moments. Cause I feel Calvinists do this exact same thing you accuse me of.

Yes God hates sin - where did I deny this?

im sure.

Well if you think im so uneducate me - please educate me.

Alright Icon Ill be waiting for a concise view of election to "blow my views away"

you can attack my spelling all day long.. im sure my old english teacher appreciates you helping me

This was done on purpose - as I dont agree in anyway of this view I used a lower case G and put it in the list with the rest of the bunch that claim to be biblical. Again though - if you feel I know nothing about election please do send me information on it so that I may change my views if you convince me of Calvinism I will be more than happy to write an apology on the board.

Your right - Knowing that God died for all so that whosoever belief in Him should not perish but have eternal life is AMAZING! Im glad we agree on that - I think all are called to repentance - you say only those who were elected are called.

-- edit --

Your little foreknew - predestined thing

My comment was talking about predetermining a select few of whom would be saved - I don't think this was done that is the picking the people God wants saved, God using His foreknowledge can surely know who those people were - and have a specific plan for them - Yes - but they still had a choice at some point as we all do. Apologies for the confusion; Fingers go faster than my brain.

As per Ro 8:29
- DrJ posted a video on interpreting Romans through the lens of God selecting Israel to be the chosen people. I would align myself in this position. In interpreting Romans.

Icon; there is no doubt you are extremely well versed in what you believe in. I just do not share these things - I am strongly opposed to the idea that God does not want all to be saved and elected certain people not giving the others the chance. If God is willing to elect all people ; I would be more than interested in checking out Calvinism again. Until then it seems to limit Gods redemptive work more than anything.

 

How many will it take to convince you is my only fear is starting this; However. I will give you two pieces from Paul in the book of acts and romans in his evangelism. After this, I have said all I really have to say on this matter (Im not as fired up anymore after writing a few novels replying to people ) and will move onto other threads, anyway, here you go.

Actions people made in establishing their faith are bolded.

I blued verse 12 as at first Paul is talking about the Jews but then makes it really clear this applies to the Greek (or non-jew) as well.

Bed time -Golf game tomorrow. All the best.

 

Brother Willis,

May I add a bit of nuance to what you wrote?

Sinners make choices all the time, and they make those choices freely. What is important to understand is that the sinner makes choices consistent with his nature. We understand from scripture that the sinner is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:20). Just as a slave is obligated to serve his master, the sinner is obligated to serve sin. That does not mean that his unrighteous acts are done under coercion. The sinner freely sins. He sins with full volition. Even when the sinner is not technically committing a sin he is sinning because he is in a state of rebellion against God (1 Jo. 3:4).

While the sinner is unable to effect a change in his spiritual state on his own, he still possesses the knowledge of good and evil. He knows what he is doing is wrong (Rom. 1:32). He is under the command to repent (Acts 17:30). Unfortunately his fallen nature prevents him from repenting (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1). God must change the status quo or else the sinner will be forever without hope. That is what we see happen in Ephesians 2:4-9:

"But God". God is the subject. He is the One who first takes action. Because of His great love, even when were were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ. We do not read here that the sinner did something to change the status quo. God is the One who changed the status quo. He regenerated the sinner. As if to underscore that fact, Paul writes, "And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God". God's changing of the status quo precedes faith. It must precede faith or else the sinner would be lost in sin for eternity, for the sinner lacks the ability to believe apart from God granting it.

 

Willis, have you forgotten what you once plainly understood? That's God's foreknowledge of who will believe does not determine who will believe and who will not? You USED to know this.

When God creates any man, it is not determined whether they will be saved or lost, even if God knows the eventual outcome. That person has their own personal choice of whether they will trust on Jesus.

And would you want it any other way? Would you be born a robot that cannot make a choice?

Amazing how you have changed Willis, you sound just like every other Calvinist now.

And your point is?

Again, God doesn't determine they are going to hell, every single one of these persons could trust Jesus and go to heaven, and if so, that is what God would know in his foreknowledge. You used to understand this, but somehow have forgotten.

Well, if it was absolutely determined as Calvinism teaches you are correct. But you have forgotten that God's foreknowledge knows what they will choose. It is perfectly just. There is nothing cruel about it, God is giving them up to their own lusts.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It is not God's fault men perish Willis, these persons make their own choice. And according to the word of God, they KNOW what choice they are making.

God is simply giving them what they want. It is difficult to believe that some folks would choose death, but that is exactly what they do. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

So, it would be better never to have existed, never to have life, never to have the choice?

Look Willis, every single one of these persons could choose life and choose Jesus. It is the deterministic model that is cruel.

It is amazing, you NOW believe that God has created billions of people that he will never give the chance to be saved. These persons did not choose to be born sinners, they were born sinners because of the poor choice someone else made thousands of years ago. Now, these persons are born with a nature that MUST sin. Everything they do is sin, not by choice, but by the very nature they were created with.

Why Willis, these persons are not criminals that deserve punishment if this is true, they are VICTIMS. They are like a baby that is born addicted to crack because his mother chose to use illegal drugs.

So, NOW you are calling a God that gives every man the chance to be saved cruel, and NOW you believe that a God that creates billions of men to be sinners (without their choice or consent) and never gives them a chance to be saved is just.

Wow, Calvinism is the most insidious doctrine ever, it can overthrow the rational mind.

 

How do you explain Cornelius then Willis? He was not saved, and he did not have the Spirit, and yet he was devout and prayed always, and he did good works that God recognized. In fact, God sent an angel especially to him to tell him how to be saved.

Do you now believe he was regenerated as the Calvinists teach? How can a man without the Holy Spirit be regenerated? I would LOVE to hear this explanation.

Now, I am not saying he was not influenced by God, he certainly was. This man was not born a Jew, so obviously somewhere along the line he heard the word of God and believed it, and willingly chose to serve the true God. He did what he believed God wanted him to do, pray and do good works. Obviously God recognized that he was sincere, and this is why God sent an angel to him to tell him how to be saved.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Cornelius was neither saved nor had the Spirit, yet he feared God and worked righteousness.

How do you explain that? Perhaps Total Inability is FALSE???

And doesn't Acts 10:35 completely refute Unconditional Election??

 

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Pet 3:9

Peter was the apostle to the Jews and the 'longsuffering to you-ward' is the forty years God gave the Jews to repent and avoid 'the wrath to come' upon that generation and bringing the curses/plagues of Lev 26/Dt 28 down upon their progeny. 'I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent' Re 2:21.


'Not wishing that any should perish' is in the same vein as Acts 2:40:

And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.

Or Acts 3:23:

And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.

Or Rev 18:4:

Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:

 

Ro 2:13-15-the epitome.

If by ‘saved’ you mean ‘conversion’, then yes, you are correct. Cornelius had not yet converted.

If by ‘saved’ you mean ‘regenerated’, then no, you are quite wrong, and neither do you have the power to see the heart, but one can see the fruit that comes from within. Cornelius BEFORE hearing the gospel and prior to coming to Christ:

a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. Acts 10:2

It is evident the law was already in his heart [Ro 2:13-15], God had already wrought within him [Jn 3:21].

You are wrong (as always) to confuse the birth of the Spirit with the indwelling of the Spirit, the two are not the same. Indwelling/filling/baptism/gift of/sealed with, NOT the same as Jn 3:8 or Gal 4:29. And you have heard the explanation, yet you keep espousing the same old wearisome error.

Again, he is the epitome of Ro 2:13-15, because Cornelius did ‘by nature’ the things of the law he showed that the law was written upon his heart - read ‘born of the Spirit’.

As in there is no distinction between Gentile and Jew.

As in Ps 87, Gal 4:26-28; Cornelius was ‘born from above’, a child of the heavenly Zion, a true blue real Jew.

Again, you do not have the power to see the heart, but one can see the fruit that comes from within. Cornelius is also the epitome of Jn 3:21:

But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

God had already wrought within Cornelius to do the truth and he came to the light to show his works had been wrought in God.

It was the law written upon his heart that enabled Cornelius 'to do by nature the things of the law'. He was a true blue real Jew, circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.

No, it actually refutes hardline restrictivism and affirms direct regeneration

 

Not sure what you are looking for clarification on. The blood was the payment. The application was faith.

You are now looking at this whole thing with an emotional view. You cannot discount justice. Justice demands punishment to the accused. Your prison analogy is faulty as you put yourself there, you weren't created there. If you were please explain how a just judge condemns you for something you had no control over.

 

That's funny, these are the very scriptures I've argued for several years that refute Total Inability. Now you agree with me.

He had not believed on Jesus, therefore he was dead in trespasses and sins. We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

No man can be regenerated and not saved. To be regenerated literally means to be "alive again", and no man can be alive again until he is forgiven all his sins. That is what a man is "saved" from, his sins.

The law is written on every man's heart and conscience, that is why all men are guilty before God, because even without a written law all men know they have sinned against God.

You have not one word of scripture to support this view.

Again, you are refuting Total Inability as I have been saying for years here.

You are wrong that the law written on the heart equals being born again, else Cornelius would not have needed to hear the gospel and be saved.

Nevertheless, Peter said those that fear God and work righteousness are ACCEPTED with him, showing election is CONDITIONAL.

No, otherwise he would not have needed to hear the gospel and be saved. You still don't get that we are "saved" from our sins.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

I perfectly agree that God influenced Cornelius, I have never said that any man can be saved apart from God's grace. Cornelius had to hear of the true God to worship him.

Paul said "the Gentiles" do by nature the things contained in the law because they have the law written on their hearts and are a law to themselves. All men have the law written on their hearts. You don't get it, this scripture refutes Total Inability.

Again, no man can be regenerated or spiritually alive until he trusts on Jesus and has his sins forgiven. Until Cornelius trusted Jesus he was dead in trespasses and sins, yet he had the ability to worship God and obey him when he commanded him to send for Peter, just as Adam and Eve had the ability to come to God when he called them in the garden, even though they had just sinned and were dead in sin.

You guys have to create a false regeneration to support your false doctrine of Total Inability. One false doctrine leads to another.

 

How so? Ro 2 clearly shows that it is 'the law written upon the heart' and the 'circumcision of the heart' that enables one to stand in the judgment:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2

It absolutely requires a supernatural change of heart for one to live by 'patience in well-doing'.

Cornelius was a true blue bonafide Jew.

 

Total Inability teaches that man by nature is unable to do anything pleasing to God, but Romans 2:14-15 teaches that the Gentiles who did not have the law DO BY NATURE THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW, showing that the law is written on their hearts and conscience. That absolutely refutes Total Inability.

As for regeneration, you completely redefine the word. Regeneration literally means to be "alive again". Well, why is a person dead? A person is dead because they have sinned and the wages or penalty of sin is death.

As long as you remain in your sins you cannot possibly be spiritually alive, because it is sin that causes you to be spiritually dead.

And when we say the term "saved", what are we saying we are saved from? Why, our sins! Jesus came to save his people from their sins as I just quoted you.

So, "regeneration" and being "saved" are the exact same thing. It means a person is washed clean and forgiven all their sins and is now "alive again".

You attempt to redefine the word regeneration, but it won't work. You cannot be saved or alive again until your sins are forgiven, and you cannot be forgiven until you first believe, therefore men have the ability to believe before they are alive again or regenerated.

 

It does not say written on their conscience, it's written on their hearts. The conscience part of it is this:

14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

For our glorifying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward. 2 Cor 1:12

having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. 1 Pet 3:16

Herein I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always. Acts 24:16

Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience` sake. Ro 13:5

One who lives by 'patience in well-doing' can indeed have 'a conscience void of offense towards God and man'.

 

Quote:
This thread frightens me. The grand difference between Baptist soteriology and Calvinism comes to a forefront right here.
The difference is about those who trust God and obey ,and those who invent a god who does what they want him to do.

That says it all!:thumbs: