Do you know Dr. Charles Stanley?

same writer...same book says the reason for the choosing is......

"so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but God who has mercy" Romans 9:16

The writer goes on to say...

The time of Gods choosing is expressly stated to have been before the foundation of the world. (Ephs 1:4). The basis of the choice is...now get this...Gods own good pleasure, not mans works. His purpose, His good pleasure, and will are all involved in that choosing"

***********

Thats the writers words. I'm kinda like...agreeing with him so far. How about you?

Does he sound Calvinist to you?

 

I wouldn't say being dragged out of Sodom and Gamorrah by the angels is exactly persevering in the faith.

 

Yeah, Scripture's statements do tend to have that effect on me. And, BTW, Lot, the Mayor of Sodom, was reckoned chronologically as righteous before Abraham. Read the texts carefully, and one will see this, as well.

Maybe if I type slower??

Salvation is a gift, not a "reward", for starters. It is based on believe/faith and believe/faith alone. (Eph. 2:6-9; Acts 16:28-32) We have God's righteousness imputed to us, on this basis, because of the finished work of Jesus shedding his blood on the cross, and applying it on our behalf. (Heb. 1:3; 9:11- 10:16)

"Rewards" are a different matter. They are based on our faithfulness, hence our righteousness, so to speak, once we are saved. (I Cor. 3:9-15) In this David, the man after God's own heart, was no different than we. (Ps. 18:20, 24) For free, Scripture never anywhere says David "repented of his sin(s)", either. But he did "confess" them in Ps. 51! (Tossing a little gasoline on the flames, maybe??)

David was no different in this, like Abraham, Lot, and Abel, only in what he actually could see as to the blood covering his sins. (Heb. 11: 4, 13, 32-40)
He prayed for the Lord to restore to him the joy of his salvation, not the salvation itself. (Ps. 51:12) But as to the imputed righteousness of God, i.e. which comes by faith, he was no different than you or I, in that regard.

You might note that David's quote, above comes from Ps. 32: 1-2, BTW.

Obviously, David was not deceived, according to the last phrase of Ps. 32:2.

(Strange, I quoted these exact verses in Romans in another thread only ten days ago.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=38596&page=3 in post #27.
Someone else who didn't really like the idea of free-grace salvation and righteousness, or a righteous Lot, I guess.)

G'nite, boys and girls! :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

Amen, Ed!

While we don't agree on the ME doctrine of the free grace position, we do agree on the soteriology. Lot disproves not only the "P" in TULIP, but the notion one can lose their salvation or walk away from it.

 

==I don't agree that Lot's case disproves the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints. I think the Westminster confession's explanation of this doctrine is as good as any...this is from chapter XVII...

"I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves."

I have put in bold the parts that I think may apply to the situation of Lot and others who, though saved, fail miserably.

LINK

 

==Excuse me but I have his book on Eternal Security as well as several of his sermons on that issue and most of the other books he has written. I think I am very familiar with his position on most things, this included. Charles Stanley clearly believes that a person can fall away, commit apostasy, become a unbeliever, and still be saved. That position is not consistant with classical/historical Calvinism or the perseverance of the saints. If you wish I can quote Stanley for you and I can compare his quotes to the historical confessions of Calvinism (Canon of Dort, Westminster Confession, etc). If you want quotes it will have to wait until Wednesday evening (at the earliest) since I will not have time to sit down at my desk and go through his book until then. However I will be more than happy to do that if needed.

==The fact that one believes a true believer can be guilty of apostasy and another denies that a true believer can be guilty of apostasy is a major distinction. Which side one takes in that debate depends upon how one defines assurance.

==Historical Calvinism is not "fatalistic" since it trusts in the Wisdom and plan of a Holy, Loving, all knowing, God.

Unless you think trusting in God is fatalistic...

 

This is pure assumption and not fact. Nobody knows the heart of a person before they die. If they die in sin it cannot be automatically assumed they were lost. Lot's wife is a perfect example, and refutes this. She was found to be righteous in God's eye, and died still longing for what she left in S&G. According to the Westminster confession, she would be lost, but according to Scripture she was found to be righteous.

 

==I think the WC does address such an issue (see III). Perseverance in the faith means that a person who is truly saved does not turn away from Christ (apostasy) nor do they live in sin (1Jn 3:9-10, 1Cor 6:9-10, 1Jn 2:19, Col 1:21-23, Jn 8:31, etc). It does not mean that a believer cannot sin nor does it mean they cannot suffer serious judgement(s) because of their sin.

 

Yet Lot's wife did just that, disproving "P".

 

==Lot's wife was guilty of final apostasy and living in sin?

 

I posted that not a long time back on another thread.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

About 99.9% of the time, people who claim Calvinism is fatalism don't even know what fatalism is, in it's true historic sense.

Kind of like BobRyan's "election = arbitrary selection" strawman.

You should have at least a decent knowledge of what you're arguing against before you start spouting foolishness to try and debunk it.

It's not a crime to read books you know.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Is it true that the Promises of God "I will never leave you or forsake you" can be used in a way to contradict the Bible teaching on Perserverance? Can we use one part of God's Word against the other on the doctrine of Perseverance?

OR should we take the Arminian view that BOTH are true? God will never "Leave US" but WE can choose to "leave God" just as did Lucifer, just as did sinnless holy and perfect Adam - just as the Jews who in Romans 11 are stated to be IN Christ but then are "CAST OUT"??

Why does Paul say in Rom 11:21 "Neither will he spare you" who is the "you" and what is the "you" supposed to take away from that instruction?

When Paul says "if you continue in His kindness" is "YOU" a saved person?

When Paul says "otherwise YOU will be cut off" in vs 22 is being "cut off" a saving experience of the saints that they will cary with them into heaven?

In vs 23 is "continuing in unbelief" a sign or reason for them "being cut off" if so - then what were they doing BEFORE they were "cut off for unbelief"? What was their start? believing? OR were they initially brought in "as unbelievers"??

Is "graft them in again" a reference to a saving relationship with Christ being restored - or some more frivolous idea?

As we explore the instructive answers to these questions we will see a very bright light shining in Romans 11 on the subject of salvation gained and lost.

They were even MORE compatible with God's plan than we are today. They could only FALL from such an exalted position. In Christ – the vine (John 15) the Jews fell and this is a warning to “us”? Only if OSAS is not true.

They become a warning to US as WE are in THEIR former position.

God desires to RE-establish them WITH US in that FORMER position IN the body of Christ. (Every branch In Me that does not bear fruit is cast into the fire – John 15). Yet here we see that God is able to “graft them in again” – so they can come back IF They do not Continue in unbelief.

And yet all this does not REJECT the plan of salvation as it continually unfolds in the NT - in fact it explicitly relies upon it. Including the future events of the coming
Messiah as described in Isaiah 53. But they ALL benefit from the God who "gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does NOT exist" Rom 4:17 so that God
called Abraham the Father of many nations - while as yet he had no children.

The Cross of Christ - benefits of forgiveness already applied PRE cross.

They were even MORE compatible with God's plan than we are today. They could fall from such an exalted position. Hint: There is no such thing as falling "from being lost". .

Yet God shows His CONTINUED willingness, purpose, intent and interest in "Grafting them in again". He never presents the fall of Israel as "God's fickle choice for the CHOSEN" -- rather it is "Their UNBELIEF" – it is the rebellion of the CHOSEN.

Note that “you” is to the INDIVIDUAL reading the letter and – it is on an INDIVIDUAL basis that they stand IN Christ. Trying to “ignore this inconvenient detail” in an effort to save OSAS is not “exegesis” it is eisegesis. And this comes as a surprise to many.

 

Calvinists seem prone to blunders like that above. Instead of answering "in substance" they settle for merely insulting the one arguing for truth and then claim that their own insults are "some kind of proof" that they won the argument.

But the objective reader looking for actual substance in the post is not fooled.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I didn't have any intention of posting any "substance", I was just stating a fact from my own experiance. I didn't try to win any argument either.
Unless you want to start one, then I might join in.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

Maybe if you read the text -

Lot was about to be hanged/lynched by his friendly townspeople that you would have him "leading" on to new crimes.

The reason is that HE exhibited attributes of a true child of God - Christian kindness to strangers. As the NT authors state - those wicked people were torment to the soul of righteous Lot.

2Peter 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

(That's right discerning reader - BobRyan reads "the bad" Bible as well as the good parts)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I said nothing about Lot "leading them on to new crimes", whatever that means, at all. Lot "sat in the gate of Sodom". That is OT and ANE phraseology for the city leaders, equivalent to the city council of today. Lot rose up to greet the two angels when they appeared, as men. That was the job of the chief leader, equal to today's mayor, "Christian kindness to strangers" or no. When that evening, Lot would not give the two men to the men of Sodom, yes, then they turned on him. But there was not exactly a "lynch mob" going, for Lot was able to go out and contact his at least three sons-in law (Heb. plural, signifying that he had at least three more daughters that were already married to Sodom residents) and was able to return without harm to himself. Then, after that, the angels dragged him, his wife, and two daughters at home out of the city. etc. I believe that Lot lost at least six family members in the destruction of Sodom.

Because I did read the text! And all of it, about the man Lot, every verse.

Incest, and no less from the Biblical saint of saints? I wouldn't have thought so, and I'm pretty sure I would not have declared him thrice righteous, and definitely not the only man specifically identified as "godly", were it left up to me, based only on what is written in the OT.

But as God says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways!" (I quoted this from memory, not any version.)

Ed

 

HP: And what would this truth establish? God has more than likely lost a few billion of His own as well, starting with the rebellion of His first two children. What does losing ones children have directly to do with any unrighteousness on the parents part?

 

Lot is the one opposing the wicked when the two strangers come to visit S&G.

Lot is the one that the wicked turn upon saying that they will now do far worse to HIM for his rebuke of them.

Lot is the one that the Angels have to rescue from the wicked mob.

2Peter 2
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them anexample to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;
7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men

The point remains. While I am not arguing that every decision he made was perfect - he is presented as being righteous and opposing evil EVEN in Sodom.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The warning to the saints given in 2Peter 2 - showing them the fate of the wicked as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah AND "the cities around them" as applies to the NT saints warned to fear -- warned about the importance of perseverance.

Rom 11:
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, [b]they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/b]