Gal 2:20

to EricB:

I apologize. I was under the impression that the forum we were both posting in was part of the Baptists Only forum. I take back what I said.
But my question about what you believe on the Triunity of God stands.
You may answer at your own leisure, or ignore it.

 

As I said, sometimes it does seem like it, as I don't see any remorse for the horror in store for the people you say cannot escape it.

But it's your side that takes a few verses and ignores the whole context, which is about Israel in general, not the reprobation of all lost individuals.

WHO? Are you referring to the person (on the Reformed board Ray and I were on before it shut down) who said this doctrine (Calvinism/sovereignty/reprobation) was more important than the Trinity? He was not denying the Trinity, but thinks this debate was more important than it. And I was disagreeing with him, not supporting it, because that is quite ridiculous.

Yes, but my only point there was that even though you would deny that, still, your view faces the same hypothetical possibility you ascribed to the other side (foreknowledge). My conclusion was that we cannot fully understand all that and should not try to draw some of these conclusions from it.)

 

EricB:

Well, I think the man who says he believes in the doctrine of election and feels nothing for those whom God had left to their condemnation has a profession of faith as questionable as one who says because he is saved by grace and eternally saved he can go ahead and live and dress and walk and talk any way he wants to.

With regards to the Triunity of God, I thank you for clarifying your side.

 

I am not entirely sure I understand what you are saying. There is only one salvation and there is only one reason one could possibly be saved, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to 'work' the trick is trying to define the word. What is works? If one says that faith itself is work, then one going against scripture. According to scripture, faith is a gift of God, not works. If one says that what we do as a result of our faith is works, then once again one going against scripture. Faith is a result of a gift, therefore any result of that faith would be a gift too.

The problem comes when we start judging the hearts of others, instead of allowing their hearts to show themselves.

By our fruits we are known. Anyone who denies this, denies the words of Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

All you had told me before was that one cannot understand what the Bible says unless they are born again. I showed you that the problems with this. But then, if it is as you say, what the Bible really says means nothing anyway, and we can make up our own explanations (of the purpose of preaching to the lost), and it's automatically right because it justifies the position we take anyway.
My fate does not rest in that, but yes, only in God's hand and His Word.

 

tyndale1946...if you have any more interaction with TUOR, it will be helpful to know that he is a "two-point" calvinist...a real queer duck. He holds only to Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, he says, while denying the remainder of TULIP. Hence, TU-OR, as opposed to "TULIPer"...me, and a few others. Get it?

connieman

 

Not in a very loving mood tonight are you connie?

By the way, the screen name is a character from JRR Tolkien's writings.

[ May 25, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

I'll take it on faith that you are correctly presenting the Arminian position; not certain as to what they would say as I am not Arminian. At any rate, the quote above is incorrect because faith is the act of receiving salvation, not a work exercised in order to receive salvation. This is the position which Machen explains. His position is in contrast not only to the Arminian position you have stated but is also in contrast to many Calvinists who hold that faith must be a gift precisely because it is a work.

 

Therein lies the problem. Man wants to know why.
He would not take God when He says He "..doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest thou ?...".

He must know why. God must satisfy him and not the other way around.
</font>[/QUOTE]the question was clear as to what do Calvinists say regarding God's choice of the elect, rather than a question that attacks God's decisions. also, in context of the phrase "...it will not satisfy...", it means those answers from Calvinists. thus, no problem lies in those questions.

if the word "all" in 2nd Peter 3:9 refers only to all the elect, it would mean that it is possible for some of those all to perish. except of course if qualified that this can never happen due to the next phrase which reads: "...all should come to repentance...", which then, is questionable of going around a passage to justify a stand. or, does the perish in this verse refer to anything other than 2nd death?

the first two of the three statements above are true, but the third one, when digged, will end up argumentatively contradcting the first one.

 

The context of this verse is Christ's second coming and why he hadn't come yet.

God, before time began, elected a group of people throughout history to bring to salvation. All the elect will be saved, but they will be saved because God will bring every single one of them to repentance and faith.

If Christ came early, before God had brought all of the elect to repentance and faith, then those of the elect who had not yet come to repentance would die in their sins--they would die as "children of wrath." The elect are "children of wrath" just like everyone else up to the point that God brings them to Him.

 

Aw, c'mon Chris, how can anyone in hell claim that verse for themselves.
The very proof that they have not been crucified with Christ and live the life they live by the faith of the Son of God is that they are burning in hell.
No.
No one for whom Christ shed His blood will ever be in hell.