Featured The Children whom God hath given me

Brother DHK,

I agree God will do right with infants dying in infancy, the mentally handicap, and aborted babies. I do not know if all of them are elect or only some of them, but that is mere speculation. However, that does not answer my question, how can these be justified by the "Word of God" (by this I assume you mean the word spoken by the preacher), when they cant mentally understand and believe the preached word by man? How are they and all men for that manner justified?

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Sovereign and Brother DHK,

DHK, how can you believe those that believe in a limited atonement are your brothers in Christ if they are guilty of preaching "damnable heresies" and are "false teachers" per your interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1? I believe you are my brother in Christ and hope you believe the same.

Brother Joe

 

According to the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism, Jesus died only for the supposedly previously chosen foreseen individuals, and when He died, then they were at that instant and not at a later time, propitiated, there sin burden (God's wrath) was removed. But the very passage quoted says (Ephesians 2:1-3) that we were by nature (born that way) children of wrath. Therefore God's wrath toward us individually had not been removed. The folks God gives to Christ are those whose faith God has credited as righteousness. This selection is our conditional election for salvation through faith in the truth.

Christ died for all mankind, He tasted death for everyone, He is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world of fallen mankind.
Mankind includes those saved or will be saved, the church, and those not saved or will not be saved, the eternally lost. Christ died for both groups. 2 Peter 2:1 demonstrates Christ died for everyone, elect and non-elect.

 

I expounded this verse for you earlier showing you which each phrase means.
Let's look at it again, and some of the major differences.

First Peter is addressing false teachers, those that already were not saved. That is the major difference here. I am addressing those that are saved; Peter was not. They were false teachers that had infiltrated the church--unsaved false teachers.

Secondly, they were teaching what the KJV says are "damnable heresies" but other translations more literally and correctly translate as "destructive heresies." The doctrine was destructive. Young's translation translates "heresy" as "sects" and that is what the root of the word is. Like the Pharisees, Saducces, or Gnosics, Calvinism is considered as "sect," a destructive one. I can't tell you how many churches I have seen divided by the teachings of Calvinism. It has literally destroyed them.

The last phrase: has more of the meaning of "spiritual ruin," but swift or quick. When Calvinism sets into a church often the spiritual ruin of that church will happen quickly. It will stunt the growth of that church. The believers will become as the believers in Corinth--carnal, giving into immorality, drunkenness, taking one another to court, etc. Their spiritual life will be brought to "ruins" which doesn't mean they will lose their salvation.
However, the phrase goes back to the one bringing in the doctrine. They will be the ones responsible for this chaos and will stand before God and give account for it.

(YLT) And there did come also false prophets among the people, as also among you there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in besides destructive sects, and the Master who bought them denying, bringing to themselves quick destruction,

(WNT) But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be teachers of falsehood among you also, who will cunningly introduce fatal divisions, disowning even the Sovereign Lord who has redeemed them, and bringing on themselves swift destruction.

 

"mistaken doctrine" - no.
It is merely a systematizing of Scriptures that holds the most consistent view and supported by more Scriptures than any other. Because it is consistently built upon the mounds of Scripture, it rises above the rest and is more easily identifiable and more easily "pigeon holed" to mock by those who would do.

The non-cal folks generally camp all over the field finding little enclaves of agreement in which to fellowship, and accepting just about any variation that sounds reasonable and loving.

It would be consistent to indicate that the Calvinistic view is the Cross was the "sealing of the deal" in which those already chosen "before the foundation of the world" had been appointed by God.

Christ spoke in terms of present and future when on this earth for that is the constraint of humankind - time limited. However, God has no such time constraints. Therefore, the "sin burden" in which every believer is made aware by the work of the Word and the Holy Spirit is engineered by God for humankind's own benefit and not for God. God already knows the end from the beginning - humankind does not.

And so believers are. That is why they are given a "new nature" which consistently wars against the old. God does not "remake" the old, one must be born anew. The old must be "crucified daily" and Christ indicated more than once that those who are His will undergo not just persecutions but cleansing and pruning. Partly to remove the stench of the dead and decaying, partly to bring more light to the areas that need to bear more fruit, and other reasons to God's purpose and pleasure.

I am not certain exactly your point, in that statement.

Just because humankind has to be reconciled to God does not mean that God reconciles with all. It is a one way street. Gods wrath is turned away by His own work. Therefore, God reconciled the redeemed to Himself for Himself. It is God's work, and at no point is the encroachment of man capable.

You mentioned Peter 2:1 (...To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: ...)

This supports the view opposite of what you desire.

Does this verse state that the faith received had to be accepted?
Does this verse state that the faith came in any other form than the very "righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ?"

Nope - Christ provided a faith and it was the same as provided to the apostles (no less, no more) and it was/is a faith based upon God - alone.

 

Wrong, there are no scriptures that support the TULI of the Tulip. None, zip nada when contextually considered.

Not consistent with scripture, see Ephesians 2:1-3. We are not talking about awareness, but actuality. Calvinism depends on claiming scripture does not mean what it says. And further, anytime some finite time trapped individual starts talking about how God see things from eternity, they are speaking pure conjecture.

It is true, many of the non-Cal viewpoints are inconsistent with each other. But two wrongs do not make a right.

Total deflection, the issue is the sin burden, God's wrath, was not removed when Christ died on the cross as Calvinism mistakenly claims.

The folks God gives to Christ are those whose faith God has credited as righteousness. This selection is our conditional election for salvation through faith in the truth.

Lets compare the sequence: Calvinism says foreseen individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world. My non-Cal view is the election of Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, and therefore corporately chose all those His Redeemer would redeem, as the target group of His Redemption plan.

Next, Calvinism says when Christ died, the sin burden (God's wrath) was removed that instant. But Ephesians 2:1-3 precludes that view because we were by nature still children of wrath before we were born anew. Scripture teaches our sin burden is removed when God places us spiritually in Christ, and we undergo the circumcision of Christ. This selection is our conditional election for salvation through faith in the truth.

No, 2 Peter 2:1 indicates a person who was and will be unsaved was bought with Christ's blood. Therefore, Christ died for all mankind, the elect and unelect. He tasted death for everyone. He gave His life as a ransom for all. He is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

 

Some people start off on a bad foot. You are completely hobbled.

After all these years of hearing the truth on the BB you say the above foolishness. You never learn because you are unteachable.

 

Facts state otherwise. It isn't the Cal. folks who typically cite verses out of context, or are not known teach/preach expositorily.

Again, you are attempting to take ground that is unsupportable.

Certainly, the Ephesians were "aware" and dwelt in "actuality." However, again you place the emphasis upon them rather than what Paul does.

Again, a claim that is unsupported.

WHOSE faith??????

Van, where did you get such a faith? Was it your own generated work or was it the work of God?

"MY view".... Really this shows how the non-cal must rely upon what "I think" in terms of interpreting Scriptures rather than balancing Scriptures with Scriptures.

Can God reconcile wrath of humankind to Himself? NO!

So HOW does it come about that the children of wrath can under their own strength, by their own timing, under there own understanding come be self reconciled and attain to being a child of God? This is the typical teaching of the non-cal view.

On the other hand. Can any appeasement brought by humankind to God assuage His wrath? This again is the typical thinking of some non-cal folks who have to live a life as close to what they consider being "right with God" in order to curry His favor.

I fail to see how 2 Peter 2:1 + has much to do with your statement.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
​

 

Yet another "taint so" post devoid of content.

 

And folks, note the lack of actual response from Agedman.

First he says, in so many words, taint so.
Second he denies we were once children of wrath and therefore our sin burden (God's wrath) had not been removed. See Ephesians 2:1-3. It is his position that is unsupported in scripture.
Third, another "taint so."
Fourth, he seeks to change the subject and throw in yet another bogus claim of Calvinism, which is God credits not our faith, but the faith given via irresistible grace as righteousness. Such a faith would not need to be credited. Also, see Romans 5:2 where our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Calvinism again reverses the sequence and claims His grace provides our faith. Not how it reads.

Next, he claims the mistaken view of Calvinism is superior to my "non-Cal" view. This is a logical fallacy claiming a popular view must be right.

A lot of things are possible with God, such as reconciling fallen mankind to Himself, one believer at a time. Did anyone claim we are "self reconciled?" Nope, so a strawman to obfuscate. It is God who credits our faith as righteousness and God who places us in Christ, and therefore the non-Cal view is we are reconciled by God and not ourselves.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Thus, according to scripture those heading for swift destruction were also bought with the blood of the Master. Therefore Christ died for the saved and those who will become saved, and those unsaved and will not be saved.

 

There is a determined disconnect that some have with the OP because they cannot consider that Christ doesn't wait with open arms ready to receive any and all who come to Him in the time and place of their own choosing.

The passage of Hebrews (quoted in the OP) demonstrates the adopted children's relationship to God. He chose them, they did not choose Him, and that is the work of the Christ from His coming to His coming again.

I sat in a church listening to a FB preacher wax on and on about being a child of God. He then gave the illustration of a husband and wife going to the orphanage to adopt a baby. They looked over many and then chose.

What was laughable was when the preacher was closing the sermon he said "Don't you want to be a child of God? Then come as a babe to Christ."

What orphan babe came in their power to the prospective parents and says "I demand you adopt me!"

Hebrews (see the OP) makes it clear that the person God claims as His, will be His.

 

For all your denial and fabrications to what I wrote, you gave no noteworthy response. Claims made by you do not constitute rebuttal nor proof of correctness.

Van your argument is not Scriptural. You use the term "our faith" and Hebrews uses "A" faith. Ephesians speaks of the believers' faith as coming from, by, "through" God who is demonstrating God's favor upon the undeserving.

"Our faith" is a uselessness. Just as the young man when asked by Christ said, "I believe, help my unbelief." At least he recognized that, no matter how "righteous" he could determine for himself, it would never be sufficient to appease God.

Is this not called verse texting?

Selecting a single verse or in this case a portion and then making a broad doctrinal point?

You are confused about "the Lord that bought them" with the state of salvation of the false prophets. These are not saved but "FALSE PROPHETS" that have no proof that they represent God (just as false prophets in the OT). That is what Peter is referencing. He is stating that they deny the purchase ability of God.

Read the whole of Peter in that light and the passage becomes clear and aligned with the balance of Scripture.

If one doesn't, then all sorts of problems leading away from sound doctrine tend to detour the truth.

The "Lord that bought them" is directed to the church folks - those saved, who are being attached by schemes the false prophets generate because of the message may even include a denial of the Lord. Think of Peter's experience the night he warmed himself - did he not deny Christ? Was Peter not rebuked by Paul for his denial of Christ by his actions in the gentile church when Jews showed up? Peter understands the underbelly of denial and rebuke.

The difference between Peter and the false prophets is that Peter is pointing out the end result. What is in store for them in comparison to the false prophets?

What of the children of God that deny Christ?

Does not the Scriptures teach that even in our unfaithfulness He is faithful (2 Timothy). That the believer is to hold fast to the hope for He is faithful (Hebrews 10). Did not the Scriptures teach you that, ""But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him" (John 6).

 

Care to respond to this, DHK?

 

I did.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2238211&postcount=265

Tell me how much more clarification you need?

 

That is some very sick verbiage mon ami.

 

Instead of giving an intelligent answer you simply call it "sick"?
How do you want me to respond to that?

 

Brother DHK,

Based upon your interpretation of that verse in Peter, you must believe all the adherents to Calvinism are unsaved or at least the teachers. That is an extreme position that I have never heard any non Calvinist take, but thanks for your explanation. How can you claim one who trusts in Christ's death alone for salvation is dammed? (If this is not your view, please explain). Are these teachers saved?

Brother Joe

 

Brother DHK,

I am posting this question I previously posted in this thread that you failed to answer. Please answer. Revmwc I would also be interest in an answer from you too.