Armenian Baptists?

I understand, that is why I asked the question. I wanted to see HOW calvinistic you had become...

Welcome. There are fellowship forums here too. This particular forum is a Theology debate forum, so don't be surprised if that theme continues....but some of us are nice too.

So do non-Calvinists, we just don't believe its "irresistible."

Calvinists would disagree with you here because most would teach that regeneration (the irresistible calling) comes prior to faith and repentance.

If you think biblical theology matters, yes.

The gospel IS God's appeal to men calling them to reconciliation. We both agree that no one will willingly repent unless called to do so by the Spirit, I just happen to believe the gospel, which is inspired, preserved and carried by the Spirit, is sufficient to call all mankind to reconciliation with God.

You need to understand that even Calvinists believe a response of faith from man is necessary in the salvation process. Like it or not that is man having something to do with it, whether irresistibly drawn or not is another matter. Either way, it is my contention God gets all the glory.

The Holy Spirit is certainly in the process. I hope you don't think non-Calvinists would deny that.

 

Precisely! :thumbs:

 

Skan,
Good questions here;
In addition to what Webdog and Ben already pointed out, allow me to ask why this offends? Isn't it a relative few who are selected by God for salvation in the Calvinistic system? When you compare those who are elect with those who are not wouldn't you say the elect are "few" in comparison? I'm not sure why this offends???

Many have this idea that gets made into a caricature that the teaching is of an elite group ,or little club [a spiritual country club full of self righteous persons who delight in sinners going to hell].
Yet Thousand Hills had offered some fine verses indicating an innumerable multitude will be saved by God's mercy.
Many go to the verse in Luke...are there few that be saved?

The numbers are really not the issue however. What if we are still the early church? What if the gospel is preached for thousands of years still?

In the OT the concept of an elect remnant makes it seem this way...as sadly Israel was drifting big time into Apostasy;

Now the gospel is no longer confined to one nation but has gone worldwide there is no reason to have a dark and gloomy outlook on the spread of the gospel. psalm72 psalm 22

Look at it this way......when someone studies themself into the doctrines of grace,many times it begins with a study of God Himself and of Jesus person and work. This study shows all of the Holy attributes of God...Love mercy , righteousness, etc We serve a God who will save all He can wisely save He makes no mistakes, He knows the end from the beginning, There is no other way that that which he has revealed.

So with that as a starting point to see those who do not share the 5pts, constantly put forth a distorted view of what we see in scripture.....It is offensive to read what we perceive is an attack upon the God we worship and serve.
He alone holds all salvation in His hands, so when someone attacks it is an attack upon one or more of His Holy attributes.

Most of these statements....
what if, why did God , what if God, God is a monster, I could not worship that God, My God is not going to do what you say, usually are not statements made by someone who is looking for truth...but rather looking to bring down calvinist thought.

Skan....you say this but why is it hard to grasp the idea that God has exactly designed a salvation that does work effectually...and ultimately in a way that is not ultimately resisted by the sinner drawn by the Spirit.

No men have any excuse;

Unsaved men have the gospel command addressed to them...repent and believe the gospel.......that is what they are concerned about..
It is very rare that they even know or discuss theological issues in much detail as is discussed in a discussion forum....so this idea does not hold water.

Benjamin gets disturbed that I told him their are times I mention God's eternal decree in evangelism...especially with those who are proud and mock at the gospel.... I let them know {after plainly laying out sin and the fall, the cross and the blood} I let them know God has a multitude of people he has elected to be saved...who at a point in time will by the grace of God, repent and believe the gospel. They will saving come to Jesus as the bible describes.
I challenge them that they are not guarenteed tommorow...and if they have not dealt with God yet about their soul and complied with its terms I would be in fear if I were them. I let them know in no uncertain terms that not everyone is going to believe the gospel and worse than that...not everyone can believe!
I leave them with no hope ,except they believe in Jesus....no hope in any religious ritual, no hope in their own abilities, or anything they can do.

So no.....my view does not exalt man at all...and I believe the scripture leaves no hope for fallem man ..except the blood of Jesus.:thumbs:

 

:thumbsup: We've all been there.

 

See, there is the problem. The good news of this blood is sent to all mankind to make the appeal for them to be reconciled. Your view exalts those who reject it by giving them an excuse for their unbelief and rejection of the blood. In your view, they reject because they were born that way and couldn't do otherwise. That is just like the insanity defense by which our judicial system declares man "not-guilty."

However, in our system, God makes a genuine appeal thus providing a means of reconciliation for His enemies. There is no excuse for his rejection. Especially not the PERFECT excuse like, "God is against me."

 

[

not-guilty."


The message of the Cross is meant to be the "message of the Gospel of reconcilation" towards those whon God has elected unto eternal life in jesus Christ

To those whom are the elect of God, Gospel indeed IS the power of God unto
salvation, but to those who are in their 'natural" states, It is the "bad news" in that the messiah has come, and they still "freely" choose to stay in the dark!

[/QUOTE]


except that 'your system" has jesus atoning for ALL mens sins, and yet many will be rejecting Him and dieing in their sins that jesus had paid the penalty for!

Also, you seem to indicate that God HAS TO judge all people as being same, 'equal fairness" in that ALL have the Grace from God to equally have chance to get saved, as we decide IF we want God to save usor not...

Do God cannot judge people differently, HAS to grant ALL same 'chance" dependent upon their responses...

finally, seems to NOmakes the Cross truely effectual to save ALl that Gos will save!T account for just HOW severe fall of man was...

In the state we ALL were born into, ONLY DoG would make biblical 'sense", that God would be ultimate judge of all, be the saviour to those whom He wills to show mercy towards, and the Cross would indeed have 'real" pwoer to save, as its not "all might be saved" but that some "will" get saved!

 

The door on the ark was open...the gospel says come.....

 

Yet men are born unable to hear that appeal unless first made able by God, according to your view, thus making such an appeal appear disingenuous at best.

It would be like Noah being angry at the sin of his generation and putting a drug in their drinking water making deaf to his words and thus unable to reply to his appeal and then walking out among the people begging them to get on the boat. It is utterly ridiculously and disingenuous.

Now, you may disagree with that analogy, but tell me how it doesn't accurately represent what God does for all practical purposes? Because of the Fall, he decided to make all people born deaf to his appeal and then he goes around making an appeal to be reconciled as if its meant for everyone to hear. How is that not accurate?

 

I like to tease sometimes . You were saying the Arminian position on eternal security helped sway you to Calvinism. What I posted is from the Remonstrants 5 Articles and is giving the Arminian position on eternal security that they were not resolute in their opinion that one could become apostate in from the regenerative state. Just wouldn't want to see you being swayed on false pretenses is all :smilewinkgrin:.

 

skan,
[QUOTEbut tell me how it doesn't accurately represent what God does for all practical purposes?][/QUOTE]

This is an unhealthy view of God. This is an unhealthy questioning of God's design, and God's righteous judgement.
Those who resist calvinism generally are like those who wrongly view Gods purpose.

the fall did not make God change anything that he had already planned...your language betrays your error.

 

What is unhealthy is NOT questioning such a monstrous doctrine.

If men are born sinners through no fault or choice of their own, and if the only thing they can do is sin, it is completely unjust to punish them for doing the only thing they are able to do.

Do we execute a man born blind because he cannot see? That's the kind of thing Hitler did, he executed handicapped persons. Google "Action T4"

And you think it is wrong to question such a doctrine? I am amazed any intelligent person cannot question this.

 

I don't either, but I'm asking how it is misrepresentative of Calvinism.

So, sticking with the analogy with Noah, that would be like his commanding his kids to go tell the drugged people to get on the boat, right? How does that avoid the argument of it being disingenuous?

I think most people can see the clear distinction between Noah merely foreknowing that many will reject him and giving them a drug so that they will certainly reject him, don't you?

But Calvinism doesn't say "for whatever reason." It teaches that the reason is ultimately because they were not elected by God, born again and thus remain in their natural totally unable condition.

 

Yes, I believe God has foreknowledge of who will believe and who will not and elects those who believe.

But I do not believe God's foreknowledge determines what will be.

I have given the example of Nathanael in Jn 1:44-51. Look at what is said and the language used, I do not believe it accidental.

In vs. 47 it says Jesus SAW Nathanael coming to him. Compare this to the father in Lk 15:20 who saw his son coming home in repentance. This is foreknowledge.

In the same verse Jesus calls Nathanael a true Israelite. Compare this to Rom 2:28-29, 9:6-13, and especially 11:1-5. This is foreknowledge, Jesus knew Nathanael would believe, he was elect.

In vs. 48 we see Nathanael was shocked and asked Jesus, "Whence KNOWEST thou me?" This is foreknowledge, compare to Rom 8:29.

Jesus answered, BEFORE that Philip CALLED thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I SAW THEE. This is foreknowledge, Jesus saw Nathanael and knew him before he was called. See Rom 8:29-30

Now, IN TIME, Nathanael believes on Jesus. See Rom 8:29-30. Jesus saw and knew Nathanael before he was called. He knew he would believe calling him an Israelite indeed (true Israelite). And when he believed he was justified.