Featured cal and non-cal agreement

Good try

It was a good try Mark, but the distance is to far. Christ died for the sin of the world. But, alas some would change "the world" to "the elect". We should each and everyone agree to disagree and according to Christ allow our love for one another show that we are His disciples. There is a huge world out there dying without Christ while we debate "our right" and "your wrong" which is sad...

 

Both sides agree on the five Sola's, we differ on the mechanics.

 

Good old john. How are ya brother?!

 

Blessings

I am doing well brother, thanks for asking. How are you and the family doing? We should go back to India next year? It would be a trip well worth the taking. Blessings upon you my brother!

:jesus:

 

How is your health are you in remission?

 

I believe that I am, I have a CT scan at the VA on July 1st, they will tell me more about the cancer (if they see any or not). So, I am just sailing along not thinking about it. I am back up to 218 lbs now, I want to stay around 210, so I got a bike to peddle around on to stay in some kind of shape.

 

No problem, it's just that I wasn't predestined to be a Calvinist.

 

I don't know that I am or not. I reject the cals version of limited atonement and irresistible grace. I reject that God made some men just to condemn them with no offer of grace ever. This is the most hideous doctrine to ever enter the church.

I do agree with total depravity even as the cals do. I do agree with perseverance of the saints.

 

Actually we all agree there is a "reject pile" as you say. The disagreement comes in just who is in that pile. Is it those who never were offered grace or those who were and rejected it.

Are you talking about John 10 here?

 

First, like Dave Hunt and James White, when it comes to the nitty gritty they will disagree on all points. However...

Total Depravity:
The Calvinist defines total depravity as "total inability."
I could never agree with that.
However, I do believe that man is born with a sin nature; that he does have a sin nature. I also believe that within God's sovereignty he allows man the exercise of his free will to choose to reject or accept Christ when the gospel is presented to him. Perhaps then I believe more in the sovereignty of God then my Calvinist brethren do. Our God is a great God.
But I cannot go to the extreme that Winman goes to and say that man is born in innocence and deny OS, and the depravity of man completely.

Unconditional Election:
That God only died for the elect. This implies that God has elected some for salvation and elected the others for damnation. I don't believe in this. It makes God into a monster.
When the word "election" or "chosen" is used it is always used in reference to believers. For example, "God has chosen us to be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted Christ." It is directed to believers and the purpose the believer has in his Christian life, not to unbelievers.

Limited Atonement.
God never limited his atonement.
He died for the sins of the world.
His will is that all should be saved.
He is propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.
He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
--Scripture after Scripture tells us that Christ atoned for the sins of the world, and that it was not limited to any select group.
It is efficacious only to them that believe.

Irresistable Grace:
God's grace can be resisted, by anyone--saved and unsaved alike.
Acts 7:51 is ample proof of that.

Perseverance is a word that implies works.
I don't have to persevere for my salvation.
The Lord keeps my salvation. I am preserved. My salvation is in his hands. The gift of God is eternal life and has nothing to do with works.
However in the end we (or most of us) believe in eternal security of the believer.

 

OK, I am very similar to DHK except I am more extreme on Original Sin as he said. I believe God has made men upright, but that ALL men when they reach the age of accountability will willingly and knowingly choose to sin. So, I do not believe men are born depraved, but I believe all men BECOME depraved. The scriptures show man has CORRUPTED his way. The word "corrupt" means to go from a good state to a bad state. I could literally list many dozens of verses to support this view, but I will only list a few for brevity.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Notice scripture says ALL FLESH had CORRUPTED his way. The word corrupt means to go from a good state to a bad state.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Notice God said the imagination of man's heart is evil "from his youth". God did not say man's heart is evil from his birth. There is much, much more to support this.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is the scripture Paul quoted in Romans 3, except Paul says we have become "unprofitable".

But notice it says we have gone aside. It does not say we were born sinful but have turned or gone aside and "become" filthy. The word "become" denotes a progression or change. If a man is born rich, would he tell anyone he has "become" rich? No, because he was always rich. But if a man was born poor but worked hard and invested to acquire wealth, then he would tell everyone he "became" rich. And this is what the word of God says repeatedly, that man has "become" filthy or unprofitable.

As I said, I could show literally many dozens more verses that all support this, but if you will not consider these few verses, you will not consider many either.

I do not believe in "inability" whatsoever. We know Cain is a lost man, and yet God himself said he could have done well and would have been accepted.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God himself clearly implied that Cain (who we know is lost) had the ability to obey God, and that God would have accepted him if he did so.

I do not believe in Unconditional Election at all, I believe God in his foreknowledge knows who will believe and elects these persons. I do not believe what God foreknows necessarily determines what will take place in time.

And of course I do not believe in Limited Atonement, I believe Jesus died for 100% of men, but a man must believe to have access to God's grace (Rom 5:2).

I do not believe in Irresistible Grace, there are many scriptures that refute this.

I believe in PRESERVATION of the saints, not perseverance. I am not saved because I am faithful to Jesus, I am saved because Jesus will always be faithful to me. Jesus promised whosoever comes to him will in no wise be cast out (John 6:37). I know I am saved because I came to Jesus in my heart for forgiveness, and I know he would NEVER break his promise to me.

But I am not saved because I have persevered or always been faithful to Jesus. I should be very ashamed, but I have failed Jesus many thousands of times. I am thankful I do not have to depend upon my works or faithfulness to be saved.

 

That depends what you mean by "consumed in sin." He is born in sin; "in sin did my mother conceive me," David said, referring to his own sinful being at birth, not his mother's sinfulness.

The Calvinist takes this position too far. I love my children. That doesn't mean I don't love the children of the neighbor next door to, and it certainly doesn't mean that I condemn them. In fact, if I have the truth and they don't it is my obligation to share it with them.
If I live right they should be able to come to me and seek the truth from me, because of my testimony. What is to prohibit them from doing that? That was the model in the OT. That is how Rahab got saved. She heard of the miracles done by the God of Israel, and therefore was saved. Israel was to be a testimony of Jehovah to those around her. Her light should have attracted others to Jehovah. It is not inconceivable that many of the Egyptians, in the end, looked to Jehovah for their salvation. But God didn't force them. It had to be their choice.

How much greater responsibility do we have in a world of 7 billion people to reach them for Christ.

John 3:18..."but the wrath of God abideth on them."
That is until they are saved or until they "believe on the name of the Son of God." It is not an eternal condemnation. It only remains on them until they trust the Lord as their Savior. Once they die, then it is eternal. That makes our responsibility all the more greater until the person dies or Christ comes again.
"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."

He can save to the uttermost. There is no one so difficult or so hardened that the Lord cannot save. That would be limiting the power of God. Nothing is impossible with God. Did he not save the demoniac in the Gadarenes? He was possessed with a legion of demons.
Would not the thinking you expressed leave some to think that we so know the mind of God that we are not obligated to share the gospel with all?? Christ said: "God into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Here, all means all.

Absolutely.
I often say that God is willing that none should perish. But many will perish, not because of God's will, but rather because man's will is so hardened against God that he will not repent. It is man that still has that choice, made in the image of God, with a will to choose between good and evil. In spite of the grace of God he chooses evil much of the time.

My salvation experience is different than most.
Raised in the Catholic church most of my life, I never heard the gospel, and thus never resisted the gospel. The first time I heard the gospel was on the campus of a university. I did not resist the Holy Spirit, but on that evening I got saved.
However, I have preached the gospel, and have seen young men clutch the pew in front of them resisting the Holy Spirit, waiting for the first chance to get out of the building. They knew they needed to be saved. They were definitely under conviction. But they went away still in their sins. That happens many times.
God's grace is resisted, can be resisted, and thus is not "irresistable."

I would rather look at it from the perspective of how the Bible defines the role of the Holy Spirit in the world today. In John 16 the Spirit is come:
"to convict the world of sin, and or righteousness and of judgment."
His role is to convict of sin. If there is no conviction of sin, then how can a person be saved. Someone once said, "a person must be lost before he can be saved."

 

Well, in verse 4, Paul uses the words adulterers and adulteresses, so he was referring to those in the church who weren't really saved. Sin isn't the abscence of something, but the presence of something, breaking God's laws. Babies sin all the time, but aren't aware of the consequences of them. That's why they die in infancy. Children/toddlers/infants know to lie to keep from getting timeout or from getting their "bum-bum" lit up. But they don't know they are lying before a Just and Merciful God.

A few years ago, a mother was loading one of her kids in her car, when another one of her children found a loaded pistol(why it was there and loaded is mindboggling to me!!!), and accidently shot and killed on of their siblings. My dad's cardiologist was in the restaurant when this happened and administered CPR, but to no avail. Now, did this child kill? Yes. Was they placed on trial and subsequently found guilty? No. Why then? They didn't know what they were doing and therefore no DA would ever even attempt to prosecute a child/toddler. Sin has to do with intent/motive. To know to do good, and doing it not, to him, is sin.

Look, when you refer to mankind, you have to break it down to the "inner" and "outer" man. The "outer" man, is an extension of Adam, and we come from the same dust that Adam did, but after God cursed it. We have the stain of sin all over our flesh, and even after salvation, our flesh is still marred with sin oozing all over it. The soul comes from God, and it comes from Him sinless. That's why babies that die as babies go straight to Him. It's when they get to the age that they know what they're doing is wrong in His sight, that He withdraws His grace from them, and they are then in danger of eternal damnation.

 

Well, On this point specifically, There are quite a few who would disagree with this view in baptist circles.

 

I believe James would disagree with you. The letter is addressed to believers (v. 2, "brethren"). The use of the term "adulteresses" (4:4) is used to emphasize the serious nature of James' rebuke. James' rebuke continues until 5:6. In 5:7 he once again calls them "brethren"; the same people he had previously rebuked.

We are sinners for two reasons: 1. We are sinners because we sin 2. We are sinners because it is our inherited nature. Infants are born sinners. Romans 3:23 does not excuse infants nor place them in, as you put it, a state of grace.

Sin is sin. Cognitive ability does not change the culpability for sin. Your view is not supported by scripture.

This is a sad story but it is anecdotal. We must derive our doctrine from the clear teaching of Scripture.

You went right back to James 4:17 and misused it. James was addressing specific sinful behavior in the local church he was writing to. He was not writing a treatise on who is culpable for sin.

You are espousing pure Pelagianism. If the soul is sinless at birth then it is possible for an infant to live a sinless life. Pelagius taught that every baby is born tabula rasa (blank slate) and only become sinners if they sin. That teaching is wrong. The disposition of infants who die in infancy seems to be influencing your conclusion instead of the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

So you have Brethern that are adulterers and adulteresses? He was speaking to the churches (12 tribes scattered abroad), and in these churches, they had those who were walking contrary to what they were professing. Much like Apostle Paul was talking to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter in, and it was this very thing that James was addressing.

We were sinners because we chose to sin. Name one sin you committed that you had no other choice than to perform it. Death was passed down from Adam, and not sin(Romans 5:12).

Point is babies have no idea that they are sinning before God, and He doesn't hold it against them.

He was addressing those who were professing Him falsely. Those who were saying one thing, and practicing another.

I hate it when EVERYTHING that's not Calvinism automatically defaults to "well, that is full-blown Pelegianism", or "well, that is semi-Peligiansim". It is not. If the soul of a baby is created a sinner, then where did that sin come from? Seeing that it is God who creates the soul and places it into the physical body, what sin did that soul in the womb commit to make it a sinner? See my friend, it is you who is making God the Author of sin.