Calvinistic Application Part 2

Jesus's words do not contradict Rom. 1. Rom. 1 refers to the general revelation (non-salvific) given to everyone.

peace to youraying:

 

When have slaves been able to exchange freedom (the truth) for slavery (a lie)?

"Common grace" is a theological phrase coined by men to explain away how God's pure grace cannot be for all men.

 

I think the burden of proof is on you that this truth was non-salvific. This would also mean the "lie" that was exchanged was non-salvific as well. Scripture says when you seek the Lord with all of your heart He will be found. Nature is just one avenue God has given to all men besides the conscience (given to all men) and the desire to live forever (Ecc. 3:11...again given to all men). Like Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunich, when the truth is accepted, God is true to His word and will make Himself found.

 

I don't believe you are making a biblical distinction between depravity of flesh and soul.

Jesus said He will cast out the ones saying "Lord, Lord", but arn't saved. Obviously, they had decieved themselves into believing they were saved.

After reading your post, I am stunned by how similar your arguments are to the former "skypair", that used to post on the BB.

Are you "skypair"?

peace to youraying:

 

Rom. 3:9: "...for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, 'There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside..... '"

Obviously, the general revelation was non-salvific, otherwise, Paul would not have said Jews and Greeks are all under sin (not some under sin, or mostly under sin, or almost all under sin).

And promptly rejected by all men, proving it was non-salvific.

Except Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunich were not responding to the truth found in nature (general revelation), they were responding to the Truth of the special revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus prayed 3 times to the Father that if the cup of suffering were able to pass, to let it pass. IOW's, if there was any other way to accomplish redemption without the cross, then let that be the method of redemption.

If people could come to salvation through general revelation, there would have been no reason for Jesus to go to the cross. Why would God the Father send Jesus to His death on the cross if there was any other way?

peace to youraying:

 

You are starting with the presupposition the revelation is "general revelation". True, we are all under sin, hence death...but Scripture also says seek and you will find.

Romans 1 doesn't say everyone has rejected the truth for a lie, actually v. 22 states they became fools, and we know who a fool is from Scripture.

Again, the presupposition is this is "general", however Scripture alludes to it being much more than that...
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If you start with a faulty presupposition, the end result is also faulty. God's revelation and reaching out to man as the first cause plays no role in Christ's work at the cross but to point to it and draw man to Him.

 

You mean you deny that some men are given more grace then others?

 

Depends on what they do with the truth presented with.

 

Are all souls condemned to die as all flesh is condemned from Birth???

Flesh and blood can't inherit heaven because of that condemnation, so obviously the condemnation doesn't apply to souls.

What does a soul have to do to be charged with a sin if it's not condemned with the flesh???

Sins of the flesh, after you're saved, are not charged against the soul, it's "sealed", and sin of the flesh are not charged to the soul when we're born,

At what point does the soul start becoming accountable for sin and "WHY"????

The following verses contradicts your statement.

Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I know Skypair from another board, and No, I'm not skypair.

Southern Baptist doctrine walks a "narrow path", very little variations in it,

Skypair and I disagree on some "finer points" of scripture.

 

Humm



If they merited more they get more? Some have more grace because of what?

 

Do you think the reprobate receives the same grace as the righteous?

 

I have already said I believe in a common grace to all man. It goes without saying that the elect has more grace.

It is you that said..
"Common grace" is a theological phrase coined by men to explain away how God's pure grace cannot be for all men."


Do you not believe in common grace?

 

Personally, I think the term "Common grace" does not go far enough. Grace is no longer grace, if it does not include the saving intention of the Giver. "Common Sufficient Grace" would be a better term.

 

I do, but I don't limit it as you do. Benjamin did a good job describing what it should be called.

 

Well, common grace does have this intent. But common grace alone will never save in and by itself.

Because it rains man should think of "a God". But rain alone will never tell us of the God of the Bible. All of common grace is like this. But we must have more than just common grace.

 

What do you mean that I limit common grace?

And...

What did you mean by this...?

"Common grace" is a theological phrase coined by men to explain away how God's pure grace cannot be for all men."

And while we are at it...

What do you mean by pure grace?

 

I understand the general Calvinist interpretation of common grace and their belief that one must also have a "special or saving grace"...don't agree with it...just consider it as their systematic way of supporting their view. I would be more along the lines of "Common sufficient grace" or "Prevenient grace" way of thinking, if one is to start pegging phrases. I do not believe the Calvinist have monopolized the term "common grace" any more than I believe they hold the patent on the term "Doctrines of Grace", frankly, I fail to see their doctrines pronounce more grace than mine and resent their coining of phrases...not trying to start an argument, just how I feel.

 

BTW, just curious, but wouldn't God having the intent and not accomplishing it go against the Determinist' view of Divine sovereignty? Wouldn't that be a rather empty intent if it was not genuine?

 

Name it what you want. Its the meaning that counts.

It is common, because this grace is common to all of mankind. Rain falls on everyone. If rain fell only on the elect, the non-elect would always be coming to our farms to take our food. But God gives rain to all mankind. Its common.

God places a desire to worship in ALL of mankind. That is common grace.

God places the Law in ALL of mankind. That is common Grace.

God restrains sin. If you think this world is bad, if God removed his hand, man may not last a full year. We would all kill each other. This restraining by the hand of God is for all mankind. It is common grace.

Are all people born in a land that has a church or two or even 100 churches that they can walk to? Are all people born in a land that has Christian Radio? That alone is not common to all men, but it is grace given by God.

 

Not at all Ben.

When common grace is applied to all men and man is left to choose, man will never choose. The will that many people wish to fight for is the problem.

Therefore..election.

You talk about determinist alot nowadays. We are told to have the mind of Christ. We are told to never sin. We are told to walk in the light as he is in the light. I do wish we were robots.....now that would be nice. Having the mind of Christ. Someday....maybe some day. My desire is to be just like Christ.

Is telling us not to sin a empty intent?