Victory In Christ

Baptist Believer I like your life ring analogy. However I would disagree that the decision before a person is to become a disciple of Christ or not. That decision can only happen after eternal salvation is done. Then and only then can a person decide whether or not they want to follow Christ.

Believing and following are not the same thing. Two separate messages that need to be kept separate.

 

Thank you. I appreciate the kind tone of your response.

I find the life ring analogy useful, but, since it is merely an analogy, it does not perfectly correlate so we can't push it too hard.

Yes, I would expect that to be the sticking point. To clarify, the million-dollar question is: "Why do some people believe and some do not?" Five-point Calvinists put the decision in the hands of God (based on a number of valid scriptural points) and assign the results to God's will. It is a tidy solution, but it ignores a number of other equally valid scriptures which point out that God wants all to come to repentance, that Jesus draws all humankind, and that humankind apparently does make a “real” decision (not something that is inevitable) toward God.

There is a tension in scripture that holds us between predestination and free will. Classic Calvinism resolves the tension in favor of predestination and tries to explain away the scriptures that indicate human agency. Classic Arminianism emphasizes the human agency and tries to explain away the scriptures that clearly speak of predestination. In my opinion, both views have elements of truth (although I lean more toward five-point thinking), but are distortions of the biblical witness.

I understand the call of Christ as a call to discipleship. (I realize that most Baptists don’t’ teach this... they often teach mental assent to a theory of atonement instead of the fullness of the gospel where Jesus calls out, “Follow Me!”)

Would you please explain your position here... I have heard arguments like this before, but I haven’t found them terribly convincing. Maybe you can enlighten me.

(And an FYI for everyone else, I’m interested in having a discussion so I can learn something. I have no interest in arguments, accusations or name-calling.)

 

To God be the honor and glory! It is my prayer that His tone would be represented, although I do fail in that area and have had to step away for periods of time.

I look forward to our discussion and I apologize for the delay in responding.

I would even disagree with this statement, because as you said later in your post this places at best tension on Scripture. I don't think tension was intended. I think a smooth flow of understanding was intended, so if tension arises I think that is cause to re-examine some things.

I will send you a PM after I post with an article on this very issue to see what you think.

I think the biggest problem in Christendom today has been a melting pot of terms. Terms that were originally used to mean something different then than they do now.

For example the term "Christian." Originially it was a term that was coined for those that were Christ-like in their actions and demeanor. But today "Christian" simply means saved or a follow of the Christian religion. It has lost its original punch.

I think another term would be call. I don't think we are "called" to eternal salvation as much as we are invited. Here it is receive it if you will. We are called after we are eternally saved.

As far as your () I would say there are fewer and fewer Baptist churches these days that teach and preach believe and you will be saved. There are more and more that are teaching believe and _____________ and you can fill in the blank with all kinds of stuff.

To me Scripture is abundantly clear that eternal salvation happens the very moment we believe on the Substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, on our behalf a sinner.

A perfect OT example that coinciedes with your life ring analogy is Adam and Eve. God did all the work that was required, but Adam and Eve still had to allow God to clothe them. He didn't wrestle them to the ground and say here take this.

So we are simply to receive what has already been done on our behalf and when we do eternal salvation becomes a thing of the past and a subject that will NEVER come up again.

Again I would point to the story of Adam and Eve. They were not asked to do anything in order to receive the animal skins. They simply let God clothe them with the substitute. Following God came after that point.

The same is true in the life of people today. Eternal salvation is only based on what was done on our behalf. Until the point we are made alive spiritually we are completely incapable of following God. Eternal salvation is the Holy Spirit taking something that is dead and breathing life into it so that we can understand God and what He wants from us. And He wants us to follow Him, which requires action on our part.

Therefore we know action on our part has nothing to do with eternal salvation, because if it did then it would no longer be grace, but it would be earnings.

Hope that helps clarify a little better.

 

Exactly that's my whole point. That's why "following" is not a requirement of eternal salvation.

 

Whatever gave it away?
I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and HIs sovereign grace.
A nickname for these doctrines is calvinism.
I haven't really studied the works of Calvin, but to the best of my knowlege, I do agree with the soteriological position called calvinism.
I believe it because it is the Gospel. As Spurgeon said, it is a nickname to call it that.


Oh, Did you regenerate yourself? Did you give your self the new birth?

 

You don't. That's been my whole point.

By doing what He told you to do. Following Him has to do with works.

Yes that would be one place where works are discussed.

But again my whole point is that works are not a part of eternal salvation. One must be eternally saved before works can even enter the picture. And after eternal salvation works are still an option. They are not a guarantee.

Maybe that clarifies a little more.

 

And I will reply, nicely, no thanks.

I will not water down the gospel to make you feel better.

 

By the way, I must have missed the first time you asked me to keep it out. I didn't see that.

 

Do you not believe that some are elected unto salvation?
THat word IS in the Bible you know.

Although I don't use it all that often really.
I only use it often in a discussion about such.

 

While the word 'elect' is in the Bible. It does not mean 'chosen to be saved'.

 

Just out of curiosity what does the word elect mean and what is your support for that definition?

 

I'm beginning to notice a distinct pattern here. Not a one-for-one correlation, but a pattern, nevertheless.

 

Are you asking me or HB?

Do a word search for elect. I find it 20 times in the KJV.
Judging from context, it sometimes is referring to those elected to salvation. a few times it would appear that it is elect to something else.
It is a word. In and of itself it is not a doctrine.

It is clear though that those who will be saved are predestinated before the foundation of the world, before they are born or have done any good or evil.


The ultimate line in the sand is who is sovereign in salvation:
God, or Man?

It has to be one or the other.
Linda and HB believe it is man, I believe it is God.
Don't expect us to agree on much else when we don't agree on those two.

 

You mean the pattern where words don't really mean what they would otherwise mean unless They meets HBs approval?

 

In the Old Testament, the word 'elect' can mean 'chosen, or chosen one.

In the New Testament, the word elect can mean favorite, chosen, or elect.

But nowhere does the word say 'chosen to be saved'.

 

Ah, okay. That's the pattern. Like I said, it's not one-for-one, but definitely in there somewhere. The question is, what's the connection?

 

Ok, HB, what does predestinated mean? As it is written in Romans 8?

Do you have a clever tap dance for that.