The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[Vernon]

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith and temperance.

[Wrigley]

So, do you believe this helps anything?

[Frumanchu]

According to you, there are no "conditional statements," all is foreordained, predestined, and unchangeable. There is, for your informatin, a difference in having logic however faulty it might be, and having absolutely no logic whatsoever. It would be helpful if you knew the difference.

According to me there are no conditional statements? Feel free to provide a link to any post I've ever said that in.

Vern, you can sidestep the issue and continue the volley of insults, or you can actually address the point being made. It's really quite simply. I provided you with an example of a condition statement in the same form as the verses you provided. You provided those verses as proof against election unto salvation. Those verses do not prove that. In order to show that they did, you would have to show how the example I gave you was proof that you actually had the ability and opportunity to defy gravity, and thereby be able to step off a cliff and not fall.

You cannot argue that there is "no logic whatsoever" in my position. I have laid it forth logically. You can either show me how the logic is flawed, or you can accept that the verses do not say what you intend them to say and try some different verses.

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored as pure nonsense.

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored.

[Wrigley]

Tough seeing your own hypocrisy isn't it?

[Frumanchu]

There are many Commentaries that will more than adequately explain the passage for those who are open to instruction. For those who are not, it is nothing more than the basis of an argument. I have responded and you apparently either missed, denied, or didn't recognize truth.

There are also many commentaries that agree with what I see the passage as saying.

I read your response, but your response does not make sense in light of the passage. Those who believed were already appointed unto eternal life prior to that belief. The English seems pretty obvious. You argued from the original Greek in John 1:12-13. Can you show my from the Greek in Acts 13:48 what I'm missing or what is "lost in the translation" with respect to this verse?

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored.

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored...just another insult.

[Frumanchu]

Noted and ignored as pure nonsense.

You can ignore it if you wish. But others will not, and they will see that for all your blustering and lofty statements, your arguments completely fall apart under any close scrutiny.

If my points are pure nonsense, surely it should be easy to demonstrate. Feel free.

[xzins]

The teaching is that God does permit choice, and in doing so He permits both good and bad consequences.

If God controls the consequences of "free choice," then it really isn't free choice.

[Wrigley]

As was that post I pointed you to. I expect either no comment about any insults, or equal comment on them.

[P-Marlowe]

All of which attends to the accomplishment of His Perfect, Ultimate Will -- to Save the Elect, and Damn the Reprobate.

Yes because his ultimate perfect will is accomplished by saving those who come to him and damning those who die in their sins.

God is both perfectly holy and perfectly merciful. His holiness demands that no one who has the stain of sin on them can enter into the kingdom of heaven. This is reflected in Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

But God's mercy allows man an opportunity to escape death which also reflected in Rom 6:23 .....but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God's perfect will according to his holiness is that no one can enter the kingdom of God who is sinful.

God's perfect will according to his mercy is that all will be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and that all will come to repentance 2 Pet 3:9.

His Ultimate will is accomplished by both his holiness and his mercy. That those who come to Christ will be saved (mercy) and those who refuse to come to him will be refused entrance into the presence of God and eternally damned (Holiness).

The Ulitimate Perfect will of God is accomplished through the permissive will of God. I.e., the Gospel is freely offered to all men and all men are given the ability and the opportunity to positively respond. Those who respond positively will receive God's mercy and those who respond negatively will receive the judgement of God's holiness.

Its simple really.

And who would have thought that you and I would actually agree on somethng? :-)

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored.

[Wrigley]

Your continued replies shows you aren't ingoring...

[P-Marlowe]

It appears that some people are just bound and determined to see this thread disappear.

I wonder why?

BTW, I've saved it up to this point. If it gets deleted, then freep mail me if you want a copy.

[Frumanchu]

It appears that some people are just bound and determined to see this thread disappear. I wonder why?

Couldn't tell ya. I certainly don't want it to disappear. I didn't even want it to go to the SBR.

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored.

[George W. Bush]

I said it ain't a true IFBC if it accepts Calvinism.

Huh?

You keep bleating this as though it has some meaning.

Do you think there is actually such a thing as a Baptist denomination? I assure you, our entire history rejects this denominationalism that you hint exists.

You seem to think you can compel other Baptist churches to accept the doctrine of your church. This is false.

Can you cite a single instance of an independent Baptist church being expelled from its association or convention for Calvinist doctrine? Please name them.

The fellowship of Baptist churches with other churches, both Baptist and non-Baptist, is based upon that which they universally confess.

For instance, one might observe that, next to Reformed Baptists, the SBC is the most 'Calvinist' of Baptist conventions. However, I know of no SBC church which makes Calvinism a litmus for membership and certainly not for clergy. In fact, SBC churches do soft pedal the entire Calvinist issue and their preaching reflects this.

Baptists have rarely compelled anyone in this matter in their history. Not General Baptists, or Calvinistic Baptists in the SBC, or Independent Baptists. Not even the Cooperative Baptists (extreme liberals like Carter). However, one can cite some very firm classic Calvinists in the SBC camp or among the English Baptists (Gill, Spurgeon). And yet, these same 'Calvinists' never made of it a formal litmus test.

The issue, among modern Baptists, is quite divisive and very few individual churches use complete doctinral Arminianism or Calvinism as a formal litmus for preaching or membership.

I would say that what is more universally rejected is a dogmatic approach of extremism on either side. Whether they call themselves Calvinist or Arminian or, more commonly, wiggle away from both terms, I would say clergymen tend to get a foot in both camps when it comes to their preaching.

[harbingr]

You stated...

'His Ultimate will is accomplished by both his holiness and his mercy. That those who come to Christ will be saved (mercy) and those who refuse to come to Him will be refused entrance into the presence of God and be eternally damned (Holiness).
It's simple really. '

Well Said...