Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
Point well taken. But my belief is God knows we are weak and human and although He doesn't like our personal habits, He tolerates it because we are human. He knows we will have a perfect body one day and won't need food or cigarettes. He is more interested in the condition of our soul. Just like when David and others had so many wives, God meant for a man to have one wife but people were weak so when He gave Moses the laws he included laws about wives and concubines, even though He didn't approve.
That’s one way to look at it. However it begs the question didn’t God know how many would receive salvation? Limited atonement says God knew how many.
HD-Man is WICKED from day one. FTD-“There may Arminians who believe this, but neither Arminius nor Wesley taught it. Both held that man was totally depraved and needed God's grace to be saved. The difference is that God's grace is given to all men and some reject it and some do not.”
The Bible does not support this. There are multiple examples throughout the Old Testament where God’s grace was selectively given. There is no greater example of selective grace of God in the Bible than the Passover.
Men will NEVER accept God’s grace even if it is freely offered or God “enlightens” a person. It is not in our nature which is corrupt. It’s like having an absolute passion for chocolate ice cream. If given the choice between vanilla and chocolate, a person will always choose chocolate unless the taste buds are changed to have a passion for vanilla. Some may make an “intellectual” choice for vanilla and pretend to like it but they eventually go back to their real passion-chocolate.
Such is the depravity of man according to scripture. Given a choice man will always make the wrong choice unless God steps in to change his nature to make the right choice. This is what being "born again" is all about. Once you are born again, you will freely accept God and want to drop what you are doing and follow Christ. So says the scriptures. This is how depraved man is and how great God is to want to change man.
”Well, that is very true, but it is not 'perseverance of the saints' but the perseverance of God. “
That is a much more accurate title and reflects the belief. (Seems to me I read where someone suggested the same name.) If it was up to me I would have named some of the TULIP petals differently but we probably would have ended up with TQZYW. I can’t help how they named things.
Christ's blood has washed away my sins. I totally am in agreement with that. However, acceptance of God's grace is not unconditional. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches this. If it was unconditional, then everyone in the world, as well as Satan and his dominion, would be saved. However, this is absolutely not true. I have never said, and never will, that the water used in baptism has any power to save. That power belongs to Jesus's blood. All I am saying is that the Bible teaches that to "put on Christ", we must be baptized. (Galatians 3:27) This does not negate God's grace in any way. Hearing the Word of God, believing it, repenting of sins, confessing Jesus Christ as God's son, and baptism are all part of the Gospel message.
Take a look at Galations 3:26-27.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
I have noticed that a lot of people like to use verse 26, but they don't even talk about verse 27. Being "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" does not mean faith alone. If you have true faith, you will do as the Lord has commanded. One of those commandments is baptism.
As for Christ returning to setup a Davidic Kingdom, that is not taught in Scripture. The Kingdom of God is here, it is the church.
I do not intend to keep going in circles on these points. I have tried my best to keep personal feelings out of my posts and to stick with Scripture. I may not have alaways done that, but that has been my goal. However, it is obvious that you look at Scripture with the "rose colored" glasses. Your vision is tinted with ideas of premillenialism and other denominational doctrines. I would suggest you read this wonderful article looking at premillenialism: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/february2001.htm
God Bless.
Your argument using Mark 16:16 is a very old and weak argument in my opinion. In the Greek, the words for "believeth" and "is baptized" are "aorist tense participles." The tense of these participles are actions that happen prior to the leading verb of the sentence, which is "shall be saved". In other words, both are necessary. Also notice that belief is placed before baptism in this verse. The order is also important. Belief always occurs before baptism in the New Testament.
The use of "believeth not" in the last part of the verse is enough to get the point across. Without belief, which is shown to be required before baptism, salvation can not take place. There is no need to list baptism in the last part of the verse as it would have been redundant.
***Salvation is not a process, it is an event....***
What makes you think that sister RnMomof7 is not talking about an event? Did it ever occur to you that the Salvation order is a logical order and that when we, who don't believe that God has done all he can do and the rest is up to man, speak about it that is what kind of order we mean.
Of course, seeing that most of your neener pals claim to be a kind of Calvinist and Mr. Marlowe actually agrees with our Westminster confession, you could ask them about it. I'm sure they can all explain it to you.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Um, I'm not sure there is a problem.
You want to live by sight and not by hope.
Where did you get that? You said my understanding of TULIP was incomplete. I asked you to tell me how, and you gave me a fine, though unnecessary, mini-sermon on faith and God's sovreignty, none of which I would dispute.
Not everyone who questions your doctrine is confused and disturbed, or caught up in some zeitgeist, or interested in fast-food theology. Why would I lurk and post on these forums if I just wanted touchy-feely Christianity?
So it would seem to me that my understanding of TULIP is fairly complete. The saints are unconditionally elected and will persevere since they cannot be led astray. Those not unconditionally elected are led astray to eternal damnation, though we cannot say exactly how they were led astray since they were never among the elect. Yet we have faith and the Scriptures attest that a righteous, merciful, and just God uses it all for His glory. Is that a fair, albeit concise, assessment?
For the picayunish everything is wrong.
Apparently, you'd better read up on it.
Only dealing with facts, Pilg, ... looking for a place where he quit, was tossed, or renounced.
There are no such facts.
No. It isn't. Never has been...never will be. Simply more foolishness or indication of ignorance of the system.
Arminius' had great respect for the Institutes.
His studies mush have revealed a broader scope to Calvin's theology than the dortists are seeing.
As many quotes as I've seen from Calvin on these pages over the years ...quotes that appear contradictory to dortist positions...I'd be inclined to investigate my sense that Calvin's broader theology was not misunderstood by Arminius.
And you are certainly correct. Arminius is right that "reformed" is far broader than dortists might try to suggest.
I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't understand what was requested. I couldn't care less that you think you and all your spiritual progenetors are Calvinists. I'm just looking for an explaination, seeing that you claim to be a Calvinist, for the Reformed salvation order. Your buddy fortheDeclaration doesn't understand the Reformed position. This is elementary for a Calvinist so I thought you would like to explain it and show us all just how much knowledge you have.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Pilg, I responded to your post that referenced a bonfire. There was nothing in it about any "ordo."
You're relatively new here, and perhaps you know this, but if you look at the number in the middle of the line under the poster's name, you'll see the number of the post that's being responded to. It is also a link that will take you back to that post.
X
Really?
If you are Catholic , I will ask if the infants have properly "believed "before they are baptized?
If you are COC if a man that came foreword in faith and repented and believed drops dead before his baptism ...does he burn in hell?
Here is the gospel that Paul preached
1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Not one word about Baptism in the gospel that saves .
Read the words of Paul
1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
That sounds like a fine idea
First of all, the practice of infant baptism has no foundation in Scripture. Second, using "hard cases" such as a person dying right before baptism is grasping at straws. God is just and He has the final say on who is saved. However, we on this earth only have the Bible record to show us what He commands of us in order to receive salvation.
Regarding 1 Corinthians, Paul is speaking to members of the church at Corinth. These people are saved. In the first few verses you quoted, no, he does not specifically talk about baptism. But he does refer to the Gospel that he did preach to them. In Acts 18, we see Paul preaching to those in Corinth. In verse 8, it says "and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized". If baptism isn't a part of the Gospel, then how did they know to be baptized?
As you noted, he does talk about baptism later in the same chapter. However, Paul is not saying baptism is not a part of the Gospel. You even included verse 13 which shows he is talking about those in Corinth who were claiming the name of the one who baptized them, not the name of Christ. His problem was not with baptism, but with claiming the name of the baptizer.
If you read scripture it makes perfect sense
When you are born you are born dead in Adam.
That is the basis of why were are spiritually dead, we are in Adam. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1Cor.15:22) If you are regenerated you are now no longer spiritually dead and but, (according to Calvinism) not yet in Christ (which is where spiritual life is) You are in a spiritual limbo, neither in Adam (dead/lost) nor in Christ (saved/alive) You must be either one at any one moment, either spiritually dead or alive. Salvation is not a process, it is an event, when you move from spiritual death (1st Adam) to spiritual life (2nd Adam) and that is through faith which precedes regeneration.
I would just like you to explain to me how that spiritually dead man in Adam can make a spiritual "choice" to change location? What came first for Lazarus, His decision to change locations or regeneration?
You have a dead man making a decision to be alive and then to move his location from Adam to Christ . All the while making that move so that he can be alive when he gets there.
So when a pseudo wanna be Calvinist says "dead in Adam" he does not REALLY mean" dead in Adam" He does not really believe men died in Adam and need a new life in Christ.. He believes that men were only slightly injured in Adam and they can limp forth from the grave in Adam in their own power
No Grace or mercy there folks... just keep moving along
Well that's certainly cute RN. But you of all people certainly know that's not the Wesleyan-Arminian view. Nor, as far as I am aware, is it the view of anyone posting on these threads.
But, you knew that.
One might say that , but unfortunately that is not what the word of God says
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Tough to builds a doctrine on the words that are not there huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.