Results 81 - 100 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206589 | ||
Doc I fully agree with everything cited in the Canon of the Council of Orange except the end here - quoted from - http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness. As I am quite certain the end is not what you were referring me to, please do not take this as some form of argumentation on my part. I am merely wishing to make known my distaste for the end of the Canon of the Council of Orange as it contradicts the concept that it is indeed by Christ alone, by grace alone, and through faith alone that the graces of God are conferred as it most clearly states that baptism is a sacrement conferring the "grace" which will enable to one to afterwards "keep" the faith. After all that was said beforehand in the 25 points and the first paragraph of the conclusion it becomes a most interesting statement about how the aforementioned 25 points are possible as made to be possible by the qualifying requirement to aprehend such things in the very last paragraph! blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
82 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206640 | ||
Doc No my good man of God, you glossed over nothing at all, you were quite clear. I agree completely about the "grace" and "means of grace" that you have outlined here, I take no other. I would like, if you please to take the time, when you can to elaborate for me at some length, with the strength which God supplies, about how the Baptist Divines would have "nonetheless been willing to express your quote from the Canons of Orange"? This would be most informative. What I am struggling with is that very Roman Catholic idea that after receiving "According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul." And "so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him." Whereby one having recieved the "sacrament of baptism", "all baptized persons have the ability etc.". - As if the ability comes from the grace conferred by baptism? Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
83 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206741 | ||
Doc Yes I do understand that the term "catholic" means universal, as in the "universal church" and that that is how it was being used in the Canons of Orange. However, the Canons of Orange were drafted by members of the Catholic Church in 529 with Caesaurius Arles, presding as head of the synod, and sent to Pope Boniface II for final approval. Which is why I did not hesitate to idenditify the end paragraph, which intimated that regeneration comes about by way of baptism, as being derived from "Roman Catholicism", as the Council of Orange sent the Canons to Pope Boniface II in 530 for final approval. The whole thing stemmed from St. Augustine's answer to Pelagianism. Augustine was Catholic, the members of the Council of Orange were all Catholic. Both Augustine and the church at the time taught baptismal regeneration as the process by which any came to be those "who are actually regenerate". Some of the oldest divines believed various things, both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration "as the process by which that effectual grace of regeneration is conferred". But in the interests of not aruguing with you I will desist from setting forth a lengthy discourse with quotes to prove that and will leave off in qualifying my statement that that is what they taught and believed. I like your London Baptist Confession of Faith, thank you very much for all your very good links. And I have no doubt that other of the great divines did not teach baptismal regeneration as you so rightly say. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
84 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206821 | ||
Doc In the name and for the sake of Jesus, now I am going to have to qualify my statements to you. I pray to do so with grace. I am going to say this with the greatest respect for you and for the great divines okay? I got my information from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and from Martin Luther's Commentary on Romans and not from uniformed credo-baptists at all. I was very careful to make sure that what I was saying was fact and not from secondary sources of the original authors. Quote, Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 21 http: double front slash www.iclnet.org single front slash pub single front slash resources single front slash text single front slash ipb front slash e single front slash epl front slash 09 single front slash cvin4 front slash 21.txt Excerpts from John Calvin's Institutes - What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. John Calvin was giving an answer to some saying that there are promises which are not obtained by baptism, but that after baptism greasy oil were applied to confer that grace of the Holy Spirit as the attainment of that grace. John Calvin argues that these same heretics are saying that baptism does not confer the grace which enables the believer to grow in Christ because they wrongly believe that one can be baptized and then receive a second grace with oil and a prayer without having first obtained faith. He differentiates elsewhere between faith, and grace and states that grace is obtained through baptism and says scripture upholds this principle. He clearly states that what is to be given at baptism is an aid of future grace. He also clearly believed that baptism was for remission of sins, and he did not refute that those whom he was speaking of did also as he says, Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only. Go to this link for John Calvin's Institutes on his defense for Paedobaptism - http: double front slash www.apuritansmind.com single front slash Baptism single front slash CalvinInfantBaptism.htm number sign 1. Direct qoute - http: double front slash www.tbaptist.com single front slash aab single front slash lutherbaptism.htm Luther and Baptismal Regeneration from Luther's Commentary on Romans In his commentary on Romans, Luther wrote concerning Romans 6:3, as follows We are not found in a state of perfection as soon as we have been baptized into Jesus Christ and His death. Having been baptized into His death, we merely strive to obtain the blessings of this death and to reach our goal of glory. Just so, when we are baptized into everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, we do not at once fully possess its full wealth of blessings. We have merely taken the first steps to seek after eternal life. Baptism has been instituted that it should lead us to the blessings of this death and through such death to eternal life. Therefore it is necessary that we should be baptized into Jesus Christ and His death. Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, By Martin Luther, translated by J. Theodore Mueller, page 85. According to Martin Luther baptism has the power to confer blessings Luther's Small Catechism Direct quote - http: double front slash www.sundayschoollessons.com single front slash baptism.htm See Next Post, bowler |
||||||
85 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206822 | ||
Next Post, bowler From Luther's Small Catechism What is Baptism? Baptism is not water only, but it is water used together with God's Word and by his command. What is this Word? In Matthew 28 our Lord Jesus Christ says: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. What benefits does God give in baptism? In Baptism God forgives sin, delivers from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe what he has promised. What is God's promise? In Mark 16 our Lord Jesus Christ says: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not will be condemned. How can water do such great things? It is not water that does these things, but God's Word with the water and our trust in this Word. Water by itself is only water, but with the Word of God it is a life giving water which by grace gives the new birth through the Holy Spirit. St. Paul writes in Titus 3 He saved us in virtue of his own mercy by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure. What does Baptism mean for daily living? It means that our sinful self with all its evil deeds and desires should be drowned through daily repentance and that day after day a new self should arise to live with God in righteousness and purity forever. St. Paul writes in Romans 6 We were buried therefore with him by Baptism into death so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life. Direct quote - http: double front slash www.rapidnet.com single front slash squiggle sign jbeard single front slash bdm single front slash exposes single front slash luther single front slash martin.htm Luther in His Own Words from The Large Catechism All from The Large Catechism of Martin Luther translated by Robert Fischer It remains for us to speak of our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief elementary instruction in them because without these no one can be a Christian. First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved pp. 80 to 81. Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful and gracious water for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5. Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life p 84. He who believes and is baptized will be saved that is faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary divine water profitably. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as Gods command and ordinance so that baptized in the name of God you may receive in the water the promised salvation pp 84 to 85 Yes it takes a tremendous amount of sweat to study church history, so thank you sincerely for making me study the first time around! You are stretching my brain and I thank you very much Doc - you are truly a gifted teacher of the word of God, and I truly mean that. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
86 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206854 | ||
Doc As I said to you before, thank you very much for teaching me. blessings abound |
||||||
87 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206855 | ||
Azure, Doc is a wonderful teacher isn't he? I pray to learn more. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
88 | Paul's circumstances writing Rom 8:31-39 | Rom 16:23 | bowler | 206643 | ||
nps50 I would caution against assuming that the occaission, now that I understand you more clearly, for Paul writing about Christian perseverance in Romans 8: 31-39, was that "Paul was being adamant in saying nothing could separate him from the love of Christ" as if he was at the time facing serious adversity. Here is why - Chapter 8 of Romans starts with the phrase "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ ". Paul starts writing chapter 8 in answer to chapter 7 in which he states that the flesh is battling the spirit and that one sins when one does not want to, but that it is sin which dwells in the believer which does the sinning and not the spirit which wars against it. At the end of chapter 7 Paul says, wretched man that I am, who will save me from the this body of death? So then on the one hand he serves the law of God, but on the other with the flesh the law of sin. Hence "therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Paul moves on through the passage to say that we have the mind of Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Then Paul moves on to that he considers the sufferings of this present time not to be worthy of the glory that awaits. He is making a theological point about the sufferings that occur to all are not worthy of the glory to come. He does not mention and is not trying to point out some specific personal suffering, he is talking about all Christians suffering. He moves on to explain that all of creation is also suffering and waiting for all Christians to be changed, so that they too will be changed. He goes on to say that we are the first fuits of the Spirit and that we groan inside for the redemption of our bodies. It is at this point that we see he has been talking in answer to chapter 7 all along about the answer to the power of the flesh as being the process of redemption. Which is why I said in the previous post not to divorce 8:31-19 from the broader concept Paul is writing about in chapters 6-8, which is sanctification. Paul is talking about how suffering works and the mind of Christ works in sanctification here in chapter 8. Then Paul moves on to how the Holy Spirit plays a role in this sanctification process as intercessor. Then he moves on and begins to talk about "all things" work for good, meaning suffering and good things too to work out this sanctification. Next he moves to the process of the will of God - foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, sanctification, glorification, and election. Then he comes to a big theological point from 31-39 where he says, since all of what I have said so far is true - then who can bring a charge against the elect to condemn them? And this is the major point of the whole chapter and the sole reason for the end of the passage you are asking about. The whole book of Romans is one big book on Paul's theology, which is why I gave you a break down, chapter by chapter of what is going on in Romans from beginning to end. In 31-39 he lists and expounds most adamantly on all the reasons why a charge cannot be brought agains the elect, giving every single thing that could try to unhinge the position of a believer out of the will of God as being saved and refuting every single thing as having any valid ability to separate us from the love of Christ. He was not imprisoned when he wrote Romans - he was at Corinth with the believes I listed in chapter 16 for you, if you go there and read chapter 16, it lists the top people who were there with him at Corinth, Cenchrea is at Corinth. If you see chapter 15 at the end he is on his way to Jerusalem to give them the collection from Macedonia. If you see chapter 1 he wishes to come to them when he finishes doing this and make a collection to take to Spain after visiting Rome. Hope this clears it up for you. God Bless you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
89 | Consists Not in Words But in Power? | 1 Cor 4:20 | bowler | 206815 | ||
Immanuel I really do agree with you except that Paul specifically says that the kingdom of God "does not consist in words, but in power". You mean that Jesus is the "power"? Thanks. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
90 | God Not Give More Than We Can Bear? | 1 Cor 10:13 | bowler | 206814 | ||
Steve Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
91 | Why are some gifts of God not wanted? | 1 Cor 12:4 | bowler | 208061 | ||
hopalong Yes that can be regrettable. My wife and I have one child for the same reasons and now we also regret it. I am well past my child rearing years and I hope one day my only child who is what, wife and I jokingly call grown, will raise a family. To answer your question, I think we often do not want the gifts, whatever they are, of God, because as you so wisely point out, we think it will cost us more than we could afford to bear. Sometimes finacially and sometimes spiritually or emotionally. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
92 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207510 | ||
Doc I read a lot of what you had to say to one Pastor Glenn I may freely assume that you view the use of the words "spirit" and "soul" in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 to be interchangeable. I am trying hard to see this. I see from your posts on this that you view the concpet of Trichotism to be an invention of the Greek philosophers. I am wondering since two NT writers bothered to separate the words soul, spirit with the use of the word "and", and seeing as how they chose to use two different Greek words there is no such thing as a trichotimist view as being "Biblical", rather than as "Greek". How are we to say that the writers of the NT meant to use them interchangeably while in the same sentence used as two different aspects of the human spiritual essence? I saw your explanation that the "division of the soul and the spirit" means both were divided, as in searched out (bad paraphrase), rather than divided from one another. However, the writers of the NT did not say that both were divided in themselves but from one another, as if there were two things being put assunder from one another. Granted this is only found in two NT sources and that the case for dichotism if far stronger throughout the OT. Perhaps you could point me to some other posts than the long one I read all of with Pastor Glenn in it, if you don't feel like getting into this again. I happen to agree with your assessment, not as if you needed me to, but I do, that tolerance of people should be separated from tolerance of ideas. 1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the Scribe? Where is the debator of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
93 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207511 | ||
Doc There was once the concept of "the gentlemen's debate" for many centuries in which divers individuals would sit and discuss at length matters of the day and matters of depth. And in these debates there were certain rules of conduct and deportment fitting of gentlemen; The debates were polite, all veiws were to be discussed without reservation. Support for a position was to be provided using reason and logic as a means of dissembling information. The word argument referred strictly to the art of building and presenting a case of evidence for a position and had nothing whatsoever to do with being "argumentative with a disposition towards the use of words to inflict injury or insult". Men presented their arguments point by point or in sections and their opponents either agreed or refuted these arguments point by point. It was assumed that freedom of thought was to be expressed, but, no one was called upon or expected to agree, or to give creednce to, or to tolerate, the thoughts of those they disagreed with. This would have abrogated a man's right to believe as he pleased and to fully express his belief. The thoughts of others were never censured but were roundly debated. The debates often became heated over important matters but no one took it personaly per se but rather respected the right of others to express their thoughts with a certain fervor. Gentlemen would part to continue debates or arguments another day, ammicably and often resolved issues by agreeing to disagree. Hands were shook in the spirit of commararderie amongst gentlemen regarding the art of debate. Debate was not viewed as a dirty word, and was considered to be an accademic pursuit. The spirit of debate was an effort to arrive at a conclusion to a question posed, or a theory, or an hypothesis posited, in a reasonable and acceptable fashion as described here. This practice was applied to all things academic, and religion and philosophy were considered to be matters of highest accademia. The entire concept of the gentlemen's debate has been lost in a quest for "tolerance of the belief's of others" in modern society, which grew out of the secular movement, the liberation theology movement, feminism, "gay pride", and other movements both political and philosphic in nature. This is a deplorable situation in society today. And as D.A. Carson says, "Exclusiveness is the one religious idea that cannot be tolerated. Correspondingly, proselytism is a dirty word.". Well I seem to have gotton off on a bit of a tangent here, but I was very interested in everything you had to say. I think all Christians should stand by what they believe, whatever it is, and be ready to defend it. That should not be viewed as "debating" in the sense that modern society now views that word. The way that is viewed today is completely skewed and is slanted towards the use of insult and injury to persons. But if anyone were to look the meaning of the word up, that is before they change the dictionaries again, they might find that one meaning is a lengthy exchange of opinion on a subject. We, however are Christians and our wisdom is Christ Jesus. I like what Paul says about part of the realm of ideas - 2 Corinthians 10:5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
94 | Why is death God's enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207512 | ||
Immanuelsown I do believe the concept of God having foreknowledge of all things happening may qualify as Him "allowing all things to happen", which thing is different than what He wills to happen. God foreknew that we would sin and death would come, but He did not authorize Satan to go an introduce the concept of sin to Adam and Eve - that would be evil on the part of God. God does not will evil to happen. As death will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, we can assume death is evil. Therefore death could not possibly be part of God's "plan". God allows plenty of things to happen that are not "His plan and purpose for mankind". Jesus says this "Therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, etc.". Jesus foreknew as God what would happen, not just because Daniel said it, but because He as God was saying it. Jesus knew that this event would happen, the event must happen, is allowed to happen, but it is an evil thing. It is not Jesus' will for it to happen, it is Satan's will for it to happen. Satan cannot decide if what he wills can happen, he can only attempt things. God can and does decide what to allow to happen, but evil happening is not "the will of God", it is the allowance of God that whoever should rebel against Him should be free to do so and pay the consequences. Death is a consequence of Adam and Eve's choice to sin, God allowed them to sin, but not as His will, only as His allowing something to be able to happen. Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
95 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207519 | ||
Doc I never meant to imply that those rules should be applied to this forum. Also a lot of those debates between individuals were quite public. As well, I never meant to imply that the rules of the forum should be changed (you did not say that). The one thing that those "debates" had in common with our present responsibilities is that we should indeed defend what we believe as they most certainly did, without worrying that our beliefs will offend someone, which they most certainly never worried about. That is the main reason I posted what I did, because I agree with you about your point here regarding being dogs who bark when our master is attacked. 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ cricified, to Jews a stumbling block, adn to Gentiles foolishness. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
96 | Why is death God's enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207520 | ||
Doc I actually have reviewed what I said and agree with your statement here that to say what God had foreknowledge of and allowed to happen "was not in God's plan" is problematic. I also strongly agree that there was never a plan "B". But somewhere here there needs to be a disticntion between what God allows to happen, as in God allows evil and death, but is not the author of them (is God the author of death?) - and that God foreknows "what" will happen. I agree God is sovereign, not one thing happens to a sparrow without His consent - which point I did make, that nothing happens without His allowing it to happen. I think this blunders into the area of God fore-ordaining things to happen, if I am correct, which is a "problematic" area altogether anyway. If you would care to comment on that aspect some illumination might be had here? 1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness. - in regards to worldly knowledge in the face of the mind and purpose of God. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
97 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207521 | ||
Doc By uiversalism do you mean the concept that "everyone, absolutely everyone" will be saved whether they repented to Jesus or not and took Him as savior? I am trying to see how Flintyjoe could be into "unversalism" after posting sometime up above that "those who never repent and get bad hearts don't go to heaven"? I have heard of universalism, I think before, but am not quite sure what you mean exactly by the term. 1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become wise in this age, he must become foolish. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
98 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207524 | ||
Flintyjoe Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Jesus was definitely a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" - as in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, "foreknew" from the foundation of the world that He would be slain. That is the concept that Mathew Henry is talking about, it is not a twisting or mis-representation of Revelation 13:8, it is correct because there is not one thing that can happen that is not foreknown by God "from the foundation of the world" as definitely going to happen. As someone pointed out to you before, you have no way of knowing if Adam made it to heaven or not because the Bible does not say that he did or did not make it, like say in the case of Enoch, or Elijah, or Abraham. We cannot assume things the Bible does not say, and just because it does not say Adam made into heaven, that does not mean he didn't. The only one who knows, even of the so called saints, who makes it into heaven is God Himself. The logic of your first statement is a little wanting. The first time you spank a child does he know just because you tell him you will do it if he is bad what a spanking means? I have to wonder how Adam could know what death meant since there was none to observe as a way to understand what that was? I am not saying he did not know, but the Bible does not tell us how he knew what it meant. What bothers me about trying to figure that part out is that wouldn't knowing what death is be part of "the knowledge of good and evil", as death is part of evil? I realize my reasoning here creates a big problem because God is indeed just and he told Adam he would die to warn him not to get in the position to have to die. But, the Bible does not give us a clue how Adam could know what that mean in any capacity as he could not know the difference between good and evil - as that the knowledge of good and evil would be necessary to understand what it means? Just a thought there to complicate the whole she-bang for you.:-) Genesis 2:16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
99 | Why is death God's enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207765 | ||
Doc Well thank you very much for that! I agree with everything I read in the this essay exept I had one itsy bitsy problem with the concept of resolving the whole she-bang with Supralapsarianism. The reason is only one, the last part of that view, not in the article, but in the view itself, states that the decree to provide salvation was only for the elect. Yet, the Bible gives us scriptures stating that Christ's death was for the whole world and so on. I do agree with the concepts of irresistible grace and with God's sovereign election of men to be saved. I personally have just never been able to reconcile those scriptures which state that to many is given the offer of salvation but few are called, with that, Jesus died for the whole world. I believe both are true, but that we can't understand the theology of how God does that, as they are not contradictory, but both are true. Thanks again for a wonderful link. 1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Mathew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
100 | Why is death God's enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | bowler | 207789 | ||
Doc, Very interesting post there Doc. I learned it this way - Supralapsarianism - the fourth one is scripturally wrong. 1 The decree to save some and condemn others. 2 The decree to create both. 3 The decree to premit the fall of both. 4 The decree to provide salvation only for the elect. Infralapsarianism - the fourth one is scripturally wrong. 1 The decree to create human beings. 2 The decree to permit the fall. 3 The decree to save some and condemn others. 4 The decree to provide salvation only for the elect. Subplapsarianism - the third one is scripturally wrong. 1 The decree to create human beings. 2 The decree to permit the fall. 3 The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all. 4 The decree to elect some. Arminianism - the second and the third one are scripturally wrong. 1 God desires all to be saved. 2 All have the ability to believe and to meet the conditions of salvation. 3 God predesitines and elects based on who He knows will choose Him. My Pastor Teacher's Take On It. 1 Man is totally depraved and without God's initiation and intervention no one would believe - the decree to permit the fall. 2 God's foreknowledge means He knew beforehand who would choose but He ordained who would choose - the decree to save some and condemn others. 3 God's election and foreknowledge are not dependant on man's choosing but do not violate man's choosing of his own volition - the foreordination and foreknowledge of God do not absolve man of the responsibility to choose. 4 God's choosing and calling are not by coercion or force but by persuasion - God draws men wooeing them to Him by perusasion. 5 Christ's death was to provide salvation for all men but not all men are called to salvation - the decree to provide the opportunity for salvation to absolutely everybody does not mean God will save all. 6 All are welcome to come but only those who respond according to God's foreordination by irresistible grace come - the decree that all have been offered salvation but only some are foreordained and drawn by irresistible grace. 7 Where scripture stops so must we some things about the eternal purposes of God have not been revealed to us - whatever we do not understand about 1-6 has not been revealed to us in scripture and should not presuppose that we can speculate as to how to reconcile seeming contradictions which are not contradictory but are facets of God's will and plan. Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! blessings abound, bowler blessinsg abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |