Message to GOD"S elect

[Deborah13]

You are mistaken. The sermon you refer to says nothing about salvation preceding regeneration, or regeneration preceding salvation.

Oh but Mondar, you see I do read somewhat better than I write. The Warrant of Faith Vol.9 #531 approx., paragraph 11.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners."

Hmm....maybe Mr Spurgeon, was not as much of a full blown TULIP as he thought. He obviously did NOT believe in regeneration before salvation. He actually in the same sermon I believe speaks against an teaching in his own time, such as Sproul (I think) did, who speaks of infant regeneration. In another sermon he respectfully disagrees even with John Gill. I can't remember which sermon that was, but it didn't sound like pure Calvin to me.
Mondar, please understand, with me and maybe some others as well. I am sick of the brand of Calvinism that steps all over the pure and simple gospel of grace through faith.
But now you say, that you are not a Calvinist, or especially not one of the HYPER= Calvinist, for these are the ones I don't understand. If this is true, maybe the scales are following off my eyes....Are you one of the hyper- grace group, that @jethro speaks of. Is that what's up with Josef and George, I wonder.

Have you got a website or something that explains exactly what you believe or something close to it. Like I said, I read fairly well and it would save me considerable time than trying to drag the answers out of any of you.

Oh by the way, do you have an interpretation, explanation, and honest "I don't know" to the two verses I quoted to you?

I have now asked, as least three of four here what verses mean to them. No reply. WHAT is foreknowledge to you?????

 

[Eventide]

The life of correction...

And... those who tend to 'think of themselves' as the elect.. are typically incapable of admitting that they're mistaken...

From what I've seen anyway...

The Christian life is a life of correction, and being conformed into that perfect man, our Lord Jesus Christ... and yet we're often the most stubborn people on earth when it does come down to the rubber meeting the road with respect to being 'corrected'..

 

[JLB]

No when one "surrenders" to Gods Will , they are being obedient to the will of Another, greater, stronger, wiser etc...

Yes.

When they choose not to surrender then they are disobedient.

Did all obey God's Voice and keep His Charge, His commandments and laws? No.

Why, because they have a free will and a choice.

Self will, on the other hand is always choosing what the desires of the self nature are.

It is God working in us, both to will and do His good pleasure.

We have a free will to choose.

We can choose to be self willed or we can choose the will of God.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I wonder if Spurgeon also saw himself as one of the limited, unconditional elect, in the first Adam...?

If so, then he was sadly mistaken.. as are so many today.

Did Spurgeon believe OSAS, yes. He would also believe that all believers, who have put their faith in Christ, were among this elect, the church, the body of Christ. He did not see 'faith' as a work and he did not believe the faith spoken of in Eph. 2:8, is the gift of God, but that Salvation is the Gift of God, spoken of in that verse.

In the sermon, The Warrant of Faith, if one reads closely, he speaks of us putting "thine" faith, in Christ for our salvation. He defines, faith (believing) as 'trust'.

Spurgeon did not teach what so many do today. He was a pastor of grace not works. I can't right now back up this next statement from a particular sermon, and not all, in fact most aren't, of his sermons and teachings can be found online. But I've read enough I think to say that he believed that when a person put thier trust in Christ, at that moment they are saved, and that the grace of God is effectual in their lives then, at that point. They are sealed.

I have never read anything where Spurgeon taught, irresistible grace the way it is taught today, or even by some of the Reformers in his own time.

Limited Atonement, as I understand it, the limited atonement that Calvin taught, says this. Christ died for All men and His blood is sufficient for the saving of all men. But it does not take effect for All men, because there are men who reject salvation. If it was effective for all men, then all men would be saved.
Spurgeon, would say it was not effective because they "would not" believe not because they could not.

 

[mondar]

You are mistaken. The sermon you refer to says nothing about salvation preceding regeneration, or regeneration preceding salvation.

Oh but Mondar, you see I do read somewhat better than I write. The Warrant of Faith Vol.9 #531 approx., paragraph 11.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners."

Hmm....maybe Mr Spurgeon, was not as much of a full blown TULIP as he thought. He obviously did NOT believe in regeneration before salvation.

Deborah, it would be great if you could read Calvinists and understand what they are saying. The only thing Spurgeon ever did was to use the term "particular redemption" instead of limited atonement (I am not referring to the Sermon in question). Calvinists do things like that all the time and it is just semantics. I could quote other illustrations of how Calvinists use different terms to say the same thing.

He actually in the same sermon I believe speaks against an teaching in his own time, such as Sproul (I think) did, who speaks of infant regeneration. In another sermon he respectfully disagrees even with John Gill. I can't remember which sermon that was, but it didn't sound like pure Calvin to me.

They way you are using your pronouns above makes it a little more difficult to follow what you are saying. You might want to use more proper nouns (even though it is repetitive to write).

I think you are merely saying the Spurgeon disagrees with Gill at times. Certainly most writers can find disagreement somewhere. Calvinists are not usually cookie cutter people. I admitted that there are places I disagree with Piper, but I view John Piper as a great teacher of the faith. This does not mean that both Spurgeon and Gill are not reformed. I believe both of them were considered "Particular Baptists" as opposed to General Baptists. One the other hand, I have heard rumors that Gill can lean toward Hyper-Calvinism. I am skeptical of those rumors because I am aware a certain trend. All a non-Calvinists has to do is accuse someone that is Reformed of being a "Hyper-Calvinists" and that will spread like wild fire. That accusation never needs proper support in non-Calvinists circles and it does not have to be a true statement, and it will be repeated as truth ad-infinitum. I have read Gill in many places and have yet to see him teach Hyper-Calvinism, but I have not read everything Gill wrote. I hate to attribute Hyper-Calvinism to Gill simply because I hear non-Calvinists throw that term around against anyone on the Reformed side. That's why it is so important to go back to sources.

Concerning Sproul, as a PCA Presbyterian, I am guessing Sproul takes a view of paedo-baptism that is typically OPC or PCA Presbyterian. They do NOT believe in infant regeneration. I know and understand the Presbyterian teaching on paedo-baptism. I may not agree with it, but I do not intend to misrepresent their teaching. Of course Sproul would disagree with someone teaching baptismal regeneration in an infant. Yet, whoever he disagrees with cannot be OPC or PCA because they do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration.

Mondar, please understand, with me and maybe some others as well. I am sick of the brand of Calvinism that steps all over the pure and simple gospel of grace through faith.

Do you know what bothers me Deborah? I get tired of the exceedingly shallow level of statements made. I tried not to engage you for that reason. I knew what it would lead to. These people you refer to above know little about the Grace of God and next to nothing about reformed soteriology or theology.

The error of your statement above is so amazingly shallow and wrong. It is just another one of those accusations repeated against Calvinists that are wrong but they are repeated enough non-Calvinists believe it without actually knowing anything about the subject.

I have seen a truth. When the issue of "sola fide" comes up between Catholics and others in these threads in the past, do you know who is the most vocal in defending "sola fide?" It is almost always reformed people, including me. Where are all the non-Calvinists then?

Here is something else that bothers me. You people too often fail to use theologically specific enough language. Your words above are insufficient to describe the gospel. You said... "Calvinism that steps all over the pure and simple gospel of grace through faith." There have been movements like ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) that use language like yours. Then the issue of works in salvation does not need to be addressed. Both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals can agree on this shallow gospel that is not the gospel. Both agree that faith is required for justification. Calvinists reject such a false gospel as "salvation by grace through faith." We require the word "alone." Justification is by faith "ALONE."

Its the typical language where you people make the false accusation of Calvinists teaching a false Gospel, and then you turn around and use language that muddies the waters of the clear and true Gospel. It is "justification by faith alone."

But now you say, that you are not a Calvinist, or especially not one of the HYPER= Calvinist, for these are the ones I don't understand. If this is true, maybe the scales are following off my eyes....Are you one of the hyper- grace group, that @jethro speaks of. Is that what's up with Josef and George, I wonder.

I do not know what you are referring to by "@jethro." Concerning Josef and George... well, they are good brothers. We might not be identical in theology, I do not know, but I have no problem with Josef or George.

I have to give you one thing here. I have seen reformed people on these boards that are also a little to the shallow side. They make some really bad statements.

Have you got a website or something that explains exactly what you believe or something close to it. Like I said, I read fairly well and it would save me considerable time than trying to drag the answers out of any of you.

Oh by the way, do you have an interpretation, explanation, and honest "I don't know" to the two verses I quoted to you?

I have now asked, as least three of four here what verses mean to them. No reply. WHAT is foreknowledge to you?????

I do have a web site, or kind of a little vanity blog, but it has not statement of faith. That might be a good idea though. I should not be so lazy and take your suggestion and actually put up a statement of faith. Generally, I prefer using the 1689 London Baptist Confession. It says things far better then I could anyway. The problem is that there are a few spots in the 1689 that I might not be in agreement with, but they are small and minor spots.

I do not remember what verses you mentioned. I have ignored some of your early posts. I saw them, but did not want to be engaged in a conversation (nevertheless, here I am).

Concerning foreknowledge, I think the 1689 makes a good statement.
5.2 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God who is the first cause, all things occur immutably and infallibly, so that nothing happens to anyone by chance, or outside his providence.1 Yet by his providence he arranges them to occur according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.2
Act 2:23; Pro 16:33
Gen 8:22; Jer 31:35; Exo 21:13; Deu 19:5; Isa 10:6-7; Luk 13:3,5; Act 27:31; Mat 5:20-21; Phi 1:19; Pro 20:18; Luk 14:25ff; Pro 21:31; 1Ki 22:28,34; Rut 2:3

Foreknowledge is not merely that God has a crystal ball and looks into the future and sees things. The term foreknowledge does not speak of events, but people. The scriptures does not say God foreknew our faith, but he foreknew US! Foreknowledge then, relates to his decree. God foreknows our faith because he decrees that we will believe. That is grace, and that is election. The non-Calvinists view takes a lower view of Gods grace in this part of theology.

God also decrees evil things to happen. He decreed the death of Christ, one of the most evil events in history. That is why the 1689 mentions 2nd causes. God did not help evil men crucify Christ. He knew of their evil nature, and he still put Christ into their hands to be crucified (decree). So God does not participate in the murder of Christ, but he gives Christ over to sinful men (decreed his crucifixion).

He does the same thing to Christians. We might experience persecution. God wants it to happen. This persecution is not outside God's control. In fact God decreed that evil persecutions will happen to the believer. This does not mean that God participates in persecution. He does not wave a magic wand to make men more evil (they are evil enough already anyways). But he does give the believer over into the hands of evil men to be persecuted. He gave Job over into the hand of Satan. He gave Joseph over into the hand of his brothers. So then, I believe in double predestination. God decreed both good (election) on the basis of his foreloving and foreknowledge of those he elects, and he decrees evil, and uses it for his own glory. This is of course called double predestination.

Now unfortunately, the reformed teaching of double predestination is commonly misrepresented among those that are against reformed theology. It is commonly taught in non-reformed circles that double predestination teaching that God makes evil happen. This is a misrepresentation of reformed theology. The decrees are not equal. God participates in his decrees of righteousness (such as in election). On the other hand, in Gods decree of evil, he does not take part in the evil. It is more like Romans 1 says.... "and he gave them over." This speaks of God giving men over to degrade themselves with evil. It speaks of God restraining sin, and then removing his restraint. So in other words, in the reformed doctrine of double predestination, when God predestines evil, that means at a certain part of history, he will stop restraining sin. So then, in his righteous decree, God causes righteousness, in his decree concerning evil, it is that God stops restraining sin. Both decrees involve foreknowledge. God knows what will happen if he no longer restrains sin. He know Christ would be crucified, and wanted it to happen. God can take an evil event, and draw great good out of it.

I talked about decree alot, because a discussion of foreknowledge and decree are inseparable. In the non-reformed doctrine of foreknowledge, it is usually something were God just looks into a crystal ball and sees what will happen, but does not cause righteousness, and does not withdraw his hand restraining sin. There is no decree part.

Of course there are non-reformed people who see the relationship between decree and foreknowledge. Such are the open theists. They believe that Gods foreknowledge is not absolute. They think God does not foreknow the free will decisions of man. That seems very consistent to me, even if it is wrong. Are you an open theist (just asking)?

 

[Deborah13]

Of course Sproul would disagree with someone teaching baptismal regeneration in an infant.

I was Not speaking of baptismal regeneration. I will quote The Reformation Study Bible, pg 1664. of which R.C. Sproul was the General Editor.
"An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15."

What am I misunderstanding in this statement? I understand this as saying, that the infant from birth was already saved (regenerated) they just might not know it for years.

I hate to attribute Hyper-Calvinism to Gill simply because I hear non-Calvinists throw that term around against anyone on the Reformed side

I would feel the same. No where have a stated any such thing about John Gill. HYPER- Calvinism is not pure Calvinism. I said this before! When I discuss Spurgeon it is not to speak of what someone else Does believe. Just what I understand what Spurgeon believed.

Deborah, it would be great if you could read Calvinists and understand what they are saying. The only thing Spurgeon ever did was to use the term "particular redemption" instead of limited atonement

This is what I said about, Limited Atonement.
"Limited Atonement, as I understand it, the limited atonement that Calvin taught, says this. Christ died for All men and His blood is sufficient for the saving of all men. But it does not take effect for All men, because there are men who reject salvation. If it was effective for all men, then all men would be saved.

Spurgeon, would say it was not effective because they "would not" believe not because they could not. (I applied this statement from his statement on faith, not limited atonement.)

So what am I misunderstanding about what Calvin taught?

Do you know what bothers me Deborah? I get tired of the exceedingly shallow level of statements made.

When I made that comment, I was directing it at HYPER-Calvinism.

 

[farouk]

@Deborah13 :

With New Testament revelation, and the fact of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came to indwell His people, I don't understand how a commentator can talk about anyone being 'born again' in the Old Testament (though many were indeed justified by faith; see Hebrews 11).

For example, David prayed: 'Take not Thy holy Spirit from me' (Psalm 51.11); not a prayer which would need to be made by a New Testament believer.

I guess it again boils down to the dispensational distinctives between Israel and the church.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

Calvinists reject such a false gospel as "salvation by grace through faith." We require the word "alone." Justification is by faith "ALONE."

I cannot stand on the 'faith alone statement'. God by His grace, the Father draws, the Holy Spirit convicts. Without this happening, one cannot put their faith (trust) in the Gospel message and repent. Salvation is only attainable because of God's grace to start with.

I talked about decree alot, because a discussion of foreknowledge and decree are inseparable. In the non-reformed doctrine of foreknowledge, it is usually something were God just looks into a crystal ball and sees what will happen, but does not cause righteousness, and does not withdraw his hand restraining sin. There is no decree part.

I do not see foreknowledge as a looking into the future or a crystal ball type thing. God just knows who will come to Him.

Of course there are non-reformed people who see the relationship between decree and foreknowledge. Such are the open theists. They believe that Gods foreknowledge is not absolute. They think God does not foreknow the free will decisions of man. That seems very consistent to me, even if it is wrong. Are you an open theist (just asking)?

No I haven't determined as of yet, anyway, that God doesn't foreknow the decisions of man. I think He does.
But I do not believe that all decisions that men make are decreed by God.
God states very clearly in Jeremiah that He did not command the Israelites to sacrifice their children, He says very clearly that it never entered His mind to tell them to do such a thing.
God did not decree in this instance.

 

[josefnospam]

Those who choose to boast in themselves and tell you how good they are not Boasting in a Soverign and Mighty God. But God will have mercy on whom he will. Do as you will and we will all wait until God returns. He knows who are his............I trust only him and hope you do also.
James, writting under the insperation of the holy ghost said in James 4:16 "But now ye rejoice in your boasting: ALL such rejoicing is evil"

Believe as you will, but if your not boasting of and giving honor to God who are you boasting in?

 

[Deborah13]

I don't understand how a commentator can talk about anyone being 'born again' in the Old Testament (though many were indeed justified by faith; see Hebrews 11).

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I don't see an indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT which is certainly the NT experience. However, salvation is salvation, whether in the old or new. Grace of God and faith. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a bonus that the NT believer enjoys.

Eph 2:8 - does not say, "by grace, through faith, and the indwelling of the HS.

For example, David prayed: 'Take not Thy holy Spirit from me' (Psalm 51.11); not a prayer which would need to be made by a New Testament believer.

Where was the Holy Spirit ? What would have happened to David if God had done that? Just questions, I have asked myself. I don't know the answer.

"Do not quench the Holy Spirit" ??

Blessings

 

[JLB]

[/COLOR]

Deborah, it would be great if you could read Calvinists and understand what they are saying. The only thing Spurgeon ever did was to use the term "particular redemption" instead of limited atonement (I am not referring to the Sermon in question). Calvinists do things like that all the time and it is just semantics. I could quote other illustrations of how Calvinists use different terms to say the same thing.


They way you are using your pronouns above makes it a little more difficult to follow what you are saying. You might want to use more proper nouns (even though it is repetitive to write).

I think you are merely saying the Spurgeon disagrees with Gill at times. Certainly most writers can find disagreement somewhere. Calvinists are not usually cookie cutter people. I admitted that there are places I disagree with Piper, but I view John Piper as a great teacher of the faith. This does not mean that both Spurgeon and Gill are not reformed. I believe both of them were considered "Particular Baptists" as opposed to General Baptists. One the other hand, I have heard rumors that Gill can lean toward Hyper-Calvinism. I am skeptical of those rumors because I am aware a certain trend. All a non-Calvinists has to do is accuse someone that is Reformed of being a "Hyper-Calvinists" and that will spread like wild fire. That accusation never needs proper support in non-Calvinists circles and it does not have to be a true statement, and it will be repeated as truth ad-infinitum. I have read Gill in many places and have yet to see him teach Hyper-Calvinism, but I have not read everything Gill wrote. I hate to attribute Hyper-Calvinism to Gill simply because I hear non-Calvinists throw that term around against anyone on the Reformed side. That's why it is so important to go back to sources.

Concerning Sproul, as a PCA Presbyterian, I am guessing Sproul takes a view of paedo-baptism that is typically OPC or PCA Presbyterian. They do NOT believe in infant regeneration. I know and understand the Presbyterian teaching on paedo-baptism. I may not agree with it, but I do not intend to misrepresent their teaching. Of course Sproul would disagree with someone teaching baptismal regeneration in an infant. Yet, whoever he disagrees with cannot be OPC or PCA because they do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration.

Mondar, please understand, with me and maybe some others as well. I am sick of the brand of Calvinism that steps all over the pure and simple gospel of grace through faith.

Do you know what bothers me Deborah? I get tired of the exceedingly shallow level of statements made. I tried not to engage you for that reason. I knew what it would lead to. These people you refer to above know little about the Grace of God and next to nothing about reformed soteriology or theology.

The error of your statement above is so amazingly shallow and wrong. It is just another one of those accusations repeated against Calvinists that are wrong but they are repeated enough non-Calvinists believe it without actually knowing anything about the subject.

I have seen a truth. When the issue of "sola fide" comes up between Catholics and others in these threads in the past, do you know who is the most vocal in defending "sola fide?" It is almost always reformed people, including me. Where are all the non-Calvinists then?

Here is something else that bothers me. You people too often fail to use theologically specific enough language. Your words above are insufficient to describe the gospel. You said... "Calvinism that steps all over the pure and simple gospel of grace through faith." There have been movements like ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) that use language like yours. Then the issue of works in salvation does not need to be addressed. Both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals can agree on this shallow gospel that is not the gospel. Both agree that faith is required for justification. Calvinists reject such a false gospel as "salvation by grace through faith." We require the word "alone." Justification is by faith "ALONE."

Its the typical language where you people make the false accusation of Calvinists teaching a false Gospel, and then you turn around and use language that muddies the waters of the clear and true Gospel. It is "justification by faith alone."

But now you say, that you are not a Calvinist, or especially not one of the HYPER= Calvinist, for these are the ones I don't understand. If this is true, maybe the scales are following off my eyes....Are you one of the hyper- grace group, that @jethro speaks of. Is that what's up with Josef and George, I wonder.

I do not know what you are referring to by "@jethro." Concerning Josef and George... well, they are good brothers. We might not be identical in theology, I do not know, but I have no problem with Josef or George.

I have to give you one thing here. I have seen reformed people on these boards that are also a little to the shallow side. They make some really bad statements.

Have you got a website or something that explains exactly what you believe or something close to it. Like I said, I read fairly well and it would save me considerable time than trying to drag the answers out of any of you.

Oh by the way, do you have an interpretation, explanation, and honest "I don't know" to the two verses I quoted to you?

I have now asked, as least three of four here what verses mean to them. No reply. WHAT is foreknowledge to you?????

I do have a web site, or kind of a little vanity blog, but it has not statement of faith. That might be a good idea though. I should not be so lazy and take your suggestion and actually put up a statement of faith. Generally, I prefer using the 1689 London Baptist Confession. It says things far better then I could anyway. The problem is that there are a few spots in the 1689 that I might not be in agreement with, but they are small and minor spots.

I do not remember what verses you mentioned. I have ignored some of your early posts. I saw them, but did not want to be engaged in a conversation (nevertheless, here I am).

Concerning foreknowledge, I think the 1689 makes a good statement.
5.2 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God who is the first cause, all things occur immutably and infallibly, so that nothing happens to anyone by chance, or outside his providence.1 Yet by his providence he arranges them to occur according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.2
Act 2:23; Pro 16:33
Gen 8:22; Jer 31:35; Exo 21:13; Deu 19:5; Isa 10:6-7; Luk 13:3,5; Act 27:31; Mat 5:20-21; Phi 1:19; Pro 20:18; Luk 14:25ff; Pro 21:31; 1Ki 22:28,34; Rut 2:3

Foreknowledge is not merely that God has a crystal ball and looks into the future and sees things. The term foreknowledge does not speak of events, but people. The scriptures does not say God foreknew our faith, but he foreknew US! Foreknowledge then, relates to his decree. God foreknows our faith because he decrees that we will believe. That is grace, and that is election. The non-Calvinists view takes a lower view of Gods grace in this part of theology.

God also decrees evil things to happen. He decreed the death of Christ, one of the most evil events in history. That is why the 1689 mentions 2nd causes. God did not help evil men crucify Christ. He knew of their evil nature, and he still put Christ into their hands to be crucified (decree). So God does not participate in the murder of Christ, but he gives Christ over to sinful men (decreed his crucifixion).

He does the same thing to Christians. We might experience persecution. God wants it to happen. This persecution is not outside God's control. In fact God decreed that evil persecutions will happen to the believer. This does not mean that God participates in persecution. He does not wave a magic wand to make men more evil (they are evil enough already anyways). But he does give the believer over into the hands of evil men to be persecuted. He gave Job over into the hand of Satan. He gave Joseph over into the hand of his brothers. So then, I believe in double predestination. God decreed both good (election) on the basis of his foreloving and foreknowledge of those he elects, and he decrees evil, and uses it for his own glory. This is of course called double predestination.

Now unfortunately, the reformed teaching of double predestination is commonly misrepresented among those that are against reformed theology. It is commonly taught in non-reformed circles that double predestination teaching that God makes evil happen. This is a misrepresentation of reformed theology. The decrees are not equal. God participates in his decrees of righteousness (such as in election). On the other hand, in Gods decree of evil, he does not take part in the evil. It is more like Romans 1 says.... "and he gave them over." This speaks of God giving men over to degrade themselves with evil. It speaks of God restraining sin, and then removing his restraint. So in other words, in the reformed doctrine of double predestination, when God predestines evil, that means at a certain part of history, he will stop restraining sin. So then, in his righteous decree, God causes righteousness, in his decree concerning evil, it is that God stops restraining sin. Both decrees involve foreknowledge. God knows what will happen if he no longer restrains sin. He know Christ would be crucified, and wanted it to happen. God can take an evil event, and draw great good out of it.

I talked about decree alot, because a discussion of foreknowledge and decree are inseparable. In the non-reformed doctrine of foreknowledge, it is usually something were God just looks into a crystal ball and sees what will happen, but does not cause righteousness, and does not withdraw his hand restraining sin. There is no decree part.

Of course there are non-reformed people who see the relationship between decree and foreknowledge. Such are the open theists. They believe that Gods foreknowledge is not absolute. They think God does not foreknow the free will decisions of man. That seems very consistent to me, even if it is wrong. Are you an open theist (just asking)?

Mondar, I would like to ask you a question, if I may.

Are you Baptized in the Holy Spirit?


Thanks JLB

 

[farouk]

I don't understand how a commentator can talk about anyone being 'born again' in the Old Testament (though many were indeed justified by faith; see Hebrews 11).

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I don't see an indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT which is certainly the NT experience. However, salvation is salvation, whether in the old or new. Grace of God and faith. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a bonus that the NT believer enjoys.

Eph 2:8 - does not say, "by grace, through faith, and the indwelling of the HS.

For example, David prayed: 'Take not Thy holy Spirit from me' (Psalm 51.11); not a prayer which would need to be made by a New Testament believer.

Where was the Holy Spirit ? What would have happened to David if God had done that? Just questions, I have asked myself. I don't know the answer.

"Do not quench the Holy Spirit" ??

Blessings

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

I was referring to the ref. to R C Sproul's comment, really.

In New Testament terms. being filled by/quenching the Spirit, is distinct from indwelling, in any case.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

I was referring to the ref. to R C Sproul's comment, really.

I didn't post what Sproul actually said himself, as it was a quote taken from a personal letter he wrote. I quoted that from the Reformation Study Bible, of which he was in charge.

Oh, about infants being born already regenerated (saved).

Well Abraham was chosen by God but it wasn't until He stepped out in 'faith' that God said, his faith was accounted to him as righteousness.

 

[farouk]

I was referring to the ref. to R C Sproul's comment, really.

I didn't post what Sproul actually said himself, as it was a quote taken from a personal letter he wrote. I quoted that from the Reformation Study Bible, of which he was in charge.

Oh, about infants being born already regenerated (saved).

Well Abraham was chosen by God but it wasn't until He stepped out in 'faith' that God said, his faith was accounted to him as righteousness.

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

Certainly Old Testament saints were justified by faith, although the truth of the new birth, involving subsequent indwelling by the Spirit, is something that properly related to New Testament believers, after Pentecost. (This is the dispensationalist in me ...)

Blessings.

 

[Elijah674]

What about Noah's preaching with the Holy Spirit 'STRIVING' beside Noah!

And King Saul??
How was this possible??
1 Sam. 17
[6] And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
....
[9] And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.
(how much more could he have the Holy Spirit than have a 'NEW HEART?')

And 1 Sam. 10:14 we see that the Lord departed from Saul. Yes, the folly of OSAS.

--Elijah

 

[Deborah13]

(This is the dispensationalist in me ...)

I think we're in the wrong thread.

 

[JLB]

(This is the dispensationalist in me ...)

I think we're in the wrong thread.

The next sign post up ahead....


JLB

 

[farouk]

(This is the dispensationalist in me ...)

I think we're in the wrong thread.

@Deborah13 :

Actually I reckon that one can trace the dealings of God in grace, throughout the Scriptures, AND see His different modes of governance. The two perspectives are not contradictory.

Maybe physics has a good illustration. JJ Thomson, father and son, were physicists who both won the Nobel prize for physics; one proved that heat was waves, and the other that heat was particles. Neither was necessarily wrong; it was a matter of different, and valid, perspectives.

Similarly, simply because someone (rightly) thinks s/he has discovered wonderful things about the grace of God in more or less Calvinist terminology, does not render word studies and their contexts about Israel, and the church, and Old and New Testaments, worthless.

One can profitably discuss God's elect. A reasonable question that the student of a passage can also ask, is: Who is the passage talking about?

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

I wonder if Spurgeon also saw himself as one of the limited, unconditional elect, in the first Adam...?

If so, then he was sadly mistaken.. as are so many today.

E: Spurgeon is sometimes described as a moderate Calvinist, and Christian readers of his sermons don't usually attribute hyper-Calvinistic views to him.

 

[Deborah13]

One can profitably discuss God's elect. A reasonable question that the student of a passage can also ask, is: Who is the passage talking about?

Right turn, Clyde.

Now I get it! Yes, not every time the word elect is used, is it necessarily talking about the same group of people.