There is no predestination unto salvation in the Bible

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Then you should have never commented, or said "we don't know, we'll find out" before shooting it down. Suddenly, now that there's no backing for the unscriptural position, a snobbish spiritual stance is adopted, all the while pontificating that the meticulous scripture-with-scripture interpretation that was presented is wrong.
Moving on.
He said, "We don't know"?? Why add to someone's words?

By the way, to respond with vitriol is passion. To respond with ad hom is desperation. It doesn't look good.
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
458
127
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟440,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not redemption of the soul, but redemption of the body, yes.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
I don't understand where you get the idea that your body is evil and in need of forgiveness.
Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Colossians 1:13He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
 
Upvote 0

George Antonios

Active Member
Aug 25, 2020
133
60
41
Quebec
✟15,255.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand where you get the idea that your body is evil and in need of forgiveness.
What? Who said that? The idea is that the body is corrupt because of sin (It feels pain, it gets sick, it stinks, and it dies) but God will change it at the resurrection into an immortal body - hence redemption of our body. Romans 8:23 is there.
Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1 are about redemption of the soul.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
458
127
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟440,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What? Who said that? The idea is that the body is corrupt because of sin (It feels pain, it gets sick, it stinks, and it dies) but God will change it at the resurrection into an immortal body - hence redemption of our body. Romans 8:23 is there.
Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1 are about redemption of the soul.
Except the grammar is false if you take it as individual bodies rather than the group body. Does the body of Christ have redemption?
1 Corinthians 12:

12For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
20But now there are many parts, but one body.
27Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.


In the following are a few of Pauls' use of the word "body" in the singular and plural.

Romans 7:4 N-GNS
GRK: διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ χριστοῦ
NAS: through the body of Christ,
KJV: to the law by the body of Christ; that
INT: by the body of Christ

Romans 7:24 N-GNS
GRK: ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου
NAS: will set me free from the body of this
KJV: me from the body of this death?
INT: out of the body of death

Romans 8:13 N-GNS
GRK: πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε ζήσεσθε
NAS: the deeds of the body, you will live.
KJV: the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
INT: deeds of the body you put to death you will live

Romans 8:23 N-GNS
GRK: ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν
NAS: the redemption of our body.
KJV: [to wit], the redemption of our body.
INT: redemption of the body of us

These are body in the plural:

Romans 1:24 N-ANP
GRK: ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν
NAS: so that their bodies would be dishonored
KJV: their own bodies between
INT: to be dishonored the bodies of them between

Romans 8:11 N-ANP
GRK: τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν διὰ
NAS: to your mortal bodies through
KJV: your mortal bodies by his
INT: to the mortal bodies of you on account of

Romans 12:1 N-ANP
GRK: παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν
NAS: to present your bodies a living
KJV: your bodies a living
INT: to present the bodies of you a sacrifice

1 Corinthians 6:15 N-NNP
GRK: ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη
NAS: Do you not know that your bodies are members
KJV: that your bodies are the members
INT: that the bodies of you members
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Navair2
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
No verse ever clearly specifies when predestination (not election) occurs
Why should a verse 'clearly specify' something to be so? Do you believe in the Trinity?
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why should a verse 'clearly specify' something to be so? Do you believe in the Trinity?

If you want to understand the original source of "Calvinism", read Ken Wilson's recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism".

Augustine went against all of the early Church Fathers before him, and against 25 years of his own ministry in an attempt to explain infant baptism.
Since the child had not come to faith, the election of the child must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.


Did the Early Church Fathers teach Calvinism?, Dr. Ken Wilson:


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If you want to understand the original source of "Calvinism", read Ken Wilson's recent book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism".

Augustine went against all of the early Church Fathers before him, and against 25 years of his own ministry in an attempt to explain infant baptism.
Since the child had not come to faith, the election of the child must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.


Did the Early Church Fathers teach Calvinism?, Dr. Ken Wilson:


.
Moving the goalposts?

Ok. I'll play. Calvinism teaches what the Word of God teaches. Grace. The work of God.

I don't know if you realize or not, but infant baptism is hardly the point of Calvinism. And Election is by God, from the foundation of the world --not by the will of man.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Navair2
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know if you realize or not, but infant baptism is hardly the point of Calvinism.

Are you denying the fact that both Augustine and later Calvin, who followed the writings of Augustine, used the doctrine to explain how infants could be the "elect" when water baptized?

How did the followers of Calvin treat the Anabaptists?

This is moving the goalposts back to their original purpose.


Dr. Ken Wilson on the origins of Calvinism:

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Are you denying the fact that both Augustine and later Calvin, who followed the writings of Augustine, used the doctrine to explain how infants could be the "elect" when water baptized?

How did the followers of Calvin treat the Anabaptists?

This is moving the goalposts back to their original purpose.
Let me restate what I said. The fact they used the writings of Augustine to explain how infants could be the 'elect' is not the point of Calvinism.

Calvinism has done some awful things. Are you going to blame Calvin for that too? It is not the point of Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me restate what I said. The fact they used the writings of Augustine to explain how infants could be the 'elect' is not the point of Calvinism.

Calvinism has done some awful things. Are you going to blame Calvin for that too? It is not the point of Calvinism.

Did John Calvin baptize infants?

.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do you keep on about the infants? What is the point?


Are you willing to answer the question?

The point is found below.

Augustine went against all of the Early Church Fathers before him and against 25 years of his own ministry, in an attempt to explain the "election" of baptized infants.

Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.

Read Dr. Ken Wilson's book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism", if you want to understand the original of the doctrine.

.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Are you willing to answer the question?

The point is found below.

Augustine went against all of the Early Church Fathers before him and against 25 years of his own ministry, in an attempt to explain the "election" of baptized infants.

Since the child had not come to faith, it must be based on the will of another. It could have nothing to do with the will of the child.

Read Dr. Ken Wilson's book "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism", if you want to understand the original of the doctrine.

.
AGAIN --So what?? How does that defeat Calvinism/ Reformed Theology? It is based on Scripture and on Christ, not on Calvin, nor on Augustine. It is what Paul preached. It is what Peter found out, and the others, including James.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
AGAIN --So what?? How does that defeat Calvinism/ Reformed Theology?

If you can find baby baptism in the New Testament, please show us the scriptures.

Calvin claimed infants became a part of the Church through their baptism.
Can you show us this concept in the New Testament?

.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If you can find baby baptism in the New Testament, please show us the scriptures.

Calvin claimed infants became a part of the Church through their baptism.
Can you show us this concept in the New Testament?

.
PLEASE ! What does infant baptism have to do with the thread, the OP, the arguments within it???? Why go there? There has to be a name for this kind of logical fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
PLEASE ! What does infant baptism have to do with the thread, the OP, the arguments within it???? Why go there? There has to be a name for this kind of logical fallacy.

Why?

Because infant baptism cannot be separated from the historical origins of "Calvinism".


Ken Wilson vs. James White on the origins of "Calvinism":

.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,156
5,680
68
Pennsylvania
✟790,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Why?

Because infant baptism cannot be separated from the historical origins of "Calvinism".

You still don't answer the question: WHY? what difference does it make what Calvin thought about infant baptism? What Calvinism/Reformed Theology teaches is from the Bible --not from Calvin. There are several things Calvin and his early followers taught, believed and practiced that was wrong. Did you not know there are Reformed Baptists that teach against infant baptism?

Again, what has that to do with this OP?

The fallacy is called moving the goalposts, if you can't show the relevance.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did you not know there are Reformed Baptists that teach against infant baptism?

Yes. I do know Reformed Baptists have adopted this teaching and why.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith copied the Westminster Confession almost word-for-word, except in the area of baptism.
The Baptists corrected the sections on baptism, but ignored many other errors in the document.

The term "New Covenant" is not found in either document.

Both documents have invented the term "the moral law" in an attempt to hang onto the Old Covenant, and ignore the New Covenant.
The documents claim "the moral law" was given to Adam in the garden, even though Adam could not have committed adultery, and he had no mother to honor.

These "Reformed" documents also claim we are still under the 4th commandment, even though Colossians 2:16-17 says otherwise.

They ignore the fact that Paul told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31.

They also ignore the fact that the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:6-13.

They also ignore that we are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18, but are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Sion in Hebrews 12:22-24.

----------------------------------------------

Westminster Confession of Faith


Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God



I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four command- ments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the fore mentioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.


(emphasis by bold text is mine)


from www.reformed.org/documents

……………………………….................................................................................

See the following "Reformed" source for the truth about the origin of your doctrine.

Augustine’s Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine’s Writings – by C. Matthew McMahon – Puritan Publications

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0