- May 17, 2021
- 1,121
- 390
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That the grace of salvation is irresistible is the clear teaching of the multitude of Scripture passages that speak of God efficaciously saving sinners. God does not try to save sinners, depending on their cooperation. He does not attempt to save sinners but stands helplessly by unless they at least exercise their free will. He does not do His best to save sinners, always facing the real possibility that His best is not good enough and that the sinner may effectively resist His efforts to save him. No, God saves sinners, sovereignly, efficaciously, irresistibly. This is the language of the Scriptures from beginning to end...
The believer's assurance depends on the truth of irresistible grace. If it is possible that God's grace can be resisted, that after God has begun his saving work in me, it is still possible that I can resist it and lose it, how can I ever be sure of my salvation? I cannot be. The doctrine of free will and the teaching of resistible grace are cruel doctrines. They strip the child of God of the assurance of salvation. Then he must live in constant doubt and fear whether he will ever be saved. That is frightening! That is paralyzing! That is depressing!
Chapter 5 - Irresistible Grace
If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob's faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him for his works? Neither Jacob nor Esau had believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works. So just as one says he was elected because God foreknew that he was going to believe, another might say that it was rather because of the good works he was to perform, since God foreknew them equally well… If the reason for its not being of works was that they were not yet born, that applies also to faith; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, did not want us to understand that it was because of God's foreknowledge that the younger was elected to be served by the elder.
God's Purpose According To Election: Paul's Argument in Romans 9
29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
Contend Earnestly: Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology
I think you might want to be careful with your characterisations, there, Humble_Disciple. For example, one doesn't have to be either "modernist" or have a low view of Scripture to see the Adamic accounts as not literal.
Where do you get your doctrine of original sin?
Also, what do you do with the fact that, throughout the New Testament, Adam is referred to as a historical person?
How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses if Adam was not a historical person?
By definition, one is exercising a low view of scripture by insisting that Adam was not a historical person, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves.
The assumption that the only way to read a text as imparting truth, is to read it literally, is itself mistaken.
Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, like Jesus' parables, while others are meant to be taken literally. What matters is the plain meaning of scripture, according to what the authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended a passage to be interpreted.
How do you explain Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12, and numerous other verses of the New Testament if Adam was not a historical person?
You might not believe that Adam was a historical person, but it's clear that the authors of the New Testament, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did.
Also, where do you get your doctrine of original sin, or do you deny that doctrine as well, in addition to denying Biblical inerrancy?
Rather than allowing modernism to dictate your interpretation of scripture, I hope that you will pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reveal to you the plain meaning of the text.
Where do you get your doctrine of original sin?
Whom said the belief in original sin is a must as you might understand it?
How do you understand original sin, and do you believe it's taught in the Bible?
As the Orthodox do, which is not original sin like in the west but Ancestral sin. Ancestral sin states that while we bear the consequences of that sin it is only Adam and Eve that bear the sole guilt. We are only guilty of our own sins that we commit
Instead of original sin, Orthodoxy uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make a key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so.
Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin
While the Orthodox have always rejected the concept of “imputed sin” (i.e. we are condemned for Adam’s sin), they accept that we are born with a debilitating sinful nature that makes us unable to willfully choose God without divine assistance. Therefore, in order for one to make “right use of their free-will” there must be some type of “mediating” grace that makes the person able to choose God.
An Eastern Orthodox View of Predestination
Whether you call it ancestral sin or original sin, both doctrines teach that we inherited death and a tendency to sin from Adam.
In addition,
I am not persuaded of much of anything other than the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" when it comes to "Reformed Theology";
One of those is A-millennialism, which I do not see anywhere in the Scriptures.
How Calvinistic was John Calvin? What did he teach concerning the extent of the atonement? Let us ponder his own words:
Isaiah 53:12- "I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that many sometimes denotes all."
Mark 14:24- "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race." In other words, Christ’s blood was shed for the whole human race.
Matthew 20:28- "‘Many’ is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number, in that He sets Himself over against all others. And this is its meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race."
John 1:29- "And when he says the sin OF THE WORLD, He extends this favour indiscriminately to the whole human race....all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God and need to be reconciled to Him....Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by...faith."
John 3:16- "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers....He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ."
Romans 5:18- "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all (i.e. in the experience); for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
2 Corinthians 5:19- God "shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world" and Calvin goes on to say that the "whole world" means "all men without exception."
Galatians 5:12- "It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
Colossians 1:15- "This redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated."
Hebrews 5:9- "He (the writer of Hebrews) has inserted the universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ."
Calvin even taught that the lost were purchased by Christ's blood: "It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ" (The Myster of Godliness, p. 83).
Skip's Lighthouse: CALVIN'S FAVORITE FLOWER WAS NOT A T.U.L.I.P.
They refer to both Calvin's claim that "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world'"[7] and to Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine of the Synod of Dort which states that "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.".[8]
Limited atonement - Wikipedia
I am in full agreement with it, and I do not take any cues from John Calvin or other Calvinistic preachers and teachers when it comes to my own understanding of the doctrine.What do you think of limited atonement, in light of the fact that Calvin himself doesn't appear to have taught it?
I'll have to look at that again, as to what the actual Conons of Dordt said.Neither did the Synod of Dort appear to teach limited atonement:
For most of the past 18 years ( until the last three years or so ), so was I.I would describe myself as a four-point Calvinist.
The main reason why I'd prefer Calvinism over Arminianism is the assurance of salvation which comes from the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?