... for if you don't do these things, you shall end up like this.Nic posted:
"Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall." (2 Pet. 1:10) ESV
"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:" KJT
Sing F Lau
Good passage, Nic. Let's study it.
And if they don't practice those things, will they fall?
And if they fall, in what sense do they fall?
Or is apostle Peter warning of danger that cannot possibly happen to these brothers in Christ?
To exhort, 'make your calling and election sure' is to presume their divine calling and election, does it not? Is apostle Peter presumptuous to assume their effectual calling and divine election?
study by asking questions.
Ramir
Nick I already went over this passage. He just likes to troll the pages of those that hold to the doctrines of grace. He has yet to deal with the text itself! His question is like saying because God commanded us to keep the law that means we have the ability to. Isn't that what Pelagius believed?
Ramir
If all men are commanded to repent and believe, dies that mean we have the ability to?
Thoma
Fernando, that God commands all men to repent is not a contradiction to the Christian doctrine of total depravity or the sovereign election of God. This paradox is simply a reminder that we need grace for conversion. God has never changed. ...He has always commanded that men live in obedience to his commands. His commands did not change after the fall, but instead, we lost the ability to keep his commands. It does not make God unjust to command something that we have forfeited the ability to do. Gods commands have never changed. Our moral responsibility and our lack of ability to be responsible are a reminder that salvation is all of Grace! Even grace is a reminder that we make no move to initiate salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9.
Sing F Lau
Fernando, are my questions valid or not?
If yes, answer them.
If not, say why they are not.
Are you still sore with me?
Have I wronged you?
You were offended just because I don't 'Like' your comments?
I am amused!
To me, God commanded us to keep the law means that we have the DUTY to keep it. DUTY and ability are two very different words. The Scriptures is very clear that Jesus Christ alone can, and kept the law.
Andre
@Sing. Some key words jump out at me here. Such as:
Give diligence...Spoudazo (Gr.) to hasten, make haste to exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence, endeavor , do diligence , be diligent , give diligence , be forward , labor , study. ...
Strong's Number: 4704
Sure... Bebaios (Gr.) stable, fast, firm, sure, trusty, steadfast of force.
Strong's Number: 949
Fall... Ptaio (Gr.) to cause one to stumble or fall, to err, make a mistake, to sin, to fall into misery, become wretched, offend.
Strong's Number: 4417
But leading into this verse we have in verse 9..."For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins."
This would then add clarity to verse 10 which does not seem to infer any dis-acknowledgement of the writer to the election or calling of said persons; but rather and admonition and warning to them serving to remind them as to avoid sin BECAUSE of the very fact that they are called and elect of God.
Which brings to my own personal recollection this verse; “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8)
How do you see this? ;)
Ramir
Sing I already did on another post so why are you asking them again?
Paul, I agree entirely with what you said. My question is towards Sing that seems to believe that warnings indicate something is entirely possible for the believer. Example the warnings of apostasy in Hebrews is given to believers but yet it is impossible for the believer to completely fall away!
Sing F Lau
"If all men are commanded to repent and believe, dies that mean we have the ability to?"
========
"All men" in what sense are commanded to repent and believe?
Who are embraced by the term "all men"?
Does God actually command men whom He did not give Christ to be their Redeemer, and for whom Christ did not die to save, to repent and believe in Jesus Christ?
Does God require men to believe lies?
If not, then why preachers conduct themselves as though God does?
study by asking questions.
Andrews
Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?
Ramire
Sing you ask more questions than you answer.
[I ask questions to learn. You pontificate to teach
Sing F Lau
Fernando @ Sing I already did on another post so why are you asking them again?
====
Hello friend, you are not the only one around, are you?... LOL!
The exchanges are archived here: http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-believer-can-finally-fall-away-from.html.
I put it there so that my church members may read and enjoy the exchanges. All identities of commentators have been altered.
Sing F Lau
"Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?"
It sure does. It means obligation. But it does not necessarily imply any ABILITY.
Warnings are entirely different. The dangers warned against are always real. If the dangers warn...ed against at impossibilities, then it reflect poorly upon the person who issue the warnings. They waste their words, they wisdom is doubted!
Ramir
That's great that you do that Sing! A really good idea.
Now do you always go around looking to disagree and debate? ;-)
I've seen you do it on a lot of posts. Never edifying or in agreement but always disagreeing. Any particular reason? Do yo...u really dislike Calvinism that much? I just find it odd that you call yourself a LBCF 1689 kind of guy but yet most if not all were Calvinists!!!
Ramir
So are you saying that according to Hebrews, it is possible for a believer to lose their salvation? Kind odd how you were defending "eternal security" (the easy-believism type) on another post.
[Sing: you can't even distinguish between fall from salvation, and falling from the faith!
I defending easy-believism- you must either be joking, or dreaming!]
Ramir
Sing do you have a doctrinal statement that i can examine?
Andre
@Sing. Tell me, how does the warning to the elect of God from Peter translate to now become an inability to abstain from sin? Of which, those who have now been released from sin's power due to the finished work of Christ and His Holy Spi...rit now dwelling in the righteous possess.
I don't get it? This verse is dealing with the falling into sin which we can do willfully. :-|>
Sing F Lau
Fernando, there is a salvation which is entirely by God's free grace which nothing can deprive a child of God of it.
There is a salvation which a child of God must work out for himself with fear and trembling. A child of God will suffer lost... of that salvation if he is careless and negligent. God's children may make shipwreck of their faith. The Corinthian brethren and saints were in danger of it by their spirit and conduct towards Apostle, for which they were admonished to examine themselves whether they be in the faith, (NOT not where they were in the state of grace!)
I am not here to agree or disagree. I am here to learn and study the word of God with those brethren who are interested. If you are not, you have to liberty to leave my questions alone. And if you don't like them, then the liberty is also yours to do something with it - chop it, grind it, mince it...
The doctrinal statement is the 1689 LBCF.
Ramir
No sir your doctrinal statement is NOT consistent with the LBCF of 1689!
And your brief statement of faith is quite ambiguous. What do you mean "there is a salvation" how many salvations do you see in the Scriptures? You make too many disti...nctions and where there should distinctions you make none. You are rather confusing. Your view of being in the faith and in a state of grace are odd. Care to define the two?
Andre
It would be a novel approach if one could arrive at the truth of scripture and doctrinal exegesis without having to go any further than their knees, a bible and the Holy Spirit!
Sing F Lau
"Tell me, how does the warning to the elect of God from Peter translate to now become an inability to abstain from sin? "
=====
How did you get this from what I have written?
An inability to abstain from sin is a whole world of difference from saying that the dangers they were warned against can really happen to them under certain conditions.
"This verse is dealing with the falling into sin which we can do willfully." Exactly. Apostle Peter is NOT warning of something that cannot happen to God's children. Many sincere Calvinists insist that such things cannot happen to God's children, and that those warnings are addressed at reprobates!
Falling away from a LIFE OF FAITH AND OBEDIENCE can happen to God's children. Therefore all the warnings in the Scriptures. This deals with the temporal salvation conditioned upon the obedience of God's children, that which relates to this present and temporal life here.
Falling away from THE STATE OF GRACE cannot happen to God's children. Therefore all the statements to that effects. This deal with eternal salvation wholly by the free grace of God.
Grace brought a man into the state of grace, and he remains in it NO MATTER WHAT. The obedience of a child of God keeps him in a life of faith and obedience... and disobedience on his part will have the opposite effect.
If this distinction is appreciated, then all the needless confusion will disappear easily.
I off now. Work needs attending to.
Andre
@Sing. BTW, this is how I got the inference from you about inabiltiy...
You said; ""Duty would seems to validate responsibility, would it not?"
It sure does. It means obligation. But it does not necessarily imply any ABILITY.
Warnings are entirely different. The dangers warned against are always real. If the dangers warned against at impossibilities, then it reflect poorly upon the person who issue the warnings. They waste their words, they wisdom is doubted!
Which would seem to indicate that any warning given was given to persons which did not lack any ability to abstain from sin; thereby presuming that Peter would not offer any warning without ability and duty both being present. Hence, if the object of the letter was incapable or unable, the next logical point would make the directive shift even to the unsaved and unregenerate since all men are unable. Does that make any sense? Anyway, it seems I must have misunderstood...
Sing F Lau
@Nicholas...
Duty does mean obligation, but obligation is not conditioned upon ability. A man, as God's creature, has a duty and obligation to worship God his Creator. The covenant of creation STILL imposes that duty and obligation upon hi...m... even though he has lost all his covenant ability.
Therefore, we read this pronouncement, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
God's children, and it is so obvious that the epistle is addressed to them, are warn of the danger that shall befall them if they are not careful.
They are warned against real dangers will happen to them unless they take heed of the precaution states.
The covenant, and work of redemption applied to them have endowed them with the ability to observe that spiritual duty to SAVE THEMSELVES from those real dangers - falling away from the faith.
I just can't figure out what is the real difficulty.
Sing F Lau
Ramirez @ No sir your doctrinal statement is NOT consistent with the LBCF of 1689!
=========
There is no need for such pontificating!
It will be more helpful to prove your statement.
Pontificating is below your dignity as a RB.
Among those who hold the 1689LBCF, there are newcomers who were formerly Arminians but whose fathers were 'particular baptists' in the earlier centuries. These are the new comers, i.e. the RBs that arose in the 1960's.
And there ARE those whose churches in USA have held to the 1689 LBCF since the early 1800's till today.
Are these old baptists or the new comer RBs the true representatives of what the 1689LBCF summarizes and teaches? You can be assured that though they BOTH claim adherence to that same doctrinal statement, there are great doctrinal differences between them, just as there are between Fernando and Sing... and we won't agree much, you already know that!
I wrote to an Arminian Baptist pastor these words, who love to ran down and attack the RBs:
"Briefly, the RBs were formerly Arminian baptists like yourself... but their forefathers were particular baptists in the UK and the US. There was a big schism among them when a big section of the particular churches turned 'general' and descended into rank arminianism. In the late 1950s, some of them realized that they have departed so far away from the teachings of their forefather... they made some effort to return to the roots of their fathers, the early particular baptists who issued the 1689 CoF... But alas, they departed 100 miles away, but would only go back 40 miles, and thought they have arrived home..." [They couldn't be more deceived! And they began to label the old baptists hypercalvinists, while the truth is that they are half-baked 'calminians!']
There are churches TODAY that have held to the 1689 LBCF as their doctrinal standard for hundreds of years. I take them to be the trusted spokesmen of what the LBCF says.
But I have little respect for, and is weary of, the new comers called RBs - whose views are prejudiced and influenced by their former arminianism.
Sing F Lau
Ramirez@ Sing you ask more questions than you answer.
====
Ye, I do. I ask to teach myself to learn, and hopefully to enlist others to help me learn. Others pontificate to teach. All teachers are welcome to help me with the questions.
If I miss your questions, kindly draw my attention to it. You may not want the answer I give. And if you don't like the answer, please don't say I didn't answer.
Sing F Lau
Ramirez@ What do you mean "there is a salvation" how many salvations do you see in the Scriptures? You make too many distinctions and where there should distinctions you make none. You are rather confusing. Your view of being in the faith a......nd in a state of grace are odd. Care to define the two?
=======
I think it is best for me to leave you alone.
I don't want to confuse further a fine teacher like you.
Andre
@Sing. You said;
======
“Duty does mean obligation, but obligation is not conditioned upon ability. A man, as God's creature, has a duty and obligation to worship God his Creator. The covenant of creation STILL imposes that duty and obligation upon him... even though he has lost all his covenant ability.
Therefore, we read this pronouncement, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
God's children and it is so obvious that the epistle is addressed to them, are warn of the danger that shall befall them if they are not careful.
They are warned against real dangers that will happen to them unless they take heed of the precaution stated.
The covenant, and work of redemption applied to them have endowed them with the ability to observe that spiritual duty to SAVE THEMSELVES from those real dangers - falling away from the faith.
I just can't figure out what is the real difficulty.”
=========
My Answer...
To what you have commented here, I cannot find anything to refute and would be in agreement as far as I can tell. Have a good and blessed day!
