June 1, 2012
Those
interested in the truth of the gospel, please read this interesting article by
Dr George Ella!
He
said, referring to Calvinists who slander others as Hyper-Calvinists, "People who make
statements which they have not thought through themselves would be better
keeping their mouths shut until light dawns." Very apt, and blunt as well!
Let's discuss each point rebutted in the article, one by one.
EVANGELICA.DE
https://evangelica.de/articles/why-i-am-not-a-hyper-calvinist/
Why
I am not a Hyper-Calvinist - Biographia Evangelica
===========
Comments
Sing
F Lau
The
haughty Calvinists dismiss those who expose the inconsistencies and contradictions
of their 'reformed' theology as hyper-Calvinists, instead of giving a reasoned
response!
So
Dr Ella's words, "People who make statements which they have not thought
through themselves would be better keeping their mouths shut until light
dawns" are most apt.
Authur W. Pink wrote to the same effect in the Foreword of his book "The Sovereignty of God": "We do not forget the words of one long since passed away, namely, that "Denunciation is the last resort of a defeated opponent." To dismiss this book with the contemptuous epithet--"Hyper-Calvinism!" will not be worthy of notice. For controversy, we have no taste, and we shall not accept any challenge to enter the lists against those who might desire to debate the truths discussed in these pages."
It is a fact that the Banner of Truth (Edinburgh) hates the truth delineated in that book by Pink. BoT republishes that book by removing so many chapters it considers as 'hyper-Calvinistic'!
Charles
Page
I've
tangled with Galyon and his bunch and they are die-hard loyalists to Banner of
Faith Trust -hypo-Calvinist, free well-meant offer to all! blog - When worlds
collide
Michael
Lim
Calvinist
and hyper-Calvinist seem to be wrong one way or another; I gotta agree some
points from each side are correct...
Sing
F Lau
Michael,
of the 16 points, which do you think the calvinists are corrects and which are
they wrong? That would be a worthwhile study.
Sing
F Lau
James
Galyon compiled this list of Hyper-Calvinistic attributes:
https://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-heinous-error-of-hyper-calvinism/
1.
God is the author of sin and evil
2.
Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
3.
Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
4.
Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
5.
God does not command all people to repent of sin
6.
Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
7.
God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
8.
Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
9.
Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of
sanctification (antinomianism)
10.
Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are
Christians)
11.
Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
12.
Salvation is not connected with the “visible” Church
13.
Scripture is to be interpreted only by individuals, not by the Church
14.
Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
15.
The sacraments are not a means of grace, but rather obstacles to salvation by
faith alone
16.
God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)
Does
he understand the statements he made?
Do
you understand them?
Are
these just fictional straw men? Do any hyper-Calvinists own these statements as
their belief? Or do these statements betray a shameful ignorance of the things
spoken by a so-called reformed theologian?
I
believe Dr Ella's words are most appropriate: "People who make statements
which they have not thought through themselves would be better keeping their
mouths shut until light dawns."
So much shibboleth that betrays a great failure to rightly divide the word of truth!
Michael
Lim
Here
is my take on the 16 points
1.
God is the author of sin and evil
- (not the author of sin and evil coz God is
good. God is the author of troubles and destruction...look at the demise of
Pharoah when chasing up with Moses))
2.
Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
- (human beings have will...no
doubt)
3.
Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
- (they are
responsible)
4.
Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
- (should be in time, coz legal
justification is done when Jesus Christ died on the cross)
5.
God does not command all people to repent of sin
- (this should be correct coz
people who are regenerated should repent...others cant repent due to no
regeneration)
6.
Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
- (not all
people are required to believe, only God chooses this aspect)
7.
God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
- (nope, God doesn't need to
do this, and this is not mentioned in the Bible at all)
8.
Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- (assurance of
election is shown via repentance and faith, without them, assurance of election
doesn't even exist)
9.
Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of
sanctification (antinomianism)
- (wrong,...regeneration is needed and faith is
needed to show it)
10.
Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination
- (only “Calvinists” are
Christians) - all people who are regenerated is saved
11.
Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
-
no way....
12.
Salvation is not connected with the “visible” Church
- no idea
13.
Scripture is to be interpreted only by individuals, not by the Church
- maybe
yes...
14.
Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
- it is necessary to bring people to
the truth
15.
The sacraments are not a means of grace, but rather obstacles to salvation by
faith alone
- sacraments are not needed at all
16.
God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)
- no
such thing, God has loved us as His children since Jesus Christ died for the
elect, if God did not love us, Jesus would not need to die
so
many errors from looking at it... whats more, no bible proofs to show
it.....what a mess!!!!
Charles
Page
Galyon
is SB!
James
Galyon
Yes,
I understand the statements I made. In doing so, I spoke of the system of
belief in general. If you follow the comment thread of that post you will find
some who very strongly claim those beliefs as their own, not as straw men.
Sing
F Lau
James
Galyon, please name a few of those who "very strongly claim those beliefs
as their own" and I would be very grateful. Put flesh and blood and names
to those straw men!
General
statements are generally wrong unless substantiated!
Profitable
discussion requires more than generalities!
The
cause of truth is not, and will never be advanced, with shibboleths!
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, what does SB stand for? - son of beelzeboob? son of babblers? stunted
baptist? shibboleth boy? Southern Baptist? Which is which? Please tell, I pray.
<LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL>
Charles
Page
oh
boy!! gotta go back to bed but will dream of James' response. Kan't wait to
awake and read it!
SB
= Southern Baptist but I think I defer to your definition!!!
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, you are still up! Drinking tooooooooo much coffee?
Charles
Page
I
had an interesting discussion with the LWF CEO on the city sidewalk and I came
away believing that son-of-Beelzeboob is correct. He tried his best to draw me
into a middle-of-the-road position "happy medium" in which he wished
I would leave them alone and go to other more worthy para-church ministries
that needed my protesting!!
I
think there was a serpent on that sidewalk!
Sing
F Lau
Then
pray that a mighty steamroller will run over that serpent!
Or
get Moses' rod and whack the life out of that serpent!
Charles
Page
I
was sleeping good but woke up to pee (prostrate???) then heard the Roscoe
barking - and that led to checking my FB page.
I
pray I am the steamroller and the rod, and I'll let God do the
driving/whacking!!! LOOOOOOOOOL
going back to bed -
Charles
Page
I
personally am not prepared to say God is not the author of sin and evil in order to avoid being labelled a hyper-Calvinist. Clearly, the Bible says God is not the
author of evil but not in the context that Galyon uses. This statement is a
strawman for hypers created by him. He is not siding with scripture but siding
against hyper-Calvinism by a false argument. He does not necessarily have
scripture to back him up.
James is pushing the envelope toward a dual sovereign argument consistent with many
of the reformed thinkers today. I do not believe in any duality, for certain
equal sovereigns nor do I admit of in the least a primary sovereign and
secondary sovereigns. God stands alone so one cannot squirm out on God not
having.
God
will not abide the existence of anything that he has not desired or intended to
come to pass. In the moral realm he does not bear responsibility for sin but we
cannot say he is a bystander to it. He is a happy God with all that exist and
no argument can be aligned against him that destroys an iota of sovereignty.
Sing
F Lau
Calvinists
like James Galyon assert that hypercalvinists "very strongly claim those
beliefs as their own" including "God is the author of sin and
evil."
Until
he substantiates this assertion, it is just that... his own imagination of what
others believe.
If
there are people who believe that God is the author of sin, then it would be very
easy to substantiate it. Otherwise, like Ella has so aptly said, "People
who make statements which they have not thought through themselves would be
better keeping their mouths shut until light dawns."
God
is indeed the author of evil in the sense that He brings forth judgments.
Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Sing
F Lau
How
could God be the author of sin when He recoils vehemently from sin, and also
thunders against sin in the most solemn manner with the terrifying judgment -
eternal separation from Him?
Don't
tell those whom James Galyon slanders as hypercalvinists are ignorant of these
basic biblical data!
Charles
Page
To
say God allows or permits things to happen admits a duality of sovereigns and
God has no equal not even comparatively so!
Johnny
Davis
I'll
stop after reading the first, and comment on it. Scripture says this:
"........ and it was good," from Gen. 1, all creation was good,
including man, whom he created. Good means perfect, and we are to be
"perfect, as God is perfect." "When tempted, do not say God
tempts, sin is from one's own lusts and desires." "God is not the
author of confusion." Confusion is imperfection, the only thing in the
physical universe that is imperfect, is man's sin. It is correct that God
created man, and man sin's, ergo, man's sin is from God, in that human, logical
sense, perhaps. Yet, spiritually, since God does not lie, God did not create
ANYTHING evil.
Vicki
Lloyd Raines
I
form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord
do all these things. Isaiah 45:7
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, "To say God allows or permits things to happen admits a duality of
sovereignty."
=====
Demonstrate
the truth of your statement. Thanks.
Johnny
Davis
Hmmmmmmmm,
reading Isaih, in context, again. One thing comes to mind, just the verse,
Vicki. Peace is "made" and Evil is "created." Even taking
that, "create" may be the same word in Hebrew, as "created"
in Gen. 1:1, and the "beginning" is not God's beginning, but
"a" beginning. If a distinctin in create and make exists, it would be
on your thinking, that perhaps item #1, is correct. Theology changing scripture,
perhaps.
Charles
Page
Just don't believe that God acts 'afterthought'!
Sing
F Lau
Are
you equating the Sovereign's act of permitting as afterthought?
I believe it is precisely because God is truly sovereign that He has the full luxury of giving His creatures FULL LIBERTY to act as they like... anything less would impugn His sovereignty!
Charles
Page
Sing,
a rule of logic, two objects cannot fill the same space.
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, what are the two objects that fill the same space?
Johnny
Davis
God
has "consciousness" of man's evil deeds, as he destroyed all life,
except Noah and his family, because of it, Lot was saved from S and M, because
of it, fire came down from heaven at God's direction because of idols, etc. I
will check out the Isiah passage to reconcile the possibility that these
actions of man's evil, were "created" by God, as it goes back to the
never to be understand spiritual concept of how an all-knowing God would not
"fix" the outcome of every event in physical reality, including
atomic sub-particle movements, big bangs, 11 dimensions rather than 3 (or 4),
and everything, both big and small. Every thought. Everything. Yet, in this
knowledge of everything, God "changed his mind," and foreknowledge
would include that. I put this question, completely in the spiritual realm,
where application of the physical, physics, logic, anything from man, cannot
answer it. Yet, its fun to talk and think about, about on the same level as
wormholes. Who knows for sure.
Charles
Page
The fall of man was not an afterthought however, the sin of Cain contains mystery,
an unknown factor. I struggle with the word 'permission' Adam's sin was decreed
and a necessity for the displayed plan of redemption. Cain's was not a
necessity, at least as i see it. The condition of man before the flood was not
a necessity and there God speaks regret that He had made man. Permission is not
an adequate word. The point is that God cannot be held responsible for the evil
of man and our language is incapable of drafting that explanation. It is the
mystery of iniquity. Apparently we are always going to err on this and I
consciously choose to err on the side of sovereignty and not seek to side with
humanity! 'Permission' seems to be a siding with humanity and pushes
responsibility toward God. I wholeheartedly affirm that God is in no way
responsible for evil and with that thought there can be no confusion.
Perhaps
the word "anthropomorphic" explains the difficulty here.
Sing
F Lau
Johnny
Davis, I read your last comment a dozen times, and still can't understand what
you are trying to say! Pheeeeeew! I give up!
11y
Charles
Page
Unregenerate
humans have no will whatsoever! They follow their master and his course robotically. The regenerate have FREE will.
Charles
Page
Does
James Galyon understand this? Does that make me a hyper-Calvinist?
Charles
Page
Created in the minds of men!
Johnny
Davis
@Sing.
(1) God knows everything within His creation; for example, the number of sands
on the sea, the hairs on man's head. (2) God's time, is not physical time, so,
if God knows everything, he always knows, perhaps a definition of
"foreknowledge." (3) God would know that "every thought of man
was evil, continuously," except for Noah and his family, and he knew he
would destroy the earth; and similarly, knew he would destroy Sodom and all
humans, except for Lot and his family. (4) Even though God knows that the
outcome of Abraham's bargaining with Him, from 50, then 40, 30, 20, and finally
10, God changed his "mind" at each negotiation. (5) This illustrates
to me, that though God "knew" all the sins against Him, by humanity,
each "evil," He did not cause them, create them, or allow them,
simplly because He had foreknowledge. (7) If forenowledge causes the events,
there is no need in a physcial sense, to attempt anything physical, as the
outcome is "fixed" by God's foreknowledge. All that makes zero sense,
in the physical realm, being a spiritual concept, that the mind cannot comprehend,
to know the answer with human logic. (😎 Yet to consider the nature
of God, spiritually speaking, is stimulating, in the same manner as pondering
physic questions, which thinkers are always coming up with something new, to
argue over (much like religion). We, like the scientists, simply do not know.
Yet, faith in God, though not knowing every answer, even knowing of God, or not
knowing of Him, is the righteousness that the Godly heart will seek, and WILL
find.
Charles
Page
James seems to address "all individuals universally" without distinction of
regeneration! He says of Hyper-Calvinists, "Individuals are not responsible
for their own decisions and actions" No, the unregenerate are not
responsible for their actions; however, the regenerate are. I bet that James does
not know why this is so or else he is too deceived to understand. Will he
answer this question for us?
Sing
F Lau
Sorry,
I think James Galyon has taken Ella's words seriously:
"People who make statements which they have not thought through themselves would be better keeping their mouths shut until light dawns."
Sing
F Lau
The
big problem is to distinguish what the hyper calvinists ACTUALLY teach, and
what James Galyon accuses or imagined or wrongly concludes them of teaching!
Charles
Page
The
HC teach what is determined by Johnson and Galyon. HC is their strawman and in
actuality there are no HC, only in the hypotheoretical sense. We await their
reply; otherwise, we are left in the dark! Which is what they want!
Sing
F Lau
There
is only one thing that makes me angry... when people misrepresent their
opponents and set up straw men, putting words in the mouths of their opponents,
and misrepresent them! It is just horribly despicably sick and nauseous!
My
dad told me since young, "unless you can represent your opponent
correctly, you have not earned your right to dispute them."
I honestly think Johnson and Galyon are midgets calling giants like Gill names!
Johnny
Davis
@Sing.
I agree with you on representing people by their particular church membership.
Christ's church on earth are the called out, whose body is Christ, and Christ
is the head. The called out are individuals, when meeting together, any two or
more, in the name of Christ, Christ is there. That does away with church
religion, as far as I am concerned. This is off subject, so I'll stop after it.
Disunity in Christianity is NOT caused by error in teaching, perceived
disobedience by some, etc., but by those who would deny a brother or sister fellowship
in the family of God. As in a human family, if a brother is a drunk, a
murderer, Hitler, or whatever, and he is a brother, he is a brother indeed.
Disunity would occur, if I were to say, "He is NOT my brother, because
he's a drunk." God will say who his children are, not me.
Sing
F Lau
Johnny
Davis, did I say anything about representing people by their particular church
membership???
I did say about the need to represent others accurately... otherwise they should, like Ella said, "People who make statements which they have not thought through themselves would be better keeping their mouths shut until light dawns."
Johnny
Davis
Ironic,
Sing. Was not attempting to do the same thing, someone else accused someone
else of, perhaps you. My comment was a general one, I simply believe it does
not good, to comment on anything spiritual, based on the name of a Christian
church they attend. Not accusing anyone of that, just pointing out my own
thoughts. I've had people tell me that so and so is not a Christian, because
they follow the teachings of a particular church, always, not their own.
Thanks, for the reprimand, and my chance to explain myself.
11y
Charles
Page
It
is absurd to believe that justification occurs only in time. If I say
"justification occurs in time" would I be building a strawman for
Arminianism? Some pretty reliable men of the faith have said that justification
starts in eternity
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, when they say that 'justification occurs only in time' - they
specifically mean at the time of a man's act of believing! And that's the
STUPIDITY and the FOLLY of it all.
With
such notion, they have completely DENIED and REPUDIATED that there was REAL and
ACTUAL justification when Christ died at the cross.
They
have denied and repudiated that their sins were LEGALLY imputed to Christ,
suffered and paid for at the cross, and Christ's righteousness LEGALLY imputed
to them. There was double imputation at the cross. But these will protest,
"I don't even exist yet, and have not sinned at all, so how could my sins
be imputed to Christ, and His righteousness imputed to me?" They have
foolishly forgotten that their names are already in the Lamb's Book of Life,
they already exist as LEGAL entities in the mind and purpose of God, though
they do not yet exist personally in time. They have also forgotten the
imputation of Adam's sin to them when they did not yet exist in person!
There
is so much more to say on this point... but will the elitists reformed folks
even listen!
There
is more hope for the Arminians they despised!
11y
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, it was the STANDARD belief among the old school theologians (whether
baptists or baby sprinklers) that justification HAS began in eternity! But some
small minds can't comprehend this glorious truth! Their minds have be stunted
by half truths.
I
will give indisputable evidence to the first statement above.
In
the London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 11 on justification, paragraph
4, we read in PLAIN and SIMPLE declarations:
4.
God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, (11) and Christ did
in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their
justification;(12) nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the
Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.(13)
(The
WCF states the same, except the word 'personally'. The framers of the LCF added
'personally'
Three
DISTINCT and SEPARATE aspects of justification are stated here:
-
Justified by God's decree in eternity... justification purposed for all elect
-
Justified by Christ's work at the cross... justification secured for all elect
-
Justified by Spirit's work of actual application... justification applied to
each personally.
--
When God decreed to justify the elect, then all the elect are
decretally justified.
--
When Christ died and rose for their justification, then all the elect are
LEGALLY justified.
--
When the Holy Spirit apply Christ's merits to each elect PERSONALLY, then that
particular individual elect is PERSONALLY justified (and this is BEFORE the
individual is capable of believing!!!)
The
above three aspects of divine activities make believing by the elect possible.
And that's stated in paragraph 2 of the same chapter.
2.
Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone
instrument of justification;(6) yet it is not alone in the person justified,
but ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but
worketh by love.(7)"
Believing by the elect is IMPOSSIBLE "until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them."
Charles
Page
This
is a clear RC position on justification straight from the catechism -
justification is confered at baptism - James Galyon -justification is confered
at believer's faith.
I believe that Luther maintained this position. What was the reformation all about anyway???
Sing
F Lau
Charles
Page, you see, the RCC has two gangrenous limbs: justification is by BOTH faith
AND works.
Her
audacious daughters came along and amputated one of the limbs, even the
'justification by works' limb! However, they were blind to the other gangrenous
limb, i.e. justification by faith ALONE! They embraced it blindly, and defend
it to this day!
Justification
is by the righteousness/faith/blood OF Christ alone - declaring its ONLY LEGAL
BASIS.
Justification
is by the free grace of God alone - declaring the ONLY MANNER Christ's
righteousness is APPLIED to each individual elect.
Justification
is through faith alone - declaring the ONLY MEAN/INSTRUMENT to EXPERIENCE the
blessedness of the justification that has taken place by God's free grace.
I
have been explaining this glorious and blessed truth to the Reformed Baptists
folks and others since 2002. I myself was converted in 2000. You are one of
those VERY FEW who understood and believe in those 10 long years!
Experiential
justification is indeed by faith and works.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Johnny
Davis
It's
the heart. The heart of the INDIVIDUAL. As far I my brain can comprehend,
organizations are inantimate, and have no heart. This following is a weak
"argument" but my thoughts nonetheless. "Justified by
faith." That is true. I believe some translations, either add, or include
from the original text, "only" or "alone." That is true.
Justified by faith alone. I suppose it is possible for an individual Christian,
to have faith, without works. Yet, if my understanding of the "heart"
and "continue in sin so that grace may about, God forbid." is true,
which they both are, then whoever wrote all the Caltholic rules on doctrine,
Martin Luther, every other "reformer" or "truth seeker,"
every "restorer" of the First Century Church, all "religious
groups" of Christians, all churches (the called out) of Christians, all
Christians that meet together in the name of Christ, where Christ is "in
the midst of them," have faith, if faith in the heart, not just faith, as
the demons have, that tremble. I would be happy to give my opinion, by
understanding, my anything anyone wished to call it, answer to Justification,
but it will be no better than any other human's understanding, or worse, given
we are all Christians, that believe. Truly believe, that is.
Charles
Page
Correct:
God does not command all people to repent of sin. Substitutionary atonement
cancels out any need of ALL to repent. Otherwise, why is it substitutionary???
Sing
F Lau
Johnny
Davis, 'Sound mind... sound mind ... sound mind' sayest the Scriptures.
Mind
is the faculty of understanding.
Doctrines
require the faculty of mind to understand.
The
heart is the faculty of affection... feelings...
And
only the mind could direct the ways of the heart
When
the mind believes the wrong things, the heart is incapable of feeling right!
Johnny
Davis
@Sing.
That is the most true comment I have heard you make. Your others are true, of
course, as well. The mind will not come to believe error, if God is directing
the mind. Unless of course, God's will is for his children to accept a stone,
rather than a fish, and "if your earthly father, would not give you a
stone rather than a fish, what more would your Heavenly Father do, if you ask."
That is why we are to pray for truth. If we pray, through the Holy Spirit, we
will receive (for the right things, of course). You think truth, is not a
"right thing" to pray for. I do. Yet, I think I know what you mean.
Our prayers must be sincere. They are not to say for example, "I prayed to
God that it is acceptable to cheat on my wife, because she does not love me,
and Peggy Sue obviously does, and God said that He is love, so by my loving
Peggy Sue, love abounds." Prayer is not to support our body and mind sins,
through "confirmation" by the Almighty, that evil is good. Besides,
Paul had that one answered in Corinthians, "Shall we continue in sin, so
that grace may abound. Hell, no."
Johnny
Davis
Yet,
I must tweak one comment, to be sure I understand you. "The heart is the
faculty of affection...feelings...And only the mind could direct the ways of
the heart. Are you referring to unbelievers? If so, I would completely agree.
Unbelievers (and those not righteous, who also have not "heard"),
have absolutely zero possibility of their mind and body being made into the
"man after God's own heart." After becoming believers or righteous
(by circumstance from God, perhaps, or by hearing and believing), THEN, the
heart is FIRST directed toward Godly things, so that the mind and body will
reflect the nature of God. Man's mind NEVER has anything to do with goodness,
not even Jesus' mind ("why do you call me good, only the Father in heaven
is good").
Charles
Page
"Not
everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation"
Apparently James Galyon (where is James?) believes that everyone has the capacity to repent!!! Pelagianism
Charles
Page
James
has defriended me!!! Is that an admission of defeat? Behold. the straw man
burneth!
Johnny
Davis
@Charles.
I'll give my opinion on that, and that's all it is. Every individual is born
into a world of sin, and thus, "original sin," is a valid concept.
Every living newborn baby is safe, saved, and spiritually happy, perhaps what
Jesus meant when he said "Do not prevent the children from coming to me,
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven," and other verses, hinting at the
concept of perfection. Yet, the world comes to all, eventually. There are those
who have the heart of God (how, why, is up for grabs, theologically) after
knowing right from wrong, and are righteous. Yet, those not so fortunate (for
whatever reason), do not have the capacity to repent, as their hearts never
come to know God, either from hearing, or by nature. Even repentance comes from
God, not man.
Charles
Page
Every
living newborn baby is safe, saved, and spiritually happy???? The regenerate
are not safe, saved, and spiritually happy!!! Johnny, you need to rethink your
opinion.
Johnny
Davis
What
makes your thought "the regenerate are not safe, saved, and spiritually
happy." Were the children, Jesus said to be allowed to come, all
regenerated, by happenstance, and what would be your opinion of that. I plainly
said it was an opinion, simply quoting a verse, to support the POSSIBILITY of
it being true. I don't know. God has not revealed more than that to me, and I
have examined the scriptures. Perhaps, not enough.
Charles
Page
My
perception of your statement is you are assuming children are not in need of
regeneration. Babies are in need of regeneration at the time of conception
(they have Adam's iniquity)
The "age of accountability" is a man made rule.
Johnny
Davis
I
am not making reference to the human concept, termed "age of accountability,"
which is not in scripture, and I cannot accept, just because my church group
has used that term to define the age at which one must be baptized. However,
regeneration is a concept, stated as such, in scripture, that I have only
recently been made aware, through teachings of the PB group (my group never
taught it, probably because it was a Baptist doctrine, I don't know. Never
heard a sermon on it, or even the term, as I can reall, after 50+ years of
attendance in classes and worship services. That being said, let's talk heaven
and hell, spiritually. Because, frankly, if the concept does not speak to our
lives on earth, such as love and grace, then it has no more REAL meaning that
an abstract thought. So, let's talk heaven and hell, in the spiritual sense,
eternal. (1) Are all humans at conception, or at physical birth from the womb,
unique from any living animal, in that eternal destiny is a consideration of
God, and his plan for man? If not, then how are we different from the dead dog
rover, dead all over? If so, and an unregenerated child of one month, dies,
what is his eternal destiny, in your view of scripture? Conversely, if
regenerated child at one month, dies, what is his eternal destiny, in your
view, of scripture? Again, I'm not arguing for or against, any theology,
doctrine, or belief. I just want to know what regeneration is, as it relates to
the children that Jesus said to come unto him.
Sing F Lau
"Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation"
Apparently
James Galyon (where is James?) believes that everyone has the capacity to
repent!!! Pelagianism
============
The
issue is very simple and straightforward:
-
Under the covenant of creation, each man is under obligation to obey God as His
creature!
- Under the covenant of redemption, each redeemed of the Lord is under obligation to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Johnny
Davis
Under
the covenant of God, the Messiah was to come so that all nations will be
blessed. That is redemption, enough for me. I am blessed to live in a time and
place, where the Word is available to me. If I forsake that Word, as useless, I
would not believe. I firmly believe I am REQUIRED to believe, and not eliminate
my Creator, only considering myself of my own, or accidentally, or whatever.
So, I agree with you. Believe, what? You say, Jesus. I agree, for you and me.
What do you say of one, never having ANY opportunity, in time, place, events,
of interaction with men that do, stand. I believe that believe as well, is they
are righteous. They just don't know about the covenant you mentioned.
Charles
Page
God
creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect!!!! Whatever happened to
original sin. God cursed all men without distinction in Adam! All have sinned
all are cursed. All that God saves are unbelievers! LOL. Where are Galyon and
Johnson's brains? Who originated this stupid statement?
Charles
Page
"Assurance
of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith" -do Galyon and
Johnson actually believe in original sin? This statement bogles the mind,
Mayvbe there has to be sixteen points!!! LOL
