Re: Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

gary <biblicist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:3289E6D9-F8AC-1AA8-20D0-01D9CE4B78EA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <630A0142-36E3-0ED6-C6DD-01FDE90D1C5B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, gary
> > says...
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> Your statement "we are self-determined" is the very heart and soul
of
> >>> salvation by works.
> >
> >>That is false. It is only in a mind warped by Calvinism that such
> >>thinking is possible.
> >
[...]

> >
> > But now on to the point: Gary is exactly right about this. It is NOT
> > true that "'we are self-determined' is the very heart and soul of
> > salvation by works".

Of course it is, unless words have no meaning.  In Gary's world, the
unregenerate do something (believe) that results in salvation.  Doing
something is work.

> > But because Bob so heartily endorse the same 'postulates'

"... and that not of yourselves" is not a postulate.
"... so it depends not on human will or effort" is not a postulate.

That the unregenerate does not have free will in the matter of salvation
is a _conclusion_ based upon the plain meaning of Scripture. 

> >as Calvin and later Luther (as expressed in "The Bondage of the Will")
> >concerning the will of Man and the will of God, he really _does_ see it
> >as following.
> >

What part of "the unregenerate do something that results in salvation"
requires anything other than knowledge of English to see salvation by
works?

[...]

> If Bart and Bob were correct, then why are they here arguing these
points?
> 

I'm sorry, but this is a stupid question.  Can you see why?

> They both teach determinism.

Sorry, no.  That man does not have free will with respect to salvation
does not mean that determinism is true.  "No free will" wrt salvation
does not mean "no free will in anything."

While I have no problem with determinism (who would?) I can't show from
Scripture that it is, or is not, true.

> They both teach that you were determined by God to be a member of the
> Orthodox Catholic Church, and to believe their doctrines. They also
> believe that they were determined by God to believe as they do. And that
I
> have been determined by God to believe as I do. There is NOTHING that we
> can do, to change our beliefs to the "truth" that either of them hold
to.
> Further, there is nothing that either of them can do to change what they
> believe, for God has determined what they believe.

And why do you have a problem with this?  If you are determined _by
God_, then what basis do you have for saying He's wrong?  Your
complaint, "why have you made me like this" does not admit of the answer
that God is wrong.  "But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue
with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, 'Why have you
made me like this?'"

> Since there is no free-will in either of their systems, and they both
deny
> self-determination, the only way that anyone comes to a saving faith is
> because God causes them to do so.

That's what "and that not of yourselves" means.

> And further, God causes us to believe the "lies" that we believe, so
that
> we will be condemned. Since God determines all things, and all evil
comes
> from the fallen humans following their fallen human natures, He must
give
> the impulses which result in every sin of every kind, so that what God
> ordains comes to pass. Thus God caused Judas to betray Christ.

"the one destined to be lost" [John 17:12]
"not by works, but by His call..." [Rom 9:12]

> And He causes every rape of every child who is raped. This all follows
> from their fundamental presuppositions, of determinism, and no
free-will,
> and their theory that man is not "self-determined." The preaching of the
> Gospel is reduced to "preaching to the choir." That is, the only ones
who
> can understand the Gospel are those that God has already saved. This is
> all very good of God to do, because in the second place they both
believe
> in voluntarism: that is, God can do anything,

I don't think so.  God can't end His existence, for example.

> and what every He does is good by definition. He needn't will according
to
> His nature.

Of course He does, silly.  His will and His nature are one.  You make a
distinction where none exists.

> Thus it is perfectly good for Him to create the vast majority of
humanity
> to be damned,

Of course, you always ignore Revelation 7:9 "and there was a great
multitude that _no one could count_, from every nation, from all tribes
and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the
Lamb, robed in white..."

> without any recourse, since they have no self-determination, and
> it is quite impossible for any of them to respond positively to the
gospel
> in faith. 

"... those who are in the flesh cannot please God..."  What part of the
unregenerate man has the Spirit of God?

> Thirdly, to "explain" how it is possible for any man to respond
positively
> to the gospel, they play their "occasion" card. They teach that on the
> occasion that the gospel is preached and a person does respond to it,
that
> God has (on that occasion), regenerated the person, and caused the
person
> to believe the gospel preached. This is also the case for all other
> things. To ensure that everything happens precisely as God has ordained,
> all reality is really just a fiction.

What is reality, Gary?  Answer that and you'll be the most famous
philospher ever.

[...]

> 
> These presuppositions are in violent contradiction to both your and my
> fundamental presuppositions, I think. I know that they contradict mine.
> 

Which is not a surprise to anyone.  Salvation by works types want their
will done.  The notion that God's will might not be congruent to what
they think is right, just, and good is abhorrent to them.  You exhibit
this in spades with your revulsion that you just might be determined by
God.

Frankly, who better to determine you?


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))