The error of eternal justification

[tribesman]

Am I understanding you rightly that you do not believe that man was eternally saved by Christ's work on the cross and that man has to believe before he is justified or saved eternally? If so, What did Christ accomplish on the cross?

No, you do not understand me rightly, even if I have explained my view to you many times. You keep on asking the same questions again and again, even when they have been answered. I wonder why that is the case. I have to doubt that you read my posts in this thread, at least carefully enough. This aside, there's several of relevant questions that I have asked you, that you have not yet answered. You may want to mind the netiquette. But I understand you rightly that you falsely accuse those who believe the biblical teaching that justificaton is applied to the elect at regeneraton is holding on to a form of conditionalism. Just proves your ignorace, sadly.

 

[Forest]

No, you do not understand me rightly, even if I have explained my view to you many times. You keep on asking the same questions again and again, even when they have been answered. I wonder why that is the case. I have to doubt that you read my posts in this thread, at least carefully enough. This aside, there's several of relevant questions that I have asked you, that you have not yet answered. You may want to mind the netiquette. But I understand you rightly that you falsely accuse those who believe the biblical teaching that justificaton is applied to the elect at regeneraton is holding on to a form of conditionalism. Just proves your ignorace, sadly.

I know that I am a little thick headed but I can't see where you think that your belief is not conditional when you have to believe before you can receive the things that Christ accomplished on the cross. I think I read on one of your post where you repromanded someone for attacking you personaly instead of sticking to just discussing the scriptures. Doesn't calling someone ignorant have the sound of attacking one personally instead of sticking to just discussing the scriptures? Whats this about "minding the netiquette" when you talk around my posts insteading of answering them directly. I do understand that it can be annoying that I am steadfast in upholding to what I believe is the defense of the doctrine of Christ but after all are we not here to discuss our oposing views?

 

[Forest]

I agree with that. However the call to repent and believe the gospel is universal, to the elect as well as the non-elect, to the regenerate as well as the unregenerate.

Because that the elect (all men) even after they are regenerated do at times sin against God by their lust of things of the world, God does command them to repent. God does not command the natural man to repent, knowing that it is impossiable for them to do so. 1 Cor 2:14. God does not chasten the non-elect.

 

[tribesman]

I know that I am a little thick headed but I can't see where you think that your belief is not conditional when you have to believe before you can receive the things that Christ accomplished on the cross. I think I read on one of your post where you repromanded someone for attacking you personaly instead of sticking to just discussing the scriptures. Doesn't calling someone ignorant have the sound of attacking one personally instead of sticking to just discussing the scriptures? Whats this about "minding the netiquette" when you talk around my posts insteading of answering them directly. I do understand that it can be annoying that I am steadfast in upholding to what I believe is the defense of the doctrine of Christ but after all are we not here to discuss our oposing views?

I have not "talked around" any of your questions, they have been asked and answered. You can see them in this thread as well as in the "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" thread. Just look them up. Post#1 and post #4 discusses these issues as well. There is a lot of repeating going on here that should be avoided. I have written that what occurs in regeneration, which causes the elect to believe the gospel, is an instrument to receive what Christ has accomplished for His people, not a condition to receive same. What is unclear about that?

 

[Forest]

Again, a straw man. This is not a question of titles or names of churches. There must be a sucession of known persons who have taught the same doctrine throughout the ages, who have passed on this same doctrine. This is not the case with the PBs. The PBs originate in the 1700s and most of its pioneers were people who broke off from protestant backgrounds. The groups that PBs claims are their spritual ancestors did not have the same beliefs and doctrine as the PBs. In fact, many of these groups taught many things that are diametrically opposed to the ideas of the PBs. Any PB claims of "baptist sucession" has no foundation whatsoever in reality.

I don't know where you get your proof that the PB originated in the 1700's. Do you not think that the doctrine that you uphold is the same doctrine that Christ taught. The true church that Christ set up did not come out of the reformation period of the catholic church. Did not the Luthren church come out of the reformation? Calvin also came out of the reformation, but Calvin is not PB.

 

[tribesman]

I don't know where you get your proof that the PB originated in the 1700's. Do you not think that the doctrine that you uphold is the same doctrine that Christ taught. The true church that Christ set up did not come out of the reformation period of the catholic church. Did not the Luthren church come out of the reformation? Calvin also came out of the reformation, but Calvin is not PB.

When do you say that the PB was founded? Can you tell us who had PB beliefs and doctrine prior to the 1700s? What were their names? Where were they found? Note that it must be the exactly same doctrine as the PBs have today, passed on through generations.

The burden of proof is upon those who claims that PB belief and doctrine was upheld in "succession" through the ages. Everyone who has studied church history even to a small extent knows that this is not the case. Have you read any church history, or do you just go by what is said in the "Trail of Blood" booklet?

 

[Forest]

I have not "talked around" any of your questions, they have been asked and answered. You can see them in this thread as well as in the "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" thread. Just look them up. Post#1 and post #4 discusses these issues as well. There is a lot of repeating going on here that should be avoided. I have written that what occurs in regeneration, which causes the elect to believe the gospel, is an instrument to receive what Christ has accomplished for His people, not a condition to receive same. What is unclear about that?

By you saying that "believing is an instrument to receive WHAT CHRIST HAS ACCOMPLISHED for his people, is admitting that he accomplished their justification on the cross. Just as Gal 2:16 explains that when we believe in the fact that Christ did indeed justify us, we receive a timely salvation of not having to depend upon our own faith for being justified for eternal life. Christ accomplished justification for his elect upon the cross, whether we believe it or not. There is a salvation in coming to an understanding of the truth, but it is not eternal. We understand how that we were justified when we believe, but the fact still remains that Christ actually justified us on the cross.

 

[Forest]

When do you say that the PB was founded? Can you tell us who had PB beliefs and doctrine prior to the 1700s? What were their names? Where were they found? Note that it must be the exactly same doctrine as the PBs have today, passed on through generations.

The burden of proof is upon those who claims that PB belief and doctrine was upheld in "succession" through the ages. Everyone who has studied church history even to a small extent knows that this is not the case. Have you read any church history, or do you just go by what is said in the "Trail of Blood" booklet?

As I have said before that all scriptures must harmonise with each other or you are not understanding the doctrine of Christ. Does your belief harmonise all of the scriptures? One of the scriptures that does not harmonise with your interpretation of the scriptures is Gal 2:16, which clearly states that it was Christ's faith that is responsiable for our justification and the only part that the belief of man plays into it is that when they understand that it was Christ that justified them they are released from the dependance of their own faith to justify them. You have some beliefs that hold to the teaching of Christ but not all.

 

[tribesman]

As I have said before that all scriptures must harmonise with each other or you are not understanding the doctrine of Christ. Does your belief harmonise all of the scriptures? One of the scriptures that does not harmonise with your interpretation of the scriptures is Gal 2:16, which clearly states that it was Christ's faith that is responsiable for our justification and the only part that the belief of man plays into it is that when they understand that it was Christ that justified them they are released from the dependance of their own faith to justify them. You have some beliefs that hold to the teaching of Christ but not all.

This your reply was totally irrelevant to my input and questions to you. My questions were all left unanswered.

 

[tribesman]

By you saying that "believing is an instrument to receive WHAT CHRIST HAS ACCOMPLISHED for his people, is admitting that he accomplished their justification on the cross. Just as Gal 2:16 explains that when we believe in the fact that Christ did indeed justify us, we receive a timely salvation of not having to depend upon our own faith for being justified for eternal life. Christ accomplished justification for his elect upon the cross, whether we believe it or not. There is a salvation in coming to an understanding of the truth, but it is not eternal. We understand how that we were justified when we believe, but the fact still remains that Christ actually justified us on the cross.

Admitting?`I have in numerous posts stated that Christ accomplished all that was required for His people's salvation at the cross. What we are differing on is when this is applied to God's people. I have shown that scripture says that this occurs at regeneration, in which the Spirit causes them to believe the gospel, where salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone. Then they are legally declared and counted as righteous. Before that they were dead in trespasses and sins, sinners under the law. And I reject your view that someone can believe false gospels, and die in such a belief, and still be eternally saved.

 

[tribesman]

Calvin on justification:

“God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.” - John Calvin

 

[tribesman]

...God does command them to repent. God does not command the natural man to repent, knowing that it is impossiable for them to do so...

People who believes in false gospels and live in sin are not regenerate. Got me? People who believes in false gospels and live in sin are not regenerate. Amen. And if they die in that state they are eternally lost. This is what the Bible says. If you believe to the contrary then you are at least into error. Maybe worse. And there's nothing more to discuss. Stop spamming this forum with your twisting of Gal.2:16. Nuff' said.

 

[tribesman]

This is an article about John Gill and his relation to hyper-calvinism. It disputes the "charge" against Gill being hyper-calvinist, while affirming that he taught a form of eternal justification.

John Gill and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism Biographia Evangelica <-link

 

[Forest]

When do you say that the PB was founded? Can you tell us who had PB beliefs and doctrine prior to the 1700s? What were their names? Where were they found? Note that it must be the exactly same doctrine as the PBs have today, passed on through generations.

The burden of proof is upon those who claims that PB belief and doctrine was upheld in "succession" through the ages. Everyone who has studied church history even to a small extent knows that this is not the case. Have you read any church history, or do you just go by what is said in the "Trail of Blood" booklet?

The doctrine of Christ was taught in the church that Jesus established. The same doctrine is still taught in the PB now. Jesus and his apostles had the same beliefs and doctrine before the 1700's. The exact same doctrine that the PB teach today. The true church is the only church that was never a part of the catholic church, therefore it did not come from the reformation period as all other doctrines did.

 

[tribesman]

The doctrine of Christ was taught in the church that Jesus established. The same doctrine is still taught in the PB now. Jesus and his apostles had the same beliefs and doctrine before the 1700's. The exact same doctrine that the PB teach today. The true church is the only church that was never a part of the catholic church, therefore it did not come from the reformation period as all other doctrines did.

Then name all of the persons/people and groups (and the places where they were found) that believed and taught exactly the same things as the PBs do, passed on in succession from the days Christ established His church until today.

 

[tribesman]

An article about the definitions and typical trademarks of hyper-calvinism. An excerpt:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

[/FONT] Read more:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism <- link

 

[tribesman]

I know that I am a little thick headed ... I do understand that it can be annoying that I am steadfast in upholding to what I believe is the defense of the doctrine of Christ...

It is nothing but contention. And I believe your contention for your error comes from pride. As "only by pride cometh contention" (Prov.13.10).

 

[Forest]

It is nothing but contention. And I believe your contention for your error comes from pride. As "only by pride cometh contention" (Prov.13.10).

Working the actions of man into God's grace of eternal live by saying that man has to believe before he can be justified, has a louder ring of Pride. It never ceases to amaze me how man will struggle to take credit for their eternal salvation and not give God all of the credit. They like to honour themselves instead of God. Proverbs says there are six things that God hates, yea, even seven, and "a proud look" is at the top of the list.

 

[tribesman]

Working the actions of man into God's grace of eternal live by saying that man has to believe before he can be justified, has a louder ring of Pride....

You falsely assume that this belief is a work of man, not a fruit of regeneration.

 

[Forest]

You falsely assume that this belief is a work of man, not a fruit of regeneration.

Work, pertaining to theology is a belief derived from faith,Webester's dictionary, so believing is a work of man.