- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Voddie Baucham explains the looming catastrophe of CRT in the church
Posted on 7/8/21 at 8:25 am to Mike da Tigah
Posted on 7/8/21 at 8:25 am to Mike da Tigah
And what is sobering, Mike, is that the same Bible that predicts the rise of this supposedly altruistic 'master', prophesies that it will be successful in taking over the whole World economy/government. At least for 7 years, with hell on Earth breaking loose, and finally, the Good Lord stepping in "lest all flesh" be lost. 2/3 of Humanity going down. At least the Left gets their population control dream.
"Behold, there is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is destruction".
Eternity is a long time to enjoy. Once we get over this hump...it's party time. New World Paradigm coming.
"Behold, there is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is destruction".
Eternity is a long time to enjoy. Once we get over this hump...it's party time. New World Paradigm coming.
0
Posted on 7/8/21 at 9:43 am to pawpoints19
quote:
what church is teaching CRT? What does that even look like?
A large southern formerly conservative church has fully embraced CRT and is interjecting the theory into many aspects of its ministries (the junior high and high school ministries and staff are totally woke).
About 1-2 times a year one of the pastors preaches a sermon on "white privilege/white guilt" and tries to make the case that there has been and continues to be systematic racism in the US. Occasionally, one of the pastors will go off on a rabbit trail during a regular sermon and go down the CRT trail.
A few years ago the founding pastor had one of the black pastors on stage with him and he embraced him and apologized for his racism of the past and present. If you know the pastor, he is anything but a racist.
The fundraising campaign pamphlet from 8 years ago was a slick piece and the words social justice were common throughout (and this was a few years before most people knew what social justice entailed - the staff at that time and currently fully embraced "social justice" as we now know it to be).
It's sad because this church has been so effective at reaching the lost for Christ and training others to do the same. They are beginning to shed members as these members see what direction the church is headed. Theologically they are still 95% solid but seem determined to take the church in the CRT/social justice direction and, historically, that typically leads to a lower % of theological soundness.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 11:21 am to BaldEagleHey
quote:
About 1-2 times a year one of the pastors preaches a sermon on "white privilege/white guilt" and tries to make the case that there has been and continues to be systematic racism in the US. Occasionally, one of the pastors will go off on a rabbit trail during a regular sermon and go down the CRT trail.
In all honesty, I wouldn't stay at that church too much longer. Those churches get too large and they get scared about what they can say. Or they were never interested in saying it in the first place.
Here is an article about a former Alabama megachurch pastor who is now up in Virginia outside DC, helping to drive conservatives out of his church up there where they need solid leadership the most.
David Platt with SJW tendencies.
This post was edited on 7/8/21 at 11:36 am
Posted on 7/8/21 at 11:57 am to FooManChoo
quote:
CRT is taking hold in many churches because the under-shepherds of Christ aren't doing their jobs
It’s because many of the 50 year old and younger preachers are weak and spineless. They know scripture, they just don’t want to stand up for truth and lose “friends” or “money” or their jobs.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 12:00 pm to HabaneroBuck
David Platt is a super nice guy. Always has been - he goes out of his way to try and look at things from others’ perspectives…
Which is why I think he absolutely is susceptible to bowing down to CRT. There’s a time to say it straight and lay the truth down regardless of feelings.
He, apparently, struggles to do this.
Which is why I think he absolutely is susceptible to bowing down to CRT. There’s a time to say it straight and lay the truth down regardless of feelings.
He, apparently, struggles to do this.
This post was edited on 7/8/21 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 7/8/21 at 12:09 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
It’s because many of the 50 year old and younger preachers are weak and spineless. They know scripture, they just don’t want to stand up for truth and lose “friends” or “money” or their jobs.
I think we're teaching meekness incorrectly to Christian leaders. My wife gives me a hard time because I just can't deal with whisper-y and fragile praise and worship and I have no idea why it's a common characteristic among 90% of P&W leaders.
That's just an amusing analogy, but I think the same extends to a lot of pastors. Humility and introspection and putting others before yourself does not mean eschewing boldness about the truth. If it's the truth, I want it in an unfiltered manner. That doesn't mean it has to be cruel or even harsh, but it doesn't require caveats.
If a pastor feels led to preach to conservative members about whether their conservative political obsessions are distracting them from the fact that the Lord is still in control and is not in jeopardy by virtue of the march of leftist thought - give it to me straight. I don't need a "both sides" critique of how lefties do it too. And vice versa - stop trying to make me feel ok about myself if you're convicted of an area you need to lead your church in so long as that conviction is scripturally sound. The culture is obsessed with making me feel good, I go to church for the truth and as an alternative to the culture.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 1:53 pm to Metaloctopus
Now that the traffic on this thread has slowed down, I'm happy to address your concerns about Calvinism. I'll first address your concerns specifically, and then provide a positive case for Calvinism as a biblical framework for understanding salvation.
The difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper-Calvinist, as they are often called, is the emphasis on man's responsibility towards obedience in the process. While God is the one doing the saving, God uses means to accomplish His will, and He has decided to use the weakness of men through the preaching of the Gospel to do His work of regeneration upon His elect, to effectually call them to salvation. The Hyper-Calvinist denies God's use of the means of the gospel in salvation and believes that God will just change hearts and minds without the preached word, and therefore there is no point in mission work and evangelism. I disagree with that position, and it seems you think that is the logical conclusion to Calvinism (it isn't).
The first issue is that it removes the sovereignty of God and makes man sovereign over his own life, including his own eternal state. The Bible clearly teaches that is is God that is sovereign over all things (including men) Some proof texts are: Eph. 1:11; Col. 1:16–17; Is. 45:7–9; Pr. 16:33; Job 42:2; Lam. 3:37–39; and Acts 4:27–28
God does things according to the counsel of His will. He is not passive and has not played a passive role in redemptive history. The story of the Bible is God actively saving His people and destroying His enemies. This view of man's sovereignty flies in the face of scripture.
Next, I'd like to say that God doesn't need to predestine things in order to see into the future. God can see into the future because He has already predestined all things. See, if everything wasn't already determined, then God couldn't actually know what would happen, because that would simply be a mystery that would need to play out over time. God would only see all possibilities of what could happen. This is why I said previously that the only consistent Arminian is an open theist, because open theism teaches that God doesn't actually know what will come to pass, but only knows what could happen and therefore has to learn things as time goes on. The reason for this viewpoint is because they put such an emphasis on man's free will and sovereignty that they have to rob God of His divine attributes. But, at least they're consistent.
So to summarize, God not only elected some to salvation, but He determined that those would receive the Gospel message as the means to that salvation. It's precisely why we send missionaries throughout the world, because it is the means that God has ordained to save His people from all nations.
It's not even in question from a Biblical view that God ordains or plans evil to come to pass. The question, therefore, is whether or not God's ordaining evil to occur means He is the author of it (meaning, the one performing the evil or sin). The answer is a resounding "no". God is not the one performing evil or sin. In fact, it is impossible for God to do so, because it would violate His very nature. No, instead, God permits sin through His lack of positive grace and incorporates our sinful responses into His plan for humanity.
Jonathan Edwards described it like this: "[God is] the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."
Humans act according to our wills, yet our wills are bent to sin and disobedience to God prior to regeneration. God doesn't have to make us sin because we will willingly and gladly sin without Him putting a proverbial gun to our heads. We simply act in such a way as we desire to act. God can and does intervene to limit the extent of our depraved actions by His grace, but there is no way to say that God is unfair or unjust in condemning sinners because we sin as we please. God directs our sin to His ends.
quote:The traditional Calvinist is a 5-point Calvinist. There are some who take issue with the position of the scope and purpose of the atonement, but I believe all 5 points flow logically and biblically from the previous ones. If we truly are totally depraved due to sin and unable to choose salvation through faith, then we will need God's unconditional election, brought about by a particular atoning work of Christ on the cross for His people, and then the irresistible grace or regeneration of the Holy Spirit to give us eyes to see and ears to hear, as well as to persevere to the end, because it is God who does all this for us.
And the reason I say that, is because there isn't any actual difference between what you call a "hyper-Calvinist" or a three point Calvinist, or whatever one may call themselves.
The difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper-Calvinist, as they are often called, is the emphasis on man's responsibility towards obedience in the process. While God is the one doing the saving, God uses means to accomplish His will, and He has decided to use the weakness of men through the preaching of the Gospel to do His work of regeneration upon His elect, to effectually call them to salvation. The Hyper-Calvinist denies God's use of the means of the gospel in salvation and believes that God will just change hearts and minds without the preached word, and therefore there is no point in mission work and evangelism. I disagree with that position, and it seems you think that is the logical conclusion to Calvinism (it isn't).
quote:I'll actually start with your assertion that God doesn't ordain that happens but only knows what will happen:
If you believe in all things being predetermined, as opposed to simply being foreknown, which is what I believe (God would not be infinite in His power, if he needed to predetermine the future in order to see into it), then all else is just window dressing to explain AWAY the internal incoherence, rather than address the problem.
The first issue is that it removes the sovereignty of God and makes man sovereign over his own life, including his own eternal state. The Bible clearly teaches that is is God that is sovereign over all things (including men) Some proof texts are: Eph. 1:11; Col. 1:16–17; Is. 45:7–9; Pr. 16:33; Job 42:2; Lam. 3:37–39; and Acts 4:27–28
God does things according to the counsel of His will. He is not passive and has not played a passive role in redemptive history. The story of the Bible is God actively saving His people and destroying His enemies. This view of man's sovereignty flies in the face of scripture.
Next, I'd like to say that God doesn't need to predestine things in order to see into the future. God can see into the future because He has already predestined all things. See, if everything wasn't already determined, then God couldn't actually know what would happen, because that would simply be a mystery that would need to play out over time. God would only see all possibilities of what could happen. This is why I said previously that the only consistent Arminian is an open theist, because open theism teaches that God doesn't actually know what will come to pass, but only knows what could happen and therefore has to learn things as time goes on. The reason for this viewpoint is because they put such an emphasis on man's free will and sovereignty that they have to rob God of His divine attributes. But, at least they're consistent.
quote:I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here. As I said previously, we don't believe that God is only sovereign over the outcome (salvation), but He is sovereign over the means that He uses to accomplish that outcome. In this case, God has sovereignly chosen weak vessels in men to be the messengers of the Gospel, proclaiming it to all so that His elect will hear it, and by the power of the Spirit, be saved. The saving power of the Gospel is tied directly to the work of the Spirit as the normative means of salvation.
What do I mean? If you believe that our actions are predetermined, then why would God feel the need to use any of us to spread truth? The whole point of God sending us out into the world to spread the Gospel, and for that matter, the whole purpose of the Gospel even existing, is to reach others who are lost. If everyone's fate has been determined, then no one is going to be reached. You are essentially, then, saying that God created us as a means for His own entertainment, to watch us play out a grand play.
So to summarize, God not only elected some to salvation, but He determined that those would receive the Gospel message as the means to that salvation. It's precisely why we send missionaries throughout the world, because it is the means that God has ordained to save His people from all nations.
quote:God is not the author of sin, yet He ordains both good and evil (Lam 3:38; Is. 45:7). God ordained from before creation that He would send His son to be killed for the sins of humanity (Acts 4:27–28). This means that God ordained the evil of unjustly putting His son to death.
That is not the God of the Bible. If God has predetermined all actions, then God is the author of sin. And that makes Him an unjust God for bringing punishment upon those who had no control of their thoughts or actions. That is also not the God of the Bible.
It's not even in question from a Biblical view that God ordains or plans evil to come to pass. The question, therefore, is whether or not God's ordaining evil to occur means He is the author of it (meaning, the one performing the evil or sin). The answer is a resounding "no". God is not the one performing evil or sin. In fact, it is impossible for God to do so, because it would violate His very nature. No, instead, God permits sin through His lack of positive grace and incorporates our sinful responses into His plan for humanity.
Jonathan Edwards described it like this: "[God is] the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."
Humans act according to our wills, yet our wills are bent to sin and disobedience to God prior to regeneration. God doesn't have to make us sin because we will willingly and gladly sin without Him putting a proverbial gun to our heads. We simply act in such a way as we desire to act. God can and does intervene to limit the extent of our depraved actions by His grace, but there is no way to say that God is unfair or unjust in condemning sinners because we sin as we please. God directs our sin to His ends.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 2:34 pm to HabaneroBuck
quote:
In all honesty, I wouldn't stay at that church too much longer. Those churches get too large and they get scared about what they can say. Or they were never interested in saying it in the first place.
We left six years ago, but I am still in a small group with a number of men at the former church. We were there 20 yrs and friends have been 25+ years. Its a great spiritual community but the leadership is pushing the church down the social justice/CRT alley.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 2:59 pm to 3nOut
quote:
your lot in life has a lot to do with your upbringing and statistically whites are set to have better upbringings
This is entirely a cultural issue.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 3:02 pm to Pettifogger
I think you’d love pastor Joby at church of 11:22 here in Jacksonville.
His sermons are on the website. No nonsense no bullshite no crt and all are welcome.
His sermons are on the website. No nonsense no bullshite no crt and all are welcome.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 3:15 pm to Mike da Tigah
Voddie is a potential target of the American Marxists….he speaks truth and that threatens the American Marxist movement.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 3:34 pm to FooManChoo
Well done, sir. I always enjoy your contributions to this forum.
I only take issue with this bit:
There is no prerequisite to God's omniscience. You are, of course, correct that he has indeed ordained all things....there isn't a single "maverick molecule" in the universe, as Sproul said...but His omniscience is not dependent upon His sovereignty, per se, although all of His divine attributes are indeed tied to each of the others in that they, together, form the whole of His essence.
Therefore, though we know that He has indeed ordained all things before the foundation of the world, for the sake of argument, had He not done so, He still would know the exact outcome of everything - every decision, every choice - without error.
In fact, though He DID ordain everything and does know the end from the beginning, He STILL knows all "possible" outcomes, meaning He knows every conceivable outcome of every conceivable circumstance which He, in eternity past, could've ordained differently.
Mind blowing.
I only take issue with this bit:
quote:
God can see into the future because He has already predestined all things. See, if everything wasn't already determined, then God couldn't actually know what would happen, because that would simply be a mystery that would need to play out over time. God would only see all possibilities of what could happen.
There is no prerequisite to God's omniscience. You are, of course, correct that he has indeed ordained all things....there isn't a single "maverick molecule" in the universe, as Sproul said...but His omniscience is not dependent upon His sovereignty, per se, although all of His divine attributes are indeed tied to each of the others in that they, together, form the whole of His essence.
Therefore, though we know that He has indeed ordained all things before the foundation of the world, for the sake of argument, had He not done so, He still would know the exact outcome of everything - every decision, every choice - without error.
In fact, though He DID ordain everything and does know the end from the beginning, He STILL knows all "possible" outcomes, meaning He knows every conceivable outcome of every conceivable circumstance which He, in eternity past, could've ordained differently.
Mind blowing.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 4:16 pm to Metaloctopus
Now I'll lay out the positive case for Calvinism as a Biblical framework for salvation using the commonly referred to TULIP acronym:
1. Total Depravity - It's important to start with the contrast between the freedom of the will and the total depravity of mankind. Contrary to what many think, election or predestination are not the opposite of free will, for even the Arminian believes in God's election and predestination in cooperation with man's free will. Instead, free will is contrasted with a depraved will or a will that is in bondage to sin. The first point is that the will of man is so corrupted by sin and bent towards rebellion against God by nature that man will not and cannot come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ apart from the regenerating work of God by His Spirit. We must be born again by the Spirit if we are to be saved because we will never believe in the gospel apart from that spiritual new birth. It's why Christ said said that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them first. If God were to look into the future to passively see who would believe, He would see that no one would believe because no one can believe apart from His direct intervention.
Support: Gen. 6:5; Ps. 51:1-5; 58:3; Is. 64:6; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Ez. 11:19; 36:26; Jn 6:44, 65; Rom. 3:10-12, 23; 7:18; 8:7; 9:16; 11:8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-10; 4:18
2. Unconditional Election - Since we are dead in our sins and cannot believe upon Christ and receive salvation without God first changing our hearts, giving us a heart of flesh instead of stone and giving us eyes to see and ears to hear, we cannot expect to be saved without God's intervention. Since God does intervene to save His people, we must see that this election (choosing) who will be His must be decided by God's good pleasure and not based on anything we do to merit that salvation, whether that be a good work or an active faith that springs up from within us based on our righteousness, intelligence, or anything else naturally residing in us. God, therefore, elects or chooses a people for Himself unconditionally, that is, not based on anything other than His good pleasure and mercy. This is contrasted with the belief that God chooses who He will save based on their future faith or belief, which they cannot have without Him first causing them to be born again.
Support: Prv. 16:4; Jer. 1:5; Mat. 22:14; Jn. 6:44; 15:16; Acts 2:23; 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30, 33; 9:16 Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:4-5, 11-12; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8
3. Limited Atonement (aka Particular Redemption) - Given that none will come to Christ by faith on their own without God granting them that faith, and given that only those whom God chose, predestined, or elected from the beginning of the world will be granted that faith and saved, it follows that Christ came to die on the cross to effectually save only those whom have been given to Him (the elect) by the Father. While we maintain that Christ's death was sufficient to save all people, it was efficient to save only the elect whom Christ died for. Thereby, Christ's death didn't just make possible salvation for all, it made salvation effectual for those whom He died for. In other words, Christ's death or atonement for sin actually saves rather than only makes salvation possible. This is in contrast to the view that Christ's atoning work on the cross was general to all mankind, making it only possible for people to be saved but not actually saving any particular persons or groups of persons.
Support: Mat. 1:21; 20:28; Jn. 5:21; 10:11, 15; 17:9; Acts 13:48; 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Heb. 9:15, 28; Rev. 5:9
4. Irresistible Grace (aka Effectual Calling) - Given that Christ died to save a particular people (the elect of God, or Christ's Church), it is necessary that those persons come to a saving faith in Christ lest any of the elect perish in their sins due to unbelief. In order to apply the justification to God's people through faith, God must regenerate His people, removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh, and have the elect "born again" to new life through the effectual calling of the Spirit, causing them to not just be able to believe, but to effectually take on that faith and belief through God's grace. The elect person being regenerated and born again, he now desires the promises of God through Christ and gladly receives them by the gift of faith where he previously despised the things of God as God's enemy. This is not to be confused with being able to resist the general grace of God, but rather that man cannot resist the particular saving grace or effectual call (as opposed to the general call of the Gospel) of the Spirit of God in salvation when God intends to bring the elect to saving faith. This is contrasted with the belief that the grace of God is resistible and that the Spirit's power in salvation can be rejected by man's autonomous will.
Support: Is. 43:21; Jn. 1:11-13; 3:3-7, 27; 5:21; 6:37, 44, 63-65; Acts 13:48; 16:14; Rom. 8:29-30; 9:16; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:5, 8-10; Phil. 1:29; 2:13; Col. 2:13; Tit. 3:5; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn. 5:1, 4
5. Perseverance of the Saints: Because God has chosen a people for His son to be His Church, His sheep, and His bride; and because God regenerates a sinner who is dead in their sins; and because Jesus was sent to die for that people; and because those people are made alive through the Spirit of God, God will continue to uphold them in the Faith and by faith in His son, through the indwelling of the Spirit, so that none will be lost but all God's elect will run the race to completion. None that are given to the son will be lost, because salvation is not dependent upon the will of man, but the gift of faith by God's grace. Therefore, while some who may profess faith in Christ may fall away, those who are truly God's elect will never be lost but will die in the Faith and be with Christ in Heaven until His return, where they will receive the benefits of the promises of salvation. This is contrasted with the belief that, since man, by his own free will, submits to Christ, he, by his own free will, can reject Christ afterwards, thus losing the guarantee of salvation that was there through faith.
Support: Jn. 5:24; 6:37-47; 10:27-29; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:13-14; 2:8-9; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:19; Jude 1:24
To summarize: the framework of Calvinism states that the scriptures teach a purposeful and intentional salvation for a particular people, whereby God is active in salvation from start to finish, actively saving His people rather than passively waiting for sinners to save themselves through works, faith, or some other means that the sinner creates in himself. This framework gives all the glory of salvation to God, as it highlights that we, as sinners dead in our sins, are entirely reliant upon Christ for salvation, and praising Him alone for His mercy towards us, rather than sharing in the merits of salvation by our sovereign choice. It's precisely why Paul goes through a systematic approach to this in the book of Romans, laying out exactly what our condition is before God and the necessity of God's sovereign work of salvation for us. He even anticipates the natural questions about fairness, posing rhetorical questions that he then proceeds to answer. God is sovereign in salvation and we are not.
1. Total Depravity - It's important to start with the contrast between the freedom of the will and the total depravity of mankind. Contrary to what many think, election or predestination are not the opposite of free will, for even the Arminian believes in God's election and predestination in cooperation with man's free will. Instead, free will is contrasted with a depraved will or a will that is in bondage to sin. The first point is that the will of man is so corrupted by sin and bent towards rebellion against God by nature that man will not and cannot come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ apart from the regenerating work of God by His Spirit. We must be born again by the Spirit if we are to be saved because we will never believe in the gospel apart from that spiritual new birth. It's why Christ said said that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them first. If God were to look into the future to passively see who would believe, He would see that no one would believe because no one can believe apart from His direct intervention.
Support: Gen. 6:5; Ps. 51:1-5; 58:3; Is. 64:6; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Ez. 11:19; 36:26; Jn 6:44, 65; Rom. 3:10-12, 23; 7:18; 8:7; 9:16; 11:8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-10; 4:18
2. Unconditional Election - Since we are dead in our sins and cannot believe upon Christ and receive salvation without God first changing our hearts, giving us a heart of flesh instead of stone and giving us eyes to see and ears to hear, we cannot expect to be saved without God's intervention. Since God does intervene to save His people, we must see that this election (choosing) who will be His must be decided by God's good pleasure and not based on anything we do to merit that salvation, whether that be a good work or an active faith that springs up from within us based on our righteousness, intelligence, or anything else naturally residing in us. God, therefore, elects or chooses a people for Himself unconditionally, that is, not based on anything other than His good pleasure and mercy. This is contrasted with the belief that God chooses who He will save based on their future faith or belief, which they cannot have without Him first causing them to be born again.
Support: Prv. 16:4; Jer. 1:5; Mat. 22:14; Jn. 6:44; 15:16; Acts 2:23; 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30, 33; 9:16 Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:4-5, 11-12; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8
3. Limited Atonement (aka Particular Redemption) - Given that none will come to Christ by faith on their own without God granting them that faith, and given that only those whom God chose, predestined, or elected from the beginning of the world will be granted that faith and saved, it follows that Christ came to die on the cross to effectually save only those whom have been given to Him (the elect) by the Father. While we maintain that Christ's death was sufficient to save all people, it was efficient to save only the elect whom Christ died for. Thereby, Christ's death didn't just make possible salvation for all, it made salvation effectual for those whom He died for. In other words, Christ's death or atonement for sin actually saves rather than only makes salvation possible. This is in contrast to the view that Christ's atoning work on the cross was general to all mankind, making it only possible for people to be saved but not actually saving any particular persons or groups of persons.
Support: Mat. 1:21; 20:28; Jn. 5:21; 10:11, 15; 17:9; Acts 13:48; 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Heb. 9:15, 28; Rev. 5:9
4. Irresistible Grace (aka Effectual Calling) - Given that Christ died to save a particular people (the elect of God, or Christ's Church), it is necessary that those persons come to a saving faith in Christ lest any of the elect perish in their sins due to unbelief. In order to apply the justification to God's people through faith, God must regenerate His people, removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh, and have the elect "born again" to new life through the effectual calling of the Spirit, causing them to not just be able to believe, but to effectually take on that faith and belief through God's grace. The elect person being regenerated and born again, he now desires the promises of God through Christ and gladly receives them by the gift of faith where he previously despised the things of God as God's enemy. This is not to be confused with being able to resist the general grace of God, but rather that man cannot resist the particular saving grace or effectual call (as opposed to the general call of the Gospel) of the Spirit of God in salvation when God intends to bring the elect to saving faith. This is contrasted with the belief that the grace of God is resistible and that the Spirit's power in salvation can be rejected by man's autonomous will.
Support: Is. 43:21; Jn. 1:11-13; 3:3-7, 27; 5:21; 6:37, 44, 63-65; Acts 13:48; 16:14; Rom. 8:29-30; 9:16; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:5, 8-10; Phil. 1:29; 2:13; Col. 2:13; Tit. 3:5; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn. 5:1, 4
5. Perseverance of the Saints: Because God has chosen a people for His son to be His Church, His sheep, and His bride; and because God regenerates a sinner who is dead in their sins; and because Jesus was sent to die for that people; and because those people are made alive through the Spirit of God, God will continue to uphold them in the Faith and by faith in His son, through the indwelling of the Spirit, so that none will be lost but all God's elect will run the race to completion. None that are given to the son will be lost, because salvation is not dependent upon the will of man, but the gift of faith by God's grace. Therefore, while some who may profess faith in Christ may fall away, those who are truly God's elect will never be lost but will die in the Faith and be with Christ in Heaven until His return, where they will receive the benefits of the promises of salvation. This is contrasted with the belief that, since man, by his own free will, submits to Christ, he, by his own free will, can reject Christ afterwards, thus losing the guarantee of salvation that was there through faith.
Support: Jn. 5:24; 6:37-47; 10:27-29; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:13-14; 2:8-9; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:19; Jude 1:24
To summarize: the framework of Calvinism states that the scriptures teach a purposeful and intentional salvation for a particular people, whereby God is active in salvation from start to finish, actively saving His people rather than passively waiting for sinners to save themselves through works, faith, or some other means that the sinner creates in himself. This framework gives all the glory of salvation to God, as it highlights that we, as sinners dead in our sins, are entirely reliant upon Christ for salvation, and praising Him alone for His mercy towards us, rather than sharing in the merits of salvation by our sovereign choice. It's precisely why Paul goes through a systematic approach to this in the book of Romans, laying out exactly what our condition is before God and the necessity of God's sovereign work of salvation for us. He even anticipates the natural questions about fairness, posing rhetorical questions that he then proceeds to answer. God is sovereign in salvation and we are not.
This post was edited on 7/8/21 at 6:49 pm
Posted on 7/8/21 at 4:58 pm to FooManChoo
Bravo. Very well done.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 5:08 pm to BrookhavenBengal
quote:I agree and perhaps I misspoke by implying that His omniscience is somehow dependent on His omnipotent sovereignty (I don't believe it is!), but instead I believe that there aren't possible alternatives that God must know or be aware of through His omniscience because God has had a singular plan for history that He has been working out over time.
There is no prerequisite to God's omniscience. You are, of course, correct that he has indeed ordained all things....there isn't a single "maverick molecule" in the universe, as Sproul said...but His omniscience is not dependent upon His sovereignty, per se, although all of His divine attributes are indeed tied to each of the others in that they, together, form the whole of His essence.
If God is sovereign over all things and has ordained all that comes to pass, then there are no other possibilities for God to be aware of, for nothing would be possible except that which God ordains to happen. For example, I don't believe it is possible for Christ to not become incarnate, or for Him to not die on the cross, because that was the plan from before creation. It's not possible for God's will to be thwarted, therefore I don't believe God's omniscience includes knowledge of impossible possibilities, so to speak.
I haven't spent a lot of time thinking through that particular result of the doctrine of His omniscience, so if you disagree, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Thank you for the kind remarks and thank you for challenging me on this issue. Iron sharpens iron. Also, bonus points to you for the Sproul reference.
Posted on 7/8/21 at 5:26 pm to FooManChoo
Well said.
I think you are correct that there are no “actual” possible outcomes, since all outcomes are ordained by Him.
I just want to avoid a construction that places any of His attributes at the mercy of another.
It’s big stuff to consider!!
By the way, have you seen Lawson’s series on the Attributes of God? Highly recommended.
Thanks for your faithfulness and your contending for the faith once delivered!
I think you are correct that there are no “actual” possible outcomes, since all outcomes are ordained by Him.
I just want to avoid a construction that places any of His attributes at the mercy of another.
It’s big stuff to consider!!
By the way, have you seen Lawson’s series on the Attributes of God? Highly recommended.
Thanks for your faithfulness and your contending for the faith once delivered!
Posted on 7/8/21 at 5:56 pm to BrookhavenBengal
I haven't seen Lawson's series on God's attributes but I just found it so I've got some undoubtedly good stuff to digest. Thanks for recommendation and again for the kind words!
Thank you, brother!
Thank you, brother!
Posted on 7/8/21 at 8:51 pm to pawpoints19
quote:
what church is teaching CRT? What does that even look like?
Looks like this
Florida couple sues 'woke' Catholic school to rescind $1.35 million donation after it 'lost its way' Parents across the country have pushed back against what they see as 'woke' indoctrination of students related to the teaching of critical race theory
quote:
Four years later, a 45-page lawsuit accuses the school of fraud and giving priority to "gender identity, human sexuality and pregnancy termination among other hot button issues" over Catholic teachings. The Scarpos are also not pleased with the way the school has dealt with race issues and said students were made to feel guilty for being White and for their families having the money to send them to the academy.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News