Unraveling the confusion of God’s Decree: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[civic]

Have you read William Tyndale's view on "the world"? (HINT: Not "all without exception" or "all without distinction".)

Who is "whosoever believeth in him"?

• John 10: 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

"My father gave them me" is the key difference between BEING "not of my sheep" and BEING "my sheep".
"not of my sheep" do not believe BECAUSE they are not "my sheep" (given by the Father).
"my sheep" believe BECAUSE they are "my sheep" (given by the Father).

Therein lies the secret revealed of "whosoever believeth in him" ... from the same author just a little later in the book.

“The one who has ears to hear, let him hear."
(That means READ the scripture and pay attention to what GOD actually said.)

His sheep were the 12. Context is king

 

[atpollard]

His sheep were the 12. Context is king

I think I find the implications of that thought disturbing.
Why would Jesus explain to a crowd so much that only applied to 12 people?
Why would John taunt gentiles with a gospel full of promises that were not for them?
[Rhetorical questions … just for the record]

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think I find the implications of that thought disturbing.
Why would Jesus explain to a crowd so much that only applied to 12 people?
Why would John taunt gentiles with a gospel full of promises that were not for them?
[Rhetorical questions … just for the record]

Oh the irony here........ and self serving nonsense.....

"Why would John taunt Gentiles with a Gospel full of promises that were not for them?"....Do you have a self aware "bone in your body"?

I mean just how disconnected from reality can a Calvinist be?

I know you're ignoring me but.... "pray tell" why would you make such an argument yourself when YOU... create the same situation you're bashing.... when you say the Gospel isn't effective.

Just why would God taunt the world with a Gospel full of promises that were not for them?????

Oh how some Calvinist blinkards need self awareness.

 

[civic]

I think I find the implications of that thought disturbing.
Why would Jesus explain to a crowd so much that only applied to 12 people?
Why would John taunt gentiles with a gospel full of promises that were not for them?
[Rhetorical questions … just for the record]

Because Jesus was referring to them as His sheep. So much in Johns gospel is specifically for the 12.

Even calvinists say the same thing to defend their own doctrine in John 17 declaring Jesus was not praying for the world but only for the 12.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Jesus promised in chapters 14-16 for the 12 that the Holy Spirit would guide THEM (not us ) into all truth and bring to THEM ( remembrance ) of everything he taught THEM, not us. Yet calvinists want to apply those passages to themselves when in fact its only for the 12.

I have dozens of such examples. Most of the calvinists verses used in John to support calvinism only apply to the 12 not everyone.

We call that eisegesis- reading calvinism into scripture instead of exegesis- who it was written to in the first place and its context.

hope this helps !!!

 

[atpollard]

Because Jesus was referring to them as His sheep. So much in Johns gospel is specifically for the 12.

Do you see the irony that you answer rhetorical questions and ignore non-rhetotical questions ... just saying.
Short response: I disagree (no surprise there).

Even calvinists say the same thing to defend their own doctrine in John 17 declaring Jesus was not praying for the world but only for the 12.

I see it as referring to THESE PEOPLE:
"You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation. You have made them into a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.” - Revelation 5:9-10 [more than 12, less than all without exception]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I like Pumpkin Pie and Sweet Potato Pie.

Jesus promised in chapters 14-16 for the 12 that the Holy Spirit would guide THEM (not us ) into all truth and bring to THEM ( remembrance ) of everything he taught THEM, not us. Yet calvinists want to apply those passages to themselves when in fact its only for the 12.

True dat, but ...
"I am not asking on behalf of these alone, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." - John 17:20-21

... so maybe?

I have dozens of such examples. Most of the calvinists verses used in John to support calvinism only apply to the 12 not everyone.

Short response: I disagree (no surprise there).

We call that eisegesis- reading calvinism into scripture instead of exegesis- who it was written to in the first place and its context.

hope this helps !!!

Jesus spoke primarily to the 12 (although YOU of all people should be arguing that Jesus was speaking to "all without exception" that anyone that chose to could believe and I should be arguing that God only gave the 12 "ears to hear" ... but let us set that irony aside).
HOWEVER, John wrote the Gospel of John and John was certainly not writing to himself and the other 11 (many of whom were probably dead). Therefore, EXEGESIS requires us to ask who was John's intended audience and what did John want them to know? John felt that what Jesus said was important for US to know and applied to our salvation (that was the reason for EVERYTHING that John placed in his Gospel).

I hope this helps !!!

[Oh my gosh, are we actually communicating?]

 

[civic]

John 10 are about the 12 just like in John 6.

John 14-16 are promised to the 12 not everyone.

If you want to drag John 17 into the picture it also goes against calvinism since Jesus later mentions the world in His prayer.

hope this helps !!!

 

[atpollard]

John 10 are about the 12 just like in John 6.

John 14-16 are promised to the 12 not everyone.

If you want to drag John 17 into the picture it also goes against calvinism since Jesus later mentions the world in His prayer.

hope this helps !!!

Why did John write his Gospel?
Weren't the other 11 saved?

 

[civic]

Why did John write his Gospel?
Weren't the other 11 saved?

His purpose statement was written for those who would believe his message that the gospel is about Jesus dying for the world that whosoever will believe in Him might have eternal life. Notice not mention of elect or chosen in his purpose statement.

Notice " HIS DISCIPLES " below right before His purpose statement which follows

John 20:30-31Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Continuing:

1689BCF: He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.

Scripture:

• James 1:12-15 [NKJV] Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
• 1 John 1:5-7 [NKJV] This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

So let us examine the truth of the Decree of God:

1. We already determined that God did do it, so was it "by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will"?
   
   • This is a continuation of the affirmation established by the verses examined in Isaiah 46, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 6, and Romans 9.
   • It merely affirms the attributes of God (perfectly wise and holy) established earlier in the 1689BCF [available upon request] and combines them with the "council of His own will" established from scripture in the OP.
2. Is God the author (source, creator) of sin?
   
   • James 1: "nor does He tempt anyone"; 1 John 1: "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all".
3. Does God have fellowship with any in their sin?
   
   • James 1: "each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed"; 1 John 1: "God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie"

Can we accept the TRUTH of Scripture: “From all eternity God decreed everything that occurs, without reference to anything outside himself. He did this by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably. Yet God did this in such a way that he is neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any in their sin.”? If not, which scriptures are we challenging?

Not the JCV version of it , the John Calvin Version.

 

[civic]

cite a verse where adams nature changed after the fall.

oops there is none its a fallacy and an argument from silence.

Bump for the Calvinists

And quoting a creed doesn’t count .

Got Scripture?

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 

[civic]

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Where did his nature change ?

Just as I thought it didn't. Nothing there at all about any nature changing. All that there is a choice to sin and its results from that sin.

And notice since adam is now "dead in sin" a corpse (clvinism) he cannot communicate with God until he is regenerated- yet in the above verse adam is still communicating with God - so much for the sin nature changing adam so he cannot see, hear or understand God. So much for being a fallen, sin nature, dead corpse, hater of God eh ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Where did his nature change ?

Just as I thought it didn't. Nothing there at all about any nature changing. All that there is a choice to sin and its results from that sin.

And notice since adam is now "dead in sin" a corpse (clvinism) he cannot communicate with God until he is regenerated- yet in the above verse adam is still communicating with God - so much for the sin nature changing adam so he cannot see, hear or understand God. So much for being a fallen, sin nature, dead corpse, hater of God eh ?

hope this helps !!!

One minute he's a happy nudist, the next he's ashamed of being naked. I call that a change in nature.

 

[civic]

One minute he's a happy nudist, the next he's ashamed of being naked. I call that a change in nature.

no thats realizing his sin and its effects.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Where did his nature change ?

As we've discussed before. It didn't.....

The proof is the fact that Adam sinned. It is the chicken and egg.... scenario.

You think all with all these recent "paradoxes" being referenced... someone would at least consider this.

 

[praise_yeshua]

no thats realizing his sin and its effects.

It really is sad to watch others willfully reject the obvious.

Do you think any of the resident Calvinists have ever had a apologetic discussion on peccability?

 

[civic]

It really is sad to watch others willfully reject the obvious.

Do you think any of the resident Calvinists have ever had a apologetic discussion on peccability?

Maybe @makesends not sure about @The Rogue Tomato , @atpollard @5solas @WCF @armylngst @brightfame52 @Foghorn @jeremiah1five @Josheb @mailmandan @PapaLandShark @spurgeon @Tester . There might be more but these are the confirmed calvinists I know on the forum who are members.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

no thats realizing his sin and its effects.

You should think about what you're saying once in a while.

 

[civic]

You should think about what you're saying once in a while.

oh I have and studied it for many years.

you forget I was a reformed calvinist since 1980.

I taught calvnism for many decades.

 

[makesends]

It really is sad to watch others willfully reject the obvious.

Do you think any of the resident Calvinists have ever had a apologetic discussion on peccability?

Maybe @makesends not sure about @The Rogue Tomato , @atpollard @5solas @WCF @armylngst @brightfame52 @Foghorn @jeremiah1five @Josheb @mailmandan @PapaLandShark @spurgeon @Tester . There might be more but these are the confirmed calvinists I know on the forum who are members.

Ha! You'd regret getting @Josheb started!

Peccability peccability ....lessee.... hmmm Not sure what's to argue there.... We are all, believers and unbelievers, able to sin. Do you suppose Calvinism says otherwise?