Why don't Calvinist believe the Gospel?

[Homework]

Thanks for answering. However, I used the word "biblical" in the sense of grounding our opinions upon God's truth; as such, you failed to understand intent of the question or the determinism I was addressing.

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

 

[Homework]

Unfortunately, I can only be online for a little bit longer. I don't really concern myself with guilt by association tactics and hybrid-genetic fallacies. However, I would love to discuss the biblical grounds for what I believe. If you could keep on topic biblically, keeping the discussion on the biblical text for why people believe what they believe, then I would gladly participate in the discussion. Otherwise, I just simply see chasing irrelevant rabbit trails as pointless (US, Charles Stewart, republican, etc.) Wouldn't you agree that what God has to say on the subject is of higher value and importance than historical and political digressions?

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

 

[Arial]

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

Mod Hat: Well, that is completely off topic of the OP and that is against the rules. Stick to the topic and address the content of posts you respond to.

 

[David Lamb]

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

I don't know who Jeff Davis is, but I do know that the Civil War here took place between 1642 and 1651, not the late 1500s. I don't know who you mean by William who was, according to you, setting up habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act was set up under Charles II, in 1679.

 

[His clay]

It’s not me. We need to totally drop this conversation, because you’re talking only about your specific Baptist church theology, and I’m talking only specifically about a national federal government department that makes sure athletics are fair.

Your theology is more something you are using far judicial branch arguments; casinos and pool both pertain to sports and scoring track and field.

What I have to say is that you belong to a British tradition of people who resemble Jeff Davis and started a civil war in the late 1500s by murdering Charles Stewart while William was away settling up habius corpus for the dead body of ye original English language Bible translation in Tuscany.

I already know what baptists think. I don’t want to talk about English history with you, and I can tell that you’re probable interest in amendments six through eight of the Bill of Rights aren’t there for me, so I’ll just apologize for stumbling in on your closed door first and fourth amendment club meet.

As always, I'm amazed at the creative ingenuity of some people's thinking. It genuinely amazes me. But you may actually want to try to not address people by projecting your ideas into them. I just want to get back to the topic and scripture. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

 

[His clay]

Mod Hat: Well, that is completely off topic of the OP and that is against the rules. Stick to the topic and address the content of posts you respond to.

What I am often left thinking is why the obvious diversionary tactic? Was there something the other poster wanted to cover up? I really do often wonder about the blatant red herring. What is the purpose?

Was it to shift away from the blatant failure to properly define determinism? An inderterminist ramification was given to define determinism, which was rather . . . well . . . I'm trying to be nice. (see post #60)

 

[His clay]

What I am often left thinking is why the obvious diversionary tactic? Was there something the other poster wanted to cover up? I really do often wonder about the blatant red herring. What is the purpose?

Was it to shift away from the blatant failure to properly define determinism? An inderterminist ramification was given to define determinism, which was rather . . . well . . . I'm trying to be nice. (see post #60)

Well, I can't edit my post past the time. Apparently, the post no longer exists. Of course, this is not a problem at all, since it was just a mountain of misinformation. Plenty of people critiqued the post. I almost chimed in, but it just wasn't all that needed. A unanimous Calvinistic response was that the post was confusing things, and it presented a straw man. It is sad when the best one can do for an argument is present straw men.

One thing I am thankful for is the testimony of church history. William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and George Mueller come to mind. A powerful missions, gospel, and prayer witness is given by them, and at the back of it was a strong Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty. The critics utterly fail to understand the basics of how the gospel gets off the ground and how people are empowered to live radically God-centered lives by means of the solid foundation of a loving trust in the good sovereignty of God over all things.

 

[brightfame52]

@Dave

If one believes that they are born again before they have faith, then the message 'believe and be saved' is a problem.

Actually its not, to believe and be saved is for assurance that one is in a saved state or already saved. Now if it was stated believe and get saved, that would impose a problem, and if that was true, thats salvation by works, by what a person does. Believe is a action verb which makes it a work, but believe and be saved is a work of evidence that one is saved. A good article help my understanding on this:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9

Thou Shalt Be Saved - An Exposition of Romans 10:9​

​

How shalt thou be saved? This is a great question of the scriptures. And the answer is given to us in Romans 10:9 which states, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." This verse of scripture answers many of the questions that arise over the question of how can one know if a person is born again, saved, and going to heaven when they die.

According to the Apostle Paul, only those who believe, not with a head knowledge, not with a historic knowledge, but with a heart knowledge of Christ shall be saved. Contrast this with James 2:19 which states, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Many people in the world today believe there is one God. Among them are Muslims and Jews to name a few. Yet, we are told the devils also believe there is one God. No one would ever say that the devils are saved because of their belief in one God. Thus, the point of this scripture is it takes more than a mere acknowledgement of belief in God or Jesus' existence to qualify as saving belief.

The heart belief that Paul speaks of in Romans 10:9 is that which only comes with the new birth. John 3:3 Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The reason a man must be born again is he must be given a spiritual nature that can see by faith the spiritual but physically invisible kingdom of God. And then in Romans 2:29 Paul states, "But he is a Jew (i.e. spiritual Jew - JT), which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart , in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." The spiritual circumcision of the heart is a spiritual circumcision performed by God and God alone. If it were in letter, as with ordinary circumcision the praise would be of men. But this circumcision cannot be performed by any man. Only God can touch the heart.

Furthermore, this passage cannot be construed to teach that this salvation is the result of any action on the part of the believer. Many people read Romans 10:9 and make the mistake of thinking that a person can appropriate the salvation by his own efforts. Whether one believes this salvation to be eternal salvation or time salvation it is not one a person can get. Paul says that if thou shalt believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved not get saved. Thou-shalt-be-saved is translated from sodzo which is in the future tense, passive voice, indicative mood; Online Bible Greek Lexicon.

Because sodzo is in the future tense the salvation under consideration is a future salvation indicating it is referring to eternal salvation. This does not mean salvation does not take place until we enter into glory nor does it deny the antiquity of our salvation before the world began, 1 Tim 1:9. But rather one can not be said to posses it until he believes in Christ, and then he is declared to be saved in both this life and in eternal life.

The passive voice means the action (salvation) happens to the person. In other words, he is not active in gaining or achieving salvation. He believes because he is saved. He does not believe to get saved which would be the case if it was in the active voice. To put it another way, if sodzo was in the active voice, meaning the person must secure it, then the correct translation would be thou-shalt-get-saved. But this would contradict the scriptures which tell us salvation is by grace and not by works. Eph 2:8, Rom 11:6 Therefore, salvation is a state of being and belief is the evidence of salvation.

Finally, it is in the indicative mood. The indicative mood means that it is a statement of fact. Many who read statements such as Rom 10:9 think they see it in the imperative mood which would give a command (believe) in order to achieve a condition (salvation). If it was in the imperative mood, then one must-believe-in-order-to-get-saved would be a correct translation. However, the indicative mood tells us that if one believes, one is saved; a statement of fact.

How is one saved? By Jesus Christ and Him alone. How does one know if he or anyone else is saved? If one believes on Jesus Christ and Him alone. What kind of belief in Christ qualifies as saving belief? Belief from the heart. What does one believe about Christ that qualifies as saving belief? Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How does one know if one is saved? If one confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believes in his heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, "thou shalt be saved."

Elder James Taylor

http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/thou-shalt-be-saved---an-exposition-of-romans-109.html