Hard Questions About Salvational Election & Predestination. [Archive]

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 11:48 AM

Today @ 01:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164494#post164494)
joelkaki:

Ephesians 1, Romans 9, 2 Thess 2:13

Joel

Eph 1:1-10
1:1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:[/quote]

Chappie…………
Beginning in verse 1,
The writer of this epistle (Ephesians)identifies himself as Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. He goes on to tell us that this epistle is being written to the SAINTS (those set aside to God) AT EPHESUS. It’s message is then extended beyond Ephesus toALL THOSE THAT ARE FAITHFUL IN CHRIST.

In verse 2:
Paul extends greetings from God, The Father, and from our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Verse 3:
Paul honors God, Our Father, whom he then acknowledges has blessed “US” with all spiritual blessings in spiritual places. This is the first time that the word “US” is used to specify who is being spoken to.[b] Verse 1 clearly tells us that this “US” referred to are the “saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”:

If you wish to argue that these people are not already saved, I will allow you to initiate. This epistle is written to those that are saved to tell them about the spititual blessings that they have been given in christ…

In verse 4:
According he hath chosen “US”; according to what: (V3) According to his spiritual blessings in heavenly places. Chosen “US”…. Again, us who? The saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”: He has chosen us in him before the foundations of the world: Why!! “That we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

In anticipation of verse 5, what else has he done?
He has predestinated “US”: “The saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”: unto the ADOPTION OF CHILDREN by Jesus Christ to himself. Why? Because it pleases him to do so.

Verse 6, It pleases him to do so:
Because it is to the praise of his glory and his grace. Wherein, (under the covering of his glory and his grace) he has made “US”: “The saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”: accepted in his beloved. (Jesus Christ)

Verse 7:
In whom (Jesus Christ: “Beloved”.) “We”: The saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”, have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Is our redemption through election? NO!!!! It is through his blood, and his forgiveness of sins,

Verse 8:
8Wherein… Wherein what? His blood and his forgiveness of sin: He hath abounded, extended abundantly, toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Verse 9:
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will. What is the mystery of his will that he has just made known to us? That he hath chosen “US”: {The saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”:} in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

And that he has “predestinated “us” unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. And he did it “according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself”…….

Verse 10, Why!!!!
That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Word by word, thought by thought, I have shown you that these passages do not suggest nor establish individual selection, salvational predestination, nor the doctrine of election that you attribute to it. I now challenge you to present as detailed an exegesis as this one showing that it does without violating the word for word, thought for thought, contextual intent of the passages…..

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 11:51 AM

Today @ 04:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164661#post164661)
Thomas2003:

Hi,

Can you please explain what you mean by "salvational election?" I'm not familiar with that term.

Thanks,

Thomas

Saved because they were chosen (elected) to be saved....

Have we met before? Another place....

Solly

August 1st 2003, 12:18 PM

Today @ 04:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164686#post164686)
Chappie:
And that he has “predestinated “us” unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. And he did it “according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself”…….

I now challenge you to present as detailed an exegesis as this one showing that it does without violating the word for word, thought for thought, contextual intent of the passages…..[/b]

Oh, so that we come up with what you have of course; and of course accepting that if Paul meant individual election, he would have written all their names in his letter - and ours too, every single Christian who has ever, and will ever live, rather than just a collective us.

And of course, why shouldn't he write to believers explaining what God has done, even from before the time they were believers.

If you wish to argue that these people are not already saved, I will allow you to initiate. This epistle is written to those that are saved to tell them about the spititual blessings that they have been given in christ

Quite right; No point writing that to the unsaved about this is there.

Where do you get this strange idea that predestination only comes into operation once people have believed on the Lord to salvation.

And why should one engage with you, when you can't even remember what was written elsewhere: election is unto salvation in Christ, it is part of the plan. Election is not salvation in itself.

Is our redemption through election? NO!!!! It is through his blood, and his forgiveness of sins,

We are elected to salvation through his blood; through his righteousness. Election is the decision of God to save a particular group. Redemption through Christ's blood is the means of that redemption; faith the instrumental means.

Thomas2003

August 1st 2003, 12:23 PM

Saved because they were chosen (elected) to be saved....

Have we met before? Another place....

No, I don't think we've met elsewhere unless you are a Chappie from another board. I had a detailed discussion with a gentlemen there by that name.

Anyway, I believe election is judicial, so I think we are talking about two different things.

Thanks,

Thomas

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 12:54 PM

Today @ 05:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164734#post164734)
Solly:

Oh, so that we come up with what you have of course; and of course accepting that if Paul meant individual election, he would have written all their names in his letter - and ours too, every single Christian who has ever, and will ever live, rather than just a collective us.

"Oh, so that we come up with what you have of course; :shrug:
Can we concern ourselves with what Paul did write, rather than with what he did not write?

Any one here that can come up with a better analysis of what I have written than, "Oh, so that we come up with what you have of course"..

And of course, why shouldn't he write to believers explaining what God has done, even from before the time they were believers.

Quite right; No point writing that to the unsaved about this is there.

And I am sure that all those that had not believed yet had left their barstools and gathered to hear Paul’s letter read. And the studied it and embraced it and treasured it, they just did not believe it yet....

If we are going to study this thing, a small amount of reason and logic is called for. Can you do it, or can't you...

Where do you get this strange idea that predestination only comes into operation once people have believed on the Lord to salvation.

Funny you should ask. Most folks I know call it "The Bible"

And why should one engage with you, when you can't even remember what was written elsewhere: election is unto salvation in Christ, it is part of the plan. Election is not salvation in itself.

You do not have to engage me. You can continue to allude to what is written elsewhere. {Without producing a single passage of scripture (as you are presently doing} to support your position.}

[b]
We are elected to salvation through his blood; through his righteousness. Election is the decision of God to save a particular group. Redemption through Christ's blood is the means of that redemption; faith the instrumental means.

And because Solly said that, we should all fall into line. Forget about testing all things by the scripture. No sale Mr. Solly.

I would like to keep this thread more academic than argumentative. Is there anyone here that is willing to contend with scripture rather than rhetoric????

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 01:12 PM

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164744#post164744)
Thomas2003:

No, I don't think we've met elsewhere unless you are a Chappie from another board. I had a detailed discussion with a gentlemen there by that name.

Anyway, I believe election is judicial, so I think we are talking about two different things.

Thanks,

Thomas

Please explain judicial election.....

Stephen

August 1st 2003, 02:21 PM

Hello.

I'd say that one of the monumental chapters on unconditional election would have to be Romans 9, specifically verses 9-23.(NKJV)

9For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."

10And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

12it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."

13As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

15For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Hope to have a good discussion here,
In Christ,
Stephen

Thomas2003

August 1st 2003, 03:12 PM

[quotePlease explain judicial election....[/quote]

I presume what you are trying to address is Calvinism, if so, Calvinism really cannot be understood outside of the framework of the doctrine of the Trinity.

You have to first exegete the Doctrine of the Trinity, hold to a theocentric interpretation of Scripture, and then address "election, foreknowledge, predistination, salvation" in terms of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

It looks to me like what you are trying to do is start at the end to disprove a doctrine that is built upon many other doctrines. That's a dangerous proposition, because there are theological consequences.

In other words, nothing in Christianity exists in isolation - if one takes away the incarnation of Jesus Christ, explicitly or implicitly, then one should deny the entire religion.

For example, one cannot say they will believe the Christian religion except for the virgin birth, in contrast; one cannot say they believe in everything except for the resurrection. Pretty much each particular of the faith is representative of the whole.

Thus, you are going to have trouble exegeting Calvinism without laying it upon the prior doctrines it holds as absolutes. The two most important are the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Christology as presented in the ancient creeds such as Athansian and Chalcedon creeds. Calvinists will hold those creedal beliefs and that they represent a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Election is a judicial term derived from the Father adjudicating sin in the Son, it's theocentric - not anthropocentric. While certainly it affects man, it's effectualness is within the Godhead. There is no salvation occuring in election, that adjudication results in the procession of the Holy Ghost, or predestination, and regeneration.

But its really impossible to understand or discuss outside of those two doctrines - because its interpretation of Scripture regarding soteriology (e.g., doctrine of salvation) will not allow any change to the doctrine of the Trinity or incarnation.

Generally, when people deny Calvinism what they are expressing is a disagreement with the doctrine of the Trinity of the doctrine of the incarnation - it's just expressed soteriologically. This is because, I think, most people approach the Bible as what it means to them, instead of it's comprehensive revelation and how they are a part of that.

Anyway, that is really where you need to start, if you truly wish to dissect Calvinism and understand it.

Cordially,

Thomas

Solly

August 1st 2003, 04:09 PM

The writer of this epistle (Ephesians)identifies himself as Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. He goes on to tell us that this epistle is being written to the SAINTS (those set aside to God) AT EPHESUS. It’s message is then extended beyond Ephesus toALL THOSE THAT ARE FAITHFUL IN CHRIST.

This is the first time that the word “US” is used to specify who is being spoken to.[b] Verse 1 clearly tells us that this “US” referred to are the “saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus”:

Nice side stepping of the issues Mr Chappie; however, you fell at the first fence. Paul is writing to the saints at Ephesus to explain and encourage them. He is writing of what the Lord has done for them, who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Why?

v 3 that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

and

v4 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Now you sem to have a recurring inability to see how any of this could be relevant before they were converted; indeed you sem to be of the view that it was not until they were saved that they could then say of God that now, at this point and not before he had predestinated or chosen them in Christ.
Have it your way; but if you can't get past vv 3,4 of this chapter, don't come telling me about exegesis of texts and academic arguments.

You play word games, Mr Chappie; you take "us", and twist it: since to you it obviously means the saints, then it must mean post salvific predestination applying solely to sanctification, because you don't believe in predestination to life; that much is obvious.

However, as addressed above by Thomas, you snip out an inconvenient bit, and think the rest of the warp and weft of the texture of scripture will hang together.

Thou shalt call his name Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Can we concern ourselves with what Paul did write, rather than with what he did not write?

Hear the Master of exegesis speak!!

What Paul did not write can be as important as what he did write; likewise how he wrote it, and who to. You are the one who has made a song and dance about Paul writing to the Saints - see you "exegesis" of Eph 1.1-10 above, with all the bolding; thereby seeking to make an argument that, because he is writing to saints, all that he is writing about can only be operative once they are saints.

And finally, since this topic is in the systematic theology section, rather than the Biblical exegesis one, oblige me by allowing doctrinal statements when called for; and since they are between Christians, I shouldn't have to make every post look like a section from a Confession or Articles of Religion.

If I get time over the weekend, I will address Eph 1 some more.

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 04:16 PM

Today @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164915#post164915)
Thomas2003:

Please explain judicial election....

I presume what you are trying to address is Calvinism, if so, Calvinism really cannot be understood outside of the framework of the doctrine of the Trinity.

You have to first exegete the Doctrine of the Trinity, hold to a theocentric interpretation of Scripture, and then address "election, foreknowledge, predistination, salvation" in terms of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

It looks to me like what you are trying to do is start at the end to disprove a doctrine that is built upon many other doctrines. That's a dangerous proposition, because there are theological consequences.

In other words, nothing in Christianity exists in isolation - if one takes away the incarnation of Jesus Christ, explicitly or implicitly, then one should deny the entire religion.

For example, one cannot say they will believe the Christian religion except for the virgin birth, in contrast; one cannot say they believe in everything except for the resurrection. Pretty much each particular of the faith is representative of the whole.

Thus, you are going to have trouble exegeting Calvinism without laying it upon the prior doctrines it holds as absolutes. The two most important are the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Christology as presented in the ancient creeds such as Athansian and Chalcedon creeds. Calvinists will hold those creedal beliefs and that they represent a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Election is a judicial term derived from the Father adjudicating sin in the Son, it's theocentric - not anthropocentric. While certainly it affects man, it's effectualness is within the Godhead. There is no salvation occuring in election, that adjudication results in the procession of the Holy Ghost, or predestination, and regeneration.

But its really impossible to understand or discuss outside of those two doctrines - because its interpretation of Scripture regarding soteriology (e.g., doctrine of salvation) will not allow any change to the doctrine of the Trinity or incarnation.

Generally, when people deny Calvinism what they are expressing is a disagreement with the doctrine of the Trinity of the doctrine of the incarnation - it's just expressed soteriologically. This is because, I think, most people approach the Bible as what it means to them, instead of it's comprehensive revelation and how they are a part of that.

Anyway, that is really where you need to start, if you truly wish to dissect Calvinism and understand it.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas, I have on previous occasions done even as you suggest, only to find the road from the trinity to Calvinism to be filled with too many suppositions that are not founded in scripture.

As a dissetration, you do a wonderful job, still I have yet to have anyone start with the trinity and lead me with scripture to salvational election or predsatination.

I will not believe based on your conclusions, only conclusions found in scripture will convince me....

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 05:26 PM

Today @ 07:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164865#post164865)
Stephen:

Hello.

I'd say that one of the monumental chapters on unconditional election would have to be Romans 9, specifically verses 9-23.(NKJV)

Scripture
9For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."

10And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

Line upon line, precept upon precept, this is what I see:
Verse 9
God is explaining a word of promise. (Outside of these passages we know that this promise was made to Abraham) This verse (9) is fulfilled when Rebecca gets pregnant by Isaac as expressed in verse 10.

Verse 11 is not in the original manuscripts, but was added (To the book of Romans) by the translators for clarity. Still, it is scriptural because it is a direct quote from Genesis.

11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

In verse 11, God establishes that his purpose in choosing are above any effort by man to be chosen for his purpose. His choice was not based on any good or evil that either child had done, or any worthiness on either persons part. He does this so that his choosing (election) is not dependent on one being more worthy than the other.

So we know his purpose for choosing, but what choice did he make?

12it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."

He has chosen against tradition and decided that the elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

As it is written, euphemistically speaking: Jacob have I chosen, Esau have I not chosen.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! [/b]

Paul anticipates his listeners’ thoughts and deal with them. Is there unrighteousness with God? What potential unrighteousness is formed in the mind of those that hear Paul’s words? That he has chosen the elder to serve the younger. Quite an insult to the firstborn at the time.

[quote]15For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

Paul explains that they are not justified to perceive God as unrighteous because he has already told Moses, “that I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.. Still it must be noted that the only sovereign act that God has committed in these passages is that the elder shall serve the younger..

So then, what can we conclude from what Paul has already said” What can be concluded is contained in verse 16, 17, 18..

16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

Paul anticipates their next point of resistance to his teaching. Verse 20:

20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

To this point Paul has established God’s authority to do as he pleases without respect to any man’s opinions or rejections. Notice that to this point God’s good pleasure has cost no man his salvation. We are dealing specifically with the temporal calling that God places on the lives of both saint and sinner alike. This truth is further manifested in verse 21 when Paul asks:

21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Here we have an illustration using the analogy of the potter and the clay. One thing about analogies or parables. That which is used to represent what is being projected cannot be tampered with, lest we tamper with what is being illustrated.

Does the potter (God) have power over the clay? Clay, this earthly tabernacle that we live in: Salvation is for the soul, not the flesh. What is spoken of here has nothing to do with the soul (salvation) rather it is our fleshly existence that is the object of what is called into question here… God has the fight to create one a king, another a slave, one a rich man, another a poor man, one to honour and another to dishonour. And no man is saved by his position in life…

22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

“What if indeed, What if……….

Stephen

August 1st 2003, 06:09 PM

Your answer for Romans 9 is much more plausible than many other non-Calvinistic answers I"ve read. Indeed, It'll take a bit of bible searching to come up with a complete response.

Forgive my delaying, I'm not one for quick thinking :-)

Chappie

August 1st 2003, 06:48 PM

Today @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164978#post164978)
Solly:

Nice side stepping of the issues Mr Chappie; however, you fell at the first fence. Paul is writing to the saints at Ephesus to explain and encourage them. He is writing of what the Lord has done for them, who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Why?

v 3 that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

and

v4 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Now you sem to have a recurring inability to see how any of this could be relevant before they were converted; indeed you sem to be of the view that it was not until they were saved that they could then say of God that now, at this point and not before he had predestinated or chosen them in Christ.

Have it your way; but if you can't get past vv 3,4 of this chapter, don't come telling me about exegesis of texts and academic arguments.

You play word games, Mr Chappie; you take "us", and twist it: since to you it obviously means the saints, then it must mean post salvific predestination applying solely to sanctification, because you don't believe in predestination to life; that much is obvious.

However, as addressed above by Thomas, you snip out an inconvenient bit, and think the rest of the warp and weft of the texture of scripture will hang together.

Thou shalt call his name Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.
Does all really mean all here. As in, if I be lifted up, I will draw all men....

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

He chose foolish things, he chose weak things, base things, and despised things. He chose a lot of things. But Oops!!! He forgot to mention choosing some individual to be saved....

Hear the Master of exegesis speak!!

What Paul did not write can be as important as what he did write; likewise how he wrote it, and who to. You are the one who has made a song and dance about Paul writing to the Saints - see you "exegesis" of Eph 1.1-10 above, with all the bolding; thereby seeking to make an argument that, because he is writing to saints, all that he is writing about can only be operative once they are saints.

And finally, since this topic is in the systematic theology section, rather than the Biblical exegesis one, oblige me by allowing doctrinal statements when called for; and since they are between Christians, I shouldn't have to make every post look like a section from a Confession or Articles of Religion.

Oh!!! Is that what that was?

If I get time over the weekend, I will address Eph 1 some more.

Thank you Mr. Solly:
In anticipation of your addressing Ephesians 1, I shall endure with patience all the little negative, provocative things that you have to say to me.... (underlined)

I am as good at slinging poop as the next fella, but one thing that i've learned; it is not a good idea to sling poop with the moderator........ Even when the moderator slings poop....:argh:

May god Bless....

Thomas2003

August 1st 2003, 10:32 PM

Thomas, I have on previous occasions done even as you suggest, only to find the road from the trinity to Calvinism to be filled with too many suppositions that are not founded in scripture.

As a dissetration, you do a wonderful job, still I have yet to have anyone start with the trinity and lead me with scripture to salvational election or predsatination.

I will not believe based on your conclusions, only conclusions found in scripture will convince me....

But are you a trinitarian? Do you hold to the chalcedon creed on the incarnation?

Cordially,

Thomas

Chappie

August 2nd 2003, 02:04 AM

Today @ 03:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165197#post165197)
Thomas2003:

But are you a trinitarian? Do you hold to the chalcedon creed on the incarnation?

Cordially,

Thomas

Chalcedon Creed
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and also in human-ness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we are ourselves as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began He was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these “last days,” for us and on behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his human-ness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten-in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one hypostasis.

They are not divided or cut into two prosopa, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of the Fathers has been handed down to us.

There are a couple areas that are cloudy to me, but otherwise, yes.....

Arminian

August 2nd 2003, 02:26 AM

Solly,

Oh, so that we come up with what you have of course; and of course accepting that if Paul meant individual election, he would have written all their names in his letter - and ours too, every single Christian who has ever, and will ever live, rather than just a collective us.

First of all, Chappie's point still stands concerning who the letter is addressed to. Secondly, as an author, Paul desires to delineate the Israel of God as God's chosen people, of which his audience are members by faith, and not before.

v 3 that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

and

v4 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Now you sem to have a recurring inability to see how any of this could be relevant before they were converted; indeed you sem to be of the view that it was not until they were saved that they could then say of God that now, at this point and not before he had predestinated or chosen them in Christ.
Have it your way; but if you can't get past vv 3,4 of this chapter, don't come telling me about exegesis of texts and academic arguments.

Who needs to "get around it"? Rather then redefine it, we observe that Paul believes that the Israel of God was chosen to be faultless before Him, rather than the Israel according to the flesh. We note that this is Paul's argument in most of his books. If the Israel according to the flesh were justified, then the law would not lead us to Christ. In fact, the law would give life.

And this is why Paul's discussion of circumcision goes hand-in-hand with his discussions of election. If God's people is IAF (Israel according to the flesh), then they are his predestined people and circumcision is a requirement for covenant membership. If individualism is the issue, then he should make arguments against the peinis, rather than circumcision and issues concering Abrahamic identity.

You play word games, Mr Chappie; you take "us", and twist it: since to you it obviously means the saints, then it must mean post salvific predestination applying solely to sanctification, because you don't believe in predestination to life; that much is obvious.

Since Paul writes to others who share his identity as saints, who is the "one new man" of which God speaks? It is the Israel of God. And since God chose that Israel to be his people, why wouldn't Paul use the pronoun? If God had chosen Americans, we would urge you to join because God had chosen "us." You should become one of "us," God's people.

However, as addressed above by Thomas, you snip out an inconvenient bit, and think the rest of the warp and weft of the texture of scripture will hang together.

Thou shalt call his name Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.

So? Those who refused Christ were "cut off" and those who obeyed were grafted in.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.

That's what it says. "All" is neuter and singular. It is a reference to "that" which can come and will come. It is not masculine plural, which would help you make your point. It is a reference to a covenant people that share that identity. And this is why Christ has such harsh words for those who "refuse" to believe and yet want to partake. That's not allowed.

If I get time over the weekend, I will address Eph 1 some more.

Please do. Those comments about truth coming from what Scripture DOESN'T say were especially interesting.

Arminian

August 2nd 2003, 03:23 AM

Nice side stepping of the issues Mr Chappie; however, you fell at the first fence.

I promise not to side-step. Try me.

adam.naranjo

August 2nd 2003, 04:41 AM

Having just stepped in and read through all of these posts I have to say this:

Chappie has shown an inability to rightly handle the word. I know that he thinks he is handling it correctly. however, his over zealousness, has caused him to break up the context of the scriptures so much that he is missing the cogent, holistic, flow of the texts and the over-all themes. Frankly, chappie has clearly lost this 'debate'.

I actually agree with the fact that Ephesians is speaking corporately. And that this kind of language (covenantal language) is used through out scripture to speak of the "people of God", "chosen by him", His "chosen people". Its important to remember that God called and created the nation of Israel by pure grace. He said to them, "I will be your God, and you will be my people." Not because of ANYTHING they had done! Therefore, because the Covenant is continued in the Church, we are the "chosen people of God". The CHURCH is elect. Chosen corporately. However, I am not an Arminian. I am a Calvinist. I just happen to believe that Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is a corporate encouragement. Because Everyone in the Church, weather elect to stand on the last day, or not, is elect in a sense, by nature of being part of the covenant people -- the Bride of Christ -- and God always speaks this way to His covenant people. God knows very well that not all people in the covenant community (church) will be saved in the end. However, he does not speak to us on the basis of His "secret election". He speaks to us Covenantally. This is why Romans says that Israel was given the Covenant, BUT not all of Israel will be saved. Only the remnant are elect to be saved. SO, God ELECTS some out of His covenant community to be saved on the last day.
The Church is elect, and the church is being purified until the final day until God's secret individual election will be revealed, and only those who were chosen will stand. Both the traditional Calvinists and the arminians are wrong about this passage. The answer is in what Augustine called, the 'eschatological church'. Augustine looked at the church as being purified through time, so that the elect people of God (the covenant community) would one day be purified of all apostasy, to stand on the last day -- a perfect and pure bride. The Church is positionally called elect. However, this is different from the individual election of God -- those chosen to stand before God, purified, on the last day. (For more info on this type of reformed thought go to www.christkirk.com and read Douglas Wilson's book, "Reformed is not enough". He has been gracious enough to put it online. If you want mp3's go to www.cmfnow.com and go to the Douglas Wilson section, or the Steve Wilkins section and download "issues of the covenant". )

Regarding the book of Romans. I have never seen a book more torn apart by the Arminian heresy. Its a shame. Paul’s discussion of the twins is only a sub-argument to show that God can choose whoever he wants to, whenever he wants. It is clear that Paul is teaching God's individual election in this portion, " So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
However, Paul’s main point in Romans 9 is that God has chosen a remnant of Jews and some from among the Gentiles to keep Covenant with. And, as N.T. Wright points out, the Jews can no longer use the law to exclude the gentiles from the covenant, because the covenant is based on God's choice. And he clearly chooses individuals. It is so clear when Paul says, "those of us whom HE CHOSE, not only OUT of the Jews, But also of the gentiles" Paul is talking about individuals hear, there is no other way to look at it.

One area where Chappie is loosing this debate is in that fact that God is in control of everything, even evil.

Psalm 115:3
But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.

“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it."

Everything that happens must be according to God's good pleasure...If it is not, then it wouldn't have happened. Now before you jump on me, keep in mind the context and remember that "his good pleasure" doesn't mean that God enjoys evil. The sense here is that nothing happens that God has not seen fit to happen. God has a better good for the evil.

Daniel 4:34
For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
“And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’

Job 42:2
“I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass,
Unless the Lord has commanded it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and evil go forth?

Amos 3:6
If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?
this cannot be meant to speak of only 'natural' evils...that's rediculous

Job 2:10
Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job 12:9
“Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

Job 23:13
“But He is unique and who can turn Him?
And what His soul desires, that He does.
“For He performs what is appointed for me,
And many such decrees are with Him.

Psalm 105:24 -- God Controls people hearts
And He caused His people to be very fruitful,
And made them stronger than their adversaries.
He turned their heart to hate His people,
To deal craftily with His servants.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord.

Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating evil;
I am the Lord who does all these.

Matt 10:29 -- God doesn't count the hairs on your head, he determines their number
“Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

John 19:10
Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.”

and so on and so on....

The problem is that people don't like to concede that God, in a mysterous way, has decreed all that comes to pass. This include His choosing of those who will stand before Him forgiven and in Christ on the last day.

Adam.

Chappie

August 2nd 2003, 10:53 AM

Today @ 09:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165329#post165329)
adam.naranjo:

Having just stepped in and read through all of these posts I have to say this:

Chappie has shown an inability to rightly handle the word. I know that he thinks he is handling it correctly. However, his over zealousness, has caused him to break up the context of the scriptures so much that he is missing the cogent, holistic, flow of the texts and the over-all themes. Frankly, Chappie has clearly lost this 'debate'.

Nobody's perfect, and considering your evaluation of Chappie, I can see that you presume that you are.

Has your over zealousness caused you to overlook the purpose of this thread and skip straight to your own brand of presuppositions, rhetoric, and fallacies. Can you apply yourself to one question without immediately resorting to your brand of canned Calvinist indoctrination? Here is the question again, just in case you can:

This is my first question....
I come to you and I ask you about salvational election, what are the first passages of scripture that you will take me to in order to introduce me to the fact that this concept is truly in the bible.

We are at first seeking foundational passages, and then we can discuss passages that build on this foundation.

We are searching for a scripture, not rhetoric... Clearly you have won this so called debate, but you did so because of your refusal/inability to answer the question that is the focal point of this thread.

I will now tidy up and place this fine rhetoric of yours into a nice little box; as it is not admissible until you answer the question

Rhetoric:
I actually agree with the fact that Ephesians is speaking corporately. And that this kind of language (covenantal language) is used through out scripture to speak of the "people of God", "chosen by him", His "chosen people". It’s important to remember that God called and created the nation of Israel by pure grace. He said to them, "I will be your God, and you will be my people." Not because of ANYTHING they had done! Therefore, because the Covenant is continued in the Church, we are the "chosen people of God". The CHURCH is elect. Chosen corporately. However, I am not an Arminian. I am a Calvinist. I just happen to believe that Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is a corporate encouragement. Because Everyone in the Church, weather elect to stand on the last day, or not, is elect in a sense, by nature of being part of the covenant people -- the Bride of Christ -- and God always speaks this way to His covenant people. God knows very well that not all people in the covenant community (church) will be saved in the end. However, he does not speak to us on the basis of His "secret election". He speaks to us Covenantally. This is why Romans says that Israel was given the Covenant, BUT not all of Israel will be saved. Only the remnant are elect to be saved. SO, God ELECTS some out of His covenant community to be saved on the last day.
The Church is elect, and the church is being purified until the final day until God's secret individual election will be revealed, and only those who were chosen will stand. Both the traditional Calvinists and the arminians are wrong about this passage. The answer is in what Augustine called, the 'eschatological church'. Augustine looked at the church as being purified through time, so that the elect people of God (the covenant community) would one day be purified of all apostasy, to stand on the last day -- a perfect and pure bride. The Church is positionally called elect. However, this is different from the individual election of God -- those chosen to stand before God, purified, on the last day. (For more info on this type of reformed thought go to www.christkirk.com and read Douglas Wilson's book, "Reformed is not enough". He has been gracious enough to put it online. If you want mp3's go to www.cmfnow.com and go to the Douglas Wilson section, or the Steve Wilkins section and download "issues of the covenant". )

Regarding the book of Romans. I have never seen a book more torn apart by the Arminian heresy. It’s a shame. Paul’s discussion of the twins is only a sub-argument to show that God can choose whoever he wants to, whenever he wants. It is clear that Paul is teaching God's individual election in this portion, " So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."
However, Paul’s main point in Romans 9 is that God has chosen a remnant of Jews and some from among the Gentiles to keep Covenant with. And, as N.T. Wright points out, the Jews can no longer use the law to exclude the gentiles from the covenant, because the covenant is based on God's choice. And he clearly chooses individuals. It is so clear when Paul says, "those of us whom HE CHOSE, not only OUT of the Jews, But also of the gentiles" Paul is talking about individuals hear, there is no other way to look at it.

End rhetoric.

One area where Chappie is loosing this debate is in that fact that God is in control of everything, even evil.

One area where you are out of touch with scripture is that even when you manage to speak the truth, you are not able to apply it to the reality that is around you. Satan is the prince of this world.

God is indeed in control of everything, but that does not translate into, "God controls everything".

Psalm 115:3
But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.

“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it."

Everything that happens must be according to God's good pleasure...If it is not, then it wouldn't have happened. Now before you jump on me, keep in mind the context and remember that "his good pleasure" doesn't mean that God enjoys evil. The sense here is that nothing happens that God has not seen fit to happen. God has a better good for the evil.

Daniel 4:34
For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
“And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘What hast Thou done?’

Job 42:2
“I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass,
Unless the Lord has commanded it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and evil go forth?

Amos 3:6
If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble?
If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?
this cannot be meant to speak of only 'natural' evils...that's rediculous

Job 2:10
Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job 12:9
“Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the Lord has done this,
In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

Job 23:13
“But He is unique and who can turn Him?
And what His soul desires, that He does.
“For He performs what is appointed for me,
And many such decrees are with Him.

Psalm 105:24 -- God Controls people hearts
And He caused His people to be very fruitful,
And made them stronger than their adversaries.
He turned their heart to hate His people,
To deal craftily with His servants.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord.

Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating evil;
I am the Lord who does all these.

Matt 10:29 -- God doesn't count the hairs on your head, he determines their number
“Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

John 19:10
Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.”

and so on and so on....

The problem is that people don't like to concede that God, in a mysterious way, has decreed all that comes to pass. This include His choosing of those who will stand before Him forgiven and in Christ on the last day.
Adam.

Another problem with people is that if they read the bible, they will know that what you suggest is not true. They will see that Calvinism does a fine job of proving God’s sovereignty, but is incapable of dealing with anything else….

Aaah, so you do have some scriptures that you would like to present. Did you read them? Are they foundational passages for election? Do they say that because God has the right to advance salvation through election, that this is what he did? Or is freewill a right of his also?

Have you discerned the difference between what God did, and his right to do whatever he chooses to do? Are you aware that proving sovereignty does not prove election or free will? Of course you haven't, the passages that you post to support election attest to that.

Scripture, with a line upon line, precept on precept interpretation is what will work if you are to prove election by the scriptures. Anything else is simply uncivilized...

This is my rhetoric, in response to your rhetoric, have you noticed that we have not proved a thing......

Stephen

August 2nd 2003, 01:21 PM

Hey,
I agree. After reading chapters before and after romans 9, it seems to me that given the context, this is your view of paul's theme.

All have sinned
God's righteousness for justification
Sin's influence in our lives
Dead to the law and alive in Christ
Free from sin
End on Romans 8, Paul gives this: "For whom he foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren. nd whom He predestined, He also called, whom Hecalled, He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Now, in chapter 9, paul uses examples in history, such as Jacob and Esau, hardening of Pharoah

Next chapter: Israel rejects the gospel.

Given that context, is it really proper exegesis to look at the chapter of romans 9, and say that paul breaks away from his mesage of sin, depravity, freedom from sin, being predestined, called, justified, and glorified, and leads into a chapter speaking of God's sovereignty in giving mercy to some and hardening others, but with no spiritual implications?

Also, I have been told by a friend (I have yet to look this up, so forgive me if I'm wrong) that verse 11 was included in greek manuscripts.

Cheers,
Stephen

adam.naranjo

August 2nd 2003, 03:00 PM

Chappie,

First of all, I found it hard to even make sense out of certain parts of your reply.

I answered your question by giving you the 'foundational" passages. These are the passages "I start with" when discussing election. Thats what you asked for.
The reason why I start with these passages is simple. They clearly teach that NOTHING happens outside of God decree. Is savlation something that happens? Yes! Therefore no one is saved apart from God's decree. My point here is that I think the issue of election is more foundational. It's based on how one understands soverignty. These scirptures say, without a doubt, that both good and evil come upon individuals according to God's decree. These scriptures, in their "precept upon precept" context, clearly teach that the decrees of God control all that comes to pass. Not that God has some kind of general 'control' which he hardly never utalizes. NO! Instead they show that GOd is intamately involved in the affairs of men, in such away that He controls their HEARTS: "He turned their heart to hate His people, To deal craftily with His servants.

Your Big Problep
You never dealt with any of the pssages I mentioned.

Another Big Problem of Yours
You never replied to my statments on Romans 9.

Finally
You already presuppose the non-soverignty of God, and therefore are disposed to deny God's election. And deny God's word:

Matt22:10
“And those slaves went out into the streets, and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless. “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Luke 12:32
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

John 13:18
“I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’

Acts 10:34
"God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God"

"Romans 11:5
What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened"

Colossians 3:12
"as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;" -- Each individual was chosen, when the word "THOSE" is plurual (which it is) it speaks of particulars. And if you don't know what that means, then you need to study language before you even discuss these issues

2 Thess 2:13
"because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel."

2 Tim 2:1
"For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory."

Titus 1:1
"Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God"

Rev 17:14
"He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

Phil 1:29
"For TO YOU it HAS BEEN GRANTED (for Christ’s sake) not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."
-- Our faith was GRANTED TO US by GOD for Christ's sake. Its is clear as crystal.

Adam.

Arminian

August 2nd 2003, 08:04 PM

adam,

Matt22:10
“And those slaves went out into the streets, and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless. “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Luke 12:32
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

John 13:18
“I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’

Acts 10:34
"God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God"

"Romans 11:5
What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened"

Colossians 3:12
"as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;" -- Each individual was chosen, when the word "THOSE" is plurual (which it is) it speaks of particulars. And if you don't know what that means, then you need to study language before you even discuss these issues

2 Thess 2:13
"because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel."

2 Tim 2:1
"For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory."

Titus 1:1
"Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God"

Rev 17:14
"He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

Phil 1:29
"For TO YOU it HAS BEEN GRANTED (for Christ’s sake) not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."
-- Our faith was GRANTED TO US by GOD for Christ's sake. Its is clear as crystal.

Instead of proof-texing, it would be more helpful if you pick a verse or two and discussed them in context. None of these verses make your point, as far as I can tell. In fact, I find most Calvinist commentaries using the many of the verses in ways other than yours.

Your undestanding of the pronouns also appears to be the wrong, but we'll get back to that.

adam.naranjo

August 2nd 2003, 10:56 PM

Arminian,

Actually the burdon of proof is on you. You need to deal with those scriptures. I have already stated that I believe that within the context of those passages it teaches the ability of God to chose. And by chosing one he does NOT chose the other. I have made my claim. Now you rebut. I think your comment about the commentators is a misunderstanding one way or another -- of either me, or them.

About the plural word "those". First let me say that I did not imply that every use of a plural translation is speakign of particulars. However, having said that, 'those' in this context is speaking of particulars, as I said. Another example is Christs use of the plural in, "ye must be born again". The "ye" is also translated "you all". Speaking to the covenant people of God in an individual sense.

I know that arguing with you makes no difference because we have at the basis of our undestanding different assumptions. I believe God is more in control than you do. Its as simple as that. If i'm right, by conclusions follow.

Arminian

August 2nd 2003, 11:28 PM

adam,

Actually the burdon of proof is on you. You need to deal with those scriptures. I have already stated that I believe that within the context of those passages it teaches the ability of God to chose. And by chosing one he does NOT chose the other. I have made my claim. Now you rebut.

This issue isn't whether or not God made a choice, but what He chose and why. In Matthew 22, for example, Christ says, "Many are called and few are chosen." He says that after telling a story about people being invited to a wedding and his selection of those who came dressed appropriately and the casting out of the one who didn't. So yes, God chose those who responded appropriately, and that is a choice.

I think your comment about the commentators is a misunderstanding one way or another -- of either me, or them.

Really? So there's actually a Calvinist commentator out there who says Acts 10:40 is about unconditional individual election?? You mean that the fact that Jesus made himself "visible" to the disciples is the means by which He unconditionally saved them, and that is actually used in an argument by an educated Calvinist? I just looked at 8 commentaries by some of the most notable Calvinists and NONE of them make that claim.

About the plural word "those". First let me say that I did not imply that every use of a plural translation is speakign of particulars. However, having said that, 'those' in this context is speaking of particulars, as I said. Another example is Christs use of the plural in, "ye must be born again". The "ye" is also translated "you all". Speaking to the covenant people of God in an individual sense.

You're making an incorrect assumption based upon an English translation, but it makes no difference. God's chosen ones are those who are clothed in Messiah. This fits well with my perspective. They are not Paul's opposition, the circumcision party. Those of the circumcision party who turn and trust Messiah will be grafted into God's chosen people and share the identity as God's chosen.

Chappie

August 2nd 2003, 11:55 PM

Rom 8:29
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

1. For whom he foreknew. What is really meant by this phrase? We can eliminate it as being indicative of knowledge because obviously it is referring to certain individuals: And we are certain that in God’s omniscience all of his creation is known to him.

2. If this were a reference to God looking down through the corridors of time, and predestining people according to some merit in that person would cause salvation to be of works instead of Grace.

3. Or the bible could be using the term “knew” in the same contest as when the bible tells us that Adam “Knew” Eve, and little Cain was born nine months later. In which the word would be indicative of the personal relationship that Adam and Eve had that resulted in the birth of Cain.

I am open to other suggestion for the exegesis of this phrase, if anyone has one: Still, at this time this is the only acceptable exegesis that I have found….

29{For whom he did foreknow,} For whom he had a personal relationship with, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Of course this destroys this passage totally as a passage that supports election, so I will open up my mind to receive Calvin’s exegesis of the passage in a manner that supports election. One and two are scripturally and logically eliminated as a solution, common sense dictates that…..

Chappie

August 3rd 2003, 12:18 AM

Yesterday @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165543#post165543)
adam.naranjo:

Chappie,

First of all, I found it hard to even make sense out of certain parts of your reply.

I answered your question by giving you the 'foundational" passages. These are the passages "I start with" when discussing election. Thats what you asked for.

The problem is that you gave me passages that I have read a hundred times and have not arrived at the same conclusions as you have. I would ask that you present your passage along with your conclusions as to why they support your position.

The reason why I start with these passages is simple. They clearly teach that NOTHING happens outside of God decree.

If they were as clear as you suggest, there would not be thousands upon thousands of people disagreeing with you. There is no easy way out, and I will not do your work for you.....

Is salvation something that happens? Yes! Therefore no one is saved apart from God's decree. My point here is that I think the issue of election is more foundational. It's based on how one understands sovereignty. These scriptures say, without a doubt, that both good and evil come upon individuals according to God's decree.

I will not entertain any more responses that are not clearly explained and immediately supported with scripture.

Finally
You already presuppose the non-soverignty of God, and therefore are disposed to deny God's election. And deny God's word:

The only thing that I have presupposed to this point is that you do not understand that sovereignty and predestination are not inseparable. Perhaps you would take the time to explain to me how one cannot exist without the other. If you cannot, then freewill is still an option....

The passages that you present are not given the context and detail that they deserve. You need to choose one passage and present it in context with your exegesis supporting what you propose.

Once we discuss that one, then you can present another. I ask for a foundational passage and you give me 20 passages taken out of context. If you want to teach me, then teach me. I will not learn based on being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of passages that you post.

I looked at a couple; they were taken out of context....

May God bless.

Thomas2003

August 3rd 2003, 12:50 AM

29{For whom he did foreknow,} For whom he had a personal relationship with, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Of course this destroys this passage totally as a passage that supports election, so I will open up my mind to receive Calvin’s exegesis of the passage in a manner that supports election. One and two are scripturally and logically eliminated as a solution, common sense dictates that…..

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.... 1 Peter 1:2

As I tried to explain before, election is judicial act of God the Father in God the Son - the foreknowledge is tied to the adjudication of that sin, not the regeneration.

Regeneration preceeds faith, "you must be born again..." Noone elects there parents, it's no different in Salvation - to be a child of God is to be generated from God's seed, the incorruptible word (1 Peter 1:23) not by the will of man but of God. (John 1:13).

Cordially,

Thomas

adam.naranjo

August 3rd 2003, 01:17 AM

This issue isn't whether or not God made a choice, but what He chose and why. In Matthew 22, for example, Christ says, "Many are called and few are chosen." He says that after telling a story about people being invited to a wedding and his selection of those who came dressed appropriately and the casting out of the one who didn't. So yes, God chose those who responded appropriately, and that is a choice.

I disagree. Christ is saying that those who were dressed correctly are those who were chosen. There will be many people who are in the covenant community (church), some respond correctly and some don't. Those who are chosen will respond correctly. Otherwise, they weren't chosen. Now, In the arminian case they chose God, and then he accepted them, God did not choose them. BUT, the text says that they were chosen. And at the same time, they chose to come correctly. BOTH. But there is no reason to believe that they were chosen in the arminian sense, becuse in the arminians sense there can be no choosing.

The story makes more sense if Chrsit is summing up the whole scenario by saying. "WHY DO SOME RESPOND CORRCTLY?, BECAUSE MANY ARE CALLED FEW ARE CHOSEN."

I believe this is specifically speaking about the covenant people during the time of Christ. They were all 'chosen' in a sense -- they were part of God's chosen people. And thefore they had a calling on them in the covenant. But, God only elected SOME -- a remnant (romans 9)

Really? So there's actually a Calvinist commentator out there who says Acts 10:40 is about unconditional individual election?? You mean that the fact that Jesus made himself "visible" to the disciples is the means by which He unconditionally saved them, and that is actually used in an argument by an educated Calvinist? I just looked at 8 commentaries by some of the most notable Calvinists and NONE of them make that claim.

Thats exactly the misunderstanding I though you had. I never said, that Christ is discussing there unconditional election...
This passage and many others still pose a threat to the over all structure of arminian thinking.

You're making an incorrect assumption based upon an English translation, but it makes no difference. God's chosen ones are those who are clothed in Messiah. This fits well with my perspective. They are not Paul's opposition, the circumcision party. Those of the circumcision party who turn and trust Messiah will be grafted into God's chosen people and share the identity as God's chosen.

I agree with this. Does that suprise you? Regarding the plural language. I'm not assuming. And I'm not relying on the english text.

I have to go to bed, I'll responde later.

peace,
Adam

Arminian

August 3rd 2003, 01:46 AM

adam,

I disagree. Christ is saying that those who were dressed correctly are those who were chosen. There will be many people who are in the covenant community (church), some respond correctly and some don't. Those who are chosen will respond correctly. Otherwise, they weren't chosen. Now, In the arminian case they chose God, and then he accepted them, God did not choose them. BUT, the text says that they were chosen. And at the same time, they chose to come correctly. BOTH. But there is no reason to believe that they were chosen in the arminian sense, becuse in the arminians sense there can be no choosing.

The story makes more sense if Chrsit is summing up the whole scenario by saying. "WHY DO SOME RESPOND CORRCTLY?, BECAUSE MANY ARE CALLED FEW ARE CHOSEN."

I’m sorry, but the story not only does not say that, but it argues against it. The servants were told to go out and invite “anyone.” There is no mention of what you are talking about. There is no mention of manipulation behind the scenes. The sentence begins with gar, indicating why it is that the person is being cast out -- NOT WHY THE PERSON WAS CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND.

'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?'...cast him out ...For....

In fact, the king in the story came to “view” the crowd and found the man that was not dressed properly. If the point of the story was to show that the king chose him to be dressed improperly, then Christ utterly failed at his task. Instead, the king came to “view” the crowd and chose those who were dressed properly and cast out the one who was not. Thus, he chose those who responded appropriately.

Thats exactly the misunderstanding I though you had. I never said, that Christ is discussing there unconditional election...
This passage and many others still pose a threat to the over all structure of arminian thinking.

Why? Do Arminians (I’m not one, btw.) think that if Christ appears physically or in a vision He has to appear to everyone? Well, if that’s the case, that explains why you think they are wrong. (No wonder I'm not an Arminian! :lol:)

I agree with this. Does that suprise you? Regarding the plural language. I'm not assuming. And I'm not relying on the english text.

No, considering what you’ve said in the past, I suspect we would agree on more things than some other people. However, what I said did negate what you said.

Arminian

August 3rd 2003, 04:22 AM

Regeneration preceeds faith, "you must be born again..." Noone elects there parents, it's no different in Salvation - to be a child of God is to be generated from God's seed, the incorruptible word (1 Peter 1:23) not by the will of man but of God. (John 1:13).

Looking at the verses in context, they prove the opposite.

Chappie

August 3rd 2003, 10:04 AM

Today @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165996#post165996)
Thomas2003:

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.... 1 Peter 1:2

Elect… Chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, “THROUGH” SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT. Not elected through election, nor chosen through being chosen.

Chosen (Elect) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit,

As I tried to explain before, election is judicial act of God the Father in God the Son - the foreknowledge is tied to the adjudication of that sin, not the regeneration.

Main Entry: ju·di·cial
Pronunciation: ju-'di-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin judicialis, from judicium judgment, from judex
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary <judicial processes> b : belonging to the branch of government that is charged with trying all cases that involve the government and with the administration of justice within its jurisdiction -- compare EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE
2 : ordered or enforced by a court <a judicial sale>
3 : of, characterized by, or expressing judgment : CRITICAL 1b
4 : arising from a judgment of God
5 : belonging or appropriate to a judge or the judiciary
- ju·di·cial·ly /-'di-sh(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: ad·ju·di·ca·tion
Pronunciation: &-"jü-di-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French, from Late Latin adjudicatio, from Latin adjudicare
Date: 1691
1 : the act or process of adjudicating
2 a : a judicial decision or sentence b : a decree in bankruptcy.

So, what are you trying to say, that predestination and election are the two missing parts of the Ten Commandments. Instead of ten, there are twelve… How can I accept salvational election as a judicial act, when I cannot even find it to be a scriptural act? Give me some scriptures to read that even suggest predestination/election to be the law of the land or even a binding concept upon God…

Regeneration precedes faith, "you must be born again..." Noone elects there parents, it's no different in Salvation - to be a child of God is to be generated from God's seed, the incorruptible word (1 Peter 1:23) not by the will of man but of God. (John 1:13).

Regeneration proceeds faith: It does not!! That suggestion alone turns the whole salvific process upside down… Regeneration is a part of the process, and salvation comes by grace through faith. Logic/reason dictates that if regeneration is part of the salvific process, and salvation is by grace through faith: the demands are enormous that we conclude that regeneration comes through faith and not the other way around....

The bible clearly and specifically tells us that. Scripture does not negate scripture. If regeneration precedes faith, then salvation comes through regeneration and not through faith at all. I know, and you know that essentially that is what you are saying, and I know, and I know that you know that the bible does not say that....

Your theory in principle would also logically suggest that men went to the moon, and then they built a space ship. Is it not obvious that this concept does not work...

Either we are to exegete in a sequential and logical manner here, or we have to throw logic and sequential events out the window. And if we throw them out here, we have to throw them out when we exegete the rest of the bible also...

Some truths in the bible are too blatantly obvious to be challenged.....

Blessings
Chappie....

Chappie

August 3rd 2003, 12:56 PM

Yesterday @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=165543#post165543)
adam.naranjo:

Chappie,
First of all, I found it hard to even make sense out of certain parts of your reply.

I answered your question by giving you the 'foundational" passages. These are the passages "I start with" when discussing election. Thats what you asked for.
The reason why I start with these passages is simple. They clearly teach that NOTHING happens outside of God decree. Is savlation something that happens? Yes! Therefore no one is saved apart from God's decree. My point here is that I think the issue of election is more foundational. It's based on how one understands soverignty.

And you deffinitely have an unscriptural understanding of it.

So, you are willing to attribute Lucifers rebellion, Adams fall, and the extermination of six million Jews, the eternal torture of billions of individuals created in his image to the will of God. These things happened didn’t they. Or do you just want to praise him for the few that he saves while overlooking his dark side….

God decreed the licentiousness of Sodom & Gomorrah, and then got mad and destrowed the place with all of its inhabitants. (Excuse Lot & his family) Well, it happened didn’t it.

Then you say that God decreed Israels rebellion and disobedience, pleaded with them for hundreds of years to change, decreed that they not change: Got mad and sent them onto exile for seventy to eighty years… It happened.

Then he decreed that Judas betray Christ, and then he decreed that Judas spend eternity in hell for it. It happened. God did it, it was his decree. Who can stay his hand…

Deut 1:37
37Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

Deuteronomy 4:21
21 Furthermore the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance:
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

Deuteronomy 9:20
20 And the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him: and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

1 Kings 11:9
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

2 Kings 17:18
18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

Psalms 7:11
11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
What’s God so angry about, he decreed it..

Either God needs to see a shrink, or you have grossly erred in bringing this accusation against him…..

mickiel

August 3rd 2003, 02:09 PM

and as usual, it will progress no futher. When will you come out of Egypt Chappie? You will never learn as long as you deal with these people. They are ever learning and never come to truth. Don't relax your mind with this.

Stephen

August 3rd 2003, 04:39 PM

So, you are willing to attribute Lucifers rebellion, Adams fall, and the extermination of six million Jews, the eternal torture of billions of individuals created in his image to the will of God

Chappie, I hate to say it, but if you believe in hell, you believe the eternal torture of billions of individuals is the will of God too. Hell is not a place created by human free will, where they send themself to hell and God plays no part, it is place that God sends those who are not His. God does not "want" anyone to perish in hell because they are His creation, but because He is the judge, then it must be His will , even if soley because they deserve it. If it were not His will, He would not do it.

That isn't to say He sends them to hell because of His will whether or not they deserve it; to be sure, no one will be in hell who did not deserve it, and likewise none will in heaven who deserved to be there.

Thomas2003

August 3rd 2003, 07:27 PM

Elect… Chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, “THROUGH” SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT. Not elected through election, nor chosen through being chosen.

Chosen (Elect) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit,

Sir, I tried to explain ealier - our interpretation is completely and entirely consistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. We believe it is an absolute, that the Scripture teaches this before it presents the salvation of man. That God reveals Himself and His Covenant, as primary and foundational, before He reveals mans inclusion into that Covenant.

We believe the procession of the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, you've taken this one verse and twisted it around in contradiction to the blood of Jesus Christ, and completely negated the incarnation.

We won't interpret this Scripture as you are doing, where the procession of the Holy Ghost moves directly from the Father to unregenerate man without Christ. We will leave it in context, as below, put the emphasis of "through sanctification of the Spirit" with the blood of Jesus Christ and God's grace.

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2

Scriptures such as these regard the Begatting of the Son from the Father in His substance in eternity; and then in flesh through Mary; and the procession of the Holy Ghost. Again, we start with the Doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ - we believe this is presuppositional to all of the Christian Faith.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. John 8:41

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26

So, what are you trying to say, that predestination and election are the two missing parts of the Ten Commandments. Instead of ten, there are twelve… How can I accept salvational election as a judicial act, when I cannot even find it to be a scriptural act? Give me some scriptures to read that even suggest predestination/election to be the law of the land or even a binding concept upon God…

It looks to me you have to intentionally create this convuluted concept from what I said, I don't know where it came from.

I believe Election is God's adjudication of sin in the blood of Jesus Christ. It's that simple.

That is really the bottom of it and why we disagree and will never come to any agreement. We believe that God judges sin in Jesus Christ, we don't believe we judge our own sin through our sanctification, as you have it interpreted. We beleive Jesus Christ is our only mediator between God and us, not that we our own mediator, on one hand; or as the Jews believed that the Law was their mediator on the other hand. I suppose that is how you have come up with your two additional commandment concept.

If you cannot find God judging sin in Jesus Christ to even be a Scriptural act there really isn't even any point of discussing it. As I tried to explain, one must believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in human flesh and that salvation exists only in God's grace of adjudicating sin in Christ's blood. To understand how this is performed is irrelevant if you don't even belief it exists.

The bible clearly and specifically tells us that. Scripture does not negate scripture. If regeneration precedes faith, then salvation comes through regeneration and not through faith at all. I know, and you know that essentially that is what you are saying, and I know, and I know that you know that the bible does not say that....

I agree Scripture does not negate Scripture, that is why it is not wise to discuss this with somone unlearned or non-believing in the foundation of the Faith. So, I'll just stop as your intentions seem contrary to objective understanding.

You are exactly correct that salvation comes through regeneration, it is by Grace alone - faith in Jesus Christ as a man's sole mediator is the gift of God, a product of His Grace. We explicitly believe the birthing of a child of God exists before he takes that first breath, which is faith.

I do believe the Scripture teaches that.

Either we are to exegete in a sequential and logical manner here, or we have to throw logic and sequential events out the window. And if we throw them out here, we have to throw them out when we exegete the rest of the bible also...

Agreed, as I have tried to explain, we believe the sequential and logical manner of understanding the Scripture is as a whole of it's teaching - the Trinity. We start with the Godhead and His Covenant, that He is transcedent and Sovereign - we believe Arminians throw this out and make themselves into his own god.

"ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:5

Cordially,

Thomas

adam.naranjo

August 4th 2003, 01:06 AM

Arminian

I’m sorry, but the story not only does not say that, but it argues against it. The servants were told to go out and invite “anyone.” There is no mention of what you are talking about. There is no mention of manipulation behind the scenes. The sentence begins with gar, indicating why it is that the person is being cast out -- NOT WHY THE PERSON WAS CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND.

First let me say that to say, "NOT WHY THE PERSON WAS CHOSEN NOT TO RESPOND" is to misrepresent my point. Gar does not explain WHY the person was NOT CHOSEN. Rather, it was to explain, WHY the person was not accepted. There are two levels to the narrative. This is rather common in Christ's teaching. One level is the working out in time, the existential narrative. The other is the meta narrative. The over arching narrative beyond what is happening in time. It speaks of some kind on timeless truth or principle that controls the narrative as a whole. I'll get back to this in a second. ( I agree that the "call", in a sense, goes out to everyone. BUT, the point in this passages is that EVEN some who SEEM to have gotten in will be thrown out. (I believe that in this passage those who first rejected are the Jewish people. Because of their rejection the covenant community is broadened to include gentiles as well. There are many in the covenant community (church/bride) who will not be included in the final purified bride. There are those who are in the covenant, but are NOT CHOSEN, so they are removed. Look at the passage again, "10 “And those slaves went out into the streets, and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. 11 “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless. 13 “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.” )Again, I believe v14 sums up the whole scenario.

Greek Lemma
gar

Morphology
conjunction: cordinating, explanatory

Gloss
for, indeed (a conjunc. used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

Verse 14 provides a meta narrative of the scenario. The point in verse 14 is to explain why those who rejected to come did so, and why he who was throne out was throne out. Within the narrative, those who rejected do so of their own free will. The same is true of the man who was not dressed in the proper clothes. However, the meta narrative (v14) sums up the part that Christ wished to explain further, namely, "why are some there and some not?". Its an answer to the question of cause. What is the cause of all of this? "Many are called, but few are chosen."

This is a timeless truth that over arches the whole experience of man kind. In a sense is the meta narrative of all existence, but that’s a whole other issue.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?'...cast him out ...For....

In fact, the king in the story came to “view” the crowd and found the man that was not dressed properly. If the point of the story was to show that the king chose him to be dressed improperly, then Christ utterly failed at his task. Instead, the king came to “view” the crowd and chose those who were dressed properly and cast out the one who was not. Thus, he chose those who responded appropriately.

I agree that in this part of the parable Christ gives an explanation of the kings decision to throw him out. This is why I believe that God is sovereign and men are responsible. Within our narrative, or our experience, we must always remember that WE are responsible for our behavior. We are to have faith, and remain faithful. However, the over arching narrative (meta) is the sovereignty of God. The answer to WHY things happen the way they do, is that God has chosen. This is the point of many, many, meta-narrative passages. I hold both to be true.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Why? Do Arminian’s (I’m not one, btw.) think that if Christ appears physically or in a vision He has to appear to everyone? Well, if that’s the case, that explains why you think they are wrong. (No wonder I'm not an Arminian! )

Frankly I don't even understand what you said here. With regard to this passage, I do think that it is talking about Israel’s rejection, the gentiles inclusion and the refining of his covenant people. All those who don't belong are taken out.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

This next part might need some explaining, let me quote this part of the conversation:

You said:
You're making an incorrect assumption based upon an English translation, but it makes no difference. God's chosen ones are those who are clothed in Messiah. This fits well with my perspective. They are not Paul's opposition, the circumcision party. Those of the circumcision party who turn and trust Messiah will be grafted into God's chosen people and share the identity as God's chosen.

I said
I agree with this. Does that surprise you? Regarding the plural language. I'm not assuming. And I'm not relying on the English text.

You said:
No, considering what you’ve said in the past, I suspect we would agree on more things than some other people. However, what I said did negate what you said.

I tell you what, I'm not sure what you thought I meant by, "i agree with this." Let me explain. I agree that those who are clothed in Christ are God's chosen ones. Each of them are chosen to be in Christ. And they are saved on the last day, because they are in Christ. If you want to know more about what I believe check out, "Reformed is not enough" by Doug Wilson. Or if you want to check it out online go to... http://hornes.org/theologia/

I don't really have any idea why you started talking about the circumcision party, so I don't know what your talking about.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, I have some question for you.

1: Why does this scripture not speak of God's ability to chose individuals for salvific purpose? "10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

2: Does this scripture teach that God can control men's hearts? "Psalm 105:24 -- God Controls people hearts
And He caused His people to be very fruitful,
And made them stronger than their adversaries.
He turned their heart to hate His people,
To deal craftily with His servants."

3: Does this scripture teach that God is in control of even seemingly random process -- does He control all circumstances with this precision? "Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord."

“Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. "

4: What exactly does this scripture teach? "Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating evil;
I am the Lord who does all these."

5: Does this scripture not teach that God has chosen/appointed people? "Acts 10:34
"God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God"

6: Does this scripture not show that God has chosen those who would believe, and hardened the others? "What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened"

7: Even though this scripture doesn't mention it in the context, do you believe that the "chosing" must be understood as being "in Christ"? "2 Thess 2:13
"because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel."

8: Is this to be understood as "in Christ"? "Rev 17:14
"He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

9: How is this scripture to be undestood? "Phil 1:29
"For TO YOU it HAS BEEN GRANTED (for Christ’s sake) not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 04:35 AM

Adam,

Only this once will I discuss Scripture when you simply list verses (except for my traditional cryptic responses).

Why does this scripture not speak of God's ability to chose individuals for salvific purpose? "10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

I'm supposed to comment on all of that!?

You miss the point, totally. It was not Jewish custom that the blessing given to the oldest child saved him and damned the younger. This was not the first day Jacob believed and the last day for Easu, nor did either of them join the covenant that day, for the first time, to become Jews. God was selecting one to be the forefather of his nation and not the other.

"Loved" and "hated" are Hebraisms for preference, not salvation and damnation. By this blessing, God was making Jacob the bearer of election (in the Jewish sense). This wasn't the first day that Jacob believed or became a Jew or entered the covenant. It was through him that the nations would be blessed. It was through him that all must enter. This will fit in with Paul's argument that through Christ the nations must enter, because Christ is the bearer of election (see my argument at a later date).

Again, this is a comment by Paul on Jewish election, against a Jewish opposition who claimed that their Abrahamic flesh was a mark of their status before God, and this could be traced through Abraham --> Isaac --> Jacob. They (the opposition) claimed that they were elect and that the individual believer had to be circumcised to join the elect. They claimed that they had been elected according to the promise God made to the patriarchs.

Paul's reference to Jacob and Esau is no more about individualism than his opposition's. If Jacob's line was chosen, then everyone should join his line and become circumcised because his physical descendants are God's Israel, right? "No," says Paul, "the promise was not given to the children of the flesh of Abraham, but to the children of the promise."

Paul turns his opposition's argument for exclusivism on its head by turning their proof-texts against them. First is the quote from Malachi;

1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD .
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD . 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Note the parallels and contrasts. The word is to Israel who is represented by Jacob. The Edom is represented by Esau. One has an inheritance and the other does not. This INHERITANCE is the issue with Paul and his opposition. They are fighting over that very issue. (I'll post more on "the inheritance" later -- it is key).

Now note Paul's second quote of Scripture, which makes exactly the same point:

The older shall served the younger.

This is a quote from God's only words to Rebekah on this issue, so let's look at what Paul's informed (unlike the Western "proof-texter") audience would have used the argument to prove (Genesis 25:23):

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."

Paul is using the very Scripture that his opposition uses as an argument for their exclusive claim to the covenant. Their claim isn't that they were either lucky or unlucky individuals in the heavenly lottery. Their argument was contained in these very words: "Two nations are in your womb." If the promise to Abraham was passed to the nation of Israel through Jacob, then everyone should BECOME Jews to partake of that promise, since the promise was to JEWS. Contrary to any fatalistic interpretation, the Jews and Paul are battling for the inheritance and the people who can lay claim to the "inheritance." And, contrary to any fatalistic interpretation, BOTH Paul AND his opposition are arguing that people should join their "people" to partake of the promise.

So why is Paul using these analogies in Romans 9? The reason is simple. He seeks to show that the inheritance was never based upon physical descent (the argument of Paul's opposition), but instead on the promise. Are physical Jews the children of the promise (the argument of the Jew)? No! Are unbelievers, who will some day believe, the children of the promise (the argument of the Calvinist)? NO! Then who are they? Who does PAUL say GOD says they are?

Romans 9:8

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Interesting. That verse makes God's children and Abraham's children the same people.

The antithisis:
a. natural children are not God's children
b. children of the promise are Abraham's children

Paul had already made this very clear to the attentive (non-Reformed) reader, however:

Romans 4:11

So then, he (Abraham) is the father of all who believe.

Again:

Gal 3:6:

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.

What does Paul want us to understand? That certain elect unbelievers are children of Abraham? No! Only those who have been credited with righteousness" are children of Abraham. And who has been credited with righteousness? Those in the Deliverer, the Seed, Messiah! (What a great argument he makes!)

The reason God's word has not failed is because the children of the promise were never by physical descent, as shown in the analogies Paul uses. Individuals must become part of that promise through faith.

Here's a brief introduction and an outline of Paul's argument. This is just a preliminary post. As I said before, Paul argues that God's election of his Israel is according to his promise, and not according to fleshly descent. I will continue with Paul's argument shortly, but for now, here's a bone for you to chew on:

It is in Romans 9-11 where Paul sets forth his explanation of "Israel," God's true elect. Romans 9 begins this Pauline clarification and definition of who and what "Israel" is. Romans 11 concludes the explanation.

The explanation begins with (Romans 9):

... not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because
they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children ... it is
not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the
children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

The explanation concludes with (Romans 11):

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this
mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that
a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness
of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved;
just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE
WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. AND THIS IS MY
COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

Paul concludes this "Israel" section of his argument with a description of what the "true" Israel would look like, that is, the Israel according to promise. It would be "delivered" in finality upon the arrival of the fullness of the "other nations."

The question: In what manner will "all Israel be saved" is answered: By having the "fullness of the nations come in."

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 04:43 AM

The question: In what manner will "all Israel be saved" is answered: By having the "fullness of the nations come in."

What I will do is set forth how I see Romans 9:14-16 and 9:19-23 as supporting arguments in Paul's definition of God's elect, i.e., God's "Israel" (Romans 9-11).

................... I. True Nature of God's Israel
A. True desc. = not children of flesh, but children of "promise"
... 1. "True" are named through Isaac (a child of promise)
... 2. "Same with Rebecca" (who had a child of promise)
...... a. God's election was of "Jacob" (another of child of promise)
..........i. His election of Jacob does not make God unjust
......... ii. His election of Jacob is based upon His mercy/compassion
............ Compare Pharaoh (mercy/hardening)
B. Why does God blame "fleshly" Israel if He chose this "true" Israel?
... 1. How does "man" argue with God's choice?
... 2. What if God endured in order to make His glory known?
..... a. As Hosea says ... (Jew/Gentile issue)
..... b. And as Isaiah cries out ... (Jew/Gentile issue)
C. What can be said? Gentiles did obey; Israel stumbled!
... 1. As it was written ...
... 2. Paul's desire that some of them believe.

In his Romans argument Paul addresses a series of questions, which he poses, representing his opponents' views on the Jew-Gentile issue. The 9-11 section of his argument answers their questions about "Israel's" election, defining the true nature of "Israel" ("God's Israel!" We know THAT really irritated Paul's opponents.).

He begins by describing his "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" for his "brethren" and "kinsmen according to the flesh," "the people of Israel." He then begins his clarification of who "Israel" in God's plan is.

His opponents would ask: "If we, the people of God's covenant, are now suddenly NOT the heirs to His promise, then His Word has failed." To that, Paul says:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are
not all Israel who are descended from Israel ...

The FAILURE, according to Paul, was his in "kinsmen's'" understanding of the nature of God's "Israel" and NOT in God's word! For it is not those who are physical descendants of Israel who are God's Israel.

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's
descendants ... it is not the children of the flesh who are
children of God ...

He continues, neither are they, by virtue of having physical descent from Israel, Abraham's descendants. The issue is: Who is God's Israel? Who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? If Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then who are God's children?

... but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Paul's answer is quite clear. The legitimate heirs, God's true children, are those who enter His presence under the "promise," not the "flesh." Physical descent, the heart of the old, is not the ticket; "spiritual" descent, the heart of the new, is God's new way.

A. True desc. = not children of flesh, but children of "promise"
1. "True" are named through Isaac (a child of promise)

One sub-argument is his use of the Isaac account as a picture of the nature of God's election of a covenant people. It is used to illustrate the fact that God's elect are so on the basis of the "promise" and not the Sinaitic covenant, wherein "fleshly descent" was central. That is what Paul highlights in his allusion. Note that point:

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's
children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your
offspring will be reckoned."

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's
children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded
as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was
stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will
have a son."

The issue is, Who are "Abraham's descendants" in the specific context of covenant relationship with God. "It is NOT 'fleshly descent'" is the answer. Paul illustrates by alluding to the Isaac account. What does he draw from the Isaac account? That election is by God's "promise," not "fleshly descent." After his specific allusion to Isaac, Paul immediately says:

In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's
children, but it is the children of the promise who are
regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the
promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return,
and Sarah will have a son."

The "In other words" (NIV), "That is" (NASB) or "Tout' estin" (UBS) restates his point of the Isaac account analogy. That point: that "it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the 'children of the promise' who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."

This is covenantal language. His opponents say THEY, as "natural children" ("fleshly descendants"), are the rightful heirs to God's covenantal promise. Paul says otherwise. Abraham's descendants are those who are children of the promise. What promise? To Abraham and his "Seed." Paul argues FOR the "new covenant in Messiah" against the "old covenant at Sinai."

Their claim is that "fleshly descent" is the ticket. Paul's is that the "promise" is not fleshly, but spiritual. Isaac, "the child of promise," is his illustration. Paul has no reason to refute Israel's claim to be physical descendants of Jacob\Israel, Isaac's son. He refutes that THAT PHYSICAL DESCENT makes them God's elect, God's true Israel.

As an aside, though, God's selection of Isaac over Ishmael finds its basis in His own promise vs. their manipulation.

And Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael
to him. And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live
before Thee!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear
you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will
establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant
for his descendants after him."

Note what is happening here. Abraham is asking that Ishmael receive the covenant besed upon fleshly descent, but God wants the covenant to come through the promise, instead.

2. "Same with Rebecca" (who had a child of promise)
a. God's election was of "Jacob" (another of child of promise)

Paul supports his point of God's election of the "children of promise" as opposed to the "children of the flesh" as a matter of God's sovereignty in election. God's election and the way to His inheritance is on the basis of His sovereignty alone and does not stand on the basis of physical descent nor physical birthright.

... before the twins were born or had done anything good or
bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
not by works but by him who calls - she was told, "The older
will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved,
but Esau I hated."

Physical birthright has no bearing on God's sovereign election of a covenant people. His selection of a people established on His "promise" is a just selection. God owes fleshly Israel nothing. Ultimately, His election and His inheritance are not based upon physical or natural birthright but on His sovereignty and His way.

The point of "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" should be noted. This is not a reference to God electing Jacob to salvation and Esau to damnation. It is simply a demonstration of God's right to choose whom He wishes, and how He wishes to accomplish His salvation.

Note that "loved" and "hated" refer to "chosen" and "not chosen." In fact, the point of the choice is that Jacob would BRING salvation TO Esau. "Loved/hated" is a Hebraism that refers to preference of one person over antother (cf. Luke 14:26), not salvation and condemnation. Jacob's call over Esau's was so that Esau's salvation would be by God's plan. Ironically, letting Esau in was to make Jacob jealous so as to bring a disobedient Jacob back to God's true elect (more on this topic will follow).

i. His election of Jacob does not make God unjust
ii. His election of Jacob is based upon His mercy/compasion
a) Compare Pharaoh (mercy/hardening)

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says
to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not,
therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

As a supportive point to the Jacob over Esau selection, God's election of Jacob over Esau does not make God unjust, even though the oreder according to natural descent was upset. The point of Paul's argument is that this was GOD'S sovereign choice. It is a "just" election. It was based upon HIS MERCY and not upon physical descent or natural birthright, the argument of his opponents.

God could choose His way of salvation. He owes fleshly Israel nothing. God's choice of the means of His new work of final salvation of humanity rests not upon anything in fleshly Israel, nor any man, but in His sovereignty.

The opponents have no right to call God's rejection of fleshly Israel an unjust work. His election is based upon His MERCY, not upon fleshly descent.

B. Why does God blame "fleshly" Israel if He chose this "true" Israel?

Paul anticipates his opponents will ask:

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us?
For who resists his will?"

Their belief is that if God has indeed rejected Israel after the flesh, as Paul has been arguing, then He is unjust. For they, the natural descendants, are not to blame for their birth and heritage. Paul answers this argument in a two-fold manner:

1. How does "man" argue with God's choice?

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is
formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like
this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of
the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and
some for common use?

God's work of election shows His sovereignty. They have no place, as His creatures, to question His election. The "Why have you made me like this?" complaint of their argument for the old national, fleshly work is baseless. He is the potter.

2. What if God endured in order to make His glory known?
a. As Hosea says ... (Jew/Gentile issue)
b. And as Isaiah cries out ... (Jew/Gentile issue)

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath,
prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the
riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom
he prepared in advance for glory, even us, whom he also called,
not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

As well, God's work of election shows His glory. For though He has rejected fleshly descent as the way of His salvation, He has shown His ultimate glory in calling a people of spiritual descent, composed of both Jew and Gentile. Listen to the prophets:

"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I
will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,

"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by
the sea, only the remnant will be saved.
C. What can be said? Gentiles did obey; Israel stumbled!
1. As it was written ...

And in the face of God's glory and mercy, there is the great irony of the whole argument Paul makes:

... the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have
obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel,
who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it
were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

2. Paul's desire that some of them believe.

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the
Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify
about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal
is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the
righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish
their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be
righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul's opponents said that if Paul was right, then God's word had failed. In one sense they had a legitimate claim. God HAD made a promise to the physical descendants of Abraham. If that promise was now ignored or rejected by God, then His word HAD failed. The big "if" is "if Judaism had understood that word properly."

The ongoing contrast in Scripture is between the "two covenants." The "first" covenant and the "new" covenant. For just one quick citation, Hebrews argues that the "new" covenant is not like the "first" one: (caps are OT citations in my MacBible NASB, kinda distracting!)

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would
have been no occasion sought for a second.

For finding fault with them, He says, BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING,
SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE
HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON
THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF
THE LAND OF EGYPT.

So without going into all of this again, I'll just note that there WAS a covenant word from God concerning Abraham's physical descendants. The failure was not in the promise of God, but in Judaism's understanding of that promise. They confused the two: the temporary, earthly, first; and the final, heavenly, which dealt with sin/death. The first covenant was faulty; it could not deal with sin/death. The second DID!

So, their argument, and Paul's response:

"God said we were His chosen covenant people. If that is no
longer true, then His word has failed."

"No. That promise was temporary. The arrival of the promise
of His 'new' work has made the first obsolete. He now has His
"true" chosen covenant people. But His word has not failed,
for He HAS extended His promise to Abraham's physical
descendants." They, too, can participate in His chosen
covenant people."

"Physical" descent is simply that covenant which God made with those whom He took by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, the tribes of Jacob/Israel. These are those who were disobedient in the wilderness, leading to the Sinai order until the Obedient One would arrive. (The "law" was added because of disobedience.)

"Spiritual" descent is membership in Abraham's family on the basis of the eternal promise to his "seed." It is participation in His chosen covenant community which is by His Spirit (internal), and not by fleshly descent (external).

Paul's whole point is to illustrate the nature of new covenant salvation. It is NOT a matter of "fleshly descent" but rather of "promise." Who or what is the "true Israel"? Not Israel after the flesh, but Israel after the promise.

The key to this (which the Jews should have understood) is that they are not children of God because they are Abraham's descendants. Why? Because it was through Isaac that Abraham's descendants would be named. What that MEANS is that it is not the "children of the flesh" who are children of God, but the "children of the promise" are regarded as descendants!

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 04:46 AM

The notion of "vessels" is often used to support the indiviual election theory. I think a parallel is quite probable with Rom 9, Jeremiah and Sirach, whether it be a direct allusion or a commonly understood tradition. And so we should take a close look at Jeremiah, Sirach and Romans.

The Book of Sirach (The Wisdom of Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus in many Latin Vulgate mss) was written by Ben Sira (Prologue by his grandson) during a time of turmoil in the Jewish community, early in the second century B.C.

At the time the Jews in Palestine were not a free people, but were subject to "other nations" who continually fought to gain control of this strategically important territory. Palestine had been under the control of Persia for two centuries. In 332 B.C. Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire and gained control. Upon his death his vast empire was divided among his four generals. Two of those generals, Ptolemy (Egyptian) and Seleucus
(Syrian), became rivals for control. Their dynasties contended for the land for years to come.

In 301 the Ptolemaic (Egyptian) dynasty finally prevailed and controlled Palestine. Under their control the Jews were able to maintain their religious and social independence generally, the high priest remained the spiritual leader of the covenant community, though they did continue to pay taxes to Egypt.

Meanwhile the Seleucid (Syrian) kings sought to wrest control from Egypt. Finally Antiochus III, a Seleucid, conquered the armies of Ptolemy V. The land holy to the covenant people, the Jews, became subject to Seleucid control.

Significant to Jewish identity as God's chosen people, chosen out from among the "other peoples" of the world, was the impact this foreign rule was having on the nation. This was a period of intense Hellenization, policies cultivated from the time of Alexander the Great. Issues of Greek philosophy, religion and culture was impacting considerably the religious faith and practice of the Jewish community, a people was presumably to be "set apart"
from these nations.

Ben Sira's purpose in writing his book was to demonstrate to his fellow Jews where true wisdom resided: in Jerusalem and not Athens. That is, the Jews were God's covenant people to whom had been given His Wisdom. To reinforce Jewish social and religious integrity the author gloried in the Jewish covenantal distinctiveness and separated way of life. He combined the Jewish wisdom tradition and the traditions in the Book of Moses.

The central point of Ben Sira is that Israel is God's chosen, His portion, whereas the other nations have rulers of their own.

He appointed a ruler for every nation, but Israel is the Lord's
own portion. (ch. 17)

The book is divided into three major divisions with a Prologue and Conclusion:

Grandson's Prologue
Division I (1:1-23:28)
Division II (24:1-43:33)
Division III (44:1-50:24)
Conclusion (50:25-51:30)

As I posted before, Sirach 24:1-22 is "The Praise of Wisdom," a poem which praises personified wisdom, bringing to a climax the "wisdom" poems in Sirach and transitioning into the second division. In these poems hidden wisdom is found in the Lord and is available to those who are in solidarity with His people, Israel; for it is through Israel that the Lord demonstrates and manifests His wisdom, in the covenant and Mosaic law.

This Wisdom poem has 35 lines, as it is patterned after Proverbs 8 which has 35 lines. Personified Wisdom delivers a 22-line speech. Though Wisdom holds sway over all peoples and nations she dwells in Jerusalem, having Israel, "the portion of the Lord," as her inheritance. Ben Sira then identifies Wisdom with the law. The place of God's Wisdom as established at Sinai is Jerusalem, the nation of Israel.

Stanza 1 (24:3-7) tells of Wisdom's origin and part in the creation of the world. The stanza concludes with Wisdom's quest for rest and residence. Human seeking and finding wisdom is portrayed in an inverted form, Wisdom's seeking and finding an abode:

Among all these I sought a resting place;
in whose territory should I abide? (v. 7)

Stanza 2 (24:8-12) tells of the answer to that quest. Where does Wisdom find her abode, in whom does Wisdom dwell?

Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and My
Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, "Make your
dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel make your inheritance" ... and
so I was established in Zion. Thus in the beloved city He gave
me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my domain. I took
root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, His
heritage. (vv. 8, 10b-12)

For Ben Sira Israel was the Lord's elect, His portion, His heritage. This is the language of collective solidarity. Israel, the corporate whole, is the Lord's portion, the abiding place of His wisdom. Therein alone is to be found His wisdom. In wisdom is found deliverance.

Stanza 3 (24:13-17) tells of Wisdom taking root in Jerusalem and flourishing like a tree. And the conclusion of the poem is Wisdom's invitation to her feast.

Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my fruits.
For the memory of me is sweeter than honey, and the possession
of me sweeter than the honeycomb ... Whoever obeys me will not
be put to shame, and those who work with me will not sin. (vv.
19-20, 22)

The call is to join the Lord's elect, Israel. To find wisdom is to find deliverance and rest. Wisdom, deliverance and rest is found only in solidarity with God's elect. The call of Wisdom is to join the elect body, to dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem His chosen city, the city of His inheritance.

Though Israel, Zion and Jerusalem are the dwelling place of God's Wisdom, the individual Jew must also make a choice. Will they be faithful to God's covenant? Or will they fall away from the covenant? First, their falling away from the covenant (and God's wisdom which dwells in Israel) is not God's doing:

Do not say, "It was the Lord's doing that I fell away." For He does
not do what He hates. Do not say, "It was He who led me astray."
For He has no need of the sinful. (15:11-12)

Second, the "fear of the Lord" is the beginning of wisdom. The wise, those who dwell faithfully in Israel in God's wisdom, thus in covenant harmony, these are the ones who fear the Lord and hate sin:

The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved who
fear Him. (15:13)

Third, each has a choice to make in the midst of their present turmoil among the nations from whom they had been chosen. One can choose to remain in or fall away from Israel and the covenant wherein resides God's Wisdom:

It was He who created humankind in the beginning, and He left
them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose,
you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter
of your own free choice. He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each
person is life and death, and whichever one chooses will be
given. (15:14-17)

Sira's timely message to the Jewish people is that out of all of creation the Lord has elected His portion, Israel. There His wisdom dwells for those who seek it. Deliverance is in solidarity with God's elect. The Lord has elected the people of Israel by an eternal covenant. Yet, not "every Jew" will be delivered, but "to those who repent He grants a return" (17:24). Those who remain faithful to Torah and wisdom (contained in Sirach) will be
delivered. Faithfulness to Torah is solidarity with the covenant people, the "portion of the Lord." Solidarity with all other peoples results in repayment and recompense. Those who fall away from Israel, God's elect portion, will be given what they choose.

As stated above, the Wisdom poem of chapter 24 is the transition from the Wisdom poems (Division I) to a series of admonitions for the people to observe in life among the nations (Division II). Sira admonishes by way of sections of precept, proverb and beatitude:

a. 25:1-26:27
b. 26:28-29:20
c. 29:21-33:18
d. 33:19-38:23
e. 38:24-41:13
f. 41:14-43:33

For now we will focus on section "c" (29:21-33:18). In the sub-section (32:14-33:6) we find precepts and directives identifying the fear of the Lord and the maintenance of the covenant as that for which one will never be put to shame, whereas the sinner, the fool, suffers loss.

The one who seeks God will accept His discipline, and those who
rise early to seek Him will find favor. The one who seeks the law
will be filled with it, but the hypocrite will stumble at it ...
Those who fear the Lord will form true judgments, and they will
kindle righteous deeds like a light. The sinner will find a decision
according to his liking ... Guard yourself in every act, for this is
the keeping of the commandments. (32:14-17, 23)

The one who keeps the law preserves himself, and the one who
trusts the Lord will not suffer loss. No evil will befall the one
who fears the Lord, but in trials such a one will be rescued again
and again. The wise will not hate the law ... The sensible person
will trust in the law; for such a one the law is as dependable as
a divine oracle. (32:24-33:3).

The references here to the law ("seeking" "keeping" "not hating" "trusting") are not references to doing the law in order to "enter" the covenant. The Jew was already in the covenant by having been born a Jew. Being a member of Israel was being in covenant relationship, for Israel was God's elect people. These references are to the Jew's responsibility to "maintain" that covenant relationship. The law was the center of covenant life; the law
was the wisdom of God. Fear of the Lord and wisdom maintained covenant. These are found in Israel, Jerusalem, Zion.

Ben Sira's purpose in writing his book was to demonstrate to his fellow Jews where true wisdom resided: in Jerusalem. That is, the Jews were God's covenant people to whom had been given His Wisdom. He here reinforces Jewish social and religious integrity, glorying in the Jewish distinctiveness and separated way of life.

In the sub-section (33:7-18) we find a series of pairs which interestingly merges Greek conceptuality (classification into categories of opposites) with Jewish Wisdom categories. As Sira later says: "All things come in pairs, one opposite the other, and He has made nothing incomplete" (42:24).

Why is one day more important than another, when all the
daylight in the year is from the sun? By the Lord's wisdom
they were distinguished, and He appointed the different
seasons and festivals. Some days He exalted and hallowed,
and some He made ordinary days. (7-9)

The first opposing pair is direct reference to the Jewish calender of weeks, months and festivals based on the luner year (cf. 43:6-8; 39:12; 50:6). "Exalted and hallowed" days are the "seasons and festivals" marking and celebrating the covenant at Sinai where God chose Israel from among the nations and made them a holy and set apart nation. The contrast is to the "ordinary days" of the nations, those outside the covenant of the Lord. Sira's
focus here is to direct the reader's attention to the distinction between themselves and the surrounding nations who were causing such turmoil. They can rest in their elect status as God's portion, His elect covenant people.

All human beings come from the ground, and humankind was
created out of the dust. In the fullness of His knowledge He
distinguished them and appointed their different ways. Some
He blessed and exalted and some He made holy and brought near
to Himself; but some He cursed and brought low, and turned
them out of their place. (10-12)

The second opposing pair further distinguishes the "blessed" covenant people Israel "appointed" (elected to be His special covenant people) to be His portion from among the other nations who remained outside the blessing. Israel had been "blessed" (in Abraham their father) and "exalted" (chosen as His portion) and "made holy" (set apart from the other nations) and "brought near" (through their exclusive priesthood) to the Lord.

But the opposite to this is His cursing of the other nations. In His exaltation of Israel the other nations outside the Sinai covenant are "brought low." This is not a reference to each non-Jew being cursed to an eternal damnation. Deliverance and wisdom were always available to the nations; they need only become members of Israel, the dwelling place of God's Wisdom, the exclusive source of life. Solidarity with the elect people was
deliverance. Sira's purpose is to re-establish the integrity of the elect nation, Israel, in the minds of his troubled readers.

Like clay in the hand of the potter, to be molded as He pleases,
so all are in the hand of their Maker, to be given whatever He
decides. (13)

Here we see the work of the electing Lord as a potter, the Lord who chose Israel to be His portion out of and instead of the other nations as a potter molds clay as he pleases.

The pairs continue:

"good ... evil"
"life ... death"
"sinner ... godly"

Sira then concludes:

Look at all the works of the Most High; they come in pairs,
one the opposite the other.

The Lord's works come in pairs. Sira encourages his distraught readers that God has indeed chosen them for good, for life, to be godly. They should take comfort and remain in the Jewish covenant; they should not be swayed by the nations who rule over them, for wisdom does not dwell in their midst.

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 04:46 AM

But the Jew was responsible to remain in the covenant and not fall away by his own free choice. To fall away was to accept the wisdom of the nations; but within the nations dwells only evil, death and sinners. There are "pairs" to God's works, says Sira; and there is a choice to make between following those nations and maintaining their covenant membership within Israel, the dwelling place of God's Wisdom.

Let's look at a couple sources for Ben Sira's book. It is clear that he merges the Hebrew Wisdom tradition and the Book of Moses (Pentateuch). It appears that he draws from the Prophets as well, as his grandson says he has. Take a look at this parallel from Jeremiah:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go
down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my
message." So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw
him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the
clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into
another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: "O house of Israel, can
I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD.
"Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O
house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or
kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that
nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not
inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to
be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does
not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do
for it.

Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in
Jerusalem, 'This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a
disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from
your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your
actions.' But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with
our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his
evil heart.'"

Therefore this is what the LORD says: "Inquire among the nations:
Who has ever heard anything like this? A most horrible thing has
been done by Virgin Israel. Does the snow of Lebanon ever vanish
from its rocky slopes? Do its cool waters from distant sources
ever cease to flow? Yet my people have forgotten me; they burn
incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their
ways and in the ancient paths. They made them walk in bypaths
and on roads not built up. Their land will be laid waste, an object
of lasting scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will shake
their heads. Like a wind from the east, I will scatter them before
their enemies; I will show them my back and not my face in the
day of their disaster."

They said, "Come, let's make plans against Jeremiah; for the
teaching of the law by the priest will not be lost, nor will
counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come,
let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything
he says." (Jer 18:1-18)

The Jews of Ben Sira's day understood all of this "preparing a disaster ... and devising a plan" against Israel and Israel being "laid waste." The understood this as having been behind them, Jeremiah's reference being to the Babylonian Captivity from which the nation had already been restored.

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go
down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my
message." So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw
him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the
clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into
another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

In Second Temple Judaism the restored Jews, the restored house of Israel, believed that THEY were God's "other pot" which He had formed to replace the "marred" pot, those upon whom the Lord had brought disaster and captivity, those who had previously followed the "stubbornness of his evil heart."

Our interest is how the Jews understand the nature of Israel's elect status, and here how Ben Sira reflects that common understanding. The picture is of God electing a nation from among the nations, a clan from among the clans, a family from among the families. Deliverance and possession of Wisdom was not on the basis of individuals being selected as recipients. It was the corporate entity, the body, the collective whole which received the
blessings.

The individual Jew was born into the covenant but nevertheless had to "maintain" their position within the elect body by their own free choice. They could "fall away" from the elect body "by free choice." And the individual Gentile was outside this blessing on the basis of their corporate solidarity with the "other nations," but could nevertheless become a member of the elect nation by choice and thereby receive the blessings.

Now having read Paul we know that Ben Sira and Second Temple Judaism misinterpreted Jeremiah. Jeremiah says:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go
down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my
message." So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw
him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the
clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into
another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him ...

... Then the word of the Lord came to me: "O house of Israel,
can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD.
"Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O
house of Israel."

The "pot He was shaping from the clay" which became "marred in His hands" was the national Israel, the covenant community established at Mount Sinai. This covenant could not make one righteous. It was weak. It was only a temporary measure until the arrival of the Seed of Abraham in whom God would bless all nation, in whom God would establish a new covenant community.

When the Lord promises to "form it into another pot" He is referring to "that day" when the Seed of Abraham arrives, and one's being a physical Israelite, a Jew, will matter nothing. For in that day all peoples of the world will be blessed with Abraham by faith. There will no longer be "Jew" and "Gentile." But there will only be one people, a new creation in Him, created for good works which the old people ("marred pot") were unable to do. The
new people ("another pot") will be enabled to do it, however, for they will have the law written upon their hearts by the Spirit of God Himself.

But is this fair? Is it a just God who would form a covenant people and then turn from them? Sure, individual Jews may fall away from Holy Israel (God's holy, set apart nation) by disobedience. But would a just God reject His people as a whole? His very own portion from the earth? Hasn't He promised to restore His people to greatness and righteousness? Has He now rejected His covenant people? If so then the very word of the Lord has failed!

These are the questions asked of Paul as he proclaimed his gospel of the arrival of "another pot" and the destruction of the "marred pot." Paul's answer is that the Jews had misread the promise to Abraham. It was to Abraham and "his Seed." Not "seeds" as if the reference is to the earthly nation of Israel (the "marred pot"). But to Jesus, His Anointed Servant who would establish the "true" Israel, the obedient nation ("another pot"), a holy
nation and chosen race as Peter describes it. The Jews had misread the promise. For, as Paul argued

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are
not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they
all children because they are Abraham’s descendants.

God's word has NOT failed; the Jewish reading of that word was in error. For the promise to Abraham was not to be confused with the Sinai covenant, wherein the Jewish nation had been established. There was no longer any "boast in the flesh," that is, boast in physical descent from Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of
God, but the children of the promise are regarded as
descendants.

Of course, Paul goes to lengths in many of his books to explain who the true descendants of Abraham are: those who are, by faith, in Messiah. Paul continues his explication of the "true Israel" as contrasted to the "marred pot" and His righteousness in His choice.

... for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done
anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to
His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of
Him who calls ... Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau
I hated."

God's choice of His Messianic vehicle of deliverance was a just choice. The physical Jew's complaint that God would be unjust to reject the "marred pot" (the Sinai covenant people) has no merit. God is just in His choices. He has chosen Messiah and has rejected Sinai. Sinai was only temporary. Those who abide in Sinai abide in sin, for there is no longer cover in Sinai; it is obsolete. Those who abide in God's Elect One, Messiah, abide in
the very Wisdom of God.

The Jewish response:

Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?

"If you are right, Paul," according to the Jews, "then God is unjust for finding fault in us, the Jews. For a Jew is a Jew. One cannot resist being Jewish. One cannot change the covenant which formed the Jewish nation, which was His righteous will."

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?
The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make
me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over
the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable
use, and another for common use?"

God is just in reshaping the clay from a "marred pot" into "another pot." For the molded does not answer back to the molder. The Potter has every right over the clay in His hands.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to
make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so in order that He
might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy,
which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also
called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

The "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" are the "nations" from whom the nation of Israel had been set apart under Sinai. He had endured until the coming of His Servant, in whom He would make known the riches of His glory. The "us" is the "other pot" composed of both Jew and Gentile together in one covenant in Messiah.

Paul's argument is that the "other pot" is God's elect people, and no longer was the "marred pot" a part of His plan. And the mystery now revealed is that this "other pot" was His plan from the foundation. Messiah, His Elect One, had been chosen from the foundation. And the "other pot" was to be composed of both Jew and Gentile. The Jewish exclusivism of the "marred pot" was no longer a part of His plan.

Paul includes a few more OT texts to support the point:

As He says also in Hosea, I will call those who were not my
people, "My people," and her who was not beloved, "Beloved."

His point is that those who had previously not been a part of the chosen, who in fact had been excluded from the commonwealth, were now included as a part of the elect. For the elect are those who abide in His Elect One. Jewish exclusivism is a thing of the past. All peoples are fellow-heirs in Messiah. Deliverance is open to all peoples. And not on the basis of their becoming members of the elect physical nation, but now on the basis of
their becoming members of the "true" Elect One, by faith.

Wisdom dwells in this new covenant people, for Messiah IS God's Wisdom. Those who join partake in God's Wisdom.

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 04:48 AM

Does this scripture teach that God is in control of even seemingly random process -- does He control all circumstances with this precision? "Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap,
But its every decision is from the Lord."

This is a reference to the Jewish tradition of casting lots to divine God's decision. THAT is the purpose.

What exactly does this scripture teach? "Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating evil;
I am the Lord who does all these."

That isn't verse 5. But in general, "prosperity and calamity" is my translation. The point being that they should respect God to be blessed or expect calamity.

Does this scripture not teach that God has chosen/appointed people? "Acts 10:34
"God raised Him up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God"

Are you going to keep posting this without responding to what I said? SO WHAT IF CHRIST PHYSICALLY APPEARED TO THE DISCIPLES AND NOT TO OTHER CHRISTAINS? DO YOU HAVE A POINT???

Does this scripture not show that God has chosen those who would believe, and hardened the others? "What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened"

Man, am I glad I spent so much time on CONTEXT! That's Paul's whole point! Who are the CHOSEN? Who gets the inheritance? THOSE IN CHRIST. (I don't mean to shout, but you seem not to be reading what I've been saying, so I'm trying to give certian words emphasis.)

And of course God hardens (however you care to define that) the objurate. What you actually mean is that he hardened them first and then they became objurate. Paul is clear that that is not the case, as we shall see.

Even though this scripture doesn't mention it in the context, do you believe that the "chosing" must be understood as being "in Christ"? "2 Thess 2:13
"because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel."

Yes I understand "chosen" to mean "in Christ." Only believers are "saved through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit." This was his plan from "the beginning." Unbelievers are not "in Christ."

Is this to be understood as "in Christ"? "Rev 17:14
"He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

There are no "faithful" outside of Christ. So, yes, we agree that the faithful are in Christ.

How is this scripture to be undestood? "Phil 1:29
"For TO YOU it HAS BEEN GRANTED (for Christ’s sake) not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

How is it to be understood? In context:

27Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel 28without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved--and that by God. 29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him,

What behavior has Christ prescribed for believers? To conduct yourselves in a manner worth of the Gospel. And what behavoir is worthy of the Gospel? To believe and suffer on behalf of Christ. That is what Christ has granted to you to do, because if you don't you will be cut off.

Solly

August 4th 2003, 04:52 AM

Arminian [copy, paste] thanks, will read at my leisure. I always look forward to your "meaty" contributions. :thumb:

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 05:04 AM

Arminian [copy, paste] thanks, will read at my leisure.

Wait. You're too fast. Give me 10 minutes (at least) to edit.

:smilie of an old man typing as fast as he can:

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 05:18 AM

Adam,

Just a note: My comments above are just as much against Arminianism as they are against Calvininsm (Not to mention Covenant theology and dispensationalism!).

My point, really, is that Paul is writing about ancient issues, not modern ones.

Chappie

August 4th 2003, 11:19 AM

Yesterday @ 09:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166249#post166249)
Stephen:

Chappie, I hate to say it, but if you believe in hell, you believe the eternal torture of billions of individuals is the will of God too. Hell is not a place created by human free will, where they send themself to hell and God plays no part, it is place that God sends those who are not His. God does not "want" anyone to perish in hell because they are His creation, but because He is the judge, then it must be His will , even if soley because they deserve it. If it were not His will, He would not do it.

That's where you are wrong. I do not believe that men are in hell as the result of the will of God. I believe that men are in hell because they rejected the will of God.

Everything that happens is not the result of the proactive will of God. Some things happen that God does not want to happen. This is evident by the number of times that God is angry with Israel in scripture.. That's where this predestination and sovereignty thing crosses the bounds of a just and loving God. An extremist fixation on power and sovereignty has negated almost all of what else is revealed to us about the nature of God…

That isn't to say He sends them to hell because of His will whether or not they deserve it; to be sure, no one will be in hell who did not deserve it, and likewise none will in heaven who deserved to be there.

God's sense of justice was in place long before the advent of man. All things have consequences. It's just like being born into this world. The consequences for murder have already been established. If we are guilty of murder, then justly we receive the consequences. But if someone else committed the murder and forced us to hold the Gun in our hands so that our fingerprints are on the gun, and because of this we are convicted, justice is not served....

This is what predestination does; it condemns men for being born with their fingerprints on the gun. It condemns men for being born condemned. It predestines the torture of men before they have done neither good nor evil. (Jacob and Esau)

God is a just God. Predestination makes a mockery of that justice. Who deserves hell for being a victim? Predestination turns God's justice into just victims and torture... Before they were even given a consciousness to even contemplate good and evil, their butts were on fire....

In the hands of a just God, evil is still evil. In scripture, God has already defined evil. Election is an evil concept. I know that this is not a problem for you, because you say that God predestines everything, that means that he is more comfortable with evil than he is with good. One look at the world that surrounds you is all the evidence that you need to establish that.

Your predestination and election was and still is a shortsighted concept. It started out with good intentions, but it's original proponents failed to fully consider all the ramifications of the concept. But the bible did say that men would one day call evil good, and good evil....

I know that some will be angry with me, for that I apologize. Still I have told the truth. One need not be a genius of a theologian to see the dark side of this doctrine. What started out with good intentions has turned against the God that it intended to glorify.

While it may be hard to admit that we are wrong, anyone should be able to see that this attempt to glorify God has backfired....

Stephen

August 4th 2003, 12:14 PM

"That's where you are wrong. I do not believe that men are in hell as the result of the will of God. I believe that men are in hell because they rejected the will of God."

Ah, but that was not my point. If God did not exist, there would be no hell. But, it is clear that God sends them to hell, none other has the power to. Yes, we disagree that everything that happenes was the will of God, but when God DOES something, then is it His will? If it is not His will, why does He do it?

God is a just and loving God. But He is not bound by His justice, even in your arminian view, to save all regardless of whether they accepted Him or not. Heck, I hope I don't sound blasphemous for saying this, but I can think of a few ways without violationg any free will, that God could do. Write his name in the sky, speak from heaven, make everyone with full knowledge of His existance from the moment they are born, etc.l

I don't mean at all to say I am a better God than God, but if your Arminian position holds, you still can't conclude that free will changes the question of why God with absolute power, willsm all to be saved yet does not save them.

"Everything that happens is not the result of the proactive will of God. Some things happen that God does not want to happen. This is evident by the number of times that God is angry with Israel in scripture.. That's where this predestination and sovereignty thing crosses the bounds of a just and loving God. An extremist fixation on power and sovereignty has negated almost all of what else is revealed to us about the nature of God…
"

I agree that many people take it to such an extreme (hypercalvinism) where it negates all God's other attributes. However, I do not believe predestination (we are still speaking of salvational election, not predestination of everything, are we?) in itself negates any of God's attributes. It keeps His love, His justice, His mercy, His wrath, His grace, etc. Only difference is the God that I believe in does not let any mere human effort thrwart His all-powerful will.

TedO

August 4th 2003, 03:03 PM

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166851#post166851)
Stephen:God is a just and loving God. But He is not bound by His justice, even in your arminian view, to save all regardless of whether they accepted Him or not. Heck, I hope I don't sound blasphemous for saying this, but I can think of a few ways without violationg any free will, that God could do. Write his name in the sky, speak from heaven, make everyone with full knowledge of His existance from the moment they are born, etc.l

I don't mean at all to say I am a better God than God, but if your Arminian position holds, you still can't conclude that free will changes the question of why God with absolute power, willsm all to be saved yet does not save them.

That assumes that if God overwhelmed everyone into believing (no matter how coercive) that it would produce the same end result that God seeks.

Chappie

August 4th 2003, 04:57 PM

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166851#post166851)
Stephen:

Ah, but that was not my point. If God did not exist, there would be no hell. But, it is clear that God sends them to hell, none other has the power to. Yes, we disagree that everything that happens was the will of God, but when God DOES something, then is it His will? If it is not His will, why does He do it?

He certainly is bound by his justice; this is what is meant by immutability. If God did not exist there would be no man. It is impossible to contemplate "if God did not exist", for there would be no one to contemplate it....

It's not that God acts against his will, he does not. Nevertheless it is his will that we have the ability to act against his will. It is then his will that we suffer the consequences of doing so. You say God puts people in hell. I say hell is where people are that he would not allow into heaven.

God is a just and loving God. But He is not bound by His justice, even in your Arminian view, to save all regardless of whether they accepted Him or not. Heck, I hope I don't sound blasphemous for saying this, but I can think of a few ways without violating any free will, that God could do. Write his name in the sky, speak from heaven, make everyone with full knowledge of His existence from the moment they are born, etc.l

Do you believe the bible? On a couple occasions he did speak from heaven. One being with Moses in the shadow of Mt. Sini. All Israel heard: Another was at Christ's Baptism.

Or he could go us one better and come in the likeness of sinful flesh, heal the sick, cast out demons, walk on water, feed five thousand with a few fish and a couple loafs of bread, give sight to the blind, die on a cross, get up in three days and be seen by a multitude of people. That ought to do it wouldn't you think.

I don't mean at all to say I am a better God than God, but if your Arminian position holds, you still can't conclude that free will changes the question of why God with absolute power, willsm all to be saved yet does not save them.

Note: I am as far from being an Arminiam as I am from being a Calvinist.

It is his desire that all be saved. If he considered only what he wants, all would be saved. Nevertheless he has chosen to save only those that have placed their faith in him. God will not allow another situation where his creation will rebel against him.

I agree that many people take it to such an extreme (hypercalvinism) where it negates all God's other attributes. However, I do not believe predestination (we are still speaking of salvational election, not predestination of everything, are we?) in itself negates any of God's attributes. It keeps His love, His justice, His mercy, His wrath, His grace, etc. Only difference is the God that I believe in does not let any mere human effort thwart His all-powerful will.

It condemns billions that have never had the opportunity to accept or reject him. Yet Calvinism readily admits that those that are in hell are there because they deserve to be. They are guilty of rejecting God... So predestination works great for those that are the elect, but it offers no justice for those that are not.

There is never a time mentioned in the bible, where before this lifetime, men had the opportunity to receive of reject Christ. That is the purpose of this lifetime. All men receive that opportunity in this lifetime... Your doctrine of predestination totally destroys that concept. Without the opportunity to accept, no man is guilty of rejection…..

Still I have respect for the content of your post. You are a Calvinist, still you appear to do your own thinking. Inside or outside the Tulip, you allow the chips to fall were they may….

May gid bless...

SaintMorpheus

August 4th 2003, 05:40 PM

There are some here with an immature perception of God.

God is not nice.
God is not a Christian.
God does not read the Bible.
God does not go to Sunday School every Sunday.

God is not small.
God is not weak.
God is not confused.
God does not have internal conflict.
God is not hesitant.

You say God puts people in hell. I say hell is where people are that he would not allow into heaven.

Unfortunately for you, Jesus says of the damned:
"And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 5|30
And
"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew 5|41

Forget not that St. John recorded in his revelation:
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20|15

And so, Chappie, your little mental play-god who is always nice and fair to everyone does not, in fact, exist, for
OUR GOD IS A CONSUMING FIRE
HE says:
My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. (Isaiah 46|10)
This is the Living God Who speaks and you had better tremble before Him, pleading for mercy. Beg that Christ our Elder Brother intercedes on your behalf, lest you hear those dred words:
"I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" Matthew 7|23

Let us step away from theology and exegesis for a moment and think about things seriously.
Who has hemmed you into your station in life? Who has surrounded you with circumstances and people and conversations such that you would learn the truth and repent? Did you construct your life? Did you plan and bring about the circumstances that led to your decision to follow Christ?
If not you, then wholeheartedly bow down and beg Christ to forgive you for your arrogance.

You said:

[Predestination] condemns billions that have never had the opportunity to accept or reject him.

Does your little play-god play nicely and give each person in Somalia an opportunity to accept or reject Christ? Look at reality. You are privileged, elite; you were born into something way over your head. Some are born lost and die lost, but who will stand up and defy God? Everyone who tries will be cut down.

Let go of your insistence on freewill and fairness and a nice universe. Instead, cling to God.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. Mark 9|43

Arminian

August 4th 2003, 06:24 PM

Change:

If Esau's line was chosen, then everyone should join his line and become circumcised because his physical descendants are God's Israel, right?

to

If Jacob's line was chosen, then everyone should join his line and become circumcised because his physical descendants are God's Israel, right?

Stephen

August 4th 2003, 07:31 PM

It condemns billions that have never had the opportunity to accept or reject him. Yet Calvinism readily admits that those that are in hell are there because they deserve to be. They are guilty of rejecting God... So predestination works great for those that are the elect, but it offers no justice for those that are not.

Ah,but that is where so many fail. People do not go to hell because of lack of acceptance, they go to hell for the very thing we needed a savior to begin with; sin! Accepting christ is the way out of the penalty for sin, but none can stand before God and argue "I shouldn't go to hell because I didn't have a chance to have Your grace despite my sins" Why? Because though in Christ you are saved from the penalty of your sins, it is not rejection of Christ for which you were judged.

In other words, grace saves you, but lack of it does not condemn in itself.
At least, that's my take on it,
Stephen

Stephen

August 4th 2003, 07:39 PM

One more thing, Chappie, you said:
(finally got the hang of these quotes!

Or he could go us one better and come in the likeness of sinful flesh, heal the sick, cast out demons, walk on water, feed five thousand with a few fish and a couple loafs of bread, give sight to the blind, die on a cross, get up in three days and be seen by a multitude of people. That ought to do it wouldn't you think.

Of course, I"m not arguing for lack of sufficiency. What I am pointing out is that, as should be obvious to you, God has the power to save more without violating their free will; if this is the optimum amount of those who God can save and still keep their free will, then I would cautionally call God's omnipotence into question. Not blasphemously of course, but it does make you wonder, is this the maximum amount of people God can get into heaven?

Chappie

August 4th 2003, 07:58 PM

Yesterday @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167015#post167015)
SaintMorpheus:

There are some here with an immature perception of God.

And there are some with no perception at all.

And so, Chappie, your little mental play-god who is always nice and fair to everyone does not, in fact, exist, for

Does your little play-god play nicely and give each person in Somalia an opportunity to accept or reject Christ? Look at reality. You are privileged, elite; you were born into something way over your head. Some are born lost and die lost, but who will stand up and defy God? Everyone who tries will be cut down.

Let go of your insistence on freewill and fairness and a nice universe. Instead, cling to God.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. Mark 9|43

Most of what you have to say can be equated to jack and Jill, went up the hill, to get a pail of water.

Yes, there are Christian and Christian missionaries in Somalia. Considering my little play God, I find him more scriptural that that tidy little mess that you are trying to make...

And I did cut of the hand that was causing me to sin, but it found a computer and joined this BB...:hi:

See, only one hand.....

May God Bless..

TedO

August 5th 2003, 09:12 AM

Today @ 12:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167098#post167098)
Stephen:Of course, I"m not arguing for lack of sufficiency. What I am pointing out is that, as should be obvious to you, God has the power to save more without violating their free will; if this is the optimum amount of those who God can save and still keep their free will, then I would cautionally call God's omnipotence into question. Not blasphemously of course, but it does make you wonder, is this the maximum amount of people God can get into heaven?

Stephen, you make some big assumptions and assertions which cannot be proven.

1) God has the power to save more without violating their free will...

How do you know?

Let's say God displayed an overwhelming show of force and clearly wrote in the sky to every person "follow me or you will be destroyed". Don't you think that would be highly coercive? Most would fall in line, but certainly not out of love.

2) ...call God's omnipotence into question...

You have to prove that the end product is lacking and is not what God intended to get out of the system He set up.

I see no conflict with a sovereign God who laid out a world system which involves creaturely freedom to choose within the parameters established by the creator. In the end God will achieve his purposes, which I believe is a bride of believers who willingly bow before him - not because of coercion.

I find the alternate scenario far more troubling - why would God not save more if it relied entirely on himself to let people see the gospel? I know, I know, who are you to tell the potter...

(edited for clarity)

Thomas2003

August 5th 2003, 10:23 AM

I see no conflict with a sovereign God who laid out a world system which involves creaturely freedom to choose within the parameters established by the creator. In the end God will achieve his purposes, which I believe is a bride of believers who willingly bow before him - not because of coercion.

Dear Ted,

May I ask what coercion you are talking about?

Thanks,

Thomas

TedO

August 5th 2003, 10:49 AM

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167459#post167459)
Thomas2003:Dear Ted,

May I ask what coercion you are talking about?

Thanks,

Thomas

That was in response to Stephen stating that God could (should) do more, if people really have a choice, to convince them of His reality. My point is that there is a line between revelation which provides sufficient evidence for faith (Acts 17:31) and overwhelming revelation which becomes coercive.

Stephen

August 5th 2003, 12:22 PM

But where draws the line from "ample evidence" to "coercion"? This is one of the biggest obstacles that brought me to calvinism, secondary to Scripture. All my life I wondered "If I say God wants to save everyone, and not all or even most are saved, then what is the answer?"

First place I look was case for faith, about hell with J.P. Moreland. "God is saving the optimum amount of people He could save without violating their free will."

I want to know, if God loves everyone, and wants to save everyone, should we really care about violation of free will?

I have heard numerous times that love requires a choice, and that is why God will not violate human freedom. I wholeheartedly agree that love requires a choice. But to say love requires a choice free from all basis except one's own will, I do not agree. A child loves his father, a true deep love, but not because he was born, evaluated the matter, and decided "My father is indeed my father, he is good, therefore I will love him." He is born with the presupposition that he should love his father, but not because of a free choice, but because his father loved him first, and made that known immediately. There is no testing involved, no liberal free will, no free moral choice, the father is genuinely happy with the love his child gives him, I would assert just as much if not more as the love he gets from those who liberally choose to love him.

So, what I ask for, is concrete evidence from scripture, that God desires humans to love Him out of unbased (non-predestined) free will.

Off the top of my head, I can already think of times in scripture where God violated one's free will. Hardening of pharoah off the top of my head.

Anyway, I've probably gone off topic, so I better end this post now

Stephen

Thomas2003

August 5th 2003, 12:35 PM

That was in response to Stephen stating that God could (should) do more, if people really have a choice, to convince them of His reality. My point is that there is a line between revelation which provides sufficient evidence for faith (Acts 17:31) and overwhelming revelation which becomes coercive

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

What do you mean by "if people really have a choice?" A choice to do what? What choice don't they have?

Doesn't Romans 1 already say that everyman knows in his conscience that God exists being convinced by creation? But that he chooses to worship the creation instead of the Creator?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:_Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened._Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,_And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Romans 1:20-23

I still don't understand what you mean by overwhelming revelation which becomes coercive.

I guess I want to understand in what way you see God's word as not being coercive?

Cordially,

Thomas

TedO

August 5th 2003, 01:46 PM

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167635#post167635)
Stephen:First place I look was case for faith, about hell with J.P. Moreland. "God is saving the optimum amount of people He could save without violating their free will."

I want to know, if God loves everyone, and wants to save everyone, should we really care about violation of free will?

But this is the point - maybe God cares. Maybe it is what God wants to produce. The optimum number of saved individuals who respond under the circumstances that he has willed.

I have heard numerous times that love requires a choice, and that is why God will not violate human freedom. I wholeheartedly agree that love requires a choice. But to say love requires a choice free from all basis except one's own will, I do not agree. A child loves his father, a true deep love, but not because he was born, evaluated the matter, and decided "My father is indeed my father, he is good, therefore I will love him." He is born with the presupposition that he should love his father, but not because of a free choice, but because his father loved him first, and made that known immediately. There is no testing involved, no liberal free will, no free moral choice, the father is genuinely happy with the love his child gives him, I would assert just as much if not more as the love he gets from those who liberally choose to love him.

Who said free from all basis? God appearing in human flesh and dying on the cross, rising again, sending the Holy Spirit - this is our basis. We indeed love God because he first loved us.

In your example though, as the child matures, he will get to know who his dad really is. And based on the character of the dad, the child will grow in love, or his love will wane. I believe God is interested in a mature relationship - Jesus told the disciples "I no longer call your servants, but friends".

So, what I ask for, is concrete evidence from scripture, that God desires humans to love Him out of unbased (non-predestined) free will.

Genesis 1:26 is a good start. But like any complex doctrine, it isn't that simple.

Off the top of my head, I can already think of times in scripture where God violated one's free will. Hardening of pharoah off the top of my head.

Who said "no" first (Exodus 5:2)? Was this simply God arranging the times and places so that the Pharoah would respond as He desired (Ex 3:19)? Even with this hardening - it does not have anything to do with the Pharoah's personal salvation but rather big picture events.

Stephen

August 5th 2003, 09:40 PM

But this is the point - maybe God cares. Maybe it is what God wants to produce. The optimum number of saved individuals who respond under the circumstances that he has willed.

I agree so far.

Who said free from all basis? God appearing in human flesh and dying on the cross, rising again, sending the Holy Spirit - this is our basis. We indeed love God because he first loved us.

I should have said it clearly. What I meant by no basis, is free will that is not intervened on.

As a calvinist, I still believe we choose God out of our own will; it is just I believe God is the author of our wills as much as our bodies.

In your example though, as the child matures, he will get to know who his dad really is. And based on the character of the dad, the child will grow in love, or his love will wane. I believe God is interested in a mature relationship - Jesus told the disciples "I no longer call your servants, but friends".

I agree, but salvation does not start when one has a mature love of God, and I believe when a christian matures, they will question God and find their answers. But I am speaking of the initiation of that love, not maturity of it.

Genesis 1:26 is a good start. But like any complex doctrine, it isn't that simple.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Can you explain it?

Who said "no" first (Exodus 5:2)? Was this simply God arranging the times and places so that the Pharoah would respond as He desired (Ex 3:19)? Even with this hardening - it does not have anything to do with the Pharoah's personal salvation but rather big picture events.

Actually, it was God who chose to harden before pharoah had responded.

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

All acts of hardening after that are accompanied with the phrase "as the LORD had said". What did the Lord say? That He would harden Pharoah's heart.

And yes, it has nothing to do with Pharoah's personal salvation, but was still an act violating his free will.

adam.naranjo

August 6th 2003, 04:34 AM

Arminian,

Don't be suprised, but, I agreed with much of what you said. Thanks for the in depth post. I did read the whole thing. I was happy to hear that we are coming from the same page to a ceratin extent. We'll see how long that lasts. I will have to ask you a few mor questions. Not about certain scriptures, but about what you mentioend before.
And by the way, I know that you think i'm a 'proof-texter', but i'm really not. I wouldn't have mentioned those passages if I did not know the context. I do disagree with your take on most of them.

Ps... what authors are most influential for you. (Especially in regards to Romans 9 / 2nd temple Judaism etc.) E.P Sanders, N.T. Wright, Dunn?? I personally agree with much of Wright and Dunn, and the basic understanding of 2 temple Judaism. However, I think that some people take it to far and don't deal honestly with certain passages.

I'm going to give a little more thought to Romans, while I read Write and listen to Douglas Wilson. I will respond to everything else, exept the Romans 9 discussion, later. You seem to have our view nailed down, and I am still considering different angles. However, I may throw some questions at you in the meantime.

I might kick back a response late on wednesday, but I've been involved in to many discussion lately. I also have some other stuff to write outside of online forums.

Adam

TedO

August 6th 2003, 08:55 AM

Hi Stephen,

Today @ 02:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168392#post168392)
Stephen:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Can you explain it?

The point is that we are created in God's image - and will is a primary part of that. Of course most everyone agrees that Adam truly was free to choose to obey or disobey when confronted with the fruit.

Maybe a better verse to have chosen would be Acts 17:31 which shows that God's resurrection was given as proof - ie evidence which should produce faith - and that is what makes all men accountable to judgment.

Actually, it was God who chose to harden before pharoah had responded.

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

All acts of hardening after that are accompanied with the phrase "as the LORD had said". What did the Lord say? That He would harden Pharoah's heart.

And yes, it has nothing to do with Pharoah's personal salvation, but was still an act violating his free will.

God planned to do this from the begining yes, but that does not mean Pharoah's first response was determined.

As far a violating his free will - I clearly see many instances where God steps in to direct his plan in spite of people's choices. Jonah is a great example. The thing we don't know is if Jonah would not have repented - would the story have ended there? And doesn't Jonah's response at the end show that coercive force does not change a persons heart? He went, but he didn't like it.

That gets back to the first point (and I don't disagree with your point about maturity comes later) that God wants mature believers who freely love him base on intimate knowledge of his goodness.

Arminian

August 6th 2003, 09:17 PM

Adam,

Ps... what authors are most influential for you. (Especially in regards to Romans 9 / 2nd temple Judaism etc.) E.P Sanders, N.T. Wright, Dunn?? I personally agree with much of Wright and Dunn, and the basic understanding of 2 temple Judaism

The most influential writer for me is my old mentor, who was a student of Sailhamer. Those theologians you mention above are NP (New Perspective) theologians, but not BT (Biblical Theology) theologians. I do agree with much of what some NP theologians have written.

Wright comes to a lot of great conclusions, but he seems not to know that the Pentateuch was SCREEMING them to him all along. He takes a lot of pride in getting the historical context right, but in the end he goes back to making the same mistakes he attributes to Luther. Michael Cranford is much better (since he applies Sanders better), but he has the same problems as Wright, in the end. (I have a lot of hope for Wright regarding a more BT perspective. He’s shown the ability to learn and change. Just look at his change of interpretation of Romans 7, for example. If only he knew BT better, he'd kick butt!)

I’d also have to say that the study group I am a member of has been a great influence on me. It is composed of teachers, pastors and students. A few of them are in this forum, but I can’t get them to post anything of substance. They are outstanding, even though they appear to lack the confidence to post.

I'm going to give a little more thought to Romans, while I read Write and listen to Douglas Wilson. I will respond to everything else, exept the Romans 9 discussion, later. You seem to have our view nailed down, and I am still considering different angles. However, I may throw some questions at you in the meantime.

Romans is a cool book. I’m constantly aware of what a privilege (and challenge!) it is to read it. Some of my comments were cryptic, so as to draw those reading into the conversation.

Wright said something to the effect that reading Romans is like riding a bike. If you stop, you’ll probably fall over. He really nailed it with that comment. Romans is about 1 issue.

I might kick back a response late on wednesday, but I've been involved in to many discussion lately. I also have some other stuff to write outside of online forums.

No rush. I've got to finish a paper on Galatians for the BT folder.

I’m also going to be gone on a short trip with my wife. We’ve been married 20 years today!! :love:

Chappie

August 6th 2003, 10:08 PM

08-05-2003 @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167094#post167094)
Stephen:
Ah, but that is where so many fail. People do not go to hell because of lack of acceptance, they go to hell for the very thing we needed a savior to begin with; sin!

Sin has not been a salvific issue between man and God since Christ died on the cross.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: (efficient for those that believe) and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (Sufficient for the whole world)

Also, there is no way that this passage can be reduced to cover the elect only, (Those that are saved through faith.) but is extended to the whole world..

Accepting Christ is the way out of the penalty for sin, but none can stand before God and argue "I shouldn't go to hell because I didn't have a chance to have Your grace despite my sins" Why? Because though in Christ you are saved from the penalty of your sins, it is not rejection of Christ for which you were judged.

If accepting Christ is a way out of from under the penalty of sin, simple reason would tell you that if you reject him, you will remain in your sins.. Please Stephen, consider the redundancy of your own words.

In other words, grace saves you, but lack of it does not condemn in itself.
At least, that's my take on it,
Stephen

If a lack of grace does not condemn you, I suggest that you try and get saved without it…

08-05-2003 @ 12:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167098#post167098)
Stephen:

One more thing, Chappie, you said:
(finally got the hang of these quotes!

Of course, I"m not arguing for lack of sufficiency. What I am pointing out is that, as should be obvious to you, God has the power to save more without violating their free will; if this is the optimum amount of those who God can save and still keep their free will, then I would cautionally call God's omnipotence into question. Not blasphemously of course, but it does make you wonder, is this the maximum amount of people God can get into heaven?

How do you know when and where God would consider persons freewill to be violated? It is not an issue of power. The issue is, how much of God’s power is He willing to bring to bear to save those that willingly reject him. Is God required to bring the full extent of his power to bear in every occasion in order to retain the full extent of his power? Reason would answer, NO!!!!

Consider the word, relationship. God created man to have a loving relationship with him. Did you have to totally subjugate your significant others will in order to get her to say I love you.. If yes, what meaning is left in the words for you? Is she a slave to your power, or is she drawn to your kindness.

Puppet love is the pits, puppet sex is even worse…… God is worthy to be volitionally loved by his creation, he should not have to beat or coerce it out of you….

If you have to subjugate the will of another person in order to get them to love you, you render yourself unworthy to be loved….

When you hear the truth, it will touch not only your head, but your heart also..

Chappie

August 6th 2003, 10:15 PM

This is my first question....
I come to you and I ask you about salvational election, what are the first passages of scripture that you will take me to in order to introduce me to the fact that this concept is truely in the bible.

Appears that everybody wants to preach and nobody wants to teach......

Stephen

August 7th 2003, 02:26 AM

Thanks for responding, Chappie. I see i've got some answering to do.

Sin has not been a salvific issue between man and God since Christ died on the cross.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: (efficient for those that believe) and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (Sufficient for the whole world)

Also, there is no way that this passage can be reduced to cover the elect only, (Those that are saved through faith.) but is extended to the whole world..

Then that poses the question, is unbelief a sin? I've heard answers to this.

1. Yes it is, which means christ died for only the elect.
2. Yes it is, but in order for Christ's death to cover your sins, you need to accept His gift of forgiveness.
3. No it isn't

As most free willers I talked to have said number 2, I was assuming we were arguing from that premise.

If accepting Christ is a way out of from under the penalty of sin, simple reason would tell you that if you reject him, you will remain in your sins.. Please Stephen, consider the redundancy of your own words.

Here's my take on it, tell me if it works.
I won't bother to point out the bible passages as all of these should be easily recognizable as popular scripture.
Premise:
1. All have sinned
2. Wages of sin is death
thus, all should perish, but
3. Gift of God is eternal life

So take two cases, the believer and the unbeliever, not even speaking of predestination
Believer:
1. Has sinned
2. Deserves spiritual death
3. Accepted (believed) Christ, thus having His grace efficient for Him, and being made righteous goes to heaven.
Faith in christ, forgiveness of sins, is the reason why he goes to heaven.

Unbeliever:
1. Has sinned
2. Deserves spiritual death
3. Because he did not accept Christ, He is still bound to the "wages of sin" and deservingly goes to hell.

Indirectly, his lack of belief sent him to hell because had he believed, he would go to heaven. But lack of belief was not the reason he deserved hell, the reason was that premise 1 and 2 that I listed earlier still applied to him. Grace would save him, but to say lack of grace is the reason he is judged would be as if a prisoner plead this case:
"I shouldn't stay in jail because the President didn't pardon me"
Had he been pardoned, the grace of the "president" would be what freed him, but lack of it would not be the condemning factor.

Do you see my point or did I just complicate it more?

If a lack of grace does not condemn you, I suggest that you try and get saved without it…
I wasn't implying that you can get saved without grace, indeed grace is the only thing that can save you. But lack of grace is not the condemning factor, or else what would be the reason for grace in the first place, if the only thing you are condemned for is lack of it? Lack of grace for what?

How do you know when and where God would consider persons freewill to be violated? It is not an issue of power. The issue is, how much of God’s power is He willing to bring to bear to save those that willingly reject him. Is God required to bring the full extent of his power to bear in every occasion in order to retain the full extent of his power? Reason would answer, NO!!!!

Consider the word, relationship. God created man to have a loving relationship with him. Did you have to totally subjugate your significant others will in order to get her to say I love you.. If yes, what meaning is left in the words for you? Is she a slave to your power, or is she drawn to your kindness.

I concede to your point, that specefic argument of mine was not enough to prove much of anything.

If you have to subjugate the will of another person in order to get them to love you, you render yourself unworthy to be loved….

Or it is because the people who's wills you subjugate were so dead in sins, they were unable to love without Your coercion.

When you hear the truth, it will touch not only your head, but your heart also..

The docrine of unconditional election touches my heart much more than my head. Yes, there is evidence of it, yes there are philosophical arguments for it, but the greatest thing to me is the love it show's for those who God calls. God's calling those who would otherwise go to hell, unable to choose Him, shows so much more than logic; it shows love. A love that is not cheap; but elite, and infinite.

Free will, IMHO, render's that infinite love of God's cheap. It is just something that any can take, resting soley on the will of humans who are corrupt by nature.

My mind know's U.E. is true, but it is my heart's love for it that keeps me passionate about it.

TedO

August 7th 2003, 08:23 AM

Today @ 02:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170741#post170741)
Arminian:I’m also going to be gone on a short trip with my wife. We’ve been married 20 years today!! :love:

Congratulations!

Chappie

August 7th 2003, 11:20 AM

Today @ 07:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171190#post171190)
Stephen:

Thanks for responding, Chappie. I see I’ve got some answering to do.

Then that poses the question, is unbelief a sin? I've heard answers to this.

1. Yes it is, which means Christ died for only the elect.
2. Yes it is, but in order for Christ's death to cover your sins, you need to accept His gift of forgiveness.
3. No it isn't

As most free willers I talked to have said number 2, I was assuming we were arguing from that premise.

Stephen.
Good Morning. (6:15 AM)
Again, I reiterate, sin is no longer an issue that separates man from god in a salvific manner. Even the true elect of God (Whosoever will) sinned and will continue to sin. Therefore, I ask; to what end do you ask this question?

Here's my take on it, tell me if it works.
I won't bother to point out the bible passages, as all of these should be easily recognizable as popular scripture.
Premise:
1. All have sinned
2. Wages of sin is death
thus, all should perish, but
3. Gift of God is eternal life

So take two cases, the believer and the unbeliever, not even speaking of predestination
Believer:
1. Has sinned
2. Deserves spiritual death
3. Accepted (believed) Christ, thus having His grace efficient for Him, and being made righteous goes to heaven.
Faith in Christ, forgiveness of sins, is the reason why he goes to heaven.

Stephen, you have to be careful here lest you present works of righteousness as salvific, they are not. It is a conscience decision by Christ under the covering of his grace that saves. Remember, even the devils believe and tremble…

Unbeliever:
1. Has sinned
2. Deserves spiritual death
3. Because he did not accept Christ, He is still bound to the "wages of sin" and deservingly goes to hell.

Yes, because they did not accept Christ, they deservingly go to hell. But why is it that you are so eager to place responsibility on them for not accepting Christ, but you cannot acknowledge that it was impossible for them to do so even before the moment of their birth. (Total Depravity) Still your elect are guilty of precisely the same thing. They rejected him also. We have the advent of two dogs returning to their own vomit. Which dog is worthy of salvation, what options does God have available to him that allows him to choose one over the other. It called a crapshoot…..

Still God has claimed as his own the right to have mercy upon whom he will. So there is still no fault in God. But let’s move on to the Great White Throne of Judgment. Those that are consigned to hell are the totally depraved ones that were never provided an opportunity to accept Christ: In the final analysis, they are being judged guilty and tortured for eternity for being created a son of Adam.

Your concept of “Total Depravity” is the culprit; it makes it divinely impossible for man to be anything other than what he is. Then you make God a respecter of persons so that you can claim to be one of the special ones. And that’s OK, except; God said that he is not a respecter of persons….

Indirectly, his lack of belief sent him to hell because had he believed, he would go to heaven. But lack of belief was not the reason he deserved hell, the reason was that premise 1 and 2 that I listed earlier still applied to him. Grace would save him, but to say lack of grace is the reason he is judged would be as if a prisoner plead this case:
"I shouldn't stay in jail because the President didn't pardon me"
Had he been pardoned, the grace of the "president" would be what freed him, but lack of it would not be the condemning factor.

Presidents and pardons come with a set of moral guidelines, they are to be applied without respect of persons. Justice is not justice if it’s sole purpose is to serve the accuser and not the accused. A crazy person is sent to a medical facility, if he is not capable of understanding the charges against him. Yet you have God punishing them for being crazy. Their circumstances are beyond their control, they are deemed not guilty by reason of insanity.

I know, his ways are not our ways. Still his ways are higher than our ways, not lower…

Do you see my point or did I just complicate it more?

Quite frankly, I am most unhappy because your election and its ramification tend to drag God down way below his holy nature that is revealed in scripture. If my earthly father had ten kids, saved two (hand picked, roll of the dice) and tortured the rest, (not destroyed, tortured) I don’t care if I am one of the ones that he picked, he would be a lousy father. Remember, they did not reject him, he rejected them…..

I wasn't implying that you can get saved without grace; indeed grace is the only thing that can save you. But lack of grace is not the condemning factor, or else what would be the reason for grace in the first place, if the only thing you are condemned for is lack of it? Lack of grace for what?

Grace is not an ointment that God makes available for us to rub on our sins and cure them. Grace is Jesus Christ acting among his creation in a way that creates the opportunity for any of his children to be saved. It is sufficient for all. If we do not reject him, it becomes efficient for those that do not.

Or it is because the people who's wills you subjugate were so dead in sins, they were unable to love without Your coercion.

At what point does coercion become subjugation. Dead in my sins has not been a hindrance to my salvation since the cross. It is totally within the abilities of God that we are made able to love. If he does not do it, it simply does not happen.

Romans 4:17
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

It is God that takes a totally sinfully dead person and makes them alive to his calling. The calling is just not irresistible. If God does not make me alive to love him, then how can I reject him….

The doctrine of unconditional election touches my heart much more than my head. Yes, there is evidence of it, yes there are philosophical arguments for it, but the greatest thing to me is the love it show's for those who God calls.

In order to be a Calvinist, one has to be adept at not seeing the other side of that kind of love. Could you, would you? Praise and worship that love of you did not think yourself to be one of the chosen. Right now, there is not a scripture in the bible that would prevent Christ from saying to you; sorry Charlie, you are not one of my chosen. I can just hear you now; oh praise you lord, thank you, thank you. Your love is so wonderful… Can I stay in hell forever? For those that he calls, it’s paradise. Nevertheless, for those that he did not call, it is hell…. I really want to know. How would you feel in that case? You see, it is a real possibility. Depart from me, I never knew you. I never choose you… Beat it!!!

God's calling those who would otherwise go to hell, unable to choose Him, shows so much more than logic; it shows love. A love that is not cheap; but elite, and infinite.

Free will, IMHO, render's that infinite love of God's cheap. It is just something that any can take, resting solely on the will of humans who are corrupt by nature.

My mind knows U.E. is true, but it is my heart's love for it that keeps me passionate about it.

It is Cheap, it is selfish, and it is in short supply. It burns more than it saves. It burns and tortures people simply because God did not need them or love them. It results in hating more than it loves. It does not glorify God; it renders him a selfish power hungry tyrant. IMHO, it is a love that produces more hate than love. Narrow is the way and few there be that find it…

Matt 7:14
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Another of many stumbling blocks for Total Depravity to overcome… Along with what good is whosover will, when nobody can….

The ones that do not find it, they are dead. How are they looking for it. No man seeks God.

Isa 5:20-21
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

I know that my words are somewhat harsh, but from the side of the coin that represents those that are not chosen, this is what I see. We are looking at the same coin, you see it from the perspective of one that is chosen, and I see it from the side of the coin of one that is not chosen… Disheartening to know that it’s the same coin huh????

Stephen

August 7th 2003, 01:26 PM

Again, I reiterate, sin is no longer an issue that separates man from god in a salvific manner. Even the true elect of God (Whosoever will) sinned and will continue to sin. Therefore, I ask; to what end do you ask this question?

That was exactly my point. If you have stated that sin is no longer an issue, then I asked is unbelief considered a sin? If so, then what is keeping unbelievers from salvation?

Stephen, you have to be careful here lest you present works of righteousness as salvific, they are not. It is a conscience decision by Christ under the covering of his grace that saves. Remember, even the devils believe and tremble…

Sorry, I used common terms for faith, regeneration, etc. Knowing my stance on the issue of salvation, however, you of course know that I am not in any way supporting a works-save gospel.

Yes, because they did not accept Christ, they deservingly go to hell. But why is it that you are so eager to place responsibility on them for not accepting Christ, but you cannot acknowledge that it was impossible for them to do so even before the moment of their birth. (Total Depravity) Still your elect are guilty of precisely the same thing. They rejected him also. We have the advent of two dogs returning to their own vomit. Which dog is worthy of salvation, what options does God have available to him that allows him to choose one over the other. It called a crapshoot…..
[quote]

Again I either phrased it wrong, or you missed my point. Yes, because he did not believe, he goes to hell, but what did unbelief do? Kept him bound to "the wages of sin" and thus he deservingly perishes not because of unbelief, but because of the sinful nature for which the wages were death!

The bible does not say "the wages of unbelief is death"

[quote] Quite frankly, I am most unhappy because your election and its ramification tend to drag God down way below his holy nature that is revealed in scripture. If my earthly father had ten kids, saved two (hand picked, roll of the dice) and tortured the rest, (not destroyed, tortured) I don’t care if I am one of the ones that he picked, he would be a lousy father. Remember, they did not reject him, he rejected them…..

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name

Your analogy does not work under those conditions.

In order to be a Calvinist, one has to be adept at not seeing the other side of that kind of love. Could you, would you? Praise and worship that love of you did not think yourself to be one of the chosen. Right now, there is not a scripture in the bible that would prevent Christ from saying to you; sorry Charlie, you are not one of my chosen. I can just hear you now; oh praise you lord, thank you, thank you. Your love is so wonderful… Can I stay in hell forever? For those that he calls, it’s paradise. Nevertheless, for those that he did not call, it is hell…. I really want to know. How would you feel in that case? You see, it is a real possibility. Depart from me, I never knew you. I never choose you… Beat it!!!

I am very adept at seeing the other side of the coin; I was a free willer for 4/5ths of my life. But the scripture that comes to mind for me would be John 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

Our conditions for salvation are exactly the same, one must put their faith, dedicate their lives to Christ. We have the same assurance.

Chappie

August 7th 2003, 03:24 PM

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=171938#post171938)
Stephen:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

Our conditions for salvation are exactly the same, one must put their faith, dedicate their lives to Christ. We have the same assurance.

You change "whosoever believes" to "the elect who believes"....

So no, they are not. You add the further condition of election before the world was created.... Which eliminates any good or evil that we have done, we are in effect tortured because we were born sons of Adam....:shrug:

Election... :saywhat:

Stephen

August 7th 2003, 03:40 PM

That is a misconception about election.

I firmly believe that anyone who believes (you know what I mean by belief, placing your faith in, etc.) will be saved. That is Christ's promise in "Whosoever wills may come" My belief in election does not take away my assurance; belief renders election certain. It is not that one must both be elected and believe, and the two are unrelated. One is elected to believe. How do you know you were elected to believe? If you believe.

In all our human aspect of it, it is still very much a free choice. I can say to anyone "you have the choice to put your faith in Christ and be saved, or not to and deservingly go to hell". Jesus gave the invitation, whosoever wills may come. The only condition to coming is that you will to come; which is really no condition at all.

The only difference is I believe none of us would, on our own, will to come, and God is our sole reason for coming. Some are left to their own "free will" and will reject and go to hell, and some will, soly by the grace of God, believe and be saved.

So although belief is not the cause of election, to our human perspective, belief is the determining factor of how we know who is elected and who is not.

Chappie

August 8th 2003, 04:50 PM

Yesterday @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=172127#post172127)
Stephen:
That is a misconception about election.
I firmly believe that anyone who believes (you know what I mean by belief, placing your faith in, etc.) will be saved. That is Christ's promise in "Whosoever wills may come" My belief in election does not take away my assurance; belief renders election certain. It is not that one must both be elected and believe, and the two are unrelated. One is elected to believe. How do you know you were elected to believe? If you believe.[/b]

Why do you want to be a Calvinist? I ask because you have not mastered the art of being a one yet. Why not just be a Christian and forget about all the man made labels.

If one must be elected (chosen) to believe, and it is impossible for one to believe unless he is elected to believe; how can you say that “whosoever will” may believe? Obvious it is that only those that have been chosen (predestined) to believe have even the slightest chance of ever believing.

You cannot mix dry with water, they are two opposing concepts. You want to mix scripture with Calvinism doctrine of election. The two are in opposition to each other. Whosoever will is a moot concept in the face of salvational predestination/election…

In all our human aspect of it, it is still very much a free choice.

Then why did Christ say that he came to set the captives (not the elect) free? It is Christ acknowledging that it is impossible for us to do salvational good because we are all slaves to sin. A slave to sin can only sin. Without Christ it is not a free choice, it is absolutely no choice at all…

I can say to anyone "you have the choice to put your faith in Christ and be saved, or not to and deservingly go to hell".

Read Carefully.
Question…
Did you make that choice absent God making it possible for you to do so? You needed God’s help in order to believe. But you deny the very thing that made your salvation possible to all the rest and you say that they deservingly go to hell…

Actually according to Calvinist doctrine, you did absolutely nothing. God did it all. Yet you say that those for whom god did absolutely nothing deserve to go to hell. Can’t you even see that under the auspices of predestination and election, man can do nothing? God manipulates it all. Why do they deserve hell for what God did not do for them?

Jesus gave the invitation, whosoever wills may come. The only condition to coming is that you will to come; which is really no condition at all.

Yes he did give the invitation. Was he rejoicing in that invitation knowing that no one could accept. That is a pretty sad manifestation of God’s mercy, huh? Pretty malicious invitation wouldn’t you say? And you are correct: With salvational predestination already in place, it is one of the saddest invitations I have ever heard of. Kind of like a walking contest being offered to people with no legs…. The winner gets to go to heaven, but you have to walk. Dragging oneself along with their hands will not work….

The only difference is I believe none of us would, on our own, will to come, and God is our sole reason for coming.
Do you believe in your own doctrine of total depravity? They cannot come unless what happens? Unless God regenerates them first…..

Some are left to their own "free will" and will reject and go to hell, and some will, soly by the grace of God, believe and be saved.

Is that what happened to you, did God leave you to your own free will, but instead of hell: You chose him and chose to go to heaven. I praise God everyday of my life. I thank him that he does not employ the same double standard that you are praising right now. It is by the grace of God that you believe Stephen, that same grace that your doctrine denies to those that go to hell is what saved you…. And because God did not withhold this grace from you, you go to heaven. And because he withheld it from them, they deserve to go to hell…. I’m sure glad that you are not a lawyer or a judge…

Can you at least see why people that do as God commanded (love one another as I have love you) have such distaste for Calvinism….

I can think of many reasons why election is scripturally unacceptable on moral grounds. Perhaps our time would be better spent discussing scriptures that cause you to believe it......

Election. <<<<<<<:saywhat:

Thomas2003

August 8th 2003, 09:44 PM

Appears that everybody wants to preach and nobody wants to teach.....

I thought I explained it pretty well, God the Father judges sin in God the Son, these are the Elect, their sins have been adjudicated, that is Election. God the Father then sends the Holy Spirit to the Son, the Son sends Him to the elect and they are regenerated, this is Predestination. God knows and intends to Create all that He Creates, so this is Foreknowledge. The elect in turn respond to the Gospel and believe in Jesus Christ and manifest the fruit of the Spirit doing the works of God. This is God's creation and His doing, it is the beautiful work of His Hands for His purposes.

It's really very simple, you must be born again. Salvation is about being born of God, created as a living being.

Teaching doesn't work if one isn't willing to learn, which you don't seem to be willing to learn.

You change "whosoever believes" to "the elect who believes"....

We believe that "whosoever" is the elect, yes. The regenerate come to Faith - you must be born again.

If one must be elected (chosen) to believe, and it is impossible for one to believe unless he is elected to believe; how can you say that “whosoever will” may believe? Obvious it is that only those that have been chosen (predestined) to believe have even the slightest chance of ever believing.

First, predestinated is not election, predestination is an executive act, it is functional act of God the Son because of the double procession of the Holy Ghost, which I explained in a different response a while back.

We say whosoever will may believe because they have been regenerated. They are like children in the womb, awaiting to be born - whosoever will will be born of God. The Gospel is like a loudspeaker calling out the children of God, when the Holy Spirit bears them they respond to the call because that will has been born in them, born of God.

Ye must be born again, are you born again Chappie?

Then why did Christ say that he came to set the captives (not the elect) free?

Christ came to set his people free by leading captivity captive - the same way He led them out of Egypt by Moses.

But you deny the very thing that made your salvation possible to all the rest and you say that they deservingly go to hell…

No, not at all - why would they need it? Haven't denied them anything, it was never made available for them. They weren't created for the purpose of salvation.

Non-believers don't need to be saved from anything. They aren't concerned about hell at all - ask them.

If all men can be saved then surely all of them would. As calvinists we preach the Gospel whosoever will - our soteriology is not an evangelistic tool Chappie. We have a duty to disciple those that come to the faith, but we don't preach the gospel intellectually, it is not an intellectual assent, or even a doctrinal assent - it is a call to the regenerate.

Actually according to Calvinist doctrine, you did absolutely nothing. God did it all. Yet you say that those for whom god did absolutely nothing deserve to go to hell. Can’t you even see that under the auspices of predestination and election, man can do nothing? God manipulates it all. Why do they deserve hell for what God did not do for them?

He did not die for them, they have His blood on their hands. At least, as men, we hold that - they don't as gods. They are His murderers - which is why they will be resurrected and sent to hell.

Maybe you forget that part - these gods die and don't resurrect themselves, wonder why? First, why do they die? Second, when they die why don't they resurrect themselves?

Yes he did give the invitation. Was he rejoicing in that invitation knowing that no one could accept. That is a pretty sad manifestation of God’s mercy, huh?

Not at all because there are His children that are born again and respond to the call. Your statement, knowing that no one could accept it doesn't make any sense. Only Christians are saved - He calls out Christians, its really very simple.

I have several children, somehow God has chosen a particular ovum and a particular seed to generate those lives. I am not at all concerned with the billions of seeds that don't generate life. Science tells me there are billions, I presume that is correct, but only one actually impregnates the ovum and life is generated. Both of those things are living things, but without impregnation, they do not constitute life.

Man is dead in his trespasses and sins, he is like a seed without an ovum. A living cell, but without life.

It is no different here. If you have children, do you weep and sorrow over the billions of seeds that didn't generate life, or do you rejoice for the one single one that did?

Why don't you condemn God for that too - He created billions of spermatozoa, yet only uses one to generate a child. Pretty said manifestation of His mercy, huh? I rejoiced for my children.

Pretty malicious invitation wouldn’t you say? And you are correct: With salvational predestination already in place, it is one of the saddest invitations I have ever heard of. Kind of like a walking contest being offered to people with no legs…. The winner gets to go to heaven, but you have to walk. Dragging oneself along with their hands will not work….

It's not malicious at all - it's a beautiful invitation. What I don't understand is, why are you acting like we are responsible for God's election? Or rather reprobation?

We preach the Gospel, do you think we interject and say, "now, now, now...you don't look elect, so you can't come to faith?"

This is discipleship stuff, not evangelistic tools, not an evangelistic message. You know the doctrine of the Trinity isn't a salvation message either, neither is a great many of the deep doctrines of the Christian Faith.

Your analogy is unbelievable - its blasphemous. Why can't these people save themselves? They don't have any sins to need to be saved from anything - ask them. Have you never met an unregenerate man that rejects the Gospel out of hand and will plainly tell you they need nothing, they don't need to be saved from anything? There are several people members on this forum, various atheists and non-believers - go ask them.

The only difference is I believe none of us would, on our own, will to come, and God is our sole reason for coming.

Do you believe in your own doctrine of total depravity? They cannot come unless what happens? Unless God regenerates them first…..

Exactly, there is no contradiction between what he said and what you said.

And because he withheld it from them, they deserve to go to hell…. I’m sure glad that you are not a lawyer or a judge…

This is EXACTLY what you don't understand, God is the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. He adjudicates sin in the elect and sets them free, He does not adjudicate sin in the rest. They are not His children.

Go ahead and believe in Christ all you want, I don't care - we aren't telling people to not believe the Gospel and that is what you sound like you are converting the doctrine of Christianity into. A negative Gospel - "Whosoever doesn't believe raise your hands?" Now, we segregate that group out and we are left with, at least, people who give a general consent to the faith. Now, "Whosoever won't believe leave the room!" Ah, now we are getting closer - by the way, all you who left, you weren't elected, you can't beleive...Nah, nah, Nah, nah, NAH, nah.....Ok, now, "Whosoever will believe....yeah, we got some!"

The gospel is not a negative call, but the adjudication of sin is a negative action of God, it required a penalty, the blood of Jesus Christ.

That negative penalty has a positive call.

Can you at least see why people that do as God commanded (love one another as I have love you) have such distaste for Calvinism….

Nope, I can't. I have a suspicision though.

You've got about five pages here on why the lost can come to salvation but still don't come to salvation, you haven't added one to the faith as a result of all of this.

The only thing that really matters is your personal status before God. Ealier I asked if you believed in the Chalcedon creed, you gave a general consent, but you specifically didn't say you believed in the Trinity. Are you trinitarian?

Are you saved? How do you know, what is saving you? What do you need to be saved from and why?

Cordially,

Thomas

Chappie

August 9th 2003, 12:19 AM

Today @ 02:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=174920#post174920)
Thomas2003:
I thought I explained it pretty well, God the Father judges sin in God the Son, these are the Elect, their sins have been adjudicated, that is Election. God the Father then sends the Holy Spirit to the Son, the Son sends Him to the elect and they are regenerated, this is Predestination. God knows and intends to Create all that He Creates, so this is Foreknowledge. The elect in turn respond to the Gospel and believe in Jesus Christ and manifest the fruit of the Spirit doing the works of God. This is God's creation and His doing, it is the beautiful work of His Hands for His purposes.

Thomas:
I do appreciate the time that you spend responding to me. Thank you, and May God bless.

The things that you have written do not appear to be scripturally grounded to me. Could you do this for me with just the above paragraph for a start?

I thought I explained it pretty well, God the Father judges sin in God the Son, (Mark 3:1)these are the Elect,(John 2:2) their sins have been adjudicated, that is Election.(Matthew 3:3) God the Father then sends the Holy Spirit to the Son, the Son sends Him to the elect and they are regenerated, this is Predestination.(Luke 5:4)

Please inseart the scriptural refrence from whence you attained your insopration. Otherwise, this is nothing more than creative writing to me. It represents one mans opinion, and nothing more.

It's really very simple, you must be born again. Salvation is about being born of God, created as a living being.

Teaching doesn't work if one isn't willing to learn, which you don't seem to be willing to learn.

If one remains unconvinced by your argument, does that mean that they are “unwilling” to learn.

You attempt to teach scriptural truths through suppositions and projections. Usually when a person is speaking scripturally, they will remind me of some scripture with those possibilities implied. The scripture that you base your suppositions on are not discernable in the things that you write.

I am willing to learn, I am not willing to receive false doctrine just to please anyone.

We believe that "whosoever" is the elect, yes. The regenerate come to Faith - you must be born again.

We believe is no assurance of truth, if it were; then I would be right all the time. Are you willing to learn. We believe that salvation precedes regeneration and the spiritual rebirth.

First, predestinated is not election, predestination is an executive act, it is functional act of God the Son because of the double procession of the Holy Ghost, which I explained in a different response a while back.

We say whosoever will may believe because they have been regenerated. They are like children in the womb, awaiting to be born - whosoever will, will be born of God. The Gospel is like a loudspeaker calling out the children of God, when the Holy Spirit bears them they respond to the call because that will has been born in them, born of God.

Ye must be born again, are you born again Chappie?[quote]

Nothing like you have explained has ever happened to me. According to Calvin’s explanation, I would have to say “NO”!!!!

Have you? When? Where? How? Who told you that you have been born again?

[quote]
Christ came to set his people free by leading captivity captive – the same way He led them out of Egypt by Moses.

Moses, the only begotten, born of the Virgin Mary, died on Calvary to pay for my sins. He got up on the third day… He is now sitting at the right hand of the Father making intercession for me. What similarities did you have in mind?

No, not at all - why would they need it? Haven't denied them anything, it was never made available for them. They weren't created for the purpose of salvation.

Non-believers don't need to be saved from anything. They aren't concerned about hell at all - ask them.

Never available for them, they weren’t created for the purpose of salvation.. Then perhaps you will take the time to explain for me; why God set up this righteous, just, and holy Great White Throne of Judgment: Puts them on trial, and then tortures them for eternity for being exactly what he created them to be. This makes a hideous mockery of any system of justice. There is also something a little psycho about it. This stuff is hereticle pure and simple. It is not of God…

This is what annoys me about Calvinism. It’s always “they”. You were meant for heaven, they weren’t, and that’s that. Are they the seed of Adam? Were they created in God’s Image just like you? Were you born without a sinful nature, and they were. What’s so different about you and them that would cause God to regenerate you and not them….

You were, at best, at one time a non-believer, did you need to be saved. Why did you need it? Do you love your neighbors as you love yourself? Will they enjoy hell more than you would?

If all men can be saved then surely all of them would. As Calvinists we preach the Gospel whosoever will - our soteriology is not an evangelistic tool Chappie. We have a duty to disciple those that come to the faith, but we don't preach the gospel intellectually, it is not an intellectual assent, or even a doctrinal assent - it is a call to the regenerate.

He did not die for them, they have His blood on their hands. At least, as men, we hold that - they don't as gods. They are His murderers - which is why they will be resurrected and sent to hell.

Maybe you forget that part - these gods die and don't resurrect themselves, wonder why? First, why do they die? Second, when they die why don't they resurrect themselves?

So God ran short on power to save. Aaah, I understand.

“They have his blood on their hands”. Listen to you. “They have his blood on their hands”. {Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do..}And you don’t have any on yours. If not, your sins are not forgiven. Perhaps you had no sin in the first place that he gave his life as a propitiation for. I am beginning to see the difference between you and them….

Now you are presenting the ugly side of Calvinism. And when I say ugly, I mean evil… You kept it pretty as long as you could; orgins in the trinity and all that stuff: But then you got angry and decided to let the chips fall were they may. You presented Calvinism without its morning make-up. So now you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Calvinism. Thomas, this is some ugly stuff...

Thank you for your time. Still you are wasting it on me….. No, thank you..

I will end my response here…

I pray that God will continue to bless you, in spite of……

ELECTION.. :saywhat:

Chappie

August 9th 2003, 12:23 AM

Yes Thomas, I believe in the trinity. Still I choose not to be bound by some man made creed....

You ask:
Are you saved? How do you know, what is saving you? What do you need to be saved from and why?

Am I saved: According to John 3:16 and Romans 10:9&10, I am.

How do I know? I am certain of it only so far as God can be trusted to keep his word.

What is saving me: It's not a what, its a who. My Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ.

What do I need to be saved from: Anything that will prevent me from spending my eternity with Jesus Christ.

Why: Because if he does not save me from these things, I will not be saved...

ELECTION.. :saywhat:

Stephen

August 9th 2003, 01:38 PM

Chappie, as thomas already responded to the majority of your earlier post, I want to reiterate one more time from my, personal beliefs.

I do not believe that the only reason for hell is rejection of the Gospel. That takes all doctrines of sin, and depravity, and throws it out the window and says "God doesn't care about any of that, but if you don't believe, he'll send you to hell soley because of your unbelief" I have never said anything like that.

What I have said, is when you reject Christ, your sins are not cleansed by His blood because He didn't die for them, and because of that, they go to hell not for their unbelief, but for their sinful nature that, without Christ, deserves death (wages of sin is death). That is where the difference is. I believe everyone in hell deserves hell because everyone in hell has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You seem to see it in a negative position "We go to heaven unless we reject the Gospel." I see it as "we go to hell (deservingly) unless we accept/put our faith, in Christ" Nowhere does that say "The penalty for unbelief is hell", Hell is already the standard by which even Christians deserve! Regeneration isn't a judicial act; it is mercy of God saving those who believe, from the hell that they already have deserved because of Adam, and our sinful nature, and our sins.

Now here is where I pose the question I asked in my last post: Is unbelief a sin?

If it is not, then where Scripturally do you get the notion that those who don't believe go to hell?

If it is, then in your view Christ already payed for it and it is no longer a salvational issue either.

That is why limited atonement makes sense. If Christ paid for all the sins of every individual, then every individual shouldn'tv even need to accept the Gospel, because even their unbelief would be payed for!

I hope that makes my position clear.

mandolin

August 9th 2003, 03:09 PM

Stephen according to the epistles of Paul, Christ is the atoning sacrifice to those who believe. And only to those who believe.

The limited atonement view is sorta correct in saying that christ only "effectually" died for the atonement of the saved (since he didn't atone the sins of the unsaved). But the saved are justified by their own faith..so the atonement is actually abundant to ALL...while also being limited to the faithful.
So in essence the limited atonement view is totally wrong.

Christ died for every man, and the atonement is limited to the faithful, while the grace is abundant to all.
Christ died for all...whoever believes in him is saved.

where Scripturally do you get the notion that those who don't believe go to hell?
Well...John 3:18 among the hundreds of others.

If it is, then in your view Christ already payed for it and it is no longer a salvational issue either.
uhh...no.

Romans 3:26 says that God is just because he justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (justice just aint something the calvin god has)
Since faith is believing in Christ, and since verse 28 says that faith is not a boastful work.
Both Jew and gentile are justified by faith in Christ (verse 30)

The grace of God calls every man. The atoning comes when a man accepts the grace of God through faith. For it is by grace we have been saved through faith.

Read Romans...I dare ya

:rockon:

So chappie is pretty much absolutely right.

Rock on Chappie

Chappie

August 9th 2003, 06:55 PM

Today @ 06:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176048#post176048)
Stephen:

Chappie, as Thomas already responded to the majority of your earlier post, I want to reiterate one more time from my, personal beliefs.

I do not believe that the only reason for hell is rejection of the Gospel.

Hello Stephen:
Greetings:
God hates sin, we all know that. But God knows that we are sinners. Still, while we were yet sinners, God commended his love to us. God is in the business of saving sinners. Therefore, sin is no longer the issue that separates. The wall of partition that stood between God and man was breached for us by Christ on Calvary.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He died not only for our sins, (those that have already accepted him) but for the sins of the whole world. This passage alone is too decisive to allow for a concept of limited atonement to surface or to stand. It says what it says and I will not allow you or anyone else to change it for me. Any effort to do so is tantamount to presenting another gospel.

That takes all doctrines of sin, and depravity, and throws it out the window and says "God doesn't care about any of that, but if you don't believe, he'll send you to hell solely because of your unbelief" I have never said anything like that.

No!!! It does not. The things that you mention are a consequence of unbelief. To put it more precisely, a lack of faith. It is through faith that we are forgiven for those things. Faith is the avenue through which God heals us and saves us.. Nothing happens without faith save we can hear the gospel…

What I have said, is when you reject Christ, your sins are not cleansed by His blood because He didn't die for them, and because of that, they go to hell not for their unbelief, but for their sinful nature that, without Christ, deserves death (wages of sin is death). That is where the difference is. I believe everyone in hell deserves hell because everyone in hell has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Your doctrine appears to be just a little to unconcerned with what they deserve, as though you deserved something else.

You seem to see it in a negative position "We go to heaven unless we reject the Gospel." I see it as "we go to hell (deservingly) unless we accept/put our faith, in Christ"

That is true for them, but not for you. You did not put your faith in Christ, according to you, Christ did it for you. While at the sale time making it impossible for “THEM” to do so…. Why do you require of “THEM” the impossible that even you being the elect could not do? God had to overcome your will to resist with efficacious grace before you did it.

Talk about a double standard. Is God double minded? Or is it just John Calvin…

Regeneration isn't a judicial act; it is mercy of God saving those who believe, from the hell that they already have deserved because of Adam, and our sinful nature, and our sins.

Then why does it result in judicial punishment for those that do not get it?

Now here is where I pose the question I asked in my last post: Is unbelief a sin?
Hebrews 3:12
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Hebrews 3:19
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:6
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:[/b][/quote]

Stephen, after reading the previous passages, you can call it anything that you want.

[b]
If it is, then in your view Christ already paid for it and it is no longer a salvational issue either.
That is correct, sin is no longer a salvational issue, because Christ overcame sin in the flesh once and for all. Still we need a savior. Romans 7:24
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

That is why limited atonement makes sense. If Christ paid for all the sins of every individual, then every individual shouldn’t even need to accept the Gospel, because even their unbelief would be paid for!

I hope that makes my position clear.

You have made your position clear, still it is not a position supported by a preponderance of scripture….

Stephen

August 9th 2003, 07:57 PM

To mandoline:

Stephen according to the epistles of Paul, Christ is the atoning sacrifice to those who believe. And only to those who believe

Agreed.

The limited atonement view is sorta correct in saying that christ only "effectually" died for the atonement of the saved (since he didn't atone the sins of the unsaved). But the saved are justified by their own faith..so the atonement is actually abundant to ALL...while also being limited to the faithful.
So in essence the limited atonement view is totally wrong.

How do you go from "the saved are justified by their own faith" to "the atonement is abundant to ALL?"

I agree, we are justified through faith. I also agree that it is sufficient for all, efficient only for those who believe. I agree with much of your post, if it would suprise you.

The only difference is that I believe our reason, our basis for faith, is the call of the Father; all and only those who the father calls, will choose by their own "free" wills, to be faithful, and all who are called, for those Christ died. In reality, it all comes back to the bases of Total Depravity andn Unconditional Election.

Well...John 3:18 among the hundreds of others.

I stand corrected; think before I pose a question which I should have easily known the answer.

uhh...no.

Romans 3:26 says that God is just because he justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (justice just aint something the calvin god has)
Since faith is believing in Christ, and since verse 28 says that faith is not a boastful work.
Both Jew and gentile are justified by faith in Christ (verse 30)

Again, I agree with all of this. My only question was that Chappie said sin is no longer an issue of salvation, so I posed the question, is unbelief a sin? If unbelief is a sin, then the logical conclusion from his claims would be that not even unbelief should be a salvational issue.

By the way, Chappie, I'll respond to you in a few hours, I've gotta go out for some late back-to-school shopping.

Stephen

Thomas2003

August 9th 2003, 09:10 PM

Yes Thomas, I believe in the trinity. Still I choose not to be bound by some man made creed....

Dear Chappie,

This is why you will not and cannot understand it because you choose not to, that's what I meant by being unwilling to learn.

You would do better, if you analyzed it more critically. Instead of approaching it so personally, look at it as why do Calvinists believe what they believe. Then you can identify, not just the points of the doctrines you disagree with - but present an alternative view of the entire underlying structure.

To overthrow Calvinism you must show why the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong and why the doctrine of the Incarnation is wrong - that is the only way. It's soteriological framework has complete fidelity to these doctrines. I'm more than willing to discuss it with you on a serious level - based upon your originating challenge - but you still have never come to the table.

The Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is not a "man made" creed. It is an exegesis of Scripture stated in a creedal formula by men - which is the very essence of the Gospel. (1)

(1) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9

"Creed" comes from the Latin, "credo", I believe... It is not enough to say Scripture says this...but, rather, I believe Scripture teaches "this" and means "this" - it is putting Scripture through the mind and reexpressing it that shows the essence of true belief.

It is a "confession," not just quoting a Scripture here or there, but constructing a comprehensive doctrine from the totality of the revelation. The Scripture wasn't given to us wherein it said, this is the doctrine of the Trinity - it revealed Gods nature, we extrapolated the full expression of that nature.

What all creeds say is "I believe" Scripture teaches this on this subject. That is no more man made than any personal confession of faith you have, it may be exegeted by you and confessed by you - but if it is correct and maintains fidelity to the Scripture - it is a Scriptural teaching. It is only "man made" if it is in error. It is not Scripture itself, but it is a correct interpretation of Scripture - so the divine origin remains in the doctrine.

You mentioned in your other post that I don't stick with Scripture, which I do stick with Scripture - but I'm building upon a settled doctrine of Scripture - which is not settled for you. So, its kind of pointless to do anything with Scripture as you demonstrated in your last response. You choose to not stay within the bounds of the doctrines which Scripture teaches, upon which a soteriology must be derived.

So, its not the Scripture Chappie, as to why you cannot understand this, or why we disagree, but your choice to not be bound by the foundational doctrines of Scripture upon which Calvinism lays. To have an apples to apples comparison, you have to present your doctrine from the same foundation or we are talking about two different things. Do you see that?

At least be honest enought to admit its two different frameworks of thought. In your conception your understanding of a handful of verses is where you derive your soteriology from - thus you can discuss a handful of verses. The ontology of the Trinity is not fixed for you - it molded around your soteriology, and you can change the nature of Gods being at a whim. In contrast, our soteriology is molded around the Trinity - we cannot change His nature, we must change our understanding of what Scripture means. We take those same verses and lay them upon thousands of other that have already settled core fundamental doctrines.

If you choose not to do that, then we open weeks of intense doctrinal dispute on whether or not the Scripture teaches the Trinity, for example. If you were a physician and you had a patient on the operating table you would not approach it with such disdain for life - but you do that with Scripture, like a novice being unskilled and unprepared to deal with the depth of the issues at hand.

For me, Chappie, to read through these 5 or 6 pages and look at your thoughts and explanations of various Scriptures I have to deny Jesus Christ is God manifested in the Flesh to arrive at your conclusion. That is to say your interpretation of those Scriptures, this is because I have accepted the Trinity and the Incarnation as absolutely correct interpretations of other Scriptures.

I believe these other doctrines on the ontology of the Godhead and the economic appropriation of the incarnation form hedges and standards that I cannot cross, and if I do, then I deny those very doctrines.

In believe Christianity as a whole rests upon the incarnation of God the Son into human flesh. A man can believe in the "historical" Jesus and not be saved - it is the Scriptural doctrine of the Incarnation that sets Christians apart from other people. Everyone believes that Jesus is a man that was born 2000 years or so ago - so why isn't that enough? Do you see what I mean, if faith is the only measure, then why isn't that faith enough - because it has to be the correct faith to be effective. You have to, at least, believe this, that a correct faith is essential.

Am I saved: According to John 3:16 and Romans 10:9&10, I am.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

It says "believeth in him", but believe what? Does this mean the atheist that believes Jesus existed has eternal life too?

How do I know? I am certain of it only so far as God can be trusted to keep his word.

This is very different than a what a Calvinist believes. In fact, its exactly backwards.

What is saving me: It's not a what, its a who. My Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ.

Well, that's good, but who is He?

What do I need to be saved from: Anything that will prevent me from spending my eternity with Jesus Christ.

That doesn't answer the question. Doesn't Scripture teach that the "wages of sin is death?"

If you are a sinner and God has appointed you to the death penalty for your sins - talk about injustice, what on earth do you need to be saved from? You pay for the penalty of your sins in death - why is this death penalty insufficient, isn't it God's judgment?

Why: Because if he does not save me from these things, I will not be saved...

Why not? You will pay for your sins in death, won't you?

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas2003

August 9th 2003, 11:28 PM

Dear Chappie,

This is a response to post # 80

I thought I explained it pretty well, God the Father judges sin in God the Son, (Mark 3:1)these are the Elect,(John 2:2) their sins have been adjudicated, that is Election.(Matthew 3:3) God the Father then sends the Holy Spirit to the Son, the Son sends Him to the elect and they are regenerated, this is Predestination.(Luke 5:4)

As Calvinists we've done this in 32 chapters on the major subjects the Scripture teaches - its called the Westminster Confession of Faith. You can go to that and find out anything I believe the Scripture teaches, I subscribe to that confession - all of the Scripture references are in it. Westminster Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/)

Each thing I stated there is derived directly from that Confessions teachings, tied right back to the Scriptures, it would be best to start at the beginning and make sure you understand how we deal with Scripture.

1st Chapter, of the Holy Scriptures
2nd Chapter, of God, and of the Holy Trinity
3rd Chapter, of God's Eternal Decree
4th Chapter, of Creation
5th Chapter, of Providence
6th Chapter, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, And of The Punishment Thereof
7th Chapter, of God's Covenant with Man
8th Chapter, of Christ the Mediator
9th Chapter, of Free Will
10th Chapter, of Effectual Calling

&c &c &c

If one remains unconvinced by your argument, does that mean that they are “unwilling” to learn.

When I state up front that Calvinism is completely derived from Trinitarism, in a way yes. You said you agreed with that, I presume we are talking on the same platform. But as you stated in the post after this, which I responded to above, you exit the limitations and bounderies of Scriptures teaching on the Trinity. So, that is a willing rejection of it and a dishonest presentation of what we believe.

You attempt to teach scriptural truths through suppositions and projections. Usually when a person is speaking scripturally, they will remind me of some scripture with those possibilities implied. The scripture that you base your suppositions on are not discernable in the things that you write.

Whenever I say "Trinity" and you agree to it, I presume we are on the same Scriptural foundation. That this lengthy discussion is finished and settled - from Scripture. How can you ever advance anything based upon your premise - you essentially hold that one can never come to meat. We have to lay aside, as Hebrews 6:1 - 2 says leaving the basic principles behind and advance from there into meat.

The way I understand your presupposition is like if we are building an internal combustion engine and we need steal of a particular Rockwell hardness to accomplish a goal of the design - you need me to go back and explain how steal is made and what this even means.

When I'm saying God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost - I presume we are in the meat of the Scriptures, that I don't have to repeat it all.

But what I am being led to believe is that you probably really don't understand the ontology of the Trinity and have absolutely no conception of Calvinism - just your presuppositions of what Calvinism means to you.

This is where you would probably do well to come to the table and try to look at it from the standpoint of what does Calvinism mean to a Calvinist, you could disconnect yourself and really take an honest look at it without it being a threat to your existing beliefs.

What you will find is there are very deep concepts in Scriptural doctrines of God's saving work that you have not ever even considered and do not even know exist.

I am willing to learn, I am not willing to receive false doctrine just to please anyone.

I agree with that, but you have to at least accept a starting place and quit changing it around in the discussion.

If we start from a foundation to have a chemical formula that gives "salt", I mean table salt, and we being with Na (Sodium) and we want to understand the chemical formula of salt, we need to add chlorine (CL), we will then end up with Sodium Chloride (NaCl) - table salt - you can't keep changing Sodium to Calcium (Ca) and expect to get NaCl, you end up with CaCl, something completely different - and then have the audacity to tell me Chloride is the problem! LOL

In that concept, apply it in principle to God becoming man, you keep changing the God around in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, without which one cannot even discuss salvation.

You cannot do that, you have to settle this issue on the doctrine of the Incarnation of God into flesh and the economic appropriation of Salvation in the Godhead - or discussing how God works out salvation is a meaningless effort.

We believe is no assurance of truth, if it were; then I would be right all the time. Are you willing to learn. We believe that salvation precedes regeneration and the spiritual rebirth.[/quote

But Chappie, that is my point. The challenge was to understanding Calvinism, not teaching Arminism.

You said, "This is my first question....
I come to you and I ask you about salvational election, what are the first passages of scripture that you will take me to in order to introduce me to the fact that this concept is truely in the bible."

So, I took it seriously and responded with a whole bunch of Scriptures - not just on salvation, but the Foundation - the wellspring from which Calvinism is drawn.

Why not just say, I disagree with Calvinism and would like to teach you Armininism - we believe the Scripture teaches this and this is why.

[quote] Moses, the only begotten, born of the Virgin Mary, died on Calvary to pay for my sins. He got up on the third day… He is now sitting at the right hand of the Father making intercession for me. What similarities did you have in mind?

I think you need to re-read what I said. I said the way He (meaning God) led out Israel from captivity by Moses. If you remember Moses prophesied that God would send another prophet like unto him, which is Christ. Christ is that rock from which they drank in the desert.

Never available for them, they weren’t created for the purpose of salvation.. Then perhaps you will take the time to explain for me; why God set up this righteous, just, and holy Great White Throne of Judgment: Puts them on trial, and then tortures them for eternity for being exactly what he created them to be.

But He created them to be men, they deny they are men but proclaim they are gods, determining good and evil for themselves. This is the very foundation of your belief Chappie, free will. That man is a god and can save himself through God, which is no different than the atheist who can save himself by himself.

When a man becomes a Christian he is denying his claim to deity incarnate in human flesh and coming to grips with the fact that only Jesus Christ is deity in human flesh.

Calvinism holds to the Creator/creature distinction, no other belief system does that. In Calvinism man is truly man and God is truly God and Jesus Christ is the mediator between them.

We have the Great White Throne Judgment because God manifested in human flesh has to finally put down the rebellion of all ther other gods in human flesh.

This makes a hideous mockery of any system of justice. There is also something a little psycho about it. This stuff is hereticle pure and simple. It is not of God…

I would agree that it is not of your God, it is of the Holy Trinity.

This is what annoys me about Calvinism. It’s always “they”. You were meant for heaven, they weren’t, and that’s that. Are they the seed of Adam? Were they created in God’s Image just like you? Were you born without a sinful nature, and they were. What’s so different about you and them that would cause God to regenerate you and not them….

Absolutely nothing. For absolutely no reason in me God chose me to regenerate, its of His choosing, His election - He chooses to create that which He intends to create.

It's no different than why one seed out of billions impregnated an ovum and my child was conceived. I rejoice about being made alive, but I do not know why I am alive, neither do I know why I have been elect to believe in Jesus Christ. I am just merely grateful and completely and totally underserving of it. I know for a fact that I am a worse sinner than many, I know lots of people better than me.

You were, at best, at one time a non-believer, did you need to be saved. Why did you need it? Do you love your neighbors as you love yourself? Will they enjoy hell more than you would?

Yes, I needed to be saved, but I did not know that I needed to be saved. It was not until I was convicted of my sin by the Holy Ghost that I came to repentenance - I did not know of myself I was a sinner. I know I am a sinner because I have been saved.

Jesus Christ suffered my punishment in hell - He did not enjoy it. The Apostels Creed answers that question...He descended into hell....I understand this statement to mean that the judgment Jesus suffered on the cross was my eternal punishment in hell.

He suffered my judgment.

So God ran short on power to save. Aaah, I understand.

This does not make any sense from anything I said.

“They have his blood on their hands”. Listen to you. “They have his blood on their hands”. {Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do..}And you don’t have any on yours. If not, your sins are not forgiven. Perhaps you had no sin in the first place that he gave his life as a propitiation for. I am beginning to see the difference between you and them….

Isn't that beautiful, while Christ is suffering the eternal judgment of the elects sin He is asking the Father to forgive us! Incredible - a love beyond understanding, incomprehensible.

No, I do not have his blood on my hands - He laid down His life for me, willingly. I am not guilty of His blood, my sins are. I am redeemed.

Have you ever noticed in Scripture that Christ laid down His own life, "no man taketh it from me" and was murdered at the same time? (Acts 5:30, Acts 7:52)

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:17-18

He only lays down His life for the elect, the non-elect are His murderers. There is a big difference in having His blood on the alter of Atonement covering your sins and with his blood on your hands, being guilty of His blood and death.

Now you are presenting the ugly side of Calvinism. And when I say ugly, I mean evil… You kept it pretty as long as you could; orgins in the trinity and all that stuff: But then you got angry and decided to let the chips fall were they may. You presented Calvinism without its morning make-up. So now you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Calvinism. Thomas, this is some ugly stuff...

Chappie, I haven't got angry at all - I think you are talking about the negative stuff I said, as an example of what you must thinks we believe. I was not saying that in anger, or as a representation of what we believe, but trying to demonstrate the error by arbitrary example.

There is nothing ugly in what I said. God's grace is not ugly, neither is His judgment upon the non-elect.

Cordially,

Thomas

mandolin

August 10th 2003, 01:23 AM

Stephen... my point is this.

Christ died for all. So any man "can" be saved by accepting the grace of God. This makes the atonement unlimited because it says he is the atoning sacrifice for all. However, it also says that we are justified by faith. So this makes the atonement limited..but only on the surface. It is limited in that it is solely effectual for those who accept it. But it is clearly unlimited based on the fact that it is fully abundant to all.

Since any man can be saved, the atonement is unlimited beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's only limited based on the fact that it is only effectual for whoever accepts it.

There is an unlimited atonement because whoever believes in him will have eternal life. There are no limitations on who can be atoned for. It just takes faith.

Stephen

August 10th 2003, 02:16 AM

I believe that Christ died for the "whole world" in the sense that in saving the remnant, He in effect "saves the world". The new earth will be free from sin. However, I do not believe Christ died for all individuals.

But I do believe, the invitation Jesus gives is still completely free. I firmly believe that if anyone were to believe, have faith, etc. then he would be saved, because that is the promise God gives.

The only problem is, there is not a chance in the world that one who is not elect would respond to the call, and because of this, Jesus had no need to die for every individual! That's why I do not understand why limited atonement is so hard to accept; if anyone responds to the call, then Christ did die for him already. There is nothing holding anyone back from accepting the call of "whosoever wills may come" except the very condition God places; willing it. Of course, it is obvious that whoever comes wills to come, but willing, in my mind, is the condition. One will only "will" to come in the first place because God chose him and for him Jesus died.

So, at the same time, it is unlimited and limted. Unlimited in scope, limited individuals.

mandolin

August 10th 2003, 02:49 AM

Stephen..to begin with...it leads to reprobation. Your calvinistic theory leads to pre-damnation. God does not foreordain souls to hell. Any teaching that he does is a very unbiblical thing indeed.

God is just.
And according to romans..that justice is seen in him justifying those with faith in Jesus (3:26)

God is the atonement for those who believe. And only those who believe. But this atonement is still abundant to anyone who believes...and so is still not a limited atonement as tulip would lead you to believe.

Show me in the bible where it says God makes folks believe without their choice.
Or show me where he hardens them without their prior choice.
It just don't occur, dude.

Christ calls us with his grace...but the ultimate choice is clearly up to each one of us.

We are justified by faith.
As Abraham was justified by faith..noah was justified by faith..etc.

That's all there is to it.

This faith ain't forced by God...but
this faith is solely possibile because of God and his awesome grace.

This means that I am not advocating pelagianism. It's God's grace saving me. But it can only save me if i let it. (faith)

And it is possible that each man be saved through faith because the grace of god is abundant to all men. (unlimited atonement)

Stephen

August 10th 2003, 03:00 AM

God does not pre-damn souls to hell. Any teaching that he does is a very unbiblical thing indeed.
I have not said that.

God is just.
And according to romans..that justice is seen in him justifying those with faith in Jesus (3:26)

I agree

God is the atonement for those who believe.

Again, I agree

Show me in the bible where it says God makes folks believe without their choice.
First off, God does not make them believe without their choice. That is the exact point I am trying to make; predestination does not eliminate choice, it makes choice certain. It is not that we have a choice, and God disregards us and makes us go to heaven. Predestination is 100% about choice. It does not eliminate it, it renders it certain.

Or show me where he hardens them without their prior choice.
Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Keep in mind, this is before Pharoah made any choices; God's telling Moses ahead of time that He will harden his heart, and in every time Moses rejects and his heart is hardened, it is accompanied by "as the LORD had said". And the Lord did not say "pharoah will choose to harden his heart" He said "I will harden his heart"

We are justified by faith.
As Abraham was justified by faith..noah was justified by faith..etc.

I agree

this faith is possibile because of God and his awesome grace.
I'm agreeing so much you'd think we're both the same side

Chappie

August 10th 2003, 04:31 PM

Today @ 02:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=176735#post176735)
Thomas2003:
Dear Chappie,

This is why you will not and cannot understand it because you choose not to, that's what I meant by being unwilling to learn.

Thomas:
I seriously doubt that I am any less willing to learn than you are. My problem is that when you attempt to teach me, I am in effect listening to two teachers. One is you, and the other is the bible. I cannot find what you teach in the bible. I have asked that instead of these long dissertations that we shorten things up a bit and take things kind of slow.

I have asked for a couple paragraphs that are supported with scriptural evidence that point to your conclusions. I continue to get sermons without evidence. Mistakenly, you believe that I have never heard of this Calvinism is grounded in the trinity thing, not often; but I have dealt with it before. Nothing scriptural was presented to me to support it then, and you have present a beautiful dissertation, but no scriptural evidence. I ask for scripture because the concept sounds a little man made without it.

You would do better, if you analyzed it more critically. Instead of approaching it so personally, look at it as why do Calvinists believe what they believe. Then you can identify, not just the points of the doctrines you disagree with - but present an alternative view of the entire underlying structure.

Once you scripturally establish your view, perhaps I will be able to scripturally contend with it. Nevertheless, if your view is scriptural, it will stand without an opposing view.

To overthrow Calvinism you must show why the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong and why the doctrine of the Incarnation is wrong - that is the only way. Its stereological framework has complete fidelity to these doctrines. I'm more than willing to discuss it with you on a serious level - based upon your originating challenge - but you still have never come to the table.

Any effort on my part to overthrow the doctrine of the trinity would (to me) be just as ridiculous as concluding that because the trinity is, God is left without any alternatives other that to create people solely for the purpose of burning them in hell.

The bible does tell us that God is a vengeful God, but it also tells us that his vengeance is just... His vengeance does not include torturing people for eternity just to show how merciful he is if he chooses to be so.

The stereological framework of Calvin is based solely upon an extremist, unrealistic, unscriptural application of God's sovereignty and his power. If your view is grounded in the trinity, it still does not necessitate such an unsubstantiated extreme view of these attributes of God. They are not even his dominant trait. That would be God is Love..

The Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is not a "man made" creed. It is an exegesis of Scripture stated in a creedal formula by men - which is the very essence of the Gospel. (1)

Don't you mean, by some men? If men agreed that all scripture teaches the same thing, then your creed might really men something. But being that we have almost as many creeds as we have disagreements on what scripture teaches, your creeds are dependent upon interpretations. And remember, Paul warned us more than once about false teachers with their false creeds. I believe unequivocally in the trinity. Your creeds, well, they are your creeds. Yet the bible belongs to all of us....

You mentioned in your other post that I don't stick with Scripture, which I do stick with Scripture - but I'm building upon a settled doctrine of Scripture - which is not settled for you. So, its kind of pointless to do anything with Scripture as you demonstrated in your last response. [b]You choose to not stay within the bounds of the doctrines which Scripture teaches, upon which a soteriology must be derived.]

There is but one scriptural doctrine, yet there are hundreds of man made doctrines. You present me with a doctrine and I am supposed to gobble it up just because you call it a doctrine. I have presented you with many scriptural evidences that say that your doctrine is an incorrect one. Have I or even the scriptures that I have presented to you affected you in any way. No!!!

Because I cannot prove to you that something that the bible never stated except through presuppositions is not there without those presuppositions. It cannot be done because you will never look at another scripture without those presuppositions being in place.

This is why we have to base any hope of ever learning on what is precisely stated in scripture. And the bible never overtly states that Calvinism is derived from the trinity and there are no alternatives available to God except Calvinism. So do not bring your suppositions to the table and tell me that I have to leave mine behind...

So, it’s not the Scripture Chappie, as to why you cannot understand this, or why we disagree, but your choice to not be bound by the foundational doctrines of Scripture upon which Calvinism lays. To have an apples to apples comparison, you have to present your doctrine from the same foundation or we are talking about two different things. Do you see that?

There are no foundational doctrines that are not supported by foundational scriptures. You want me to skip the scriptures and go straight to the doctrine. NO!!!!

What I am saying Thomas, is that we need to find a way around belittling each others method of exegeting scripture, especially while we are employing the exact same method.. I do not believe you to be a novice in scripture, and I assure; neither am I. If we are to learn from one another, it will be from what is precisely stated in scripture. Your doctrine cannot claim the high ground without scriptural proof.

At least be honest enough to admit its two different frameworks of thought. In your conception your understanding of a handful of verses is where you derive your soteriology from - thus you can discuss a handful of verses.

We can take potshots at each other all day and never miss, because in effect, we are really shooting at our selves. Calvinism is based in effect on passages that deal with total depravity, sovereignty and power. The whole concept is derived from one misconception, your perceived consequences of total depravity and your perception of God's unquenchable desire to glorify himself. If sin and evil will help, God is not above either...

The ontology of the Trinity is not fixed for you - it molded around your soteriology, and you can change the nature of Gods being at a whim. In contrast, our soteriology is molded around the Trinity - we cannot change His nature, we must change our understanding of what Scripture means. We take those same verses and lay them upon thousands of other that have already settled core fundamental doctrines.

Your soterioloty is molded around power and sovereignty, and you mold God to fit that perception. Nothing is sacred in your effort to promote these misconceptions, the nature and character of God is defiled, and the trinity is used as your excuse for God creating people to burn in order to promote his glory. In promoting your concept of total depravity, you drag God down right along with those that he is separate from. You call evil good for God's sake.

If you choose not to do that, then we open weeks of intense doctrinal dispute on whether or not the Scripture teaches the Trinity, for example. If you were a physician and you had a patient on the operating table you would not approach it with such disdain for life - but you do that with Scripture, like a novice being unskilled and unprepared to deal with the depth of the issues at hand.

For the sake of this discussion, consider me as unlearned but not stupid. Ignorant, but capable of learning.

Give me a couple paragraphs on how Calvinism is derived from the trinity along with a few scriptural passages to support your conclusions. Otherwise, you are sinking in your own quicksand.

I believe these other doctrines on the ontology of the Godhead and the economic appropriation of the incarnation form hedges and standards that I cannot cross, and if I do, then I deny those very doctrines.

Do you have any scriptural support....

In believe Christianity as a whole rests upon the incarnation of God the Son into human flesh. A man can believe in the "historical" Jesus and not be saved - it is the Scriptural doctrine of the Incarnation that sets Christians apart from other people.

This is simply more rhetoric, more I believe: and because you say "I believe it", that is all the evidence that I need if I am willing to learn.

{{{{{{ I WANT SCRIPTURE!!!!!!}}}}}}

Everyone believes that Jesus is a man that was born 2000 years or so ago - so why isn't that enough? Do you see what I mean, if faith is the only measure, then why isn't that faith enough - because it has to be the correct faith to be effective. You have to, at least, believe this, that a correct faith is essential.[/quote]

Faith is not enough because we are saved by grace through faith. Your statement presumes everyone that does not believe as you do to be unsaved. I do not believe as you do, I do not have the correct faith, therefore I am not saved. (Show me the scripture)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

It says "believeth in him", but believe what? Does this mean the atheist that believes Jesus existed have eternal life too?

John 8:24
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

That doesn't answer the question. Doesn't Scripture teach that the "wages of sin is death?"

You forgot the last part: But the gift of God is eternal life. Necessary to maintain context...

If you are a sinner and God has appointed you to the death penalty for your sins - talk about injustice, what on earth do you need to be saved from? You pay for the penalty of your sins in death - why is this death penalty insufficient, isn't it God's judgment?

If you are a sinner and God has appointed you to the death penalty for your sins - talk about injustice,(WHAT A DIFFERENCE THE GIFT OF GOD MAKES} what on earth do you need to be saved from? (REJECTING THE GIFT) You pay for the penalty of your sins in death - why is this death penalty insufficient, isn't it God's judgment?

Why not? You will pay for your sins in death, won't you?

If you refuse the gift; you will...

Chappie

August 10th 2003, 04:38 PM

Thomas
Chappie, I haven't got angry at all - I think you are talking about the negative stuff I said, as an example of what you must thinks we believe. I was not saying that in anger, or as a representation of what we believe, but trying to demonstrate the error by arbitrary example.

There is nothing ugly in what I said. God's grace is not ugly, neither is His judgment upon the non-elect.

Cordially,

Thomas

Your comments are precisely the end consequence of your theology. Still I am blessed to know that you do not embrace those consequences... You may not embrace them, still it cannot be denied that this is the end result of Calvinism.

Thomas2003

August 11th 2003, 12:06 AM

Thomas:
I seriously doubt that I am any less willing to learn than you are. My problem is that when you attempt to teach me, I am in effect listening to two teachers. One is you, and the other is the bible. I cannot find what you teach in the bible. I have asked that instead of these long dissertations that we shorten things up a bit and take things kind of slow.

I have asked for a couple paragraphs that are supported with scriptural evidence that point to your conclusions. I continue to get sermons without evidence. Mistakenly, you believe that I have never heard of this Calvinism is grounded in the trinity thing, not often; but I have dealt with it before. Nothing scriptural was presented to me to support it then, and you have present a beautiful dissertation, but no scriptural evidence. I ask for scripture because the concept sounds a little man made without it.

I'll be happy to support Calvinism from Scripture, once we get to the point where Scripture is authoritative.

First, however, we have to deal with the competing presuppositions - everyone comes to a subject with presuppositions.

Pelagianism has already been dealt with in history and thoroughly refuted. Just like the pelagians of old, however, they would never and will never submit to Scripture because Scripture demands a presupposition about God and man, the Creator and His creation.

When a man approaches the Bible he has to give up his presuppositions, God has to be King and His law word has to be Final Authority.

I've already seen how you deal with the Scripture - you are not bound to doctrines, until you are willing to accept basic doctrines its really a moot point.

Once you scripturally establish your view, perhaps I will be able to scripturally contend with it. Nevertheless, if your view is scriptural, it will stand without an opposing view.

No, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. As long as you reject the very foundation of Scriptures teaching about God, but maintain that your rejection is the standard of what is "scriptural" it is a moot point.

If you won't accept the common ground of the Trinity and an orthodox Christology there is no point in supporting anything about Calvinism with Scripture - because you have already rejected it.

It's presuppositional - Calvinism is applied trinitarianism. God the Father judges sin in God the Son and God the Holy Spirit creates life. That's Calvinism, God is the Creator, man is the creation, God is God and man is man, thus man is not God.

We still have to deal with the presuppositions until you can come to the table with a Biblical view on the nature of being, the Biblical presentation of the nature of God's being and the nature of mans being, and therefore the very nature of Christs being in the incarnation.

Any effort on my part to overthrow the doctrine of the trinity would (to me) be just as ridiculous as concluding that because the trinity is, God is left without any alternatives other that to create people solely for the purpose of burning them in hell.

The bible does tell us that God is a vengeful God, but it also tells us that his vengeance is just... His vengeance does not include torturing people for eternity just to show how merciful he is if he chooses to be so.

Really, well all Adam did was eat a piece of fruit. Death and hell came to us by this one man, didn't it? Isn't that what Paul is saying in Romans 5:12, which is stated again in 1 Corinthians 15:22

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Chappie I had to deal with this issue personally over the last few years and I sinned against God because of my human pride.

My wife and I lost two children, just babies, but they weren't even born - these children who were "innocent" suffer death because of God's judgment upon sin.

Scripture tells me God is just, but that doesn't seem just to me. I sinned like Job did,

"Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?" Job 40:8

God tells Job, hey, be like me - do my works and then "will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee." Job 40:14

If we are gods and can judge him and condemn him, then He has stated He will confess it!

But what do we find of the LORD? Isaiah proclaimed it, saying,

"Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Isaiah 41:4

and again,

[i]"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6

and again,

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. " [i] Isaiah 48:11-13

and again, through John, he proclaimed three times:

[i]Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last....(Rev 1:11)....And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev 1:17b-18)...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22:13)

He declared the end from the beginning, as David tells us also,

"Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word." Psalm 119:159-161

and again,

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." Ecclesiastes 3:11

and again,

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, _Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" Isaiah 46:9-10

The stereological framework of Calvin is based solely upon an extremist, unrealistic, unscriptural application of God's sovereignty and his power. If your view is grounded in the trinity, it still does not necessitate such an unsubstantiated extreme view of these attributes of God. They are not even his dominant trait. That would be God is Love..

Exactly my point, its presuppositional. We do not relate to God, He relates to us.

We begin in submission, not to what we think God is or not, or your dominant trait - we begin with God as God.

That is the presuppositional difference.

Don't you mean, by some men? If men agreed that all scripture teaches the same thing, then your creed might really men something. But being that we have almost as many creeds as we have disagreements on what scripture teaches, your creeds are dependent upon interpretations. And remember, Paul warned us more than once about false teachers with their false creeds. I believe unequivocally in the trinity. Your creeds, well, they are your creeds. Yet the bible belongs to all of us....

No, I don't mean by some men, I mean by all. Scripture only teaches one thing, not multiple things - we have multiple things because men will not come into submission of its teachings. For the same reason we have multiple Bibles, not just one - but as many as we have creeds, even more so.

I don't presume I was raised up in history to exegete the Scripture for myself, I don't set myself at the plow and look back - I'm coming to the table on the shoulders of other Christians - we are builded up together in the Church, I don't tear down their work.

There is but one scriptural doctrine, yet there are hundreds of man made doctrines. You present me with a doctrine and I am supposed to gobble it up just because you call it a doctrine. I have presented you with many scriptural evidences that say that your doctrine is an incorrect one. Have I or even the scriptures that I have presented to you affected you in any way. No!!!

There really aren't that many man made doctrines in the Christian Faith, just a few - and many variations of the same thing.

For example, you've presented a semi-pelagian view of the Scripture, which has been denounced as heretical for well over 1000 years. There is no fruit or evidence other than death and totalitarianism from this view.

Because I cannot prove to you that something that the bible never stated except through presuppositions is not there without those presuppositions. It cannot be done because you will never look at another scripture without those presuppositions being in place.

Exactly, I'm glad you see that.

This is why we have to base any hope of ever learning on what is precisely stated in scripture.

Then one must adopt Scriptural presuppositions, it cannot be done any other way.

And the bible never overtly states that Calvinism is derived from the trinity and there are no alternatives available to God except Calvinism.

It is our desire to not create ideas, but to learn the ideas that God wants us to know. The Scripture does overtly establish Calvinism - if one holds to the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and then begins to interpret a soteriology faithful to those presuppositions - Calvinism will fall out of the Bible into your lap. It becomes self-evident.

So do not bring your suppositions to the table and tell me that I have to leave mine behind...

Well, you were the one asking questions about our doctrine and wanting to learn it.

If you wish to learn it, then you must be willing to leave your presuppositions behind - because everything is presuppositional.

There are no foundational doctrines that are not supported by foundational scriptures. You want me to skip the scriptures and go straight to the doctrine. NO!!!!

I agree with this, so do we need to exegete the Trinity and an orthodox Christology then?

Can you not accept these doctrines as being correctly exegeted from Scripture unless you hammer then out for yourself?

What I am saying Thomas, is that we need to find a way around belittling each others method of exegeting scripture, especially while we are employing the exact same method.. I do not believe you to be a novice in scripture, and I assure; neither am I. If we are to learn from one another, it will be from what is precisely stated in scripture. Your doctrine cannot claim the high ground without scriptural proof.

Again, the starting place is what makes that difference.

If you can start from God as God, for His own sake, He does is own good pleasure, that He declares the end from the beginning and works it out to meet His desires to glorify Himself - then we can go by what is "precisely stated in Scripture."

However, if you want to start from man and how evil God is and how unjust he is in making man a sinner and how ugly he is and how great man is and do all of these things judging Gods words, disannulling His judgments to make man righteous - then we cannot go by what is "precisely stated in Scripture."

Again, I'm not here to learn your presuppositions, your post isn't about teaching Arminianism, unless that is really what you intend.

We can take potshots at each other all day and never miss, because in effect, we are really shooting at our selves. Calvinism is based in effect on passages that deal with total depravity, sovereignty and power. The whole concept is derived from one misconception, your perceived consequences of total depravity and your perception of God's unquenchable desire to glorify himself. If sin and evil will help, God is not above either...

Calvinism is presuppositional, that is what I've been saying all along.

[b]The whole concept is derived from fidelity to Chalcedon[/b[ - because we will not deny that Jesus Christ is God manifested in human flesh according to Scripture.

In our view, you call fidelity to Chalcedon "sin and evil."

Your soterioloty is molded around power and sovereignty, and you mold God to fit that perception. Nothing is sacred in your effort to promote these misconceptions, the nature and character of God is defiled, and the trinity is used as your excuse for God creating people to burn in order to promote his glory. In promoting your concept of total depravity, you drag God down right along with those that he is separate from. You call evil good for God's sake.

Well, I guess we are finding out you never had any intentions of learning what we believe - but I guess this has been a ruse to try to teach us what you believe.

Yes, God created people to destroy to promote His own Glory - for His own sake He does this.

But if you can save yourself, Chappie, God Himself will bow down to you - as He promised.

For the sake of this discussion, consider me as unlearned but not stupid. Ignorant, but capable of learning.

Give me a couple paragraphs on how Calvinism is derived from the trinity along with a few scriptural passages to support your conclusions. Otherwise, you are sinking in your own quicksand.

I'll be happy to if we want to go any further.

Faith is not enough because we are saved by grace through faith. Your statement presumes everyone that does not believe as you do to be unsaved. I do not believe as you do, I do not have the correct faith, therefore I am not saved. (Show me the scripture)

No, I do not believe that everyone that is not learned in theology is not saved. I believe everyone that trusts in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and has a credible profession is saved - I do not judge it from there. If a person doesn't have a credible profession, I can make a righteous judgment, but not a condemnation.

I believe the grace of God is His adjudication of my sin in the blood of Jesus Christ.

John called Him the lamb of God, and God swore with an oath by Himself to make Him a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek. These are all basic doctrines, taught throughout Scripture, but summed up really well in Hebrews 9:11-28. If you can look that up it will save me from typing it in.

If you are a sinner and God has appointed you to the death penalty for your sins - talk about injustice,(WHAT A DIFFERENCE THE GIFT OF GOD MAKES} what on earth do you need to be saved from? (REJECTING THE GIFT) You pay for the penalty of your sins in death - why is this death penalty insufficient, isn't it God's judgment?

Well, then, we are right back at the beginning Chappie.

As I stated when we started, I believe God saves man by judging sin. Period.

Why not? You will pay for your sins in death, won't you?

If you refuse the gift; you will.

This is where we part ways, I don't want to put words into your mouth and say - well then you are saying...so I'll word it thusly,

I interpret this to mean that what you are saying is that salvation is a contract offer to man, generically.

Thus, man judges Jesus Christ for himself and if he finds it to be a valid concept he then accepts the contract.

Is this what you mean?

Cordially,

Thomas

Chappie

August 11th 2003, 01:45 AM

Thomas:
I did scan through your last post, more of the same. When you are ready to present scriptural support for your trinity theory, we can move forward. If not, may God bless you, perhaps another time...

SaintMorpheus

August 11th 2003, 02:01 AM

Christ has no need for the testimony of man; yet, if He did, I would call Thomas His ruthless defender. Thomas has no need of my testimony either; I merely point this out to expose those who would not be accused of ruthless defense of the Living God. "Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it" (1 Corinthians 9|24). If one's theology and presentation thereof do not originate in the actual revelation of God (and therefore one's love toward Him), then this theology is merely personal anthropology presented foolishly to the world.

Good thread, gentlemen. Please keep it going.
- St. M

In a sense I was not moved by anything. I chose to open, to unbuckle, to loosen the rein. I say, "I chose," yet it did not really seem possible to do the opposite. On the other hand, I was aware of no motives. You could argue that I was not a free agent, but I am more inclined to think that this came nearer to being a perfectly free act than most that I have ever done. Necessity may not be the opposite of freedom, and perhaps a man is most free when, instead of producing motives, he could only say, "I am what I do."

C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy

Stephen

August 11th 2003, 10:01 AM

In my last post, mandolin, as was probably obvious, I meant every time Pharoah rejects, not moses.

Thomas2003

August 11th 2003, 10:52 AM

Today @ 06:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=178047#post178047)
Chappie:

Thomas:
I did scan through your last post, more of the same. When you are ready to present scriptural support for your trinity theory, we can move forward. If not, may God bless you, perhaps another time...

I was starting to get the idea you weren't serious about this. I provided almost 30 Scriptures in that post! And you can't find one....LOL

Like I said, you have to be willing to learn, what you are wanting to do, it appears to me, is teach Arminianism under the guise of wanting to learn to understand Calvinism.

I have already repented of Arminianism, so you would do better promoting your view with someone else.

Cordially,

Thomas

Chappie

August 11th 2003, 12:26 PM

Today @ 03:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=178703#post178703)
Thomas2003:

I was starting to get the idea you weren't serious about this. I provided almost 30 Scriptures in that post! And you can't find one....LOL

Like I said, you have to be willing to learn, what you are wanting to do, it appears to me, is teach Arminianism under the guise of wanting to learn to understand Calvinism.

I have already repented of Arminianism, so you would do better promoting your view with someone else.

Cordially,

Thomas

30 scriptures my foot. You have not posted a single scripture that leads from the trinity to predestination or election. If you have, point them out. Much will be gleaned from your refusal to do so. :teeth:

I am not a victim of any kind of "nism", be it Calvinism, Arminism, or Communism. :cheers:

Seems to me you are repenting yourself into a big circle, no telling where you will be tomorrow.

Calvinism <<<<<<<<:saywhat:

You have not posted scripture to support you trinity to election theory. It is a story concocted to defend Calvinism. It is nothing more than a desperate effort to keep a bucket with a big hole in the bottom full of water....

Your "nism" demeans the revealed nature of God. It worships power and sovereignty. Not God... God is left standing in the dust of falacies shaking his head and wondering why....:shrug:

I do not wish to be unkind, it grieves me to be so. But it seems to be indiginious to the territory that we call Calvinism if one is to portray an accurate image of that which is indiginous to it....

Still, my words are not directed towards you Thomas, Calvinism is the culprit. When I cannot be honest, I will be quiet...

mandolin

August 12th 2003, 02:11 AM

Stephen...

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Keep in mind, this is before Pharoah made any choices; God's telling Moses ahead of time that He will harden his heart, and in every time Moses rejects and his heart is hardened, it is accompanied by "as the LORD had said". And the Lord did not say "pharoah will choose to harden his heart" He said "I will harden his heart"
First off... Pharoah hardened his own heart many times before god ever hardened his heart. You are correct that is says "I will harden his heart." But have you ever heard of foreknowledge?? Think about it. God says, "I will harden his heart". This is because God knew he would harden his heart. Basically God was just saying, "Don't bet on Pharoah letting you go...because he's faithless...and I'll end up hardening his heart because of it." As is seen in hebrews 3:15 (and obviously psalm 95) each person can harden his or her own heart. God just makes it irrevocable.
God says to pharoah, "look dude...since you have no faith...I'm gonna harden your heart and use you as a pawn fitted for destruction" In reality..though God hardened his heart..it was pharoah's own fault.

Also...you sorta just preached reprobation right there. You see... if god made pharoah faithless without pharoah's free faithlessness...then reprobation is what you are preaching. You are saying that God chose him to burn...for no reason at all.

The difference between us is that you think grace is irresistable. I think scripture says otherwise.
For example...grace must be working in a man who is saved. right?? And a man who is sanctified by god is clearly saved. right?? So this irresistable grace would be at work in this sanctified man. right??
Well...this means that according to Hebrews 10...the irresistable grace ain't irresistable. This man fell from this grace. And is punished for it. (this also defeats OSAS as well)

It's not that we are above god's grace. It's not that we bash apart his grace. It's that in it's essence...god's grace must be accepted. It is a gift. We must freely take it. We must choose it.

You also think the atonement is limited to the elect...I think it is abundant to all and is therefore unlimited. Though the recipients are limited to those who accept the gift...it is still offerred to them all..and is unlimited because of that.

Like...if i give a present to ten guys...if only 5 accept it and 5 reject it...the gift was still given unlimitedly to them all. They all were offered the gift. It was not limited to just the five who took it. It was unlimited...Even though only the guys that accepted the gift actually received it. You follow me?

The grace of god calls each man to faith. Every single one of us all. This grace is not limited. We can accept it through faithfulness..or deny it through faithlessness. The righteous will live by faith.

Even gifts have to be accepted. The gift is god's grace...we accept it with faith...the outcome is salvation.

We might be depraved...but christ died for all...and he calls all men unto him. Now it's up to us to accept it or deny it. My eternity rests in my hands. The loving grace of christ calls me...but so does the clutches of the enemy. My choice is the tie-breaker.

In conclusion...we decide our own destiny. That's because God is just and righteous. He's not pre-damning. He's not a scyzophrenic bill gates.

SaintMorpheus

August 12th 2003, 08:48 AM

God says, "I will harden his heart"....Basically God was just saying, "Don't bet on Pharoah letting you go...because he's faithless...and I'll end up hardening his heart because of it."

No, basically God was just saying "I will harden his heart." This is right in front of your face, and it's pride that prevents you from seeing it. Lay it down and take up your cross. If not, there will always be a veil in front of your face when you read Scripture.

You are saying that God chose him to burn...for no reason at all.

No:

Romans 9:17-20:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. [Mandolin] will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

I don't know how this could be any clearer.

By the way, “dude,” why don’t you capitalize “God” and "Christ" to show some respect.

Arminian

August 12th 2003, 04:16 PM

Today @ 07:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179874#post179874)
SaintMorpheus:

Romans 9:17-20:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. [Mandolin] will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

I don't know how this could be any clearer.

By the way, “dude,” why don’t you capitalize “God” and "Christ" to show some respect.

I don't know how it could be any clearer, either. However, since Mandolin isn't a Jewish interlocutor, accusing Paul and defending the Jewish identity of being the Israel of God because of fleshly descent, I doubt you do understand the excerpt.

God did (and DOES) find fault with fleshly Israel. Yes, they were made that way according to God's covenant will. And, yes, they were set apart and covered by the covenant as protection from His righteous wrath.

But that time is past. Now that covenant is obsolete, yet they reject God's true Israel because it was not according to the flesh of Abraham. God did find fault with them, as he always did. But now they will be judged with the nations. They are no longer part the Israel of God, that being in the Second Adam. They remain in the first Adam (the first humanity!). They need to enter through the Second.

Paul's opposition is wrong. God CAN change the covenant, and he can change his Israel, too. That's been his argument all along. The people defined by Sinai are not God's Israel ("God's people" for the dispensationalists).

Paul's opponents said that if Paul was right, then God's word had failed. In one sense they had a legitimate claim. God HAD made a promise to the physical descendants of Abraham. If that promise was now ignored or rejected by God, then His word HAD failed. The big "if" is "if Judaism had understood that word properly."

The ongoing contrast in Scripture is between the "two covenants." The "first" covenant and the "new" covenant. For just one quick citation, Hebrews argues that the "new" covenant is not like the "first" one:

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would
have been no occasion sought for a second.

For finding fault with them, He says, BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING,
SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE
HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON
THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF
THE LAND OF EGYPT.

So without going into all of this again, I'll just note that there WAS a covenant word from God concerning Abraham's physical descendants. The failure was not in the promise of God, but in Judaism's understanding of that promise. They confused the two: the temporary, earthly, first; and the final, heavenly, which dealt with sin/death. The first covenant was faulty; it could not deal with sin/death. The second DID!

Why does God find fault with physical Israel? He ALWAYS did. But now there is no protection from his wrath. They must enter into God's Israel through Christ.

Stephen

August 12th 2003, 06:46 PM

First off... Pharoah hardened his own heart many times before god ever hardened his heart. You are correct that is says "I will harden his heart." But have you ever heard of foreknowledge?? Think about it. God says, "I will harden his heart". This is because God knew he would harden his heart. Basically God was just saying, "Don't bet on Pharoah letting you go...because he's faithless...and I'll end up hardening his heart because of it." As is seen in hebrews 3:15 (and obviously psalm 95) each person can harden his or her own heart. God just makes it irrevocable.
God says to pharoah, "look dude...since you have no faith...I'm gonna harden your heart and use you as a pawn fitted for destruction" In reality..though God hardened his heart..it was pharoah's own fault.

That answer might have worked if it were anywhere mentioned or implied in the Exodus story. He could have easily said "look dude, since he has no faith, I'm gonna harden him because he would have hardened himself." God never makes that assertion! God merely says "But I will harden his heart." And EVERY time Pharoah's heart is hardened, even when it calls it pharoah hardening himself, it says "As the Lord had said." The Lord mentioned nothing of free will and foreknowledge; he said He would harden him.

Furthermore, Romans implies against your answer. When people said "why does He still find fault, for who can resist His will (right after Pharoah)" "Well, Pharoah hardened himself, and God knew it, so God isn't really doing anything wrong..."
No, he just said "who are you, o man, to answer back to God?" Now whether or not this is speaking of Israel as Arminian believes, or individuals as I believe, it does not change the story of pharoah.

Also...you sorta just preached reprobation right there. You see... if god made pharoah faithless without pharoah's free faithlessness...then reprobation is what you are preaching. You are saying that God chose him to burn...for no reason at all.

Firstly, I was not aware that Pharoah's salvation depended on his answer to the plagues.

Secondly, and frankly, I'm getting tired of people starting arguing against this with the wrong premise. Faith, and grace, and not things that everyone has a right to. Even if God did choose to harden someone, and take them away from faith, they are not getting injustice for not being given a chance at faith, they are being given what they desevre because they did not get the mercy of God's saving grace, not that they did not get their deserved chance!

No man deserves grace. No one is given an unalienable right to mercy, or forgiveness. It soley depends on God choosing to give some far above what they deserve.

No one can argue in hell that God should have given them a chance of faith. God need not give them a LFW choice in order for there to be justice; a free choice is not justice at all, it is sole mercy. And no one can argue lack of mercy as an excuse out of justice.

Like...if i give a present to ten guys...if only 5 accept it and 5 reject it...the gift was still given unlimitedly to them all. They all were offered the gift. It was not limited to just the five who took it. It was unlimited...Even though only the guys that accepted the gift actually received it. You follow me?

Ironically, your analogy works the same way against you. Lets suppose, out of the whole world, you give 5 people presents. The rest of the enire world is given no choice to accept your gift of not; does that limit your generosity, or their free will?

Arminian

August 12th 2003, 07:40 PM

Steven,

Furthermore, Romans implies against your answer. When people said "why does He still find fault, for who can resist His will (right after Pharoah)" "Well, Pharoah hardened himself, and God knew it, so God isn't really doing anything wrong..."
No, he just said "who are you, o man, to answer back to God?" Now whether or not this is speaking of Israel as Arminian believes, or individuals as I believe, it does not change the story of pharoah.

On the contrary, the previous verse starts with "therefore," indicating that Paul is summing up his argument. Verse 19 starts a new objection and a new line of thought by the one objecting to Israel according to the promise.

The issue (which I would be happy to join in) between you people is really whether or not the hardening is active or passive on God's part. The second is whether or not the hardening is judicial and how that come about.

If the hardening is passive, then God hardens Pharoah through a continious display of his power and by telling Pharoah exactly what he does not want to hear (just like God did through Isaiah -- Isaiah 6:10).

If the hardening is active, the question remains if it is judicial or not. If judicial, then God responds to Pharoah's obduration by hardening him further and making His name proclaimed throughout the world. If not judicial, then God merely made him hard without any consideration of Pharoah. Arminains and Calvinists have been known to take both postions regarding active and passive hardening.

I suppose there is a third issue. That would whether 9:17 should be translated "I raised you up" or "I maintained you alive." Ridderbos (a Calvinist, among others) agues (in German) for the second translation.

As for your comment about Israel or individuals making no difference, you missed my point. God has found fault in Israel, so that's the reason not to be part of Israel according to Sinai. The person making the objection is a Jew according to God's covenant will (Sinai), and God still blames him? Yes, because he identifies with the vessel of distruction (Sinai) But they CAN be grafted in again.

SaintMorpheus

August 12th 2003, 08:08 PM

Arminian,
I was talking about Pharoah, not covenants.
I'll get back on active/passive hardening later.

Thomas2003

August 12th 2003, 08:09 PM

30 scriptures my foot. You have not posted a single scripture that leads from the trinity to predestination or election. If you have, point them out. Much will be gleaned from your refusal to do so.

There were approximately 30 verses, meaning Scriptures, in that post. I was dealing with your presupposition first.

It proved that God creates all men according to His eternal decree - He declared the end from the beginning, indeed requires that which is past. (Ecc 3:15)

I am not refusing to discuss it in detail and explain the entire thing - one must be willing to examine it honestly though. There is no way to discuss it when you have dismissed the premise before one can start.

One cannot show a man Scripture when he rejects the Scripture, just as you have stated that I posted nothing on the subject. What you are saying, I presume, is that all the Scriptures I posted are interpreted incorrectly. That is an argument, but that doesn't change the way I have interpreted and applied them.

Again, it matters whether or not one is coming to learn, as stated, or the whole thing was a ruse to press your ideas.

As I stated here,

As long as you reject the very foundation of Scriptures teaching about God, but maintain that your rejection is the standard of what is "scriptural" it is a moot point.

If you won't accept the common ground of the Trinity and an orthodox Christology there is no point in supporting anything about Calvinism with Scripture - because you have already rejected it.

It's presuppositional - Calvinism is applied trinitarianism. God the Father judges sin in God the Son and God the Holy Spirit creates life. That's Calvinism, God is the Creator, man is the creation, God is God and man is man, thus man is not God.

We still have to deal with the presuppositions until you can come to the table with a Biblical view on the nature of being, the Biblical presentation of the nature of God's being and the nature of mans being, and therefore the very nature of Christs being in the incarnation.

I even suggested that you disconnect, personally, from the subject matter - so that you could examine the premise objectively and critically. This was my beginning of Post # 86.

It's really impossible to discuss with you Chappie because your presupposition, in my view, says God cannot be God - because it violates your morals.

"Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?" Job 40:8

For example, in your response to Stephan, in which he remarks on the same presuppositional premise in which I am addressing, you state regarding Pharaoh - You are saying that God chose him to burn...for no reason at all.

That is not what we are saying, we are saying that God chose him for His reasons. Stephen explained that man does not have a right to come to repentance by Grace. God chose Abraham and didn't choose everyone else for "no reason at all." LOL No, He chose Abraham for His reasons. We know why.

You make this implication, "no reason at all", that man is not deserving of Judgment. This plainly violates your morals, which you believe is our error in interpreting Scripture about God's nature.

Fair enough, but you would do better understanding that we believe we are interpreting Scripture properly.

I am not a victim of any kind of "nism", be it Calvinism, Arminism, or Communism.

Well, there is nothing new under the sun - men who make things popular get accredited with the ideas. So, you do have an 'ism' even if you don't admit it. It's called Semi-Pelagianism.

Seems to me you are repenting yourself into a big circle, no telling where you will be tomorrow.

I do not understand this statement because I do not know what I have repented of - I guess you mean changed positions. I thought I was consistent, if you can show me where I've been inconsistent I would appreciate the opportunity of correcting it.

You have not posted scripture to support you trinity to election theory. It is a story concocted to defend Calvinism. It is nothing more than a desperate effort to keep a bucket with a big hole in the bottom full of water...

Ok, but once again, this is a presuppositional declaration. If you don't want to discuss what I believe and why, that is fine. I'm not hear to convert you, just answering your challenge.

Calvinism is applied trinitarianism - it is how Scripture explains the nature of God's being, the nature of man's being, with no chain of being between the immortal and uncreated being of God and the mortal and created being of man, it is anti-Greek thought. It is revelation on how God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, being God of very God and man of very man, yet one person, and judged sin in His blood, then creates His children by the Holy Ghost.

John Calvin is impossible to understand without a reference to his fidelity to Chalcedon.

Your "nism" demeans the revealed nature of God. It worships power and sovereignty. Not God... God is left standing in the dust of falacies shaking his head and wondering why...

I understand that this is how you see it. I worship the Holy Trinity, that is the God I pray to and worship, I use His name through Jesus Christ.

I do understand how this seems to violate your morals though, that is why I suggested you personally disconnect from it - analyze it critically instead of personally.

Anyway, I dont' have much more time to rehash this over and over. I'll be happy to discuss it on a level playing field, not otherwise.

Cordially,

Thomas

Arminian

August 12th 2003, 08:24 PM

Today @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=181278#post181278)
SaintMorpheus:

Arminian,
I was talking about Pharoah, not covenants.
I'll get back on active/passive hardening later.

You were talking about verse 19. So was I.

I didn't mention active or passive hardening when responding to you.

Chappie

August 12th 2003, 08:44 PM

Yesterday @ 11:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=180904#post180904)
Stephen:
Furthermore, Romans implies against your answer. When people said "why does He still find fault, for who can resist His will (right after Pharoah)" "Well, Pharoah hardened himself, and God knew it, so God isn't really doing anything wrong..."
No, he just said "who are you, o man, to answer back to God?" Now whether or not this is speaking of Israel as Arminian believes, or individuals as I believe, it does not change the story of pharaoh.

Stephen:
Neither has it given you an understanding of the story of Pharaoh. You view everything through a darkened understanding of the concept of total depravity.

Perhaps any understanding will have to begin there.

Secondly, and frankly, I'm getting tired of people starting arguing against this with the wrong premise. Faith, and grace, and not things that everyone has a right to.

No, it is not. Still the concept has not/did not escape God's sense of Justice... You see, God is more than just power and sovereignty.

Even if God did choose to harden someone, and take them away from faith, they are not getting injustice for not being given a chance at faith, they are being given what they deserve because they did not get the mercy of God's saving grace, not that they did not get their deserved chance!

That must sound real sweet to you, being that you got mercy. How do you know that your faith is the real thing, how do you know that you are not just a groupie, just hanging around rubbing elbows with God's real elect. With the same judgement that you judge, is the judgment by which you will be judged. Not everyone that cries Lord, Lord.

No man deserves grace. No one is given an unalienable right to mercy, or forgiveness. It solely depends on God choosing to give some far above what they deserve.

It does not matter what we deserve, truth is God is a just God. Long before man arrived on the scene, God was a just God. The Angels in heaven sing his praises, because he is a just God. God would not abandon his justice to show his mercy to a few unworthy, hypocritical, depraved individuals. You must feel that he needs you an awful lot....

No one can argue in hell that God should have given them a chance of faith. God need not give them a LFW choice in order for there to be justice; a free choice is not justice at all, it is sole mercy. And no one can argue lack of mercy as an excuse out of justice.

A little thought is all that is required to know that that is not true. His mercy is your excuse out of it. Abuse of his mercy allows you to praise him for choosing you while he tortures others. Stephen, please open your eyes, Calvinism is sick. It is a mistake.

Ironically, your analogy works the same way against you. Lets suppose, out of the whole world, you give 5 people presents. The rest of the entire world is given no choice to accept your gift of not; does that limit your generosity, or their free will?

Yes, it does...
Please Stephen, let’s kill the rhetoric. If you have scriptures, let’s talk about them. Calvinistic rhetoric angers, you cannot make a pitch for what’s good about it without exposing what’s wrong about it.. You cannot put a pretty face on it. Every time I hear you say, they get what they deserve, I am reminded that you come from the same despicable stock that they come from. You think that you have made it out of the ghetto; still every word that you speak shows that your heart is still there… God will have no part in your deception, not even to glorify himself will he touch it….. Always, you grieve the Holy Sporit of God.

Stephen

August 12th 2003, 09:55 PM

Neither has it given you an understanding of the story of Pharaoh. You view everything through a darkened understanding of the concept of total depravity

Alright, explain how a better understanding of total depravity changes the story. This is not a rhetorical question, a sincere request. If your view somehow changes the words "He hardens" to a matter of God's hardening being useless as pharoah would harden himself, I would like to hear how. I am not a close-minded person, I honestly want to believe the truth, no matter what my emotions or preferences tell me. That is why I changed to calvinism in the first place, and given sufficient evidence, I would change back gladly to any other denomination.

No, it is not. Still the concept has not/did not escape God's sense of Justice... You see, God is more than just power and sovereignty

Getting what on deserves is exactly God's sense of justice, my whole point.

That must sound real sweet to you, being that you got mercy. How do you know that your faith is the real thing, how do you know that you are not just a groupie, just hanging around rubbing elbows with God's real elect. With the same judgement that you judge, is the judgment by which you will be judged. Not everyone that cries Lord, Lord

We've been in this before, the indicators of salvation that you and I believe in are identical. Election does not eliminate a choice; there is never a time when one will want to be saved but can't.

It does not matter what we deserve, truth is God is a just God. Long before man arrived on the scene, God was a just God. The Angels in heaven sing his praises, because he is a just God. God would not abandon his justice to show his mercy to a few unworthy, hypocritical, depraved individuals. You must feel that he needs you an awful lot....

It does not matter what we deserve, God is a just God? God's justice is major backing to this idea! Justice and what you deserve are not polar opposites. Mercy does not sacrifice justice, mercy and justice co-exist. If your view is correct, then all are given equal chance, and by those grounds are they saved. That is mercy, but where is the justice if God is bound by His sense of mercy over justice?

And I do not feel He needs me at all; to do so would be, of course, hypocritical and a blasphemy. God needs no person, I firmly believe that. You argue my points and instead of refuting them, you're making assumptions about how the implications lead my life. Please, if I pose a question or statement, judge the argument, not my mind or the motives.

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 01:24 AM

Stephen:
I opened this thread for those that would present me with a step-by-step, scriptural explanation of Calvinism. I can assure you that from time to time; I am able to open my mind and humbly seek an understanding of this doctrine.

But the rhetoric that is used to support this doctrine renders it extremely heretical and offensive to me. I often consider, what if I am wrong, I want to learn for the sake of my own salvation. Because I honestly believe that one of us is extremely offensive to the God that we both profess to love.

If I am right, you still do not deserve hell without the same opportunity to love God as I have. When you start talking about "them" deserving hell, you create in me a desire to extinguish Calvinism from off the face of the earth or die trying.

Men because of their depravity deserve to be destroyed out of God's creation. But to be conceived, and born in a state of depravity and then being punished for what one never had control over is an unjust and awful concept. Based on every thing that the bible has ever taught me, I know that to be an unjust concept and a lie....

If I have to start another thread where we can discuss Calvinism in a logical sequential and reasonable manner, I will. If I have to go to another board to do it, I will. I want to learn why, and I will not be denied by unreasonable, hypocritical double talk.

I want to discuss it with scripture. If you want to do this, great; if not, one monkey don't stop no show. (Figure of speech, not calling you a monkey)

Stephen

August 13th 2003, 10:17 AM

Agreed chappie. Enough analogies and moral questions for the time being, I think we both made about 7 pages worth of that :-)

I also agree that one of us is being highly offensive to God, though both of us indeed do not intend to.

So,
First, to start with Scriptural evidence, what is your personal belief of what "predestine"(proorizō), as a biblical term, means, and why?

I'd write more but I'm headed to school. First week of Highschool really takes the time outta you.

In a Christ that may still be glorified through this discussion
Stephen

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 11:17 AM

Arminian
You were talking about verse 19. So was I.

I was trying to concentrate on v. 17. Let me backtrack and say, for the record, I am talking about v. 17 now -- I'm not as well versed as you in covenants or Paul's interlocution, etc, so I will refrain from commenting on that. As of now, I'm only talking about God hardening Pharoah's heart, and letting you deal with the surrounding context (which is very interesting, by the way -- I'm enjoying your posts).

I didn't mention active or passive hardening when responding to you.

I was merely expressing interest -- I didn't mean to imply that I think the universe revolves around me, so every time you mention something, you must be talking to me :cheers:

I suppose there is a third issue. That would whether 9:17 should be translated "I raised you up" or "I maintained you alive." Ridderbos (a Calvinist, among others) agues (in German) for the second translation.

Well, let's take a look at St. Paul's translation of the OT Scripture. His word is "EXHGEIRA" which is the 1st person singular aorist indicative active of "EXEGEIRW." This verb is constructed from "EX" which means "out" or "from" or "away from" and "EGEIRW" which means "to raise up (from sleep, (meta.)death, a chair, etc.," "to produce," "to cause to appear (before the public)," "to construct." According to Thayer, it is probably related to "AGEIRW" (to gather) from whence comes "AGORA," the market place (the public gathering place).

Especially with the force of "EX" which semantically harps pretty heavily on the idea of motion from an original location, I do not see how one can translate the phrase "I maintained you alive," if that implies a sort of static maintenance of one's status (that of being alive). Rather, it seems clear, that the meaning of v. 17 is "God actively raised Pharoah up and caused him to appear in the public arena, showing publicly God's glory according to His good purpose." Pharoah, as we all are, was a tool in the hands of God. Some are made for noble purposes, and other for ignoble. The point is that God is not thwarted from glorifying Himself.

So I want to reiterate that I was trying to use v. 17 to refute someone's notion that "God actively hardened Pharoah's heart and therefore salvation was not possible for him" led to the conclusion that "God sent Pharoah to burn in hell for no purpose." That is mistaken thinking. God is God and His primary "focus" (if He can be said to have a focus) is on Himself. We are blessed that He is even mindful of us (what is man that You are mindful of him?). But it must be remembered that He is self-sufficient and has no need of man. He is satisfied with Himself; in other words, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (that is, God-As-He-Truly-Is) comes before the doctrine of salvation.
We must be God-centered, not man-centered, for the way of salvation is "Repent and follow Me," not "Ponder the mechanics of salvation" or "Discuss amongst yourselves why God loves you."

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 12:58 PM

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182111#post182111)
Stephen:

First, to start with Scriptural evidence, what is your personal belief of what "predestine"(proorizo&#772;), as a biblical term, means, and why?

I'd write more but I'm headed to school. First week of Highschool really takes the time outta you.

In a Christ that may still be glorified through this discussion
Stephen

Greetings Stephen:
I look forward to our discussion….
Predestination as a biblical term simply means to predetermine a single event. And as an example of power and sovereignty that event must be clearly defined. It cannot exceed nor fall short of what is defined. If it does, in either direction, the appearance of absolute power and sovereignty is lost. It is to interfere with the normal sequence of events in order to cause a single event to come to fruition.

Unless it is specifically stated: It does not necessarily mean to start at “A”, and manipulate or determine every single event leading up to “Z”, with “Z” being the event predetermined. It means that somewhere between “B” and “Y” the determinee steps in and causes said event to occur. In a normal manipulated course of events, the word predestination is not necessary. Predestination interferes with happenstance. When the word predestination is used, it is God saying, in a sequence of events that I do not immediately control, I will step in and exert enough power to cause said event to happen at a time and in a place of my choosing.

Predestination is an act of sovereignty supported by omnipotence. It is significantly different from foreknowledge; as just knowing that something will happen does not demand that the one knowing be its direct cause. Example: God knew that Adam would fall, but God did not engineer or cause the fall. This is foreknowledge at work here, not predestination.

Biblical predestination demands that a single event occur. That event being, “that those that he foreknew would be conformed into the image of Christ”.
Rom 8:29
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

That remains the context (adoptions as sons) of predestination as it is used in: Eph 1:5
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Now if a single person that he "did not" foreknow gets conformed, predestination has failed. If a single person that he "did foreknow" does not get conformed, predestination has failed.

The biblical criteria for predestination does not create, but applies to. This is why it cannot be changed to “predestined to be saved”. It only applies to those that are already saved: “Those that he foreknew”. This act of predestination is singular and specific in what it intends to accomplish. That single event being the conformation of those that he foreknew. It cannot be construed, without definite scriptural evidence, to mean anything other that what it specifically states. It does not say predestined to be saved and conformed. And the integrity of scripture demands that we do not force into it what has not been written into it……

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 01:43 PM

Chappie,
I know this is a conversation between you and Stephen, but may I be rude and butt in to ask that you would kindly support your lexical analysis of PROORIZW by citing the use of this word in the context of specific verses and passages? If you just pick one to illustrate each of your points, that would be very helpful.

Also:

It is to interfere with the normal sequence of events in order to cause a single event to come to fruition.

I hesitate to buy into that definition; I think one finds in the Scriptures the idea that "the normal sequence of events" is equivalent to "that which God has predestined." It is sort of the whole basis for a theological perspective on history (which is what the OT is), namely "God has ordained all that comes to pass." For example:

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Ephesians 1|11)

In this context, it appears that St. Paul equivocates or at least compares strongly the saints' status of having been predestined according to God's purpose and the fact that God works all things according to His will, i.e. that the normal sequence of events is the very act of God accomplishing His will in everything. Which is what we'd expect, inasmuch as He is God, afterall.

As for the rest of your opinion on the biblical use of PROORIZW, I'll wait for Stephen's response...unless I come up with anything else worth saying.
Thanks.

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 02:22 PM

Ok, I came up with something else worth saying.

The biblical criteria for predestination does not create, but applies to. This is why it cannot be changed to “predestined to be saved."

It does not say predestined to be saved and conformed.

I would challenge that. Ephesians 1|4-5 says:
"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

I want to focus on the constructions "He chose us....that X" and "He predestined us for X." In these cases, I would contend that X is equivalent to the idea of salvation. To support this assertion...

1. "Be holy and blameless" = "be saved."
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." Ephesians 5|25-27

In this passage, St. Paul argues that Christ died in order that the church may be "holy and blameless." This has the same rythmn as "Christ died in order to save us," which we all accept, and about which the Scriptures are abundantly clear.

2. "Adoption through Jesus Christ" = "salvation."

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Galatians 4|4

In this passage, St. Paul describes the fact that God sent Jesus in order that we may receive adoption. Again, this is the same rythmn has "Christ died in order to save us."

In each of these cases, salvation goes hand-in-hand with being holy and blameless and receiving adoption as sons, wherefore we might replace the constructions "He chose us that X" and "He predestined us for X" with "He chose us that we might be saved" and "He predestined us for salvation."

In which case we could read Ephesians 1|4-5 thusly:

"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be saved. In love he predestined us for salvation through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

Which rubs against your original point:

It does not say predestined to be saved...

Arminian

August 13th 2003, 03:30 PM

Today @ 10:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182181#post182181)
SaintMorpheus:

So I want to reiterate that I was trying to use v. 17 to refute someone's notion that "God actively hardened Pharoah's heart and therefore salvation was not possible for him" led to the conclusion that "God sent Pharoah to burn in hell for no purpose." That is mistaken thinking.

I understand. However, my objection still stands. Paul doesn't say that Pharoah was selected or hardened to go to hell. Paul says that God's name is proclaimed by the display of his power against Pharoah who opposed him. It says nothing about where Pharoah ended up.

God is God and His primary "focus" (if He can be said to have a focus) is on Himself.

The primary focus of what Paul is saying is how God would proclaim His name. This "proclaim His name" is a reference to the comments in Exodus where it is said that God acted to have His name proclaimed and that (both Egypt and the world) would "know" that He is God. The purpose was for salvation, and not to ponder the Trinity. Following the exodus, Moses tells several stories of people hearing the story and "knowing" that YHWH is LORD (for example, Ex. 18:10-11).

This theme is important because Paul's argument is for the covenant "righteousness of God." Now that Israel opposes God, they are Pharaoh. They oppose Him and are hardened by His proclamation of His "righteous" fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, which is fulfilled in a way they had never conceived. It entails the inclusion of the Gentiles AS GENTILES. The word is going out to the world.

As we shall see, this very "hardening" is for the salvation of those (Sinaitic Israel) who are hardened by God's proclamation. Irony of ironies!

We are blessed that He is even mindful of us (what is man that You are mindful of him?). But it must be remembered that He is self-sufficient and has no need of man. He is satisfied with Himself; in other words, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (that is, God-As-He-Truly-Is) comes before the doctrine of salvation.
We must be God-centered, not man-centered, for the way of salvation is "Repent and follow Me," not "Ponder the mechanics of salvation" or "Discuss amongst yourselves why God loves you."

I think we need to be text-centered. If Paul had wanted to talk about the Trinity, he would have. He is explaining the fulfillment of the "mystery," which is "election," based upon the fulfillment of the covenant, which is "good news."

Arminian

August 13th 2003, 03:44 PM

Saint,

In which case we could read Ephesians 1|4-5 thusly:

"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be saved. In love he predestined us for salvation through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

It does say that, but the context is of the identity of the Israel of God. It isn't about individualism. Paul is writing to other members in a way he wouldn't write to those who are not members.

If God had predestined the Scouts to salvation, Paul would have written to the Scouts in the same way.

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 04:12 PM

Arminian,

I understand. However, my objection still stands. Paul doesn't say that Pharoah was selected or hardened to go to hell. Paul says that God's name is proclaimed by the display of his power against Pharoah who opposed him. It says nothing about where Pharoah ended up.

Right. I'm sort of dancing around and not making clear arguments here, but, at the risk of being inconsistent with myself, I will say that I was not trying to make an argument about the ultimate destination of Pharoah after the resurrection of the dead; rather, I was trying to argue against the thinking that if God hardened Pharoah against his will, then God sent Pharaoh to hell for, quote, "no reason." I'm was not trying to talk about hell -- I was trying to point out 1) the reason why God does such things as harden people's hearts (to demonstrate His glory) and 2) that we are all tools, or pots, in the hands of God, and the purpose for which we live and die (spiritually and physically) is known by Him, but we may presume it is for His glory.

The primary focus of what Paul is saying is how God would proclaim His name. This "proclaim His name" is a reference to the comments in Exodus where it is said that God acted to have His name proclaimed and that (both Egypt and the world) would "know" that He is God. The purpose was for salvation, and not to ponder the Trinity. Following the exodus, Moses tells several stories of people hearing the story and "knowing" that YHWH is LORD (for example, Ex. 18:10-11).
This theme is important because Paul's argument is for the covenant "righteousness of God." Now that Israel opposes God, they are Pharaoh. They oppose Him and are hardened by His proclamation of His "righteous" fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, which is fulfilled in a way they had never conceived. It entails the inclusion of the Gentiles AS GENTILES. The word is going out to the world.
As we shall see, this very "hardening" is for the salvation of those (Sinaitic Israel) who are hardened by God's proclamation. Irony of ironies!....
I think we need to be text-centered. If Paul had wanted to talk about the Trinity, he would have. He is explaining the fulfillment of the "mystery," which is "election," based upon the fulfillment of the covenant, which is "good news."

Points taken (though not fully understood). I think this is a fine exegesis of the passage. The scope of my purpose is much smaller than yours: I'm specifically trying to refute the notion that if God is not "fair" in our eyes, then He must do things for "no reason." I'm trying to argue that God has a much bigger project in mind than giving everybody an opportunity to be saved. It is obvious that this opportunity does not exist for everyone. And this is not because God is "unfair." It must be for some other reason; my best guess is that God is glorifying Himself by demonstrating His ultimate and powerful and full grasp of Life. As for the the mechanics of the covenant and how God deals with physical Israel versus the ingrafted spiritual Israel, this is outside of my expertise -- I'll let you and others handle that. I'm not familiar with covenant terminology and the various aspects of covenantal theology. I'm simply not well-versed, so we do not have a common lexical or conceptual foundation from which we can understand what each other is saying. What I do know, and would like to share, is that God is somehow in ultimate control of all that comes to pass, and recognizing this fact is essential if one is to be in touch with reality.

It does say that, but the context is of the identity of the Israel of God. It isn't about individualism. Paul is writing to other members in a way he wouldn't write to those who are not members.

I didn't say my interpretation of Ephesians 1|4-5 was about individualism. Yes, I agree that St. Paul writes to the church in a way that he would presumably write to those who are not a part of the church. My message is this: Let's stand up as the church and all recognize that God planned our salvation and caused it to happen, and not ourselves, and then let's give Him thanks for it.

Besides, I'm mostly curious as to how Chappie interprets the use of the word predestination in the NT, which was the original point of the latest two posts besides this one.
Thanks.

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 05:38 PM

Today @ 06:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182332#post182332)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,
I know this is a conversation between you and Stephen, but may I be rude and butt in to ask that you would kindly support your lexical analysis of PROORIZW by citing the use of this word in the context of specific verses and passages? If you just pick one to illustrate each of your points, that would be very helpful.

Say not that I am rude or butting in, for thou art not. Know that your participation is even coveted...

Perhaps you would take the time to list or point out each point that you have observed. My only point was to give my understanding of that which is indigenous to the biblical concept of predestination. The summation of my presentation is that those that are foreknown by God will be conformed into the image of Christ.

That was the thrust of my conclusions, which I supported with passages from Romans and Ephesians... Stephen asked me to give him “MY OPINION” of biblical predestination. He did not specifically ask me to exegete a specific passage. To do that we must first set aside any presupposition that we may have and begin by paraphrasing the passage itself. Otherwise, rhetoric begets rhetoric…

Also:
I hesitate to buy into that definition; I think one finds in the Scriptures the idea that "the normal sequence of events" is equivalent to "that which God has predestined." It is sort of the whole basis for a theological perspective on history (which is what the OT is), namely "God has ordained all that comes to pass." For example:

And I certainly do not expect you to buy into it just because I say so. Shall we leave that as a conclusion that is not supported inclusively by a single passage of scripture, but rather by a preponderance of scripture; which renders it a conclusion based on inspiration of scripture rather than scripture. With that in mind, I will not ask you to consider it to be essential to understanding the scriptures. In other words, there can be presented other conclusions that are just as valid, or more so than perhaps than what I have specifically stated.

If you want to credit God with ordaining all that comes to pass, as long as you are comfortable with him ordaining the fall of Adam, all the disobedience attributed to Israel, Saul's disobedience, David and Bathsheba, the inquisition, the crusades, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, every sin committed for which he punishes us: And he did all to his glory; all I can say at this point is, that is your God, He is not mine....

Can you produce any scriptures specific to that. I am not speaking about scriptures that deal with one thing that can be applied to support your ordination theory. This concept is too big to be based on supposition. If you do not have them, just say it. It will not make or break your theory....

"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Ephesians 1|11)

Now back up in the scriptures that you suggest and you will find that his purpose was to glorify Christ that he may be the firstborn among many brethren.

Keep the passage within its immediate context, and you have no scriptural reason to attempt to say that this passage in any way shape of form suggests that God ordains everything.... He ordains all things according to the counsel of his will. What if it is his will not to ordain everything.

In this context, it appears that St. Paul equivocates or at least compares strongly the saints' status of having been predestined according to God's purpose and the fact that God works all things according to His will, i.e. that the normal sequence of events is the very act of God accomplishing His will in everything. Which is what we'd expect, inasmuch as He is God, afterall.

"It appears" can only can only be applied in specific harmony with what is actually said. And God has in this case specifically told us what is the purpose of his will. Beyond that we venture into the world of speculation. You chide me for doing it, and then you do the exact same thing....

"Which is what we'd expect". We have the right to expect only what is specifically stated in scripture....

As for the rest of your opinion on the biblical use of PROORIZW, I'll wait for Stephen's response...unless I come up with anything else worth saying.
Thanks.

Agreed....

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 05:44 PM

I say that the following passages when viewed within the immediate context of the passages that preceed and follow them cannot be scripturally used to support of even suggest salvational election. Who says that they do?

John 6:43-47
43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
KJV

Arminian

August 13th 2003, 06:25 PM

Saint,

will say that I was not trying to make an argument about the ultimate destination of Pharoah after the resurrection of the dead; rather, I was trying to argue against the thinking that if God hardened Pharoah against his will, then God sent Pharaoh to hell for, quote, "no reason." I'm was not trying to talk about hell -- I was trying to point out 1) the reason why God does such things as harden people's hearts (to demonstrate His glory) and 2) that we are all tools, or pots, in the hands of God, and the purpose for which we live and die (spiritually and physically) is known by Him, but we may presume it is for His glory.

OK, that's fine. But my point was that the idea that Pharaoh was hardened “against his will” is begging the question. IF it’s judicial, it’s as a response to Pharaoh’s attitude and past acts. If it’s passive, it’s God’s display of power and unacceptable message that is his means of hardening.

However, to claim that the following verses are about Pharaoh IS to claim that he was selected for hell. If he is a pot selected for destruction, then that would suggest hell.

I see the following verse begins with “therefore,” and that is what I see as being the summary conclusion of that line of thought. Then what follows begins an new line of thought. Here is a link my explanation:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=166598#post166598

Basically, I see Paul arguing for the identity of the Israel of God and I see Paul saying that Sinaitic Israel is fashioned for destruction. This display of covenant power is actually the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham which was misunderstood by the Jews. Sinai was always fashioned for destruction (Hebrews: “finding fault”). Sinaitic Israel was never the focus of the promise to Abraham, which is now in effect with the arrival of Messiah (who is the only one to whom the promise was made – Gal 3:16-17).

Also, it’s clear (at least to me) that Paul is saying that this “hardening” is with a view to the influx of the Gentiles (thus saving God’s true Israel -- Jews and Gentiles as joint-heirs) to make Sinaitic Israel jealous and thereby save them. Thus, the hardening is for salvation. Ironic.

I didn't say my interpretation of Ephesians 1|4-5 was about individualism. Yes, I agree that St. Paul writes to the church in a way that he would presumably write to those who are not a part of the church. My message is this: Let's stand up as the church and all recognize that God planned our salvation and caused it to happen, and not ourselves, and then let's give Him thanks for it.

Besides, I'm mostly curious as to how Chappie interprets the use of the word predestination in the NT, which was the original point of the latest two posts besides this one.

I haven’t read most of the posts. I post while I have time and a often drop off because of a lack of time . I don’t know exactly what Chappie would say, but from what little I’ve seen I would think he and I are pretty close.

The problem I have with your description above is that you acknowledge Eph. is not about individualism, yet you include individualism in it. In other words, I see Paul arguing against Sinactic Israel being God’s chosen Israel, God’s elect. I see Paul arguing for the Israel in Messiah.

This would be like arguing that God chose America for salvation. We would say that God had chosen “us,” corporately. We would (as the Jews did, and as Paul did) urge people to join us and remain with us.

God planned our salvation and caused it to happen, and not ourselves, and then let's give Him thanks for it.

And note the context of the “not of yourselves” comment. In the immediate context Paul argues against circumcision. The reason he does so is because his opposition argues for the Israel of God being of the physical lineage of Abraham. They are (according to them) God’s elect: “Salvation is OF US, the true children of Abraham.” "Therefore," they argue, "Gentiles must be circumcised to JOIN God’s elect, because God chose “us” (that being Israel) from the beginning of time."

The boast of the Jew was in his flesh. This wasn’t a boast in his accomplishments. It was a boast in the flesh of Abraham, and Sinai was their covenant claim to fame. They were born covenant members via phusis (natural endowment). If the argument was about which individual “got lucky,” the identity of the Israel of God and circumcision would be irrelevant. Paul always discussed circumcision in this context because the COVENANT was the source of the identity of the elect.

Paul’s argument is that “we” are God’s Israel, and he has chosen “us.” We are the one new man, the body of Christ – Jew and Gentiles are joint-heirs in the Seed to whom the promise was made! :yipee:

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 06:48 PM

Chappie,

Say not that I am rude or butting in, for thou art not. Know that your participation is even coveted...

I appreciate that.

Perhaps you would take the time to list or point out each point that you have observed. My only point was to give my understanding of that which is indigenous to the biblical concept of predestination. The summation of my presentation is that those that are foreknown by God will be conformed into the image of Christ.

Fair enough. I would summarize your points in the following manner, in your original order:
1. Predestination is the predetermination of a single event.
2. This single event is distinct and clearly defined; it is not a broad display of absolute power and sovereignty just for the hell of it, as it were (pardon the French, but that English idiom captures the idea well, I think).
3. Predestination is the deliberate interference with the normal sequence of events (which God does not normally control) with the aim of bringing about the distinct event.
4. Predestination is not foreknowledge; foreknowledge does not cause events.
5. The single event that predestination causes is "that those he foreknew would be conformed into the image of Christ."
6. Ephesians 1|5 would be rendered false if one who is not foreknown by God ends up being conformed into the image of Christ anyway.
7. Predestination does not originate salvation; it is a term used to describe what has already happened.

Have I summarized your points accurately? Now, my question is: Can you demonstrate that each of these 7 statements is actually "indigenous to the biblical concept of predestination" (By the way, I like this phrase of yours...good word choice).
The most compelling way to do this, I think, is to quote Scripture in which PROORIZW occurs, and then demonstrate how each point applies.

By the way, what do you think of my analysis of Ephesians 1|4-5? Do you think it challenges point #7?

Stephen asked me to give him “MY OPINION” of biblical predestination. He did not specifically ask me to exegete a specific passage.

Well, I'm asking you, if it's not too much trouble. I think you've answered a lot of my question with your analysis of Romans 8|9 -- I think it's a good point that God predestined those whom He foreknew. I would then move the question one step further -- why did God foreknow some and not others? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Shall we leave that as a conclusion that is not supported inclusively by a single passage of scripture, but rather by a preponderance of scripture; which renders it a conclusion based on inspiration of scripture rather than scripture. With that in mind, I will not ask you to consider it to be essential to understanding the scriptures. In other words, there can be presented other conclusions that are just as valid, or more so than perhaps than what I have specifically stated.

Chappie, I'm sorry -- I have no idea at all what this paragraph means. It's not that I agree or disagree; it is just not intelligible. Would you please re-phrase that and sort of dumb it down for me?

If you want to credit God with ordaining all that comes to pass, as long as you are comfortable with him ordaining the fall of Adam, all the disobedience attributed to Israel, Saul's disobedience, David and Bathsheba, the inquisition, the crusades, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, every sin committed for which he punishes us: And he did all to his glory; all I can say at this point is, that is your God, He is not mine....

The reality is that all these things happened. Here is the reality: Either God caused these things to happen in some sense, or He allowed them to happen. Either way you cut it, it's not comfortable for anybody, including me, nor should it be.
God seems to be down with the school of hard knocks. He, after all, picked up a cross and died on it. It is sad and tragic when an innocent child dies. It is infinitely more sad and tragic that the basically the moment God shows up we crucify Him. What a twisted and strange universe, that our God should die in it!
So either God allows these horrible things, or He causes them. But I ask, what is the difference between allowing and causing? If I know for a fact that someone is about to step on a landmine and I have plenty of time to warn him, yet I do not ... well, I have allowed him to die, but am I blameless in his death? The line between causing and allowing is thin; even more so when these concepts are applied to God. So in the absence of a clear-cut, comfortable answer, what should we conclude? What idea pervades Scripture more often? That of God's sovereignty or that of man's ability to thwart God's purpose and will?
God has either foreordained or allowed Hitler's Germany. You will inevitably argue that God desires that man's will be free so that he can truly love, or something like that. Yet...is the price of six million Jews worth your ability to choose between good and bad (here we have death for the knowledge of good and evil; a fair exchange? This sounds familiar...) And my position forces me to ask myself the horrible question "Is the price of six million Jews worth the ultimate glory of God according to His purpose?" With a heavy heart I confess Yes, this must be so. And then I must plead that this is a misguided question, that reality does not force me to ask it. Yet I think it does. The only comfort I take is in knowing that God is not some flabby, whimpering god who wants to do things, but can't, because he screwed up in making humans too strong and too free.

Now back up in the scriptures that you suggest and you will find that his purpose was to glorify Christ that he may be the firstborn among many brethren. Keep the passage within its immediate context, and you have no scriptural reason to attempt to say that this passage in any way shape of form suggests that God ordains everything.... He ordains all things according to the counsel of his will. What if it is his will not to ordain everything.

Sure, I agree that God's purpose was to glorify Christ that He may be the firstborn among many brethren. I believe Christ is THE Predestined One. And I believe His brethren were predestined in Him to salvation. Ephesians says as much. How does this go against my point?

Let me concentrate on this:

[Y]ou have no scriptural reason to attempt to say that this passage in any way shape of form suggests that God ordains everything.... He ordains all things according to the counsel of his will. What if it is his will not to ordain everything.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but in my vocabulary "everything" and "all things" are equivalent. The passage says: "He works all things according to the counsel of his will." To me, that is equivalent to "He works everything according to His will." Let's visit the Greek:
TOU TA PANTA ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU THELHMATOS AUTOU,
TOU is the relative pronoun; it is genetive in this clause, because it is the genetive object of the head noun "plan," as in "the plan of him." PANTA means "all things" or "everything" or "each thing" (TA is the define article associated with PANTA). ENERGOUNTOS is the present active participle of the verb ENERGEW, "to be operative", "to be at work,""to display one's power." KATA = "according." BOULHN = "counsel" or "will." THELMATOS = "what one wishes or has determined shall be done." AUTOU is the genetive singular masculine pronoun = "of him" i.e. "his."
So (sorry this is long-winded), this clause can be translated:
"Of the one who is working everything according to the will[counsel] of His plan[wish]."
Thus, your speculation "He ordains all things according to the counsel of his will. What if it is his will not to ordain everything." does not make sense. This verse says that it is His will to be constantly working out everything according to His desire or will, i.e. He is not the "hands off" god of the deists.

You chide me for doing it, and then you do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry. My purpose was not to chide. I'm merely challenging you to defend your take on this issue, because I'm interested.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Chappie, has God drawn everyone to Himself? And, why not?

Arminian

August 13th 2003, 07:37 PM

Saint,

I'm not trying to be snide here, but in my vocabulary "everything" and "all things" are equivalent. The passage says: "He works all things according to the counsel of his will." To me, that is equivalent to "He works everything according to His will." Let's visit the Greek:
TOU TA PANTA ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU THELHMATOS AUTOU,
TOU is the relative pronoun; it is genetive in this clause, because it is the genetive object of the head noun "plan," as in "the plan of him." PANTA means "all things" or "everything" or "each thing" (TA is the define article associated with PANTA). ENERGOUNTOS is the present active participle of the verb ENERGEW, "to be operative", "to be at work,""to display one's power." KATA = "according." BOULHN = "counsel" or "will." THELMATOS = "what one wishes or has determined shall be done." AUTOU is the genetive singular masculine pronoun = "of him" i.e. "his."
So (sorry this is long-winded), this clause can be translated:
"Of the one who is working everything according to the will[counsel] of His plan[wish]."
Thus, your speculation "He ordains all things according to the counsel of his will. What if it is his will not to ordain everything." does not make sense. This verse says that it is His will to be constantly working out everything according to His desire or will, i.e. He is not the "hands off" god of the deists.

Again, I think the phrase is not loaded up with the meaning you give it, but with a different, contextual meaning. To me, the "purpose of his will" draws its meaning from where it was previously mentioned, in verse 9 where Paul describes the "mystery of his will" being "according to his good pleasure." Both verses have the same meaning. However look at verses 9-10 as a whole:

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

The "will" being spoken of involves a mystery in which Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ (cf. 3:4). This mystery has now been "made known." God’s “will” has been made known. "All things" refers to this same context in which Jews and Gentiles are united. Verse 12 starts with "in order that," further defining what is being discussed. It’s all the same topic: God's plan, the mystery, Jew and Gentile, the restoration of creation.

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 07:53 PM

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182393#post182393)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie
It does not say predestined to be saved and conformed.

I would challenge that. Ephesians 1|4-5 says:
"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

I want to focus on the constructions "He chose us....that X" and "He predestined us for X." In these cases, I would contend that X is equivalent to the idea of salvation. To support this assertion...

1. "Be holy and blameless" = "be saved."
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." Ephesians 5|25-27

First I will deal with these passages based on what is said. I will do my best to exclude any speculation whatsoever…..
Eph 1:3-12
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

“Who hath blessed us”. First question. Who is “us”? Without any presuppositions, our answer must be, “I do not know”. Still we can ascertain that this “Us” already exist because Paul refers to some one or something called “US”. This us has been blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places. Only one other thing can be ascertained from this passage. Praises are heaped upon the God and Father of the one called Jesus Christ who they have claimed as their lord…

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

“According as” begins to define the significant and specific nature of the blessing that has been heaped upon the “US” referred to in verse 3. What is that blessing? He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. What is the full extent of the blessing? Chosen to be in him: Why? That in him they may be without blame before the Father in Love.

What has God chosen on this occasion? He has chosen to place “the US” in Christ that they may be holy and without blame before him…. No picking and choosing of the “US” indicated here…

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

What else has he done? “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”.

He has predetermined the “US” to be adopted as children by Jesus Christ by himself. According to the good pleasure of his will. He did it because it is pleasing to him and for no other reason….

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

He did it to praise the glory of his grace. A grace wherein he has made “US” accepted and beloved.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

On whom “we”; “we who? The “US”. Have attained what? Redemption through his blood. And forgiveness of sins. According to election? No!!! According to the riches of his grace.

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Wherein…. Wherein what? Wherein his grace, he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence.

9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

What else has God done that is revealed to us in these passages? “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will”. What mystery? (See verse 5}“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”. That is the mystery that is revealed…

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

God’s ultimate purpose for predestination is to gather all things which are in heaven and on earth in Christ. All things are subject to him…

Eph 1:11
11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

In whom, We, “US” have obtained an inheritance. What inheritance? That which is promised through predestination to “US”.

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

The gift of predestination is given to “Us” that “we” might be instruments of praise to the glory of God. Now, who is the we, who is the us? Those “who first trusted in Christ. If you have not first trusted in Christ, you have not been predestinated….

Line upon line, precept on precept, let’s talk scripture… I brought nothing to the passages; therefore I left with nothing except what was specifically stated…

Any challenge must be line upon line, precept on precept. Rhetorical responses will remain just that, rhetoric..

2. "Adoption through Jesus Christ" = "salvation."

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." Galatians 4|4

In this passage, St. Paul describes the fact that God sent Jesus in order that we may receive adoption. Again, this is the same rythmn has "Christ died in order to save us."

But what does that have to do with salvational election and predestination. It still states that what is received is adoption as sons. He came to redeem those who were under law. Does being under law save? NO!!! No man has ever been saved by the law. Because of man’s sinful nature, the law could only condemn. It could not save…..

In each of these cases, salvation goes hand-in-hand with being holy and blameless and receiving adoption as sons, wherefore we might replace the constructions "He chose us that X" and "He predestined us for X" with "He chose us that we might be saved" and "He predestined us for salvation."

In which case we could read Ephesians 1|4-5 thusly:

"He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be saved. In love he predestined us for salvation through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."
If you have to rewrite it in order to slide it over to your point of view, and you present it to me as suitable substitute for what is actually written, in my eyes, you immediately loose credibility. That passage says nothing like that. We are talking about what is written

Stephen

August 13th 2003, 08:26 PM

First, chappie, I propose starting at the very beginning of the chapter. I think to get full context, we should start there.

Ephesians 1

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think that heading is very significant to whom the "we' and "us" are reffering to. Presupposing that Paul is speaking to who he has designated in verse 1 as the recipients of his letter, I don't think that is a stretch. If you wish to argue this, then please do so.

Eph 1:3-12
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

“Who hath blessed us”. First question. Who is “us”? Without any presuppositions, our answer must be, “I do not know”. Still we can ascertain that this “Us” already exist because Paul refers to some one or something called “US”. This us has been blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places. Only one other thing can be ascertained from this passage. Praises are heaped upon the God and Father of the one called Jesus Christ who they have claimed as their lord…

I believe verse 1 indicates antithesis of "US" is "the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus" The latter is very significant, the "faithful in Christ Jesus"

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

“According as” begins to define the significant and specific nature of the blessing that has been heaped upon the “US” referred to in verse 3. What is that blessing? He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. What is the full extent of the blessing? Chosen to be in him: Why? That in him they may be without blame before the Father in Love.

What has God chosen on this occasion? He has chosen to place “the US” in Christ that they may be holy and without blame before him…. No picking and choosing of the “US” indicated here…

So what we have here is Paul saying Christ has chosen the US, or faithful in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world. This verse does not exclude or include Foreknowledge as a reason, nore does it specify that "us" is the only group of people which have been given this blessing, per se'. I'll admit that.

But what is stated, is that before the foundation of the world, God chose US, specifically the faithful in Christ Jesus, that we be holy and blameless in His sight. One who is holy and blameless in His sight, is obviously saved, because if they are holy and blameless in His sight then there is no reason to condemn them to hell; He has made them blameless.

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

What else has he done? “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”.

He has predetermined the “US” to be adopted as children by Jesus Christ by himself. According to the good pleasure of his will. He did it because it is pleasing to him and for no other reason….

So far, to insert the context so far, the verse says:
Having predestined the [faithful in Christ Jesus] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself, according to the pleasure of His will.

With that in mind, there are a few things to note

1. This does not mention predestining any but the US
2. Predestination can now be defined, in this chapter, as pertaining to "the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself"
3. Christ adopted the faithful in Christ Jesus, according to His good purpose alone, then unless context provides otherwise, i would say that there is no factor in chooosing to save the faithful in Christ Jesus, specifically the saints in ephesus, except His good will.
4. With this in mind, adoption to the faithful, in Christ Jesus (I take it as a reference to the cross, which was Jesus' purpose) pertains only to the faithful in christ Jesus
5. Thus, Jesus adopted only the faithful in christ Jesus. This, and Imay be wrong, seems to suggest limited atonement to me.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

But His grace chooses to forgive and redempt through Christs' blood, or death, only the "faithful in Christ Jesus". Again, limited atonement.

I'd finish the chapter up, but I need to go. Respond to the post above and I'll continue.

By the way, Romans 9, specifically in the context of the rest of romans, especially Romans 8, was the chapter I had in mind.

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 09:29 PM

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182904#post182904)
SaintMorpheus:
Chappie,
Fair enough. I would summarize your points in the following manner, in your original order:
1. Predestination is the predetermination of a single event.
2. This single event is distinct and clearly defined; it is not a broad display of absolute power and sovereignty just for the hell of it, as it were (pardon the French, but that English idiom captures the idea well, I think).
3. Predestination is the deliberate interference with the normal sequence of events (which God does not normally control) with the aim of bringing about the distinct event.
4. Predestination is not foreknowledge; foreknowledge does not cause events.
5. The single event that predestination causes is "that those he foreknew would be conformed into the image of Christ."
6. Ephesians 1|5 would be rendered false if one who is not foreknown by God ends up being conformed into the image of Christ anyway.
7. Predestination does not originate salvation; it is a term used to describe what has already happened.

Have I summarized your points accurately? Now, my question is: Can you demonstrate that each of these 7 statements is actually "indigenous to the biblical concept of predestination" (By the way, I like this phrase of yours...good word choice).

The most compelling way to do this, I think, is to quote Scripture in which PROORIZW occurs, and then demonstrate how each point applies.[/quote]

Your summary is excellent. You asked if I could prove each of these points with scripture. Absolutely not. Still God said, come let us reason together.... But again, in answer to your question, NO, I cannot.

By the way, what do you think of my analysis of Ephesians 1|4-5? Do you think it challenges point #7?

I will spend a little more time on that one and answer it later in another post....

Well, I'm asking you, if it's not too much trouble. I think you've answered a lot of my question with your analysis of Romans 8|9 -- I think it's a good point that God predestined those whom He foreknew. I would then move the question one step further -- why did God foreknow some and not others? That's what I'm trying to get at.

The answer to that question lies in the asking of another question.

How do you think it is possible for an omniscient God not to foreknow everybody....

The reality is that all these things happened. Here is the reality: Either God caused these things to happen in some sense, or He allowed them to happen.

Praise God for the either, or. God did allow these things to happen. But he is less pleased with them than we are. This is why the whole message of the gospel calls us to repentance. Of God predestines these things, he would look pretty silly and insincere telling us to repent of them..

Either way you cut it, it's not comfortable for anybody, including me, nor should it be.
God seems to be down with the school of hard knocks. He, after all, picked up a cross and died on it. It is sad and tragic when an innocent child dies. It is infinitely more sad and tragic that the basically the moment God shows up we crucify Him. What a twisted and strange universe, that our God should die in it! [/quote]

Yes, but it is man that is twisted and strange, not God...

So either God allows these horrible things, or He causes them. But I ask, what is the difference between allowing and causing?

If I know for a fact that someone is about to step on a landmine and I have plenty of time to warn him, yet I do not ... well, I have allowed him to die, but am I blameless in his death?

If God caused them, our blood is on his hands. If he but allowed them, then our blood is on our hands. If the watchmen see the enemy coming, and fail to warn the people, they will each die in their own sins, but their blood shall be upon the watchman’s hand. But if the watchman see the enemy coming, and he warns the people, if they continue in sin, they will die in their own sin, and their blood will be upon their own hands.

God has warned us..........

The line between causing and allowing is thin; even more so when these concepts are applied to God. So in the absence of a clear-cut, comfortable answer, what should we conclude? What idea pervades Scripture more often? That of God's sovereignty or that of man's ability to thwart God's purpose and will?

Trying to keep my answers short so that we can eventually eliminate the rhetoric and get down to what the scriptures say.

The thought that freewill thwarts God's sovereignty is necessary to your faith, it is foreign to mine..

God has either foreordained or allowed Hitler's Germany. You will inevitably argue that God desires that man's will be free so that he can truly love, or something like that. Yet...is the price of six million Jews worth your ability to choose between good and bad (here we have death for the knowledge of good and evil; a fair exchange? This sounds familiar...)

My freewill was neither bought nor paid for by six million Jews. One day, one cross, one death, one resurrection was what it cost...

And my position forces me to ask myself the horrible question "Is the price of six million Jews worth the ultimate glory of God according to His purpose?"

I say if God is in the business of slaughtering six million Jews to glorify himself, I would ask why not 12 million. That surely would double his glory. If 12 million glorify him, then surely 50 million should be suitable to prove that his purpose will stand. Why does he not really glorify himself, slaughter the whole bunch of them? And then get started slashing and whacking the gentiles. When he is finished with this mayhem, surely no one will challenge his sovereignty nor his power......

With a heavy heart I confess Yes, this must be so. And then I must plead that this is a misguided question, that reality does not force me to ask it. Yet I think it does. The only comfort I take is in knowing that God is not some flabby, whimpering god who wants to do things, but can't, because he screwed up in making humans too strong and too free.

Your heart is heavy with this doctrine, in that I can find solace....

Sure, I agree that God's purpose was to glorify Christ that He may be the firstborn among many brethren. I believe Christ is THE Predestined One. And I believe His brethren were predestined in Him to salvation. Ephesians says as much. How does this go against my point?

Christ is the only individual ever predestined. That which is written of him will come to fruition. Those that place their trust in him to save them are predestined to be conformed into his image....

Let me concentrate on this:

I'm not trying to be snide here, but in my vocabulary "everything" and "all things" are equivalent. The passage says: "He works all things according to the counsel of his will." To me, that is equivalent to "He works everything according to His will." Let's visit the Greek:

That is correct, no Greek needed. Still, never is it said that he predestines everything according to his will. He makes things work out according to his plan. You and I are too insignificant to hinder his plan. His plan is to make us a part of his plan, not to burn us for being born....

I'm sorry. My purpose was not to chide. I'm merely challenging you to defend your take on this issue, because I'm interested.

Not to worry....

Chappie, has God drawn everyone to Himself? And, why not?

What does the scriptures say?
John 12:32
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Was he lifted up?

Chappie

August 13th 2003, 09:48 PM

Today @ 01:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183149#post183149)
Stephen:

First, chappie, I propose starting at the very beginning of the chapter. I think to get full context, we should start there.

Ephesians 1

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think that heading is very significant to whom the "we' and "us" are reffering to. Presupposing that Paul is speaking to who he has designated in verse 1 as the recipients of his letter, I don't think that is a stretch. If you wish to argue this, then please do so.

I believe verse 1 indicates antithesis of "US" is "the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus" The latter is very significant, the "faithful in Christ Jesus"

So what we have here is Paul saying Christ has chosen the US, or faithful in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world. This verse does not exclude or include Foreknowledge as a reason, nore does it specify that "us" is the only group of people which have been given this blessing, per se'. I'll admit that.

But what is stated, is that before the foundation of the world, God chose US, specifically the faithful in Christ Jesus, that we be holy and blameless in His sight. One who is holy and blameless in His sight, is obviously saved, because if they are holy and blameless in His sight then there is no reason to condemn them to hell; He has made them blameless.

So far, to insert the context so far, the verse says:
Having predestined the [faithful in Christ Jesus] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself, according to the pleasure of His will.

With that in mind, there are a few things to note

1. This does not mention predestining any but the US
2. Predestination can now be defined, in this chapter, as pertaining to "the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself"
3. Christ adopted the faithful in Christ Jesus, according to His good purpose alone, then unless context provides otherwise, i would say that there is no factor in chooosing to save the faithful in Christ Jesus, specifically the saints in ephesus, except His good will.
4. With this in mind, adoption to the faithful, in Christ Jesus (I take it as a reference to the cross, which was Jesus' purpose) pertains only to the faithful in christ Jesus
5. Thus, Jesus adopted only the faithful in christ Jesus. This, and Imay be wrong, seems to suggest limited atonement to me.

But His grace chooses to forgive and redempt through Christs' blood, or death, only the "faithful in Christ Jesus". Again, limited atonement.

I'd finish the chapter up, but I need to go. Respond to the post above and I'll continue.

By the way, Romans 9, specifically in the context of the rest of romans, especially Romans 8, was the chapter I had in mind.

Excellant post. You stayed with the scriptures. Only once did you choose to venture outside of what is specifically stated.

"5. Thus, Jesus adopted only the faithful in christ Jesus. This, and Imay be wrong, seems to suggest limited atonement to me".

What does the bible have to say about that one. Being that these passages are not addressing atonement, we have to go in the scriptures where it does.

1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

P.S.
You suggest that we start at the beginning of the chapter. Paul is indeed talking to the saints at Ephesus, and just to show that these promises are not linited to the saints at Ephesus, Paul extends it to all the faithful. The saints and the faithful are the ones that are saved, no need to predestin them to be saved..

SaintMorpheus

August 13th 2003, 11:07 PM

Arminian,

I think you have made a fine argument for the content of God's will within Paul's discourse. Nevertheless, I think the phrase "who works all things according to the counsel of His will," is an adjectival phrase elucidating the nature of God in whatever situation. In the context of this passage, perhaps, as you say, the specific will of God which Paul discusses is that the Gentiles are to be saved. Fine. I agree with that. But I think this phrase sort of puts God's specific plan for the Gentiles in the greater context of God being a God Who works everything (including salvation) according to His will. In other words, the covenant with the Gentiles is a specific example of God's working out of His will in everything. Let me summarize the point again by paraphrasing it thusly: "God's will is that the Gentiles are to be saved in a covenantal relationship with God. This is a surprise because you thought only the Jews according to the flesh had a special relationship with God; not so. God is working out His will in this matter, namely that the Gentiles be saved as well. And this is what we expect, because God is a God who is always working everything according to the counsel of His will."
Does that make sense? Again, I must remind you that the scope of my argument is smaller than you think: I'm trying to argue that God ordains that which comes to pass.

Chappie,
Thanks for the response.
1. I agree with Stephen in that the "US" (around which our argument so critically swivels) is the saints at ephesus; and, by extention, I think we can say "all saints whatsoever." I do not, for the record, believe in limited atonement. Yet.
2. I think you did a fine job of explaining all that which hangs upon the "us." I agree with you, essentially ... just not with your conclusion as to the mechanics of the "us." Yes, I agree 100% that the "us" is those who first trusted in Christ, and not anybody who did not trust in Christ. What we are disagreeing about is the origin of that trust...did man produce it himself, or did God produce it, or was it a joint venture? These seem to be the only options.

If you have to rewrite it in order to slide it over to your point of view, and you present it to me as suitable substitute for what is actually written, in my eyes, you immediately loose credibility. That passage says nothing like that. We are talking about what is written.

Did you read my argument carefully? Be honest now! :) Did you follow it? I was not rewriting the passage.

You asked if I could prove each of these points with scripture. Absolutely not.

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest about it. Though I recommend you stick to a (refined) semantic interpretation of "predestination" which stays grounded in the text. There are but a few passages which even mention predestination, so this can be difficult, inasmuch as there is not a lot of data with which to work. Nevertheless, be careful to avoid rampant speculation, because you accuse us of that a lot! :)

Ephesians 1|4-5 ... I will spend a little more time on that one and answer it later in another post....

Please do, if you would.

How do you think it is possible for an omniscient God not to foreknow everybody....

Easy. Romans 8|29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son..."
Is everyone being conformed to the likeness of Christ? No. Then God must not foreknow everyone. I don't think this is knowledge in the sense of factual data ... I think it's more along the lines of "I want to know you, in the biblical sense" type of knowledge. But I don't know.

Of God predestines these things, he would look pretty silly and insincere telling us to repent of them...

Agreed! That's sort of a flaw in my argument I'm trying to work through... My only response is God also looks pretty silly and insincere if He creates man with a free will and then says "Oops...I never knew it would come to that!"
I guess this is bordering on the extent of our understanding, or we are missing something, or approaching it in the wrong way.

If the watchmen see the enemy coming, and fail to warn the people, they will each die in their own sins, but their blood shall be upon the watchman’s hand.

Good point. I'm not trying to place guilt on God. I will have to rework my approach.

The thought that freewill thwarts God's sovereignty is necessary to your faith, it is foreign to mine.

I don't think there is such a thing as freewill, so we don't have a strong point of comparison. Nevertheless, fair enough point.

My freewill was neither bought nor paid for by six million Jews. One day, one cross, one death, one resurrection was what it cost.

What do you mean? I thought Adam and Eve sinned because of their freewill, proving that freewill was allegedly in existence before the crucifixion. Please clarify your point.

I say if God is in the business of slaughtering six million Jews to glorify himself, I would ask why not 12 million. That surely would double his glory. If 12 million glorify him, then surely 50 million should be suitable to prove that his purpose will stand.

I don't think there is such a thing as aggragate glory. This is a nonsensical argument ... I never said that God's glory was a function of the quantity of people killed.

Why does he not really glorify himself, slaughter the whole bunch of them? And then get started slashing and whacking the gentiles. When he is finished with this mayhem, surely no one will challenge his sovereignty nor his power....

There is a lot of OT stuff that sounds exactly like that, actually. Unfortunately.

His plan is to make us a part of his plan, not to burn us for being born....

Who's using rhetoric now? :) We do not maintain that anyone is cast into hell for being born, nor do we mean to imply this. Rather, we would of course stand with the mass of devout and saddened souls who say many people are thrown into the lake of fire because the wages of sin is death. People die in hellfire because they sin a lot.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

You got me, Chappie. Team : Any ideas?
I'll do a study with Bauer's lexicon and get back about that.

In Christ,
St. M

Chappie

August 14th 2003, 01:07 AM

Today @ 04:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183404#post183404)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,
Thanks for the response.
I think you did a fine job of explaining all that which hangs upon the "us." I agree with you, essentially ... just not with your conclusion as to the mechanics of the "us." Yes, I agree 100% that the "us" is those who first trusted in Christ, and not anybody who did not trust in Christ. What we are disagreeing about is the origin of that trust... did man produce it himself, or did God produce it, or was it a joint venture? [/b] These seem to be the only options.

We are disagreeing on is the origins of that trust, and that issue is not resolved or addressed in the passages that we are discussing right now.

Those are the options available to us; still it is incumbent upon other passages, other places to resolve the issue....

Did you read my argument carefully? Be honest now! :) Did you follow it? I was not rewriting the passage.

For me the inference concerning salvation is not there. Still that is not to say that it is not there for you. Nevertheless, even for you, at best it is only an inference. What do we do with what is inferred in scripture. We search the scriptures that will substantiate what is inferred. We do not publish inferences as doctrine without scriptural proof. If it is really there, God will lead us to it...

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest about it. Though I recommend you stick to a (refined) semantic interpretation of "predestination" which stays grounded in the text.

Your request is valid.

There are but a few passages which even mention predestination, so this can be difficult, inasmuch as there is not a lot of data with which to work. Nevertheless, be careful to avoid rampant speculation, because you accuse us of that a lot! :)

I believe that were little is said; there is an equal small amount to be learned. When we try and glean a lot from a little; that's when we put the rotten apples in with the good ones.

Easy. Romans 8|29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son..."
Is everyone being conformed to the likeness of Christ? No. Then God must not foreknow everyone. I don't think this is knowledge in the sense of factual data ... I think it's more along the lines of "I want to know you, in the biblical sense" type of knowledge. But I don't know.

We know that God is omniscient; we also know that there is not a single ant crawling the ground that God is not aware of.

The bible says that Adam knew Eve and little Cain was born. To know in this instance is analogous of a personal relationship. The closest and most personal relationship known to man. Depart from me ye that do iniquity, I never knew you. I never had a personal relationship with you.

It is those that he has a personal relationship with that are predestined. Now if we want to pass that off as scriptural, we'll have to find it substantiated in other passages. I am not at this time trying to pass this off as scripture, you know and I know that these are the inferences that I have gleaned from the passage.

Agreed! That's sort of a flaw in my argument I'm trying to work through... My only response is God also looks pretty silly and insincere if He creates man with a free will and then says "Oops...I never knew it would come to that!"
I guess this is bordering on the extent of our understanding, or we are missing something, or approaching it in the wrong way.

Then we can set that aside until God shows us that something that we are missing...

Good point. I'm not trying to place guilt on God. I will have to rework my approach.

No problem...

What do you mean? I thought Adam and Eve sinned because of their freewill, proving that freewill was allegedly in existence before the crucifixion. Please clarify your point.

It was a response to these comments of yours...

[b]And my position forces me to ask myself the horrible question "Is the price of six million Jews worth the ultimate glory of God according to His purpose?"

With a heavy heart I confess Yes, this must be so.

I don't think there is such a thing as aggregate glory. This is a nonsensical argument ... I never said that God's glory was a function of the quantity of people killed.

If it is God's sole purpose to glorify himself, and in order to do so, he predestines the slaughter of millions of Jews. I simply stated that if six million glorifies him more than slaughtering one. Then 12 million would certainly be more glorifying six million...

Who's using rhetoric now? :) We do not maintain that anyone is cast into hell for being born, nor do we mean to imply this. Rather, we would of course stand with the mass of devout and saddened souls who say many people are thrown into the lake of fire because the wages of sin is death. People die in hellfire because they sin a lot.

No, I know that you do not, Calvinism does. I just don't give you quarter when you find it necessary to close your eyes so that you cannot see it.

Yes I did get somewhat rhetorical, I’ll do better. We are all doing better....

Stephen

August 14th 2003, 10:17 AM

1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Whole

holos
hol'-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

World
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Now with those in mind, there are quite a few things this passage can mean.

1. Written primarily to Jews, and when paul speaks of the whole world, he is saying "God isn't going to just save the jews; he's saving the whole world (saving regardless of ethnicity)

2. Take "kosmos" in a narrower sense.

3. Believe it to be speaking of saving the "remnant of the world"

4. Take it to literally mean God saves the world itself.

I believe all of these assestments can be made and still keep it scriptural.

Chappie

August 14th 2003, 12:34 PM

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183884#post183884)
Stephen:

Whole

holos
hol'-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

World
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.[/quote]

When the word "world" is placed within the context of the word "whole": and the fact that the pensmen of the bible are expressing their sentiments to men. The evidence becomes compelling that the writer means all men. Only when we come with an agenda is it necessary to tamper with these passages. It does not matter what audience, Jew or Gentile, was present at the time.

Now with those in mind, there are quite a few things this passage can mean.

1. Written primarily to Jews, and when paul speaks of the whole world, he is saying "God isn't going to just save the jews; he's saving the whole world (saving regardless of ethnicity)

The fact that the Gospel was first to the Jew, does in no way negate the fact that it was to the Gentiles also. Your assertion has an agenda in mind, and you are giving that agenda a higher place in the scheeme of things than you are giving scripture...

2. Take "kosmos" in a narrower sense.

3. Believe it to be speaking of saving the "remnant of the world"

4. Take it to literally mean God saves the world itself.

I believe all of these assestments can be made and still keep it scriptural.

So the question becomes, which view will a preponderance of relevant scripture support?
1 Cor 9:19-22
19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

All things to all men. Why? This comment is inconsistent with there being a predestined few…

1 Tim 2:1-4
2:1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Supplications, prayers, intercession, giving of thanks be made for all men. If you contend that all does not mean all, you still cannot contend that all means the elect. Verse 4. It is God’s desire that all men be saved, and do what? Come!!! And the word “come is a volitional response to an invitation. There goes efficacious irresistible grace out the window.. God beckons men to come. He does not drag men kicking and resisting (Total depravity) to the cross of salvation.

1 Tim 4:10
10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

“All men” and “specifically those that believe” covers two groups of men. Christ is the savior of “all men, that includes those that have not believed, some will, some won’t: But specifically, he is the savior of those that believe. Never, not even once is efficacious grace mentioned or implied in scripture with enough strength to overcome the preponderance of passages that deny it..

Calvinism indeed has managed to squeeze some passages into compliance, but it has not got them all. And the ones that are left standing is a witness against the ones that are interpreted into compliance……

There are many other passages that bear witness against this doctrine…

Arminian

August 14th 2003, 04:32 PM

Saint,

I think you have made a fine argument for the content of God's will within Paul's discourse. Nevertheless, I think the phrase "who works all things according to the counsel of His will," is an adjectival phrase elucidating the nature of God in whatever situation.

I do think that it is such a phrase, but with creation in mind. I'll explain later. Right now I'm away from any resource materials, and my usually adoring wife is giving me that look ("The computer again?!" :brood:). I'll look at the Geek (both in chapter 1 and 3) online later tomorrow and then post.

Does that make sense?

Both the Arminain and Calvinist uses of the proof text make sense to me, given their presuppositions. However, I reject both in this context. I'll explain later.

Again, I must remind you that the scope of my argument is smaller than you think: I'm trying to argue that God ordains that which comes to pass.

The scope of my understanding is much larger, as you will notice from the last few words of my post on this issue. It's the restoration of creation.

On vacation....

SaintMorpheus

August 14th 2003, 09:41 PM

Here's an attempt at an objective word study.

Chappie, you highlighted the phrase "all men" in each of the following verses. Let me flesh out the semantics here a bit.

1 Corinthians 9|22
TOIS PASIN GEGONA PANTA, hINA PANTWS TINAS SWSW.
"To all [men] I have become all [things], so that in all ways some I might save."
Base form of "all" : PAS (PASIN is pl. masc. dat., PANTA is pl. neut. nom.)
"I might save" is my rendering of SWSW, the 1st person singular aorist subjunctive active of "SWZW" -- I'm not trying to convey potential here, as in "so that I maybe will save a few" -- rather, the subjunctive.

1 Timothy 2|1
hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN
"On behalf of all men."
Note: Whereas in 1 Corinthians 9|22 "men" is implied by the fact of PASIN being the plural masculine, in 1 Timothy 2|1, "men" is explicitly stated: ANQRWPWN.
Note: No definite article is used with ANQRWPWN.

1 Timothy 2|4
hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI...
"The one who all men is willing to be saved..." (i.e. "the one who is willing that all men be saved...")
Here you have "men" explicitly stated again, and the plural masculine accusative form of PAS used as an adjective.
Note: No definite article is used with ANQRWPWN.

1 Timothy 4|10
hOS ESTIN SWTHR PANTWN ANQRWPWN MALISTA PISTWN
"The one who is [the] savior of all men, most of all/especially of [the] faithful [ones]."
Note: No definite article is used with "ANQRWPWN."

Here are a few select ideas (the ones I deem relevant) from Bauer on the semantics of PAS/PASA/PAN (base form of "all"):

1. Substantive without the article: "everyone." This applies to the 1 Corinthians passage.

2. Adjective used with a noun, with the noun in the plural, without a definite article: "all men, everyone." This applies to the 1 Timothy passages.

3. Used with an anarthrous (no article)singular noun:
"Emphasizing the individual members of the class denoted by the noun; each, every;to denote the highest degree; full, greatest."

This does not apply to either of the above mentioned passages because they are always plural. But this is important because knowing that this definition does not apply in our verses prevents us from interpreting "all" in the sense of "each and every."

Therefore, "the savior of all men" probably does not mean "the savior of each and every man," nor should we construe "who is willing that all men should be saved" as "who is willing that each and every man should be saved."

What does "all" mean in these contexts, then? I'll stop here and let y'all pick it up...

Chappie

August 14th 2003, 10:27 PM

Today @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185303#post185303)
SaintMorpheus:

Here's an attempt at an objective word study.

Chappie, you highlighted the phrase "all men" in each of the following verses. Let me flesh out the semantics here a bit.

1 Corinthians 9|22
TOIS PASIN GEGONA PANTA, hINA PANTWS TINAS SWSW.
"To all [men] I have become all [things], so that in all ways some I might save."
Base form of "all" : PAS (PASIN is pl. masc. dat., PANTA is pl. neut. nom.)
"I might save" is my rendering of SWSW, the 1st person singular aorist subjunctive active of "SWZW" -- I'm not trying to convey potential here, as in "so that I maybe will save a few" -- rather, the subjunctive.

1 Timothy 2|1
hUPER PANTWN ANQRWPWN
"On behalf of all men."
Note: Whereas in 1 Corinthians 9|22 "men" is implied by the fact of PASIN being the plural masculine, in 1 Timothy 2|1, "men" is explicitly stated: ANQRWPWN.
Note: No definite article is used with ANQRWPWN.

1 Timothy 2|4
hOS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI...
"The one who all men is willing to be saved..." (i.e. "the one who is willing that all men be saved...")
Here you have "men" explicitly stated again, and the plural masculine accusative form of PAS used as an adjective.
Note: No definite article is used with ANQRWPWN.

1 Timothy 4|10
hOS ESTIN SWTHR PANTWN ANQRWPWN MALISTA PISTWN
"The one who is [the] savior of all men, most of all/especially of [the] faithful [ones]."
Note: No definite article is used with "ANQRWPWN."

Here are a few select ideas (the ones I deem relevant) from Bauer on the semantics of PAS/PASA/PAN (base form of "all"):

1. Substantive without the article: "everyone." This applies to the 1 Corinthians passage.

2. Adjective used with a noun, with the noun in the plural, without a definite article: "all men, everyone." This applies to the 1 Timothy passages.

3. Used with an anarthrous (no article)singular noun:
"Emphasizing the individual members of the class denoted by the noun; each, every;to denote the highest degree; full, greatest."

This does not apply to either of the above mentioned passages because they are always plural. But this is important because knowing that this definition does not apply in our verses prevents us from interpreting "all" in the sense of "each and every."

Therefore, "the savior of all men" probably does not mean "the savior of each and every man," nor should we construe "who is willing that all men should be saved" as "who is willing that each and every man should be saved."

What does "all" mean in these contexts, then? I'll stop here and let y'all pick it up...

Saint:
Men with a much greater understanding of the original language of the bible have tackled and completed the task that you attempt to restart here. With all my heart I believe that the intent of scripture has been captured in the translation.

Rules of grammar are different from one language to another. The language of the bible is highly analogous and euphemistic. Rendering a word for word, thought for thought translation as impossible. Did Paul and the other writers of the gospel use the rules of their language perfectly. Was the bible written to grammatical scholars or normal everyday men…

I believe that if your evaluation of one passage alters the sporit of that passage, I then believe that you incurr the responsibility to reevaluate the while bible… The letter of the law killeth, it is the sporit that gives life….

I shall study the implications of what you suggest. Still I ask, please give me your translation of the verse written clearly and expressing the thoughts presented, as you believe they should have been presented for clarity.

I have been through this before, be sure that your translation does not contend with any other passages of scripture.

SaintMorpheus

August 14th 2003, 10:37 PM

Chappie,

I would not translate the verses any differently than the version you presented, or than the ESV (my favorite). "All men" is a perfectly good rendering in English, I think.
So my suggestion is: Let's discuss what "all men" might mean in English.
And, for starters, I've eliminated, I think, the possibility of it meaning "all" in the sense of "each and every."
But "all" is ambiguous in English as it is in Greek -- so let's stick with the English and discuss the phrase "all men" as English speakers. All I'm saying is, if anyone wants to construe it as "each and every" -- well, this does not seem to work.
Good? So, let's hear some more ideas.

ChristianTrader

August 14th 2003, 11:23 PM

Yesterday @ 05:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=182856#post182856)
Chappie:

I say that the following passages when viewed within the immediate context of the passages that preceed and follow them cannot be scripturally used to support of even suggest salvational election. Who says that they do?

John 6:43-47
43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
KJV

I have yet to see a person deal with John 6 honestly and stay completely in context and not end up with a calvinistic interpretation. Here is a link to a dealing with the entire chapter. http://aomin.org/johnchapter6.html

The author has had an open invitation to debate the passage for a while, but unfortunately there have not been any comers.

CT

Chappie

August 14th 2003, 11:48 PM

Today @ 03:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185362#post185362)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,

I would not translate the verses any differently than the version you presented, or than the ESV (my favorite). "All men" is a perfectly good rendering in English, I think.
So my suggestion is: Let's discuss what "all men" might mean in English.
And, for starters, I've eliminated, I think, the possibility of it meaning "all" in the sense of "each and every."
But "all" is ambiguous in English as it is in Greek -- so let's stick with the English and discuss the phrase "all men" as English speakers. All I'm saying is, if anyone wants to construe it as "each and every" -- well, this does not seem to work.
Good? So, let's hear some more ideas.

Ok, Saint.
I ken speka de english.... A libble bit...

All men, different from a word in that it is a phrase.
All men, all encompasing. Limited only by context, and when loosely used, by reality as well.

If I be lifted up, I will draw "all Men"...

Notice that the preceeding verse does not limit this passage to all the elect.

John 12:31-32
31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

He is the judge of this world, the whole world.

32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Remember the context is already established as all encompassing in 12:31. The world does not exclude any part of the world... Shucks that even includes bugs and insects. Nothing escapes Christs judgment.

Still, notice that 12:32, what is spoken is specific to men......

John 6:44 is your best scriptural chance to escape the reality if this passage. Still, before you go there, you might wonder why I am not afraid if it....

How do you understand and use the phrase.

Chappie

August 14th 2003, 11:53 PM

Today @ 04:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185432#post185432)
ChristianTrader:

I have yet to see a person deal with John 6 honestly and stay completely in context and not end up with a calvinistic interpretation. Here is a link to a dealing with the entire chapter. http://aomin.org/johnchapter6.html

The author has had an open invitation to debate the passage for a while, but unfortunately there have not been any comers.

CT

CT.
I would like to see you do it. I just finished a debate on that very chapter. So I am already prepared. But first let me see your intrepretation that is calvin bound. We'll discuss it from there....

I have visited my share of reformed websites, no need to visit another. Let's you and I discuss it....

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 12:04 AM

You are absolutely correct when you say that it is vital that we establish context. You are correct in establishing context to the point where many followed Christ to Capernaum not because of the miracles that he did, but in response to the food that he gave them. From there shall we allow the scriptures to do the talking?

John 6:24-26
24when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?" 26Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

Key passage.
John 6:27
27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

Who are the ones that the Father has set his seal upon? Those that labor for the food that endures unto everlasting life. Here we have a specific admonition concerning salvation. Now we must pay close attention to the question that is asked, and Christ’s answer to the question.

Key passages.
John 6:28-29
28Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Conclusion to this point. Salvation is to those that labor for that food that endures unto everlasting life. (John 6:27) And in addition, we must have faith. (John 6:29)

Shall we continue?
John 6:30-32
30Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 32Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

They ask Christ for a sign; Christ gave them an example of their misunderstanding. (John 6:30-32)

Key passage.
John 6:32
33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Is the gift of salvation mentioned here specifically limited to some predetermined elect? No! He came to give life to the world. Ok then, why is not every one saved? Because not everyone will accept the gift. Still that does not change these words. “He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So you want to change the word “world” to the word “elect”. On what authority?

Key passages.
John 6:34-37
34Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

They ask Christ for that which leads to salvation. (V34) Christ essentially states that he is that which leads to salvation. "And that those that come”; (key word, "come”) have salvation. (V35) Pay particular notice to the absence of the word drawn to this point. To come is definitively a volitional act, while the amount of force pertaining to the word “draw” is underermined and debatable. He who believes in me, again faith is key.

But you have seen me, and yet (to this point,) you do not believe. (V36) All that the father gives to me will come. Faith is the key; those that do not have faith will not come. Only those that have faith and willingly come are given to the Son by the father. The Son declares that he will not cast out this precious gift from his Father.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Keep that in mind..

John 6:38-40
38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Christ came not to do his will, but the will of The Father. (Verse 38) What is the will of the father? That he should keep all those that The Father has given him. (V39) “And” that every one that seeth the Son, “and” believeth on him may have everlasting life. The Focus is still faith….

John 6:41-43
41The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.

In response to the complaining and disbelief, Christ responds:

Key passage.
John 6:44
44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Finally we get to that word, “draw”. But first: No man can do what? “COME”! Come! A volitional act, a response to a beckoning or call. One can “come” only as long as the will is free. When the will is overpowered, the person begins to be dragged or drawn against his will.

No one can come does speak of ability, so the drawing must be that which gives one the ability. If that ability is resisted rather than applied, then one must be dragged or overpowered.

So we must conclude that men must be able to resist this drawing because when it becomes irresistible, one no longer comes, a volitional act; but must be dragged. So in essence the meaning of the word “come” and “drawn” have a mitigating effect upon each other. The word “come” mitigates the amount of power applied by the word drawn. It demands that the amount of force used in “drawn” be resistible, lest it negate the word “come”.

Therefore if the power applied by the word “draw” must be resistible, it stands to reason that it is possible for some to respond positively, and it also makes it possible for some to respond negatively. Those that respond positively are the ones that are given to The Son by The father. They are called the Chosen of God, The Elect.

Remember, Christ came to save the world. (John 6:33 & John 3:16) So if Christ came to offer salvation to the world, it stands to reason that God would draw all men to him.
John 12:32
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Was Christ lifted up? Here we have a direct contradiction to your assertion that only the elect are drawn.

Key passage.
John 6:45
45It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

So, what must we scripturally conclude from this passage? We must conclude that it is hearing the word and learning from the Father that leads us to salvation. Not by being irresistibly drawn….This is how Christ draws men to him. It is not irresistible, as we have already shown

Now, let’s for the sake of time and space skip over to John 6:64. But you should take the time to read it all; still it is Christ continuing to affirm himself as the savior. But in verse 64, Christ responds:

Key passage.
John 6:63-65
63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

It is the Spirit that Gives life; the “words” that I speak to you are Spirit. Once again, God affirms that it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. All men are drawn to Christ by knowledge of who he is.

What about those that never hear the Gospel, now that’s horse of a different color. Still to those that do hear, there can be no doubt that this knowledge is what God uses to draw them to him. Does everyone that hears, come. Not according to scripture. Many will say to me in that day, Lord have we not done many wonderful works in thy name.. Depart from me; ye that do iniquity, I never knew you.

Key passage.
64But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

Of those that are drawn, some remain unbelievers. The only way that we can make this drawing efficacious is to import from somewhere efficacious grace.

Key Passage.
65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

This passage, by the use of the word “therefore”, looks back and mitigates the use of the word “draw”, which has already been rendered resistible and applicable to all men. I have concluded this because this passage is closest in proximity to John 6:44, more so than any of the preceding passages that the word “therefore” might connect to.

Consequently, I have concluded, based on a contextual application of each of the preceeding passages, that to conclude that God only draws the elect to be a misapplication of scripture. More appropriately, the Elect are chosen from those that are drawn…..

SaintMorpheus

August 15th 2003, 12:11 AM

Chappie,

"When I am lifted up I will draw all people to myself..."

So, the context shows that He is talking about being lifted up on the cross. But also, the statement "now is the judgment of the world" is apocalyptic -- so Jesus could be using a word play here. He could mean "lifted up" in the sense of "on a cross" as well as "glorified before the entire world."
So, "all people" ... we have data about the human race, so we can say "What has actually happened in reality to 'all people'?"
Let's consider the first example, when Christ was lifted on the cross. At the time of the crucifixion, "all people" (in the sense of every person that existed) were not in reality drawn to Him in the sense that they looked to Him for salvation. Nor were they drawn to Him in a physical sense, that is, the entire population did not gather around Him at the crucifixion.
In the second example, that of the apocalypse, we can say that all people will be resurrected and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. They will be gathered from the ends of the earth to stand in His presence and either be cast out or welcomed. This coheres with the "all people" idea, for it actually accounts for "all people" actually being drawn to Christ in some sense.
So I would guess that the meaning of the passage is this:

"When I die a sacrificial death and then resurrect, I will have completed the task for which I was sent to earth. Thus, at the resurrection of the dead, I will be truly the proper judge of the human race. I will draw all people to myself at the judgment of mankind, having died and resurrected, and thereby satisfied God's justice. Voluntarily dying on the cross gives me the right to draw the whole world to myself for judgment."

Something along those lines. I don't think He was talking about salvation per se, or an invitation to salvation.

ChristianTrader

August 15th 2003, 12:15 AM

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=183626#post183626)
Chappie:

If it is God's sole purpose to glorify himself, and in order to do so, he predestines the slaughter of millions of Jews. I simply stated that if six million glorifies him more than slaughtering one. Then 12 million would certainly be more glorifying six million...

The problem of evil really lends to really show the differences between calvinism and other points of view. I was listening to a radio program one day and the question was put forward. When we get to heaven, and we asked God to "Tell us the past and why it happened" what would He respond. We know he would be able to perfectly retell everything that ever happened, the second part is the lynchpin issue. Would he say that Hitler/Sept. 11 etc, happened because humans are bad (aka fate) or that he had a purpose that these events forwarded (which we cannot see due to our currently limited knowledge).

Hitler could have easily went down to several of the assasination attempts, saving millions of people, but he did not. Was it fate that he survived, or by his survival, he was able to carry out a piece of God's perfect plan to bring himself the most glory?

It seems that when you reject the calvinistic view point, you become stuck with the forest gump idea "Stuff Happens"

CT

ChristianTrader

August 15th 2003, 04:28 AM

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185478#post185478)
Chappie:

You are absolutely correct when you say that it is vital that we establish context. You are correct in establishing context to the point where many followed Christ to Capernaum not because of the miracles that he did, but in response to the food that he gave them. From there shall we allow the scriptures to do the talking?

If only you would have stayed with the scriptures instead of talking yourself out of them.

John 6:24-27
24when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, "Rabbi, when did You come here?" 26Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

Who are the ones that the Father has set his seal upon? Those that labor for the food that endures unto everlasting life. Here we have a specific admonition concerning salvation. Now we must pay close attention to the question that is asked, and Christ’s answer to the question.

Key passages.
John 6:28-29
28Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Conclusion to this point. Salvation is to those that labor for that food that endures unto everlasting life. (John 6:27) And in addition, we must have faith. (John 6:29)

No problem thus far. Foreshadowing: Are you able to labor or have faith using your own strength?

Shall we continue?
John 6:30-32
30Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 32Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

They ask Christ for a sign; Christ gave them an example of their misunderstanding. (John 6:30-32)

Key passage.
John 6:32
33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Is the gift of salvation mentioned here specifically limited to some predetermined elect? No! He came to give life to the world. Ok then, why is not every one saved? Because not everyone will accept the gift. Still that does not change these words. “He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So you want to change the word “world” to the word “elect”. On what authority?

Did he give the gift to the world? Yes as it says. The issue is the meaning of world in this context. Let's see if we can get some.

Matthew 15:24,
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Does this mean that everyone who is not the lost sheep of Israel is not in the world? Or is Jesus saying that everyone is the lost sheep of Israel therefore he was just talking to here himself talk?
Now I know about being a spiritual jew etc. I do not see how this can be taken as a universal reference.

Also that people are not saved due to them not accepting is not taken from the scripture, it is thrown in due to your background. You have not shown where you got this idea, from the text.

Key passages.
John 6:34-37
34Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

They ask Christ for that which leads to salvation. (V34) Christ essentially states that he is that which leads to salvation. "And that those that come”; (key word, "come”) have salvation. (V35) Pay particular notice to the absence of the word drawn to this point. To come is definitively a volitional act, while the amount of force pertaining to the word “draw” is underermined and debatable. He who believes in me, again faith is key.

To come is definitely a free will thing. God does not hold a large gun to ones head and say, you are going to come or bang. The neat thing is that God does not just control your external actions; he controls your internal, making external control trivial.

Ezekiel 36:26,
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

God can (and does) change our hard heart and gives us a heart that wants to do what he wants us to do.

It is interesting that you spend a lot of time on draw. I would spend a lot of time on dealing with “give”. If you lose the battle there then “draw” will not give you the war.

But you have seen me, and yet (to this point,) you do not believe. (V36) All that the father gives to me will come. Faith is the key; those that do not have faith will not come. Only those that have faith and willingly come are given to the Son by the father. The Son declares that he will not cast out this precious gift from his Father.

You have just began to butcher the flow of the passage. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

You have made the passage, All that come to me, my father will give me (let them reach me). The scripture says give then come. You are basically saying, God gives to Jesus those that are more worthy of salvation than others (I expect that you believe that no one is worthy of salvation, as I do as well). One then runs into the issue of boasting (“I am more deserving of salvation due to my meeting God halfway and you not”.

John 6:38-40
38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Christ came not to do his will, but the will of The Father. (Verse 38) What is the will of the father? That he should keep all those that The Father has given him. (V39) “And” that every one that seeth the Son, “and” believeth on him may have everlasting life. The Focus is still faith….

The issue is whether one can see and believe on Jesus, before being given (which you seem to think one earn this privilege by faith), which from the obvious flow of the verses, precedes “coming”. The answer is we do not have that ability.

John 6:41-43
41The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.

In response to the complaining and disbelief, Christ responds:

Key passage.
John 6:44
44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Finally we get to that word, “draw”. But first: No man can do what? “COME”! Come! A volitional act, a response to a beckoning or call. One can “come” only as long as the will is free. When the will is overpowered, the person begins to be dragged or drawn against his will.

No one can come does speak of ability, so the drawing must be that which gives one the ability. If that ability is resisted rather than applied, then one must be dragged or overpowered.

So we must conclude that men must be able to resist this drawing because when it becomes irresistible, one no longer comes, a volitional act; but must be dragged. So in essence the meaning of the word “come” and “drawn” have a mitigating effect upon each other. The word “come” mitigates the amount of power applied by the word drawn. It demands that the amount of force used in “drawn” be resistible, lest it negate the word “come”.

Therefore if the power applied by the word “draw” must be resistible, it stands to reason that it is possible for some to respond positively, and it also makes it possible for some to respond negatively. Those that respond positively are the ones that are given to The Son by The father. They are called the Chosen of God, The Elect.

Remember, Christ came to save the world. (John 6:33 & John 3:16) So if Christ came to offer salvation to the world, it stands to reason that God would draw all men to him.

You spent the last few paragraphs, talking yourself out of the clear teachings of the scripture. First the verse talks about you lacking the ability to come. You seem to want to admit that but only briefly. You then get hung up on a person being overpowered. God needs not overpower anyone. He can change your wants and desires from hatred towards him to desiring His desires. There is no need for him to put you in a choke hold and “overpower” your will.

Next it seems you wish to have Jesus’ words cancel each other out? Come is fighting drawn? Not much to say here.

Next, why do some people respond positively and others negatively? It seems we are back to having the ability to boast in our actions in conjunction with God’s actions getting us into heaven.

Once again, we have given going before come, and not the other way around.

Christ did come to save the world. However I have shown places where it seems to show that his definition of world and yours are in conflict.

John 12:32
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Was Christ lifted up? Here we have a direct contradiction to your assertion that only the elect are drawn.

Remember you are not fighting me, you are fighting scripture. Dealing with “all” men is no harder than dealing with the world. Also I did not directly make the assertion that only the elect were drawn. I make the assertion that does not come before they are given, and they are not given until they are drawn. These people, you can call elect, boatmen, crazy lunatics or what not, whatever floats your boat.

John 6:45
45It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

So, what must we scripturally conclude from this passage? We must conclude that it is hearing the word and learning from the Father that leads us to salvation. Not by being irresistibly drawn….This is how Christ draws men to him. It is not irresistible, as we have already shown

I sincerely believe that you have failed here to show resistable grace. I would love to be able to take some credit for my own salvation, but the Bible is clear that I cannot.

Now, let’s for the sake of time and space skip over to John 6:64. But you should take the time to read it all; still it is Christ continuing to affirm himself as the savior. But in verse 64, Christ responds:

Key passage.
John 6:63-65
63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

It is the Spirit that Gives life; the “words” that I speak to you are Spirit. Once again, God affirms that it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. All men are drawn to Christ by knowledge of who he is.

Not all men are drawn because if they were drawn, they would /could not reject. Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.

What about those that never hear the Gospel, now that’s horse of a different color. Still to those that do hear, there can be no doubt that this knowledge is what God uses to draw them to him. Does everyone that hears, come. Not according to scripture. Many will say to me in that day, Lord have we not done many wonderful works in thy name.. Depart from me; ye that do iniquity, I never knew you.

Amen, God does use the Gospel to draw people. That is why Calvinistics go out and preach the gospel as Jesus commanded. But God will only draw some to himself.

Key passage.
64But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

Of those that are drawn, some remain unbelievers. The only way that we can make this drawing efficacious is to import from somewhere efficacious grace.

Where does it say that those who remain unbelievers are a part of those drawn. Are you saying that Jesus contradicted himself. He said that those who come will be raised up in the last day. Did Jesus just falsify what he said just a few verses previously? Is he not going to raise some of them up in the last day? Will some escape his grip?

Key Passage.
65And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

This passage, by the use of the word “therefore”, looks back and mitigates the use of the word “draw”, which has already been rendered resistible and applicable to all men. I have concluded this because this passage is closest in proximity to John 6:44, more so than any of the preceding passages that the word “therefore” might connect to.

Consequently, I have concluded, based on a contextual application of each of the preceeding passages, that to conclude that God only draws the elect to be a misapplication of scripture. More appropriately, the Elect are chosen from those that are drawn…..

I can agree that the elect are chose from those drawn. Fortunately all those drawn are the elect so they are all chosen. This has to be accepted unless you want to make Jesus out to be a liar when he said all those drawn will be raised up at the last day. Aka go to heaven. Thank you for this opportunity to really get my thoughts together on this subject. You did defend your position admirable, unfortunately I think that in John 6, you have no sure footing.

CT

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 12:09 PM

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185484#post185484)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,

"When I am lifted up I will draw all people to myself..."

So, the context shows that He is talking about being lifted up on the cross. But also, the statement "now is the judgment of the world" is apocalyptic -- so Jesus could be using a word play here. He could mean "lifted up" in the sense of "on a cross" as well as "glorified before the entire world."

Could be. But we can resolve the whole issue by reading the next passage.

So, "all people" ... we have data about the human race, so we can say "What has actually happened in reality to 'all people'?"
Let's consider the first example, when Christ was lifted on the cross. At the time of the crucifixion, "all people" (in the sense of every person that existed) were not in reality drawn to Him in the sense that they looked to Him for salvation. [/quote]

If you choose to reduce Christs words to only that possible reality, you do so at your own peril.... Is that what you want to do?

Nor were they drawn to Him in a physical sense, that is, the entire population did not gather around Him at the crucifixion.
In the second example, that of the apocalypse, we can say that all people will be resurrected and will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. They will be gathered from the ends of the earth to stand in His presence and either be cast out or welcomed. This coheres with the "all people" idea, for it actually accounts for "all people" actually being drawn to Christ in some sense.

Is this a "what if", or a statement supported by scripture. What ifs are too numerous to affirm or to defend against.

So I would guess that the meaning of the passage is this:

"When I die a sacrificial death and then resurrect, I will have completed the task for which I was sent to earth. Thus, at the resurrection of the dead, I will be truly the proper judge of the human race. I will draw all people to myself at the judgment of mankind, having died and resurrected, and thereby satisfied God's justice. Voluntarily dying on the cross gives me the right to draw the whole world to myself for judgment."

Ok, let's take a look at it in context.
John 12:30-36
30Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

32 When I die a sacrificial death and then resurrect, I will have completed the task for which I was sent to earth. Thus, at the resurrection of the dead, I will be truly the proper judge of the human race. I will draw all people to myself at the judgment of mankind, having died and resurrected, and thereby satisfied God's justice. Voluntarily dying on the cross gives me the right to draw the whole world to myself for judgment.

33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

34The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

35Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

36While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
KJV

Something along those lines. I don't think He was talking about salvation per se, or an invitation to salvation.

Is this really what you want to do with with this passage? This is where the fixing begins. You rewrite this one, do I get to rewrite the next one...

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 12:30 PM

Today @ 09:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185650#post185650)
ChristianTrader:

I can agree that the elect are chose from those drawn. Fortunately all those drawn are the elect so they are all chosen. This has to be accepted unless you want to make Jesus out to be a liar when he said all those drawn will be raised up at the last day. Aka go to heaven. Thank you for this opportunity to really get my thoughts together on this subject. You did defend your position admirable; unfortunately I think that in John 6, you have no sure footing.

You ask if I would make Jesus a liar. Are you Jesus?

You have put forth an admirable attempt to poke holes in my understanding of scripture. Unsuccessful, but still admirable. Still, on behalf of Calvinism, your work has just begun.

You see, poking holes in my boat will not repair the holes in yours. What difference does it make what ship you are on when both are sinking?

Now, do what you said you would, make John 6 say Calvinism. It's too easy to criticize others work, especially when we have done nothing on our own....

Show me what you got.... Time to get busy.. :read:

P.S.
BTW, Christ said in John 12:32; "If i be lifted up, I will draw all men. You'll need to fix that passage if you expect your closing statement to stand....

So far you have locked the doors of hell and saved everybody...

ChristianTrader

August 15th 2003, 12:52 PM

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186119#post186119)
Chappie:

You ask if I would make Jesus a liar. Are you Jesus?

You have put forth an admirable attempt to poke holes in my understanding of scripture. Unsuccessful, but still admirable. Still, on behalf of Calvinism, your work has just begun.

You see, poking holes in my boat will not repair the holes in yours. What difference does it make what ship you are on when both are sinking?

Now, do what you said you would, make John 6 say Calvinism. It's too easy to criticize others work, especially when we have done nothing on our own....

Show me what you got.... Time to get busy.. :read:

P.S.
BTW, Christ said in John 12:32; "If i be lifted up, I will draw all men. You'll need to fix that passage if you expect your closing statement to stand....

I was confident that when I poked holes (especially the give precedes the coming), I was showing the calvinistic interpretation in the scriptures. I am not sure where you want me to go. If the give precedes the coming, where else can you go but calvinism? If we are unable to come previous to being draw, where else can you really go?

I also wrote on Matthew 15:24. It works just as well against your interpretation of the world as it does your interpretation of all men.

I did not bar the gates of hell. I did however not clearly state that I do not see all (every single person ever) men as being draw. If they were they would be saved. Only the lost sheep of Israel, which are the only people Jesus was sent for are draw. And they all come and are raised up.

CT

SaintMorpheus

August 15th 2003, 01:00 PM

Chappie,

So, in what sense do you think Christ drew all people to Himself when He was crucified? I mean, historically speaking. Were all people on the earth given an invitation to accept Christ? Were all people physically relocated to a position underneath the cross? Did everyone hear about Christ and then were interested to hear more? What is your better replacement for my theory that He was speaking of the apocalypse?

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 02:55 PM

CT
You read this: You are absolutely correct when you say that it is vital that we establish context. You are correct in establishing context to the point where many followed Christ to Capernaum not because of the miracles that he did, but in response to the food that he gave them. From there shall we allow the scriptures to do the talking”?

And concluded this: ” If only you would have stayed with the scriptures instead of talking yourself out of them”.

You sure brought enough baggage to stay gone a while….

Next:
Key passage.
John 6:32
33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Is the gift of salvation mentioned here specifically limited to some predetermined elect? No! He came to give life to the world. Ok then, why is not every one saved? Because not everyone will accept the gift. Still that does not change these words. “He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So you want to change the word “world” to the word “elect”. On what authority?

CT.
Did he give the gift to the world? Yes as it says. The issue is the meaning of world in this context. Let's see if we can get some.

Matthew 15:24,
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Does this mean that everyone who is not the lost sheep of Israel is not in the world? Or is Jesus saying that everyone is the lost sheep of Israel therefore he was just talking to here himself talk?
Now I know about being a spiritual Jew etc. I do not see how this can be taken as a universal reference.

Also that people are not saved due to them not accepting is not taken from the scripture; it is thrown in due to your background. You have not shown where you got this idea, from the text.

“Did he give the gift to the world? Yes as it says. The issue is the meaning of world in this context. Let's see if we can get some.

Matthew 15:24,
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Oops, you just excluded all the gentiles from salvation…

Then you say: ” Also that people are not saved due to them not accepting is not taken from the scripture, it is thrown in due to your background. You have not shown where you got this idea, from the text.

Ok, you want scripture, well here ya go….
2 Thess 2:10-12
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received notthe love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Key word… Received not: AKA, rejected….

CT.
To come is definitely a free will thing. God does not hold a large gun to ones head and say, you are going to come or bang. The neat thing is that God does not just control your external actions; he controls your internal, making external control trivial.

So by controlling your internal, in which you resisted in the first place; what you are suggesting is that God laid down his gun and resorted to brainwashing. Poor fellow, but I guess that when one needs love, one has to do what one has to do. Still he has to be some kind of ugly if no one will love him unless he brainwashes them first… That is trivial, but that God is trivial also…

You have just began to butcher the flow of the passage. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

You have made the passage, All that come to me; my father will give me (let them reach me). The scripture says give then come. You are basically saying, God gives to Jesus those that are more worthy of salvation than others (I expect that you believe that no one is worthy of salvation, as I do as well). One then runs into the issue of boasting (“I am more deserving of salvation due to my meeting God halfway and you not”.}

Whither I butcher the passage or not is a conclusion based on your being deceived by Calvinism. In that case, your opinion of what I butcher means nothing to me.

Everybody boasts in one way or another, have you noticed how proudly you were your Calvinistic label. You are right, no one deserves salvation. That also means that no one deserves to be elect. Being that you think that out of billions of rotten apples, God has chosen you. What are your chances? Literally billions to one… Under the circumstances for salvation that you describe, boasting is the least of your worries. Have you seen your name in the book?

You now say, because I believe, I know that I am elect. Well CT, just how pure, perfect, and holy is your faith. I know that you believe that you have been regenerated: Still I am willing to bet that it is not one iota more pure than you are.. Get outta here, you that do iniquity, I never knew you….

CT.
The issue is whether one can see and believe on Jesus, before being given (which you seem to think one earn this privilege by faith), which from the obvious flow of the verses, precedes “coming”. The answer is we do not have that ability.[quote]

The real issue here is not whither one has the ability to come on their on, none do. But obviously you think that with God’s help, you have managed to do so. The real issue is what did God see in you that would cause him to help you and hate the next man… God is not the ugly one here, we are…

[quote] CT,
(1)You spent the last few paragraphs, talking yourself out of the clear teachings of the scripture. First the verse talks about you lacking the ability to come. You seem to want to admit that but only briefly. You then get hung up on a person being overpowered. God needs not overpower anyone. He can change your wants and desires from hatred towards him to desiring His desires. There is no need for him to put you in a choke hold and “overpower” your will.

{2}Next it seems you wish to have Jesus’ words cancel each other out? Come is fighting drawn? Not much to say here.

{3}Next, why do some people respond positively and others negatively? It seems we are back to having the ability to boast in our actions in conjunction with God’s actions getting us into heaven.

{4}Once again, we have given going before come, and not the other way around.

{5}Christ did come to save the world. However I have shown places where it seems to show that his definition of world and yours are in conflict.

Point 1.
Are you now denying the false teachings of efficacious, irresistible grace and admitting that God does not overpower anyone… Are you aware that irresistible placed in action means to overpower….

{2} Are you aware that to come is a volitional act on a persons part. And that to be drawn is a volitional act perpetrated upon another person. Naaah, still do not understand do you… Calvin has blinded you to many truths and realities.

{3} 2 Thess 2:10-12
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

{4}In that you got it right, come does precede the giving. It is not the other way around…

{5}If you want to retranslate and restructure bible passages in order to have it your way. That’s your problem. But if you want your mo jo to work on me, you’ll have to redo the whole bible….

CT
Remember you are not fighting me, you are fighting scripture. Dealing with “all” men is no harder than dealing with the world. Also I did not directly make the assertion that only the elect were drawn. I make the assertion that does not come before they are given, and they are not given until they are drawn. These people, you can call elect, boatmen, crazy lunatics or what not, whatever floats your boat.

“Remember you are not fighting me, you are fighting scripture.
You mean that you are really Jesus signing in as CT.

“Dealing with “all” men is no harder than dealing with the world”.
I guess not, you twist one, why not twist them all….

“Whatever floats your boat”? OK. As long as it is not sinking…..

CT
I sincerely believe that you have failed here to show resistible grace. I would love to be able to take some credit for my own salvation, but the Bible is clear that I cannot.

Why, the thought of taking credit for me is frightening. My credits just aren’t good enough..

Ct
Not all men are drawn because if they were drawn, they would /could not reject. Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.

And lot’s of people think that they know him, but prove that they do not when they accuse him of pick one burn a thousand, pock one, burn another thousand. I call it pickinburn.

Why can they not resist? Is it because of the goodness of their heart? Or is it because this irresistible stuff overpowers them. Renders them essentially as helpless, hopeless puppets. God jerks the string and they jiggle.. Can’t figure out what direction you want to go in huh? God looks rather silly no matter what direction you take….

CT
Amen, God does use the Gospel to draw people. That is why Calvinistics go out and preach the gospel as Jesus commanded. But God will only draw some to himself.

Too bad that your preaching is in vain. God does not use your witness. He has elected whom he has elected. The ones that can hear you are already saved. Regeneration first, remember. The ones that are not elected cannot hear you. You have become as a sounding bass, a tinkling cymbals. Your preaching is nothing more than noise pollutions…

CT,
Where does it say that those who remain unbelievers are a part of those drawn? Are you saying that Jesus contradicted himself? He said that those who come, will be raised up in the last day. Did Jesus just falsify what he said just a few verses previously? Is he not going to raise some of them up in the last day? Will some escape his grip?

It say’s it on John 12:32.
You keep trying to convince me that I am bringing accusations against Jesus. Why? What do you intend to accomplish. For the sake of clarity and brevity, hear this. I bring no accusation against my Lord and savior. Still I accuse you of promoting false doctrines that makes God a selfish and evil God. I accuse you of being so brainwashed by John Calvin that you would not recognize truth if it were the noonday sun shinning in your face…. Jesus falsified nothing; the prince of this world has deceived you.

Now we both know what each other feel, can we drop this deceptive and self-serving attempt to demean each other?

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 03:03 PM

Today @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186159#post186159)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,
So, in what sense do you think Christ drew all people to Himself when He was crucified? I mean, historically speaking. Were all people on the earth given an invitation to accept Christ? Were all people physically relocated to a position underneath the cross? Did everyone hear about Christ and then were interested to hear more? What is your better replacement for my theory that He was speaking of the apocalypse?
Each of the questions that you ask me, how would you answer them?
1)So, in what sense do you think Christ drew all people to Himself when He was crucified? I mean, historically speaking.

2)Were all people on the earth given an invitation to accept Christ?

3)Were all people physically relocated to a position underneath the cross?

4)Did everyone hear about Christ and then were interested to hear more?

This one I will answer:
What is your better replacement for my theory that He was speaking of the apocalypse?

I would stay precisely with what is said in the passage....

The same questions that you have asked of me, how would you answer them?

SaintMorpheus

August 15th 2003, 03:58 PM

Chappie,

Each of the questions that you ask me, how would you answer them?

Ok.

1)So, in what sense do you think Christ drew all people to Himself when He was crucified? I mean, historically speaking.

He didn't. I think He was talking about the final judgment.

2)Were all people on the earth given an invitation to accept Christ?

No. Obviously not. See #1.

3)Were all people physically relocated to a position underneath the cross?

No. Obviously not. See #1.

4)Did everyone hear about Christ and then were interested to hear more?

No. Obviously not. See #1.

This one I will answer:
What is your better replacement for my theory that He was speaking of the apocalypse?
I would stay precisely with what is said in the passage....

Which is....? I am asking what you think is in the passage, Chappie. I am also attempting to stay with what is said in the passage. We all are. The passage is: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." I'm asking you: What did Christ mean when He said that when He was lifted up, He would draw all men to Him? I proposed that He was talking about the apocalypse, and I explained how that would account for both the lifting up and the drawing of all men to Him. Now I'm asking you: What is your theory for what this means? How do you account for the fact of all men being drawn at the lifting of Christ?

Now it's your turn to answer the questions, if you would.

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 05:09 PM

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186458#post186458)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,
Which is....? I am asking what you think is in the passage, Chappie. I am also attempting to stay with what is said in the passage. We all are. The passage is: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." I'm asking you: What did Christ mean when He said that when He was lifted up, He would draw all men to Him? I proposed that He was talking about the apocalypse, and I explained how that would account for both the lifting up and the drawing of all men to Him. Now I'm asking you: What is your theory for what this means? How do you account for the fact of all men being drawn at the lifting of Christ?

Now it's your turn to answer the questions, if you would.

Saint:
I really did answer this question honestly.

I discount your drawing to the judgment theory because that is not what the passage specifically states,

If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto "ME". Does not say that I will draw all men unto my judgment. I don't think that we have scriptural or literary license to make the change.

When what we percieve a passage to be saying, forces us to change what the passage said. We open doors that I don't think even you want opened....

I believe that the passage holds within itself the capacity to speak for itself...

The greatest liberty that I think we can take with scripture is to paraphrase. In other words, put precisely what is said into todays lingo so to say... Even there we need to run a tight ship....

Also, the questions that you asked and answered. I believe that you were just poking fun at me.

Surely you know that placing a spiritural concept into a physical reality and then asking leading questions will not result in answers that are grounded in reality...

BTW, What do you think about CT's posts and responses. I ask because Calvinists are as a group afraid to critique other calvinist. To show me that you are above click loyalties and are loyal to the truth. Where do you disagree with his responses.

What do you think of his comments here:
Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.

Do you buy into this? If yes, then total depravity was not total. You and he did not have hearts of stone. If you did, you too would want no part of him... It doesn't really fly does it. If God elected you, hearts made out of diamonds could not resist... Which let's the guys with hearts of stone off the hook, because it does not make a bit of difference in the first place...

The fact that he started out in his first post insulting me, that you do not have to mention...

Arminian

August 15th 2003, 06:32 PM

Saint,

I’m having difficulty catching up (and perhaps this has been addressed and I never will catch up), but I think you’re creating a false dichotomy below:

1. Substantive without the article: "everyone." This applies to the 1 Corinthians passage.

2. Adjective used with a noun, with the noun in the plural, without a definite article: "all men, everyone." This applies to the 1 Timothy passages.

3. Used with an anarthrous (no article)singular noun:
"Emphasizing the individual members of the class denoted by the noun; each, every;to denote the highest degree; full, greatest."

This does not apply to either of the above mentioned passages because they are always plural. But this is important because knowing that this definition does not apply in our verses prevents us from interpreting "all" in the sense of "each and every."

Therefore, "the savior of all men" probably does not mean "the savior of each and every man," nor should we construe "who is willing that all men should be saved" as "who is willing that each and every man should be saved."

What does "all" mean in these contexts, then? I'll stop here and let y'all pick it up...

I’ve nearly memorized Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, and I know that Bauer’s was largely shared with the BAG. I know that the second or third sentence says something to the effect that the singular is nearly identical in meaning to the plural. The important word in the definition you used is “emphasis,” which is not the same as “meaning.” The emphasis is on the individual in the singular, but the meaning of “every” is the same. So we tend to reserve "every (one)" for one word and "everyone" for the other.

The word is pronominal, so it can be used distributively as well as collectively. In the verse you refer to, Christ is said to be the savior of all men, especially those who believe. “Especially” appears to serve a partitive function, indicating that Christ is the savior of all men, but the “especially” only applies to believers.

Chappie's interpretation of the verses I've seen is totally within the usual interpretation.

SaintMorpheus

August 15th 2003, 07:03 PM

Chappie,
When did I ever say that I was a Calvinist? Never. I do no associate myself with that man or his followers. You are making assumptions and categorizing me.

Also, the questions that you asked and answered. I believe that you were just poking fun at me.

Not the case. I am having trouble making my thoughts clear to you, and so I thought I would err on the side of over-emphasis for the purpose of clarity.

I discount your drawing to the judgment theory because that is not what the passage specifically states.

Christ has been known to speak somewhat cryptically. We have license to interpret nuances, word plays, allusions, etc.

If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto "ME". Does not say that I will draw all men unto my judgment. I don't think that we have scriptural or literary license to make the change.

I said that Christ will draw all men before Him in judgment, i.e. they will stand in His presence. If you think "His presence" is too metaphorical an interpretation of the concept "me," then what, may I ask, do you think He meant? That He drew all men physically to Himself at the crucifixion, such that they were all physically present within a certain distance spatially of His crucified self? What do you mean? I am not poking fun; I'm trying to get you to explain yourself clearly. I know that the text says "I will draw all men to myself." By saying that you do not go beyond what the text says does not help me. I am asking you to paraphrase for the purpose of explaining to me how you interpret the passage.

What do you think of his comments here:
Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.
Do you buy into this? If yes, then total depravity was not total. You and he did not have hearts of stone. If you did, you too would want no part of him... It doesn't really fly does it. If God elected you, hearts made out of diamonds could not resist... Which let's the guys with hearts of stone off the hook, because it does not make a bit of difference in the first place...

If you had known me six months ago, you would have known that I had a heart of stone. If you knew me know, you would know that I have a heart of flesh. If you knew God, you would know that He brought about this change in my heart.
And this preceded my asking; for why would I ask, inasmuch as I had a heart of stone and did not care to ask?
And now that the change has been made, I am wholeheartedly glad and will it. I freely acknowledge what He has done and praise Him for it, knowing that I could not have made the change myself.
That's all I'm trying to say.

Arminian,

I’ve nearly memorized Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, and I know that Bauer’s was largely shared with the BAG. I know that the second or third sentence says something to the effect that the singular is nearly identical in meaning to the plural. The important word in the definition you used is “emphasis,” which is not the same as “meaning.” The emphasis is on the individual in the singular, but the meaning of “every” is the same. So we tend to reserve "every (one)" for one word and "everyone" for the other.

The word is pronominal, so it can be used distributively as well as collectively. In the verse you refer to, Christ is said to be the savior of all men, especially those who believe. “Especially” appears to serve a partitive function, indicating that Christ is the savior of all men, but the “especially” only applies to believers.

Chappie's interpretation of the verses I've seen is totally within the usual interpretation.

Fair enough. Your knowledge is superior to mine, and so I will defer to your expertise. My follow-up question would be: "In what sense is Christ the savior of all men, including people like Hitler? Obviously Christ has saved Hitler in a different manner than, say, St. Paul. Let's delve into the layers of salvation." This question is not meant to be contentious -- it is merely the logical next question for me. I'm genuinely curious. I think it is an interesting question.

Arminian

August 15th 2003, 07:33 PM

Saint,

You say to Chappie,

When did I ever say that I was a Calvinist? Never. I do no associate myself with that man or his followers. You are making assumptions and categorizing me.

I really like that attitude. I think it is very productive. I think, however, you have categorized yourself as Reformed.

My follow-up question would be: "In what sense is Christ the savior of all men, including people like Hitler

He is the savior of all men, in that he is the savior sent an approved by God to save them. Apart from faith (“especially those who believe”) His salvation in not applied. Note that the verse in question does not say “those who WILL believe.” He is only the savior, in that regard, of those presently believing.

Chappie

August 15th 2003, 09:13 PM

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186677#post186677)
SaintMorpheus:

Chappie,
When did I ever say that I was a Calvinist? Never. I do no associate myself with that man or his followers. You are making assumptions and categorizing me.

Please forgive me....

Christ has been known to speak somewhat cryptically. We have license to interpret nuances, word plays, allusions, etc.

Yes, but only in the context in which they are written, and only when subject matter and context require it to complete the thought or enhance the example.

I said that Christ will draw all men before Him in judgment, i.e. they will stand in His presence. If you think "His presence" is too metaphorical an interpretation of the concept "me," then what, may I ask, do you think He meant? That He drew all men physically to Himself at the crucifixion, such that they were all physically present within a certain distance spatially of His crucified self? What do you mean? I am not poking fun; I'm trying to get you to explain yourself clearly. I know that the text says "I will draw all men to myself." By saying that you do not go beyond what the text says does not help me. I am asking you to paraphrase for the purpose of explaining to me how you interpret the passage.

No, I do not believe that all men were at the cross. I had absolutely no idea that you were seriously considering this possibility. The drawing began at the cross, extended from that point back to Adam, returned to his crucifixion and is extended from there to the end of this age. If Christ drew all men, what other conclusions are available to us...

Christ did not die to save you physically, how do we know that? Well, people just keep on dying huh? The death that Christ died in our stead is called spiritual death. AKA, eternal separation from God. The drawing is spiritual in nature. Think, omnipresence, unless you deny that also..

Now, whither I have explained this to your satisfaction is not the point. The point being that Christ, who cannot lie, said that if I be lifted up, I will draw all men to me... Even if I had no idea how he did it, his words would still be true.. Now you do not have to accept my explanation. He still did it.....

If you had known me six months ago, you would have known that I had a heart of stone. If you knew me know, you would know that I have a heart of flesh. If you knew God, you would know that He brought about this change in my heart.
And this preceded my asking; for why would I ask, inasmuch as I had a heart of stone and did not care to ask?
And now that the change has been made, I am wholeheartedly glad and will it. I freely acknowledge what He has done and praise Him for it, knowing that I could not have made the change myself.
That's all I'm trying to say.

That's great. But please do not attempt to tell me that you were singled out for this miracle before the foundation of the world. Please do not ask me to believe that in the same breath that he extended to you his mercy, his grace, and his compassion: Please do not ask me to believe that in that same breath he opened the gates of hell, started a fire, tossed billions into the fire and told them to burn baby burn....

SaintMorpheus

August 16th 2003, 12:23 AM

Arminian,

I have not categorized myself as Reformed. I do not follow the teachings of the Reformers in their entirety, nor especially do I believe in Sola Scriptura (this alone is the cornerstone of Reformed theology).
I am a slave of the Living God and I am honored to be called by Him "slave," "child," and perhaps one day "friend." I am not content to call myself by any other name than that which He gives me, so I will wait patiently. In the meantime, I will not sell my soul to men.

Chappie,

Your mind has not moved an inch since the discussion began. I have enjoyed the discourse with you; at times, you have been both nice and humorous, and at several points you defended yourself well.
Nevertheless, you have demonstrated your stubborness, particularly toward God. He will not share His glory with you, no matter how desperately you try to cling to it. If you are saved, then He has caused it. Bow down and acknowledge Reality, lest He say 'Depart from me -- I never knew you."

As for me,

Though the fig tree should not blossom,
nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail
and the fields no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold
and there be no herd in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the LORD;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
God, the Lord, is my strength;
he makes my feet like the deer's;
he makes me tread on my high places.

I am done with this thread.

Arminian

August 16th 2003, 01:43 AM

Saint,

I am a slave of the Living God and I am honored to be called by Him "slave," "child," and perhaps one day "friend." I am not content to call myself by any other name than that which He gives me, so I will wait patiently. In the meantime, I will not sell my soul to men.

God bless you, Saint! :smile:

Chappie

August 16th 2003, 12:46 PM

Today @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186828#post186828)
SaintMorpheus:
I am a slave of the Living God and I am honored to be called by Him "slave," "child," and perhaps one day "friend." I am not content to call myself by any other name than that which He gives me, so I will wait patiently. In the meantime, I will not sell my soul to men.

Chappie,
Your mind has not moved an inch since the discussion began. I have enjoyed the discourse with you; at times, you have been both nice and humorous, and at several points you defended yourself well.

Saint:
I too have enjoyed conversing with you, and I believe that I have been witness to a genuine heartfelt effort on your part to reconcile the two different positions that we both hold dear. You say that my mind has not moved an inch since this discussion began. Perhaps, perhaps not.

You say that you are leaving this thread, might I ask why? What did you expect when you came here. Did you expect to wave your magic wan and walk away with the victory? How many inches has your position moved towards mine. Do you believe in freewill now. Is stubborn a good thing when you exercise it, and a bad thing when others do?

The victory belongs to God. The race belongs to you. What if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; Peter, Paul and the other disciples of the church had grown weary and walked away with no more energy placed into spreading the Gospel than you have placed into this thread. Do you think that we would have had this Gospel to lean on today?

We glorify God in the struggle. If you are in fact spreading his gospel, what do you think he feels about your comments: "I'm leaving this thread now". Who do you think this pleases, God or his adversaries? You are a worthy advocate of your position: But if all you got left in you is running, then I say God speed. Personally I would rather you stay; still I cannot run your race for you. Together we have mountains to climb. If you want to glorify God, then climb.

One plant, one waters, but God gets the glory. Because you cannot claim the glory of changing my mind, you run. Perhaps God has called you to plant. I disagree strongly with Calvinism, still I consider you to be a Christian. There are bridges to build, rivers to cross, mountains to climb, all in his name; not yours.

Nevertheless, you have demonstrated your stubbornness, particularly toward God. He will not share His glory with you, no matter how desperately you try to cling to it. If you are saved, then He has caused it. Bow down and acknowledge Reality, lest He say 'Depart from me -- I never knew you."

I have demonstrated my stubbornness towards you, not God. You see, God knows my heart. He is aware of the love and affection that I feel towards him. Did you think that accusing me before him of what he knows is not true will endear you to him in his sight. For every word that we utter in this lifetime we will be judged. Some things are better left unsaid unless we are willing to argue their truthfulness before God.

If I am saved, he caused it is a truth that I have never denied. All good things are from God. What I have contended is that God did not create billions of humans, yet only needed a million to fulfill his purposes. He has room in his kingdom for every single individual that he created. So he opened the doors wide and said, "whosoever will, let him come". HE DID NOT PREDESTINE A FEW TO HEAVEN, AND THE REST TO HELL. Don't care what you say; God did not say in scripture that that is what he did. Without that sentiment, you cannot glorify God. I can!!!!

If you cannot have him picking and choosing, he falls apart at the seams, he becomes less than God. God choosing some for salvation and placing the rest in hell is the glue that holds God together for you. In and of itself, it is unrealistic...

Why do you not deal with the reality of my faith? That is why you are frustrated and ready to run. "God is the cause of my salvation", but in order to save me he did not cut off billions from his love and his grace. Truly I can say, what he did for me, he'll do for you. Absolutely no man is excluded from being able to receive this blessing. Still some will reject. They will run...

As for me,

Though the fig tree should not blossom,
nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail
and the fields no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold
and there be no herd in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the LORD;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
God, the Lord, is my strength;
he makes my feet like the deer's;
he makes me tread on my high places.

I am done with this thread.

Beautiful words for a man on the run. Chappie is stubborn, so I’ll leave him with these words and then...... "I'll take off!!!!!

Chappie has another Calvinist on the run, is this evidence of your faith. You cause me to wonder, who is running, Calvinism.... Or a Calvinist.... :stop: :thumbd:

ChristianTrader

August 16th 2003, 05:35 PM

Yesterday @ 05:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186599#post186599)
Chappie:

BTW, What do you think about CT's posts and responses. I ask because Calvinists are as a group afraid to critique other calvinist. To show me that you are above click loyalties and are loyal to the truth. Where do you disagree with his responses.

What do you think of his comments here:
Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.

Do you buy into this? If yes, then total depravity was not total. You and he did not have hearts of stone. If you did, you too would want no part of him... It doesn't really fly does it. If God elected you, hearts made out of diamonds could not resist... Which let's the guys with hearts of stone off the hook, because it does not make a bit of difference in the first place...

I think you have mischaracterized my argument. I did not say that I did not have a heart of stone. I certainly did. All do have this heart of stone, and I am no better than anyone else. Irresistable grace would work regardless of the type of heart it worked on; hence the term irresistable. No one wants Jesus until their heart is changed, which God does in the giving process.

The fact that he started out in his first post insulting me, that you do not have to mention...

I started out my first post insulting you? No the "insults" came much later when it became clear that you do not want to address the text but instead just wish to push your ideas of God and salvation onto the text. But to be clear no insults were intended (instead just a bit of sarcasm). Because I truly believe that you are not saying what you say in order to lead people astray but instead just because you wish to say people from the "deceit" of calvinism. (But please show how my first post was insulting).

CT

P.S> I am still deciding how to best address your long response to me, and show how it together by sometime tomorrow.

Chappie

August 16th 2003, 11:48 PM

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188049#post188049)
ChristianTrader:

I think you have mischaracterized my argument. I did not say that I did not have a heart of stone. I certainly did. All do have this heart of stone, and I am no better than anyone else. Irresistable grace would work regardless of the type of heart it worked on; hence the term irresistable. No one wants Jesus until their heart is changed, which God does in the giving process.

I started out my first post insulting you? No the "insults" came much later when it became clear that you do not want to address the text but instead just wish to push your ideas of God and salvation onto the text. But to be clear no insults were intended (instead just a bit of sarcasm). Because I truly believe that you are not saying what you say in order to lead people astray but instead just because you wish to say people from the "deceit" of calvinism. (But please show how my first post was insulting).

CT

P.S> I am still deciding how to best address your long response to me, and show how it together by sometime tomorrow.

I sure am glad that you were not trying to insult me, now that we got that out of the way. Sarcasm is ok. I will wait for your response to my looooooooooooong post.

ChristianTrader

August 17th 2003, 05:39 AM

Chappie:

CT
You read this: You are absolutely correct when you say that it is vital that we establish context. You are correct in establishing context to the point where many followed Christ to Capernaum not because of the miracles that he did, but in response to the food that he gave them. From there shall we allow the scriptures to do the talking”?

And concluded this: ” If only you would have stayed with the scriptures instead of talking yourself out of them”.

You sure brought enough baggage to stay gone a while….

Um after all the comments you have made about calvinists reading things into scripture, you are the last one I would think to see talking about baggage.

Next:
Key passage.
John 6:32
33For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

chappie:
Is the gift of salvation mentioned here specifically limited to some predetermined elect? No! He came to give life to the world. Ok then, why is not every one saved? Because not everyone will accept the gift. Still that does not change these words. “He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." So you want to change the word “world” to the word “elect”. On what authority?

CT.
Did he give the gift to the world? Yes as it says. The issue is the meaning of world in this context. Let's see if we can get some.

Matthew 15:24,
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Does this mean that everyone who is not the lost sheep of Israel is not in the world? Or is Jesus saying that everyone is the lost sheep of Israel therefore he was just talking to here himself talk?
Now I know about being a spiritual Jew etc. I do not see how this can be taken as a universal reference.

Also that people are not saved due to them not accepting is not taken from the scripture; it is thrown in due to your background. You have not shown where you got this idea, from the text.

“Did he give the gift to the world? Yes as it says. The issue is the meaning of world in this context. Let's see if we can get some.

Matthew 15:24,
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
Oops, you just excluded all the gentiles from salvation…

Oops, it seems that you selectively replied to only part of my quote. Those are Jesus' words in this verse in Matthew. So it would probably do you well not to say that I just excluded anything. If something was excluded Jesus excluded it. I said in my quote that I was well aware of the issue of a true Jew is not one by birth but instead one by entering into the Kingdom of God by salvation. My argument to you was to show that the verse was universal in nature. This you failed to do.

Chappie:
Then you say: ” Also that people are not saved due to them not accepting is not taken from the scripture, it is thrown in due to your background. You have not shown where you got this idea, from the text.

Ok, you want scripture, well here ya go….
2 Thess 2:10-12
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received notthe love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Key word… Received not: AKA, rejected….

CT:
I definitely withdraw the second part of my statement. I am not sure now what point I was going for, but saying that one does not reject the truth is definitely not Biblical.

It is interesting however, that you choice these scriptures to emphasis your point. God sending a delusion in order for the unbelievers not to be able to come? Do we have a fight between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus wanting to save everyone and God the Father not wanting to play along? Also why are some unbelievers, get a delusion while others are either "allowed" to develop their faith and come to Jesus or are allowed to act more fully on the drawing?

CT.
To come is definitely a free will thing. God does not hold a large gun to ones head and say, you are going to come or bang. The neat thing is that God does not just control your external actions; he controls your internal, making external control trivial.

Chappie:
So by controlling your internal, in which you resisted in the first place; what you are suggesting is that God laid down his gun and resorted to brainwashing. Poor fellow, but I guess that when one needs love, one has to do what one has to do. Still he has to be some kind of ugly if no one will love him unless he brainwashes them first… That is trivial, but that God is trivial also…

I never said anything about you resisting in the first place. Does the clay resist the potter? Romans 9:21. The potters works many changes in the clay but the clay doesnot and cannot resist. Slaves to sin (John 8:34)have very hard times freeing themselves. Hence the need for someone to break your chains. It is also interesting that in this response you only resorted to emotional arguments and no scripture. One should keep that in mind....

CT:
You have just began to butcher the flow of the passage. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

You have made the passage, All that come to me; my father will give me (let them reach me). The scripture says give then come. You are basically saying, God gives to Jesus those that are more worthy of salvation than others (I expect that you believe that no one is worthy of salvation, as I do as well). One then runs into the issue of boasting (“I am more deserving of salvation due to my meeting God halfway and you not”.}

Chappie:
Whither I butcher the passage or not is a conclusion based on your being deceived by Calvinism. In that case, your opinion of what I butcher means nothing to me.

It is very interesting here that you do not even attempt to substantiate, your previous reading that one comes before beginning given. All you have done here is talk about my being deceived by Calvinism. Show how comes preceding giving or we should end it right here. If you cannot show that then you lose. (Also there is the option that John didnt have his coffee before he wrote that verse. He misquoted Jesus right???). I am glad that my opinion mean nothing, but I would hope that Jesus' words mean something to you.

Chappie:
Everybody boasts in one way or another, have you noticed how proudly you were your Calvinistic label. You are right, no one deserves salvation. That also means that no one deserves to be elect. Being that you think that out of billions of rotten apples, God has chosen you. What are your chances? Literally billions to one… Under the circumstances for salvation that you describe, boasting is the least of your worries. Have you seen your name in the book?

The issue is not even boasting in general, it is boasting in your ability to be saved over someone else. I do not think I showed pride in my Calvinistic label, I however believe it to be the correct doctrine that has been tested by fire over hundreds of years. I am excited to finally see the pure truth, that God is sovereign and we are not.

I agree that no one deserves to be elect and that many people are going to hell that are as deserving of heaven as I am. I praise the Lord everyday for choosing me, eventhough I was no better than the next man.

Lastly it is interesting that you challenge my salvation based on you not liking the doctrine that I proclaim not based on an chapter and verse that cannot be as easily applied to you.

Chappie:
You now say, because I believe, I know that I am elect. Well CT, just how pure, perfect, and holy is your faith. I know that you believe that you have been regenerated: Still I am willing to bet that it is not one iota more pure than you are.. Get outta here, you that do iniquity, I never knew you….

Once again no chapter and verse, just more assertions based on your dislike of Calvinism. More stuff to keep in mind....

CT.
The issue is whether one can see and believe on Jesus, before being given (which you seem to think one earn this privilege by faith), which from the obvious flow of the verses, precedes “coming”. The answer is we do not have that ability.

Chappie:
The real issue here is not whither one has the ability to come on their on, none do. But obviously you think that with God’s help, you have managed to do so. The real issue is what did God see in you that would cause him to help you and hate the next man… God is not the ugly one here, we are…

Romans 9:21-23
9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Now we can turn the question on your side. Did God have any purpose allowing anyone to be born that would not chose him. Do you admit that he at least knew before the beginning of the world, who would come and who would not? Did he have any purpose in those that would reject him, coming into existence? It seems to me that it would be easier on them not to even exist. God could have easily made the only people that came into existence be those who receive him. Remember without any purpose, there is no glory....

CT,
(1)You spent the last few paragraphs, talking yourself out of the clear teachings of the scripture. First the verse talks about you lacking the ability to come. You seem to want to admit that but only briefly. You then get hung up on a person being overpowered. God needs not overpower anyone. He can change your wants and desires from hatred towards him to desiring His desires. There is no need for him to put you in a choke hold and “overpower” your will.

Chappie:
Point 1.
Are you now denying the false teachings of efficacious, irresistible grace and admitting that God does not overpower anyone… Are you aware that irresistible placed in action means to overpower….

Would you say that the potter overpowers the will of the clay?

CT:
{2}Next it seems you wish to have Jesus’ words cancel each other out? Come is fighting drawn? Not much to say here.

Chappie:
{2} Are you aware that to come is a volitional act on a persons part. And that to be drawn is a volitional act perpetrated upon another person. Naaah, still do not understand do you… Calvin has blinded you to many truths and realities.

There still isnt much to say here. Until you substantiate, coming preceding drawn or the giving; you are fighting scripture and not me. It seems your tradition still has you under its control.

You seem to fail to realize that no one is dragged into Jesus. God changes your heart. Therefore you want/desire to come. Therefore I do not see your problem here.

CT:
{3}Next, why do some people respond positively and others negatively? It seems we are back to having the ability to boast in our actions in conjunction with God’s actions getting us into heaven.

Chappie:
{3} 2 Thess 2:10-12
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Very interesting response. Unbelievers continue to respond negatively because God sends a strong delusion so that they might be damned and not believe. Man there is still hope for you yet.

CT:
{4}Once again, we have given going before come, and not the other way around.

Chappie:
{4}In that you got it right, come does precede the giving. It is not the other way around…

Oh because you say so. I forgot, you word is higher than Jesus. I should be praying to you instead of Jesus. Hopefully you will just admit that you cannot substatiate it and we can end this peacefully.

CT:
{5}Christ did come to save the world. However I have shown places where it seems to show that his definition of world and yours are in conflict.

Chappie:
{5}If you want to retranslate and restructure bible passages in order to have it your way. That’s your problem. But if you want your mo jo to work on me, you’ll have to redo the whole bible….

What you seem to have forgetten is that you have not shown how Matthew 15:24 can be universalized. Perhaps you can grace us with an attempt.

CT
Remember you are not fighting me, you are fighting scripture. Dealing with “all” men is no harder than dealing with the world. Also I did not directly make the assertion that only the elect were drawn. I make the assertion that does not come before they are given, and they are not given until they are drawn. These people, you can call elect, boatmen, crazy lunatics or what not, whatever floats your boat.

“Remember you are not fighting me, you are fighting scripture."

Chappie:
You mean that you are really Jesus signing in as CT.

You didnt know:)

“Dealing with “all” men is no harder than dealing with the world”.

Chappie:
I guess not, you twist one, why not twist them all….

Until you can universalize, Matthew 15:24, and John 17:9 ( 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.) You have no basis to assume that all men in this context means every single person in the world.

CT
I sincerely believe that you have failed here to show resistible grace. I would love to be able to take some credit for my own salvation, but the Bible is clear that I cannot.

Chappie:
Why, the thought of taking credit for me is frightening. My credits just aren’t good enough..

But that is what non reformed doctrine leads you to do. Whether you put it at 1% or .0001% your doing, you still can take some credit for your salvation. There has to be a choice that you made at some point that others refused to make. Somehow you are better than others.

Ct
Not all men are drawn because if they were drawn, they would /could not reject. Lots of people have knowledge of who he is but want no part of him because they have a heart of stone.

Chappie:
And lot’s of people think that they know him, but prove that they do not when they accuse him of pick one burn a thousand, pock one, burn another thousand. I call it pickinburn.

We have gone into the emotional zone again. All emotion no scripture. Remember you have to answer the same question as to why does the unbelievers that God sends strong delusions to exist. Fate? He didn't know that they wouldn't come to beleive? How does he get glory for either?

Chappie:
Why can they not resist? Is it because of the goodness of their heart? Or is it because this irresistible stuff overpowers them. Renders them essentially as helpless, hopeless puppets. God jerks the string and they jiggle.. Can’t figure out what direction you want to go in huh? God looks rather silly no matter what direction you take….

Once again, can the clay resist? Is it overpowered?

God looks silly under calvinist worldview? Um He looks much worse that he allows people to be born knowing full well that they will reject him and yet has no purpose for them existing. It is too bad that Ephesians 1:11 is false ( 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will).

CT
Amen, God does use the Gospel to draw people. That is why Calvinistics go out and preach the gospel as Jesus commanded. But God will only draw some to himself.

Chappie
Too bad that your preaching is in vain. God does not use your witness. He has elected whom he has elected. The ones that can hear you are already saved. Regeneration first, remember. The ones that are not elected cannot hear you. You have become as a sounding bass, a tinkling cymbals. Your preaching is nothing more than noise pollutions…

The unelect will ignore and will continue to ignore until death. There is not argument over that. However you seem to discount the elect's preaching of the gospel in the drawing processes. Also it also used in the process of no one having any excuse.

The preaching of the gospel is never noise pollution (eventhough the unelect and those who are elect but have yet to enter the kingdom hate it) Why does not God use my witness?

CT,
Where does it say that those who remain unbelievers are a part of those drawn? Are you saying that Jesus contradicted himself? He said that those who come, will be raised up in the last day. Did Jesus just falsify what he said just a few verses previously? Is he not going to raise some of them up in the last day? Will some escape his grip?

Chappie:
It say’s it on John 12:32.
You keep trying to convince me that I am bringing accusations against Jesus. Why? What do you intend to accomplish. For the sake of clarity and brevity, hear this. I bring no accusation against my Lord and savior. Still I accuse you of promoting false doctrines that makes God a selfish and evil God. I accuse you of being so brainwashed by John Calvin that you would not recognize truth if it were the noonday sun shinning in your face…. Jesus falsified nothing; the prince of this world has deceived you.

I agree that Jesus falsified nothing. I also make the claim that the Bible does not contradict itself. So I have few options as to where to go. You have failed to substantiate coming preceding giving/drawing. Therefore you try to run to a different context in order to "win". Just admit you hate the idea that God has an elect so much , that you do not care if the Bible teaches it or not. You still failed to show how Jesus cannot raised up all those who are draw and not fail. There really isnt any wiggle room here.

Chappie

August 18th 2003, 11:57 AM

CT.
I think that i'll pass on responding to you. Considering the way that you intrepret scripture, I expect nothing better in response to my posts. Perhaps after you learn to love scripture as much as you love Calvin, we can then communicate....

Example:

It is interesting however, that you choice these scriptures to emphasis your point. God sending a delusion in order for the unbelievers not to be able to come? Do we have a fight between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus wanting to save everyone and God the Father not wanting to play along? Also why are some unbelievers, get a delusion while others are either "allowed" to develop their faith and come to Jesus or are allowed to act more fully on the drawing?

You cannot see that he sent the delusion because they rejected him. Now if he predestined that rejection as you suggest, what's he punishing them for. Calvinism is so incoherient and silly...

ChristianTrader

August 18th 2003, 02:42 PM

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189023#post189023)
Chappie:

Example:

CT:
It is interesting however, that you choice these scriptures to emphasis your point. God sending a delusion in order for the unbelievers not to be able to come? Do we have a fight between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus wanting to save everyone and God the Father not wanting to play along? Also why are some unbelievers, get a delusion while others are either "allowed" to develop their faith and come to Jesus or are allowed to act more fully on the drawing?

You cannot see that he sent the delusion because they rejected him. Now if he predestined that rejection as you suggest, what's he punishing them for. Calvinism is so incoherient and silly...

It seems that you have missed the point. Lets looks at the scripture again shall we?

2 Thess 2:10-12
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

It says for the cause (verse 11 - rejection). God sent a delusion. To accomplish what??? That they should believe a lie and (v12) that they might all be damned.

The issue is not that they received not the truth; everyone experiences a time until the blessed day that Jesus brings them in, that they reject the truth and believe a lie. So there are some people that get the delusion and some people that don't? v12 then says that the delusion was sent so that they might be damned. Until they got the delusion, they were just undamned unbelievers? After the delusion it was all over. Why was Paul, chief among sinners aka those who reject God, not sent this delution? Elect anyone?

Then we come to the place where you didnt want to go v13

13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[1] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

So God chose people to salvation from the beginning? Well that fits right in with with the previous 3 verses about people who were not chosen to salvation.

Lastly
Why are they punished.
Romans 9:17-21
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Have a great day.

CT

Chappie

August 18th 2003, 03:44 PM

CT
Your conclusions are to irrational & unreasonable for me to deal with. I need atleast one rational thought every now and then in order to productively participate.

mandolin

August 18th 2003, 03:53 PM

13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[1] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
God is choosing them to salvation??
Or is he saving them through sanctification??
Which was chosen...the saved? or the act of salvation?

I ask that you please look at it again.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
It's very important to understand the context of Romans. Though contextually...it is true that the chapter is talking about national election (and i do believe that folks like Arminian and Jaltus would back me up on that)...which is hardly relevant in the first place. I admit that the chapter, when viewed alone, seems to be a TULIP burtind out of the bindings of my bible...but with simple though it is shown to be quite irrelevant to the calvinist. Even if it were relevant it still does no more to push the TULIP theory than my foot.

I quote good ole Wesley:

Verse 17
Moreover - God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in scripture, For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, (as indeed it was, by overwhelming him and his army in the sea,) and my name declared through all the earth - As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still farther meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over the meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and at once over all their gods, by that terrible stroke of slaying all their priests, and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast; and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Exodus 9:16.

Verse 18
So then - That is, accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms, namely, on them that believe. And whom he willeth - Namely, them that believe not. He hardeneth - Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Verse 19
Why doth he still find fault - The particle still is strongly expressive of the objector's sour, morose murmuring. For who hath resisted his will - The word his likewise expresses his surliness and aversion to God, whom he does not even deign to name. Verse 20. Nay, but who art thou, O man - Little, impotent, ignorant man. That repliest against God - That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus - Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only by believing? Verse 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay - And much more hath not God power over his creatures, to appoint one vessel, namely, the believer, to honour, and another, the unbeliever, to dishonour? If we survey the right which God has over us, in a more general way, with regard to his intelligent creatures, God may be considered in two different views, as Creator, Proprietor, and Lord of all; or, as their moral Governor, and Judge. God, as sovereign Lord and Proprietor of all, dispenses his gifts or favours to his creatures with perfect wisdom, but by no rules or methods of proceeding that we are acquainted with. The time when we shall exist, the country where we shall live, our parents, our constitution of body and turn of mind; these, and numberless other circumstances, are doubtless ordered with perfect wisdom, but by rules that lie quite out of our sight. But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Therefore, though "He hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth," that is, suffers to be hardened in consequence of their obstinate wickedness; yet his is not the will of an arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical being. He wills nothing but what is infinitely wise and good; and therefore his will is a most proper rule of judgment. He will show mercy, as he hath assured us, to none but true believers, nor harden any but such as obstinately refuse his mercy. Jeremiah 18:6,7 Verse 22. What if God, being willing - Referring to Romans 9:18,19. That is, although it was now his will, because of their obstinate unbelief, To show his wrath - Which necessarily presupposes sin. And to make his power known - This is repeated from the seventeenth verse. Yet endured - As he did Pharaoh. With much longsuffering - Which should have led them to repentance. The vessels of wrath - Those who had moved his wrath by still rejecting his mercy. Fitted for destruction - By their own wilful and final impenitence. Is there any injustice in this ? Verse 23. That he might make known - What if by showing such longsuffering even to "the vessels of wrath," he did the more abundantly show the greatness of his glorious goodness, wisdom, and power, on the vessels of mercy; on those whom he had himself, by his grace, prepared for glory. Is this any injustice? Verse 24. Even us - Here the apostle comes to the other proposition, of grace free for all, whether Jew or gentile. Of the Jews - This he treats of, Romans 9:25. Of the gentiles - Treated of in the same verse.
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Romans 9". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible". <http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/wen/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=009>. 1765.
Admit it...nobody read the above quote. I'm fairly positive that nobody on here actually reads quotes that are that long. :hrm:

I, personally, think that Wesley was the most scripturally sound of all theologians. However, I personally think that God's providence is not so much deterministic of circumstances as much as it is deterministic of the processes of the development of particular circumstances.
I'm not sure if the above makes sense to anyone else...but it's pretty much worthless to the topic...so forget i said it.

So at any rate...the Romans 9 debate is highly irrelevant to the particular topic at hand.

Also...towards the end of the chapter...the concept of Faith is talked about. This, also, seems to be something that the 5-point brother seems to ignore.

Salvation comes through faith in the grace of God. The divine foreordination unto salvation is just not a topic that seems to ever be mentioned or alluded to.

And as for the other verse...God determined the process of salvation. Not the breadth of it.

ChristianTrader

August 19th 2003, 05:14 PM

mandolin:

2 Thes. 2:13
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[1] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

mandolin:

God is choosing them to salvation??
Or is he saving them through sanctification??
Which was chosen...the saved? or the act of salvation?

I ask that you please look at it again.

Dear sir, I see no other way to read it but in a calvinistic fashion. God chooses both the person and the method.
Lets walk through it.
God does what? Chooses. Who/What - You. To do What - To be saved. How - through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I have an interesting challenge for you. Can you rewrite the verse to mean what I think it means and then I will follow in rewriting the verse to say what I think you believe.

Romans 9:17-21
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

mandolin:
It's very important to understand the context of Romans. Though contextually...it is true that the chapter is talking about national election (and i do believe that folks like Arminian and Jaltus would back me up on that)...which is hardly relevant in the first place. I admit that the chapter, when viewed alone, seems to be a TULIP burtind out of the bindings of my bible...but with simple though it is shown to be quite irrelevant to the calvinist. Even if it were relevant it still does no more to push the TULIP theory than my foot.

I actually do not buy the national election argument. For example v. 6
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

To take that in a nationalistic perspective, one would have to say that there is a separate nation inside of Israel that is not Israel. It is much easier to take it that there are some individuals that are not a part of the elect.

Mandolin:
I quote good ole Wesley:

Verse 17
Moreover - God has an indisputable right to reject those who will not accept the blessings on his own terms. And this he exercised in the case of Pharaoh; to whom, after many instances of stubbornness and rebellion, he said, as it is recorded in scripture, For this very thing have I raised thee up - That is, Unless thou repent, this will surely be the consequence of my raising thee up, making thee a great and glorious king, that my power will be shown upon thee, (as indeed it was, by overwhelming him and his army in the sea,) and my name declared through all the earth - As it is at this day. Perhaps this may have a still farther meaning. It seems that God was resolved to show his power over the river, the insects, other animals, (with the natural causes of their health, diseases, life, and death,) over the meteors, the air, the sun, (all of which were worshipped by the Egyptians, from whom other nations learned their idolatry,) and at once over all their gods, by that terrible stroke of slaying all their priests, and their choicest victims, the firstborn of man and beast; and all this with a design, not only to deliver his people Israel, (for which a single act of omnipotence would have sufficed,) but to convince the Egyptians, that the objects of their worship were but the creatures of Jehovah, and entirely in his power, and to draw them and the neighbouring nations, who should hear of all these wonders, from their idolatry, to worship the one God. For the execution of this design, (in order to the display of the divine power over the various objects of their worship, in variety of wonderful acts, which were at the same time just punishments for their cruel oppression of the Israelites,) God was pleased to raise to the throne of an absolute monarchy, a man, not whom he had made wicked on purpose, but whom he found so, the proudest, the most daring and obstinate of all the Egyptian princes; and who, being incorrigible, well deserved to be set up in that situation, where the divine judgments fell the heaviest. Exodus 9:16.

Problem here is that, in verse 11, it says that Jacob and Esau's election had taken place before they were even before and before they had done anything good or bad. How can one now justify that God's decision on what to do with Pharaoah as stated in this verse was something that came up after he had done much evil?

The verse says that God raised him up for this purpose. This is not a threat, this is a proclamation of who was in control.

Verse 18
So then - That is, accordingly he does show mercy on his own terms, namely, on them that believe. And whom he willeth - Namely, them that believe not. He hardeneth - Leaves to the hardness of their hearts.

Verse 18 does not say what Wesley wishes it does so he just reads it into the verse. The mercy comes before the believing. Just looking at 15 and 16 shows that Wesley is wrong here:

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

It is not of him that willeth but of God that sheweth mercy. It is God who dictates who comes in.

Verse 19
Why doth he still find fault - The particle still is strongly expressive of the objector's sour, morose murmuring. For who hath resisted his will - The word his likewise expresses his surliness and aversion to God, whom he does not even deign to name. Verse 20. Nay, but who art thou, O man - Little, impotent, ignorant man. That repliest against God - That accusest God of injustice, for himself fixing the terms on which he will show mercy? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus - Why hast thou made me capable of honour and immortality, only by believing?

I do not remember anywhere that the verses says capable of honor or dishonor. It says for honor or dishonor. Could you explain where one gets the "capable" from the text?

Verse 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay - And much more hath not God power over his creatures, to appoint one vessel, namely, the believer, to honour, and another, the unbeliever, to dishonour?

Problem here is v. 11 again. He decided what to do with Jacob and Esau before they were born and before they had done good or evil. So to sy that he appoints after one is a believer or unbeliever does not seem warranted.

Admit it...nobody read the above quote. I'm fairly positive that nobody on here actually reads quotes that are that long. :hrm:
[/quote]

I read it but disagreed with mostly all of it, due to the amount of reading into the text that was done.

I, personally, think that Wesley was the most scripturally sound of all theologians. However, I personally think that God's providence is not so much deterministic of circumstances as much as it is deterministic of the processes of the development of particular circumstances.

Where is your scriptural basis that God does not so much deterministic of the circumstances. Did he not determine the very circumstance and the process that raised up Pharoah?

I'm not sure if the above makes sense to anyone else...but it's pretty much worthless to the topic...so forget i said it.

Too late :smile:

So at any rate...the Romans 9 debate is highly irrelevant to the particular topic at hand.

If you read in the necessary phrases, then yep it is not relevant.

Also...towards the end of the chapter...the concept of Faith is talked about. This, also, seems to be something that the 5-point brother seems to ignore.

Us five pointers do not ignore anything. That is why we are not arminian :smile:

Faith is talked about much throughtout the NT. The core issue is whether faith is something that is inherent within you that anyone can exercise or whether it is something given by God to a few that is always exercised.

Salvation comes through faith in the grace of God. The divine foreordination unto salvation is just not a topic that seems to ever be mentioned or alluded to.

So its faith [b]in[b] instead of faith by the grace of God? I have always read it is faith in Jesus by the Grace of God. Foreordination unto salvation is not talked about?

And as for the other verse...God determined the process of salvation. Not the breadth of it.

Glad you feel that way, now I think it is time you substantiate as I asked at the beginning.

CT

PS I will be away for a while so do not think I have ran and will not reply eventually.

mandolin

August 19th 2003, 05:46 PM

Dear sir, I see no other way to read it but in a calvinistic fashion. God chooses both the person and the method.
Lets walk through it.
It says god chose them from the beginning to be saved through the sanctifying work of the spirit. Meaning...the brothers in the faith ought to be stoked because they are saved byt he sanctifying work of God..not by their own work. But who are the brothers loved by the lord? Those who accept the calling of his prevenient grace. It is a comparison of believers and unbelievers. They were called by God through the gospel...and they believed it. Because of this...the predestined events take place.

Problem here is that, in verse 11, it says that Jacob and Esau's election had taken place before they were even before and before they had done anything good or bad. How can one now justify that God's decision on what to do with Pharaoah as stated in this verse was something that came up after he had done much evil
Yeah..before they were born God decided (prophecied) who would serve who. What this has to do with salvational election I do not know.

God raised up the faithless pharoah for this purpose. Why assume that God wouldn't love Pharoah if pharoah had faith. Quit binding god by your time...and your TULIP.

Verse 18 does not say what Wesley wishes it does so he just reads it into the verse. The mercy comes before the believing. Just looking at 15 and 16 shows that Wesley is wrong here:

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

It is not of him that willeth but of God that sheweth mercy. It is God who dictates who comes in.
no.
Wesley's reply is not in any way refuted.
It is not by our works..but by our faith.

I do not remember anywhere that the verses says capable of honor or dishonor. It says for honor or dishonor. Could you explain where one gets the "capable" from the text?
Basically...the text says Why hast though made me the way I am. Why have you made it so that I can be condemned or saved? Why not just make me perfect? Why give me the choice? Why not be a god of calvinistic universalism..and just save me?

Where is your scriptural basis that God does not so much deterministic of the circumstances. Did he not determine the very circumstance and the process that raised up Pharoah?
yes he did...to some extent. This is also straighly mentioned...and god says that he specifically ordained things in his life to convey his own power. Pharoah was faithless...god could do anything he wanted with him. So he raised him up to be a hardened heart.

Faith is talked about much throughtout the NT. The core issue is whether faith is something that is inherent within you that anyone can exercise or whether it is something given by God to a few that is always exercised.
The idea that saving faith is god given and ordained basically contradicts the entire meaning of its usage all throughout the epistles, gospels, and the like. It takes a lot of loopholes to make faith something that God forces upon people. So choose for youself whom you will serve...that is your faith.

So its faith [b]in[b] instead of faith by the grace of God? I have always read it is faith in Jesus by the Grace of God. Foreordination unto salvation is not talked about?
It is both.
Faith comes by the grace of god...but it goes to all...because god loves all and wants to save all. So we must believe and have faith IN the grace of god with the faith OF the grace of god.

We could not be saved without the prevenient grace of god...so it is both in and of the grace of god. The ultimate saving point comes down to each individual...because the prevenient grace of god is never limited, and the love of god is not limited.

The term predestine is used throughout the bible many times. God predestined the way to salvation. He predestined the death of christ. He predestined the conformity and sanctification of his followers. He predestined that his followers would be the ones who believed in him. Did he ever predestine the specific salvation of specific men? No

Romans 3:22
Righteousness from god comes through faith in christ jesus to all who believe.

Arminian

August 19th 2003, 05:47 PM

Trader,

Dear sir, I see no other way to read it but in a calvinistic fashion. God chooses both the person and the method.
Lets walk through it.
God does what? Chooses. Who/What - You. To do What - To be saved. How - through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I have an interesting challenge for you. Can you rewrite the verse to mean what I think it means and then I will follow in rewriting the verse to say what I think you believe.

All the verses you've used have been covered by me in recent weeks. You can look back at my comments if you like.

In this verse, however, Paul is contrasting believers with unbelievers. He's saying that from the beginning God chose believers to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

It is with the arrival of Christ that God's final deliverance has arrived. The salvation that was promised long before has come and believers are sanctified through the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Prior to the arrival of Christ, believers were set apart by the law and awaited the Seed to whom the promise was made to come and give life, which is by the Spirit. This salvation has finally come, and they, along with us, are now perfected because the final blow to sin and death was made in Messiah.

I'll be gone Thursday through Sunday.

Later,

mandolin

August 19th 2003, 06:00 PM

Amen arminian.
dead on, informative, and short...
I love your posts :joy:
Rock on...God bless...
Steven

Arminian

August 19th 2003, 06:20 PM

dead on, informative, and short...

I think we'll end up discussing the book as a whole, however. I had to restrain myself from doing 1:10 - 2:16..

mandolin

August 19th 2003, 08:00 PM

yeah...anyways...you have really taught me a lot about my own beliefs. Between you and Jaltus, I can always trust that my "ignorant and polemic" claims (as they have been called many times) can actually be backed. :yipee:

Chappie

August 20th 2003, 12:57 PM

Yesterday @ 10:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189954#post189954)
ChristianTrader:

Problem here is that, in verse 11, it says that Jacob and Esau's election had taken place before they were even before and before they had done anything good or bad. How can one now justify that God's decision on what to do with Pharaoh as stated in this verse was something that came up after he had done much evil?

The verse says that God raised him up for this purpose. This is not a threat, this is a proclamation of who was in control.

CT:
I don't think that it has been denied that God has power over all things, what has been denied is that he exercises deterministic control over everything.

Another problem for you is that you read the part of the passage that speaks of Jacob and Esau being chosen before they were born, you hijack the passage and insert salvation when the passage clearly relates to the elder serving the younger: And God choosing Jacob as the vessel through which he would fulfill the promises that he made to Abraham.

Concerning Pharaoh, being found wallowing in sin and idolatry, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. He hardened his heart in the condition that it was found. God did not predestine that he be evil and then harden him. I have ran into many Arminians and Calvinists who are hardened in their respective positions. Each one believing that God hardened their hearts in their respective positions.

Prayerfully, it is God that hardened my heart against Calvinism. Your prayer is that God hardened your heart within the confines of Calvinism. If both are true, then we both serve a double minded God... If both are true, then God should receive the glory for one, as well as the condemnation and torture for the other.

If God loves according to his good pleasure, and condemns according to his good pleasure: Common sense would conclude that men are no more than pawns and puppets in the hands of a whimsical God.. Does Calvinism make sense? Does not the puppet master determine every action of the puppet? Do you not have God doing the same? By all definitions of the puppet and the puppeteer, God has created men as mere puppets, and he is the puppeteer..

Also, if the men (puppets) that he condemns, after a fair trial that is a farce in the first place: Ever; in the whole of their existence had any value to him, for what possible reason would he create them, harden them, and burn them? Who are you O man to question God? The question is for you…His ways are higher than out ways…. That’s right, higher. Not lower… :huh:

Chappie

August 27th 2003, 11:20 AM

CT.
It is very interesting here that you do not even attempt to substantiate, your previous reading that one comes before beginning given. All you have done here is talk about my being deceived by Calvinism. Show how comes preceding giving or we should end it right here. If you cannot show that then you lose. (Also there is the option that John didn’t have his coffee before he wrote that verse. He misquoted Jesus right???).

CT.
I agree that Jesus falsified nothing. I also make the claim that the Bible does not contradict itself. So I have few options as to where to go. You have failed to substantiate coming preceding giving/drawing. Therefore you try to run to a different context in order to "win". Just admit you hate the idea that God has an elect so much , that you do not care if the Bible teaches it or not. You still failed to show how Jesus cannot raised up all those who are draw and not fail. There really isnt any wiggle room here.

John 6:35-37
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Ok, study buddy: Shall we get started?
Verse 35, Christ states: He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth shall never thirst. (v36) But I say unto you that you have seen me, and did not believe. (V37) Now, in verse 37, Christ tells them; all that the father giveth me shall come to me. First of all, there is absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that this giving preceeds faith.

Notice how I kept each passage in the sequence given…..

But have you ever wondered why verse 35 & 36 are placed before verse 37? They are instrumental in presenting to us the picture and essence of what the writer is trying to tell us. They are not thoughts from mars that just popped up in the writers’ presentation here on earth. They are instrumental in establishing context. Within the framework of context they establish criteria for verse 37.

Verse 35, Christ is the source (Bread) of all life; he is the source of all our needs. (Water)
Verse 36, They have seem him, but they still do not believe. They will not come if they do not believe.
Verse 37, In order to be given to the Son by the father, you must believe. All that believe will come. All that come are a gift from the Father to the Son.

John 6:38-40
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 38. Christ came to do the Fathers will.
Verse 39. What is The Fathers will? “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Verse 40, Christ further elaborates on the Fathers will. “That every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Every one that seeth the Son, and believeth The Son, Will come to the Son. These are the ones that are given to the Son, and will be raised on the last day by the Son.

Now it’s your turn study buddy, using the scriptures in the sequence and context in which they are given, show me where “giving” precedes faith…

CT
I am glad that my opinion mean nothing, but I would hope that Jesus' words mean something to you.

Shall we now see if you are able to place Christ’s words above St. John Calvin? Keep every thing in sequence…..

:whip:

Stephen

August 27th 2003, 08:02 PM

08-19-2003 @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189975#post189975)
mandolin:

Yeah..before they were born God decided (prophecied) who would serve who. What this has to do with salvational election I do not know.

Alright, it's my opinion this thread has had so many topics I've finally given up trying to keep track, but

I noticed this post, and it seemed interesting. God decides (prophecied)? Since when was deciding (act of ordaining, choosing) a synonym for prophesy (seeing the future)?

This is just directed to mandonline, by the way

ChristianTrader

August 30th 2003, 03:18 PM

Chappie:

John 6:35-37
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Ok, study buddy: Shall we get started?
Verse 35, Christ states: He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth shall never thirst. (v36) But I say unto you that you have seen me, and did not believe. (V37) Now, in verse 37, Christ tells them; all that the father giveth me shall come to me. First of all, there is absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that this giving preceeds faith.

Notice how I kept each passage in the sequence given…..

Well study buddy, I think it should be taken as a given that we are not quite on the same page. Hopefully by the end of this post we will be.

Okay we have no disagreement about verses 35 or 36. However we have a multi car pile up at 37. Here you once again just assume what you are trying to show. One quick question, is "shall" a past tense, present tense or future tense verb. You are reading it as a past tense while I read it as a future tense. Can you substantiate past tense in the structure of verse 37? You also throw in that nowhere else does the Bible talk about the necessity of being given before coming. I do not buy the nowhere else are such things mentioned but I will accept that most of the rest of the scripture does not delve in to the question. Scripture is clear that one must believe in order to receive salvation. Most other passages do not go into what comes first, the giving or the coming.

But have you ever wondered why verse 35 & 36 are placed before verse 37? They are instrumental in presenting to us the picture and essence of what the writer is trying to tell us. They are not thoughts from mars that just popped up in the writers’ presentation here on earth. They are instrumental in establishing context. Within the framework of context they establish criteria for verse 37.

Verse 35, Christ is the source (Bread) of all life; he is the source of all our needs. (Water)
Verse 36, They have seem him, but they still do not believe. They will not come if they do not believe.
Verse 37, In order to be given to the Son by the father, you must believe. All that believe will come. All that come are a gift from the Father to the Son.

First off, I never said anything in John was from Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn. Everything in the Bible is there for a purpose for God put all things in it for correction and teaching.

v. 35, talks about how Jesus is the only way.
v. 36, talks about how just seeing Jesus does not mean one will believe.
v. 37, God gives Jesus people, they come and Jesus will raise them up in the last day. There are no qualification on God giving of anyone here, besides his Free Will choice. You might wish it to be otherwise, but you will not find backing here in John 6.

John 6:38-40
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 38. Christ came to do the Fathers will.
Verse 39. What is The Fathers will? “That of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Verse 40, Christ further elaborates on the Fathers will. “That every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Every one that seeth the Son, and believeth The Son, Will come to the Son. These are the ones that are given to the Son, and will be raised on the last day by the Son.

We basically agree here to a large extent. The only issue is the your last paragraph. "These are the ones that are given to the Son" is correct, the only issue is that John 6:37, shows that giving precedes the coming and the believing. You will not believe unless you are given.

Now it’s your turn study buddy, using the scriptures in the sequence and context in which they are given, show me where “giving” precedes faith…

John 6:37 does just that :argh:

Shall we now see if you are able to place Christ’s words above St. John Calvin? Keep every thing in sequence…..

:whip:

I would never put John Calvin's words above Jesus'. Fortunately for my case, they said the same thing here.

CT

Chappie

September 2nd 2003, 06:44 PM

08-30-2003 @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199532#post199532)
ChristianTrader:

Well study buddy, I think it should be taken as a given that we are not quite on the same page. Hopefully by the end of this post we will be.

Okay we have no disagreement about verses 35 or 36. However we have a multi car pile up at 37.

Calvinist are notoriously bad drivers.. i.e., the scriptures..

Here you once again just assume what you are trying to show. One quick question, is "shall" a past tense, present tense or future tense verb. You are reading it as a past tense while I read it as a future tense. Can you substantiate past tense in the structure of verse 37?

Study Buddy:
Color me an unconscious incompetent if I fail to follow "precisely" what is stated in verse 37, forsaking not even one jot or tittle.

Here we go:
John 6:37
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

All, {all means "all",} that The Father giveth me:
Giveth NT:1325
didomi (did'-o-mee); a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern. in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

"All", that The Father giveth me: If you are reading this in the future tense, it definitely creates some problems for election before the foundation of the world. That's what we call a contradiction.

{A}If we say that it is future tense, that means that none were given (saved) before the advent of Christ.

{B}If we say that it is past tense, that means that none will be saved after Christ made his comments.

{C}If we say that it is present tense, the farthest that we can stretch it is during the lifetime of Christ.

The only option that is available to us is that it covers the past, present and future. As people accept Christ as their Lord and savior, they are counted as the gift.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Notice the use of the semicolon separating “shall come to me” and “and him that cometh: Denoting a degree of separation greater than that imposed by a coma, yet less that what is imposed by a period. What this should relate to you is that they are complimentary, yet are two different thoughts.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; (One thought)
And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (The second thought)

{1}All that the Father giveth to me; there is no direct connection between this statement and election. If one had not already formed their own election propaganda, it would not be suggested that they do so simply by reading this passage. If you say there is, please show it to me..

{2} Shall come to me; Shall come, do we need to look these words up and argue the impact that each one has on the surrounding text. “Shall come”; a volitional act to any reasonable and logical interpretation of the english language.

{3}and him that cometh to me And him that is chosen: Nope, doesn’t say that does it. Still holds contextually to the undeniably volitional act of coming of ones own will.

I will in no wise cast out. Surely we can agree that “in no wise cast out” means “in no wise cast out.

Btecha that you can’t give a exhaustive and precise exegesis of this passage and make it say election….

You also throw in that nowhere else does the Bible talk about the necessity of being given before coming. I do not buy the nowhere else are such things mentioned but I will accept that most of the rest of the scripture does not delve in to the question. Scripture is clear that one must believe in order to receive salvation. Most other passages do not go into what comes first, the giving or the coming.

Stick with “believe” and you will be OK. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Our relationship with Christ comes through faith. Before one can talk on the phone, one first needs a phone.

You do not have to buy into my saying “You also throw in that nowhere else does the Bible talk about the necessity of being given before coming”. Suffice it to say that if you do not remember reading it in the bible, then it should have absolutely no bearing on your theology. Show it to me or forget it…

The only absolute criteria for salvation that must be found in the one saved is faith. Election is never mentioned in the bible as criteria necessary to be saved. It is nomenclature given by God to those that are saved. Those that are saved are called my chosen. {elect}It is stated that God chose the criteria, {faith in Christ} not the person.

First off, I never said anything in John was from Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn. Everything in the Bible is there for a purpose for God put all things in it for correction and teaching.

Tonto no sabe, que pasa aqui’..

v. 35, talks about how Jesus is the only way.
v. 36, talks about how just seeing Jesus does not mean one will believe.
v. 37, God gives Jesus people, they come and Jesus will raise them up in the last day. There are no qualification on God giving of anyone here, besides his Free Will choice. You might wish it to be otherwise, but you will not find backing here in John 6.

You might want to apply your own good advice to the passage also. Neither do you find what you ultimately want to prove..

CT.
Orthodoxy contends that the God of election and the God of freewill is the same God. What do you believe? Do you believe that a God that predestines everything and a God that interacts volitionally with his creation can realistically be described as the same God? Do you believe that there are eternal ramifications within the differences in our faiths?

ChristianTrader

September 5th 2003, 06:20 PM

Chappie:
CT:
Here you once again just assume what you are trying to show. One quick question, is "shall" a past tense, present tense or future tense verb. You are reading it as a past tense while I read it as a future tense. Can you substantiate past tense in the structure of verse 37?

Chappie:

Study Buddy:
Color me an unconscious incompetent if I fail to follow "precisely" what is stated in verse 37, forsaking not even one jot or tittle.

Here we go:
John 6:37
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

All, {all means "all",} that The Father giveth me:
Giveth NT:1325
didomi (did'-o-mee); a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern. in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly, or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

"All", that The Father giveth me: If you are reading this in the future tense, it definitely creates some problems for election before the foundation of the world. That's what we call a contradiction.

{A}If we say that it is future tense, that means that none were given (saved) before the advent of Christ.

{B}If we say that it is past tense, that means that none will be saved after Christ made his comments.

{C}If we say that it is present tense, the farthest that we can stretch it is during the lifetime of Christ.

The only option that is available to us is that it covers the past, present and future. As people accept Christ as their Lord and savior, they are counted as the gift.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Notice the use of the semicolon separating “shall come to me” and “and him that cometh: Denoting a degree of separation greater than that imposed by a coma, yet less that what is imposed by a period. What this should relate to you is that they are complimentary, yet are two different thoughts.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; (One thought)
And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (The second thought)

{1}All that the Father giveth to me; there is no direct connection between this statement and election. If one had not already formed their own election propaganda, it would not be suggested that they do so simply by reading this passage. If you say there is, please show it to me..

{2} Shall come to me; Shall come, do we need to look these words up and argue the impact that each one has on the surrounding text. “Shall come”; a volitional act to any reasonable and logical interpretation of the english language.

{3}and him that cometh to me And him that is chosen: Nope, doesn’t say that does it. Still holds contextually to the undeniably volitional act of coming of ones own will.

I will in no wise cast out. Surely we can agree that “in no wise cast out” means “in no wise cast out.

Btecha that you can’t give a exhaustive and precise exegesis of this passage and make it say election….

Wow. How much writing can you do and still miss the point. My issue was simply which part of speech was "shall". In the context of v. 37, shall is obviously future tense. Give is obviously present tense. Before you going to rationalization mode, you have to first admit this.

Next, why would giveth being present tense have to mean that it only goes to Jesus' earthy lifetime. (Of course you have to mean earthly because Jesus never had a regular death where he stayed dead). Present tense should be able to extend. (People have been given and coming sense the cross.)

No one was "saved" before Jesus death on the cross. That is why the saints went to Abraham's bosom previous to Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus could only go and get them after he had redeemed them by his death.

It is interesting that you dissected giveth but not shall (which is the word I asked you to dissect).

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Notice the use of the semicolon separating “shall come to me” and “and him that cometh: Denoting a degree of separation greater than that imposed by a coma, yet less that what is imposed by a period. What this should relate to you is that they are complimentary, yet are two different thoughts.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; (One thought)
And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (The second thought)

I have no problem with anyone saying that the two statements in v.37 are complimentary. The issue is how they are complimentary. (As an aside, you just say that they are complimentary but not how they are complimentary. I will help you out on that point. Need to do my Christian duty :teeth:)

They are complimentary because they are a progression. First comes the giving and then the coming. Not the same thing but are definitely related and complimentary.

{1}All that the Father giveth to me; there is no direct connection between this statement and election. If one had not already formed their own election propaganda, it would not be suggested that they do so simply by reading this passage. If you say there is, please show it to me..

Um if one does not already believe that they are in full control of their destiny, but instead lets the Bible tell them, who is in control, then it would not be suggested that there is no relationship here.

{2} Shall come to me; Shall come, do we need to look these words up and argue the impact that each one has on the surrounding text. “Shall come”; a volitional act to any reasonable and logical interpretation of the english language.

{3}and him that cometh to me And him that is chosen: Nope, doesn’t say that does it. Still holds contextually to the undeniably volitional act of coming of ones own will.

I will in no wise cast out. Surely we can agree that “in no wise cast out” means “in no wise cast out.

Okay, once again, one who comes to God does that of their own free will. They want to come to God. The differences between you and me is that I believe that the will itself is not free. We are slaves to sin previous to Jesus' redeeming/buying us and bringing giving us the faith with which we believe.

Btecha that you can’t give a exhaustive and precise exegesis of this passage and make it say election….

How much do you owe me? :bonk:

CT:
You also throw in that nowhere else does the Bible talk about the necessity of being given before coming. I do not buy the nowhere else are such things mentioned but I will accept that most of the rest of the scripture does not delve in to the question. Scripture is clear that one must believe in order to receive salvation. Most other passages do not go into what comes first, the giving or the coming.

Chappie:
Stick with “believe” and you will be OK. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Our relationship with Christ comes through faith. Before one can talk on the phone, one first needs a phone.

You do not have to buy into my saying “You also throw in that nowhere else does the Bible talk about the necessity of being given before coming”. Suffice it to say that if you do not remember reading it in the bible, then it should have absolutely no bearing on your theology. Show it to me or forget it…

The only absolute criteria for salvation that must be found in the one saved is faith. Election is never mentioned in the bible as criteria necessary to be saved. It is nomenclature given by God to those that are saved. Those that are saved are called my chosen. {elect}It is stated that God chose the criteria, {faith in Christ} not the person.

So what you are saying is that God can call anyone his chosen? If he just chose the criteria and not the person, and the criteria is applicable to all; therefore all can be called his chosen. But that aint what happens. He only calls those who are saved his chosen.

Also election is just a term to describe those who are saved but really is just a dummy term because there was no real election? Oh come on now :doh: So God could just as easily had, us called his peanut butter? (A term that has no relevance whatsoever)

CT.
Orthodoxy contends that the God of election and the God of freewill is the same God. What do you believe? Do you believe that a God that predestines everything and a God that interacts volitionally with his creation can realistically be described as the same God? Do you believe that there are eternal ramifications within the differences in our faiths?

I do believe that the God I describe is the God of the Bible. (He elects, and we are free to follow our will; which is either a slave to sin or a slave to him). I also believe that the differences between our faiths does have eternal consequences, which is why I have spent time over the past month responding to you when others would have given up. I want you to know the truth and be free.

CT

Chappie

September 6th 2003, 02:27 PM

Yesterday @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=204105#post204105)
ChristianTrader:

Chappie:
Wow. How much writing can you do and still miss the point? My issue was simply which part of speech was "shall". In the context of v. 37, shall is obviously future tense. Give is obviously present tense. Before you going to rationalization mode, you have to first admit this.

You have absolutely no concept of how context modifies tenses do you Study Buddy. Your "Shall" is past tense because it has already happened: It is present tense because it is still happening; it is future tense because it will happen again in the future...

You say that God choose you before the foundations of the world were laid, what tense is that?

Next, why would giveth being present tense have to mean that it only goes to Jesus' earthy lifetime. (Of course you have to mean earthly because Jesus never had a regular death where he stayed dead). Present tense should be able to extend. (People have been given and coming sense the cross.)

Christ’s death was as regular as any man's. He died, we die, The Father raised him up, and he will raise us up. Does the amount of time that he spent in the grave confuse you?

Present tense means now. How long is now? Present dispensation. Does that give you some wiggle-room?

No one was "saved" before Jesus death on the cross. That is why the saints went to Abraham's bosom previous to Jesus' death on the cross. Jesus could only go and get them after he had redeemed them by his death.

Did you perchance confuse salvation with where they were?

It is interesting that you dissected giveth but not shall (which is the word I asked you to dissect).

Return to my dissection of the word "givith", replace it with the word "shall"; the same rules of language, context, grammar, and logic apply to both words. You cannot limit the activity of either word to past, present, or future tense. Logically and reasonably that is.

I have no problem with anyone saying that the two statements in v.37 are complimentary. The issue is how they are complimentary. (As an aside, you just say that they are complimentary but not how they are complimentary. I will help you out on that point. Need to do my Christian duty :teeth:)

They are complimentary because they are a progression. First comes the giving and then the coming. Not the same thing but are definitely related and complimentary.

Agreed
John 6:37
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Still for your election theory to work, you need to show me that he gave him Sue, Billy, Bob, Calvin, Betty Jean, and Latisha; instead of believers corporately.

Um if one does not already believe that they are in full control of their destiny, but instead lets the Bible tell them, who is in control, then it would not be suggested that there is no relationship here.

That is a silly assertion; no one believes that they are in full control of their destiny. You do not understand the dynamics of choice nor what constitutes freewill. Without that knowledge, you will never be able to respond to either logically and reasonably.

Okay, once again, one who comes to God does that of their own free will. They want to come to God. The differences between you and me is that I believe that the will itself is not free. We are slaves to sin previous to Jesus' redeeming/buying us and bringing giving us the faith with which we believe.

The will is not free until God set's it free. That freedom comes when God seeks us and makes it possible for us to choose him. Once that is done the will is freed from the bondage of sin and man is rendered accountable for the choice that he makes. Those that are never afforded that opportunity are not accountable (subject to judgment and punishment for their actions) culpably for being the only thing that it was ever possible for them to be.

There is a moral difference between being judged and punished for ones actions; which is what God does at the GWTJ, and being held accountable for what one is powerless to change. God's standards of justice are much higher than Calvin’s.

How much do you owe me? :bonk:
Just to keep providing you with opportunity to escape Calvin’s deception. As long as someone continues to present you with truth, you have a choice. Truth or Calvin...

So what you are saying is that God can call anyone his chosen? If he just chose the criteria and not the person, and the criteria is applicable to all; therefore all can be called his chosen. But that aint what happens. He only calls those who are saved his chosen.

That is not what I said and you know it. I said that God choose the criteria, (Faith) and all that satisfy that criteria he calls his chosen.

Also election is just a term to describe those who are saved but really is just a dummy term because there was no real election? Oh come on now :doh: So God could just as easily had, us called his peanut butter? (A term that has no relevance whatsoever)
Amen....

I do believe that the God I describe is the God of the Bible. (He elects, and we are free to follow our will; which is either a slave to sin or a slave to him).

How is it that you cannot see the contradictory redundancy in your comments? If God has already chosen (elected, but then you just said that there was no election held) whom he will save and who will not be saved, what real choice is left to man? Sure, we will chose to follow our will, but still according to your concept of election, God does not even give some a chance. And then you make matters worse by saying that they deserve to be punished because of it.

That is tantamount to saying that a woman could be justly punished for not being born a man. Severely punished, forever, with everlasting torment. Fire, no air conditioners, Hot, hot, hot.

I also believe that the differences between our faiths does have eternal consequences, which is why I have spent time over the past month responding to you when others would have given up. I want you to know the truth and be free.

We are likeminded in that regard. Problem, one is telling the truth; the other is telling a lie. Or it could be that both of us are telling a lie. I have not disregarded that possibility. But we both cannot be telling the truth. The word of God demands that we continue to seek the truth rather than flatter each other… In that regard, you are appreciated. For you and I, the truth is more important than “you hurt my feelings”. May God bless you for your willingness suffer for the truth of God’s word. Others will run. Others have already ran…

In some of our efforts to be Christlike, we have become so heavenly holy, that we are no earthly good… Many are willing to leave a brother in sin simply because "you hurt my feelings". They are weak christians if you ask me.... They have a lot of feelings, but no power.. :cheers:

:bonk:You are wrong, but you are appreciated. :shrug:

We have differences, still you are loved...:thumb:

Questforreason

October 22nd 2003, 05:06 PM

Chappie,

You are right in desiring God's word for proof while I seem to think that the others are giving you good Biblical proof. I will try and to my best in giving you a few verses that prove we are Elected unto Salvation.

Scripture emphatically teaches that we must be chosen if we are to ever come to Christ.

This is seen in John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

The word "can" here talks about ability. We are not able to come to Him unless we are drawn.

Thus those whom are drawn are those whom the Father has given to Christ (John 6:37). And who are those whom the Father has given? The Elect.

Acts 13:48 says "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been apointed to eternal life believed." Those who come are those whom are drawn and those whom are drawn are those whom are given and those whom are given are those whom were apointed to believe.

This is reinforced by 2 thess. 2:13 "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lod, because God has chosen you from the beginning for (KJV says "to") salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (NASB)"

We know that because man cannot come to Christ his faith must be given to Him. THis is seen in Phil. 1:29. "For it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake". As in the same way as we are asked to look on trials as Gifts from God so are we to realize that our faith is given to us. Now you may say well then everybody equally has been given faith then. But 2 Thess. 3:2 says "not all have faith".
We believe through Grace (Acts 18:27).

Romans 11:4-7 speaks of the "remnant according to God's gracious choice". And v. 7 says "those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened". Read the context though.

Remember we loved Him because he FIRST loved US. We did not choose him first...for why would we? We are dead in our sins, hating God with our whole hearts (Ephesians 2).

To wrap this off, Jesus says "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

And if you are wondering why God chose some and left others to their own desires...that can be a different thread. But Election unto salvation is not only logical but Scriptural.

God bless all those seeking the Truth.

QFR

Chappie

October 22nd 2003, 06:56 PM

I must though admit that my opponent’s reason is somewhat difficult to follow. As it appears that we are debating, “which came first, the chicken or the egg, instead of who does the father draw. Is my opponent arguing who the father draws, or how he draws them. Does giving to the son precede drawing or vice versa. Essentially, my opponent appears to be arguing “the how”, rather than “the who”. “The who” being that which I considered the point of contention in this debate.

My opponent appears to have a problem with my assertion that, “to come” is a volitional act. The integrity and implications of the word ends the moment force is applied. Being that the word “draw” is not necessarily indicative of irresistible force, we have to understand its implications within the context of the words “will come”: Whose implications are more evident.

My opponent then continues with this recap:
“If the Father gives you to the Son, then you will come to the Son”. A fact that is not stated within the confines of John 6. If my opponent desires to state this as a valid conclusion, I would only ask for scriptural evidence that I too can evaluate. Still, this does not resolve the issue of "who the father gives to the son".

My opponent will now say, all those that are drawn are The Fathers gift to The Son. Which in light of John 12:32, would immediately indicate that all men are saved. This I do not believe to be my opponents’ position.
John 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

My opponent then correctly states my position that no one can come to the father unless the Father draws him. He then lists three possible scenarios that can resolve the issue in harmony with his belief system. Three that fit perfectly with misconceptions that he has already drawn. But I contend that there is a forth possibility that does harm to my opponents position that he is unwilling to consider.

That being that all men are drawn, {just as specifically indicated in John 12:32;} but that many resist and many attempt to come outside of the confines of faith. Of those that are drawn that do not respond through faith, they are rejected as a gift to the Son because they do not believe in the Son.

My opponent then goes on to emphasize the logic of his conclusions as evidence of their validity. 100%, I agree that any resolution of scripture has to be arrived at through reason and logic. But reason and logic in no way guarantee the validity of ones assertions; as reason and logic are quite capable of producing differing points of view. Truth must be found in the scriptures.

My opponent now proclaims that according to the rules of debate, his conclusions stand. But I am willing to allow each one to be convinced in their own mind. As I am more concerned with the truth of scripture than I am with the rules of debate. Shall we allow the scriptures to decide what is true and what is false instead of the rules of debate?

It is unwise that I argue that one does not bring preconception to any passages of scripture that he reads. To do so is to indicate that we are attempting to evaluate and comprehend certain passages from a complete lack of knowledge. I have spent a tremendous amount of time studying God’s word, therefore as my opponent suggest; I do come with preconceptions. But that is neither the problem nor the issue. The issue being, can we find our preconception within the passages to which we attach them? If not, are we willing to allow the passages to teach us otherwise.

The volitional aspects of John 6:44 are there for all to see. Therefore I conclude that I have treated this passage with due love, respect, and reverence. And as my evaluation is there for all to see, I do not find it wise to re-evaluate the passage.

If my opponent has concluded that all that is needs to be known about the word “coming” is included in the text of the passage, I can understand why my opponent cannot extract the full richness and blessings of the passage. Granted, the passage is not teaching the doctrine of freewill, but it is definitely set within the confines of freewill if one is to receive its full range and value. Verse 37 is not a foundational passage, it must be read and understood within the context that it is written. There is no misapplication. For one to be able to misapply, one must first do harm to the passages that surround it.

Now we can see evidence or my opponent’s preconceptions. Will he now admit that he brought his with him also? Why, and on what authority can reformers conclude, and then have the audacity to teach to the body of Christ; that “all men” has to mean anything other than all men. Have any reformers translated the bible and inserted the words “all Jews and all Gentiles” in place of the words “all men”. I hope not…. No, they only do that behind closed doors…

It has never been my contention that the cross calls anybody, but within the analogy that it is placed; men that understand it are drawn to it. Within that curiosity lies the seeds of faith. My opponent continues to superimpose the words called and drawn as though they were the same words. Are they?

My opponent now asserts that in the passage where Christ says, if I be lifted up, that it refers to the cross. Since when has “if I be lifted up” refer to a cross. “I”, the person of Christ, not the cross. The issue is not whither the cross draws all men, the cross draws nobody. It is Christ that draws all men. He now refers to the fact that the cross is foolishness to Jews and Gentiles, is not preaching put in the same category. Is the gospel preached not the power of God unto salvation to all those that believe..

To conclude that “all men” literally means “all Jews and gentiles” is a leap of faith that is unnecessary, and one that I am unwilling to take. If we take this one leap, and another person takes another leap, soon we have chaos. People leaping here, people leaping there, people leaping everywhere. No, let the scriptures say what they say, and they must mean what they say if we intend to maintain any semblance of order.

Chappie

October 22nd 2003, 07:16 PM

John 6:38-44
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
All that are given will be saved. No reference to election as the means.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here the means are established….. FAITH. No mention of election.

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
No man can come unless the father draw him. Absolutely no hint of only some so-called elect being drawn. If it is true, you thought it from some other place in scripture. It is not established here.

So, who are drawn? John 12:32: If I be lifted up, I will draw all men. Now you show me where it says, “I will draw all my elect”. If you cannot, you should at least be opened up to the possibility that there is a hole in your theology…

If you want to convince me with scripture, then let scripture speak for itself. Please do not squeeze it into saying something else. In order for John Calvin to perpetrate the concept of election, there had to be a shortage of bibles or people that could read.

Chappie

October 22nd 2003, 07:33 PM

Yesterday @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=252569#post252569)
Questforreason:

Chappie,

You are right in desiring God's word for proof while I seem to think that the others are giving you good Biblical proof. I will try and to my best in giving you a few verses that prove we are Elected unto Salvation.

Scripture emphatically teaches that we must be chosen if we are to ever come to Christ.

This is seen in John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
Finally we get to that word, “draw”. But first: No man can do what? “COME”! Come! A volitional act. A response to a beckoning or call. One can “come” only as long as the will is free. When the will is overpowered, the person begins to be dragged or drawn against his will.

No one can come, does speak of ability. So the drawing must be that which gives one the ability. If that ability is resisted rather than applied, then one must be dragged or overpowered.

So we must conclude that men must be able to resist this drawing because when it becomes irresistible, one no longer "comes". Because that is a volitional act; Incompatable with one being dragged. So in essence the meaning of the word “come” and “drawn” have a mitigating effect upon each other. The word “come” mitigates the amount of power that can be applied by the "drawn": Lest we negate the integerity of the word, "come". It demands that the amount of force used in “drawn” be resistible.

Therefore if the power applied by the word “draw” must be resistible, it stands to reason that it is possible for some to respond positively, and it also makes it possible for some to respond negatively. Those that respond positively are the ones that are given to The Son by The father. They are called the Chosen of God, The Elect.

Remember, Christ came to save the world. (John 6:33 & John 3:16) So if Christ came to offer salvation to the world, it stands to reason that God would draw all men to him.
John 12:32
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Was Christ lifted up? Here we have a direct contradiction to your assertion that only the elect are drawn.

ChristianTrader

October 23rd 2003, 12:56 AM

Chappie:

You have absolutely no concept of how context modifies tenses do you Study Buddy. Your "Shall" is past tense because it has already happened: It is present tense because it is still happening; it is future tense because it will happen again in the future...

It seems like you are treating shall like a get out of jail free card. Unfortunately for you it is not. When one reads it in context, one is hindered from making it anything. In verse 37 and in context, it is easy to see that the giving precedes the coming. In the verse, giving is present tense and shall is past tense. It really is basic grammar.

You say that God choose you before the foundations of the world were laid, what tense is that?

That is easily past tense. The foundation of the world have been laid, therefore the choosing has already happened.

Christ’s death was as regular as any man's. He died, we die, The Father raised him up, and he will raise us up. Does the amount of time that he spent in the grave confuse you?

Present tense means now. How long is now? Present dispensation. Does that give you some wiggle-room?

All I mean by present tense is that it has been currently happening since the burial is and resurrection of Christ. God is currently giving people to Christ. I really don't see how this is controversial.

Did you perchance confuse salvation with where they were?

:hrm:
I dont think I confused anything. I just said that salvation did not occur before the cross. If it did, then people would have been able to go to heaven before the cross. That did not happen.

CT: It is interesting that you dissected giveth but not shall (which is the word I asked you to dissect).

Chappie:
Return to my dissection of the word "givith", replace it with the word "shall"; the same rules of language, context, grammar, and logic apply to both words. You cannot limit the activity of either word to past, present, or future tense. Logically and reasonably that is.

You can limit a lot of things when you read it in context. It seems that according to you context does not help us and no one can ever tell what someone is trying to say, because by the same logic whenever someone says shall or give, it could mean past, present or future. That is just nonsense.

CT:I have no problem with anyone saying that the two statements in v.37 are complimentary. The issue is how they are complimentary. (As an aside, you just say that they are complimentary but not how they are complimentary. I will help you out on that point. Need to do my Christian duty )

They are complimentary because they are a progression. First comes the giving and then the coming. Not the same thing but are definitely related and complimentary.

chappie:
Agreed
John 6:37
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Still for your election theory to work, you need to show me that he gave him Sue, Billy, Bob, Calvin, Betty Jean, and Latisha; instead of believers corporately.

I am not sure how the corporate vs. individual thing is in play here. If you could explain further I would appreciate it. The way I see it is if I show that giving precedes the coming, the individual vs. corporate thing is moot.

CT:
Um if one does not already believe that they are in full control of their destiny, but instead lets the Bible tell them, who is in control, then it would not be suggested that there is no relationship here.

Chappie:
That is a silly assertion; no one believes that they are in full control of their destiny. You do not understand the dynamics of choice nor what constitutes freewill. Without that knowledge, you will never be able to respond to either logically and reasonably.

Actually if you believe that all are given and only those who chose to come do, then it clearly the ball is completely in our court. So it seems that it is you who are confused.

CT:Okay, once again, one who comes to God does that of their own free will. They want to come to God. The differences between you and me is that I believe that the will itself is not free. We are slaves to sin previous to Jesus' redeeming/buying us and bringing giving us the faith with which we believe.

Chappie:
The will is not free until God set's it free. That freedom comes when God seeks us and makes it possible for us to choose him. Once that is done the will is freed from the bondage of sin and man is rendered accountable for the choice that he makes. Those that are never afforded that opportunity are not accountable (subject to judgment and punishment for their actions) culpably for being the only thing that it was ever possible for them to be.

There is a moral difference between being judged and punished for ones actions; which is what God does at the GWTJ, and being held accountable for what one is powerless to change. God's standards of justice are much higher than Calvin’s.

The issue at hand is does God "give"/seek everyone, and is it possible to reject that giving and not come. From the verses that we are discussing, it is not possible to reject.

People are accountable for they know what is right and what is wrong and they choose evil (See Romans 1). If you want to say that everyone is given and has the ability to come but some refuse, then you run into Paul saying that no one can boast in their salvation. You certain would be able to boast is you were smart enough to accept the free gift that was given to all but most dont accept.

CT:How much do you owe me?

chappie:
Just to keep providing you with opportunity to escape Calvin’s deception. As long as someone continues to present you with truth, you have a choice. Truth or Calvin...

I mean what kind of choice is that. You are just asking me to choose truth or truth. That is not really a choice.

CT:So what you are saying is that God can call anyone his chosen? If he just chose the criteria and not the person, and the criteria is applicable to all; therefore all can be called his chosen. But that aint what happens. He only calls those who are saved his chosen.

That is not what I said and you know it. I said that God choose the criteria, (Faith) and all that satisfy that criteria he calls his chosen.

But of course that is what you said. Unless you want to say that faith is not given to everyone? But that would just cut your argument off at the knees. If the criteria is faith and everyone has it, then everyone is chosen, correct?

CT:
I do believe that the God I describe is the God of the Bible. (He elects, and we are free to follow our will; which is either a slave to sin or a slave to him).

chappie:
How is it that you cannot see the contradictory redundancy in your comments? If God has already chosen (elected, but then you just said that there was no election held) whom he will save and who will not be saved, what real choice is left to man? Sure, we will chose to follow our will, but still according to your concept of election, God does not even give some a chance. And then you make matters worse by saying that they deserve to be punished because of it.

That is tantamount to saying that a woman could be justly punished for not being born a man. Severely punished, forever, with everlasting torment. Fire, no air conditioners, Hot, hot, hot.

You seem to be in shock, that I do not believe that libertarian free will really exists.

Romans 9:21
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Also all unrighteousness deserves and is punished. The only question is who pays. For those who are choosen, it is Jesus and for the rest, it falls on themselves.

Lastly, what is this about women thing. God chooses women just as he chooses men for salvation.

Chappie

October 23rd 2003, 05:44 PM

CT
I have a problem dealing with long posts. Not your fault, this hole I helped dig for myself. Conversational interaction is lost in long posts.

I would love to respond to each of your points, but my response would take longer than when that fella (gal) fell off the roof when Peter (or was it paul) got a little long winded...

Please direct me to your point that best represents your position. Then I "shall", future tense, respond......

ChristianTrader

October 23rd 2003, 11:22 PM

Chappie,
I am not understanding your question. I do not have a particular point that best represents my position (If I could have condensed what I response to you in fewer words, I would have already done so). Are you asking me to rewrite the previous post in fewer words?
It would seem best to just choose what points, you wish to respond to and we can go from there.

CT

Chappie

October 24th 2003, 10:54 AM

Today @ 04:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254156#post254156)
ChristianTrader:

Chappie,
I am not understanding your question. I do not have a particular point that best represents my position (If I could have condensed what I response to you in fewer words, I would have already done so). Are you asking me to rewrite the previous post in fewer words?
It would seem best to just choose what points, you wish to respond to and we can go from there.

CT

Fair enough; just did not want you to think that I was avoiding any issue. :cheers:

Chappie

October 24th 2003, 02:02 PM

ChristianTrader
The issue at hand is does God "give"/seek everyone, and is it possible to reject that giving and not come. From the verses that we are discussing, it is not possible to reject.

God gives us the answer, if only you would not Calvinize it. “All” means “All”. Your efforts to change it to something other than what is precisely stated illustrates to me the lengths that Calvinist will go in order to impose reformed theology upon scripture that wants nothing to do with it.
John 12:32-33
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

That signifying that his death would draw all men.

People are accountable for they know what is right and what is wrong and they choose evil (See Romans 1).
A simple statement of truth that even a child can understand:
They chose evil, that certaintly places you a cut above doesn't it.. If my theology imposes boasting on me, then yours certaintly imposes pride upon you. But neither do, do they? No!!! Just as election does not impose pride, freewill does not impose boasting.

If a person is faced with two choices, and his only options are one or the other, if one option is removed from him, the one left standing is imposed upon him.

Now I ask, is man’s nature so depraved that he cannot choose good over evil. You cannot have it both ways, either man can or cannot choose. In your effort to make God look pretty while burning all these people, you say that they chose evil. In order to establish efficacious grace, you preach total depravity... Which is not what one chooses, it is a condition imposed upon us by Adam.

It is in this life that man is held accountable for choosing good over evil. Without God’s help, man is stuck with his only option. Without the ability to choose good, man is not culpably guilty of being evil. He never had the option of being anything else.

Nothing but freewill has the scriptural ability to stand man accountably guilty before God. Election destroys accountability. God has the sovereign right to destroy man if he chooses to do so. That concept has nothing to do with justice, God just has the sovereign right to do so.

Justice however is an entirely different thing. Justice requires fairness and culpability. Meaning that man is responsible for the choices that he makes. Man is not guilty of being born black, white, Chinese, good or evil. All these things are in the hands of the father. Man must have the ability to obey the law in order to be held accountable to the law. Truth be told, I know that you know that….

[b]If you want to say that everyone is given and has the ability to come but some refuse, then you run into Paul saying that no one can boast in their salvation. You certain would be able to boast is you were smart enough to accept the free gift that was given to all but most don’t accept.

Even if I could save myself, (I cannot) I could still choose not to boast before God. Boasting before God proceeds from an evil heart. It is indicative of an evil heart; it is not a default result of any system of theology, either yours or mine. If (hypothetical) God so much as makes it possible for man to save himself, (he saves us) eliminated is the concept of boasting. God makes it possible for man to believe; still it is man that chooses to believe based on the persuasions that god brings to bear in each of our lives. Your boasting suppositions are totally without foundation. A big fat straw man….

You also can boast that God chose you and not the other guy. It is possible. Do You? Boasting from either perspective is a negative indication of salvation. God is pleased when we volitionally humble ourselves before him. He does not glory in forcing us to do so….

Calvinist love to harp about God’s sovereignty.
Do you really know what sovereignty is?
What moral ground establishes it? (We serve a moral God, that’s what holy means)
What actions are compelled by God sovereignty?
Is free-will outside that which is permissible by God’s sovereignty?
Does his sovereignty dictate to him what actions that he must take?

Romans 9:21
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Hath not that same potter the right to save through freewill as well as election. He has the sovereign tight to do either. Has not that same potter the right to save in a manner that is righteous, just, and holy and fair to all men. Does I have the sovereign right to burn them translate into what is right, what is just, what is holy, and what glorifies God? God has the sovereign right to do evil, but he said “far be it from him”…

Please stop abusing this passage, and thereby abusing the goodness, justice, and mercy of God.

ChristianTrader

October 25th 2003, 01:10 AM

CT:The issue at hand is does God "give"/seek everyone, and is it possible to reject that giving and not come. From the verses that we are discussing, it is not possible to reject.

Chappie:

God gives us the answer, if only you would not Calvinize it. “All” means “All”. Your efforts to change it to something other than what is precisely stated illustrates to me the lengths that Calvinist will go in order to impose reformed theology upon scripture that wants nothing to do with it.
John 12:32-33
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

That signifying that his death would draw all men.

As I stated according to the Chapter that we are discussing, Chap. 6, one cannot reject. You seemingly agreed and tried to shift discussion to a place that you are more comfortable dealing with. Lets detour back to Chapter 6 for some further knowledge.

Unless you are going to claim that giving and draw are two seperate things then you are going to be putting your interpretation of John 12:32-33 (God draws everyone), against John 6:37 that says all who are given come (if all given come then everyone is going to heaven?).

CT:
People are accountable for they know what is right and what is wrong and they choose evil (See Romans 1).

chappie:
A simple statement of truth that even a child can understand:
They chose evil, that certaintly places you a cut above doesn't it.. If my theology imposes boasting on me, then yours certaintly imposes pride upon you. But neither do, do they? No!!! Just as election does not impose pride, freewill does not impose boasting.

I am not a cut above because I chose evil until Jesus redeemed and saved me. I only do what is right through the grace that Jesus has bestown on me. I like Paul cannot boast of my righteousness because i did not just change myself from slave to sin to not being a slave of sin. When in discussion like this one must remember John 3:3, 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (It's hard to chose that which you cannot even see).

So in summary here, freewill does impose boasting because you are in heaven because of what you chose to do and others are in hell because of what they simply chose to do.

If a person is faced with two choices, and his only options are one or the other, if one option is removed from him, the one left standing is imposed upon him.

You do not describe the situation accurately. A person can chose to respond favorable to the gospel message. The problem is that non given/chosen people do not want to. Think of the analogy of a choice between shooting yourself in the head/dying and eating the best cake ever made. You are given a choice but you are not going to choose suicide over the cake. Same with salvation, you are not going to choose God over the chocolate, unless you are choosen and your perspective changed.

Now I ask, is man’s nature so depraved that he cannot choose good over evil. You cannot have it both ways, either man can or cannot choose. In your effort to make God look pretty while burning all these people, you say that they chose evil. In order to establish efficacious grace, you preach total depravity... Which is not what one chooses, it is a condition imposed upon us by Adam.

A man can choose God but will always refuse to do so. I really do not choose to what I do in order to make God look pretty. God would look much prettier if he had to rely on us and was less than the three omnis.

We are condemned by original sin by Adam as you stated.

It is in this life that man is held accountable for choosing good over evil. Without God’s help, man is stuck with his only option. Without the ability to choose good, man is not culpably guilty of being evil. He never had the option of being anything else.

Man has two options but always chooses the wrong one if their will is not freed from its slavery to sin. So man is culpable. He would only not be culpable if he did not know what was right (Romans 1 refutes that) and man does not have a gun to his head in order to make him do evil, instead he revels in it.

Nothing but freewill has the scriptural ability to stand man accountably guilty before God. Election destroys accountability. God has the sovereign right to destroy man if he chooses to do so. That concept has nothing to do with justice, God just has the sovereign right to do so.

Um so God can have the right to do something, but it can still be something other than just? You would have to explain that one.

Justice however is an entirely different thing. Justice requires fairness and culpability. Meaning that man is responsible for the choices that he makes. Man is not guilty of being born black, white, Chinese, good or evil. All these things are in the hands of the father. Man must have the ability to obey the law in order to be held accountable to the law. Truth be told, I know that you know that….

Humm you might want to go into your definition of fairness. For example, lets say that your on a basketball team and at the end of the game, your teammate is fouled and goes to the line. He needs to hit two in order for you to tie the game or you will lose. He does not hit both and you lose the game. Is it fair that you lose right along with your teammate, for you did not miss the free throws?

Adam was God's appointed human rep, he missed the free throws so we will suffer because of it. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Also man does have the ability but does not want to so.

CT:
If you want to say that everyone is given and has the ability to come but some refuse, then you run into Paul saying that no one can boast in their salvation. You certain would be able to boast is you were smart enough to accept the free gift that was given to all but most don’t accept.

chappie:
Even if I could save myself, (I cannot) I could still choose not to boast before God. Boasting before God proceeds from an evil heart. It is indicative of an evil heart; it is not a default result of any system of theology, either yours or mine. If (hypothetical) God so much as makes it possible for man to save himself, (he saves us) eliminated is the concept of boasting. God makes it possible for man to believe; still it is man that chooses to believe based on the persuasions that god brings to bear in each of our lives. Your boasting suppositions are totally without foundation. A big fat straw man….

Um if the only reason that you are in and someone else is out is because you decided you like the gospel message and the other person just decided they like to think of themselves as good; then you would be justified in boasting to a person in hell that you were just smarter, more spiritual etc. person then they were.

Also if God saves us(those who are saved) then does he just not save everyone else?(Perhaps you are coming towards the light :teeth:)

You also can boast that God chose you and not the other guy. It is possible. Do You? Boasting from either perspective is a negative indication of salvation. God is pleased when we volitionally humble ourselves before him. He does not glory in forcing us to do so….

Actually you could not boast because God choose you instead of the other guy, because God did not choose you because of some righteousness that he found in you and did not find in someone else. So boasting in my case has absolutely no basis. My perspective actually causes more humbleness, because I realize I could have been one that was not chosen and now feel all the more grateful for God choosing me.

You talk about God getting glory or not getting glory from something. If it is not possible for us to humble ourselves without his choosing and saving us, then your statement is a moot point.

Calvinist love to harp about God’s sovereignty.
Do you really know what sovereignty is?
What moral ground establishes it? (We serve a moral God, that’s what holy means)
What actions are compelled by God sovereignty?
Is free-will outside that which is permissible by God’s sovereignty?
Does his sovereignty dictate to him what actions that he must take?

Sovereignty means he is completely free to do what he wants(there is no higher authority). And he obeys his nature and his will.(Cannot lie etc.)

The moral ground is that he created all the exists and maintains it all by his omnipotent power.

This third question is kinda phrased funny. God does whatever he wants to bring maximum glory to himself.

Free will being permissible? Free will can only go as far as God wants it to go. He determines your circumstances which in turn determine you. He also has complete control of your will (the default position is to reject him (due to adam) and he can change it to wanting him and doing his Word).

His nature dictates his actions not his sovereignty.

CT:
Romans 9:21
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

chappie:
Hath not that same potter the right to save through freewill as well as election. He has the sovereign tight to do either. Has not that same potter the right to save in a manner that is righteous, just, and holy and fair to all men. Does I have the sovereign right to burn them translate into what is right, what is just, what is holy, and what glorifies God? God has the sovereign right to do evil, but he said “far be it from him”…

Please stop abusing this passage, and thereby abusing the goodness, justice, and mercy of God.

God does save through freewill (No one in heaven is going to say, I really really didnt want to come here but God put a gun to my head and forced me in). He has the sovereign right to set whatever conditions for salvation he wants (for example, eat 10 pounds of peanut butter a year and all is well). He has however stated how the system works and that is by election.

You seem to be hung up on the fair issue, remember God has a right to do what he wants with us, and it will be just and fair, (it seems like you have a problem with the scripture I quoted, are the actions that God takes there unfair? No)

If he makes some for honor and some for dishonor is that unfair?

CT

Chappie

October 25th 2003, 01:36 PM

Today @ 06:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255958#post255958)
ChristianTrader:

As I stated according to the Chapter that we are discussing, Chap. 6, one cannot reject. You seemingly agreed and tried to shift discussion to a place that you are more comfortable dealing with. Lets detour back to Chapter 6 for some further knowledge.

Unless you are going to claim that giving and draw are two separate things then you are going to be putting your interpretation of John 12:32-33 (God draws everyone), against John 6:37 that says all who are given come (if all given come then everyone is going to heaven?)
That is your conclusion, and it is as unreasonable and illogical as salvational predestination and election. Thing is, I know that you know the proper conclusion, but must avoid it at all cost.

Once again, you attempt to apply a Calvinistic conclusion to solve a problem that denies Calvinism.

Christ draws all men to salvation, some reject his offer. All do not Go to heaven..

I am not a cut above because I chose evil until Jesus redeemed and saved me. I only do what is right through the grace that Jesus has bestown on me. I like Paul cannot boast of my righteousness because I did not just change myself from slave to sin to not being a slave of sin. When in discussion like this one must remember John 3:3, Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (It's hard to chose that which you cannot even see).

My explanation on boasting is reasonable, accurate, and most of all; it is in touch with reality. I know it, and you know it. You say that you chose evil until Jesus saved you. Paul says that you have not changed a bit.
Rom 7:18-19
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Perhaps you are just waiting to be born again. Regeneration is the process through which we are made Christ-like. Being born again speaks of no longer being spiritually separated from God.. If we are to have communion with him, it must be done through the spirit. It speaks of the walls of partition being torn down. Still absolutely nothing to suggest that being born again is in any way, shape, or form, the result of election. Upon what authority do you impose election upon the act of being born again….

So in summary here, freewill does impose boasting because you are in heaven because of what you chose to do and others are in hell because of what they simply chose to do.
Boasting is a volitional act. Freewill means that one is free to chose to, or to choose not to, the moment an act is imposed upon one, freewill is negated. These are evidentiary truths. The very world that we live in, daily speak these truths.

You do not describe the situation accurately. A person can chose to respond favorable to the gospel message. The problem is that non given/chosen people do not want to.
This is one of the most ridiculous explanations common among Calvinist. First you can chose because if you cannot it makes God look bad. Then you cannot because it makes efficacious grace look bad. Either the imposition of Adams nature renders one too depraved to choose, (in which case, he cannot) or God makes it possible, in which case he can.

Think of the analogy of a choice between shooting yourself in the head/dying and eating the best cake ever made. You are given a choice but you are not going to choose suicide over the cake. Same with salvation, you are not going to choose God over the chocolate, unless you are chosen and your perspective changed.
Why not??? Is it because one cannot. Don’t forget your total depravity scenario, it is the foundation of your resorting to this election stuff.

A man can choose God but will always refuse to do so. As long as man can do, then he has free-will. You have no scripture to substantiate your no one ever will. So much double talk. You affirm freewill, you deny freewill, you affirm, you deny. Just cannot make it work logically can you?

Man has two options but always chooses the wrong one if their will is not freed from its slavery to sin. So man is culpable. He would only not be culpable if he did not know what was right (Romans 1 refutes that) and man does not have a gun to his head in order to make him do evil, instead he revels in it.
Two options, there, that’s free will. MAN HAS FREEWILL. There, a Calvinist said it… However, you need to know something about the criteria that establishes freewill. It does indeed require two different persuasions to establish it. Shall we call them good and evil for the sake of this conversation? Both persuasions have to have something about it that makes it as desirable as the other. If one is capable or producing desirability in the mind of the one making the choice, and the other is incapable of doing so, no choice is required.

God did not choose you because there was nothing in you to make you more desirable than the other guy. So you say, the criteria was in God and not in you, then what did he choose you for. God can set the criteria to any standard that he wants, so God chose faith. Does that mean that God chose you? No!!!! Because you did not have any faith. So he chose you and gave you faith. Again, what did God see in you that was desirable that caused him to chose you and give you faith. Election will always self-destruct, Calvinist are always trying to put it back together again. But like humpty dumpty, they can never get all the pieces to fit again…

Um so God can have the right to do something, but it can still be something other than just? You would have to explain that one.
Power is the only asset necessary to do something. Sovereignty does not get it done, power does. Justice does not have the power to mandate that God be just or unjust. Justice proceeds from the moral nature of God…

Humm, you might want to go into your definition of fairness. For example, let’s say that you’re on a basketball team and at the end of the game, your teammate is fouled and goes to the line. He needs to hit two in order for you to tie the game or you will lose. He does not hit both and you lose the game. Is it fair that you lose right along with your teammate, for you did not miss the free throws?

Do you know what a team is, they become one entity. If you get shot in the head, is it fair that you foot die also. Terrible example you gave there CT….

Adam was God's appointed human rep, he missed the free throws so we will suffer because of it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. So God is using Adams example. Adam did not do right, so that removes God from any responsibility to act right. Precisely whose nature was changed, God’s or Adam?

Also man does have the ability but does not want to so. There are many Calvinist that would eagerly tap dance on your head for a statement like that. You just again wiped out Total Depravity and re-instituted freewill. Still I can understand that it can be somewhat confusing if we have to make up our theology as we go along….

Um if the only reason that you are in and someone else is out is because you decided you like the gospel message and the other person just decided they like to think of themselves as good; then you would be justified in boasting to a person in hell that you were just smarter, more spiritual etc. person then they were.
Or we could realize that without Christ’s death on the cross, our salvation would not be possible at all. Perhaps rather than boasting, we could give God the glory for that.. You see how that boasting is not imposed, but rather a bad choice that we make. You say I have to boast because I accepted Christ.. Can you now see how I refuse to do so, but would rather give God the glory because he made it possible for me to accept him. I have freewill, I will not boast, I chose to glorify God…

Actually you could not boast because God choose you instead of the other guy, because God did not choose you because of some righteousness that he found in you and did not find in someone else. So boasting in my case has absolutely no basis. My perspective actually causes more humbleness, because I realize I could have been one that was not chosen and now feel all the more grateful for God choosing me.
It has no basis in either your case or mine, I admit that. You need to hold on to it in order to make your theology look better than it really is…
Have you ever made a choice in your life where what you desired was not found in the object of your affections. What did God see in you, that was not in the other guy. If you cannot explain this then no choice was made… Why don’t you just admit, in election, God rolled the dice and your number came up.

You talk about God getting glory or not getting glory from something. If it is not possible for us to humble ourselves without his choosing and saving us, then your statement is a moot point.

Sovereignty means he is completely free to do what he wants (there is no higher authority). And he obeys his nature and his will. (Cannot lie etc.)
So, can his nature survive without election??

This third question is kinda phrased funny. God does whatever he wants to bring maximum glory to himself.
So, how does save a few, burn the rest bring maximum glory to himself. The saving a few brings glory I agree, but the burn the rest tarnishes that glory. You have absolutely no idea what love is, do you? You do not realize that the moment that the objectives of love becomes self glorification that it ceases to be love do you? Love is a sacrificial concern of one beings concern for another being. John 3:16:For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Now here is Calvin’s version of that passage: John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that he may bring maximum glory to himself. What happened to: “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. Can you not see that love is not one beings sacrificial concern for himself? He sacrificed because of those that he loved.
1 John 3:16
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Free will being permissible? Free will can only go as far as God wants it to go. He determines your circumstances which in turn determine you. He also has complete control of your will (the default position is to reject him (due to Adam) and he can change it to wanting him and doing his Word).
“He determines your circumstances which in turn determine you”. You really need to reconcile the criteria that can exist under the umbrella of freewill, and that which cannot. If God determines everything, just how difficult is it to understand that freewill does not exist. Anyway, we are neither saved nor condemned by our circumstances. Jew, Greek, Black, White, Rich or Poor, King or beggar, does not matter, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

God does save through freewill (No one in heaven is going to say, I really, really didn’t want to come here but God put a gun to my head and forced me in). He has the sovereign right to set whatever conditions for salvation he wants (for example, eat 10 pounds of peanut butter a year and all is well). He has however stated how the system works and that is by election.
This one caused me to laugh. Can we replace the gun with little efficacious grace? If you came willingly, then you deny the necessity of efficacious grace.

Do you know what conditions are? If God set conditions, then you are saved because you met the conditions. You are correct though, salvation is a conditional covenant… Do you even know that just like that unsaved guy, you refused to eat the peanut butter until God forced it down your throat?

You seem to be hung up on the fair issue, remember God has a right to do what he wants with us, and it will be just and fair, (it seems like you have a problem with the scripture I quoted, are the actions that God takes there unfair? No)[quote] He has the right to do evil, be evil, does this right mean that he is.

[quote]If he makes some for honor and some for dishonor is that unfair? Good question, even if you realize that it was not spoken in regards to salvation. But then God never said that this life would be fair. Sin, in this life has relegated some to honor and some to dishonor. Sin does exist, which is unfair by its very nature: is it fair for god to chose who will be king and who will be a beggar. Whatever estate God chooses you to live in this life, none in and of themselves deny ones salvation.

NT:1342
dikaios (dik'-ah-yos); from NT:1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): KJV-just, meet, right (-eous).

Justice, by its very nature is equitable. (even handed, applied without respect of persons) Choice (Election) by its very nature requires respect for some criteria found in the objects of ones choices. That’s what makes it “CHOICE”.

Be Well
And May God Bless.

Sovereignishe

October 26th 2003, 02:11 AM

Christ draws all men to salvation, some reject his offer. All do not Go to heaven..

So.... What is it about one man that chooses God and one that doesn't? Smarter? More righteous? Lucky? Faith? Since not all men have faith...

Perhaps you are just waiting to be born again. Regeneration is the process through which we are made Christ-like.

Regeneration is the second birth, the one time event of being made alive...

Regeneration

only found in Matt. 19:28 and Titus 3:5. This word literally means a "new birth." The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring. In Matt. 19:28 the word is equivalent to the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). In Titus 3:5 it denotes that change of heart elsewhere spoken of as a passing from death to life (1 John 3:14); becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17); being born again (John 3:5); a renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2); a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2:6); a being quickened (2:1, 5). This change is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It originates not with man but with God (John 1:12, 13; 1
John 2:29; 5:1, 4). As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." The necessity of such a change is emphatically affirmed in Scripture (John 3:3; Rom. 7:18; 8:7-9; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; 4:21-24).

The process is...

Sanctification

involves more than a mere moral reformation of character, brought about by the power of the truth: it is the work of the Holy Spirit bringing the whole nature more and more under the influences of the new gracious principles implanted in
the soul in regeneration. In other words, sanctification is the carrying on to perfection the work begun in regeneration, and it extends to the whole man (Rom. 6:13; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10; 1 John 4:7; 1 Cor. 6:19). It is the special office of the Holy Spirit in the plan of redemption to carry on this work (1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13). Faith is instrumental in securing sanctification,
inasmuch as it (1) secures union to Christ (Gal. 2:20), and (2) brings the believer into living contact with the truth, whereby he is led to yield obedience "to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come." Perfect sanctification is not attainable in this life (1 Kings 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8). See Paul's account of himself in Rom. 7:14-25; Phil. 3:12-14; and 1 Tim. 1:15; also the confessions of David (Ps. 19:12, 13;
51), of Moses (90:8), of Job (42:5, 6), and of Daniel (9:3-20). "The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfections which cling to him he feels to be sins, which he laments and strives to overcome. Believers find that their life is a constant
warfare, and they need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the constant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only be designed to correct their imperfections and to confirm their graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best
Christians have been those who have been the least prone to claim the attainment of perfection for themselves.",

God did not choose you because there was nothing in you to make you more desirable than the other guy. So you say, the criteria was in God and not in you, then what did he choose you for. God can set the criteria to any standard that he wants, so God chose faith. Does that mean that God chose you? No!!!! Because you did not have any faith. So he chose you and gave you faith. Again, what did God see in you that was desirable that caused him to chose you and give you faith. Election will always self-destruct, Calvinist are always trying to put it back together again. But like humpty dumpty, they can never get all the pieces to fit again…

So what makes one sinner more desirable than another? Other that election(God's choice based on His will and purpose) what is the reason God picks one filthy sinner over another? What does one sinner have to offer God that another doesnt?

Or we could realize that without Christ’s death on the cross, our salvation would not be possible at all. Perhaps rather than boasting, we could give God the glory for that.. You see how that boasting is not imposed, but rather a bad choice that we make. You say I have to boast because I accepted Christ.. Can you now see how I refuse to do so, but would rather give God the glory because he made it possible for me to accept him. I have freewill, I will not boast, I chose to glorify God…

Your choice of God is a boast of yourself, if you believe it to be apart from the will of God... And if you believe it to be part of the will of God, what about those who don't choose God? Stupid? Sinners? Not lucky? Born in a Islamic country?

So, how does save a few, burn the rest bring maximum glory to himself. The saving a few brings glory I agree, but the burn the rest tarnishes that glory. You have absolutely no idea what love is, do you?

You don't believe in hell? Or do you not believe God sends people there?

Anyway, we are neither saved nor condemned by our circumstances. Jew, Greek, Black, White, Rich or Poor, King or beggar, does not matter, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Which lends itself to God being the sole determining factor in regards to salvation all the more equitable since mankind is nothing but a bunch of unworthy sinners…

Do you know what conditions are? If God set conditions, then you are saved because you met the conditions. You are correct though, salvation is a conditional covenant

Grace is a condition? If must do, than what is grace? Grace is the ability to do, not the payment for doing... Since all of mankind is lost the ability of man to do so is tied to God granting grace, or not....

Good question, even if you realize that it was not spoken in regards to salvation. But then God never said that this life would be fair. Sin, in this life has relegated some to honor and some to dishonor. Sin does exist, which is unfair by its very nature: is it fair for god to chose who will be king and who will be a beggar. Whatever estate God chooses you to live in this life, none in and of themselves deny ones salvation.

So much for *free will*.... Where do the verses speak to God making some for honor and not equating to things in such a no non-spiritual sense? Your explantion basically rendesr most of Romans 9 meaningless...

NT:1342
dikaios (dik'-ah-yos); from NT:1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): KJV-just, meet, right (-eous).

Justice, by its very nature is equitable. (even handed, applied without respect of persons) Choice (Election) by its very nature requires respect for some criteria found in the objects of ones choices. That’s what makes it “CHOICE”.

If God's justice is equitable, even handed, all who have sinned should be in hell... Case in point, while still in womb neither having done not right or wrong God chose one over the other... Justice? Yet there was something about election...

Johnny

Chappie

October 26th 2003, 01:52 PM

Today @ 06:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=256989#post256989)
Sovereign_Is He:

So.... What is it about one man that chooses God and one that doesn't? Smarter? More righteous? Lucky? Faith? Since not all men have faith...

If you can tell me the criteria that God uses to choose one man over another, I would suppose it to be the same criteria that causes one man to accept Christ and another to reject him...

Regeneration is the second birth, the one time event of being made alive...

Regeneration

Only found in Matt. 19:28 and Titus 3:5. This word literally means a "new birth." The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring. In Matt. 19:28 the word is equivalent to the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). In Titus 3:5 it denotes that change of heart elsewhere spoken of as a passing from death to life (1 John 3:14); [u]becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17); being born again (John 3:5); a renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2); a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2:6); a being quickened (2:1, 5). This change is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It originates not with man but with God (John 1:12, 13; 1
John 2:29; 5:1, 4). As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." The necessity of such a change is emphatically affirmed in Scripture (John 3:3; Rom. 7:18; 8:7-9; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; 4:21-24).

Read your own post. Regeneration is the Holy Spirit working in us, leading us, convicting us and bringing us daily into a closer relationship with Christ. The word is "regeneration", a process in motion. Not "regenerated", a completed act....

The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring.

In Titus 3:5 it denotes that change of heart elsewhere spoken of as a passing from death to life (1 John 3:14); [u]becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus

The process is...

Sanctification

involves more than a mere moral reformation of character, brought about by the power of the truth: it is the work of the Holy Spirit bringing the whole nature more and more under the influences of the new gracious principles implanted in
the soul in regeneration. In other words, sanctification is the carrying on to perfection the work begun in regeneration, and it extends to the whole man (Rom. 6:13; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 3:10; 1 John 4:7; 1 Cor. 6:19). It is the special office of the Holy Spirit in the plan of redemption to carry on this work (1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13). Faith is instrumental in securing sanctification,
inasmuch as it (1) secures union to Christ (Gal. 2:20), and (2) brings the believer into living contact with the truth, whereby he is led to yield obedience "to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come." Perfect sanctification is not attainable in this life (1 Kings 8:46; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8). See Paul's account of himself in Rom. 7:14-25; Phil. 3:12-14; and 1 Tim. 1:15; also the confessions of David (Ps. 19:12, 13;
51), of Moses (90:8), of Job (42:5, 6), and of Daniel (9:3-20). "The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfections which cling to him he feels to be sins, which he laments and strives to overcome. Believers find that their life is a constant
warfare, and they need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the constant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only be designed to correct their imperfections and to confirm their graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best
Christians have been those who have been the least prone to claim the attainment of perfection for themselves.",

SANCTIFICATION, SANCTIFY
hagiasmos NT:38, "sanctification," is used of (a) separation to God, 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2; (b) the course of life befitting those so separated, 1 Thess 4:3,4,7; Rom 6:19,22; 1 Tim 2:15; Heb 12:14. "Sanctification is that relationship with God into which men enter by faith in Christ, Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 6:11, and to which their sole title is the death of Christ, Eph 5:25,26; Col 1:22; Heb 10:10,29; 13:12.

"Sanctification is also used in NT of the separation of the believer from evil things and ways. This sanctification is God's will for the believer, 1 Thess 4:3, and His purpose in calling him by the gospel, v. 7; it must be learned from God, v. 4, as He teaches it by His Word, John 17:17,19, cf. Ps 17:4; 119:9, and it must be pursued by the believer, earnestly and undeviatingly, 1 Tim 2:15; Heb 12:14. For the holy character, hagiosune, 1 Thess 3:13, is not vicarious, i. e., [u]it cannot be transferred or imputed, it is an individual possession, built up, little by little, as the result of obedience to the Word of God, and of following the example of Christ, Matt 11:29; John 13:15; Eph 4:20; Phil 2:5, in the power of the Holy Spirit, Rom 8:13; Eph 3:16.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

So what makes one sinner more desirable than another? Other that election(God's choice based on His will and purpose) what is the reason God picks one filthy sinner over another? What does one sinner have to offer God that another doesn't?

Here is your answer. Is the word of God good enough for you?
2 Thess 2:10
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Notice that it does not say that they perish because God did not choose them....

Your choice of God is a boast of yourself, if you believe it to be apart from the will of God... And if you believe it to be part of the will of God, what about those who don't choose God? Stupid? Sinners? Not lucky? Born in a Islamic country?

Silly me, Allah will not allow God to save a man from an Islamic country.

You don't believe in hell? Or do you not believe God sends people there?

The question is not whither he does or not, the question is why does he. And it is not because of the luck of the draw.

Which lends itself to God being the sole determining factor in regards to salvation all the more equitable since mankind is nothing but a bunch of unworthy sinners…

In order to meet that criteria, all God has to be is the sole enabling factor. Stop being an extremist: (Phil 4:5) Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Grace is a condition? If must do, than what is grace? Grace is the ability to do, not the payment for doing... Since all of mankind is lost the ability of man to do so is tied to God granting grace, or not....
Grace is no such thing. Grace is the love of God working through the cross of Christ.

So much for *free will*.... Where do the verses speak to God making some for honor and not equating to things in such a no non-spiritual sense? Your explanation basically renders most of Romans 9 meaningless...
Meaningless only if you interpret it through the blind eyes of reformed theology.

If God's justice is equitable, even handed, all who have sinned should be in hell... Case in point, while still in womb neither having done not right or wrong God chose one over the other... Justice? Yet there was something about election...

If it is not equitable, it is not justice. Why don't you read the passages that you refer to? God did not choose one for salvation and the other for condemnation. They have absolutely nothing to do with salvational election. The choice pertained to whom God would use through whom he would fulfill his promises to Abraham. You snatch it out of the context in which it is written, and you use it to mutilate other passages of scripture.

Reformed Theology still needs a lot of reforming...

Sovereignishe

October 26th 2003, 05:11 PM

If you can tell me the criteria that God uses to choose one man over another, I would suppose it to be the same criteria that causes one man to accept Christ and another to reject him...

Man grants God grace unto salvation? Why don't you just say I don't wish to answer your question...

Here is your answer. Is the word of God good enough for you?
2 Thess 2:10
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Notice that it does not say that they perish because God did not choose them....

Notice the next verse....

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie:

Btw.... The next verse....

2 Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Remember when you scoffed at the idea the reprobate being happy in their sinful ways?

Silly me, Allah will not allow God to save a man from an Islamic country.

Nice obscation... Why don'y you want to answer why some men choose God and some don't? What are you afraid of? Other than to show that you do boast of your hard earned salvation...

The question is not whither he does or not, the question is why does he. And it is not because of the luck of the draw.

You said that Him sending people to hell would tarnish His glory... And no, it's no luck, it's God sovereign decree... Unless of course you wish to believe that some sinners are able to choose God and some aren't....

In order to meet that criteria, all God has to be is the sole enabling factor. Stop being an extremist: (Phil 4:5) Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

Stop attempting to place yourself on the same plane as God... The might Holy Spirit is a simple suggestion? Almighty God is just a means for man to pull himself from the pit... What a crock... You're saved while dead in sin, not while basking in righteousness... You have man administering CPR to himself, and attempt to incorporating God by claiming He showed them how....

Grace is no such thing. Grace is the love of God working through the cross of Christ.

Grace is what God grants due to nothing on the recipient’s part other then the need... You have unmerited favor being earned, which removes the unmerited part and places righteousness apart from God onto man...

Meaningless only if you interpret it through the blind eyes of reformed theology.

What is your king and thief theory based on?

If it is not equitable, it is not justice.

Where is the justice in some going to hell for their sins and some not? You mouth that all are gulity, all have sinned, so where is the justice in some being punished for their sins and some not...

Why don't you read the passages that you refer to? God did not choose one for salvation and the other for condemnation. They have absolutely nothing to do with salvational election. The choice pertained to whom God would use through whom he would fulfill his promises to Abraham. You snatch it out of the context in which it is written, and you use it to mutilate other passages of scripture.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Sorry but it's all about God, and His doings, not of man... I know this digs at your pride, but it is the frank and hard truth...

Reformed Theology still needs a lot of reforming...

You're hardly an authority on Reformed Theology, or the word of God for that matter...

Johnny
1 Corinthians 3: 5 - 7 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Chappie

November 6th 2003, 01:49 PM

http://www.biblehelp.org/priv.htm

The movie We Were Soldiers is a true story based on the life of Lt. Col. Hal Moore. It’s about the first major battle for the Americans in Vietnam (1965). The battle in the La Drang Valley (affectionately referred to as the Valley of Death) was brutal and fierce, often involving hand to hand combat. About 400 American soldiers were trapped in the valley and had to fight night and day to stay alive. After three days of fighting, the Americans were able to overpower the Vietcong. When it was all said and done, 80 Americans and over 1,800 Vietcong had been killed.

After the battle was over, Lt. Col. Moore said, "I’ll never forgive myself." Surprised, a person nearby asked him why. Struggling to maintain his composure, he said, "That my men [pause] that my men died and I didn’t."

Lt. Col. Moore’s survival was a bittersweet victory. Yes, he was grateful he survived and was able to return to his family. Yet, he was haunted by the fact many of those around him did not share the same fate. It broke his heart many of his men were not as fortunate as he was. He realized his survival and their demise was only an issue of chance.

Lt. Col. Moore’s response is similar to the response of survivors of other great tragedies. For example, many firefighters who survived the World Trades Center attack feel guilty they survived while many of their brothers didn’t. It bothers them that "chance" favored them and not the others.

One of the things that surprised me in my study of selective salvation was the comments made by Selective Salvationists. A common theme I heard was "I feel privileged and honored to be one of the elect." They say the reason they witness is because of the "privilege of finding the other elect and telling them the good news." They look forward to telling the other elect of their "good fortune."

To be honest, I am troubled by these comments. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, selective salvation is true. I would, of course, be very grateful to have been chosen to go to Heaven. I would want no other destiny. Yet, it would be a very bittersweet situation. I would have tremendous sorrow for those selected to go to Hell. It would break my heart to know some will not make it to Heaven. I would not feel "privileged" to be one of the elect.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful or unappreciative. I would genuinely appreciate going to Heaven. Yet, I would have great difficulty rejoicing in my good fortune. My selection would be bittersweet.

You will know the tree by the fruit that it produces.

Sovereignishe

November 6th 2003, 11:32 PM

A Godly attitude as opposed to, "they deserve to go to hell"..

What is ungodly about all men deserving hell? And for that matter those that end up there getting their due reward? Are you contending that God sends people to hell that don't? And what about God granting a full pardon to those saved who no less deserve the fate of those in and going to hell?

The movie We Were Soldiers is a true story based on the life of Lt. Col. Hal Moore.

Read the book... We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young

Lt. Col. Moore’s survival was a bittersweet victory. Yes, he was grateful he survived and was able to return to his family. Yet, he was haunted by the fact many of those around him did not share the same fate. It broke his heart many of his men were not as fortunate as he was. He realized his survival and their demise was only an issue of chance.

God appoints the day you die, it wasn't an issue of *chance*...

Lt. Col. Moore’s response is similar to the response of survivors of other great tragedies. For example, many firefighters who survived the World Trades Center attack feel guilty they survived while many of their brothers didn’t. It bothers them that "chance" favored them and not the others.

Again, no chance... Life and death isn't a lottery...

One of the things that surprised me in my study of selective salvation was the comments made by Selective Salvationists. A common theme I heard was "I feel privileged and honored to be one of the elect." They say the reason they witness is because of the "privilege of finding the other elect and telling them the good news." They look forward to telling the other elect of their "good fortune."

Your study? Who are you trying to pull one over on?

To be honest, I am troubled by these comments. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, selective salvation is true. I would, of course, be very grateful to have been chosen to go to Heaven. I would want no other destiny. Yet, it would be a very bittersweet situation. I would have tremendous sorrow for those selected to go to Hell. It would break my heart to know some will not make it to Heaven. I would not feel "privileged" to be one of the elect.

Well it's a sad fact that no everyone is going to heaven... No matter what doctrine you hold dear to your heart... Unless of course it's Universalism...

I’m not trying to be disrespectful or unappreciative. I would genuinely appreciate going to Heaven. Yet, I would have great difficulty rejoicing in my good fortune. My selection would be bittersweet.

How does believing you earned salvation make you feel better? Of course it's obvious from your post it's all about you...

Johnny

Chappie

November 7th 2003, 08:07 PM

http://www.biblehelp.org/sumsel.htm
Chapter: 14.02
(Section 14: Selective Salvation)
Copyright © Michael Bronson 1998 - 2003
BibleHelp.org

There are many reasons why I don’t believe the doctrine of selective salvation is Biblical. To help you obtain a quick overall understanding of the problems with this doctrine, I have created this summary for you. Once you have gone through the list, you can read the remaining 60 plus chapters or you can go to the specific chapter that has captured your interest.

As you read through the list, you will find some of the problems with this doctrine are simple and obvious. Other problems, however, are more complex and the Biblical contradictions are less obvious. Although many Christians don’t do it, we need to think through each doctrine to its obvious conclusion. It is important to see the hidden implications of each doctrine and then see how they affect other doctrines.

As we study the doctrine of selective salvation, we will find that its implications contradict a large number of other doctrines. Hopefully, this section will help you think about some things you have never considered before. Listed below are some of the contradictions I have found with selective salvation.
It is inconsistent with the Bible

· There are over a hundred verses that say salvation is offered to everyone. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world."

· The Bible says God desires the salvation of those who are perishing. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

· The Bible says people are going to Hell against God’s will. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:34 says, "For there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame."

· The Bible says people are perishing because no one has brought them the message. Hosea 4:6 says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

· Selective Salvationists say God "hates" all of the non-elect. Yet, when the rich young ruler turned his back on Jesus, the Bible said Jesus "loved" him.

· Selective Salvationists say before God created the universe, He selected certain people to go to Heaven and the rest go to Hell. Yet, the Bible says Hell was created for the fallen angels, not us (Matthew 25:41).

· Selective Salvationists say the core of this doctrine is the sovereignty of God and His complete control over everything. He dictates every action that takes place. They say God would not be in complete control if man had a choice in his destiny. There are three problems with this view:

· There are hundred of verses in the Bible that clearly show God changing His mind and altering His plans because of our actions or inactions.

· There are many evil and sinful things going on in the world. Do we really want to say God forcibly made people commit these heinous acts?

· We cannot be held accountable for our sins if we have no say or choice in any of our actions. It would be unjust to send a person to Hell for something he did not choose to do.

· Selective Salvationists say God preplanned people’s lives (forced them to become Christians and perform great services for Him). If this were true, you would think He would have planned lives that would consistently glorify Him. Instead, we find many of His leaders (Saul, David, Samson, Solomon, etc) made some major blunders and had their years of service cut short.

· There are dozens of verses where God commands the world to seek Him. If some are incapable of seeking God, why did He make that command? For example, Hebrews 11:6 says, "He rewards those who earnestly seek him."

· God said to the whole Nation of Israel, "Seek me and live" (Amos 5:4). God was offering his plan of salvation to the whole Nation of Israel. Yet the Bible clearly says not all of the Israelites became believers. This means many of the people God wanted to go to Heaven ended up going to Hell.

· The Bible says we can resist God. For example, Matthew 23:37 says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." This means some people were resisting God’s call to salvation. It also means some people went to Hell against His desire.

· There are dozens of verses where God commands the world to repent. If some people are incapable of repenting, why did He make that command? For example, Acts 17:30 says, "He [God] commands all people everywhere to repent."

· There are dozens of verses that talk about how we can be easily led astray from God and salvation. This shows our eternal destinies have not been pre-planned.

· The Bible says our surroundings can greatly influence our eternal destiny. For example, Matthew 19:24 says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven"

· Why did Jesus have to suffer such a terrible spiritual damnation? If there is no choice in our spiritual destiny, then our spiritual "test" (and subsequent failures) could easily have been bypassed. There was no need for us to be lost and ultimately redeemed. There was no need for Jesus to suffer such a brutal, humiliating, and despicable punishment.

It is inconsistent with observable facts
· If selective salvation were true, you would expect an even distribution of Christians all over the world. In contrast to this, we find areas with very high concentrations of Christians and other areas with very low concentrations of Christians.

· If selective salvation were true, exposure to the gospel should not have any impact on how many people become Christians in a given area. Yet, areas with a strong gospel witness have a high number of believers and areas with little or no gospel witness have few or no new Christians.

· If selective salvation were true, parental influence should not increase or decrease a child’s chance of becoming a Christian. However, we find children raised in Christian homes are much more likely to become Christians than children who are raised in atheistic homes. In fact, children who are raised by strong, mature Christians are much more likely to become Christians than children raised by weak and spiritually immature Christians.

· The Bible has over a hundred verses that clearly say salvation is offered to "everyone," "whosoever," and the whole "world." Yet, Selective Salvationists say salvation is only offered to the select few. To get around these verses, Selective Salvationists say these verses are only talking about the elect. In other words, verses that say "… salvation is offered to everyone" should actually be read as "… salvation is offered to everyone of the elect." To force this type of interpretation on hundreds of verses, Selective Salvationists have violated multiple basic rules of Biblical interpretation.

· In addition to the above problem, there are many verses where this type of forced conclusion still would not work. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." Using their rules of interpretation, this verse should read: "He is the atoning sacrifice for the elect’s sins, and not only for the elect’s sins, but also for the sins of the elect."

· Selective Salvationists say God has chosen certain people over other people. Yet, the Bible says God does not pick one person over another. For example, Acts 10:34 says, "God is no respecter of persons."

· Let’s say, for the sake of argument, salvation is open to everyone in the world. What would God say differently in the Bible (from what He has already said) that would show salvation is open to everyone in the world? The Bible already has over 100 verses saying salvation is offered to everyone.

· God "sought a man after His own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). If selective salvation is true God already knows the mindset of each person (He’s the one who preprogrammed each person’s life). If He already knows each person’s mindset, why was He searching for people with a particular mindset?

· David was "a man after God’s own heart" (Acts 13:22). If God created the elect’s heart and mindset, wouldn’t all of the elect be people after God’s own heart?

· Joshua said, "Choose you this day who you shall serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). If God already chose our destiny for us, why was it so important for Joshua to make this admonition?

Problems caused by this doctrine
· If people are predestined for salvation, parental influence will not increase a child’s chance of becoming a Christian. If this is true, Christian parents should have the same number of Christian children as atheistic parents. This of course is not true.

· Selective Salvationists counter the above problem by saying children of the elect are also elect. This approach creates many new problems. For example:

· Since Adam and Eve were part of the elect, all of their descendants (which means everyone) should also be part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Noah was part of the elect, all of his family and their descendants (which means everyone) should also be part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Abraham was part of the elect, his son Ishmael was also one of the elect. This would mean all of his descendants (the Arab nations) are also part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Isaac was part of the elect, his twin sons (Jacob and Esau) were also part of the elect. Yet, Selective Salvationists say God hated Esau and condemned him to Hell. If children of the elect are also elect, Esau should be one of the elect.

· If children of the elect are also part of the elect, then 100% of the children from Christian parents would be Christians. We don’t, however, find this.

It is inconsistent with the nature of God
The Bible provides us with a general description of God’s nature. It describes Him as a loving, compassionate, fair, and righteous being. The doctrine of selective salvation totally contradicts this description. A basic premise of selective salvation is God chose to love or hate certain people purely on an arbitrary basis. This contradicts the nature of God outlined in the Bible. For example:

· You would expect a loving God would love all of His creation.

· You would not expect to find a loving God arbitrarily choosing to hate people (and condemning them to Hell before they were even created) simply because "He can."

· "Hate" is a strong emotion. It is an emotion developed in response to an offense. To passionately hate someone who has not yet existed does not even make sense.

· A person who is "sovereign" over another being will treat the other being in a manner consistent with his own nature. A dog owner, for example, is basically "sovereign" over his dog. Yet, a good owner would never mistreat his dog. Likewise, a sovereign God who is loving and compassionate would never mistreat His creation simply because "He can." Arbitrarily condemning a person to Hell before he is even created (with no choice, say, or recourse) is not the actions of a loving and compassionate God. A good person (sovereign or not) would never mistreat his subjects.

Selective salvation completely contradicts the issue of choice
A central theme of the doctrine of selective salvation is God can’t be sovereign if we have a free will to make choices. They say giving us the ability to make choices would be the same as us telling God Almighty what to do. They said God can’t be God if He is not in full control of everything.

The issue of choice is the Achilles’ heal of selective salvation. The doctrine falls apart when the issue of choice is closely examined. There are many aspects of "choice" that contradict the doctrine of selective salvation. Following are some examples:

· There are hundreds of verses that say we have the ability to make choices. Either the Bible is lying or we have the ability to make choices.

· Love is an emotion that is earned. You can’t force someone to love you. In order for us to truly have the ability to love God, we need to have the ability to reject Him. You can’t love if you don’t have the ability to hate.

· We would not be able to ask God to alter events if everything is already set in stone. There are dozens of verses that say our prayers will prompt God to respond. Even the great spiritual leaders of the Bible understood the power of prayer. There are hundreds of verses showing this.

· Our actions should never provoke an emotional response from God if He has preprogrammed all of our decisions and actions. This would be as illogical as me turning on a light switch and becoming angry when the light turns on. It is obvious from the Bible we can provoke a response from God.

· There are dozens of verses showing our obedience can produce a positive response from God.

· There are hundreds of verses showing God can be provoked to anger or jealousy by our sins.

· The Bible says God holds some of our choices in high esteem. The only way our choices could have value to God is if our choices were made from a free heart. Choices that are forced on us would hold no intrinsic value to God. Following are some examples:

· The life of Job demonstrates that even Satan understands we have the freedom to make choices. Satan knows we often choose to curse God when we are faced with great adversity. It brought great pleasure and glory to God when Job remained faithful in the midst of his great suffering. There would not have been any exceptional glory or victory for God if Job was forced to remain faithful.

None of our decisions would have any value if our actions are forced on us. If selective salvation is true, a person’s decision to return a penny that doesn’t belong to him would bring as much glory, honor, and pleasure to God as a poor person’s decision to return $100 million that doesn’t belong to him.

· There are many places in the Bible that say God places high value on obedience. Why should God be so pleased with obedience if all of our actions are forced on us?

· As we saw in the above paragraphs, God is pleased when we make good choices. If these "small" choices bring pleasure to God, think about how much pleasure it would bring God when we would make a good choice on the most important decision (salvation)?

· The parables of the lost items (lost sheep, lost coin, and the lost son –Luke 15:3-32) are another example why selective salvation can’t be true. These parables show there is great joy when a lost item is recovered. The Bible says this is especially true when a lost sinner is saved.

You would expect this type of reaction from God with open salvation, but you would not expect it with selective salvation. In fact, with selective salvation, there is no cause for celebration when a person gets saved. There are no lost souls who are salvaged. There are no people rescued from the gates of Hell. All of the people who get "saved" were actually saved long before the world was created. These parables don’t make sense if selective salvation is true. It would be like a person pretending to lose a coin and then throwing a large party when he "finds" it.

· There is an accountability problem if all of our decisions and actions are forced on us. Following are some examples:

· If all of our actions are forced on us, we can’t be held accountable for our actions. We can’t be punished for sins we were forced to commit.

· The fact there are varying amounts of rewards in Heaven demonstrates we do have control over our choices.

· The fact there are varying degrees of punishment in Hell shows we do have control over our choices.

Confusing issues explained
· Election deals with the selection for service; not salvation. In fact, it couldn’t be talking about salvation. Jesus and the angels were part of the "elect," but they didn’t need to be saved. The Nation of Israel was part of the elect, but not all of them were saved.

· Predestination simply means something has been predetermined to take place in the future. Although most Christians think of it in connection with the Bible, this concept is also found in the secular world. For example, anyone who becomes a policeman is predestined (predetermined) to have certain attributes (such as the authority to arrest people). Even Aldous Huxley uses the concept in his book Brave New World. As you can see, the word predestination does not need to have some mystical or divine implication.

Just as man can predetermine certain things to take place in the future, so can God. As we will see in the upcoming chapters, God has predetermined that the people who become Christians will obtain certain attributes (such as being conformed to the image of His Son). Nowhere in the Bible does it say God has predetermined to arbitrarily send some people to Heaven and the remainder to Hell.

· The verse "Esau I hated" is often used to support the doctrine of selective salvation. Yet, if you look at the life of Esau, there is no evidence God hated or deplored him. It is possible the word "hate" was used as a contrast. There are several places in the Bible that uses the word "hate" when it doesn’t really mean hate. For example, we are told to hate our parents and ourselves if we want to follow God. If you look at the chapter dealing with this issue, it appears that the statement probably means, "I have chosen to use Jacob (to be the forefather of the Messiah) and not Esau."

· The verses talking about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart is also used to support selective salvation. God, however, did not harden Pharaoh’s heart toward salvation. Rather, He hardened Pharaoh’s heart toward Moses’ requests. God only hardened Pharaoh’s heart in the direction he had already chosen for himself. If Pharaoh’s heart had not already hardened against the Lord, there is an indication from the Bible God would have waited for another Pharaoh.

· Selective Salvationists often point to the Nation of Israel as proof God has chosen certain people for salvation. The nation of Israel was chosen for service, not salvation. In fact, they couldn’t have been chosen for salvation because a large number of them were obviously never saved.

· Selective Salvationists also use the verses that says, "I have chosen you" to support selective salvation. It is true God has chosen us (the whole world) to be saved. God’s choice of redemption applies only to the human race; it does not apply to the fallen angelic race.

· Romans 9:21 says God is the potter and we are the clay. Selective Salvationists often use this verse as proof God has chosen certain people for salvation. This verse is talking about service, not salvation. There are several places in the Old Testament that use the illustration of the potter and clay. These verses refer to Israel as being the clay. Since only a portion of the Israelites were believers, these verses could not be referring to salvation. These verses are talking about God using the Nation of Israel to accomplish a task.

Sovereignishe

November 8th 2003, 07:05 PM

There are over a hundred verses that say salvation is offered to everyone. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Great, since all sins are atoned for everyone is saved... Case closed...<rolling eyes>

· The Bible says God desires the salvation of those who are perishing. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

For example that's not the entire verse...

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Who was Peter speaking of? The world, or the Body of Christ?

Not to mention since all men are perishing, the above view would be akin to Universalism...

· The Bible says people are going to Hell against God's will. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:34 says, "For there are some who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame."

So much for the concept of Almighty God... Souls are lost due to the inability of man? If God can't overcome the failure of His own creation what hope is there? I wonder if the person who wrote this has any idea how weak this portrays God?

· The Bible says people are perishing because no one has brought them the message. Hosea 4:6 says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

The bible says creation alone makes man without excuse, so whether or not the message is brought, there is no excuse...

Btw, the entire verse….

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

It wasn’t because the message wasn’t brought, it said they rejected it…

You really should read stuff before you blindly copy and paste…

· Selective Salvationists say God "hates" all of the non-elect. Yet, when the rich young ruler turned his back on Jesus, the Bible said Jesus "loved" him.

God sends people He loves to hell?

· Selective Salvationists say before God created the universe, He selected certain people to go to Heaven and the rest go to Hell. Yet, the Bible says Hell was created for the fallen angels, not us (Matthew 25:41).

Great, the denial of the fact that some of mankind will end up in hell...

Universalism red flag alert #2

· Selective Salvationists say the core of this doctrine is the sovereignty of God and His complete control over everything. He dictates every action that takes place. They say God would not be in complete control if man had a choice in his destiny. There are three problems with this view:

·There are hundred of verses in the Bible that clearly show God changing His mind and altering His plans because of our actions or inactions.

Great, man has a better way or idea than God... So much for His ways being higher... How many times can God be wrong and still be God?

· There are many evil and sinful things going on in the world. Do we really want to say God forcibly made people commit these heinous acts?

Psalms 105:25 He turned their heart to hate his people, To deal subtly with his servants.

We cannot be held accountable for our sins if we have no say or choice in any of our actions. It would be unjust to send a person to Hell for something he did not choose to do.

Only those sent to hell are truly being held accountable for their sins, those who are saved aren't... No way around that... Christ paid in full at the cross...

Selective Salvationists say God preplanned people’s lives (forced them to become Christians and perform great services for Him). If this were true, you would think He would have planned lives that would consistently glorify Him. Instead, we find many of His leaders (Saul, David, Samson, Solomon, etc) made some major blunders and had their years of service cut short.

The above misses the point that God’s brings glory to himself by working their *major blunders” for good…

Not to mention…

John 15: 16, 19 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

There are dozens of verses where God commands the world to seek Him. If some are incapable of seeking God, why did He make that command? For example, Hebrews 11:6 says, "He rewards those who earnestly seek him."

And there are verses that state none seek God...

· God said to the whole Nation of Israel, "Seek me and live" (Amos 5:4). God was offering his plan of salvation to the whole Nation of Israel. Yet the Bible clearly says not all of the Israelites became believers. This means many of the people God wanted to go to Heaven ended up going to Hell.

Bible clearly states that all of Israel, isn't...

·The Bible says we can resist God. For example, Matthew 23:37 says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." This means some people were resisting God's call to salvation. It also means some people went to Hell against His desire.

Poor helpless God... Who would put trust in a god that so inept? Other than folks who place far too much stock in themselves... Actually the bible says man cannot stay His hand...Or for that matter question His motives..

Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

· There are dozens of verses where God commands the world to repent. If some people are incapable of repenting, why did He make that command? For example, Acts 17:30 says, "He [God] commands all people everywhere to repent."

The posting of the law isn't a defatco decree that all will obey, or that all are able... The ability to understand things of the Spirit is a gift, not something man is born with. If this were not so, there'd be no need for regeneration...

· There are dozens of verses that talk about how we can be easily led astray from God and salvation. This shows our eternal destinies have not been pre-planned.

Like this one?

John 10: 4 - 5, 8 When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.... All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

Or this?

John 10: 27 - 30 -- My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.

· The Bible says our surroundings can greatly influence our eternal destiny. For example, Matthew 19:24 says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven"

That's not the context of that verse... Keep reading.... It was to show that nothing is impossible with God...

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

· Why did Jesus have to suffer such a terrible spiritual damnation? If there is no choice in our spiritual destiny, then our spiritual "test" (and subsequent failures) could easily have been bypassed. There was no need for us to be lost and ultimately redeemed. There was no need for Jesus to suffer such a brutal, humiliating, and despicable punishment.

God required a blood sacrifice, one that was spotless and perfect and since only God himself measures up Christ was said to be heading to the cross since before time... AS far as there being no need for this or that... God ordained what comes to pass... The above seems to imply that God is dealing with things that were/are handed to Him as if there is some other being calling the shots... I'm sure the person who wrote this garbage feels that man is at least one of the beings calling those shots, and my guess is satan is the other...

It is inconsistent with observable facts
· If selective salvation were true, you would expect an even distribution of Christians all over the world. In contrast to this, we find areas with very high concentrations of Christians and other areas with very low concentrations of Christians.

According to what model of even distribution? Law of averages? The above makes no sense in regards to things in the spiritual sense...

· If selective salvation were true, exposure to the gospel should not have any impact on how many people become Christians in a given area. Yet, areas with a strong gospel witness have a high number of believers and areas with little or no gospel witness have few or no new Christians.

And the fact that from every nation God's people will be brought forth factors in how?

· If selective salvation were true, parental influence should not increase or decrease a child's chance of becoming a Christian. However, we find children raised in Christian homes are much more likely to become Christians than children who are raised in atheistic homes. In fact, children who are raised by strong, mature Christians are much more likely to become Christians than children raised by weak and spiritually immature Christians.

1 Corinthians 3: 5 - 7 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

· The Bible has over a hundred verses that clearly say salvation is offered to "everyone," "whosoever," and the whole "world." Yet, Selective Salvationists say salvation is only offered to the select few. To get around these verses, Selective Salvationists say these verses are only talking about the elect. In other words, verses that say "… salvation is offered to everyone" should actually be read as "… salvation is offered to everyone of the elect." To force this type of interpretation on hundreds of verses, Selective Salvationists have violated multiple basic rules of Biblical interpretation.

The above mistakes the preaching of the word of God to all of mankind ot the effectual calling of salvation...

Of course the above cannot explain the following...

Acts 13: 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The verse plainly says those APPOINTED to eternal believed, in other words, the fact that they were appointed to eternal life(salvation) is what led them to believe.

1 Corinthians 1: 23 - 24 But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The verse plainly states that the reason the one group understands the same words everyone heard is because of something other than than themselves...

· In addition to the above problem, there are many verses where this type of forced conclusion still would not work. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." Using their rules of interpretation, this verse should read: "He is the atoning sacrifice for the elect's sins, and not only for the elect's sins, but also for the sins of the elect."

The problem with promoting the concept that Christ died for all is simple, the word says blessed are those who sins are covered... If Christ died for all, everyone's sins are covered, therefore all are saved... Since that's not the case, the blood of Christ is for those given to Him by the Father...

· Selective Salvationists say God has chosen certain people over other people. Yet, the Bible says God does not pick one person over another. For example, Acts 10:34 says, "God is no respecter of persons."

God's choice isn't based on the person. Actually salvation on man's terms is what makes God a respecter of persons, since the choice made by man is what moves God's hand, not God's own council...

· Let's say, for the sake of argument, salvation is open to everyone in the world. What would God say differently in the Bible (from what He has already said) that would show salvation is open to everyone in the world? The Bible already has over 100 verses saying salvation is offered to everyone.

Someone is chasing their own tail here...

· God "sought a man after His own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14). If selective salvation is true God already knows the mindset of each person (He's the one who preprogrammed each person's life). If He already knows each person's mindset, why was He searching for people with a particular mindset?

Flat denial of God's total nature,... The above is implying that certain things are hidden from God... Might as well deny God if one beleives that somethings are beyond God's knowledge...

· David was "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22). If God created the elect's heart and mindset, wouldn't all of the elect be people after God's own heart?

Not everyone in the Body of Christ has the same function... The measure of faith given isn't the same to all, nor wisdom... Or for that matter being placed as the King of Israel, the birth mother of Christ, or the person who penned most of the NT...

· Joshua said, "Choose you this day who you shall serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). If God already chose our destiny for us, why was it so important for Joshua to make this admonition?

To show himself worthy of God's choice... Understanding the fact that only due to God's grace that he's able to choose that which was he was unable to before God acted in his life. The flesh cannot please God, leaving only the Spirit, and that Spirit is of God, not man...

Problems caused by this doctrine
· If people are predestined for salvation, parental influence will not increase a child's chance of becoming a Christian. If this is true, Christian parents should have the same number of Christian children as atheistic parents. This of course is not true.

The ground being fertile isn't based upon what your parents believe or not... The above implies that parent's have as much to do with salvation as God does... It's not about who plants, it's about the one who causes the growth, and that's God alone...

· Selective Salvationists counter the above problem by saying children of the elect are also elect. This approach creates many new problems. For example:

· Since Adam and Eve were part of the elect, all of their descendants (which means everyone) should also be part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Noah was part of the elect, all of his family and their descendants (which means everyone) should also be part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Abraham was part of the elect, his son Ishmael was also one of the elect. This would mean all of his descendants (the Arab nations) are also part of the elect. This, of course, is not true.

· Since Isaac was part of the elect, his twin sons (Jacob and Esau) were also part of the elect. Yet, Selective Salvationists say God hated Esau and condemned him to Hell. If children of the elect are also elect, Esau should be one of the elect.

· If children of the elect are also part of the elect, then 100% of the children from Christian parents would be Christians. We don't, however, find this.

Where is said in the doctrine that all the children of the elect will be saved? The above is nothing but a false charge...
.

Sovereignishe

November 8th 2003, 07:06 PM

It is inconsistent with the nature of God
The Bible provides us with a general description of God's nature. It describes Him as a loving, compassionate, fair, and righteous being. The doctrine of selective salvation totally contradicts this description. A basic premise of selective salvation is God chose to love or hate certain people purely on an arbitrary basis. This contradicts the nature of God outlined in the Bible. For example:

The above basis God's righteousness on His actions.. God is righteous because He's God, his actions don't make Him righteous...

· You would expect a loving God would love all of His creation.

You'd expect people to understand that God isn't one dimensional... The fact that He reserves wrath for His enemies, all of which are in some form His creation speaks to God being more than just *love*...

· You would not expect to find a loving God arbitrarily choosing to hate people (and condemning them to Hell before they were even created) simply because "He can."

It's not about choosing who to hate, all have sinned, it's about choosing who to save, and God does that according to His will and purpose. The rest are left to their desires...

· "Hate" is a strong emotion. It is an emotion developed in response to an offense. To passionately hate someone who has not yet existed does not even make sense.

So is jealousy, but God is a jealous God... God picked one over another while they were both in the womb... Plainly stating it wasn't about what good or bad they did, and if one bothers to read about the two brothers one finds that for the most part Esua seems to the be the better of the two... But verse 11 speaks of the choice bein so God's election would stand... The point being it's not the man who runs or wills, BUT who God shows mercy on... Of course this goes to the point that God doesn't show mercy on all unto salvation...

· A person who is "sovereign" over another being will treat the other being in a manner consistent with his own nature. A dog owner, for example, is basically "sovereign" over his dog. Yet, a good owner would never mistreat his dog. Likewise, a sovereign God who is loving and compassionate would never mistreat His creation simply because "He can." Arbitrarily condemning a person to Hell before he is even created (with no choice, say, or recourse) is not the actions of a loving and compassionate God. A good person (sovereign or not) would never mistreat his subjects.

First off, the dog owner didn't create the dog, isn't all knowing, and righteous beyond reproach… The above is completely ridiculous, and any comparison of this nature is plainly an attempt to elevate man to God...

Selective salvation completely contradicts the issue of choice
A central theme of the doctrine of selective salvation is God can't be sovereign if we have a free will to make choices. They say giving us the ability to make choices would be the same as us telling God Almighty what to do. They said God can't be God if He is not in full control of everything.

The doctrine doesn't deny "free will"... It simply states that it avails man nothing, and of course history is proof of that...The fall of man being one of the better examples...

The issue of choice is the Achilles' heal of selective salvation. The doctrine falls apart when the issue of choice is closely examined. There are many aspects of "choice" that contradict the doctrine of selective salvation. Following are some examples:

· There are hundreds of verses that say we have the ability to make choices. Either the Bible is lying or we have the ability to make choices.

James wrote to claim that you will go to town and take care of business apart from the will of God is boasting and evil... John quoted Christ to say that without me you can do nothing... I

· Love is an emotion that is earned. You can't force someone to love you. In order for us to truly have the ability to love God, we need to have the ability to reject Him. You can't love if you don't have the ability to hate.

The above ignores the fact that only those saved love God… People don't love God and are saved for it, they are regenerated in order to love God… The above has the flesh pleasing God, which the bible says cannot happen. Btw, the above would grant God the ability to hate, and on a level beyond what man could even start to fathom...

· We would not be able to ask God to alter events if everything is already set in stone. There are dozens of verses that say our prayers will prompt God to respond. Even the great spiritual leaders of the Bible understood the power of prayer. There are hundreds of verses showing this.

And there is one verse that says we don't know what or how to pray, therefore the Holy Spirit is there to help...

·Our actions should never provoke an emotional response from God if He has preprogrammed all of our decisions and actions. This would be as illogical as me turning on a light switch and becoming angry when the light turns on. It is obvious from the Bible we can provoke a response from God.

Regardless of the fact that God leaves man in is sinful state doesn't relieve man from being guilty, and being under God's wrath... Cept for those whom God chose to show mercy on, regardless of their sinfulness...

· There are dozens of verses showing our obedience can produce a positive response from God.

· There are hundreds of verses showing God can be provoked to anger or jealousy by our sins.

And in the end, those God has pardoned will be saved, and those not will be sent to hell, even though all of both groups were guilty of sin and deserved hell...

· The Bible says God holds some of our choices in high esteem. The only way our choices could have value to God is if our choices were made from a free heart. Choices that are forced on us would hold no intrinsic value to God. Following are some examples:

The only "free heart" is the one given by God at regeneration... How can a heart that is said to be evil, made of stone, and an enemy of God be free?

· The life of Job demonstrates that even Satan understands we have the freedom to make choices. Satan knows we often choose to curse God when we are faced with great adversity. It brought great pleasure and glory to God when Job remained faithful in the midst of his great suffering. There would not have been any exceptional glory or victory for God if Job was forced to remain faithful.

The above gives the glory to Job, and ignores that being in the right hand of God is what upholds us through adversity, not ourselves...It is about God working through man, not man working it out to prove his worthiness. Of course it was God who brought the suffering to Job...

None of our decisions would have any value if our actions are forced on us. If selective salvation is true, a person's decision to return a penny that doesn't belong to him would bring as much glory, honor, and pleasure to God as a poor person's decision to return $100 million that doesn't belong to him.

If something is returned with the right intentions the amount matters not...

· There are many places in the Bible that say God places high value on obedience. Why should God be so pleased with obedience if all of our actions are forced on us?

Obedience is a great sign that God has shown mercy to a person... It's what happens when God changes someone and makes them able and willing to serve Him.

· As we saw in the above paragraphs, God is pleased when we make good choices. If these "small" choices bring pleasure to God, think about how much pleasure it would bring God when we would make a good choice on the most important decision (salvation)?

Thankfully God didn't leave it to man in such fashion... Since none seek God, all would perish if not for the following...

Colossians 2: 13 - 14 -- When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

· The parables of the lost items (lost sheep, lost coin, and the lost son -Luke 15:3-32) are another example why selective salvation can't be true. These parables show there is great joy when a lost item is recovered. The Bible says this is especially true when a lost sinner is saved.

All who are saved, and all that will be saved we/are lost sinners at one time...

You would expect this type of reaction from God with open salvation, but you would not expect it with selective salvation. In fact, with selective salvation, there is no cause for celebration when a person gets saved. There are no lost souls who are salvaged. There are no people rescued from the gates of Hell. All of the people who get "saved" were actually saved long before the world was created. These parables don't make sense if selective salvation is true. It would be like a person pretending to lose a coin and then throwing a large party when he "finds" it.

The above seems to ignore the plight of man in regards to the fall and the fact elect or not all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...Not to mention it ignores that God new the outcome of all things before they happened... From start to finish and everything in between is known to God. If it's a matter of God being pleased by some yet known outcome, that can only be if one believes that God isn't all knowing...

· There is an accountability problem if all of our decisions and actions are forced on us. Following are some examples:

· If all of our actions are forced on us, we can't be held accountable for our actions. We can't be punished for sins we were forced to commit.

The above needs to be reconciled with the fact that God moved nations against His people to chastise them, and afterwards dealt harshly with those nations...

· The fact there are varying amounts of rewards in Heaven demonstrates we do have control over our choices.

No, it simply means that God has different jobs for people, not everyone is Peter, Paul, King David, or Mary… Not everyone is given the same measure of faith, for that matter not all men have faith...

· The fact there are varying degrees of punishment in Hell shows we do have control over our choices.

Please explain how the concept of varying degrees of eternal separation from God? Will a person in the deeper part of hell feel a farther from God than one not?

Confusing issues explained
· Election deals with the selection for service; not salvation. In fact, it couldn't be talking about salvation. Jesus and the angels were part of the "elect," but they didn't need to be saved. The Nation of Israel was part of the elect, but not all of them were saved.

Paul isn't talking about election to simply service in Ephesians 1…

· Predestination simply means something has been predetermined to take place in the future. Although most Christians think of it in connection with the Bible, this concept is also found in the secular world. For example, anyone who becomes a policeman is predestined (predetermined) to have certain attributes (such as the authority to arrest people). Even Aldous Huxley uses the concept in his book Brave New World. As you can see, the word predestination does not need to have some mystical or divine implication.

The examples fails since God would know beforehand who He would arrest and for exactly what crime... The predestination in the bible is about what God has ordain, not what comes about due to the simple duties of a job...

Just as man can predetermine certain things to take place in the future, so can God.

I'm sure God is happy to hear this...lol

As we will see in the upcoming chapters, God has predetermined that the people who become Christians will obtain certain attributes (such as being conformed to the image of His Son). Nowhere in the Bible does it say God has predetermined to arbitrarily send some people to Heaven and the remainder to Hell.

Correct, there is nothing arbitrary about God's choice in who He wished to be saved, it's done so according to His Will and purpose... And it's CERTIANLY not due to anything on our part...

2 Timothy 1: 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

2 Thessalonians 2:13: God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

· The verse "Esau I hated" is often used to support the doctrine of selective salvation. Yet, if you look at the life of Esau, there is no evidence God hated or deplored him. It is possible the word "hate" was used as a contrast. There are several places in the Bible that uses the word "hate" when it doesn't really mean hate. For example, we are told to hate our parents and ourselves if we want to follow God. If you look at the chapter dealing with this issue, it appears that the statement probably means, "I have chosen to use Jacob (to be the forefather of the Messiah) and not Esau."

"...it appears that the statement probably means.." In other words we don't have a real answer so here's our best shot...lol

God chose Jacob over Esau in the womb... It's written that the God changes not, therefore the sons of Jacob will not be consumed... The idea that Esau wasn't treated different than his brother is outright denial...

· The verses talking about God hardening Pharaoh's heart is also used to support selective salvation.
God, however, did not harden Pharaoh's heart toward salvation. Rather, He hardened Pharaoh's heart toward Moses' requests.

I hope he/she meant God's requests...lol Moses wasn't running the show, God was...

God only hardened Pharaoh's heart in the direction he had already chosen for himself.

Bible says God can move man's heart in whichever direction He wishes… The above would negate God's action is moving a man towards salvation since it's not the desire of man till God acts… Of course it must be said that at least three times when God moved Pharaoh's heart it was so that he NOT let God's people go, even though that was God's desire eventually but not at the time...

If Pharaoh's heart had not already hardened against the Lord, there is an indication from the Bible God would have waited for another Pharaoh.

The bible says God raised Pharaoh to power to show the world His(God's) great power... Any indication of that sort is nothing but wishful thinking on someone's part...

· Selective Salvationists often point to the Nation of Israel as proof God has chosen certain people for salvation. The nation of Israel was chosen for service, not salvation. In fact, they couldn't have been chosen for salvation because a large number of them were obviously never saved.

Throughout the Word it's very evident that all of what is said to be Israel isn't...

· Selective Salvationists also use the verses that says, "I have chosen you" to support selective salvation. It is true God has chosen us (the whole world) to be saved. God's choice of redemption applies only to the human race; it does not apply to the fallen angelic race.

Somebody was smoking the good stuff when they typed the above…

John 15: 16, 19 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

· Romans 9:21 says God is the potter and we are the clay. Selective Salvationists often use this verse as proof God has chosen certain people for salvation. This verse is talking about service, not salvation. There are several places in the Old Testament that use the illustration of the potter and clay. These verses refer to Israel as being the clay. Since only a portion of the Israelites were believers, these verses could not be referring to salvation. These verses are talking about God using the Nation of Israel to accomplish a task.

Romans 9: 15 - 24 For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstarte my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, Why did you make me like this, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Any attempt to say that Romans 9:21 is about service is to ignore the surrounding text completely...

Johnny
Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Chappie

November 12th 2003, 12:06 AM

11-08-2003 @ 11:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=276070#post276070)
Sovereign_Is He:

The above basis God's righteousness on His actions.. God is righteous because He's God, his actions don't make Him righteous...

FYI..... That is a lie right out of the mouth of Satan himself. Good and evil proceed forth from the moral nature of God. Evil has boundries that God has determined that he will not cross.

Far be it from God to do evil and call it good. Evil is evil. Such thoughtless stupidity....

Isaiah 5:20
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isa 41:23
23Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

Luke 6:9
9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

James 1:13
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But then, reformed theology is not in the business of following things to their logical and reasonable conclusions, rather it is dependent for its life on jumping to conclusions....

twohumble

November 12th 2003, 10:27 AM

"privilege of finding the other elect and telling them the good news." They look forward to telling the other elect of their "good fortune."

Chappie

I reject the above explanation for why I witness. I am a Calvinist.

I would answer the question by giving two reasons:

1. God commanded it, hence out of Love I obey. I don't always know His purpose in His command, just as my kids don't always know mine, but obedience to His will is what being a Christian is about.

2. By witnessing I have found that my relationship with, and understanding of, God has been deepened unfathomably, and without witnessing, I know I would not grow in my relationship to God.

If God chooses to allow me to be an instrument to effect the "transformation" so to speak, then GREAT! This is not, however, the main reason for witnessing as I see it. If God wants someone, He will get them with or without me.

Chappie

November 12th 2003, 03:33 PM

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281800#post281800)
twohumble:

"privilege of finding the other elect and telling them the good news." They look forward to telling the other elect of their "good fortune."

Chappie

I reject the above explanation for why I witness. I am a Calvinist.

I would answer the question by giving two reasons:

1. God commanded it, hence out of Love I obey. I don't always know His purpose in His command, just as my kids don't always know mine, but obedience to His will is what being a Christian is about.

2. By witnessing I have found that my relationship with, and understanding of, God has been deepened unfathomably, and without witnessing, I know I would not grow in my relationship to God.

If God chooses to allow me to be an instrument to effect the "transformation" so to speak, then GREAT! This is not, however, the main reason for witnessing as I see it. If God wants someone, He will get them with or without me.

How does one elect know when he has found another elect? According to John Calvin, even the non-elect can for a time mimic the regenerated state of the elect. Calling oneself the elect of God does not make the choice for God.

I believe in Rom 10:9: 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. I can know with a reasonable amount of certainty whither I have obeyed this passage. But how is it possible to know a choice that God made before the foundations of the world were laid unless God gives us the specifics. Like God saying, “ I chose Twohumble as one of my elect. Do you suppose to know that God chose not only you, but also you are able to recognize who else God has chosen?

Much respect for the rest of your post as obedience is better than sacrifice..

May God Bless…

Sovereignishe

November 12th 2003, 03:50 PM

"The above basis God's righteousness on His actions.. God is righteous because He's God, his actions don't make Him righteous..."

FYI..... That is a lie right out of the mouth of Satan himself. Good and evil proceed forth from the moral nature of God. Evil has boundries that God has determined that he will not cross.

Far be it from God to do evil and call it good. Evil is evil. Such thoughtless stupidity....

God lifted the protection around Job to prove a point... If a parent did the same on earth they would be a bad parent...
God is jealous at times, if man is jealous it's a sin....If you were to move someone to hate His people you'd be committing a sin, yet God did and is all the more righteous....

Psalms 105:25 He turned their heart to hate his people, To deal subtly with his servants.

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Micah 1:12 For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good: but evil came down from the Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 42:6 Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the Lord our God.

Johnny
Lamentations 3:32 But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies.

Chappie

November 12th 2003, 04:20 PM

Today @ 07:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282455#post282455)
Sovereign_Is He:

God lifted the protection around Job to prove a point... If a parent did the same on earth they would be a bad parent...
God is jealous at times, if man is jealous it's a sin....If you were to move someone to hate His people you'd be committing a sin, yet God did and is all the more righteous....

Not evil...
Heb 5:8-9
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

God uses suffering to make us strong. He never allowed Satan to touch his salvation...

Do you know what evil is??? It is to cause harm or suffering without the intent of edification........

Job 1:12
12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
God’s protection underlined….

Job 2:6
6And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
God’s protection underlined. If it was totally removed, Job would have perished....

twohumble

November 12th 2003, 11:59 PM

Yesterday @ 07:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282439#post282439)
Chappie:

How does one elect know when he has found another elect? According to John Calvin, even the non-elect can for a time mimic the regenerated state of the elect. Calling oneself the elect of God does not make the choice for God.

I believe in Rom 10:9: 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. I can know with a reasonable amount of certainty whither I have obeyed this passage. But how is it possible to know a choice that God made before the foundations of the world were laid unless God gives us the specifics. Like God saying, “ I chose Twohumble as one of my elect. Do you suppose to know that God chose not only you, but also you are able to recognize who else God has chosen?

Much respect for the rest of your post as obedience is better than sacrifice..

May God Bless…

Chappie

I am not sure why you think a Calvinist should "worry" about recognizing an elect. We are not called to judge, only to spread the word. As O noted, the benefit of carrying the word is to improve our relationship and knowledge of the Father. I am sure when you prepare a sermon, you are convicted of the Gospel all the more. Witnessing is much the same. If God chooses our witness as the means to bring someone to salvation, then great, otherwise it helps us grow. Worrying about "finding the elect" is the farthest from my mind. Only God knows who they are, that is His domain. I am called to obey, and He always commands us for our own good, to His glory. As I witness, I am never "looking" for the elect to witness too, I witness to all that I am able. Some may be chosen, and others not, but convicting them of the Truth is the job of the Holy Spirit, not mine, although I may be a vessel for His glory, I am never the final catalyst. Only those drawn by the Father can come to the Son. Hence, if I witness to someone not drawn, I benefit my knowledge and conviction. If that someone is drawn by the Father, then my words may, by the grace of God, be a tool for the Holy Spirit to use.

I claim no more, nor expect more, witness for the sake of obedience and love for the Father is enough.

Reader

November 13th 2003, 12:18 AM

08-15-2003 @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=186119#post186119)
Chappie:

You ask if I would make Jesus a liar. Are you Jesus?

Show me what you got.... Time to get busy.. :read:

P.S.
BTW, Christ said in John 12:32; "If i be lifted up, I will draw all men. You'll need to fix that passage if you expect your closing statement to stand....

That passage is "fixed" by reading the rest of the context.

Get busy. Read. John 12:38-41 to learn all the truth of God, lest you be proven to be a liar yourself!

Sovereignishe

November 13th 2003, 03:06 AM

Not evil...
Heb 5:8-9
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

God uses suffering to make us strong. He never allowed Satan to touch his salvation...

Do you know what evil is??? It is to cause harm or suffering without the intent of edification........

What was done to Pharaoh for *his* edification? Those behind the walls of Jericho? Are for that matter those outside the ark as God closed the door... You still miss the point.... God can do what man would call evil, and what God would as well if man were doing it, yet He's righteous for doing so...

Job 1:12
12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
God’s protection underlined….

Job 2:6
6And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
God’s protection underlined. If it was totally removed, Job would have perished....

I understand that satan couldn't take his life,never did I say is was totally remove, stop avoiding the subject...Of couse that still doesn't remove the fact that for no reason on Job's part did God allow, and count on satan working over Job up to the point of death... Of course that doesn't save those that were consumed by fire from heaven, only to have one remain alive to report the ordeal...

Johnny
Job 1:16
While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 11:53 AM

Today @ 07:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283165#post283165)
Sovereign_Is He:
What was done to Pharaoh for *his* edification? Those behind the walls of Jericho? Are for that matter those outside the ark as God closed the door... You still miss the point.... God can do what man would call evil, and what God would as well if man were doing it, yet He's righteous for doing so...

Each one was judged for rejecting or accepting God’s provisions. None were simply hated by God. You miss the point. Btw, I do not first and foremost call election evil, I say that it is a lie generated by Satan to create divisions within the body of Christ..…

God does not do evil and call it good just because he is God. That's a reformed God. What God calls evil on this earth he calls evil in heaven. And we are not talking about what man calls evil, we are talking about what God calls evil.

Today @ 07:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=282455#post282455)
Sovereign_Is He:
God lifted the protection around Job to prove a point... If a parent did the same on earth they would be a bad parent...
God is jealous at times, if man is jealous it's a sin....If you were to move someone to hate His people you'd be committing a sin, yet God did and is all the more righteous....

You figure out what you just said....

I understand that Satan couldn't take his life, never did I say is was totally remove, stop avoiding the subject...Of course that still doesn't remove the fact that for no reason on Job's part did God allow, and count on Satan working over Job up to the point of death... Of course that doesn't save those that were consumed by fire from heaven, only to have one remain alive to report the ordeal...
I have always maintained that there is no personal election in salvation: You keep bringing up consequences that God inflicted in peoples earthly lives to prove that there is. Fire from heaven, so what? Job got troubles, everybody got troubles. There were people in the holocaust that suffered every bit as much as Job, and their sufferings make them elect or non-elect? Everybody dies, does how one dies determine if that person goes to heaven or not. They crucified Christ, does everybody that is crucified go to heaven.

How much one suffered, or how one dies does not say "ELECTION"

Reformed theology needs a God that is just as comfortable doing evil as he is doing good. Still the bible says that God is righteous, just and holy. Reformed theology needs an evil God. So sad. Look at all the time that you spend PICKING AND CHOOSING, AND misunderstanding scripture to get your evil God.

Well, you got him. Why not just keep him, and stop trying to impose him upon the body of Christ. I know, I know, your evil God wants you to tell other people that they can come to Christ when you know that you are lying to the majority of people. Narrow is the gate, and few there be that find it.

Johnny
Job 1:16
While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

So what, they were all elect sheep and servants, they all went to heaven. We are talking about salvation, not how someone died…

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 12:08 PM

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283031#post283031)
Reader:

That passage is "fixed" by reading the rest of the context.

Get busy. Read. John 12:38-41 to learn all the truth of God, lest you be proven to be a liar yourself!
Well Reader, I read it. Even if I turn out to be a liar, election is still a lie. You see, even if there is a leak in my boat, it does not repair the hole in yours. What should I change? Watch out for verse 37. Watch out for verses 41, 42, & 43 also.....

Btw, after repeated rejection, God does turn one to a reprobate mind. (First or Second Thess. someplace.) You might want to consider these passages in the light of this scripturally revealed fact. Or, are you suggesting that those that were blinded were blinded before the foundatons of the world were laid... The bible certantly never says that, does it? Huh?

Before you jump to that erroneous conclusion, you might want to read and consider the number of times God petetioned and warned this people that he finally blinded

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 12:49 PM

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283022#post283022)
twohumble:

Chappie
I am not sure why you think a Calvinist should "worry" about recognizing an elect. We are not called to judge, only to spread the word. As O noted, the benefit of carrying the word is to improve our relationship and knowledge of the Father. I am sure when you prepare a sermon, you are convicted of the Gospel all the more. Witnessing is much the same. If God chooses our witness as the means to bring someone to salvation, then great, otherwise it helps us grow. Worrying about "finding the elect" is the farthest from my mind. Only God knows who they are, that is His domain. I am called to obey, and He always commands us for our own good, to His glory. As I witness, I am never "looking" for the elect to witness too, I witness to all that I am able. Some may be chosen, and others not, but convicting them of the Truth is the job of the Holy Spirit, not mine, although I may be a vessel for His glory, I am never the final catalyst. Only those drawn by the Father can come to the Son. Hence, if I witness to someone not drawn, I benefit my knowledge and conviction. If that someone is drawn by the Father, then my words may, by the grace of God, be a tool for the Holy Spirit to use.

I claim no more, nor expect more, witness for the sake of obedience and love for the Father is enough.

TwoHumble:
Here are your words that I responded to:

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281800#post281800)
twohumble:

"privilege of finding the other elect and telling them the good news." They look forward to telling the other elect of their "good fortune."

Chappie

I reject the above explanation for why I witness. I am a Calvinist.

I would answer the question by giving two reasons:

1. God commanded it, hence out of Love I obey. I don't always know His purpose in His command, just as my kids don't always know mine, but obedience to His will is what being a Christian is about.

2. By witnessing I have found that my relationship with, and understanding of, God has been deepened unfathomably, and without witnessing, I know I would not grow in my relationship to God.

If God chooses to allow me to be an instrument to effect the "transformation" so to speak, then GREAT! This is not, however, the main reason for witnessing as I see it. If God wants someone, He will get them with or without me.

First you speak of the privilege of finding other elect and witnessing to them; you look forward to telling them about their good fortune. Seems to me that it would be important to you in telling a person about their good fortune; that it would be important that you were not lying to one of the unfortunate ones. The truth is important when we obey God, be sure that that is what you are telling everyone. Because if you tell one of the non-elect about the good fortune of him being one of the elect, that would be a lie... Even if you invite them to be one of the elect, and it were impossible, that would be a false wittness....

Your witness appears to be concerned more with what it does for you, where is the love? Know that love is never about ones self, love always flows outward. It is always concerned with the well-being of others, not self. When you are the focus of your own love, it's not love; it's something else.

When you witness, hold truth above all else. There are lies of omission, and there are lies of commission. Omit nothing, first and foremost, you have to tell them that your witness may or may not apply to them. Your wittness is a false one unless you first mention election. And let your witness be a sincere act of love... Then it is pleasing to God...

Love thy neighbor as thyself. Then it becomes possible to love God..
As well as your deeds, God will judge your motives.....

Be well, and may God bless..

Reader

November 13th 2003, 01:25 PM

Chappie:

Well Reader, I read it. Even if I turn out to be a liar, election is still a lie. You see, even if there is a leak in my boat, it does not repair the hole in yours. What should I change? Watch out for verse 37. Watch out for verses 41, 42, & 43 also.....

Btw, after repeated rejection, God does turn oner to a reprobate mind. (First or Second Thess. someplace.)Are you suggesting that those that were blinded were blinded before the foundatons of the world were laid...

You deny the inspired teachings of Isaiah, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle John, and declare them wrong, but yourself correct. That is far worse than having "leaks in your boat." You are sinking, while you deny the power of the Scriptures that alone can save you.

You cannot change anything. Your own sins have blinded your eyes and hardened your heart. Only God can change your unbelieving heart. However, if God is dealing with you, you will exhibit some humility and fear about declaring the teachings of the Bible to be a lie.

The section of Scripture that teaches reprobation is in Romans 1:18-2:16 and 9:11-22.

All men were seen as sinners by God before creation. Adam's fall did not surprise God. That is the reason the Triune God covenanted to redeem an elect portion of humanity before the foundation of the world. It was decreed before time, that Jesus Christ would be slain to save many souls. (Rev. 13:8)

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father . . " I Peter 1:2a

"In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began." Titus 1:2

These elect persons were chosen by God before they were born, and before they did any good or evil, so that their salvation would be according to God's predetermination and grace. No man is saved by human works or decisions of any kind. God established redemption this way in order to demonstrate His sovereign power and grace over His creatures.

"For the children, not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls." Romans 9:11

This is the truth of God that you call a lie.

May God have mercy on your soul. May God remove your blindness by giving you a new, living heart to love Him and believe Him as you should.

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 02:53 PM

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283838#post283838)
Reader:
You deny the inspired teachings of Isaiah, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle John, and declare them wrong, but yourself correct. That is far worse than having "leaks in your boat." You are sinking, while you deny the power of the Scriptures that alone can save you.
Hello Reader
Well, well, well. Here it is again… The old if you deny what I say, you deny the scriptures scare tactic. Well Reader, I have been studying and preaching God’s words for too long to be frighten by that remark. But listen, this is what you can correctly accuse me of. When I die, this is what I want written on my tombstone…

Without any reservation, hesitation or anything else that would hinder, I declare salvational predestination, efficacious grace, irresistible grace, reformed theology and salvational election to be unscriptural. A deception perpetrated by Satan through man upon the body of Christ. I loudly declare that there is nothing in scripture to indicate that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and James would ever advocate it or have any thing to do with it. I do not deny the power of scripture; I deny reformed theology’s erroneous interpretation of them. Now you can quote me on that.

You cannot change anything. Your own sins have blinded your eyes and hardened your heart. Only God can change your unbelieving heart. However, if God is dealing with you, you will exhibit some humility and fear about declaring the teachings of the Bible to be a lie.

Nothing in scripture can I change, nor do I want to. If worse comes to worse, and I have been blinded, I can still thank God that I have not been blinded by John Calvin and the lies that you call reformed theology. Let every man be a liar, and let God be true. Again you sink to accusing me of declaring the bible to be a lie, when in your heart, at a minimum you should know that it is John Calvin and reformed theology that I say is the lie. Hear me say it plainly… “Reformed Theology is a lie”….

Is that humble enough for you…..

The section of Scripture that teaches reprobation is in Romans 1:18-2:16 and 9:11-22. 2 Thess 2:9-12
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

All men were seen as sinners by God before creation. Adam's fall did not surprise God. That is the reason the Triune God covenanted to redeem an elect portion of humanity before the foundation of the world. It was decreed before time, that Jesus Christ would be slain to save many souls. (Rev. 13:8)
He would not have to be slain according to you if your God had not decreed that Adam sin in the first place. Still your God is glorified by causing people to sin, punishing them for sinning, and declaring himself to be righteous, just, and holy. Glorified by wallowing in the very thing that he hates, SIN….

God decreed sin. What does that remind me of? Oh yea!!! Taking a bunch of babies for a boat ride. Throwing them overboard, watching them flail around trying to get out of the water, but just before they take their last breath, he jumps in the water and saves one out of ten. Then he looks at the few that he saved and loudly proclaims, “The others deserved what they got. See just how merciful and good I am. Reformed theology is sick.

These elect persons were chosen by God before they were born, and before they did any good or evil, so that their salvation would be according to God's predetermination and grace. But not before he caused everyone of them to sin. They were not chosen before by divine decree he made each and every one of them sin. Including Adam, according to you. If God had not made Adam sin, he could not have glorified himself by saving them… Tsk, tsk….

No man is saved by human works or decisions of any kind. God established redemption this way in order to demonstrate His sovereign power and grace over His creatures.
They did not need to be saved before (reformed theology) the most powerful creature in existence made them sin.

For the children, not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls." Romans 9:11
This does not glorify God; he is the sole cause of all the mess in the first place. (Reformed theology said that)

This is the truth of God that you call a lie. I am not fooled for a moment by this garbage. Save it for some other brainless wonder, another reformed theologian might bite. Not me…

May God have mercy on your soul. May God remove your blindness by giving you a new, living heart to love Him and believe Him as you should. Thank you, in other words; may God never allow me to be blinded by reformed theology……

Reader

November 13th 2003, 03:27 PM

Today @ 06:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283923#post283923)
Chappie:

He would not have to be slain according to you if your God had not decreed that Adam sin in the first place. Still your God is glorified by causing people to sin, punishing them for sinning, and declaring himself to be righteous, just, and holy. Glorified by wallowing in the very thing that he hates, SIN….

God decreed sin. What does that remind me of? Oh yea!!! Taking a bunch of babies for a boat ride. Throwing them overboard, watching them flail around trying to get out of the water, but just before they take their last breath, he jumps in the water and saves one out of ten. Then he looks at the few that he saved and loudly proclaims, “The others deserved what they got. See just how merciful and good I am. Reformed theology is sick.

But not before he caused everyone of them to sin. They were not chosen before by divine decree he made each and every one of them sin. Including Adam, according to you. If God had not made Adam sin, he could not have glorified himself by saving them… Tsk, tsk….

You say God "decreed" men to sin?

You say God "caused" man to sin?

You say God "made" each and every man to sin?

That is not what the Holy Scriptures say. You contradict God.

For the truth is:

". . Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

Adam is held accountable before God for sin and death and plunging humanity into bondage to Satan.

Every human being is held accountable for his own willful sins.

To accuse God of causing sin and to hold God accountable for death is severe blasphemy.

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 04:19 PM

Today @ 07:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283967#post283967)
Reader:
q You say God "decreed" men to sin?

q You say God "caused" man to sin?

q You say God "made" each and every man to sin?

q That is not what the Holy Scriptures say. You contradict God.

For the truth is:

". . Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

Adam is held accountable before God for sin and death and plunging humanity into bondage to Satan.

Every human being is held accountable for his own willful sins.

To accuse God of causing sin and to hold God accountable for death is severe blasphemy.

You said this:
"All men were seen as sinners by God before creation. Adam's fall did not surprise God. That is the reason the Triune God covenanted to redeem an elect portion of humanity before the foundation of the world. It was decreed before time, that Jesus Christ would be slain to save many souls. (Rev. 13:8)"

Do you have the slightest idea what it means? It means that God decreed that sin exist before he even created man. Anyway, it is no mystery that according to reformed theology, God ordains, predestines everything to happen that happens. So I accuse you of accusing God of every thing that you say I accuse God of.

I say that man got us into this mess, when he disobeyed God. I say that god did not make him do it. I say that man did not do what God HAD SUPPOSEDLY PROGRAMMED HIM TO DO.

Do you even consider the ramifications of what you say? You say stuff like, it's raining, but you can walk but naked into the rain, it will not get you wet.....

If God ordained everything, then everything includes sin.... :argh:

Did Adam sin in harmony with, or against God's will. Common sense would tell you that you cannot have it both ways.

twohumble

November 13th 2003, 04:32 PM

Today @ 04:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283805#post283805)
Chappie:

TwoHumble:
Here are your words that I responded to:

First you speak of the privilege of finding other elect and witnessing to them; you look forward to telling them about their good fortune. Seems to me that it would be important to you in telling a person about their good fortune; that it would be important that you were not lying to one of the unfortunate ones. The truth is important when we obey God, be sure that that is what you are telling everyone. Because if you tell one of the non-elect about the good fortune of him being one of the elect, that would be a lie... Even if you invite them to be one of the elect, and it were impossible, that would be a false wittness....

Your witness appears to be concerned more with what it does for you, where is the love? Know that love is never about ones self, love always flows outward. It is always concerned with the well-being of others, not self. When you are the focus of your own love, it's not love; it's something else.

When you witness, hold truth above all else. There are lies of omission, and there are lies of commission. Omit nothing, first and foremost, you have to tell them that your witness may or may not apply to them. Your wittness is a false one unless you first mention election. And let your witness be a sincere act of love... Then it is pleasing to God...

Love thy neighbor as thyself. Then it becomes possible to love God..
As well as your deeds, God will judge your motives.....

Be well, and may God bless..

Chappie, you are mistaken....those were not my words you responded too, but instead, I quoted your post, and responded to it. You posted the "priveledge of finding the elect" and I refuted that definition. I did not use the quote bar provided, but instead copied and pasted part of your post into mine, so it does not appear as a "quote", but in fact, those were your words.

I am sorry you feel my witness is "selfish" or without love. I in no way mean to imply that. Certainly it is my hope for the person I speak with, to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and receptive to my words. Out of love, I pray that. However, I know ultimately that is in Gods hands, and I witness out of obedience and gain untold treasure of increaseing my knowledge of Him.

The scripture is full of verses which tell us that the heart must be prepared for harvest, and this preparation is done by the working of the Holy Spirit. Spriritually dead don't seek Him of their own, and their spiritual ears are deaf, only by Gods grace can witness be effective. Hence, if I make a persons conversion the sole purpose for my witness, I miss Gods intent in my life. If I had no love for another, I am sure heart felt witnesss would not be possible.

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 04:57 PM

Today @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284069#post284069)
twohumble:

Chappie, you are mistaken....those were not my words you responded too, but instead, I quoted your post, and responded to it. You posted the "priveledge of finding the elect" and I refuted that definition. I did not use the quote bar provided, but instead copied and pasted part of your post into mine, so it does not appear as a "quote", but in fact, those were your words.

I am sorry you feel my witness is "selfish" or without love. I in no way mean to imply that. Certainly it is my hope for the person I speak with, to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and receptive to my words. Out of love, I pray that. However, I know ultimately that is in Gods hands, and I witness out of obedience and gain untold treasure of increaseing my knowledge of Him.

The scripture is full of verses which tell us that the heart must be prepared for harvest, and this preparation is done by the working of the Holy Spirit. Spriritually dead don't seek Him of their own, and their spiritual ears are deaf, only by Gods grace can witness be effective. Hence, if I make a persons conversion the sole purpose for my witness, I miss Gods intent in my life. If I had no love for another, I am sure heart felt witnesss would not be possible.

TwoHumble:
I cannot find where i originated those words in any post that I made. Doesn't matter. A misunderstnding is a misunderstanding no matter where it originates.

Permission to speak sincerely and truthfully:
My attempt was not to show disrespect to your obedience to God, on the surface I see it as Christ like and sincere. My attempt was to show that the Christlikeness that I percieve in you is not as appearent in reformed theology. In application, It will often find itself at odds with reformed theology. In other words, you appear to be a better person than the thelogy that you think produced this christlikeness in you.

Please do not think that my disrespect for reformed theology extends to you, it does not.

Reader

November 13th 2003, 05:12 PM

Today @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284051#post284051)
Chappie:

You said this:
"All men were seen as sinners by God before creation. Adam's fall did not surprise God. That is the reason the Triune God covenanted to redeem an elect portion of humanity before the foundation of the world. It was decreed before time, that Jesus Christ would be slain to save many souls. (Rev. 13:8)"

Do you have the slightest idea what it means? It means that God decreed that sin exist before he even created man.

If God ordained everything, then everything includes sin.... :argh:

Did Adam sin in harmony with, or against God's will. Common sense would tell you that you cannot have it both ways.

It means that God knew man would sin.

Knowing and causing are very different things. Ordaining and causing are two very different things.

For example: Judas Iscariat

Did God know and ordain Judas to be the one who would betray Jesus Christ? Yes, of course, for the Spirit prophesized this known fact and surety in Psalm 41:9.

Did Jesus know that Judas would betray Him? Yes, of course. Jesus is omniscient and allowed Judas to betray Him. This is known fact and taught in Matthew 26:23-25.

Did God CAUSE Judas to betray His Son? No! God held Judas accountable for his sin and betrayal. He was marked a "son of perdition" and declared "lost" by Christ for his wickedness. (John 17:12)

These are important distinctions.

God can know and ordain, but God does not cause sin. God is not to blame for any sin. Sin came from the creature; not the Creator.

You question:

Did Adam follow the will of God, or did Adam work his own will?

My answer:

God gave Adam moral agency to willingly choose to obey His commands. Adam exercised that agency to disobey God's commands. Adam did not believe God's Word and set his own will against God's will. Does that mean God's will was thwarted by Adam's willful sin? No.

The spiritual principle that applies and explains this is found in:

"As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." Genesis 50:20

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

Sovereignishe

November 13th 2003, 05:28 PM

Each one was judged for rejecting or accepting God’s provisions. QUOTE]

All men reject God, so why aren't all men judged accordingly?

[QUOTE]
God does not do evil and call it good just because he is God. That's a reformed God. What God calls evil on this earth he calls evil in heaven. And we are not talking about what man calls evil, we are talking about what God calls evil.

God calls jealously evil, yet He's a jealous God... Boasting is evi if man does it, yet God can boast of Himself.... If man were to do various things that God has done it would be considered evil. Could you bring death to someone to prove a point? No, but God did... That's the point you miss...

I have always maintained that there is no personal election in salvation: You keep bringing up consequences that God inflicted in peoples earthly lives to prove that there is. Fire from heaven, so what? Job got troubles, everybody got troubles.

What did Job do to bring about the "consequences" that were brought upon him... Consequences normally stem from doing something wrong given what Job was put through by the will of God... What *right* did God have to bring about such misery on Job? Could any man act the way God did and be called righteous?

Reformed theology needs a God that is just as comfortable doing evil as he is doing good. Still the bible says that God is righteous, just and holy. Reformed theology needs an evil God. So sad. Look at all the time that you spend PICKING AND CHOOSING, AND misunderstanding scripture to get your evil God.

What Refrom Theology are you talking about? In prior posts you said you have no understanding of the doctrine, but that you know it's wrong simply because of the smell.

So what, they were all elect sheep and servants, they all went to heaven. We are talking about salvation, not how someone died…

Actually we were talking about God acting on a higher plane than man, but of course you jump right in and did all you could to bring Him down to our level...

Johnny
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 07:11 PM

Today @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284127#post284127)
Reader:
It means that God knew man would sin.

Knowing and causing are very different things. Ordaining and causing are two very different things.
True, True, Oooooh, so true......

For example: Judas Iscariot

Did God know and ordain Judas to be the one who would betray Jesus Christ? Yes, of course, for the Spirit prophesized this known fact and surety in Psalm 41:9.
Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him? YES....
Did God ordain that Judas would betray him? NO....
He was chosen not because God ordained (caused) him to betray Christ. He was chosen because God knew that of his own volition, he would betray Christ.

Ps 41:9
9Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Ps 41:9 was written by David. So I ask, is David praying or prophesying? Betcha that David had a friend that put him in this situation. (Read your bible) It can be said that this is a type of what happened to Christ. But a prophecy, you're reaching beyond what is revealed again.....

Did Jesus know that Judas would betray Him? Yes, of course. Jesus is omniscient and allowed Judas to betray Him. This is known fact and taught in Matthew 26:23-25.

Jesus knew, but he was not omniscient in the flesh. The Holy Spirit revealed it to him

Did God CAUSE Judas to betray His Son? No! God held Judas accountable for his sin and betrayal. He was marked a "son of perdition" and declared "lost" by Christ for his wickedness. (John 17:12)

These are important distinctions.

True, Judas is held accountable by God for what he did, because God did not ordain it, he simply allowed it. Judas acted of his own volition. Still, our obedience or disobedience cannot thwart the eternal plan of God. If Judas had chosen not to betray Christ, he had that option, how far would God have to venture in order to find someone that would. Just how many times did they pick up stones to dill him....

God did not have to ordain a man to hell in order to get Christ on the cross; sin had already provided many candidates. God only needed to choose someone and put them in the right place. Just as he did Pharaoh, it was because of his sinfulness that God raised Pharaoh up to be king of Egypt.

God can know and ordain, but God does not cause sin. God is not to blame for any sin. Sin came from the creature; not the Creator.
Glad that you appear to know the difference. Now if you would only apply that difference to every situation.

You question:

Did Adam follow the will of God, or did Adam work his own will?
NO!!!!! He did not. God told him not to eat from that tree, Adam disobeyed him....

My answer:

God gave Adam moral agency to willingly choose to obey His commands. Adam exercised that agency to disobey God's commands. Adam did not believe God's Word and set his own will against God's will. Does that mean God's will was thwarted by Adam's willful sin? No.
Again your supposition exceeds what is reveal in scripture. The scriptures do not say that Adam did not believe God. What precisely are you suggesting, that they did not believe that God said it? They appear from scripture to believe God, but they chose to disobey anyway.

The spiritual principal that applies and explains this is found in:

"As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." Genesis 50:20

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

Your principles are out of place and out of context. Try it again; make them say that God caused sin in order to save many....

Chappie

November 13th 2003, 07:35 PM

Today @ 09:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284155#post284155)
Sovereign_Is He:
God calls jealously evil, yet He's a jealous God... Boasting is evil if man does it, yet God can boast of Himself.... If man were to do various things that God has done it would be considered evil. Could you bring death to someone to prove a point? No, but God did... That's the point you miss...
Have you ever asked yourself why?
When men experience jealousy, it results in emotions that get out of control and cause harm. It is the resultant harm that is sin. God is a jealous God, when God gets jealous he never looses control of his emotions. Kinda like, be angry, but do not sin…

Who did God kill just to prove a point?

What did Job do to bring about the "consequences" that were brought upon him... Consequences normally stem from doing something wrong given what Job was put through by the will of God... What *right* did God have to bring about such misery on Job? Could any man act the way God did and be called righteous?

Last thing that I remember all that God did was remove the hedge of protection from around Job that was protection him all the time. It was always God’s hedge on the first place to do with as he pleased. What did Job do? He was a sinner, living in a sinful world. Happy is he who suffers for righteousness sake

What Reform Theology are you talking about? In prior posts you said you have no understanding of the doctrine, but that you know it's wrong simply because of the smell.

He, he, he… Twister, twister, twister. You said that I did not understand it. I said that it smells because I do understand it. You think that because I vehemently disagree with it, I must not understand it. I say that I can see it for what it is….

Actually we were talking about God acting on a higher plane than man, but of course you jump right in and did all you could to bring Him down to our level...
God is on a higher level than men, he does not burn men just to glorify himself.

Johnny
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Bobby:
Atleast you got that last part right. You do pretty good until you try to give a reformed interpretation of a passage…..

twohumble

November 13th 2003, 09:22 PM

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284109#post284109)
Chappie:

TwoHumble:
I cannot find where i originated those words in any post that I made. Doesn't matter. A misunderstnding is a misunderstanding no matter where it originates.

Permission to speak sincerely and truthfully:
My attempt was not to show disrespect to your obedience to God, on the surface I see it as Christ like and sincere. My attempt was to show that the Christlikeness that I percieve in you is not as appearent in reformed theology. In application, It will often find itself at odds with reformed theology. In other words, you appear to be a better person than the thelogy that you think produced this christlikeness in you.

Please do not think that my disrespect for reformed theology extends to you, it does not.

Chappie

Thank you, and I don't take any offense, or disrespect.

However, I am not at all clear on what you think is at odds with "Christlikeness" and "reformed theology"?

I have studied it pretty hard Chappie, and I think once the "surface" misunderstandings are cleared, reformed theology does not find itself at odds with any scripture that I know of.

The problem I have not been able to overcome in "non-reformed" theology is this: If I choose, then I must be in some way responsible for my salvation, since, the action of "choosing" is a verb, its an action, and its based in "my will", hence, I have decided my own fate, and my salvation is ultimately in my hands.

This is at odds with scripture as I see it.

Chappie

November 14th 2003, 02:50 PM

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284650#post284650)
twohumble:
Chappie
Thank you, and I don't take any offense, or disrespect.

However, I am not at all clear on what you think is at odds with "Christlikeness" and "reformed theology"?[QUOTE]
What does the bible mean when it says that God is not a respecter of persons.
What is justice if it is not fair and equal consideration under the law…. WHAT IS JUSTICE. What does the bible tech us that justice is……

I have studied it pretty hard Chappie, and I think once the "surface" misunderstandings are cleared, reformed theology does not find itself at odds with any scripture that I know of.
Twohumble:
I would like to discuss with you one misunderstanding that you believe that I have concerning reformed theology. One that you think should be easily cleared up with scripture….

The problem I have not been able to overcome in "non-reformed" theology is this: If I choose, then I must be in some way responsible for my salvation, since, the action of "choosing" is a verb, its an action, and its based in "my will", hence, I have decided my own fate, and my salvation is ultimately in my hands.

This is at odds with scripture as I see it.

Before we attempt to resolve this issue, I would ask, is this your only problem. And I would also ask, is your belief in Calvinism dependent upon this being a problem inherent in free-will theology…

What is the underlying principle that makes salvation, SALVATION?

Richbee

November 14th 2003, 03:09 PM

Those who have been influenced by the dogma of John Calvin believe that a child of God can never apostatize to the point of being lost.

Is that true?

Dr. Charles Stanley, in his book Eternal Security—Can You Be Sure?, devotes an entire chapter to Galatians 5:4!

Galatians 5 - NIV

Freedom in Christ

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Charles Stanley desperately wants to negate its impact on the once-saved, always-saved doctrine. Stanley suggests that all Paul is saying is this: If you Galatians seek justification through the law of Moses, you will just be wasting your time. He says that “falling from grace” is not equivalent to losing one’s salvation (p. 135).

Reflect upon this thought.

If being “in grace” denotes salvation (see Romans 5:2; Acts 13:43), why wouldn’t being “away from grace” signify condemnation?

Reader

November 14th 2003, 03:41 PM

Today @ 07:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285391#post285391)
richbee:

If being “in grace” denotes salvation (see Romans 5:2; Acts 13:43), why wouldn’t being “away from grace” signify condemnation?

Being "in grace" is a permanent status and position in Christ Jesus. One has been brought from death to life; from darkness to light; from slavery to spiritual freedom. And that conversion is everlastingly guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. That status and position can never be lost.

One who is in this position of grace, will live by grace, because of the Spirit of Truth who abides.

Any soul saved by the grace of God will never fall away from grace by returning to works of the Law. (Yes, Christians obey the Law of God, but out of gratitude and love of God's statutes only, in faith. Never to maintain their salvation or earn merit with God.)

Anyone who professes to know the grace of God, but becomes legalistic about following the Law in order to be a ~proper~ or ~better~ Christian, reveals they never knew the grace of God to begin with. They reveal their profession of faith is not genuine, and indeed, they remain in their sins and condemnation.

For:

". .Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect in the flesh?" Galatians 3:2&3

"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Romans 8:9

mickiel

November 14th 2003, 03:44 PM

Humanity is gripped in a vortex of limited views of God. God is salvation, God is love, God is the creator and substainer of salvation, not we ourselves. Only sin can erode salvation, Jesus has taken that sin away, Jesus has overcome all things that can limit the salvation of humanity.In Isaiah 66:9, the theology of mankinds doubts are apparent. We just do not believe in God or his ability to preserve what he creates. Shall i bring to the point of birth and not give delievery? Shall i give men over to themselves, their own will, and leave salvation to them? Shall i create billions of humans, only to let them deceide for themselves what is the importance in life everlasting? Shall i start human life, cause my own son to suffer death, only that men can suffer for life in some miserable unholy existance called hell?

Men search the scriptures for misery and limited atonement. They argue and seek out ways for others to loose the free gift of life that is without cost, Rev. 21:6.Mankinds knowledge of God is only of the past, their wisdom of him does not include the future. Human knowledge is only useful as a referance, the future is the wisdom of God. Gods wisdom captivates the heart and has power to open a new age. That is the core of salvation, and it cannot be lost. But neither can it be understood by a limited mind. Unlimited grace cannot be properly understood by limited minds. Gen. 28:14 has a promise that cannot, willnot be limited. All the families of the earth, the kosmos, every human will be blessed. There is no room there for someone loosing salvation.

In Ps. 138:4, all the kings of the earth will be thankful to God. In Ps. 135:6, whatever God pleases he does. In Job 23:13, whatever he desires he does. In 1 Tim. 2:4, he desires that all people receive salvation, people just don't believe he will get his desire, so the limiting of salvation has become a desire of mankind.

twohumble

November 14th 2003, 04:06 PM

Today @ 06:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285347#post285347)
Chappie:

Twohumble:
I would like to discuss with you one misunderstanding that you believe that I have concerning reformed theology. One that you think should be easily cleared up with scripture….

Before we attempt to resolve this issue, I would ask, is this your only problem. And I would also ask, is your belief in Calvinism dependent upon this being a problem inherent in free-will theology…

What is the underlying principle that makes salvation, SALVATION?

No, Chappie, it is a big problem, but certainly not the only problem. The number of verses, and patterns in the OT, show me the pattern of election and Gods plan, and this is a clear paradox with free will. I believe paradoxes are resolveable, and I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Hence, I don't think we can ignore the teaching of much of scripture, or twist it cause we don't "like" what it says. I think we must reconsile it as any paradox, and not deny it.

There are many many problems with denying the doctrine of election but these are two.

My belief in Calvinism is not dependent on any one thing. I don't consider myself a "calvinist". As Paul says, I am not of 'Paul, Apollos, Calvin, or any other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ'.

Chappie

November 14th 2003, 04:07 PM

Today @ 07:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285391#post285391)
richbee:

Those who have been influenced by the dogma of John Calvin believe that a child of God can never apostatize to the point of being lost.

Is that true?

Dr. Charles Stanley, in his book Eternal Security—Can You Be Sure?, devotes an entire chapter to Galatians 5:4!

Galatians 5 - NIV

Freedom in Christ

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Even though we are set free by Christ, through sin we can still put on the yoke of sin even though we are no langer slaves to sin...

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

This is not to say that if a person is circumcised, they can no longer be saved, it means that we cannot depend on circumcision for salvation

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
To fall away from grace does not infer that a person has ever been saved by Grace. You have to assume that. It infers that grace is availiable, but men are pulling farther and farther from it...

That conclusion is confirmed in verse 5.

5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Charles Stanley desperately wants to negate its impact on the once-saved, always-saved doctrine. Stanley suggests that all Paul is saying is this: If you Galatians seek justification through the law of Moses, you will just be wasting your time. He says that “falling from grace” is not equivalent to losing one’s salvation (p. 135).

He is correct in the context of the passage that you listed....

Reflect upon this thought.

If being “in grace” denotes salvation (see Romans 5:2; Acts 13:43), why wouldn’t being “away from grace” signify condemnation?

Once we are recieved into this grace, we are kept by the holy spirit until the day of redemption.
Eph 1:13
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also [/b]after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,[/b]

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Chappie

November 14th 2003, 04:38 PM

Today @ 08:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285567#post285567)
twohumble:

No, Chappie, it is a big problem, but certainly not the only problem. The number of verses, and patterns in the OT, show me the pattern of election and Gods plan, and this is a clear paradox with free will. I believe paradoxes are resolveable, and I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Hence, I don't think we can ignore the teaching of much of scripture, or twist it cause we don't "like" what it says. I think we must reconsile it as any paradox, and not deny it.

There are many many problems with denying the doctrine of election but these are two.

My belief in Calvinism is not dependent on any one thing. I don't consider myself a "calvinist". As Paul says, I am not of 'Paul, Apollos, Calvin, or any other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ'.

Twohumble:
Please show me one set of passages where this principle is established.

To begin with, please do not ask me to accept examples where God chose Jacob over Esau, through whom he would fulfil his promises to abraham. The passages must deal with salvation and not God's choice of our earthly ministry.

God raising up Pharoah to be king of Egypt because he needed a king that was in full blown rebellion in order to demonstrate his power to Israel and Egypt, and then hardining Pharaoah in that state of rebellion does not speak of salvation unless you can scripturally prove to me that Pharaoh went to hell because of it.

I say these things in an effort to get you to present me withm first of all; scriptures that deal, without a doubt, with God electing to salvation.

After we scripturally establish salvational election, then we can see how these passages support it.

As for free-will, i establish my case based upon the scriptural integerity of the word "whosoever" to mean precisely that, "whosoever"; unless modified by it's immediate context. I do not accept that we can change immediate context by importing scripture from all over the bible. Unless the context from where the passage was imported remains the same.....

May God Bless..

Reader

November 14th 2003, 06:08 PM

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284442#post284442)
Chappie:

Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him? YES....
Did God ordain that Judas would betray him? NO....
He was chosen not because God ordained (caused) him to betray Christ. He was chosen because God knew that of his own volition, he would betray Christ.

Ps 41:9
9Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Ps 41:9 was written by David. So I ask, is David praying or prophesying? Betcha that David had a friend that put him in this situation. (Read your bible) It can be said that this is a type of what happened to Christ. But a prophecy, you're reaching beyond what is revealed again.....

Again . . ."ordain" does not mean "cause." It means to "arrange," and God "arranged" Judas to betray Christ; however Judas is the cause of the betrayal.

And King David prophesied, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of Christ's betrayal in Psalm 41:9, designating the one to be a "familiar friend" (which Judas was to Jesus, for He called him "friend" in Matthew 26:50), and David prophesied his days would be "few," as was fulfilled when Jesus declared him "lost" in (John 17:12), and "another would take his office" in Psalm 109:8, confirmed when Peter quoted King David as referring to Judas, in Acts 1:20.

Jesus Christ Himself understood that David had prophesied of Judas, when He prayed to the Father that ". . Those You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, THAT THE SCRIPTURE MIGHT BE FULFILLED." John 17:12

So I am not reaching. I am teaching what the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ and King David and Peter all had to say about Judas Iscariat. This is letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

God ordained that Judas would betray Christ. But God held Judas accountable for his betrayal and sin. And God prophesied through David who exactly it would be, as confirmed by Christ and the Apostle Peter.

So your argument is invalid, and your accusations are false.

Reader

November 14th 2003, 06:19 PM

Yesterday @ 11:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284442#post284442)
Chappie:

The scriptures do not say that Adam did not believe God. What precisely are you suggesting, that they did not believe that God said it? They appear from scripture to believe God, but they chose to disobey anyway.

Adam and Eve did not believe God, as evidenced from the fact that they believed Satan instead, for Satan had lied to Eve and told her that "You will not surely die." (Genesis 3:4)

They did not believe God's warning of death, but thought they could enjoy the fruits of the tree, and "be like God" to know good and evil without suffering death.

All sin stems from unbelief of God's sovereign existence and all disobedience stems from disbelief in what God has said.

Sovereignishe

November 14th 2003, 06:29 PM

Have you ever asked yourself why?
When men experience jealousy, it results in emotions that get out of control and cause harm. It is the resultant harm that is sin. God is a jealous God, when God gets jealous he never looses control of his emotions. Kinda like, be angry, but do not sin…

Where in the bible does it say man can be jealous so long as he doesn't get mad... Btw, mere thoughts never acted upon can be sins.

Who did God kill just to prove a point?

Servants of Job....

Last thing that I remember all that God did was remove the hedge of protection from around Job that was protection him all the time. It was always God’s hedge on the first place to do with as he pleased. What did Job do? He was a sinner, living in a sinful world. Happy is he who suffers for righteousness sake

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Yes, happy is he who suffers for righteousness sake, yet if you made someone suffer in what you thought was righteous, you'd be committing a sin, yet God can move a nation against His own people for chastisement, and later judge harshly the nation He moved, yet He's just in doing so... If a parent did that between two children it would be wrong...

He, he, he… Twister, twister, twister. You said that I did not understand it. I said that it smells because I do understand it. You think that because I vehemently disagree with it, I must not understand it. I say that I can see it for what it is….

While back, after a few posts you relented that you don't know much about Reform Theology, and claimed simply by smell alone you know it to be wrong... Of course what if any credibility you had vanished when you revealed that lunacy…

God is on a higher level than men, he does not burn men just to glorify himself.

Never in question, so allow the flames to consume your straw man...

Atleast you got that last part right. You do pretty good until you try to give a reformed interpretation of a passage…..

Says the man who claims that salvation is bought with works, other than what Christ did on the cross...

Johnny
Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Sovereignishe

November 14th 2003, 07:07 PM

Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him? YES....
Did God ordain that Judas would betray him? NO....
He was chosen not because God ordained (caused) him to betray Christ. He was chosen because God knew that of his own volition, he would betray Christ.

God raised the likes of Pharaoh to power to show the world His power, yet Judas can't be appointed to his disobedience to do the same?

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Jesus knew, but he was not omniscient in the flesh. The Holy Spirit revealed it to him

How does the above sit with Christ being fully God as well as being in the likenss of our sinful flesh?

True, Judas is held accountable by God for what he did, because God did not ordain it, he simply allowed it.

God moved men against His own people for chastisement, and later deal harshly with those He moved...

Judas acted of his own volition. Still, our obedience or disobedience cannot thwart the eternal plan of God. If Judas had chosen not to betray Christ, he had that option, how far would God have to venture in order to find someone that would. ....

Heh... I wonder how many *friends* of Christ would have kissed Him and sold him off for the exact same amount of money as Judas did... You can't equate the wish of some to stone Christ with the prophecies Judas fulfilled...

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Just how many times did they pick up stones to dill him....

It wasn't His time yet... Those events were spoke of to show that no matter who did what in regards to man, Christ gave His life and when He choose to, not when man did... To imply that those attempts where liken to backup if Judas choose another path is absurd...

Johnny
Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

twohumble

November 15th 2003, 12:55 AM

Yesterday @ 08:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285660#post285660)
Chappie:

Twohumble:
Please show me one set of passages where this principle is established.

To begin with, please do not ask me to accept examples where God chose Jacob over Esau, through whom he would fulfil his promises to abraham. The passages must deal with salvation and not God's choice of our earthly ministry.

God raising up Pharoah to be king of Egypt because he needed a king that was in full blown rebellion in order to demonstrate his power to Israel and Egypt, and then hardining Pharaoah in that state of rebellion does not speak of salvation unless you can scripturally prove to me that Pharaoh went to hell because of it.

I say these things in an effort to get you to present me withm first of all; scriptures that deal, without a doubt, with God electing to salvation.

After we scripturally establish salvational election, then we can see how these passages support it.

As for free-will, i establish my case based upon the scriptural integerity of the word "whosoever" to mean precisely that, "whosoever"; unless modified by it's immediate context. I do not accept that we can change immediate context by importing scripture from all over the bible. Unless the context from where the passage was imported remains the same.....

May God Bless..

Chappie, without bandying verses, wihch may be counterproductive, let me start with your presuppositions.

1. Esau, and Jacob: you say this is not salvation, yet the passage says God "hated" Esau. Now, what does God hate? Sin, and more importantly, unrepentant sin. I find this to be a salvation based statement, even if you do not.

2. Pharoah's heart was hardened. Now, if you review scripture, and note the state of those whom were hardened, you will see, those are the ones the truth was never evident or accepted. If we deny the Truth, we are not saved. Hence, again, a salvation issue.

Your statement about 'whosoever' is another I don't buy. please site a verse specifically, so we may discuss it in its contextual basis.

Chappie

November 15th 2003, 03:13 AM

Today @ 04:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286674#post286674)
twohumble:
Chappie, without bandying verses, which may be counterproductive, let me start with your presuppositions.

1. Esau, and Jacob: you say this is not salvation, yet the passage says God "hated" Esau. Now, what does God hate? Sin, and more importantly, unrepentant sin. I find this to be a salvation based statement, even if you do not.

2. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. Now, if you review scripture, and note the state of those whom were hardened, you will see, those are the ones the truth was never evident or accepted. If we deny the Truth, we are not saved. Hence, again, a salvation issue.

Twohumble:
We can discuss these passages if you want to, but unless you have something new to add that I have not heard from reformed theology before, I’m afraid that your time might not be well spent.

In reference to your #1. As I have said before, this is not a foundational passage for salvational election. It does not say that either Esau nor Jacob was saved through election. Your conclusions are based solely on suppositions and implication. I would be willing to give more credence to your conclusions if you could give me just one foundational passage for election. Establish it, and possibly we could use this for support. We should never impose on any passage of scripture suppositions from other passages…..

Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated is a saying that is indigenous to the time. It is a euphemism for Jacob have I chosen, Esau have I not chosen. The elder shall serve the younger; this is not a condemnation to hell. Evidence of this euphemism has been found in secular writings of that time period to substantiate such.. Like you said, God does not hate men, god hates sin.

In reference to #2, you appear to accept that Pharaoh was already submerged in sin, God did not cause his unbelief. And there is nothing in the passage to indicate that God ever turned Pharaoh over to a reprobate mind. A point from which the scriptures state is a point of no return. Again, to conclude that Pharaoh was rejected by God before the world was is never stated in scripture and never does it establish salvational election.

Your statement about 'whosoever' is another I don't buy. Please site a verse specifically, so we may discuss it in its contextual basis.
Here are a couple. Also be aware that I do not buy your extreme view of the depravity of man. Dead in sin does not mean comatose or unable, it means separated from God by sin.
Matthew 5:19
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 10:32-33
32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

John 3:14-16
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Whosoever. NT:3956
pas (pas); including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:

KJV-all (manner of, means), alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

WORLD
1. kosmos NT:2889, 1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Rom 4:13); (c) by metonymy, the "human race, mankind," e. g., Matt 5:14; John 1:9 [here "that cometh (RV, `coming') into the world" is said of Christ, not of "every man"; by His coming into the world He was the light for all men]; v. 10; 3:16,17 (thrice), 19; 4:42, and frequently in Rom; 1 Cor. and 1 John; (d) "Gentiles" as distinguished from Jews, e. g.,
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Chappie

November 15th 2003, 03:22 AM

Yesterday @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286017#post286017)
Sovereign_Is He:
How does the above sit with Christ being fully God as well as being in the likenss of our sinful flesh?
Jerry:
I would like to begin this response by stating that the bible never states that Christ is “fully” God. It does however affirm that he is deity. The scenario that we will deal with is the biblically stated truth of God in human form.
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

No other passages in the bible are this straightforward and specific in proclaiming Christ as deity as well as the creator of all things. If we continue to Hebrews 2:6 we find that Christ’s deity, though not diminished, it is limited in the flesh.
Heb 2:5-9
5For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6But one testified in a certain place, saying:

"What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
7You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.
8You have put all things in subjection under his feet."

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him.
(Verse9)But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
NKJV

(Verse 7) You have made him a little lower than the Angels. (Verse 8) you have put all things in subjection under his feet. This is a positional statement, because the passage goes on to say,”not yet”. “But now we do not yet see all things put under him”. Instead we see Jesus. The human flesh that he is in masks his deity. It is masked because in order to be our savior, he had to pay the debt for our sin. God did not owe that debt to God, but by man to God. Our savior had to be fully human.

Hebrews 2:10, makes it clear that these things are true not because of any compulsion brought upon God other than he deemed it proper:
10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
NKJV
Heb 2:17-18
17Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
NKJV

It is now clear that the focal point of the existence of the word of God that was made flesh has shifted from deity to humanity. There are those that will here bring up the immutability of God. That is easily dealt with by realizing that this was God’s plan from the beginning.

By not it should be evident that in becoming fully human God did not become less God, but remained full deity. But he limited his actions and power to what is possible in the flesh. (17)Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren”. He remained full deity in that he never relinquished his sovereign right and ability to cast off his self imposed limitations of the flesh. So while in the flesh, he was fully human, (Fully Human) Yet as the word of God that does not change, he remained positionally God.

In the 17th chapter of John Christ looks forward to the cross to the time that his work here on earth will be complete. And he yearns to be returned to the position that he had with the Father before the earth was. Full, unimpeded deity. For while here on earth he was fully human, yet positional deity. In heaven he will again be full deity, and only positionally human.

John 17:1-5
17:1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
NKJV

Fully God. The word that was with God, and was God.
Fully human, Positionally God. The word that was made flesh.

Heh... I wonder how many *friends* of Christ would have kissed Him and sold him off for the exact same amount of money as Judas did... You can't equate the wish of some to stone Christ with the prophecies Judas fulfilled...

Do you have a prophesy that speaks of the kiss and that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Please show them to me....

twohumble

November 15th 2003, 10:45 AM

Today @ 07:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286982#post286982)
Chappie:

In reference to your #1. As I have said before, this is not a foundational passage for salvational election. It does not say that either Esau nor Jacob was saved through election. Your conclusions are based solely on suppositions and implication. I would be willing to give more credence to your conclusions if you could give me just one foundational passage for election. Establish it, and possibly we could use this for support. We should never impose on any passage of scripture suppositions from other passages…..

Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated is a saying that is indigenous to the time. It is a euphemism for Jacob have I chosen, Esau have I not chosen. The elder shall serve the younger; this is not a condemnation to hell. Evidence of this euphemism has been found in secular writings of that time period to substantiate such.. Like you said, God does not hate men, god hates sin.

In reference to #2, you appear to accept that Pharaoh was already submerged in sin, God did not cause his unbelief. And there is nothing in the passage to indicate that God ever turned Pharaoh over to a reprobate mind. A point from which the scriptures state is a point of no return. Again, to conclude that Pharaoh was rejected by God before the world was is never stated in scripture and never does it establish salvational election.

Here are a couple. Also be aware that I do not buy your extreme view of the depravity of man. Dead in sin does not mean comatose or unable, it means separated from God by sin.

Chappie.

1. We must always interpret scripture by what is clear, and not by what his ambiguous. In Romans 9, we see Paul use the two above examples, and then he follows them with an indepth explanation, to tell us exactly how he intended them, and they most certainly were salvational statements. You see that in this chapter Paul deals with the three major objections to the idea that God chose some men for condemnation. He addresses the following issues: how can anyone be blamed since no one can resist His will, the apparent 'injustice' of this action by God, and lastly, why would God do it.

All three of these issues and objections are covered in Romans 9. If Paul had not intended the Esau comparison to be "salvational" why did he fully explain his comments to be exactlly that? This passage was well understood by Pauls peers, and disciples, therefore Paul found objections such as yours and proceeded to explain.

Paul further explains in relation to Pharoah, that God hardens whom he hardens, but has mercey on whom he will have mercey. In this instance we clearly see that the hardening is the "opposite" of mercey, and as such, is clearly a salvational issue.

In regard to Pharoah being submerged in sin, yes, but no more than the rest of us. The hardening of his heart is what keeps him from accepting Moses and God. Why? God suffers with vessels made beforehand for distruction so His elect might know Him.

In regard to your whosoever passages. I must say, not to be rude, that you, like every other person I have ever discussed this with, totally miss the qualifiers and modifiers used with all of the whosoever passages you quote. In each instance you must ask youself the following question: WHO WILL BE THE 'WHOSOEVERS'?. There is no preclusion to the fact that the "whosoevers" are predestined to make the choice, before the foundation of the world. You seem to imply that because it says, everyone, all, whosoever, et. that the entire world is saved, but by their choice. This is certainly not implied by the context.

The pattern of Gods Election for salvation began with His choice of Isreal as His people. By this choice, Isreal is saved, but other nations are condemned. This pattern is fully evident in the Esau and Pharoah passages, as Paul points out that these are vessels made for destruction.

It is not "reformed theology" that imposes meaning on scirpture. Reformed theology accepts what is said, and does not excuse it because "it feels unjust".

John chapter 6 and other areas, where Jesus says "no man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me draws him"(vs 44), is another clear example. The word for "draw" is not an aramaic word for coersion. Rather this is a word of "force". It is only used two other times in the NT, once in acts, and another in James. Both times it is translated "drag". There is no implication other than a forceful pulling. Further on n the same chapter John 6:65 Jesus clearifies for those who dont' see, He says "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Jesus explains to Peter that his knowledge of Christ comes not from flesh and blood, but the spirit. In otherwords Chappie, I am trying to point out, in an ackward and rambling post, that the pattern of Gods choice always being sovereign is clear, and Paul knows it will cause concern, hence he explains it.

Your, and the rest of those who deny election, hang your hat on the 'whosoever' passages, yet there is always a qualifier associated with these passages. Its never just whosoever in the world dies, comes to Heaven. No, its always followed by some statement of what they will "do", and I will submit to you that what we all do, and chose, in relation to our salvation, is predestined by the Father, as explained by Paul.

Chappie

November 15th 2003, 02:31 PM

TwoHumble..
Hello.

I'd say that one of the monumental chapters on unconditional election would have to be Romans 9, specifically verses 9-23.(NKJV)

Scripture
9For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."
10And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

Line upon line, precept upon precept, this is what I see:
Verse 9
God is explaining a word of promise. (Outside of these passages we know that this promise was made to Abraham) This verse (9) is fulfilled when Rebecca gets pregnant by Isaac as expressed in verse 10.

Verse 11 is not in the original manuscripts, but was added (To the book of Romans) by the translators for clarity. Still, it is scriptural because it is a direct quote from Genesis.

11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

In verse 11, God establishes that his purpose in choosing are above any effort by man to be chosen for his purpose. His choice was not based on any good or evil that either child had done, or any worthiness on either persons part. He does this so that his choosing (election) is not dependent on one being more worthy than the other.

So we know his purpose for choosing, but what choice did he make?

12it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."

He has chosen against tradition aNd decid%d that phe elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, "Jacob I have lkved, but Esau I have hated."[/qeote]

As it ir writte`, euphemisticaly speaking: Jacob have A chosen, Esau have I not chosen

[quote]14 Shat shadl we say then? Is thereunrighteousness with God? Certainly not! [/b]

Paul anticipates his listeners’ thoughts and deal with them. I3 there unrighteeusness sith God> What potential unrighteousness is formed in thd mind ob those that heap Paul’s words? That he has chosen the elder to serve th% younge2. Quite an insudt to the firstbgrn at the time.

[qEote]15For He says to Moses, "I aill have mercy on whometer I widl have mercy, and I will have cempassioj on wholever I will hav% compassion."[/!uote]

Paul eXplains that they are nop justifaed to p%rceive God as ulrighteous because he hac alreadq told M/ses, “that I will have mercy on whomeve2 I will have mercy, andI will have compassion mn whomeVer I will have bompassiOn.. Stidl it must be noted that the onli sovereign act that God has committed in these `assages is that the elder shall serve t`e young%r..

So then, what caF we conClude fr
m what Paul has already said” W`at can be concluded is aontaineD in verSe 16, 15, 18..

[quote]16So then it ir not of him who wills, Lor of ham who runs, but of God Rho showp mercy. 17For t@e Scripture sayr to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have Baised yau up, t`at I mai show Mq power an you, and thatMy name may be `eclared in all The earth." 18Tharefore He has m@rcy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. [/qpote]

[quote]09You will say ta me then, "Why Does He rtill fifd fault6 For whm has reQisted His will?"

Patl anticipates tHeir nexp point gf resistance to his tea!hing. Varse 20:

[quo4e]20But indeed, O man, who are iou to reply aga`nst God> Will the thing formed say to ham who fMrmed it$ "Why hAve you Eade me like this?" [/quete]

Po this point Pael has establishad God’sauthority to do as he p@eases without respect tg any maf’s opinions or rejectiofs. Notice that to this point God’s good pleasure has cost no mal his salvation. We are dealing specifically with the temporal calling that God places ol the lifes of bgth saint and si,ner alike. This truth iq furtheB maniferted in verse 21 when Paul asks:

21Does not thd potter have power over the claY, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another fgr dishojor?[/qugte]

Here we have an illustration usi.g the a&alogy of the potter and the clay. One thing abott analocies or `arables. That which is used to represenp what is being `rojecte@ cannot be tamp`red with, lest we tamper with what is being illustrated

Does the potter (God) have power over the cLay? Clai, this earthly tabernacle that Ge live in: Salvation is for the soul, not the flesh. What is spoken of here has nothing to do w`th the soul (sadvation) rather it is our fleshlq existelce that is the Object o" what i# called into question here… God has the fight to create one a king, ano4her a sdave, one a rich man, another a poor man, one to honour and another to dashonour, And no man is saved by his position in life…

[quoteU22What af God, fanting 4o show His wrath and to make Hir power anown, eldured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prep`red for destruc4ion,

23and that He might maae known the riches of His glory on the vessels mf mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

“What if indeed$ What iF……….

Chappie

November 15th 2003, 04:50 PM

Today @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287125#post287125)
twohumble:

Chappie.
1. We must always interpret scripture by what is clear, and not by what his ambiguous. In Romans 9, we see Paul use the two above examples, and then he follows them with an in-depth explanation, to tell us exactly how he intended them, and they most certainly were salvational statements. You see that in this chapter Paul deals with the three major objections to the idea that God chose some men for condemnation.

The elder shall serve the younger. Is that the condemnation that you speak of? If it is there, please just point it out.

He addresses the following issues: how can anyone be blamed since no one can resist His will, the apparent 'injustice' of this action by God, and lastly, why would God do it.

1)No one can resist his will.
2)His sovereignty
Absent is any mention of who and how he will save. If they are there, why get involved in rhetoric rather than say emboldening them or perhaps underlining them. If we stick with what is obvious, we will find no mention of election.

All three of these issues and objections are covered in Romans 9. If Paul had not intended the Esau comparison to be "salvational" why did he fully explain his comments to be exactly that? This passage was well understood by Paul’s peers, and disciples, therefore Paul found objections such as yours and proceeded to explain.

A foundational passage is clear, pointed, and precise. Not a single statement that you just made can be traced to precisely what Paul has just said. If Paul had intended the passage to be salvational, perhaps a mention of salvation would help....

Paul further explains in relation to Pharaoh, that God hardens, whom he hardens, but has mercy on whom he will have mercy. In this instance we clearly see that the hardening is the "opposite" of mercy, and as such, is clearly a salvational issue.

Now you say that Paul further explains, still to this point I do not see a single quote that is traceable directly to Paul in your projections.

“The opposite of mercy is hardening”. Why? Who told you that? Where is scripture does it say that. What if I concluded that the opposite of mercy was no mercy? Which conclusion holds the greatest propensity for truth?

No mercy could also just as easily mean that in relation to mercy, God chose to do nothing. Yet you have transformed an absence of action into the proactive act of hardening. You are not scriptural. You are reformed....

In regard to Pharaoh being submerged in sin, yes, but no more than the rest of us. The hardening of his heart is what keeps him from accepting Moses and God. Why? God suffers with vessels made beforehand for destruction so His elect might know Him.

These types of comments are the products of men’s hearts. God separating men into, “these I will bless, and those I will hate and torture; just to impress those that I chose to bless; reeks of injustice and ungodliness. They stand defiantly in the face of the righteous just and holy nature of God revealed in scripture… Not by you, but by comments like these, I am offended…

In regard to your whosoever passages. I must say, not to be rude, that you, like every other person I have ever discussed this with, totally miss the qualifiers and modifiers used with all of the whosoever passages you quote.

I posted passages so that you could scripturally point me to the error of my ways, still you respond absent any scriptural implications with rhetoric, rhetoric, and more rhetoric.

In each instance you must ask yourself the following question: WHO WILL BE THE 'WHOSOEVERS'?

Being that I have to give an answer that I can support with scripture, I am bound by scripture to say they are believers. Now it is incumbent upon you to prove that whosoever really means “the ones chosen before the world was. Only them can it eliminate everybody save your elect..

There is no preclusion to the fact that the "whosoevers" are predestined to make the choice, before the foundation of the world. You seem to imply that because it says, everyone, all, whosoever, et. that the entire world is saved, but by their choice. This is certainly not implied by the context.

You are consistent in interpreting between what I say and what scripture says. You are seldom able to answer with scripture. Implication takes precedent over obviously stated fact.

What is stated is what is implied. Whosoever believeth will be saved; this is what I said, and what the bible said. (Proof text provided on request) There is a difference between whosoever believeth, and everybody. There is no implication in my speech, nor the bible that whosoever means or implies that everyone will be saved.

The pattern of Gods Election for salvation began with His choice of Israel as His people. By this choice, Israel is saved, but other nations are condemned. This pattern is fully evident in the Esau and Pharaoh passages, as Paul points out that these are vessels made for destruction.

The first problem with your pattern is that it has nothing to do with what Israel was chosen to. It was not salvation. Exodus 19:6, specifically, word for word; states that they were chosen to be a nation of priests. And if Israel was chosen to be saved, all Israel would be saved. All Israel is not saved. Even bible history denies the accuracy of your conclusions. And also to prove your point scripturally, you need a passage that says that every single descendant of Esau’s died and went to hell. There is none.

It is not "reformed theology" that imposes meaning on scirpture. Reformed theology accepts what is said, and does not excuse it because "it feels unjust&quot.

No comment, just a big smile… Well, just one… Has not the Holy Spirit imparted unto you any sense of what is just and what is not?

John chapter 6 and other areas, where Jesus says "no man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me draws him"(vs 44), is another clear example. The word for "draw" is not an Aramaic word for coercion. Rather this is a word of "force". It is only used two other times in the NT, once in acts, and another in James. Both times it is translated "drag". There is no implication other than a forceful pulling.

Does not the fact that it is translated draw in one place and drag in another cause you to wonder? I wonder why they translated it “draw” rather than “drag” everywhere but in the one place where you so desperately need it to say “drag”. Could it possibly be that in this particular instance, the English word “draw” is better suited to its interpretation.

Shall we for the sake of reformed theology unify its meaning to “drag”. that would render John 12:32, as "If I be lifted up, I will (drag)/u] all men to me.

James 4:8
8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Reformed Translation..
[u]Drag nigh to God, and he will drag nigh to you. Either retranslate the whole bible or leave it alone….

Further on in the same chapter John 6:65 Jesus clarifies for those who don’t' see, He says "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

So now, granted also means to drag.

Jesus explains to Peter that his knowledge of Christ comes not from flesh and blood, but the spirit. In other words Chappie, I am trying to point out, in an awkward and rambling post, that the pattern of Gods choice always being sovereign is clear, and Paul knows it will cause concern, hence he explains it.

If you are sincere, point me to a foundational passage, or admit that there is none…

Your, and the rest of those who deny election, hang your hat on the 'whosoever' passages, yet there is always a qualifier associated with these passages. Its never just whosoever in the world dies, comes to Heaven. [quote]

Why can’t you use my words? Insert what I really said if you want to deny what I said. Not a simile. My words are the same as in the bible. “Whosoever Believeth”. For the sake of this conversation, let’s keep it real….

[quote]No, its always followed by some statement of what they will "do", and I will submit to you that what we all do, and chose, in relation to our salvation, is predestined by the Father, as explained by Paul.

The bible never, never, never says, that anyone, nobody, nada body is ever predestined to be saved. It says that some are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. And that happens not before salvation, nor concurrent with salvation, but it happens only after the resurrection. Predestined to be saved is another concoction of reformed theology….

Reader

November 15th 2003, 07:09 PM

Chappie:

The bible never, never, never says, that anyone, nobody, nada body is ever predestined to be saved. It says that some are predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ. And that happens not before salvation, nor concurrent with salvation, but it happens only after the resurrection. Predestined to be saved is another concoction of reformed theology….

:egad: Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

Here is what Scripture says:

". . Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:29&30

The Spirit's calling is the Gospel power to save, which gifts souls with faith to believe unto the salvation Christ purchased when, on the cross, He justified and made souls acceptable to the Father. These things are efficaciously applied (and even guaranteed!) to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory; thus the process of God's election, salvation, justification, sanctification and conformation to the image of God are worked out in this chronological life time.

And this spiritual conversion, willed by God, is what was predestined, covenanted, and promised by God from before the foundation of the world; His spiritual purpose and reality manifested and demonstrated to all the heavenly host, in this physical realm.

The Bible DOES say so, no matter which way you try to go about denying it.

Chappie

November 15th 2003, 10:00 PM

Yesterday @ 11:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=287884#post287884)
Reader:

:egad: Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

Here is what Scripture says:

". . Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:29&30

The Spirit's calling is the Gospel power to save, which gifts souls with faith to believe unto the salvation Christ purchased when, on the cross, He justified and made souls acceptable to the Father. These things are efficaciously applied (and even guaranteed!) to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory; thus the process of God's election, salvation, justification, sanctification and conformation to the image of God are worked out in this chronological life time.

Well, show it to me in scripture. "Elect souls prior to their salvation", You said it plain, understandable and to the point. Problem is you said it. Efficaciously applied. Give me the one passage that says that. A scripture, is that too much to ask for.

I worry when a person accuses me of making things up, then proceeds to out do me. Here is what spurred you to accuse me. "He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son", still these are the precise words used in scripture. Show me efficaciously applied.

Show me, "The Spirit's calling is the Gospel power to save, which gifts souls with faith to believe unto the salvation Christ purchased when, on the cross".

Show me, "to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory".

And this spiritual conversion, willed by God, is what was predestined, covenanted, and promised by God from before the foundation of the world; His spiritual purpose and reality manifested and demonstrated to all the heavenly host, in this physical realm.

And the master maker upper complains because he thinks that he has been outdone. How dare the bible say "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,

The Bible DOES say so, no matter which way you try to go about denying it.

Then show it to me. If it's there, then you should have nothing more to do than word for word, quote the scripture.

Christ said: "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men. Those are my words. Here is a copy and past from the bible. "John 12:32
32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Notice how much in common, what I said has in common with scripture.

No!!! It does not matter what I say, but you cannot treat the bible with that same depraved indifference and expect to preach truth.

You don't care what I say; I don't care what you say. The bible says what it says.... :chat:

Next thing you know, you'll be trying to sell me China. I'll buy, but only if you can show me your deed with the Emperors seal upon it. After that I'll have to talk to the emperor before I buy...

Be well, but I will not sell my soul to the reformers. God has not efficaciously graced me in that direction. I am not one of the reformed elect, and there is nothing that I can do about it. If whosoever believeth does not help me, then I was created for destruction.... Have a wonderful eternity...

You need to learn how to study. :ponder:

Sovereignishe

November 15th 2003, 11:52 PM

I would like to begin this response by stating that the bible never states that Christ is “fully” God. It does however affirm that he is deity. The scenario that we will deal with is the biblically stated truth of God in human form.

God said I change not, therefore the sons of Jacob are not consumed (Too bad for the sons of his brother, eh..) and Christ is said to be the same yesterday, today, and so on.... Emmanuelle means God with us, not God with us with an asterisk…

Do you have a prophesy that speaks of the kiss and that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Please show them to me....

One will find the mention of the amount if Matthew, which will lead you to Zechariah and the a mention of the kiss of friend in Proverbs... The mention of the kiss isn't much of a prophesy, but it's very telling.... Happy hunting...

Johnny

Sovereignishe

November 16th 2003, 12:10 AM

Acts 13: 48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

When were they appointed to eternal life? After they believed? No... The verse speaks of them believing due to they were appointed to eternal life...

2 Thessalonians 2: 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

"...because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation... Begining of what? The day this verse was spoken?

2 Timothy 1: 9 9(It is God) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

What does "from all eternity" mean?

Ephesians 1: 3 - 5, 11 -- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

No comment...

John 15: 16, 19 -- You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.... If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Even if one says this is only for the certain group in the most narrow sense so what, the above speaks directly to election, and who does the choosing...

Johnny
1 Thessalonians 1: 4 - 5 Knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

twohumble

November 16th 2003, 12:20 AM

Does not the fact that it is translated draw in one place cause you to wonder? I wonder why they translated it “draw” rather than “drag” everywhere but in the one place where you so desperately need it to say “drag”. Could it possibly be that in this particular instance, the English word “draw” is better suited to its interpretation.

Shall we for the sake of reformed theology unify its meaning to “drag”. John 12:32, If I be lifted up, I will draw (drag)/u] all men to me.

James 4:8
8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Reformed Translation..
[u]Drag nigh to God, and he will drag nigh to you. Either retranslate the whole bible or leave it alone….

Chappie, the above is a quote from your post. I don't know how to selectively quote sections.

Howerver, let me point out that your position is just off base here, and you have overlooked some key elements that I typed in their entirety, but then tried to copie a single section of a quote and lost the whole thing I typed. So, I have not the constitution to retype it right now. I will address your incorrect assertions about "draw' and "drag"

In the passages you imposed the word "drag" on, if you look in an aramaic translation, the word "draw" in those passages is different than the one in John 6 that I quoted. That particular aramaic word is only used two other times in the bible, and both times its "dragged" Once in James 2, and once in Acts (verses are not handy right this min) All other mention of the word draw are aramaic words implying "to come to" or something of that effect.

The reason the passage in John uses "draw" instead of "drag" in an english translation, is simply this: it flows better in english that way. You will note that in English, the word to "draw" can also mean a "forceful pulling" as when we "draw water" from a well, and many other examples I am sure you can come up with. You are again imposing on the text, the meaning that fits your doctrine, and not what the clear meaning states.

Your mockery of the reformed translation of the James passage is absurd, and is not the right verse anyway, the James passage using the same aramaic word is James 2:6 which says "...is it not the rich who oppress you and personally DRAG you into court"

The other is in Acts where Peter is "dragged" before the authorities. I forget that exact passage. The other times you see "draw" it is not the same word word in aramaic as that used in John, James 2,and Acts.

I hope this helps to clerify that portion, I will address your other assertions when I have the time to retype the whole thing I lost.

In Christ
Dave

Reader

November 16th 2003, 01:10 AM

Chappie:

Well, show it to me in scripture.

Just did.

"Elect souls prior to their salvation", You said it plain, understandable and to the point.

Cutting and pasting to uphold a fallacious argument is disingenuous. I posted, "These things are efficaciously applied (and even guaranteed!) to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory; " to counter your claim there is no salvation from God until after the resurrection.

Show me, "The Spirit's calling is the Gospel power to save, which gifts souls with faith to believe unto the salvation Christ purchased when, on the cross".

Show me, "to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory".

I already posted pertinent Scripture which you choose to ignore and deny. But I will add Romans 1:16&17 for your (potential?) consideration.

Be well, but I will not sell my soul to the reformers.

No one has mentioned "Reformers" but you, and neither have I demanded your soul. I have only countered some of the unbiblical posts that you prolifically and continuously put out on this site, simply for conscience sake before the Lord.

You need to learn how to study. :ponder:

You know nothing about me, or who I am, or how long I have been walking and studying the Word as a child of God. But I will heed your exhortation and continue my studies from the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you,

Chappie

November 17th 2003, 06:54 PM

Yesterday @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=288292#post288292)
Reader:
Cutting and pasting to uphold a fallacious argument is disingenuous. I posted, "These things are efficaciously applied (and even guaranteed!) to elect souls prior to their resurrection to glory; " to counter your claim there is no salvation from God until after the resurrection.

You need to make Jesus aware of that little bit of reformed truth..
1 John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Are you suggesting that we cannot hear & believe untill after the resurrection? No sale!!

I already posted pertinent Scripture which you choose to ignore and deny. But I will add Romans 1:16&17 for your (potential?) consideration.

What good will that do. They will have an entirely different meaning after they are reformed. You tell me what the reformers say they say, we'll take it from there....

No one has mentioned "Reformers" but you, and neither have I demanded your soul. I have only countered some of the unbiblical posts that you prolifically and continuously put out on this site, simply for conscience sake before the Lord.

I mention it so that you may know that I have not made it personal. It's the theology that I have judged as heresy, not you. And yes, all that you have done is counter, but not with scripture that has not been squeezed so as to be almost unrecognizable.

I also realize that some people consider my straightforward way of speaking to be a bit much. But I tell the truth according to what the scriptures say. If that offends you, gimme a hug good bye...

You know nothing about me, or who I am, or how long I have been walking and studying the Word as a child of God. But I will heed your exhortation and continue my studies from the Holy Scriptures. All too many Christians preferr mush rather than truth... We can get mushy later..... My relationship with my God is at stake here...

Thank you,

That makes us even, you also know nothing about me. Still a misconception is a misconception. Doesn't matter if it 20 years old or 20 minutes old, it is still what it is... Or did you think that longevity can change a misconception into truth....

May God bless....

twohumble

November 17th 2003, 09:00 PM

Chappie

On page 15 of this thread, I addressed your "drag" claims...did you not see that? I wondered why no response.

Dave

Chappie

November 18th 2003, 02:23 PM

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=291663#post291663)
twohumble:

Chappie
On page 15 of this thread, I addressed your "drag" claims...did you not see that? I wondered why no response.
Dave

twohumble;
The reason the passage in John uses "draw" instead of "drag" in an English translation, is simply this: it flows better in English that way. You will note that in English, the word to "draw" can also mean a "forceful pulling" as when we "draw water" from a well, and many other examples I am sure you can come up with. You are again imposing on the text, the meaning that fits your doctrine, and not what the clear meaning states.

Twohumble:
Yes, it can mean a forceful pulling, which in no way indicates that it is irresistible. It does not mean that a persons will is violated in the process. That concept is derived from within the minds of men. As you so wisely stated, stay with what is obvious and you will be OK...

Concerning your supposed poetic translation of the bible: Excuse me if I give the translators of the bible a little more credit for sincerity than to do such a thing. Is it your claim that they were more interested in the poetic flow of the translation than in truth? If that is so, what parts of the bible are truthful translations, and which are poetic translations..

John 6:44 is translated "draw". On what authority do you change it to better suit your conclusions? Reformed theology has too many problems with the bible translations to even use it as it is. You retranslate all, to mean all the elect. You have a problem with the contextual translation of the word "world". You have to retranslate the passage that states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men to make it say all the elect. Because of your narrow view does not allow God to pay for all men’s sins unless he then turns around and saves every single one of them.

Now you will say that I do not understand reformed theology. You cannot accept the fact that I say that it is simply unscriptural. I will not accept you retranslating the bible just to make it fit election.

Do you even have the language skills in order to make the retranslation? I do not. Using the precedent that you attempt to set, anybody with a bible dictionary instantly becomes more proficient at translating the bible than those chosen for the task.

Within the immediate context of what is written, all means all, draw means draw, drag means drag. Without verifiable prolific proficiency in the language of the bible and the English language, you cannot retranslate for me.

The context of John 6:44 is that one (the person) cannot come (A volitional act) unless he is drawn. (A force of unknown power that contextually cannot overcome the volitional aspects of the word "Come", without one word negating the integrity of the other.)

Please do not waste your time trying to convince me otherwise. The word translated "draw"; I believe that the translators got it right. I do speak English.... It makes perfect sense in the English language.....

Sovereignishe

November 18th 2003, 05:50 PM

The context of John 6:44 is that one (the person) cannot come (A volitional act) unless he is drawn. (A force of unknown power that contextually cannot overcome the volitional aspects of the word "Come", without one word negating the integrity of the other

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The context of John 6:44 is that no man can come to Christ on their own... Christ repeats this again in verse 65...

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

The concept of *volitional* in regards to John 6:44 is strained given the fact that God is saying that one CANNOT doing something, UNLESS God acts... It's not saying that those who don't choose to come are not this or that, it states that unless you're given to the Son you cannot do something...

Now if one claims that all men have been given to the Son by the Father regarding salvaiton you must hurdle verses 37-40....

John 6:37-40 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

All that are given to Christ by the Father come(not chose to, they come), so if it's believed that all are drawn, given, or called to the Son by the Father you have a dilemma...

Johnny
John 10: 4 - 5, 8 When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.... All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

twohumble

November 18th 2003, 11:57 PM

Chappie, I still have no clue how to selectively quote individual areas of a post, so stay with me on this I will place your name after each of your quotes, and then address it.

Yes, it can mean a forceful pulling, which in no way indicates that it is irresistible. CHAPPIE

How do you impose on this "forceful pulling" a meaning other than "irresistable", the text does not suggest it. I guarantee if you "draw water" from a well, or "draw the curtains shut" the force is "irresistable". You again, have imposed YOUR interpretation to fit your dogma.

Concerning your supposed poetic translation of the bible: Excuse me if I give the translators of the bible a little more credit for sincerity than to do such a thing. Is it your claim that they were more interested in the poetic flow of the translation than in truth? If that is so, what parts of the bible are truthful translations, and which are poetic translations.. CHAPPIE

Who said it was a "poetic translation"? Not I, the meaning of draw, can be equivelent to drag, hence the word is interchangable in this instance. Based on the English sentence structure, the word "draw" fits better. This in NO WAY implies "poetic license" to change meaning or context. I never implied that at all. You again impose that interpretation on "draw". My conclusion of why "draw" was used, in no way suggests the translators were 'insincere' or not 'interested in truth'. I have pointed out that the word for "irresistable pulling" can reasonably and correctly be either 'draw' or 'drag', without compromising truth or sincerity.

John 6:44 is translated "draw". On what authority do you change it to better suit your conclusions? Reformed theology has too many problems with the bible translations to even use it as it is. You retranslate all, to mean all the elect. You have a problem with the contextual translation of the word "world". You have to retranslate the passage that states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men to make it say all the elect. Because of your narrow view does not allow God to pay for all men’s sins unless he then turns around and saves every single one of them. (CHAPPIE)

Well once again, you have tried to imply something I have not done or said. I have no problem with the translation of "world, all, whoever, et", and I don't retranslate them. YOU, however, ignore all the modifier's that contextually come in relation to them, and you ignore scripture that disputes your interpretation of them, namely: "Father, I don't pray for the whole world, but only the ones You have given Me". From this we know that its NOT the whole world. This is not "importing" unrelated scripture, but in fact, we must reconsile all of scripture to understand it in total.

I have no problem with the fact that all men must choose Christ, and invite Him in their lives. This is scriptural. However, you deny and "retranslate" every instance where the bible says "predestined" or you impose meaning not inherent in the text to explain it away. When you do this, you will inevitably come into conflict with other scripture. The bible has no contradictions, but for you to deny predestination, you deny the Word of God and His sovereignty.

Now you will say that I do not understand reformed theology. You cannot accept the fact that I say that it is simply unscriptural. I will not accept you retranslating the bible just to make it fit election.(CHAPPIE)

I don't at all think you don't understand it, I think you reject it from emotional revulsion of the idea you are not in control. As Sproul says 'men proclaim free will as loudly as Patrick Henry did proclaim freedom, 'GIVE ME FREE WILL OR GIVE ME DEATH'. This is emotional and I think you understand it, but are not ready to let God be God, you want to have a hand in your salvation. Hence you claim 'reformers retranslate' the bible, to deny what is clearly there.

Do you even have the language skills in order to make the retranslation? I do not.(CHAPPIE)

I have not retranslated, as I have said, only used the meaning of the words present, which you deny.

Within the immediate context of what is written, all means all, draw means draw, drag means drag. Without verifiable prolific proficiency in the language of the bible and the English language, you cannot retranslate for me.(cHAPPIE)

Once again, all means all, exactly in the context it is written, and in each instance you gave, all , whosoever, et. had the modifier following it that says 'all who believe'....it never just says 'ALL'....as we know since Christ did not pray for the whole world, or shall we ignore pertinent scripture?
Secondly, drag means drag, as you have said...but drag can also mean DRAW. I don't think this is that confusing, nor does it require Aramaic 401.

The context of John 6:44 is that one (the person) cannot come (A volitional act) unless he is drawn. (A force of unknown power that contextually cannot overcome the volitional aspects of the word "Come", without one word negating the integrity of the other.)(CHAPPIE)

I am sorry, but I am lost regarding what your point is above. Please clerify. I agree that one cannot come unless he is drawn.

Please do not waste your time trying to convince me otherwise. The word translated "draw"; I believe that the translators got it right. I do speak English.... It makes perfect sense in the English language.....(CHAPPIE)

Chappie, I am I to understand that you are not open to further understanding of Election as your intitial post implied? Were you not truly interseted in a dialog on this subject? I understand that this is an emotional topic, and I was hoping that Christian brothers could discuss it with mutual respect being open to each others ideas, to the edification of us all. If this has become devisive, then I agree, trying to convince you, or anyone, is a bad idea. These conversations are best left to Christian brothers, strong in their faith, who will not let it be a stumbling stone. If it has become one, please let me know.

Reader

November 19th 2003, 03:46 PM

twohumble:

Chappie, I still have no clue how to selectively quote individual areas of a post,

Dave,

I just learned how, so will pass it on.

Check the box to reply to pull up the entire post you are going to respond to, then go through and:

Place a bracket [insert QUOTE and place another bracket] to start where you want to respond, and then end the quote by placing another bracket [insert a slash/insertQUOTE and bracket].

I am enjoying your posts very much. Keep up the faithful work!

Sovereignishe

November 19th 2003, 03:52 PM

Dave,

I am enjoying your posts very much. Keep up the faithful work!

Same here...

Johnny
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Chappie

November 20th 2003, 02:38 PM

Yesterday @ 03:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=295951#post295951)
twohumble:

Chappie, I still have no clue how to selectively quote individual areas of a post, so stay with me on this I will place your name after each of your quotes, and then address it.

Greetings:
Twohumble:
Place what the other guy said within these brackets. bla bla bla [uote] I misspelled quote so that the brackets would stay visible….

Yes, it can mean a forceful pulling, which in no way indicates that it is irresistible. CHAPPIE

How do you impose on this "forceful pulling" a meaning other than "irresistable", the text does not suggest it. I guarantee if you "draw water" from a well, or "draw the curtains shut" the force is "irresistable". You again, have imposed YOUR interpretation to fit your dogma.

Take a small child by the hand; tell them to drag you across the room. Now resist them with enough force so that they cannot move you. Now tell them again to do the same thing, only this time submit to their tugging. So it is with God’s plan of salvation, God will tug at you, but his plan of salvation requires that he apply force only to the point that it does not become irresistible. He does use force (persuasion) but he will not cross the point to where you are not able to resist.

Curtains and water do not have free will….

Who said it was a "poetic translation"? Not I, the meaning of draw, can be equivelent to drag, hence the word is interchangeable in this instance. Based on the English sentence structure, the word "draw" fits better. This in NO WAY implies "poetic license" to change meaning or context. I never implied that at all. You again impose that interpretation on "draw". My conclusion of why "draw" was used, in no way suggests the translators were 'insincere' or not 'interested in truth'.

No, the words “drag and draw” are not interchangeable, It means that each word to a certain point share something in common with the other. But at some point they each separate and go their separate ways. It is what they do not have in common that must be taken into consideration when choosing which word we use to convey a precise point…

If we want to move an inanimate object, we drag it. It does not resist. If we want to move volitional objects, we can either drag them and in the process overcome their will to resist, or we can (draw)reason with them and persuade them to come of their own volition. John 6:44 is specific in that it is specifically speaking of a person drawn and coming to God volitionally. Then it states the conditions under which a person can come.
John 6:44
44[u]No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

I have pointed out that the word for " irresistable pulling" can reasonably and correctly be either 'draw' or 'drag', without compromising truth or sincerity

Then forget about the word drag, and stick with what is indigenous to the word “draw” as it is written in the bible. An irresistible drawing results in a dragging. And thereby negates the fact that what is being discussed is a man coming to God and the circumstances under which God makes it possible.

You keep bringing up the phrase “irresistible pulling”, it is a phrase that was available and avoided to those that translated the bible. It is a phrase coined by Calvinism, it is indigenous to Calvinism, not the bible… That is the truth, and you know it…. There is not even a casual mention of anything called "irresistible grace" within the confines of scripture. There is just Grace.

Chappie Said:
John 6:44 is translated "draw". On what authority do you change it to better suit your conclusions? Reformed theology has too many problems with the bible translations to even use it as it is. You retranslate all, to mean all the elect. You have a problem with the contextual translation of the word "world".

You have to retranslate the passage that states that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men to make it say all the elect. Because of your narrow view does not allow God to pay for all men’s sins unless he then turns around and saves every single one of them. (CHAPPIE)

Well once again, you have tried to imply something I have not done or said. I have no problem with the translation of "world, all, whoever, et", and I don't retranslate them. YOU, however, ignore all the modifier's that contextually come in relation to them, and you ignore scripture that disputes your interpretation of them, namely: "Father, I don't pray for the whole world, but only the ones You have given Me". From this we know that it’s NOT the whole world. This is not "importing" unrelated scripture, but in fact, we must reconcile all of scripture to understand it in total.

Please, please, please; post the scripture with the scripture that you claim act as modifiers. Based in the example that you gave, we definitely have to up the ante as far as thought is concerned.

“I don’t pray for the world”. That means every man in the world. “But only for the ones that you have given me". That specifies precisely whom out of all the world Christ is praying for. Find me that same modifier in regard to election. YOU CANNOT.

I have no problem with the fact that all men must choose Christ, and invite Him in their lives. This is scriptural. However, you deny and "retranslate" every instance where the bible says "predestined" or you impose meaning not inherent in the text to explain it away. When you do this, you will inevitably come into conflict with other scripture. The bible has no contradictions, but for you to deny predestination, you deny the Word of God and His sovereignty.

Some time you want to stick with what is evident in the bible, that being when I am speaking: But when you are speaking, there are no hindrances to what projections you want to include as scripture. I challenge you to a discussion that sticks to precisely what is stated in the bible. (What is predestined is the confirmation of those that are already saved into the image of Christ.) I DARE YOU TO ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE.

Show me the conflict; no reasonable man can make the claim that if God gives man freewill, that it denies his sovereignty. God does as God pleases, that includes freewill. No more than a freewiller saying that if God chose election it violates his sovereignty. This is one claim that illuminates the foolishness of reformed theology.

I don't at all think you don't understand it, I think you reject it from emotional revulsion of the idea you are not in control. As Sproul says 'men proclaim free will as loudly as Patrick Henry did proclaim freedom, 'GIVE ME FREE WILL OR GIVE ME DEATH'. This is emotional and I think you understand it, but are not ready to let God be God; you want to have a hand in your salvation. Hence you claim 'reformers retranslate' the bible, to deny what is clearly there.

Yes, my God touches the heart as well as the head. You have definitely misquoted Pat Henry. But then reformed theology depends on misquotes for its survival. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

Do you even have the language skills in order to make the retranslation? I do not.(CHAPPIE)

I have not retranslated, as I have said, only used the meaning of the words present, which you deny.
Then “draw it is”.

Within the immediate context of what is written, all means all, draw means draw, drag means drag. Without verifiable prolific proficiency in the language of the bible and the English language, you cannot retranslate for me.(CHAPPIE)

Once again, all means all, exactly in the context it is written, and in each instance you gave, all , whosoever, et. had the modifier following it that says 'all who believe'....it never just says 'ALL'....as we know since Christ did not pray for the whole world, or shall we ignore pertinent scripture?

“All who believe” precisely… Does not say “All” who were elected before the foundations of the world were laid. This you add, and then you turn around and scold me for not adhering to scripture.

Does the fact that within the context stated, Christ did not pray for the world, negate these passages?
John 3:17-21
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Does not say that he came that “The Elect” might be saved does it?

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

He that believeth, does not say, he that is elected does it?

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

The context of John 6:44 is that one (the person) cannot come (A volitional act) unless he is drawn. (A force of unknown power that contextually cannot overcome the volitional aspects of the word "Come", without one word negating the integrity of the other.)(CHAPPIE)

I am sorry, but I am lost regarding what your point is above. Please clarify. I agree that one cannot come unless he is drawn.

It means, keep everything in context

Chappie, I am I to understand that you are not open to further understanding of Election as your initial post implied? Were you not truly interested in a dialog on this subject? I understand that this is an emotional topic, and I was hoping that Christian brothers could discuss it with mutual respect being open to each other’s ideas, to the edification of us all. If this has become divisive, then I agree, trying to convince you, or anyone, is a bad idea. These conversations are best left to Christian brothers, strong in their faith, who will not let it be a stumbling stone. If it has become one, please let me know.

Time to tell the truth:
I consider you to be a brother in Christ; this conversation for me has absolutely nothing to do with you or I. I am at war with reformed theology.
Eph 6:12
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I do however long for dialog based upon scripture, line upon line, and precept on precept. Also, I have done my very best to atleast remain open to the remote possibility that reformed theology is true. But evidence of its truth is not contained within Calvins intrepretations of the passages that they believe establishes it as truth. Seems I’ve heard it all before and discounted it as truth.

You mention R.C. Sproul, he has established himself as a name above, still his accolades come from men. I simply am not persuaded to bow before him. Can you imagine me dropping a name like Benny Hinn?