Calvinism / pre-destination

[tea]

Another pre-faith, pre-salavtion person, eh?

In Genesis, God told Adam when/if he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, right? .

It seems that you think we are the same as Adam before the fall?
Adam had free will ONLY before the fall, after that he was just like us, dead!

[tea]

Hebrews 11.....

I can't understand how you are saying that Heb 11 is saying that those dead had free choice. Please explain to me how you are thinking.

My statement was;'I cannot find scripture that teaches we have a free will before Jesus enters our hearts. I see things like ; we were slaves to sin, & we were dead in our trespasses.
I so far have never seen a dead man choose.'

[tea]

Hi, Tea! Welcome to the boards! :-)

Please look at Eph2:1-8 --- when we were dead in our sins, "children of wrath same as the rest", God made us alive by grace through faith. That is "faith" WHEN we were dead. We could not be "made-alive-through-faith", if faith happens AFTER (or along with) made-alive.

Thanks Gad!
A quick one before I find more time to go deeper. Do you believe faith is something from yourself, or a gift from God?

[Zack702]

It seems that you think we are the same as Adam before the fall?
Adam had free will ONLY before the fall, after that he was just like us, dead!

I don't agree that we lost our "free will" in the garden.
God made Adam for a purpose in the Garden.
Outside the garden Adam and Eve must of had to adapt to the outside world.
I think there purpose fluctuated after not before.

Before hand God made Adam to keep the garden.
Afterwards Adam and Eve had become "knowing".

[keyzer soze]

I get why people have an issue with election as it seems to take away from the glory and love of God since God would be the one producing the act itself and not solely our free-will. Typically this line of thinking is followed up with some robot analogy and how meaningless that love would be if God is generating the ability to love. Well thinking along those lines, can anyone help me to understand what Rev 14:11 and Phil 2:10 mean? Are people FORCED to do this? What possible good can come of this if all is meaningless if we ourselves aren't producing everything for God out of our own "free-will"? Who is the "every", is it ALL or just the believers who were able to generate their own faith? I don't understand the point of these verses if it takes "free-will" to please God. Could the advocates for "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty please help me to understand.

Rev 14:11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

Phil 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[John146]

I can't understand how you are saying that Heb 11 is saying that those dead had free choice. Please explain to me how you are thinking.

My statement was;'I cannot find scripture that teaches we have a free will before Jesus enters our hearts. I see things like ; we were slaves to sin, & we were dead in our trespasses.
I so far have never seen a dead man choose.'

What exactly do you believe it means for someone to be dead in trespasses and sins? Why do you conclude that such a person is unable to choose to acknowledge to God that they are sinners while repenting of their sins? Can a sick person choose to ask for help and for healing? Yes, right?

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

I think you are taking the concept of sinners being dead in their trespasses and sins too far. Jesus said that sinners are sick, not dead. Yes, they are dead in their sins but they are not dead in the same sense that you would think of a physically dead person who is obviously unable to do anything. Physically dead people are not able to make choices, but sick people are able to make choices.

[John146]

I get why people have an issue with election

I don't think anyone here has an issue with election. Some of us have an issue with how some others understand election. Try not to generalize so much as if some have an issue with a concept that is clearly taught in scripture as election clearly is. The debate over this issue is not that some believe in election and some don't. The issue is that some understand election differently than others.

as it seems to take away from the glory and love of God since God would be the one producing the act itself and not solely our free-will. Typically this line of thinking is followed up with some robot analogy and how meaningless that love would be if God is generating the ability to love.

Can you tell me how exactly love can be forced? If you think love can be forced then please give me your definition of love. If you believe it can't be forced then doesn't that mean it's a choice to love or not?

Well thinking along those lines, can anyone help me to understand what Rev 14:11 and Phil 2:10 mean? Are people FORCED to do this? What possible good can come of this if all is meaningless if we ourselves aren't producing everything for God out of our own "free-will"? Who is the "every", is it ALL or just the believers who were able to generate their own faith? I don't understand the point of these verses if it takes "free-will" to please God. Could the advocates for "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty please help me to understand.

Rev 14:11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

Phil 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I believe what these verses imply is that even the wicked will bow before Him eventually on judgment day because at that point everyone will see Christ in all His glory and it will be undeniable at that point that He is Lord. Right now some people don't acknowledge that because they can't see Him and they can't be convinced of that without 100% proof right before their eyes. But that's not how it works. We are required to have faith that He is Lord and some people are not willing to have faith and instead want 100% proof. Well, they will get their 100% proof on judgment day but it will be too late for them to repent at that point. But they will not be able to deny that He is Lord because they will see that for themselves. I definitely don't believe that these verses are implying that anyone will be physically forced to bow to Him. God never has done that before and I don't believe He ever will do that.

[keyzer soze]

I don't think anyone here has an issue with election. Some of us have an issue with how some others understand election. Try not to generalize so much as if some have an issue with a concept that is clearly taught in scripture as election clearly is. The debate over this issue is not that some believe in election and some don't. The issue is that some understand election differently than others.

Can you tell me how exactly love can be forced? If you think love can be forced then please give me your definition of love. If you believe it can't be forced then doesn't that mean it's a choice to love or not?

I believe what these verses imply is that even the wicked will bow before Him eventually on judgment day because at that point everyone will see Christ in all His glory and it will be undeniable at that point that He is Lord. Right now some people don't acknowledge that because they can't see Him and they can't be convinced of that without 100% proof right before their eyes. But that's not how it works. We are required to have faith that He is Lord and some people are not willing to have faith and instead want 100% proof. Well, they will get their 100% proof on judgment day but it will be too late for them to repent at that point. But they will not be able to deny that He is Lord because they will see that for themselves. I definitely don't believe that these verses are implying that anyone will be physically forced to bow to Him. God never has done that before and I don't believe He ever will do that.

Wait, so everyone will confess Jesus is Lord or not? And if so what good does that do, what glory does that bring? Why will people change their minds then but don't know? Is faith simply believing something as fact or declaring Jesus as Lord? I am very confused by this and what is it's purpose and how it can bring any glory if indeed only submission based on "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty can bring glory to Jesus... if that is indeed the case, the very argument being made in this thread, what is the point of this in the end and how can it bring glory to God?

it seems to me that you are saying that the truth about Jesus Christ is currently veiled to some but at judgement day this veil will be lifted from all and ALL will declare Jesus as Lord... but I know that is not what you mean because we are all acting of "free-will" and have all been shown enough to repent and be saved, thus I don't understand why anyone who refuses now by their own "free-will" can have a change of heart later UNLESS we agree that God has NOT revealed himself to the lost. See where I am going here?

[Gadgeteer]

I'm heading out the door for a day of travel...

I wish you a safe journey!

but this reply has been on my mind and want to ask for clarification. would it be fair for me to assume that you are trained in biblical Greek and thus you desire to understand the text through the Greek derivation... Or are you like me, a novice in Greek etymology?

Novice. Thus I defer to commentators and lexicons.

and work to find usage elsewhere that uses the same words to derive back into that text?

Can the same word have opposite meanings where necessary to fit our theology? For instance, in Matt24:24, "ei-dunatos" (if possible) is taken by OSAS people to mean "it is not possible" (literally, "if it was possible, but it isn't"). But in Acts20:16 Paul was hurrying to be in Jerusalem for the Pentecost, if possible --- "if he could". How can "ei-dunatos" mean it-is-possible in Acts20:16, but "it-is-not-possible" in Matt24:24?

Similarly, in Revelation3:10, some think we (assuming "Philadelphia" refers to us) are to be "escaped-out-of the Tribulation". But in John17:15 Jesus prays:

"Father, I ask that You not take them out (airo autos ek) of the world, but
keep-from/guard-them-amidst (tereo autos ek) the evil one."

If "tereo-ek" means guard amidst when Jesus says it, then how can it not mean guard amidst when John says it?

So yes, I do look for other usages of Greek words, and lexicons, and commentaries, and margine-notes and footnotes. Eph2:8 in my NASV footnotes "THAT", with that salvation. This opposes thinking it means "that faith is gifted by God to men"...

[Brother Mark]

Wait, so everyone will confess Jesus is Lord or not? And if so what good does that do, what glory does that bring? Why will people change their minds then but don't know? Is faith simply believing something as fact or declaring Jesus as Lord? I am very confused by this and what is it's purpose and how it can bring any glory if indeed only submission based on "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty can bring glory to Jesus... if that is indeed the case, the very argument being made in this thread, what is the point of this in the end and how can it bring glory to God?

it seems to me that you are saying that the truth about Jesus Christ is currently veiled to some but at judgement day this veil will be lifted from all and ALL will declare Jesus as Lord... but I know that is not what you mean because we are all acting of "free-will" and have all been shown enough to repent and be saved, thus I don't understand why anyone who refuses now by their own "free-will" can have a change of heart later UNLESS we agree that God has NOT revealed himself to the lost. See where I am going here?

I've been gone from this discussion for so long, that it's not "fair" for me to just jump in right now. The thread has changed. So instead of addressing the whole "election" debate, I thought I would just jump in and address glory. Shouldn't we have a working definition of glory? Personally, I don't think it is the same thing as praise. When Moses asked to see God's glory, God showed him His goodness! Glory is character! An artist reveals his character/work through his art. His art is not his glory, but what he reveals through it is. So, when scripture says "Do all unto the glory of God" we are to behave in such a way so that all that we do reveals the character of God and people will see what God is really like. Jesus revealed God exactly and therefore, he glorified God.

[Gadgeteer]

As a former RCC, I never dreamed I would ever be a part of a conversation where there is a debate about the GREEK translation....

Hi, Keyzer! Often we hafta read things in the original language. Didjya see my comment on John20, where Jesus asked Peter three times if Peter loved Him? Only when we read the Greek, do we see what was really happening.

Have you wondered what Paul meant in Romans1:17, "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith?" From what faith to what faith? But when we read Robertson, he explains:

(ek pistew ei pistin), faith the starting point and faith the goal (Lightfoot).

Robertson cites another commentary, and explains "faith the start and faith the goal".

"The righteousness of God is revealed from beginning faith to ending faith; the just shall live BY faith."

This connects with Galatians, where he rebuked them for "beginning in the Spirit but ending in the flesh" (3:3). Those in Luke8:13 began well, believing joyfully; but unlike those in verse 15, the thirteeners did not hold fast and persevere, did not guard themselves against temptation and affliction and persecution...

[Gadgeteer]

What I think you miss in that passage is that it says people receive/accept and believe in Christ first and then they are born of God and become children of God. But you somehow see it in the opposite order of what the text indicates.

In case you have an issue with how I interpret the meaning of what it means to receive Christ in that verse, let me point out that the Greek word translated as "received" there is lambanō and it generally means "to take" or "to accept". One of the more specific definitions of the word is "to receive a person, give him access to one's self" and I believe that is the definition that applies here. It's an action verb that requires an action by a person in order to take or accept something. So, to receive Christ is to take or accept Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. To "believe in His name". Notice that receiving Christ and believing in His name are used in the same context so that show there is an action on our part that is required in order for us to then be given the right to become children (to be born) of God. I believe John clearly indicates that the receiving/taking/accepting of Christ and believing in His name comes first before becoming born of God. So, that's something you need to reconcile with your view, IMO.

Excellent. Connects directly with Romans5:17-18 --- justification came in just the same way as came condemnation, "SO THEN EVEN SO" to the exact same people; but (verse 17) those WHO RECEIVE the abundance of grace and who receive the gift of righteousness shall reign with Jesus (shall be saved!).

With that said, I understand why you believe verse 13 supports your view, but let me point out something about what that verse doesn't say before getting into what I believe it does say. What that verse doesn't say is that no decision and no action is required by man in order to be born of God and/or that the whole thing is God's decision and God's doing alone. Nope, it definitely doesn't say that. What it does say is that we don't regenerate ourselves of blood (by way of our race or nationality), or by the will of the flesh or of man. In other words, we can't regenerate ourselves. God does that. We are born of God, not born of ourselves. It's a spiritual birth, not physical. But what I think you are missing is that God regenerates us after we have first received/accepted and believed in His Son Jesus Christ. We have to get the order of things right in order to interpret that passage correctly.

That's why it's important to understand the difference between "begottenness" (the gift), and "becoming-begotten" (receiving the gift).

One is all of God and nothing of men, the other is men's full voluntary choice. Receiving a gift changes nothing of the gift, it remains all of the giver; but we can receive or reject it.

Excellent post again!

[John146]

Wait, so everyone will confess Jesus is Lord or not?

Yes, because that's what scripture says.

And if so what good does that do, what glory does that bring?

I don't know exactly but I don't feel that I need to fully understand it to believe that it will happen. The scriptures that speak of that don't go into that much detail about it but they are quite clear that everyone will bow to Him and confess that He is Lord.

Why will people change their minds then but don't know?

I already explained that in my post (#502). Please read it again and you should see that.

Is faith simply believing something as fact or declaring Jesus as Lord?

When it comes to confessing Jesus as Lord in order to be saved faith is much more than just head knowledge and acknowledging that fact. It's putting one's trust in Christ as Lord and surrendering to Him as Lord. But I don't believe those passages are saying that everyone will confess that He is Lord in that sense. The wicked will acknowledge who He is at that point but it will be too late for them to repent and surrender to Him at that time. That must be done before someone dies.

I am very confused by this and what is it's purpose and how it can bring any glory if indeed only submission based on "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty can bring glory to Jesus... if that is indeed the case, the very argument being made in this thread, what is the point of this in the end and how can it bring glory to God?

I'm confused by your confusion. Like I said before I don't believe those verses are saying that anyone will be forced to bow to Him even on judgment day but since everyone will see Him in all His glory at that point it will be as though people won't be able to help but acknowledge that He is Lord because it will be so obvious right in front of everyone' faces, so to speak. It still would be a choice but since it would be completely undeniable at that point why would anyone still try to deny it?

it seems to me that you are saying that the truth about Jesus Christ is currently veiled to some but at judgement day this veil will be lifted from all and ALL will declare Jesus as Lord

I don't say that, I believe scripture does. It's veiled to them because they stubbornly refuse to put their faith in Him despite their being plenty enough evidence for them to do so. But people still reject Him for various reasons despite the evidence.

... but I know that is not what you mean because we are all acting of "free-will" and have all been shown enough to repent and be saved, thus I don't understand why anyone who refuses now by their own "free-will" can have a change of heart later UNLESS we agree that God has NOT revealed himself to the lost. See where I am going here?

No, sorry, I don't. Try to look at this from the perspective of someone who, in this lifetime, never repents and puts their faith in Christ. Now fast forward to judgment day and try to imagine that person seeing Christ in all His glory (after previously not even believing in His existence or at least not believing He is Lord). How do you think such a person would react to seeing Him in all His glory? Let's assume they previously denied that He is Lord because they couldn't see Him and it couldn't be 100% proven to them. But now they can clearly see that He is Lord because they can see Him in all His glory right before their eyes. Do you think they would still try to deny that He is Lord even after seeing Him in all His glory right before their eyes?

[Gadgeteer]

I can't understand how you are saying that Heb 11 is saying that those dead had free choice. Please explain to me how you are thinking.

Not addressed to me, but --- may I?

Those who COME to God must believe He IS --- must come by faith. In no way can this fit the idea of "gifted-from-God-faith". It also says He rewards those who diligently seek Him -- why reward people if their seeking is all God's decision? (And why are MEN called "wise" or "foolish" for belief or not, Matt7:24-27?)

My statement was;'I cannot find scripture that teaches we have a free will before Jesus enters our hearts. I see things like ; we were slaves to sin, & we were dead in our trespasses.
I so far have never seen a dead man choose.'

What do you think Jesus meant in this verse?

"So Jesus answered them and said, 'My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." John7:17

Can "if-anyone-willing-to-do-His-will" fit "God-decides-who-is-willing"?

[keyzer soze]

Wait, so everyone will confess Jesus is Lord or not? And if so what good does that do, what glory does that bring? Why will people change their minds then but don't know? Is faith simply believing something as fact or declaring Jesus as Lord? I am very confused by this and what is it's purpose and how it can bring any glory if indeed only submission based on "free-will" outside of God's sovereignty can bring glory to Jesus... if that is indeed the case, the very argument being made in this thread, what is the point of this in the end and how can it bring glory to God?

it seems to me that you are saying that the truth about Jesus Christ is currently veiled to some but at judgement day this veil will be lifted from all and ALL will declare Jesus as Lord... but I know that is not what you mean because we are all acting of "free-will" and have all been shown enough to repent and be saved, thus I don't understand why anyone who refuses now by their own "free-will" can have a change of heart later UNLESS we agree that God has NOT revealed himself to the lost. See where I am going here?

The point I am trying to make here and failing (which is why I should just stay out of this thread) is that it seems to me that these verses acknowledge with enough revelation every person would acknowledge Jesus as Lord. So I am left to ask myself, who is restricting this revelation and how does this restriction go away and when it goes away how does that glorify anyone?

See for me, this verse is in harmony with my thought process of how God is glorified. But when I put on my "free-will" cap and try to think the bible through these passages clash and make no sense to me either because they indicated that there is more God could do to save.

Baaah, just ignore me, I will go back to passive mode. I thought I had something here to add to the mix but obviously I simply see it through my theological tinted glasses and others through their tinted glasses. All I have to say is thank God we don't need to pass a theology exam to be saved! Can I get an AMEN for that?