PDA

View Full Version : What is the Criteria for Personal Election



Pages : [1] 2

Diolectic
May 14th 2008, 10:08 PM
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.


By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

BrckBrln
May 14th 2008, 10:29 PM
The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32). J.I. Packer

Athanasius
May 14th 2008, 10:32 PM
You know if the God of Christianity is the God Calvin portrays him to be. I'll pass up my 'election'. Which I suppose means I wasn't elect to begin with. Drat.

sunney4
May 14th 2008, 10:38 PM
some would say: the foreknowledge of God that he knows who will freely choose him and who wont, therefore they are elected.....not necessarily what i think, but just a note

BrckBrln
May 14th 2008, 10:39 PM
You know if the God of Christianity is the God Calvin portrays him to be. I'll pass up my 'election'. Which I suppose means I wasn't elect to begin with. Drat.

Calvin didn't invent election.

sunney4
May 14th 2008, 10:41 PM
He didn't say he did...just a note on calvin :)

BrckBrln
May 14th 2008, 10:48 PM
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (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), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For 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.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:10-18

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 02:58 AM
The verb elect means “to select, or choose out.” The biblical doctrine of election is that before Creation God selected out of the human race, foreseen as fallen, those whom he would redeem, bring to faith, justify, and glorify in and through Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). This divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace, for it is unconstrained and unconditional, not merited by anything in those who are its subjects. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder, and matter for endless praise, that he should choose to save any of us; and doubly so when his choice involved the giving of his own Son to suffer as sin-bearer for the elect (Rom. 8:32). J.I. Packer
You didn't answer the question, you gave no criteria.


And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (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), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For 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.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:10-18This is National(corperate) Electon.

Romans 9:13 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A13) even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.
The reason why the Spirit says this is because it is to Israel, not the person of Israel which is Jacob.
Mal 1:1-2 The burden of the Word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of Malachi:
:2 I have loved you, says Jehovah. But you say, In what way have You loved us? Was not Esau the brother to Jacob? Yet Jehovah declares, I loved Jacob,
Gen 25:23 And Jehovah said to her, Two nations are in your womb; even two peoples shall break from your body. And one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

National election is totaly diferent than personal election, there is not faith or repentance needed for Israel to be the elect.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but concerning the election, they are beloved for the father's (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) sake.

calidog
May 15th 2008, 03:01 AM
For sure God knows, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy".

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 03:01 AM
You didn't answer the question, you gave no criteria.

This is National(corperate) Electon.

Romans 9:13 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A13)even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.
The reason why the Spirit says this is because it is to Israel, not the person of Israel which is Jacob.
Mal 1:1-2 The burden of the Word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of Malachi:
:2 I have loved you, says Jehovah. But you say, In what way have You loved us? Was not Esau the brother to Jacob? Yet Jehovah declares, I loved Jacob,
Gen 25:23 And Jehovah said to her, Two nations are in your womb; even two peoples shall break from your body. And one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

National election is totaly diferent than personal election, there is not faith or repentance needed for Israel to be the elect.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but concerning the election, they are beloved for the father's (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) sake.


Do you believe in personal election at all? I thought I, or rather Packer, answered your question. Election is not based on anything good or bad found in a person, it is solely on God's sovereign mercy.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 03:05 AM
You know if the God of Christianity is the God Calvin portrays him to be. I'll pass up my 'election'. Which I suppose means I wasn't elect to begin with. Drat.
I'm in the same boat as you are.
I wouldn't want to be with that tyrant anyway.

I don't want this thread to be an "Arminian v Calvin" thread.
Please, stick to the topic @ hand.

Would you know the criteria for God to choose or not to choose the elect, with out being partial and choosing arbitrarily?
Anybody?

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 03:10 AM
Do you believe in personal election at all?Yes, that is why I asked.


I thought I, or rather Packer, answered your question. Election is not based on anything good or bad found in a person, it is solely on God's sovereign mercy. If it is solely on God's sovereign mercy, what is the criteria for choosing to show mercy on one and not the other with out being partial or choosing arbitrarily?

It can not be that God foreknew that He would elect. Or that He foreknew that He would predestinate. That would bring up the same question.

1Peter 1:2 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.

This tells us that we are elect through sanctification, separattion or seting apart of the Spirit.

This has the same question, what criteria does God use to decide which people to sanctify?
It can not be that God foreknew that He would sanctify.

It can not be that God has foreknowledge of what He will do, that is still based purly upon will, which is still an arbitrary decision; "just because HE wants to and that HE can".
God does nothing arbitrarily.

If God would pardon one and not the other, based purely upon his will apart from anything else, not only will that be an arbitrary decision, HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in their crimes, which all mankind are.

Lastly, it can not be said that God elects according to His His good pleasure. That is to ambiguous, it brings the question, what is His Good plesure?
What pleases God to elect one & not the other?

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 03:15 AM
Yes, that is why I asked.

If it is solely on God's sovereign mercy, what is the criteria for choosing to show mercy on one and not the other with out being partial or choosing arbitrarily?

It can not be that God foreknew that He would elect. Or that He foreknew that He would predestinate. That would bring up the same question.

1Peter 1:2 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.

This tells us that we are elect through sanctification, separattion or seting apart of the Spirit.

This has the same question, what criteria does God use to decide which people to sanctify?
It can not be that God foreknew that He would sanctify.

It can not be that God has foreknowledge of what He will do, that is still based purly upon will, which is still an arbitrary decision; "just because HE wants to and that HE can".
God does nothing arbitrarily.

If God would pardon one and not the other, based purely upon his will apart from anything else, not only will that be an arbitrary decision, HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in their crimes, which all mankind are.

Lastly, it can not be said that God elects according to His His good pleasure. That is to ambiguous, it brings the question, what is His Good plesure?
What pleases God to elect one & not the other?

It seems like you are putting God in a box or something. If it pleases God to elect some and not others then why can't he? What do you think is the criteria for election?

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 03:19 AM
For sure God knows, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy".That is not the answer.
'ARBITRARILY, adv. By will only; despotically; absolutely.

As you can see, your answer falls short of the factors of justice.

George Washington once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

What is the criteria for Him willing to have mercy with out being arbitray or partial.

Before any one answers, think about if your answer has any arbitrayness or partiality to it.

If you reply with eather of those two factors, the question is not answered.

Thanks you all for your replies though, I doo hope y'all keep trying. I will let anybody know if they are right.
If needed or asked, I will give the answer soon.
I will give the answer that can not be denied eather.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 03:22 AM
It seems like you are putting God in a box or something. If it pleases God to elect some and not others then why can't he?Because He can not have partiality or be arbitrary in anything, that is why.


What do you think is the criteria for election?I will answer after I get enough replies, soon.
However, it is not what "I think" is the answer, but what it truly is.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 03:23 AM
That is not the answer.
'ARBITRARILY, adv. By will only; despotically; absolutely.

As you can see, your answer falls short of the factors of justice.

George Washington once said, "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

What is the criteria for Him willing to have mercy with out being arbitray or partial.

Before any one answers, think about if your answer has any arbitrayness or partiality to it.

If you reply with eather of those two factors, the question is not answered.

Thanks you all for your replies though, I doo hope y'all keep trying. I will let anybody know if they are right.
If needed or asked, I will give the answer soon.
I will give the answer that can not be denied eather.

Oh so you have the answer but you are seeing if we can get it too, right? I am pretty confused over this and it probably has something to do with the fact that I don't really know what arbitrary is. :) But my answer is that if God wanted to be full of justice then we all would be left for hell since we all have sinned and the penalty for sin is hell. God in his mercy has decided to elect some for salvation. This election isn't done by anything good or bad found in us as both good and bad people have been saved.

That's my answer, I would like to hear your answer though.

allen_1971
May 15th 2008, 04:05 AM
Isn't God sovereign?

Isn't he the potter and we the clay?

shall the clay say to the potter "why did you make me this way?!".

Doesn't the potter have the right to determine the how to fashion each vessel?

God's criteria is his sovereignty. He decides because he is God. We don't like that because we often have this perspective of God that is too small... we try to box him into man-made definitions of who he is and how he should behave... We claim to submit to his will, yet when his will doesn't agree with us, we shake our heads in protest. Where is the surrender?

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 04:11 AM
Isn't God sovereign?

Isn't he the potter and we the clay?

shall the clay say to the potter "why did you make me this way?!".

Doesn't the potter have the right to determine the how to fashion each vessel?

God's criteria is his sovereignty. He decides because he is God. We don't like that because we often have this perspective of God that is too small... we try to box him into man-made definitions of who he is and how he should behave... We claim to submit to his will, yet when his will doesn't agree with us, we shake our heads in protest. Where is the surrender?

Exactly. And here is Spurgeon's thoughts on election.

He chooses as he will. Who will call him to account? “Can I not do as I want with my own creatures?” is his answer to every critic. “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” is the solemn utterance that silences every one who would point the finger at the justice of the Most High. He has a right, seeing we are all criminals, to punish whom he wants. Without question, as king of the universe he acts with discretion, but still according to his sovereignty. He rules wisely and not recklessly, but always in accordance to his own perfect will. Election, then, is sovereign.

Whatever may be God’s reason for choosing a person, certainly it is not because of any good thing in that person. They are chosen because it pleases God to do so. We can go no further. We go as far as those words of Christ, “Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure,” and there we stop for no philosophy and no Scripture can take us beyond that. C.H. Spurgeon

ARCHER42
May 15th 2008, 04:19 AM
Isn't God sovereign?

Isn't he the potter and we the clay?

shall the clay say to the potter "why did you make me this way?!".

Doesn't the potter have the right to determine the how to fashion each vessel?

God's criteria is his sovereignty. He decides because he is God. We don't like that because we often have this perspective of God that is too small... we try to box him into man-made definitions of who he is and how he should behave... We claim to submit to his will, yet when his will doesn't agree with us, we shake our heads in protest. Where is the surrender?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Very well put, thank you! You took the words right out of my mouth! :spin:

1of7000
May 15th 2008, 05:44 AM
The spiritual election process is quite simple.God nominates everyone. Anyone who accepts His Son as Lord and believes that He rose from the dead wins the election and gets a seat in the heavenlies.

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 05:47 AM
The spiritual election process is quite simple.God nominates everyone. Anyone who accepts His Son as Lord and believes that He rose from the dead wins the election and gets a seat in the heavenlies.

Hmm, I think I can live with that one:rolleyes:

watchinginawe
May 15th 2008, 06:37 AM
Would you know the criteria for God to choose or not to choose the elect, with out being partial and choosing arbitrarily?
Anybody?The criteria would be those who (will) believe.

God Bless!

9Marksfan
May 15th 2008, 09:28 AM
The spiritual election process is quite simple.God nominates everyone. Anyone who accepts His Son as Lord and believes that He rose from the dead wins the election and gets a seat in the heavenlies.

Got any Scripture for that?

daughter
May 15th 2008, 11:00 AM
My son and I were reading Samuel this morning, and have reached the point where David is dancing like a mad man as they bring the Ark back home. And we read some of the associated psalms as well, including psalm 97.

This led to an interesting discussion on the way to school, about why God chose David, and rejected Saul.

(As near as I can remember here are snippets of our conversation. I can't remember the whole thing, just bits of it, hence the .... you're just getting the potted highlights!)

Séa: "A field! I can't believe Saul left the Ark of God in a field! He must have been bonkers! It's not like God rejected Saul, so much as Saul rejected God. A sodding field!"

Séa: "You know when David goes to all that trouble to get the Levites back to look after the Ark, and makes sure that it's carried the way Moses said and so on and so on... isn't that a bit like doing the opposite of what Saul did?"

Mum: "What do you mean, son?"

Séa: "Well, Saul decided he was going to be priest, and he could talk to God however he wanted. But David even though he was a king knew he needed a priest to intercede to God for him. So a bit like what happened with Jesus. We need a priest or we're as doomed as Saul. Does that make sense?"

Mum: "Yes it does."

.....

Séa: "It's really funny when the Ark comes back home. I can just imagine everyone going 'woohoo!' and celebrating in the streets. But you know those psalms David sang? I bet everyone thought he was a mad man! It's like he's saying, 'oh God, you're so cool, you melt the mountain, yeah!' Everyone else is like, 'what, you praise God because He can destroy mountains, and you're glad? You're bonkers!' Like this kid at school yesterday says she doesn't like the end of the Lord's prayer because it says "for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory" and she says we shouldn't pray that because we should just love God cause He's good, not powerful. I'm like... yeah, but He's GOD! His IS the Kingdom the Power and the Glory. Isn't that amazing!'"

...

Séa: "I suppose the reason Saul got rejected then was because he wasn't like David. David did terrible things, but he didn't treat God with contempt like what Saul did. And he feared him, and he also loved him. So that's why God chose David over Saul, because David loved God, even though he was a sinner. I didn't realise how bad Saul was till we read that bit about the ark being stuck in a field. A field!"

So, there you have it, the ponderings of a twelve year old who hasn't heard of Armin or Calvin, but is reading Scripture every day, and trying to learn from it.

He's teaching me loads!

9Marksfan
May 15th 2008, 12:00 PM
That's a great and heart-warming story - but remember that God chose David not Saul for a TASK - because he was "a man after [His] own heart". ANd, as with all believers, it was God's transformong grace that had given him that "heart of flesh" - Saul just had a heart of stone!

When God chooses us for salvation, it has nothing to do with what we are like or what we do - otherwise it would be of works and we could boast - but it's by grace, NOT of works, lest any man boast......

grit
May 15th 2008, 01:16 PM
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 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.
You 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? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” – Romans 9:10-24 (English Standard Version)

“But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” - Romans 11:4-6 (New King James Version)

“For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.” – 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (New American Standard Bible)

“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:13 (King James Version)

“All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” – 1 Corinthians 12:11 (ESV)

"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” - Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (NASB)

“Listen, my dear brothers: it was those who were poor according to the world that God chose, to be rich in faith and to be the heirs to the kingdom which he promised to those who love him.” – James 2:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)

John146
May 15th 2008, 02:29 PM
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.


By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

If you're speaking in terms of individual election to salvation, then the criteria is that one must choose to humble and deny themselves, repent of their sins and put their complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believe that He died and rose again on the third day and ascended to the right hand of God the Father.

1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. - Isaiah 66:1-4

30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16:30-31

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. - 1 Cor 15:1-2

9That 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.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - Rom 10:9-10

9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. - 2 Cor 7:9-10

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. - Luke 18:10-14

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. - Matt 16:24-25

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 02:38 PM
You didn't answer the question, you gave no criteria.

This is National(corperate) Electon.

Romans 9:13 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A13)even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.
The reason why the Spirit says this is because it is to Israel, not the person of Israel which is Jacob.
Mal 1:1-2 The burden of the Word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of Malachi:
:2 I have loved you, says Jehovah. But you say, In what way have You loved us? Was not Esau the brother to Jacob? Yet Jehovah declares, I loved Jacob,
Gen 25:23 And Jehovah said to her, Two nations are in your womb; even two peoples shall break from your body. And one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

National election is totaly diferent than personal election, there is not faith or repentance needed for Israel to be the elect.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but concerning the election, they are beloved for the father's (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) sake.


You make a case for corporate election, yet you deny individual election? Are not those among the corporately elect individuals?

The Lord speaks to Rebekah,saying:

Ge 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Notice the passage does not say two sons are in thy womb, but two nations, and two manner of people. The twin sons, Jacob and Esau certainly do symbolize corporate election, and rejection. But who personally makes up these two nations and two manner of people? To start both Jacob and Esau individually do. But election and rejection is not limited to only these two, for these two represent corporately (1) an elect nation or manner of people (2) a rejected nation or manner of people.

To deny individual election we would have to ignore the fact that all the names of God's elect people have been written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. If corporate election is not made up of individual election then why are personal names written? God would simply say He elects corporately all who believe. Does He not know who these are? Why write their names in the Book of Life?

The names have been, not will be written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. At the Judgment those not found written there will be cast into the lake of fire forever. It is often taught that names are added to the Book of Life when one becomes saved, but Scripture tells us the names were written there before creation. God's redemptive plan was established in heaven before time began, and Christ has, from before creation always had an elect people, who would become saved.

Lu 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Php 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Re 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Many Blessings,
RW

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 03:55 PM
You make a case for corporate election, yet you deny individual election?No, I do not.
Sorry if I gave that impression.
The reason for this thread is because I do agree with individual or Personal election.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 04:00 PM
– Romans 9:10-24 (English Standard Version)
- Romans 11:4-6 (New King James Version)
– 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (New American Standard Bible)
– John 1:13 (King James Version)
– 1 Corinthians 12:11 (ESV)
- Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (NASB)
– James 2:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)Please, do not only quote Scripture, every one has their own interpitaion for the verses that anybody will post, we need plain answers in your own words.

If you quote Scripture, please comment as to what you say it is telling us.

So, what is the criteria?

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 04:08 PM
If you're speaking in terms of individual election to salvation, then the criteria is that one must choose to humble and deny themselves, repent of their sins and put their complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believe that He died and rose again on the third day and ascended to the right hand of God the Father.
We have a another winner!!! :agree: :thumbsup: :amen: :monkeyd:

The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask in faith for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.

God Never elects with out purpose, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".

It is a fact that God is infinite in grace and benevalency, all loving and merciful. It is therefore impossible that he should choose or act arbitrarily in any case whatsoever. He must have good and sufficient reasons for every choice and every act.
Therefore, election is not an act of arbitrary choice from a sovereign will. It is not arbitrarily the choosing and acting from mere will alone, but from the wisdom of moral obligation and the priority of HIS righteousness (doing what is right without partiality).

There is a defense in the “Unconditional election” myth is that God does not have to save all.
Some say that God is not obligated to pardon all mankind because they are guilty in the first place. The example they give is that a judge is justified in pardoning one criminal and not the other.
However, if God would pardon one and not the other HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in there crimes, which all mankind are.
Furthermore, God does not pardon arbitrarily, HE pardons from the reason of mercy upon request. Nonetheless, God's mercy has conditions based upon standards of conduct (Matthew 18:32-35).

The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.

Election does not imply any obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect; it only implies the defiance and impenitence of the non-elect.
The fact that God saves only some does not imply any hindrance to those who will not be saved, but the stubborn refusal to be saved of those who are not elected.
The fact that God saves only some does not imply that God does not want to save them, but that HE can not.
Atonement is required for the reason of proving the true worth of God and His character which the law represents in relation to the crime committed in order for Him to forgive sin.
The one being atoned for must change in order for him to be forgiven. He must first meet the set conditions in order for the atonement to be applied for the forgiveness. This proves that the one atoned for knows the true value of the one who is forgiving so he knows that he can not take this whole thing lightly.
If the one refuses to acknowledge the true value and worth of God and refuses to meet the set conditions in order to be forgiven; if he takes lightly all that God has said and done to forgive, God can not forgive.

No one can possibly deny that God has made it possible for salvation of all. He certainly offers to save all, and has done all HE could and is doing all HE can do to save as many as HE can.
Those who are not elected may be saved, if they will comply with the set conditions, which they are able to do.
These conditions are not impossible to anyone; God can no give anything more than that HE has already given to all mankind.

There is no injustice to the non-elect by the election of only some. If he offers salvation to all upon terms that HE has set and if he does all he can for the salvation of all, shall some complain about God saving only some and not all?
The doctrine of election will damn no one by God's choice, but by the stubborn rebellion of the unrepentant.
Election does not secure the salvation of the elect irrespective of their character and conduct; election does it throw any obstacle in the way of the salvation of the non-elect.
God not electing according to what they deserve does them no injustice; and surely his exercising grace in the salvation of the elect is no act of injustice to the non-elect, for they must have received the same amount of grace as was bestowed upon the elect. Their judgment is not because they were not elected, but because they refused to repent.

This will appear to be true if we take into consideration the fact that the only reason why the non-elect will not be saved is because they stubbornly refuse salvation.
If the non-elect are condemned just because they are non-elect and not only because they did not repent, they would have a valid complaint for their condemnation. It would be that God did not do all HE could to forgive them without being partial.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 04:10 PM
The criteria would be those who (will) believe.


God Bless!We have a winner!!! :pp :hug: :thumbsup: :amen:

The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge.

However, y'all gave that answer, but, then I asked, what did God foreknow of the "who" that He elects?
Or
What is that foreknowledge of?

It can not be that God foreknew that He would elect. Or that He foreknew that He would predestinate. That would bring up the same question.

1Peter 1:2 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.

This tells us that we are elect through sanctification, separattion or seting apart of the Spirit.

This has the same question, what criteria does God use th decide which people to sanctify?
It can not be that God foreknew that He would sanctify.

It can not be that God has foreknowledge of what He will do, that is still based purly upon will, which is still an arbitrary decision; "just because HE wants to and that HE can".
God does nothing arbitrarily.

If God would pardon one and not the other, based purely upon his will apart from anything else, not only will that be an arbitrary decision, HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in their crimes, which all mankind are.

Lastly, it can not be said that God elects according to His His good pleasure. Thatbis to ambiguous, it brings the question, what is His Good plesure?
What pleases God to elect one & not the other?

The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.

Any other reason is partiality &/or arbitrary.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 04:17 PM
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.


By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

He gives us the answer in Romans 9 in two places.

Rom 9:15

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.
KJV

He shows mercy on whomever he desires to show mercy on.

Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
KJV

And he has chosen to show mercy on those that trust in Him.

Whispering Grace
May 15th 2008, 04:28 PM
You know if the God of Christianity is the God Calvin portrays him to be. I'll pass up my 'election'. Which I suppose means I wasn't elect to begin with. Drat.

There is nothing the Lord could do or be that would make me turn away from loving Him...whether Calvinism or Arminianism is true. I trust Him and I accept His sovereign will to do what He wishes with His own creation.

1of7000
May 15th 2008, 04:28 PM
Got any Scripture for that?

Yes I have scripture for that,too.

John146
May 15th 2008, 04:47 PM
We have a another winner!!! :agree: :thumbsup: :amen: :monkeyd:
What do I win? :D



This will appear to be true if we take into consideration the fact that the only reason why the non-elect will not be saved is because they stubbornly refuse salvation.We see that over and over again in scripture. Such as the passage from Isaiah 66 that I quoted.

2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. - Isaiah 66:1-4

Notice that people choose their own ways. It is not unconditionally predetermined for them. People can choose to either humble themselves and tremble at God's Word or be proud of themselves and do evil before God's eyes and choose that in which He does not delight. People can either choose to heed the Spirit's call and repent and surrender their lives to Christ or they can choose to stubbornly refuse to repent and resist the Spirit.

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. - Acts 7:51



If the non-elect are condemned just because they are non-elect and not only because they did not repent, they would have a valid complaint for their condemnation. It would be that God did not do all HE could to forgive them without being partial.Absolutely

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 04:53 PM
There is nothing the Lord could do or be that would make me turn away from loving Him...whether Calvinism or Arminianism is true. I trust Him and I accept His sovereign will to do what He wishes with His own creation.

Well you wouldn't have a choice; you'd be elected and that's it :P

grit
May 15th 2008, 05:05 PM
Please, do not only quote Scripture, every one has their own interpitaion for the verses that anybody will post, we need plain answers in your own words.

If you quote Scripture, please comment as to what you say it is telling us.

So, what is the criteria?
I'm sorry, that was not the question of the OP ("By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?"). I was rather hoping that God's speaking for himself would suffice, since the question predisposes an answer from God rather than man. :hug:

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 05:08 PM
So it looks like a lot of you believe in the Arminian view of election. That God only chooses, or elects, those whom he foreknew would come to faith. Needless to say I disagree. Here is what James Boice has to say on the Arminian view of election.

"It actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice." James Boice

Another reason why I don't agree with this view of election has to do with the doctrine of total depravity. How can God foresee faith in a person who is spiritually dead? This person is dead in their transgresses and can't come to faith on his own. Also,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Salvation is not something man can do. It is God's gift to us, that isn't based on works, but based on God's sovereign mercy and will. God elects us unconditionally and if he didn't then we would all be headed for hell but God in his great mercy decided to elect some for salvation.

It's not hard to understand but it is hard to believe. People just don't like this view of election for various reasons. It is true though and it humbles man and exalts God, not like Arminianism which elevates man and says man chooses God.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 05:12 PM
So it looks like a lot of you believe in the Arminian view of election. That God only chooses, or elects, those whom he foreknew would come to faith. Needless to say I disagree. Here is what James Boice has to say on the Arminian view of election.

"It actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice." James Boice

And he would be very wrong in that statement. Because God is the one who initiates. We can only come to Christ if God draws us. God starts it and finishes it and we trust him to do so. This is one of those statements where Calvinist so misunderstand God's sovereignty, that they think by giving man a choice, it lessens God.



Another reason why I don't agree with this view of election has to do with the doctrine of total depravity. How can God foresee faith in a person who is spiritually dead? This person is dead in their transgresses and can't come to faith on his own. Also,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Salvation is not something man can do. It is God's gift to us, that isn't based on works, but based on God's sovereign mercy and will. God elects us unconditionally and if he didn't then we would all be headed for hell but God in his great mercy decided to elect some for salvation.

It's not hard to understand but it is hard to believe. People just don't like this view of election for various reasons. It is true though and it humbles man and exalts God, not like Arminianism which elevates man and says man chooses God.

Total depravity still fits. Unless God draws a man first, he will have no desire to come to God. But those all are called, not all respond in faith and therefor are not chosen.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 05:20 PM
And he would be very wrong in that statement. Because God is the one who initiates. We can only come to Christ if God draws us. God starts it and finishes it and we trust him to do so. This is one of those statements where Calvinist so misunderstand God's sovereignty, that they think by giving man a choice, it lessens God.

Total depravity still fits. Unless God draws a man first, he will have no desire to come to God. But those all are called, not all respond in faith and therefor are not chosen.

I agree that God starts it but how can God finish it (salvation) if it's left up to the man to decide whether or not he will follow God's call? It seems in this view that God draws the man in and gives him a choice and it's up to the person to accept or reject it based on their own free will. If they accept then aren't they the ones that finish it for now they are saved?

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 05:25 PM
I agree that God starts it but how can God finish it (salvation) if it's left up to the man to decide whether or not he will follow God's call? It seems in this view that God draws the man in and gives him a choice and it's up to the person to accept or reject it based on their own free will. If they accept then aren't they the ones that finish it for now they are saved?

If man chooses to allow God to work, that in no way nullifies that it is the work of God.

John 6:28-29

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
KJV

It is the thinking that God ordains and causes all things to occur that leads to error. It goes so far as to say that God decreed and willed for Adam to sin, thus, God became the author of sin.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 05:32 PM
If man chooses to allow God to work, that in no way nullifies that it is the work of God.

Well it would be half God's work and half man's work since the man first has to allow God to work in him. So basically Arminianism is a co-effort between God and man that achieves salvation. Is this what you believe?


It is the thinking that God ordains and causes all things to occur that leads to error. It goes so far as to say that God decreed and willed for Adam to sin, thus, God became the author of sin.

So a thinking that God is all sovereign and can do whatever he wants with his creation is the wrong kind of thinking? Your kind of thinking says God decrees the crucifixion of Christ but doesn't decree the events that would have to happen for Christ to be crucified. How does something like that work? Besides what does this have to do with election. This is another thread.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 05:41 PM
He gives us the answer in Romans 9 in two places.

Rom 9:15

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.
KJV

He shows mercy on whomever he desires to show mercy on.That is arbitrary.


Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
KJV

And he has chosen to show mercy on those that trust in Him.This is the better answer. However, Some people say that faith is a gift, if so, By what criteria does God choose to give faith to some and not others.
Furthermore, IF God is responcible for giving faith, then HE is responcible for the lake of faith which HE condemns.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 05:46 PM
However, Some people say that faith is a gift, if so, By what criteria does God choose to give faith to some and not others.
Furthermore, IF God is responcible for giving faith, then HE is responcible for the lake of faith which HE condemns.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Do you deny that faith is a gift from God. Paul clearly states that it is. It seems you are too hung up on criteria. Is is that hard to believe that God can do something unconditionally?

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 05:49 PM
That verse in and of itself does not suggest that the gift is limited only to a few, but the exact opposite; that it is a gift for all.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 05:50 PM
That verse in and of itself does not suggest that the gift is limited only to a few, but the exact opposite; that it is a gift for all.

It doesn't suggest either way.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 06:01 PM
<p>
So it looks like a lot of you believe in the Arminian view of election. That God only chooses, or elects, those whom he foreknew would come to faith. Needless to say I disagree. Here is what
It actually means that men and women elect themselves, Do canidates elect themselves?
Or do they meat the requirements which people aprove of to elect them?
It is the same with God.

and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice.He is the the one who aproves of them who meet His requirements and therfore elects them.

Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice."No, God approves or disapproves man's choice.
If man chooses against Him, HE will disapprove... and so forth...

Another reason why I don't agree with this view of election has to do with the doctrine of total depravity. How can God foresee faith in a person who is spiritually dead? You have the wrong view of spiritual death.
All spiritual death is that one has no relationship with God.
Therefore a spiritaul dead pearson must respond in order to gain His relaitionship.
I need to stop you here.
When did Adam turn corrupt?
Knowing that Adam sinned in his so called "perfect" state, How did Adam sin without being already currupt?
I say that all mankind are born from Adam who is of the flesh before he sinned.
John 2:16 For all that is in the world,
1: the lust of the flesh
2: the lust of the eyes
3: the pride of life...
is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Before adam sinned, he ha all these.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food(1: the lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes(2: the lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(3: the pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


It's not hard to understand but it is hard to believe. People just don't like this view of election for various reasons.The various reasons are because it don't make sense and that it is unbiblical.


It is true though and it humbles man and exalts God, not like Arminianism which elevates man and says man chooses God.No, it turns God into a devilish tyrant, and takes the responcibility of going to hell away from man and put the reason for going to hell on God.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 06:07 PM
I agree that God starts it but how can God finish it (salvation) if it's left up to the man to decide whether or not he will follow God's call?As it is up to man to follow God's call, then man is responcile for not following God's call and therfore be condemned.

God may finish salvation when man obeys the call and therefore becomes saved.


It seems in this view that God draws the man in and gives him a choice and it's up to the person to accept or reject it based on their own free will.How eles wouild it be?


If they accept then aren't they the ones that finish it for now they are saved?Jesus finished it on the cross(John 19:30).
Man only asknowledges that.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 06:11 PM
No, it turns God into a devilish tyrant, and takes the responcibility of going to hell away from man and put the reason for going to hell on God.


You grossly misunderstand. How does saying that God is in complete control over everything and that he unconditionally elects undeserving people to eternal life turn God into a 'devilish tyrant'? That's ridiculous. If God never elected people then we all would be destined for hell since we all have sinned and fallen short. No man can come to Christ on his own and it isn't a joint effort either. It's all God. God changes us, he draws us near, he grants us faith by grace, he justifies us, he will eventually glorify us. If God doing all of this makes him a tyrant then that is one tyrant I want to serve.

And are you saying that Adam before the fall had sinful thoughts? If so, then aren't you making God the author of sin since apparently he made Adam with these sinful thoughts?

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 06:14 PM
Well it would be half God's work and half man's work since the man first has to allow God to work in him.Why do you think man is condemnd?
Is it because God did not do HIS part for that condemnd one so that he may be saved?
Sounds like you want it to Be God's fault for mankind being condemnd.

Sure, Mankind is condemed for his own sin, but If Jesus came to save only some, then He is responcible for those HE doid not come for.


So basically Arminianism is a co-effort between God and man that achieves salvation. Is this what you believe? Salvation is a relationship, not only an act on Christ's part.
It must take two for a relaitionship to work.


So a thinking that God is all sovereign and can do whatever he wants with his creation is the wrong kind of thinking?Yes, God can not do whatever he wants with his creation.

He can not condemn His creation unjustly.


Your kind of thinking says God decrees the crucifixion of Christ but doesn't decree the events that would have to happen for Christ to be crucified. How so?

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 06:18 PM
Yes, God can not do whatever he wants with his creation.

:o Wow. I don't know how to respond to that.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For 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.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But 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?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:14-24

This passage of scripture says it all.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 06:26 PM
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
As for Eph. 2:8, The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – dia pisteōs functions as the “indirect object” clause of este sesōsmenoi.

Likewise, the second half, “and this (state of affairs) is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift” is a contrast which only makes sense in a “not x but y” clause.
Hence the verse should be rendered, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this state of affairs is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”
By the way, both the Calvinist supposition that the “this” refers to “faith” and the Arminian supposition that the “this” refers to “grace” are grammatically impossible, since the “this” (touto) is neuter while both “faith” (pisteōs) and “grace” (chariti) are feminine and since pronouns and antecedents must agree in gender. Rather, touto refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”


Do you deny that faith is a gift from God.It is a gift as breath would be a gift.
If faith is a gift, then God is directly responcible for the faithlessness of those HE does not gift.



Paul clearly states that it is. It seems you are too hung up on criteria. Is is that hard to believe that God can do something unconditionally?
Do you think that the election it totaly arbitrary?

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 06:32 PM
As for Eph. 2:8, The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – dia pisteōs functions as the “indirect object” clause of este sesōsmenoi.

Likewise, the second half, “and this (state of affairs) is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift” is a contrast which only makes sense in a “not x but y” clause.
Hence the verse should be rendered, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this state of affairs is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”
By the way, both the Calvinist supposition that the “this” refers to “faith” and the Arminian supposition that the “this” refers to “grace” are grammatically impossible, since the “this” (touto) is neuter while both “faith” (pisteōs) and “grace” (chariti) are feminine and since pronouns and antecedents must agree in gender. Rather, touto refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”

I have no idea what you just said. :)


It is a gift as breath would be a gift.
If faith is a gift, then God is directly responcible for the faithlessness of those HE does not gift.

Faith is a gift. I don't see how anybody can deny that. Man just can't conjure up faith on it's own, it needs God to give it to him.


Do you think that the election it totaly arbitrary?

I think election is unconditional.

By the way what do you think of Romans 9? All your answers are in there.

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 06:47 PM
You grossly misunderstand. How does saying that God is in complete control over everything and that he unconditionally elects undeserving people to eternal life turn God into a 'devilish tyrant'? That's ridiculous. Not realy.
Election automaticaly implyes the non-elect.
If it is 110% decided by God by arbitrary means, then God is partial, favoring some for no reason at all but just because He wants to and that HE can.
This implyes that God created sentient beings for the sole purpose of tormenting the in hell for HIS good plesure in contraposition to the elect.

According to your theology/doctrine, the lake of fire is not for those who denied God but for those that God denied. That makes God the sole reason that people being condemed, not because man resisting grace and mercy, but God wanted them to be condemned in the first place.





If God never elected people then we all would be destined for hell since we all have sinned and fallen short.True, but take into concideration requiremnets that God has for election.
Rom 6:16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

This implyes that we must choose ourselve to who we are servants to.



No man can come to Christ on his own and it isn't a joint effort either.God is drawing all to Himself, the reason that men are condemned is that they refuse, not because God didn't wnat to save.



It's all God.Then God is the reason that people are condemned, not because man denied God. It is because God denied man.



God changes us, he draws us near, he grants us faith by grace, he justifies us, he will eventually glorify us. If God doing all of this makes him a tyrant then that is one tyrant I want to serve.Those poor soles that HE created for the sole purpose of being tormanted for eternity.


And are you saying that Adam before the fall had sinful thoughts?I say that all mankind are born from Adam who is of the flesh before he sinned.
John 2:16 For all that is in the world,
1: the lust of the flesh
2: the lust of the eyes
3: the pride of life...
is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Before adam sinned, he had all these.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food(1: the lust of the flesh), and that it was pleasant to the eyes(2: the lust of the eyes), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(3: the pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.



If so, then aren't you making God the author of sin since apparently he made Adam with these sinful thoughts?
Eze 28:15 You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

God did not create Lucifer with sinful thoughts, they just apeared, so it is with Adam.

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 06:48 PM
We have a another winner!!!

The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask in faith for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.

God must have known whom he could save??? Your reasoning is a bit flawed. Obviously God knows whom He would save, since the names of all who will be saved were written in heaven before they existed. Is this election based upon a good decision the election would make, or upon the sovereign God choosing whom He wills?

I assume you agree that Jacob and Esau symbolize corporate election, and you also agree that election is unto individuals. What does Scripture tell us?

Ro 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;)

So then Jacob symbolizes corporate election made up of individuals not based upon any good or evil they have done, or not done that the purpose of God according to election might stand.



God Never elects with out purpose, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than &quot;just because HE wants to and that HE can&quot;.

Of course God does not elect without purpose. The purpose God elects some is because if He did not then no man would become saved. Just as the man who is physically dead cannot make himself physically alive, neither can the spiritually dead make themselves spiritually alive. You may not like the way that God shows mankind His sovereignty in election, but like it or not God does the choosing according to the pleasure of His will.

Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Ro 9:15 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.
Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.



There is a defense in the “Unconditional election” myth is that God does not have to save all.
Some say that God is not obligated to pardon all mankind because they are guilty in the first place. The example they give is that a judge is justified in pardoning one criminal and not the other.
However, if God would pardon one and not the other HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in there crimes, which all mankind are.

If God is obligated to save all mankind, then all mankind would be saved! The alternative is that man's will is able to usurp the obligation for God to save every man. Of course you understand that this makes man the sovereign and more powerful than God. How is God showing partiality pardoning some men, but not all men? What you view as God showing partiality to some men and not others, I see as God showing mercy to some men rather than allowing all of humankind to perish. Mankind will be preserved forever because God has chosen to save some men. Otherwise all of mankind would be cast away from God forever.



Furthermore, God does not pardon arbitrarily, HE pardons from the reason of mercy upon request. Nonetheless, God's mercy has conditions based upon standards of conduct (Matthew 18:32-35).

Mt 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Are you suggesting that if I do not forgive my brother of all his trespasses, then I will not be saved? If this is what you are suggesting, then Christ cannot accomplish salvation for me by His sacrificial death and resurrection, even though Scripture says He will?



The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.

If you could provide Scripture to validate this argument it would be helpful. God can save whosoever He pleases, and He knows whom He will save from before the foundation of the world, because He choose them and wrote their names in the Lambs Book of Life. Eternally elect of God.



The fact that God saves only some does not imply that God does not want to save them, but that HE can not.

God wants to save them, but He cannot??? Do you really view God in this weak, pathetic way? God is dependent upon fallen, sinful humans to fulfill His plan to redeem a people for Himself?



The one being atoned for must change in order for him to be forgiven. He must first meet the set conditions in order for the atonement to be applied for the forgiveness. This proves that the one atoned for knows the true value of the one who is forgiving so he knows that he can not take this whole thing lightly.

How is the one being atoned for able to make this necessary change? Unless one is given spiritual life, he cannot change his heart.



If the one refuses to acknowledge the true value and worth of God and refuses to meet the set conditions in order to be forgiven; if he takes lightly all that God has said and done to forgive, God can not forgive.

God cannot forgive without the help of fallen, desperate sinners? Scripture tells of The God of all power and authority over His creation. But you picture Him as a god who must submit to the authority and power of man.



No one can possibly deny that God has made it possible for salvation of all. He certainly offers to save all, and has done all HE could and is doing all HE can do to save as many as HE can.

NO!!! Christ did not make salvation merely possible, He actually accomplished salvation for those He came to save. You have pictured here a god who is so pathetic and weak that though he pleads and begs men, he cannot usurp his will, but man usurps this gods will.



If the non-elect are condemned just because they are non-elect and not only because they did not repent, they would have a valid complaint for their condemnation. It would be that God did not do all HE could to forgive them without being partial.

First you need to realize that every man is already condemned if God did not elect some to salvation. Every man is equally guilty before God, and no man will repent and be saved. But God in His mercy desires to redeem humankind. Not every human being, but humanity. The only way that humanity will be preserved or redeemed is for God to choose to elect some men to be saved, thereby assuring that humanity will be preserved. These will go into eternal life without sin for all sin will have finally been put away forevermore.

Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 06:58 PM
Not realy.
Election automaticaly implyes the non-elect.

This is true and it seems we are getting into reprobation. The answer is found in Romans 9.

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:22-24

This clearly states that God makes some people vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and some he makes vessels of mercy prepared for glory. An example is Pharoah.

For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:17-18

God willed that Pharoah would be hardened. He didn't have mercy on him but, in wanting to show God's power, he prepared him beforehand for destruction. So it's clear from Paul that some are elected to salvation and some are not. God does this to show his power and mercy and justice. And if you don't like this, which I'm sure you won't, then Paul has an answer for you.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But 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?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

Who are you to reply against God? That is Paul's answer to why God elects some and doesn't elect others. Romans 9 has all the answers but people don't like them so they refuse to believe them.

John146
May 15th 2008, 07:02 PM
Some people say that faith is a gift, if so, By what criteria does God choose to give faith to some and not others.
Furthermore, IF God is responcible for giving faith, then HE is responcible for the lake of faith which HE condemns.

Very true. This is why the idea that saving faith is a gift that God only gives to a few chosen ones and not the rest is simply false.

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 07:04 PM
This is true and it seems we are getting into reprobation. The answer is found in Romans 9.

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:22-24

This clearly states that God makes some people vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and some he makes vessels of mercy prepared for glory. An example is Pharoah.

For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:17-18

God willed that Pharoah would be hardened. He didn't have mercy on him but, in wanting to show God's power, he prepared him beforehand for destruction. So it's clear from Paul that some are elected to salvation and some are not. God does this to show his power and mercy and justice. And if you don't like this, which I'm sure you won't, then Paul has an answer for you.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But 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?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

Who are you to reply against God? That is Paul's answer to why God elects some and doesn't elect others. Romans 9 has all the answers but people don't like them so they refuse to believe them.

Amen! For all who will receive it!

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 07:12 PM
As for Eph. 2:8, The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – dia pisteōs functions as the “indirect object” clause of este sesōsmenoi.

Likewise, the second half, “and this (state of affairs) is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift” is a contrast which only makes sense in a “not x but y” clause.
Hence the verse should be rendered, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this state of affairs is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”
By the way, both the Calvinist supposition that the “this” refers to “faith” and the Arminian supposition that the “this” refers to “grace” are grammatically impossible, since the “this” (touto) is neuter while both “faith” (pisteōs) and “grace” (chariti) are feminine and since pronouns and antecedents must agree in gender. Rather, touto refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”

It is a gift as breath would be a gift.
If faith is a gift, then God is directly responcible for the faithlessness of those HE does not gift.

First Paul shows us that we are saved by grace.

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Then Paul shows us how we are saved by grace. Through faith that is not of ourselves but the gift of God: not of works, lest any should boast.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You can refuse to accept that faith is the gift of God that is not of ourselves to the ends of the earth, but your refusing to accept this biblical fact does not make it untrue.

Blessings,
RW

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 07:14 PM
I have no idea what you just said. :)
Basically, I said, For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this state of affairs is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.

Paul wasn't showing where grace and faith are from, but he was telling us the prcess of salvation.


Faith is a gift. I don't see how anybody can deny that.I didn't deniy that, I just said it was a gift as breath is a gift, all mankind has faith as a fact.
The reason mankind is condemed is that they put their faith in the wrong think, The corret "thing" that man is commanded to put their faith in is Christ.
There is do diference between "salvific faith" and any other kind of faith is the object of that faith.
Therefore, term "salvific faith" is a misnomer.


Man just can't conjure up faith on it's own, it needs God to give it to him. True, God attempts to give faith by preasenting the truth through His Word(Rom 10:17), by preaching His Word(Rom 10:14), by creation (Psa 19:1) His witnesses...ect...

I think election is unconditional.


By the way what do you think of Romans 9? All your answers are in there.It is mostly about National or corperate election
The chapter is concerning who will be the lineage of the Seed.
Romans 9:5 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A5) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Romans 9:13 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A13) even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.
The reason why the Spirit says this is because it is to Israel, not the person of Israel which is Jacob.
Mal 1:1-2 The burden of the Word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of Malachi:
:2 I have loved you, says Jehovah. But you say, In what way have You loved us? Was not Esau the brother to Jacob? Yet Jehovah declares, I loved Jacob,
Gen 25:23 And Jehovah said to her, Two nations are in your womb; even two peoples shall break from your body. And one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Romans 9:16 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Romans+9%3A16) So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God.
This verse is in context with Abraham willing that the promise would come through Ishmael as the context proves
Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You!
Moreover, in Genesis 27 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&x=0&y=0&passage=Genesis+27%3A) Isaac is willing for Esau to have the blessing and Esau "running" to hunt and make Isaac's favorite meal for the blessing.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Romans 9:17-19 For the scripture says unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
God could have well shown His power in Pharaoh if he had obeyed Moses.

Romans 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
:19 You will say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
Pharaoh hardened his own heart first, then after resisting God, God, then hardened his heart in judgment. Now, after God hardens ones heart, "who has resisted his will" then?
1Sam 6:6 Why then do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had worked wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?
Here, this Scripture actually say that Pharaoh hardened his heart and that God didn't.
Why didn't this Scripture say that God did it?

B. PHARAOH HARDENED HIS OWN HEART...
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the Scripture would be specific about God doing the hardening as the Scriptures do .
1. And Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not heed
them, as the Lord had said. - Exo 7:13
2. So the Lord said to Moses: "Pharaoh's heart is hard (kabed); he
refuses to let the people go." - Exo 7:14
3. Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and
Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not heed them,
as the Lord had said. - Exo 7:22
4. But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened (kabed)
his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said. - Exo 8:15
5. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of
God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not
heed them, just as the Lord had said. - Exo 8:19
6. But Pharaoh hardened (kabed) his heart at this time also;
neither would he let the people go. - Exo 8:32
7. Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of
the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard
(kabed), and he did not let the people go. - Exo 9:7

THEN GOD HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART...
-- Not until the sixth plague did God begin to harden Pharaoh's heart
1.[/B] But the Lord hardened (chazaq) the heart of Pharaoh; and he did
not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. - Exo 9:12
2. Now the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have
hardened (kabed) his heart and the hearts of his servants, that
I may show these signs of Mine before him," - Exo 10:1
3. But the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he did not
let the children of Israel go.- Exo 10:20
4. But the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let
them go.- Exo 10:27
5. So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and
the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let
the children of Israel go out of his land. - Exo 11:10
6. Then I will harden (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, so that he will
pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all
his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord.
- Exo 14:4
7. And the Lord hardened (chazaq) the heart of Pharaoh king of
Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children
of Israel went out with boldness. - Exo 14:8
8. And I indeed will harden (chazaq) the hearts of the Egyptians,
and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh
and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. - Exo
14:17
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Romans 9:21-23 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory,
This refers to:

Co-text:
Jer 18:2-6 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear my words.
:3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he worked a work on the wheels.
:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? says the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

The Potter did not mare the clay Himself, but the clay became marred in His hands.
The Potter(God) did all HE could do to keep the clay(Israel) from being marred. He sent Jeremiah(along with all the other prophets) and the clay(Israel) rebelled anyway.
Therefore, the Potter hand to reform the clay into a new vessel.

Israel was warned to repent and they did not, that is the clay being marred.
God sent them to Babylon because of there repentance, this is the clay being reformed.

Furthermore in 2Timothy 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.
:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

This verse is telling us that we ourselves choose what kind of vessel we may be.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 07:19 PM
I think election is unconditional.

I thought you thought that election was conditional. The condition being that the man must first have faith and then God elects the person based on that. Is this not what you believe?

John146
May 15th 2008, 07:29 PM
This is true and it seems we are getting into reprobation. The answer is found in Romans 9.

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:22-24

This clearly states that God makes some people vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and some he makes vessels of mercy prepared for glory. An example is Pharoah.

For 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.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. Romans 9:17-18

God willed that Pharoah would be hardened. He didn't have mercy on him but, in wanting to show God's power, he prepared him beforehand for destruction. So it's clear from Paul that some are elected to salvation and some are not. God does this to show his power and mercy and justice. And if you don't like this, which I'm sure you won't, then Paul has an answer for you.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But 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?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

Who are you to reply against God? That is Paul's answer to why God elects some and doesn't elect others. Romans 9 has all the answers but people don't like them so they refuse to believe them.

Romans 9 has nothing to do with people being predetermined to salvation or damnation with no choice in the matter. We should notice in scripture that God only hardens the hearts of those who have already hardened their own hearts. He doesn't just arbitrarily harden one person's heart and not other person's for no good reason. Here are examples of what I'm talking about (besides the example of Pharaoah):

21Because 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. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - Romans 1:21-28

2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. - Isaiah 66:2-4

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. - 2 Thess 2:10-12

There are other examples, but this will do. God hardens people's hearts or gives them over to their sin only after they already have glorified Him not as God, become vain in their imaginations, professed themselves to be wise, changed the truth of God into a lie, worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, did not retain God in their knowledge, chosen their own ways, delighted in their abominations, did not answer God's call, did evil before God's eyes, chose that in which God did not delight, received not the love of the truth so that they might be saved, believed not the truth and had pleasure in unrighteousness.

We can't say that God randomly or arbitrarily chooses some to salvation and some to damnation. Scripture clearly lays out the criteria that God uses to determine who is chosen to salvation and who is not.

BrckBrln
May 15th 2008, 07:44 PM
I have a question for the people who don't believe in reprobation. If God has foreknowledge of everything and everyperson then he knows who the people will be who reject God, right? So then if he knows who will reject him then why does God still create the person if God already knows where the person is going to end up? Doesn't that make God responsible for that man going to hell since God created him knowing full well where he would end up?

John146
May 15th 2008, 07:51 PM
First Paul shows us that we are saved by grace.

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Then Paul shows us how we are saved by grace. Through faith that is not of ourselves but the gift of God: not of works, lest any should boast.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You can refuse to accept that faith is the gift of God that is not of ourselves to the ends of the earth, but your refusing to accept this biblical fact does not make it untrue.

Blessings,
RW

To be consistent, that would mean that Paul was saying faith was not of works, which would be an odd thing for him to say. But that isn't what he was saying. He was saying that salvation itself was not of works. Salvation is by God's grace and salvation is through faith (whosoever believes...). But salvation is not of ourselves (we can't save ourselves) and not of works. Faith is not a work, otherwise we would not even be saved through faith because we're not saved of works. Salvation itself is the gift of God that he was talking about.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23

Athanasius
May 15th 2008, 07:53 PM
I have a question for the people who don't believe in reprobation. If God has foreknowledge of everything and everyperson then he knows who the people will be who reject God, right? So then if he knows who will reject him then why does God still create the person if God already knows where the person is going to end up? Doesn't that make God responsible for that man going to hell since God created him knowing full well where he would end up?

Because firstly that would mean God would have never created Adam, Eve, or Satan, or any of the angels that rebels. On the contrary; for God to not make those people would be to effectively nullify free agency.

grit
May 15th 2008, 07:58 PM
Well, not meaning to diverge from Diolectic’s inquiry of the OP, and certainly there are worthy paradoxes of divine truth and Scriptural presentations worthy Christians have differed on for centuries, but from a Reformed perspective the issue comes down to man’s flawed and necessary incomprehension of God’s being (that is, that we are but God’s creature and incapable of fully comprehending His essence and being) and a recognition of the Scriptural emphasis on God’s sovereignty over all His creation.

We’ve had the word tyrant (a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant)) enter into the discussion, but nowhere in Reformed theology is God described as such. It is Holy Scripture that defends God as almighty sovereign over all He has made. He either is God (with a capital G), and all powerful, just, loving, merciful and fearfully awesome in His holy wrath, or He is not. If, contrary to Scripture, any (not that any have) would assert that He is somehow less, somehow only a god (with a little g) and subject to the will of creatures He has made, even to including the decisions and whims of Satan or any heart in rebellion, then that is an illogical, unbiblical, and unorthodox fall into fashioning but one god among many, with no absolute truth or authority. God is God or there is no god. Any "criteria" of His will is to be solely found within His will. He is complete within Himself, as God. He isn't and logically cannot be dependant on something outside Himself, something He has created, for any act or thought of His being. He cannot become subject to something He has made and still be God over it. Any appearance of willful authority over and against His own is simply that, an appearance. I don't doubt it may be an important appearance to some, and that the ulimate absolute authority of God's will still, paradoxically, does not render Him the author of sin nor His creatures mere automatons. Paul, in Romans, is clear on this.

I think the tension comes in a failure of appreciation between paradoxical truths, both of which God has asserted in holy writ. God is completely sovereign and man is justly responsible for his decisions.

:hug:

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 07:59 PM
I have a question for the people who don't believe in reprobation. If God has foreknowledge of everything and everyperson then he knows who the people will be who reject God, right? So then if he knows who will reject him then why does God still create the person if God already knows where the person is going to end up? Doesn't that make God responsible for that man going to hell since God created him knowing full well where he would end up?

Very good question indeed!

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
May 15th 2008, 08:22 PM
To be consistent, that would mean that Paul was saying faith was not of works, which would be an odd thing for him to say.

Not odd at all. In fact Paul is saying that faith is not a work that man does to become saved, for if it was then man would have something to boast about. Hence the reason Paul says, "lest any MAN should boast." If salvation received by grace is through my work of faith then I could proudly say that I mustered up saving faith to save myself.



But that isn't what he was saying. He was saying that salvation itself was not of works. Salvation is by God's grace and salvation is through faith (whosoever believes...).

Paul is saying that salvation is not of man's works, otherwise it makes no sense for him to say "lest any MAN should boast." Salvation therefore is by grace (His work) through faith (obtained by way of imputation of His righteousness, again His work) all the work of Christ and none of man.



But salvation is not of ourselves (we can't save ourselves) and not of works. Faith is not a work, otherwise we would not even be saved through faith because we're not saved of works. Salvation itself is the gift of God that he was talking about.

Saving faith is not man's work, it is the Lords. However after we have been saved there is most certainly manifested a working faith or should I say a faith that works. I would quote the verses to prove this, but you already know them. Yes, indeed salvation is the gift of God, given to all who believe through the saving work of Christ. All of Him, none of man!



For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23

Amen! One of my favorite verses. Complete assurance that eternal life through Christ is God's precious gift to all who believe. It is eternal because once received it is forever!

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 08:41 PM
Well it would be half God's work and half man's work since the man first has to allow God to work in him. So basically Arminianism is a co-effort between God and man that achieves salvation. Is this what you believe?

It's entirely God. Yet, man responds to God. The one doesn't annul the other. Spurgeon said the will of God and the will of man are two sides to the same coin, they are brothers.

"Whosoever" is still true. "And as many as received Him, to them he gave the power to become the sons of God."

John146
May 15th 2008, 09:04 PM
Not odd at all. In fact Paul is saying that faith is not a work that man does to become saved, for if it was then man would have something to boast about. Hence the reason Paul says, "lest any MAN should boast." If salvation received by grace is through my work of faith then I could proudly say that I mustered up saving faith to save myself.

Not true. Does it not say that "whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"? Should it instead say "whosoever is given faith to believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life"? I don't believe so.



Paul is saying that salvation is not of man's works, otherwise it makes no sense for him to say "lest any MAN should boast." Salvation therefore is by grace (His work) through faith (obtained by way of imputation of His righteousness, again His work) all the work of Christ and none of man. Where does it say that salvation is through faith obtained by way of imputation of Christ's righteousness? More specifically, where does it say that saving faith is imputed to us?



Saving faith is not man's work, it is the Lords. However after we have been saved there is most certainly manifested a working faith or should I say a faith that works. I would quote the verses to prove this, but you already know them. Yes, indeed salvation is the gift of God, given to all who believe through the saving work of Christ. All of Him, none of man! Yes, all who believe. We are required to believe and no one believes for us. Scripture is clear about that. Scripture also makes it clear that we are required to repent and to deny and humble ourselves. Despite this, you would probably try to say we're not capable of doing so. But we must be capable, otherwise the requirement to do so that scripture so clearly lays out wouldn't make any sense.


Amen! One of my favorite verses. Complete assurance that eternal life through Christ is God's precious gift to all who believe. It is eternal because once received it is forever!Yes, His gift to all who believe, which we are required to do and is not done for us.

30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16:30-31

Why didn't they answer "You don't have to do anything. If, and only if, you are one of the chosen, then you will be given faith to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

9Marksfan
May 15th 2008, 09:13 PM
Yes I have scripture for that,too.

Well............???

Diolectic
May 15th 2008, 09:13 PM
I thought you thought that election was conditional. The condition being that the man must first have faith and then God elects the person based on that. Is this not what you believe?That was part of your post #54
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1640421&postcount=54
I forgot to edit well enough.


I have a question for the people who don't believe in reprobation. If God has foreknowledge of everything and everyperson then he knows who the people will be who reject God, right? So then if he knows who will reject him then why does God still create the person if God already knows where the person is going to end up? Doesn't that make God responsible for that man going to hell since God created him knowing full well where he would end up?
My answer needs to be lead up with certain info to help understand more fully.

Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of the different free choices that we would make if we were put into any given situation.
For example, Given God’s knowledge of me and these exact circumstances of my life in this created world, God knows that in this situation I will repent. My choice might very well be not to repent in a different situation that a different created world would cause; God knows what my choices will be in all other situations in all other created worlds as well.

Since each choice we make might be different in a different situation there are a wide variety of different scenarios that God knows. Together all these choices come within a seemingly infinite number of possible worlds. There are possible worlds where I freely choose to repent and other possible worlds where circumstances are different and perhaps I choose not to repent. My repentance and unrepentance effects others repentance as well as theirs effecting mine and even others as well.

According to the theology known as Molinism, God knew just what would happen and what we would freely choose in this world as he does in other possible words. God created this world out of a seemingly infinite possible number other worlds; and with this world in which we are in, the most possible souls repent with the least amount of judgment and accountability for those who do not. So, God created this world out of all of his possibilities. You could say that God predestined and foreknew all that would happen in the sense that God created a world in which all possible choices were known by him in advance. In this way, the Molinist would claim to have the best of all possible created worlds by combining several very important theological themes that often seem to contradict one another:
1 – Human beings have the freedom of choice.
2 – God foreknows all these choices.
3 – God created the world in which the most possible souls repent with the least amount of accountability and judgment for those who don't repent. Furthermore, I believe that this next fact is key; those who do not repent in this created world will not repent in any other possible world, so there is no sacrifice of possible repentance.

The questions arises, why would a loving God create those He knows will not repent?

If God chose to not create those who He knows will not repent, that alteration of this optimum amount of repented would change the circumstances to where it would cause more to not repent as the other alternative worlds.

Could God intend contrary to His knowledge?
I will give an example to answer this one.
My intention is to invite & to dine with my whole neighborhood at my favorite restaurant.
I know that most will not come, and dine with me, however, that does not change my intention to do so.

Then, comes the question, why would I intend on inviting those who I know will not show up?
It is because I love them, the invitation proves my love for them. Furthermore, if I don't invite those who I know will not come, it will cause some that I know who will come to deny my invitation.
Just as in real life, God will use the death of a person(saved or not) to cause another to come to Him.

The most common objection to this theological system seems to be the so-called “grounding objection.” In a nutshell, this objection calls into question whether a choice can truly be free if it is known ahead of time. In other words, no one (God included) can know my choice of vanilla or chocolate until I make the choice. If a choice is determined ahead of time, then it is not free.
This a false assumption, the knowledge of
Another’s choice does not take the options away from the one choosing, nor does it stop the freedom to choose.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 12:02 AM
Any "criteria" of His will is to be solely found within His will. He is complete within Himself, as God. He isn't and logically cannot be dependant on something outside Himself, something He has created, for any act or thought of His being.I am not implying that God must submit to anything that has been created.
His judgements and His justice are not created, but apart of HIS character.
However, when people claime that HE elects soly upon his will are missing that wich He commands.

His will is that wich HE commands.
He commands all men everywhere to repent(Act 17:30), those who submitt, are aligning themselve with the criteia for electtion.

mikebr
May 16th 2008, 01:42 AM
What if the elect was a particular group of saved people but not all saved people? That would change everything.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 02:51 AM
God must have known whom he could save???
God must have known whom he could save??? Your reasoning is a bit flawed. Obviously God knows whom He would save,
God would that all be saved.
Why wouldn't He save?

since the names of all who will be saved were written in heaven before they existed.That is where the Foreknowledge comes in, God foreknew, those who obey the call.

Is this election based upon a good decision the election would make, or upon the sovereign God choosing whom He wills?Not based upon a good decision, but upon the obedient decision, the right decision.
He wills to save all that choose to believe.

Ro 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
So then Jacob symbolizes corporate election made up of individuals not based upon any good or evil they have done, or not done that the purpose of God according to election might stand.
What are the criteria God uses to elect the individuals?
If it is based upon the same as corporate election, then God is partial, choosing some for no reason at all, but just because He wants to & that He can.
That is also an arbitrary decision.
Do you think that both elections are arbitrary and decided with partiality?

Of course God does not elect without purpose. The purpose God elects some is because if He did not then no man would become saved.The purpose that I meant is that opposed to merely because he could or would or just because HE wants to and that HE can.

Just as the man who is physically dead cannot make himself physically alive, neither can the spiritually dead make themselves spiritually alive.Jesus is life, therefore He is the one who makes them alive by their choice to obey the call.
They are condemned for not obeying the call, not because God didn't want to elect them. If it was because God did not want to elect them, then God is responsible for their damnation!

You may not like the way that God shows mankind His sovereignty in election, but like it or not God does the choosing according to the pleasure of His willAccording to you, then, God's pleasure of His will is creating those He does not want to save for the sole purpose of tormenting them in hell.

Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 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.Why do people always give arbitrary reasons for God's decision to elect?
Do you know that a decision totally based upon ones will is the definition of arbitrary?
Or do you believe that God chooses arbitrarily?

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.All this verse is telling us that God does not chose mans favorite.
Abraham willed or desired that it the promise might be given to Ishmael.
Isaac also willed or desired that the promise might be given to Esau.
This verse is in context with Abraham willing that the promise would come through Ishmael as the context proves Genesis 17:18 Moreover, in Genesis 27 Isaac is willing for Esau to have the blessing and Esau "running" to hunt and make Isaac's favorite meal for the blessing.



There is a defense in the "Unconditional election" myth is that God does not have to save all.
Some say that God is not obligated to pardon all mankind because they are guilty in the first place. The example they give is that a judge is justified in pardoning one criminal and not the other.
However, if God would pardon one and not the other HE would be showing partiality in His pardoning if the two criminals are all together equal in there crimes, which all mankind are. If God is obligated to save all mankind, then all mankind would be saved!God is obligated to give repentance to all lest He be partial.
The reason that man is condemned is because they refuse it.

How is God showing partiality pardoning some men, but not all men?Because, that is the definition of partiality.
If God chose one and not the other based solely upon His arbitrary decision, which is the definition of partiality. In other words God loved one over the other.

What you view as God showing partiality to some men and not others, I see as God showing mercy to some men rather than allowing all of humankind to perish.That is finite mercy, love and grace.


Mankind will be preserved forever because God has chosen to save some men. Otherwise all of mankind would be cast away from God forever.According to your theology/doctrine, God wants people to be tormented eternally, that is why they are condemned; He denied them, not because they denied Him



Furthermore, God does not pardon arbitrarily, HE pardons from the reason of mercy upon request. Nonetheless, God's mercy has conditions based upon standards of conduct (Matthew 18:32-35).

Mt 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.Are you suggesting that if I do not forgive my brother of all his trespasses, then I will not be saved? Do you deny the Scriptures?
If you do not forgive, then you are proving your unfaithfulness and refusal to love, as faith with out works is dead, so is love without forgiveness. 1 Corinthians 13:1:3

If this is what you are suggesting, then Christ cannot accomplish salvation for me by His sacrificial death and resurrection, even though Scripture says He will?True, If you refuse to forgive, Christ cannot accomplish salvation for you because of your stubborn refusal to obey & love.
1 John 4:8,11,20-21


The reason for electing certain men and not others must be based upon the foreknowledge that they will submit to the truth and ask for the mercy that is offered. In other words, God must have known whom he could save.If you could provide Scripture to validate this argument it would be helpful. God can save whosoever He pleases,2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deception of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
You are saying that God does not want to save.
Do you have loved ones who died in there sins?
What do you think that God hated those you loved and even prayed in His Spirit for to save?
God Thought In His mind, "I hate those that you love; even though you prey to me in My Spirit, I will not love them. Not because I can't u just because I don't want to. There is no special reason that I hate them, I just want to hate them."

and He knows whom He will save from before the foundation of the world, because He choose them and wrote their names in the Lambs Book of Life. Eternally elect of God.Don't forget the contraposition of that.
He knows whom He will dam from before the foundation of the world...
Question is, why did he Dam them?
You can't answer that they were sinners, because we were all sinners?
So, why did he Dam them?


The fact that God saves only some does not imply that God does not want to save them, but that HE can not.God wants to save them, but He cannot???I will say to your position:
God can save the but does not want to???
This is the devilish tyrant I mentioned earlier.
Our poor loved ones who die in their sins. The are in hell, not because they refused God, but because, God refuses them.
God hated them from before time, they are in hell for being what they were created to be.

Do you really view God in this weak, pathetic way?Do you really view God in this sadistic tyrannical hateful way?
I say hateful, because He would be hating those He does not love enough to save
I say tyrannical, because of his despotic rule.
I say sadistic, because he created sentient beings for the sole purpose of tormenting eternally!

God is dependent upon fallen, sinful humans to fulfill His plan to redeem a people for Himself?Yah, why else do you think that they are condemned?
God depends on people to obey the call so that He may save.
Do you think He saves those who will not obey the call?


The one being atoned for must change in order for him to be forgiven. He must first meet the set conditions in order for the atonement to be applied for the forgiveness. This proves that the one atoned for knows the true value of the one who is forgiving so he knows that he can not take this whole thing lightlyHow is the one being atoned for able to make this necessary change? Unless one is given spiritual life, he cannot change his heart.The change is in the repentance.
One does not need spiritual life in order to repent, all he needs is the truth, which us evident to all. Repentance brings a changed heart.
Do you think that God will forgive those who refuse to repent?
Now, if repentance is a gift, the God is responsible for unrepentance, but this is ridiculous.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 02:52 AM
If the one refuses to acknowledge the true value and worth of God and refuses to meet the set conditions in order to be forgiven; if he takes lightly all that God has said and done to forgive, God can not forgive.God cannot forgive without the help of fallen, desperate sinners?I didn't say man helps God, but I implied obedience to His conditions set for salvation.Those conditions are Faith & Repentance.Now, don't say that these are gifts, if so, that would make God responsible for all the faithlessness and unrepentance of mankind, because He refuses to give.
Scripture tells of The God of all power and authority over His creation. But you picture Him as a god who must submit to the authority and power of man.Man must submit to God, He is condemned for not submitting to Him.How do you see that God insisting on faith and repentance before He will save, How do you see that is God submitting to man?

No one can possibly deny that God has made it possible for salvation of all. He certainly offers to save all, and has done all HE could and is doing all HE can do to save as many as HE can.NO!!! Christ did not make salvation merely possible, He actually accomplished salvation for those He came to save.Say that a rebel fool is elect, but not saved yet, how did God actually accomplished salvation him?He is not yet saved, therefore, salvation is not yet accomplished.However, it is possible that the rebel fool will have salvation, only if he puts his faith on Christ & repents.However, you say that He did not come for our loved ones, whom we are preying for through His Spirit.Tell me, How could we, through His Spirit, be preying for those whom God hates?What are the criteria that God uses to decide which sinner to save?Pure souls that didn't win the lotto of election.
You have pictured here a god who is so pathetic and weak that though he pleads and begs men, he cannot usurp his will, but man usurps this god’s will.You give a picture of a god who is so devilishly tyrannical.Seriously, God does plead and beg men to repent, He does not want them to perish.The reason they are condemned is because they refuse after all God does to save them.You have man being condemned for no other reason but God didn't want to & that they were not as lucky as the elect.

If the non-elect are condemned just because they are non-elect and not only because they did not repent, they would have a valid complaint for their condemnation. It would be that God did not do all HE could to forgive them without being partial.First you need to realize that every man is already condemned if God did not elect some to salvation. Then why did God not want to save the elect?The elect were sinners as well
But God in His mercy desires to redeem humankind.I thought you think that God in His finite mercy desires to redeem only the elect?
Not every human being, but humanity. The only way that humanity will be preserved or redeemed is for God to choose to elect some men to be saved, thereby assuring that humanity will be preservedWhat does that mean?Where did you get that?Why not save all?It seems as you describe him to be that this is a cruel sadistic tyrant, which is why he will not save all.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 03:03 AM
Do you really view God in this sadistic tyrannical hateful way?

STOP calling God sadistic and hateful. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you don't like the way God works then take that up with him or read Romans 9. Answer this, if God in his foreknowledge knew who would come to faith in him then he obviously knew the people who wouldn't, right? Well then why did God create these people if they are destined for hell?

God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so...Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe. Augustine

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 03:58 AM
STOP calling God sadistic and hateful. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.I'm not calling God a sadistic and hateful tyrant, but God as some describe Him, they are the ones who should be ashamed for portraying Him as such.


If you don't like the way God works then take that up with himI love how God works, with Justice, rightousness,


or read Romans 9.I have many times, here: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1640474&postcount=61


Answer this, if God in his foreknowledge knew who would come to faith in him then he obviously knew the people who wouldn't, right?Right.

Well then why did God create these people if they are destined for hell?I thought I answered that. here:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1640583&postcount=73
But to cut it short, The questions arises, why would a loving God create those He knows will not repent?
If God chose to not create those who He knows will not repent, that alteration of this optimum amount of repented would change the circumstances to where it would cause more to not repent as the other alternative worlds.

If God knew men would not repent, why did God create them?
I will give an example to answer this one.
My intention is to invite & to dine with my whole neighborhood to my favorite restaurant.
I know that most will not come and dine with me, however, that does not change my intention to do so.

Then, comes the question, why would I intend on inviting those who I know will not show up?
It is because I love them, the invitation proves my love for them. Furthermore, if I don't invite those who I know will not come, it will cause some that I know who will come to deny my invitation.
Or, Why would God created those HE knows will not repent?
It is because HE loves them anyway, the invitation of the Cross of Christ to repent proves His love for them. Furthermore, if HE didn't create those that HE knows will not repent, it will cause some that HE knows who will repent to not repent .
Just as in real life, God will use the death of a person(saved or not) to cause another to come to Him.
Or, as I mentioned above, If God didn't create them, it would cause more to not repent as the other alternative worlds.


God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so...Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe. AugustineI will give the contrast or opposite of Augustine's though of the non-elect acording to what you just quoted. This will show you what I mean about portraying God to be sadistic tyrant...
God did not call the non-elect because they did not believe, but so that they may not believe.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 04:09 AM
Then, comes the question, why would I intend on inviting those who I know will not show up?
It is because I love them,

So God knows the people who won't believe but he still creates them because he loves them? That makes no sense at all. You can't escape the fact that God creates people he knows will spend an eternity in hell. Is this unjust? No because we all deserve hell but in God's mercy he elects some to escape this hell. You shouldn't be calling God sadistic, you should be praising him that you are indeed saved and that God has mercy on you, a lost sinner.

Why is is that the most God centered Christians throughout history have all been Calvinists? The Puritans, Pink, Spurgeon, Ryle, Lloyd-Jones, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, MacArthur, Piper, and the list goes on and on. You are telling me that all these people believe in a sadistic God? No sir.

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 04:20 AM
So God knows the people who won't believe but he still creates them because he loves them? That makes no sense at all. You can't escape the fact that God creates people he knows will spend an eternity in hell. Is this unjust? No because we all deserve hell but in God's mercy he elects some to escape this hell. You shouldn't be calling God sadistic, you should be praising him that you are indeed saved and that God has mercy on you, a lost sinner.

The difference is that they're in hell because that's what they choose; not because God condemned there.



Why is is that the most God centered Christians throughout history have all been Calvinists? The Puritans, Pink, Spurgeon, Ryle, Lloyd-Jones, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, MacArthur, Piper, and the list goes on and on. You are telling me that all these people believe in a sadistic God? No sir.

Irrelevant.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 04:24 AM
The difference is that they're in hell because that's what they choose; not because God condemned there.

But if God never created them then they wouldn't be in hell in the first place. So in effect, God did condemn them to hell since he created them when he knew they wouldn't have faith.




Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. It's a fact that these great men believed in the Calvinistic doctrines and I'm sure they would take great offense to somebody calling God sadistic just because he is all powerful and does as he pleases.

allen_1971
May 16th 2008, 11:37 AM
With respect to all of you, don't you think this issue has been argued about for countless generations? I mean, are we so conceited to think that we are greater than the many christian minds who have gone before us (and left this arguement unresolved)?

The fact is that depending on how we interpret scripture, this issue may be seen both ways. However, beating each other on the head is not going to change this. It is God who convicts isn't it?

Why can't we agree to differ? ultimately whether god elects some, or all, or whether we come to faith by free will or it is predestined... our faith requires us to live lives pleasing to God, to share the gospel with those in the world, and by the grace of God that some may come to faith in christ.

9Marksfan
May 16th 2008, 12:38 PM
With respect to all of you, don't you think this issue has been argued about for countless generations?

The same could be said for most matters discussed on this particular board! But it's good to search the Scriptures on this subject, because it leads us to consider the mind, will and purpose of God - do you think these things are somehow irrelevant? Since we are called to know God, we should all therefore make it our aim to understand His mind, will and purpoise, insofar as this has been revealed for our benefit in Scripture.


I mean, are we so conceited to think that we are greater than the many christian minds who have gone before us (and left this arguement unresolved)?

I hope no one does think that way - but for many, the argument has been resolved - for centuries......


The fact is that depending on how we interpret scripture, this issue may be seen both ways. However, beating each other on the head is not going to change this. It is God who convicts isn't it?

But He convicts through revealing the truth to us from His word!


Why can't we agree to differ? ultimately whether god elects some, or all, or whether we come to faith by free will or it is predestined... our faith requires us to live lives pleasing to God, to share the gospel with those in the world, and by the grace of God that some may come to faith in christ.

These are all important things and none of us should see them as in any way optional - but they are ALL less important than knowing God and understanding His ways (as far as it is possible for finite human minds, even led by the Spirit, to do this) - the issue is very important, because the nature, character and "Godness" of God are at stake here.

9Marksfan
May 16th 2008, 12:43 PM
However, when people claime that HE elects soly upon his will are missing that wich He commands.

His will is that wich HE commands.
He commands all men everywhere to repent(Act 17:30), those who submitt, are aligning themselve with the criteia for electtion.

You are confusing God's preceptive will (what He commands us to do) and His decretive will (what He brings about).

grit
May 16th 2008, 01:36 PM
I am not implying that God must submit to anything that has been created.
His judgements and His justice are not created, but apart of HIS character.
However, when people claime that HE elects soly upon his will are missing that wich He commands.

His will is that wich HE commands.
He commands all men everywhere to repent(Act 17:30), those who submitt, are aligning themselve with the criteia for electtion.

Isaiah 45:23 reads, “I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” (NASB)*

Matthew 20:15-16 reads, “Am I not permitted to do what I choose with what is mine? [Or do you begrudge my being generous?] Is your eye evil because I am good? So those who [now] are last will be first [then], and those who [now] are first will be last [then]. For many are called, but few chosen.” (Amplified)

Matthew 8: 11-12 reads, “I tell you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (HCSB)

Romans 8:33-34 reads, “Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.” (NRSV)

Mark 13:26-27 reads, “Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” (NRSV)

Revelation 20:14-15 reads, “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” (KJV)

Each of these reflect the being, character, will, and commands of God. They are logically consistent within the being, character, will, and commands of God, as well as within the revealed truth of Scripture. And yet taken together they present the divine paradox of God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s responsible will. All are called, all submit, not all are God’s elect (and note, they are described as elect of God, not as God being elect of them), all non-elect will be cast into the lake of fire (even of all who have bowed and sworn allegiance to God). There is here no tyrannical uncleanness of God. That no one thwarts God’s will does not nullify a just condemnation of those who oppose it. That those who oppose God’s will are still found in subjection to it and unwittingly accomplishing it by His design does not fault God as somehow the author of their evil.

Arminians usually claim that the biblical emphasis of God’s sovereignty force Calvinists into an evil god, while the Calvinists are thought to be forcing Arminians into an impotent and incompetent one at the whim of the choices of his creatures. Neither of these (an evil god or an impotent one) are true of the God of the Bible or of the disparate perspectives between Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, Molina, or others trying to worshipfully sort through Scriptural paradox. God is both just and merciful. Man is both free and bound. Man’s freedom cannot infringe on God’s sovereignty, and God’s sovereignty cannot be causal of sin.

As a Calvinist, a biblicist, I reason from my perspective that Calvin best explains this paradox to the glory of God; but I do not doubt that Arminians, with their emphasis on holy living and the righteous choices of man also have an eye toward glorifying their sovereign Lord.

* Compare Romans 14:7-18:
“We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

Why do you pass judgement on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgement seat of God. For it is written,
‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God.’

[the Isaiah 45:23 passage reads; “I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”]

So then, each of us will be accountable to God.

Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval.”
(Romans 14:7-18, NRSV, with Isaiah 45:23 insert from the NASB)

John146
May 16th 2008, 01:47 PM
So God knows the people who won't believe but he still creates them because he loves them? That makes no sense at all. You can't escape the fact that God creates people he knows will spend an eternity in hell. Is this unjust? No because we all deserve hell but in God's mercy he elects some to escape this hell. You shouldn't be calling God sadistic, you should be praising him that you are indeed saved and that God has mercy on you, a lost sinner.

Does it make sense that God would arbitrarily predetermine to have mercy on relatively few to be saved and for the majority to spend eternity in the lake of fire with no chance to be saved?

The following passage teaches that people choose their own ways.

2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. - Isaiah 66:2-4


A person must choose to either answer God's call, humble themselves and believe in God's Word or to choose that which does not please God by rejecting Him and His Word. This is not predetermined beforehand. God knows what people will do beforehand, but He does not predetermine it. He will give special revelation or blessings or harden people's hearts as He sees fit for His purposes, but that doesn't mean He predetermined everyone before the foundation of the world to either salvation or damnation. Scripture does not teach that. Predestination is according to God's foreknowledge and not according to His predetermination based on no discernible criteria. That is clear from passages like this one and many others.



Why is is that the most God centered Christians throughout history have all been Calvinists? The Puritans, Pink, Spurgeon, Ryle, Lloyd-Jones, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, MacArthur, Piper, and the list goes on and on. You are telling me that all these people believe in a sadistic God? No sir.

Because that isn't true. No one is recorded as having believed in unconditional election and limited atonement before Augustine.

Brother Mark
May 16th 2008, 01:57 PM
You are confusing God's preceptive will (what He commands us to do) and His decretive will (what He brings about).

Did he bring about Adam's sin? :hmm:

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 02:55 PM
However, when people claime that HE elects soly upon his will are missing that wich He commands.

His will is that wich HE commands.
He commands all men everywhere to repent(Act 17:30), those who submitt, are aligning themselve with the criteia for electtion.You are confusing God's preceptive will (what He commands us to do) and His decretive will (what He brings about).What is the diference between the two will here in what I said?

allen_1971
May 16th 2008, 03:37 PM
The same could be said for most matters discussed on this particular board! But it's good to search the Scriptures on this subject, because it leads us to consider the mind, will and purpose of God - do you think these things are somehow irrelevant? Since we are called to know God, we should all therefore make it our aim to understand His mind, will and purpoise, insofar as this has been revealed for our benefit in Scripture.

I agree. We are called to understand and to seek. I'm not saying this issue is irrelevant, not am I saying we should not be seeking. However, how often have you through arguementation "converted" someone to your belief? Especially on an issue like election. I am of the view that we make our point and leave it there...


I hope no one does think that way - but for many, the argument has been resolved - for centuries......

I'm guessing people in the opposite camp would also say the same thing.


These are all important things and none of us should see them as in any way optional - but they are ALL less important than knowing God and understanding His ways (as far as it is possible for finite human minds, even led by the Spirit, to do this) - the issue is very important, because the nature, character and "Godness" of God are at stake here.

These things are important, but the central doctrine of the bible is NOT election or free will or any other thing discussed in this thread. The central doctrine of the gospel is christ. Its about loving God entirely.

grit
May 16th 2008, 03:57 PM
These things are important, but the central doctrine of the bible is NOT election or free will... The central doctrine of the gospel is christ. Its about loving God entirely.

:thumbsup:
There certainly is a criteria for personal sanctification, and too often proponents of various worthy doctrines of Scripture may easily spend an inordinate amount of time focusung on disputations that divide rather than the clearer instructions that unite. The doctrines of grace are certainly intended to help us be gracious in worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 05:55 PM
So God knows the people who won't believe but he still creates them because he loves them? That makes no sense at all.Are you denying that God loves them?
Do you think that God could save all of mamkind in all of history if He wanted to?
Do you believe that God can but doesn't save all of mamkind in all of history just because HE does't want to?



You can't escape the fact that God creates people he knows will spend an eternity in hell. Is this unjust?Not if God made all the chances availabe for them to escape.
God could not save them because they willfuly, intentionaly, stubbornly refused HIM and HIS free offer to escape there doom.
It would be sadistic & tyrannical for GOD to create them only for the purpose of eternal torment without even meaning to save them as some portray as GOD doing.




No because we all deserve hell but in God's mercy he elects some to escape this hell.Then why can't you give the criteria that God uses in selecting whom He elect?
Why didn't God elect theall if we were all deserve hell?



You shouldn't be calling God sadistic, you should be praising him that you are indeed saved and that God has mercy on you, a lost sinner.I'm not calling God sadistic, but the tyrant whom some people portray as GOD.



Why is is that the most God centered Christians throughout history have all been Calvinists? The Puritans, Pink, Spurgeon, Ryle, Lloyd-Jones, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, MacArthur, Piper, and the list goes on and on. You are telling me that all these people believe in a sadistic God? No sir.I'm not saying that they believe in a sadistic God, but that their theology/doctrine portrays God that way.

threebigrocks
May 16th 2008, 06:12 PM
The way I see it, the only way to be predestined is to have the Spirit dwell within you. He is the gaurantor of the perfection of our faith, given to us as those destined to be adopted as sons of God.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 06:19 PM
Are you denying that God loves them?
Do you think that God could save all of mamkind in all of history if He wanted to?
Do you believe that God can but doesn't save all of mamkind in all of history just because HE does't want to?

It seems these are questions that you should be answering. If God wanted to save all people he most certainly could but that's not he way he works. If everybody were saved then his mercy would be irrelevant.



It would be sadistic & tyrannical for GOD to create them only for the purpose of eternal torment without even meaning to save them as some portray as GOD doing.

:rolleyes: You just don't get it. You apparently portray God as 'sadistic' also since he creates people who he knows will end up in hell. You then say that well it's the man who is responsible for that and I agree and in the Calvinist view it's also man who is responsible for ending up in hell since they reject God.




Then why can't you give the criteria that God uses in selecting whom He elect?
Why didn't God elect theall if we were all deserve hell?

I have given the 'criteria'. It's God's sovereign mercy that decides who he elects. He doesn't save all because then his mercy would be redundant. I think it's incredibly hilarious that you try and use human logic to determine what God can and cannot do. You have no right to question God's ways.



I'm not saying that theybelieve in a sadistic God, but that their theology/doctrine portrays God that way.

And your theology says that Christ's death on the cross, in theory, could have never saved anyone since it's up to the man to decide if he accepts it.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 06:33 PM
For sure God knows, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy".

and if he chooses to have mercy on all then who are you to argue against him?

Romans 11:32

Does the interpretation of individual personal election of Romans 9 agree with the rest of the Bible... or are those verses just twisted to fit someone's doctrine....

When God chose Jacob and not Esau he was choosing a nation in which to exalt himself through. He didn't condemn Esau to hell by not choosing him and his descendants. It's like God choosing Israel and not America. If you apply it like that you are saying that only Israel is going to heaven and everyone else is just screwed...

When a person makes that kind of application of scripture it is saying that God is arbitrarily choosing his elect and it doesn't matter if you're going after God if he didn't choose you then you are screwed anyway. The sovreignty of God doesn't mean he's micromanaging our lives. It means that he has every confidence in his decrees and the fact that they are going to be carried out that he is not concerned with man's opinion of him.

How do you connect personal election with 1 Timothy 2:4

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 06:51 PM
The reason that some people portray GOD as a sadistic tyrant is because they make the election to be THE obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect. They are going to hell because God does not want to save(elect) them, no other reason. This is His good pleasure?

As this for example:
God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so...Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe. Augustine
The antithesis of this is that their non-election is THE reason for their defiance and impenitence;
God did not elected unbelievers; He did not choose them so that they will be so, not because they were already so...God did not call the non-elect because they did not believe, but so that they will not believe.

They imply that the reason that they are hell bent, on their way to hell is because they are non-elect, or that God made them not to be saved.

Some people make the reason that God does not saves only because He is apathetic to the non-elect.

Some people say the fact that God saves only some implies that God does not WANT to save them, instead of that HE can not.
The question here is how could God save if they continually rebel? He will not make them submit.
But if He can make them submit, and if HE does, why not all of mankind?

They make the reason for eternal torment as God's fault instead of man's fault of willful, intentional rebelion/disobediance(sin).

The way they make it God's fault is because the non-election is the reason that men are dammed, and God is the deciding factor of the election instead of the factor being the meeting of the requirement to be elected.

Election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be held.
God elects those that He foreknows will meet the requirement to HIS standards, which is repentance and faith.

Knowing that there is no difference between all mankind in that all became sinners deserving HIS judgment, there is no deciding factor for God to elect other than that which is contrary of the reason for that judgment.

What is the reason for damnation?
Is it because some one is not elect?
No, it is because of willful, intentional rebelion/disobediance(sin)?

What is the reason for salvation?
It must be the antithesis of the reason for damnation.
It is because of willful, intentional repentance to the command(Act 17:30) and faith in Christ(Gal 3:26)?
How is it that election is any different?

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 07:16 PM
The reason that some people portray GOD as a sadistic tyrant is because they make the election to be THE obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect. They are going to hell because God does not want to save(elect) them, no other reason. This is His good pleasure?

As this for example:
God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so...Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe. Augustine
The antithesis of this is that their non-election is THE reason for their defiance and impenitence;
God did not elected unbelievers; He did not choose them so that they will be so, not because they were already so...God did not call the non-elect because they did not believe, but so that they will not believe.

They imply that the reason that they are hell bent, on their way to hell is because they are non-elect, or that God made them not to be saved.

Some people make the reason that God does not saves only because He is apathetic to the non-elect.

Some people say the fact that God saves only some implies that God does not WANT to save them, instead of that HE can not.
The question here is how could God save if they continually rebel? He will not make them submit.
But if He can make them submit, and if HE does, why not all of mankind?

They make the reason for eternal torment as God's fault instead of man's fault of willful, intentional rebelion/disobediance(sin).

The way they make it God's fault is because the non-election is the reason that men are dammed, and God is the deciding factor of the election instead of the factor being the meeting of the requirement to be elected.

Election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be held.
God elects those that He foreknows will meet the requirement to HIS standards, which is repentance and faith.

Knowing that there is no difference between all mankind in that all became sinners deserving HIS judgment, there is no deciding factor for God to elect other than that which is contrary of the reason for that judgment.

What is the reason for damnation?
Is it because some one is not elect?
No, it is because of willful, intentional rebelion/disobediance(sin)?

What is the reason for salvation?
It must be the antithesis of the reason for damnation.
It is because of willful, intentional repentance to the command(Act 17:30) and faith in Christ(Gal 3:26)?
How is it that election is any different?

I am done replying to you since you keep saying God is a sadistic tyrant in bold nonetheless. You should be warned or something. Election is God centered not man centered like your theology. Calvinism is completely God centered not like Arminianism which is man centered. There is a reason why all the great Christians throughout history have been Calvinists. That's because it's right.

If you think that people are elected because God foresaw their coming to Christ on their own then go ahead but know that this just destroys the meaning of election. It also says God didn't elect people man elected God. It says man is sort of a co-savior of themselves. Arminian view of election is absurd and makes no sense. It also uses human logic to confine God. It's a shame.

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 07:20 PM
There is a reason why all the great Christians throughout history have been Calvinists. That's because it's right.

I'm sorry, that's fallacious and anachronistic. No one before Calvin can be called a Calvin, and popular 'support' does not solidify the veracity of a claim. He's not calling God a tyrant, but it seems you won't allow yourself to get past that, nonetheless.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 07:24 PM
BrckBrln,

show me where God chooses people to go to heaven and and goes to hell?

how does that go with 1 Timothy 2:4? How does that go with Romans 11:32?... God having mercy on all...

grit
May 16th 2008, 07:24 PM
Not meaning to disturb the greater civility of its pause, I'll just quietly link to another earlier thread (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1559350&postcount=103), closer to the new topic(s) at hand, and where they have been respectfully previously answered, shall I? :hug: (((hugs to all)))

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 07:24 PM
I'm sorry, that's fallacious and anachronistic. No one before Calvin can be called a Calvin, and popular 'support' does not solidify the veracity of a claim. He's not calling God a tyrant, but it seems you won't allow yourself to get past that, nonetheless.

They all held to what we know as Calvinism, that's because it's in the Bible. Calvinism is just a nickname, like the doctrines of grace. And yes, he is calling God a tyrant, a sadistical tyrant. This is uncalled for even if you don't believe in election.

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 07:26 PM
They all held to what we know as Calvinism, that's because it's in the Bible. Calvinism is just a nickname, like the doctrines of grace. And yes, he is calling God a tyrant, a sadistical tyrant. This is uncalled for even if you don't believe in election.

They held similar views to what we know as Calvinism, but they weren't Calvinists. You have to allow for that, it's an anachronistic designation, otherwise.

Now he's not saying God is a tyrant; he's saying there are people who portray God as a tyrant. Two different and important things.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 07:27 PM
They all held to what we know as Calvinism, that's because it's in the Bible. Calvinism is just a nickname, like the doctrines of grace. And yes, he is calling God a tyrant, a sadistical tyrant. This is uncalled for even if you don't believe in election.

i would call a God who creates a person for the sake of hell a tyrant... it's unbiblical and there is no way you can prove that to me otherwise

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 07:30 PM
The held similar views to what we know as Calvinism, but they weren't Calvinists. You have to allow for that, it's an anachronistic designation, otherwise.

Now he's not saying God is a tyrant; he's saying there are people who portray God as a tyrant. Two different and important things.

Fine I will say that people who believed the same thing as Calvin before Calvin are not called Calvinists. But they still believe the same thing so I don't see what the big deal is? As I said Calvinism is a nickname, not something Calvin invented.

If my God is a tyrant just because he is all sovereign and powerful and has complete control over his creation then fine, call my God a tyrant. But the God who isn't all these things isn't a God at all.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 07:35 PM
i would call a God who creates a person for the sake of hell a tyrant... it's unbiblical and there is no way you can prove that to me otherwise

To answer your question on the Timothy verse. You, as 9Marksfan said, have to distinguish between God's will of command and will of decree, or revealed will and secret will. God does genuinely will for all to be saved and commands all people to have faith, but it's evident that not all will do so and if you believe God is all sovereign then he has decreed that not all will believe. God's complete sovereignty scares people and because of human logic they reject it. Well I wont.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 07:39 PM
To answer your question on the Timothy verse. You, as 9Marksfan said, have to distinguish between God's will of command and will of decree, or revealed will and secret will. God does genuinely will for all to be saved and commands all people to have faith, but it's evident that not all will do so and if you believe God is all sovereign then he has decreed that not all will believe. God's complete sovereignty scares people and because of human logic they reject it. Well I wont.

by choosing to reject God's sovereignty, you are showing you have free will to accept it thereby contradicting a Calvinist's view on the issue of God's sovereignty. God isn't choosy, he is no respecter of persons and he DESIRES for all to be saved... meaning he Desires it.. doesn't mean it's going to happen... it's obvious that man has free will to accept or reject him...

What about Romans 11:32? that God has committed them all to disobedience so that he may have MERCY ON ALL?

he even has mercy on the lost by not striking them down... He has mercy on all. Who are you to argue against that?

Athanasius
May 16th 2008, 07:52 PM
Fine I will say that people who believed the same thing as Calvin before Calvin are not called Calvinists. But they still believe the same thing so I don't see what the big deal is? As I said Calvinism is a nickname, not something Calvin invented.

If my God is a tyrant just because he is all sovereign and powerful and has complete control over his creation then fine, call my God a tyrant. But the God who isn't all these things isn't a God at all.

The big deal is that they aren't Calvinists :P
It's like saying Plato was a Postmodernist--doesn't work.

No one is saying God is a tyrant because he is sovereign, powerful, and has complete control over His creation. You're misrepresenting what's being said.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 07:55 PM
i would call a God who creates a person for the sake of hell a tyrant... it's unbiblical and there is no way you can prove that to me otherwise
Here is what Arthur Pink says about Romans 9.

These verses represent fallen mankind as inert and as impotent as a lump of lifeless clay. This Scripture evidences that there is "no difference," in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they are clay of "the same lump," which agrees with Ephesians 2:3, where we are told, that all are by nature "children of wrath." It teaches us that the ultimate destiny of every individual is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be the case; if it were left to our wills, the ultimate destination of us all would be the Lake of Fire. It declares that God Himself does make a difference in the respective destinations to which He assigns His creatures, for one vessel is made "unto honor and another unto dishonor;" some are "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," others are "vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."

We readily acknowledge that it is very humbling to the proud heart of the creature to behold all mankind in the hand of God as the clay is in the potter’s hand, yet this is precisely how the Scriptures of Truth represent the case. In this day of human boasting, intellectual pride, and deification of man, it needs to be insisted upon that the potter forms his vessels for himself. Let man strive with his Maker as he will, the fact remains that he is nothing more than clay in the Heavenly Potter’s hands, and while we know that God will deal justly with His creatures, that the Judge of all the earth will do right, nevertheless, He shapes His vessels for His own purpose and according to His own pleasure. God claims the indisputable right to do as He wills with His own.


Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace. Before the foundation of the world God made a choice, a selection, an election. Before His omniscient eye stood the whole of Adam’s race, and from it He singled out a people and predestinated them "unto the adoption of children," predestinated them "to be conformed to the image of His Son," "ordained" them unto eternal life. Arthur Pink


I don't expect you to believe any of this as it's clear you won't even consider it since your human logic says it can't be so. God's ways are not our ways buddy and if it pleases God to create some people for destruction and some to honor then he will do it and we have no right to question this.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 07:59 PM
Here is what Arthur Pink says about Romans 9.

These verses represent fallen mankind as inert and as impotent as a lump of lifeless clay. This Scripture evidences that there is "no difference," in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they are clay of "the same lump," which agrees with Ephesians 2:3, where we are told, that all are by nature "children of wrath." It teaches us that the ultimate destiny of every individual is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be the case; if it were left to our wills, the ultimate destination of us all would be the Lake of Fire. It declares that God Himself does make a difference in the respective destinations to which He assigns His creatures, for one vessel is made "unto honor and another unto dishonor;" some are "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," others are "vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."

We readily acknowledge that it is very humbling to the proud heart of the creature to behold all mankind in the hand of God as the clay is in the potter’s hand, yet this is precisely how the Scriptures of Truth represent the case. In this day of human boasting, intellectual pride, and deification of man, it needs to be insisted upon that the potter forms his vessels for himself. Let man strive with his Maker as he will, the fact remains that he is nothing more than clay in the Heavenly Potter’s hands, and while we know that God will deal justly with His creatures, that the Judge of all the earth will do right, nevertheless, He shapes His vessels for His own purpose and according to His own pleasure. God claims the indisputable right to do as He wills with His own.


Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace. Before the foundation of the world God made a choice, a selection, an election. Before His omniscient eye stood the whole of Adam’s race, and from it He singled out a people and predestinated them "unto the adoption of children," predestinated them "to be conformed to the image of His Son," "ordained" them unto eternal life. Arthur Pink


I don't expect you to believe any of this as it's clear you won't even consider it since your human logic says it can't be so. God's ways are not our ways buddy and if it pleases God to create some people for destruction and some to honor then he will do it and we have no right to question this.

human logic doesn't disagree with this... the rest of the Bible does... I don't care what A.W. Pink says... what does the rest of the Bible say... The Bible backs itself up....

no where else in the Bible confirms this interpretation... besides Romans 9 has nothing to do with God choosing a person to go to heaven or hell.. it's dealing with God's process of singling out a nation to show his glory through and dealing with Gentiles resentment of that.... He chose Jacob not Esau... it doesn't mean that he chose Esau to go to hell... he just chose Jacob and Israel to be the nation that he would dwell with and "bless all nations through"....

I mean if you can confirm that interpretation of Romans 9 with the rest of the Bible then do so...

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 08:07 PM
I am done replying to you since you keep saying God is a sadistic tyrant in bold nonetheless. You should be warned or something. Election is God centered not man centered like your theology. Calvinism is completely God centered not like Arminianism which is man centered.You reject common sence if you can not dispove any of what I posted in #96 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1641548&postcount=96).




If you think that people are elected because God foresaw their coming to Christ on their own then go ahead but know that this just destroys the meaning of election.That is what forknowlege is.
It can not be that HE forknew what HE would do.
That is rediculous.
The way they make it God's fault is because the non-election is the reason that men are dammed, and God is the deciding factor of the election instead of the factor being the meeting of the requirement to be elected.

Election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be held.
God elects those that He foreknows will meet the requirement to HIS standards, which is repentance and faith.
Or did you mis this part?


It also says God didn't elect people man elected God.
No, it says that we met the requirement that God puts forth to elect.


It says man is sort of a co-savior of themselves.No, it says that Made asked to be saved because he humbled himself as was commanded.


Arminian view of election is absurd and makes no sense.No, it forms to reality.


It also uses human logic to confine God. It's a shameWhat other kind of logic is there, other that Human logic? :hmm:

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 08:15 PM
I mean if you can confirm that interpretation of Romans 9 with the rest of the Bible then do so...
Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God "hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some whom He has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this. Arthur Pink

"And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him (viz. the Antichrist), every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that hath been slain" (Rev. 13:8, R. V. compare Rev. 17:8). Here, then, is a positive statement affirming that there are those whose names were not written in the Book of Life. Because of this they shall render allegiance to and bow down before the Antichrist. Arthur Pink

"The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4). That the Lord made all, perhaps every reader of this book will allow: that He made all for Himself is not so widely believed. That God made us, not for our own sakes, but for Himself; not for our own happiness, but for His glory; is, nevertheless, repeatedly affirmed in Scripture—Revelation 4:11. But Proverbs 16:4 goes even farther: it expressly declares that the Lord made the wicked for the Day of Evil: that was His design in giving them being. But why? Does not Romans 9:17 tell us, "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth"! God has made the wicked that, at the end, He may demonstrate "His power"—demonstrate it by showing what an easy matter it is for Him to subdue the stoutest rebel and to overthrow His mightiest enemy. Arthur Pink

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

This means that those who were appointed to eternal life believed and the rest were not appointed so they didn't believe.

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 08:38 PM
Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God "hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some whom He has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this. Arthur Pink

"And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him (viz. the Antichrist), every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that hath been slain" (Rev. 13:8, R. V. compare Rev. 17:8). Here, then, is a positive statement affirming that there are those whose names were not written in the Book of Life. Because of this they shall render allegiance to and bow down before the Antichrist. Arthur Pink

"The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4). That the Lord made all, perhaps every reader of this book will allow: that He made all for Himself is not so widely believed. That God made us, not for our own sakes, but for Himself; not for our own happiness, but for His glory; is, nevertheless, repeatedly affirmed in Scripture—Revelation 4:11. But Proverbs 16:4 goes even farther: it expressly declares that the Lord made the wicked for the Day of Evil: that was His design in giving them being. But why? Does not Romans 9:17 tell us, "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth"! God has made the wicked that, at the end, He may demonstrate "His power"—demonstrate it by showing what an easy matter it is for Him to subdue the stoutest rebel and to overthrow His mightiest enemy. Arthur Pink

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

This means that those who were appointed to eternal life believed and the rest were not appointed so they didn't believe.

he has appointed all for salvation... 1 Timothy 2:4

now show me where he appoints people for hell? Where does it say beyond Romans 9 that a God who delights in mercy (Micah 7:18, Hosea 6:6) appoints people for eternal damnation?

God's omniscience doesn't go with his sovereignty... he still allows man free will to choose him... as evidenced by Joshua's address to Israel.. "Choose this day" and Elijah's address to Israel on Mount Carmel.. "How long will YOU waver between two opinions?"

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 08:47 PM
he has appointed all for salvation... 1 Timothy 2:4

???

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

I agree that God desires all men to be saved but that doesn't mean that all will be saved.


now show me where he appoints people for hell? Where does it say beyond Romans 9 that a God who delights in mercy (Micah 7:18, Hosea 6:6) appoints people for eternal damnation?

I just did.

Here is a quote from Spurgeon.

It would also be unnecessary to repeat the whole of the 9th chapter of Romans. As long as that remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism. So long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures. C.H. Spurgeon

timmyb
May 16th 2008, 08:52 PM
???

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

I agree that God desires all men to be saved but that doesn't mean that all will be saved.



I just did.

Here is a quote from Spurgeon.

It would also be unnecessary to repeat the whole of the 9th chapter of Romans. As long as that remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism. So long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures. C.H. Spurgeon

Spurgeon is not the Bible... try again

where does it say that God appoints a person for hell?

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 08:59 PM
Spurgeon is not the Bible... try again

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Neither are you so why should I believe what you say?


where does it say that God appoints a person for hell?

:rolleyes: To you it doesn't.

Let me throw out some more Spurgeon. ;)

“But,” say others, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. C.H. Spurgeon

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 09:15 PM
Spurgeon is not the Bible... try again
where does it say that God appoints a person for hell? :rolleyes: To you it doesn't. Oh, but it is to you?
Then, please, show us where.

If the bible says "to you" that God appoints a person for hell, show us where, even if it is syaing that HE does to you and not us, we'd like to see where.

Let me throw out some more Spurgeon. ;) Spurgeon has no authority. We don't want Spurgeon or Arthur Pink or any other man's word, quit giving it.

Timmyb asked where the Bible says that God appoints a person for hell, why did you not?

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 09:21 PM
Are people not reading my posts? I have given the scripture you are looking for. Besides, this thread isn't about reprobation it's about election. And if I can't quote Spurgeon or Pink since they are just mans word then I don't want you to give your opinion since it's your, a mans, word. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just quote from some of the famous Arminian teachers like John Wesley and....umm....? ;)

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 09:57 PM
Are people not reading my posts? I have given the scripture you are looking for. Besides, this thread isn't about reprobation it's about election. And if I can't quote Spurgeon or Pink since they are just mans word then I don't want you to give your opinion since it's your, a mans, word. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just quote from some of the famous Arminian teachers like John Wesley and....umm....? ;)Since all have their owv interp of the Scriptures, Try using common sence and reasoning.

How your view that maligns God's charactor in reguards to election?
The fact that your view maligns God's charactor in reguards to election would proove correct that election is according to foreknowledge of God that man will submit to God, repent, and put there faith in Christ.

Along with common sence, try using reality of what election realy is.
you can not deny that election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be held.
God elects those that He foreknows will meet the requirement to HIS standards, which is repentance and faith.
Or did you miss this part?

Since this can not be refuted, why do you still hold to the malicious view of election that portrays God as a sadistic tyrant.
Are you afraid that since man has his part to play in salvation, it will make man at fault for being condemned?

Why do you hold a view that make God soley responcible for the condemnation of man?
You say that man is not condemnd for anything he has done, but purly on the arbtrary choice of God's election.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 10:01 PM
you can not deny that election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be held.

Umm I can and I do.

God bless.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 10:14 PM
Please explain how & why.

I have and I don't care to do so again. Read the Spurgeon quotes I posted. That's what I believe.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 10:17 PM
you can not deny that election is always reliant on the candidate meeting the requirements of the office to be heldUmm I can and I do.

God bless.Please explain how & why.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 10:19 PM
I have and I don't care to do so again. Read the Spurgeon quotes I posted. That's what I believe.
Then you are view as wrong, in errore, the one who lost the debate,
And in dire need to stop maligning God's charactor with your theology/doctrine.

Oh yah, and view as one who can not explain how & why.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 10:20 PM
Then you are view as wrong, in errore, the one who lost the debate,
And in dire need to stop maligning God's charactor with your theology/doctrine.

Thanks, brother in Christ. :rolleyes:

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 10:33 PM
Thanks, brother in Christ. :rolleyes:It's not that I am insulting you, I am only trying to debate the issue and since you refuse to respond, that is concidered a loss.

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 10:35 PM
It's not that I am insulting you, I am only trying to debate the issue and since you refuse to respond, that is concidered a loss.

I never refused to respond, I did respond to your question but apparently you ignored it. Go back over my posts and you will see my answer on reprobation. If you don't like them then that's fine, I don't really expect you to. I even answered the original question about election.

Diolectic
May 16th 2008, 10:37 PM
I never refused to respond, I did respond to your question but apparently you ignored it. Go back over my posts and you will see my answer on reprobation. If you don't like them then that's fine, I don't really expect you to. I even answered the original question about election.
Which numbers are the replies on that I should re-read?
We are on #123 now

BrckBrln
May 16th 2008, 10:42 PM
Which numbers are the replies on that I should re-read?
We are on #123 now

111 but I'm not going to respond to any reply just so you know. I don't have the time or patience to do it right now. If that means I 'lose' the debate then so be it. I'm not here to 'win' anything.

losthorizon
May 16th 2008, 11:14 PM
Are people not reading my posts? I have given the scripture you are looking for.

I read through your posts I didn’t see any biblical support for the non-biblical notion that God predestines anyone to Hell. Do you or do you not have support?

grit
May 17th 2008, 03:45 PM
With all due apologies and respect, there clearly has been biblical support presented for both the notion that God does predestine creatures to Hell and for the notion He does not, as well as biblical support for other various notions. If this were an actual formal debate there woludn't be the overriding ad hominem disrepect and needless construction of straw men argumentation that wafts through the thread. As a Calvinist, a biblicist, and more importantly a Christian, I have posted under the gracious assumption we were all dear Christian brothers and sisters here who love God and mutually agree that God is Love.

There is no respectful victory in such mischaracterizations as are the hallmark of this thread - all sides lose and the Body continues to suffer under the barbs of love-ignorance. It's not a place I cared to continue presenting an ignored defense of biblical teaching, especially when criticized for presenting only what the Scriptures teach.

:hug: (((hugs to all)))

losthorizon
May 17th 2008, 04:09 PM
With all due apologies and respect, there clearly has been biblical support presented for both the notion that God does predestine creatures to Hell and for the notion He does not, as well as biblical support for other various notions.

If it is true that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL mankind (and He did) how is it possible that God damns the majority of humankind to Hell before they are ever conceived and have the opportunity to hear the terms of salvation offered through the blood of Christ...
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. (1 Tim 2:3-8)

timmyb
May 17th 2008, 04:45 PM
I just want to say I have more verses that say God doesn't send a person to hell arbitrarily than anyone does having that he does...

And as good a soul winner as C.H. Spurgeon is... He is not the Bible. I respect his work, I don't respect his theology

the fact that Reformed Doctrine is absolutely unbiblical isn't even a discussion...

He's a God who relents from doing harm. Joel 2
He desires mercy Hosea 6:6
He delights in mercy Micah 7:18

Why would God arbitrarily do something that he loves? What common sense does that make..

I find more 'human reasoning' in Reformed Theology than I do in the Bible.

Rom 10:21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

if a person doesn't respond to the Gospel... it's THEIR fault... not God's

Diolectic
May 17th 2008, 05:06 PM
It's not a place I cared to continue presenting an ignored defense of biblical teaching, especially when criticized for presenting only what the Scriptures teach.How erogant.
Your telling us that we are not preasenting "only what the Scriptures teach" & saying that you are not "ignoring a defense of biblical teaching".

I've been using sound reasoning and logic and never been refuted, and all your side can do is quote scripture that actualy strengthen our defence.


Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). Now surely it is patent to any impartial mind that this statement is quite pointless if God has not "appointed" any to wrath. To say that God "hath not appointed us to wrath", clearly implies that there are some whom He has "appointed to wrath", and were it not that the minds of so many professing Christians are so blinded by prejudice, they could not fail to clearly see this. Arthur PinkNow this god who would actualy apoint anyone to wrath other than judgment is not GOD.

The appointing to wrath is because of judgment, not just because God didn't arbitrarily choose them in the lotto of the elect.

Anybody who thinks that God chooses not to elect other than because of judgment is maligning the character of God by making HIM asadistic tyrant.
I am not calling GOD that, but what you portray Him to be.

Hell is judgment for willfull, intentional rebelion/disobediance(sin), not just because God hated children not being bornyet, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand.


“But,” say others, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. C.H. SpurgeonNow IF faith is actsauly a gift that must be given, then GOD is directly responcible for the faithlessness of all those who deny HIM.
This god would not have a right for being angry with the faithless, because he didn't give them the faith wich he requires.
The same goes for IF repentance is a gift.

What will you do when face to face with the All Mighty when He asks you why you maligned His charactor?
You turn many away from HIM because the way you portray HIM was no one to be loved or worshipt.

I have many friend who were about to turn away fromn the faith because of this dreadfull theology/doctrin.
Thank God a leval headed freind of GOD set them straight.


Basically, I have been Christian for around 4 years now and I find myself in a troubling situation.

I am questioning the authenticity of my conversion because I could never love the God that Calvinism presents. Therefore, I am starting to feel like I am a reprobate and God just decided to arbitrarily pass me by and bestow His amazing grace upon another.

This is causing my faith to be somewhat shipwreck because currently I am extremely hostile towards a God like that. I guess the Calvinist's would assume God obviously hasn't worked in my life yet. However, I would disagree from my conversion experience, dedication, and love for Christ. It was not until I discovered Calvinism that I began to doubt my salvation, because like I said, I will not (because I am unable, I suppose) worship a God like that.

You see, If Calvinism is true then I will definitely walk away from Christianity and await my "just", eternal punishment according to God's decree.
However, if I believe Calvinism is not true and I willfully persevere in dedication to the Biblical God my entire life, only to find that Calvinism is true and I am indeed not the elect, well I don't want to waste my time/life worshiping a God that hasn't chosen me.

So, I am assuming that since I cannot stand Calvinism's God, Calvinist's clearly see this as evidence that I am not a Christian. That is scary, but if Calvinism is a reality then it is a truth nonetheless.
I wonder how many Arminian's/Molinist's feel the same way as me, or is it more of a hope that Calvinism is untrue, but if it turns out to be true, it would have no affect on your love for God. This was the position I had before, but now I simply cannot take a neutral ground on Calvin's view of God. I am opposed to such a God, and if it is the Biblical God, then I must not be a Christian.
Thank-you so much for your message and posts in the thread. Indeed, Calvinism has troubled me to the extent that I almost gave up on Christianity. I haven't read through the entire thread, as I have been very busy lately. However, I do look forward to reading your contributions.These are a couple them.

BrckBrln
May 17th 2008, 06:42 PM
Now IF faith is actsauly a gift that must be given, then GOD is directly responcible for the faithlessness of all those who deny HIM.
This god would not have a right for being angry with the faithless, because he didn't give them the faith wich he requires.
The same goes for IF repentance is a gift.

There is no 'if' about it. Faith and Repentance are gifts.

Faith

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Repentance

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:18

Diolectic
May 17th 2008, 06:53 PM
There is no 'if' about it. Faith and Repentance are gifts.

Faith

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Repentance

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:18Why are you making God responcible for the faithlessness of the world?

BrckBrln
May 17th 2008, 06:56 PM
Why are you making God responcible for the faithlessness of the world?

:rofl::rolleyes: You are too funny.

Do you agree or disagree with those scriptures that say Faith and Repentance are gifts from God?

timmyb
May 17th 2008, 07:02 PM
:rofl::rolleyes: You are too funny.

Do you agree or disagree with those scriptures that say Faith and Repentance are gifts from God?

were those gifts arbitrary? Do I have the free will to accept them/reject them? If I don't have the free will to accept/reject them then it IS God's fault and I'm not accountable. It's not my fault for not being the elect it's just that God didn't preordain me for salvation so I am therefore incapable of receiving salvation no matter what I say or do.

The truth is that God has given that gift to everyone who will receive it. Not everyone will... that doesn't mean the offer has left the table. If a person rejects salvation and repentance it's their fault. God has done his part. We have a part to play by accepting his free gift of mercy and to deny it is eternal damnation.

losthorizon
May 17th 2008, 08:10 PM
There is no 'if' about it. Faith and Repentance are gifts.

Faith

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Repentance

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” Acts 11:18
Faith and repentance are acts of obedience that one must (of their own freewill) do to please God in order to receive the “gift of God” - ie - salvation through the blood of Christ. And salvation is offered to whosoever will because Jesus Christ – the “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”… “…gave himself a ransom for all”. The inspired writers of the NT were certainly not Calvinists. God does not damn infants to Hell before they are ever born as Calvinism teaches.

Diolectic
May 17th 2008, 11:17 PM
The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – through faith functions as the “indirect object” clause of are saved.

Likewise, the second half, “and this is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift,” is a contrast to salvation of God, not of you.

And that (kai touto inGreek) is in the neuter, and so refers not to "faith (pistis in Greek) which is in the feminine or to Grace (charis in Greek feminine also, but to the whole state of affairs of by grace you have been saved through faith.
I'l repeat (that) in greek "touto"refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”

One can not say from this verse wich is the Gift.

However, common sence tells anyone willing to submitt to common sence, that faith can not be a gift since all mankind has the ability to believ in something.
Furthermore, God can not be held responcible for those who will not have faith in HIM, but HE must be held responcible if HE must give it first.

Brother Mark
May 17th 2008, 11:20 PM
The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – through faith functions as the “indirect object” clause of are saved.

Likewise, the second half, “and this is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift,” is a contrast to salvation of God, not of you.

And that (kai touto inGreek) is in the neuter, and so refers not to "faith (pistis in Greek) which is in the feminine or to Grace (charis in Greek feminine also, but to the whole state of affairs of by grace you have been saved through faith.
I'l repeat (that) in greek "touto"refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”

One can not say from this verse wich is the Gift.

However, common sence tells anyone willing to submitt to common sence, that faith can not be a gift since all mankind has the ability to believ in something.
Furthermore, God can not be held responcible for those who will not have faith in HIM, but HE must be held responcible if HE must give it first.




That is excellent! It is why he said in Romans "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". His chosen way of doing that is through faith. He clarifies the statement at the end of the chapter. It is key to recognize that God chose to present salvation this way.

The only way a Holy and Righteous God can deal with us is through grace and mercy. If he dealt with us in any other way, we would be toast. Thank God he has mercy on those who come to Him through faith.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 12:02 AM
The first half of the verse belongs together, “For by grace you have been saved through faith” – through faith functions as the “indirect object” clause of are saved.

Likewise, the second half, “and this is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift,” is a contrast to salvation of God, not of you.

And that (kai touto inGreek) is in the neuter, and so refers not to "faith (pistis in Greek) which is in the feminine or to Grace (charis in Greek feminine also, but to the whole state of affairs of by grace you have been saved through faith.
I'l repeat (that) in greek "touto"refers to the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” Thus we could accurately paraphrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and the fact that salvation works this way is not of yourselves, it is God’s gift.”

One can not say from this verse wich is the Gift.

However, common sence tells anyone willing to submitt to common sence, that faith can not be a gift since all mankind has the ability to believ in something.
Furthermore, God can not be held responcible for those who will not have faith in HIM, but HE must be held responcible if HE must give it first.




I don't understand all this greek mumbo jumbo but what do you think is the 'gift' the verse is talking about? I think it's fairly obvious the gift is the gift of salvation that is given to us by grace through faith. Again, you are trying to use human logic to confine God. Here are some more verses that say Faith, or Salvation, is a gift.

For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake. Philippians 1:29

To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:1

If you still want to believe that we can somehow conjure up our own faith and come to Christ on our own 'free will' then go ahead but it's not the Biblical teaching. We are spiritually dead and a dead person can't come back to life unless God says so.

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 04:17 AM
I don't understand all this greek mumbo jumbo but what do you think is the 'gift' the verse is talking about?
"by grace you are saved" already mentioned in Eph 2:5, Paul was saying that the grace was being made "alive together with Christ" which is the salvation (you are saved) that is mentioned in verse 8.
Paul adds "through faith" in verse 8 in repeating what he said from Eph 2:5 to make it plainer that "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" is ours.

Since Israel was seeking rightousness and failed "Because they sought it not by faith" Rom 9:30-32
And if God was angry with them for not having faith, it can not be a gift.

If God wanted them to seek rightousness by faith, all HE should have given it to them.
However, God was angry, not because HE didn't give them faith (as a gift), but because they were didobediant.
Heb 3:18-19 And to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.



Again, you are trying to use human logic to confine God.What other kind of logic is there?
I'm not going to post a definition of logic here, because you could look it up for your self, however, I will say that logice is based upon reality, common sence, reason and sound judgment.


If you still want to believe that we can somehow conjure up our own faith and come to Christ on our own 'free will' then go ahead but it's not the Biblical teaching.I don't "conjure up my own faith". I am persuaded by the truth to believe from the facts given about Christ and the offer of salvation.
With evidence of the facts one may believe.


We are spiritually dead and a dead person can't come back to life unless God says so.He has commanded all men every where to so so.
Therefore, He has already said so.

Furhtermore, you do not know what "spiritualy dead" means if you think that we can not come to Christ because of it.
The term "spiritualy dead" only means that we are seperated form HIM, we have no relationship with God, therfore we are spiritualy dead.
Just because we have no relationship with HIM does not mean that we can not have one.
The croos has given the ability to all mankind to have the required relationship with HIM.

Since He commanded all men every where to repent(Act 17:30) it means that HE would let people to do what HE commands.
To think otherwise makes God to be rather stupid, being angery at people for what HE does not want to provide.

It's like saying.
"Repent, but I will not let you. Therfore I will condemn you because I will not let you."

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 04:37 AM
"by grace you are saved" already mentioned in Eph 2:5, Paul was saying that the grace was being made "alive together with Christ" which is the salvation (you are saved) that is mentioned in verse 8.
Paul adds "through faith" in verse 8 in repeating what he said from Eph 2:5 to make it plainer that "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" is ours.

I still don't understand.



What other kind of logic is there?

God logic? God's ways are not our ways. God isn't confined to our ways of thinking. If God wants to save some and not all of his creation then who are we to question him? It obviously doesn't seem right to human logic and that's why so many people are unitarians, thinking that God saves all. That's well pleasing to us but not to God.




I don't "conjure up my own faith". I am persuaded by the truth to believe from the facts given about Christ and the offer of salvation.
With evidence of the facts one may believe.

But why are you persuaded and other are not? What makes you so special? Why can you believe but others won't? These are the questions that Spurgeon struggled over and that eventually led him to see the truth behind his salvation. It's all God. God is the one that persuaded him, God is the one that gave him the gift of salvation. Salvation is from the lord, not man like you believe it is.



Since He commanded all men every where to repent(Act 17:30) it means that HE would let people to do what HE commands.
To think otherwise makes God to be rather stupid, being angery at people for what HE does not want to provide.

It's like saying.
"Repent, but I will not let you. Therfore I will condemn you because I will not let you."

You are looking at God as a one dimensional in character. You don't understand God's will of command and will of decree.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 06:07 AM
For all the people who believe that it is you who come to Christ, be it by a joint effort or just on your own, should read these verses because what you believe is just not Biblical.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But 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. And 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.” From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. John 6:60-71

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13

And I think somebody here said that we all have faith, or something like that. Well...

...for not all have faith. 2 Thessalonians 3:2

And for all the people who believe that God just starts our faith, or gives us the opportunity to come to Christ and it's up to us whether we do, basically saying that we, the human, is the finisher of our faith, then take a look at this verse.

...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2

Jesus starts and finishes our faith. We contribute nothing. Salvation isn't a joint effort or just a man effort, it's completely God's effort.

And I found a great book that presents all the scriptures that deal with the doctrines of grace if anybody is interested. It's 95% scripture and 5% commentary. Here it is in PDF form.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/pdfs/doctrines_of_grace_003.pdf

If anyone still isn't persuaded by these scriptures then you are just spiritually blind and just don't want to believe it. I will never understand why people believe that they are the ones that come to Christ. Anyway, I hope these scriptures, and scriptures they are, not man's interpretation, help those who want to know the truth.

Athanasius
May 18th 2008, 06:18 AM
They would spiritually blind on account that God didn't elect them, so where would one get off blaming them for the fact that they weren't invited into the Mensa club?

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 07:11 AM
They would spiritually blind on account that God didn't elect them, so where would one get off blaming them for the fact that they weren't invited into the Mensa club?

Huh? I am not saying that these people aren't saved, or of the elect. I am saying they are misinformed on the way God saves people and how they got saved.

Athanasius
May 18th 2008, 07:12 AM
Huh? I am not saying that these people aren't saved, or of the elect. I am saying they are misinformed on the way God saves people and how they got saved.

Well that would be God's own fault, unfortunately.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 07:14 AM
Well that would be God's own fault, unfortunately.

Yeah cause us Calvinists don't believe man is responsible for anything. :rolleyes:

watchinginawe
May 18th 2008, 01:54 PM
Yeah cause us Calvinists don't believe man is responsible for anything. :rolleyes:That is interesting. Maybe it would help to know what exactly the Calvinist believes man is responsible for.

What is man responsible for, if anything?

God Bless!

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 02:57 PM
I still don't understand.How old are you?
All I said was Eph 2:5 "alive together with Christ" is the grace of (you are saved). Paul adds "through faith" in Eph 2:8 in repeating what he said from Eph 2:5 to make it plainer that "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" is ours.



God logic? God's ways are not our ways. God isn't confined to our ways of thinking. If God wants to save some and not all of his creation then who are we to question him? It obviously doesn't seem right to human logic and that's why so many people are unitarians, thinking that God saves all. That's well pleasing to us but not to God.I knew I should of posted thge definition.
So God is a god of non-sence untill you are blessed with His logic.

I guess you have no idea what logic is.
Logic: If a+b= c then c= a+b
You are saying that God's logic is not of reality?

What grade are you in, realy?


But why are you persuaded and other are not?Stubornness, pride...ect...


What makes you so special?Not that i'm so special, but that I am only doing what is expected. Luk 17:10 So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.


Why can you believe but others won't?Not that I can, but that I will.
That is the point, they will not, it isn''t that they can't.
If they couldn't, it would be rediculouse for God to command them to.



It's all God. God is the one that persuaded him, God is the one that gave him the gift of salvation. Salvation is from the lord, not man like you believe it is.I never said that salvation if from man. God saves us from His own wrath, we must do what HE said to escape it, which is to believe and repent.



It's like saying.
"Repent, but I will not let you. Therfore I will condemn you because I will not let you." You are looking at God as a one dimensional in character. You don't understand God's will of command and will of decree.It's you that don't understand.
I give simple correct logic and you still say that I'm wrong?

You allow the maligning of God's holy character with your dreadful theology and say that I am wrong in my theology?

Your theology causes men to stumbe in faith and you say that I don't understand?

Your theology turns many sinners away because it has a sadidtic tyrant of a god and you say that my theology does not glorify God?

timmyb
May 18th 2008, 04:24 PM
I still don't understand.
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/size][/color]



God logic? God's ways are not our ways. God isn't confined to our ways of thinking. If God wants to save some and not all of his creation then who are we to question him? It obviously doesn't seem right to human logic and that's why so many people are unitarians, thinking that God saves all. That's well pleasing to us but not to God.





But why are you persuaded and other are not? What makes you so special? Why can you believe but others won't? These are the questions that Spurgeon struggled over and that eventually led him to see the truth behind his salvation. It's all God. God is the one that persuaded him, God is the one that gave him the gift of salvation. Salvation is from the lord, not man like you believe it is.




You are looking at God as a one dimensional in character. You don't understand God's will of command and will of decree.

have you ever heard of this concept known as free will? The gift of faith has been offered to the entire world... Now it's man's responsibility to respond to this offer... accept a free gift which is the only way to heaven, or reject it and find their own way which leads to destruction...

a gift can be accepted and refused... some have accepted it and will be rewarded and some have rejected it and will face eternal punishment

Man has free will to make a choice.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 06:20 PM
How old are you?
All I said was Eph 2:5 "alive together with Christ" is the grace of (you are saved). Paul adds "through faith" in Eph 2:8 in repeating what he said from Eph 2:5 to make it plainer that "Grace" is God’s part, "faith" is ours.

Grace, Faith, and Salvation are all God's part. We can't just conjure up faith to respond to a call from God. God has to give you the faith and the other verses I posted clearly express this.



I knew I should of posted thge definition.
So God is a god of non-sence untill you are blessed with His logic.

I guess you have no idea what logic is.
Logic: If a+b= c then c= a+b
You are saying that God's logic is not of reality?

What grade are you in, realy?

Are you saying that God is confined to the scientific laws he made? Is God confined to gravity and the laws of physics? You can't use your own logic to say what God can and cannot do. God isn't limited by math or your mind.


Stubornness, pride...ect...

Not that i'm so special, but that I am only doing what is expected. Luk 17:10 So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

But why are these people prideful and you aren't? Why can you 'respond' to God's call but others can't? The answer to this question is that if it weren't for God working in you then you would be one of these stubborn, prideful people. There is nothing good in you. You can't invent your own faith. You can't come to Christ on your own as the verses I posted clearly say. What do you think of them?

And timmyb, I believe in free will but I believe it's a slave to sin. Our will can only go in one direction, down. We can't use this free will to seek God.

Athanasius
May 18th 2008, 06:28 PM
Are you saying that God is confined to the scientific laws he made? Is God confined to gravity and the laws of physics? You can't use your own logic to say what God can and cannot do. God isn't limited by math or your mind.

Can God create a round square, a married bachelor, a rock He can't lift, a four sided triangle, a three sided square, cold fire? Can God sin, can God lie? Of course not; are we saying God is limited? Absolutely not.

Has it not occurred to you that we get many of our conceptions about reality, in this case logic (a + b = c | c = a + b) from God? Or are you saying that we're so fallen and corrupt that this is nothing of God? In which case we have a book, written by God in our language.. What are the implications of that?

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 06:31 PM
Can God create a round square, a married bachelor, a rock He can't lift, a four sided triangle, a three sided square, cold fire? Can God sin, can God lie? Of course not; are we saying God is limited? Absolutely not.

Has it not occurred to you that we get many of our conceptions about reality, in this case logic (a + b = c | c = a + b) from God? Or are you saying that we're so fallen and corrupt that this is nothing of God? In which case we have a book, written by God in our language.. What are the implications of that?

I'm saying that you and others are saying, with no scriptural support, just 'logic', that God cannot make people for the purpose of sending them to hell. Now this sounds right to the human but is God limited to what he can do by what humans, his creation, thinks? Of course not. If it pleases God to do something then he will do it even if it doesn't line up with your 'logic'.

daughter
May 18th 2008, 06:35 PM
Just to answer the original question... it's just dawned on me that it's very easy.

If God does elect people, and choose who He will save, the criteria is this...

God does what He does, because He is God, and He has the right to do whatsoever He wants to.

Athanasius
May 18th 2008, 06:35 PM
I'm saying that you and others are saying, with no scriptural support, just 'logic', that God cannot make people for the purpose of sending them to hell. Now this sounds right to the human but is God limited to what he can do by what humans, his creation, thinks? Of course not. If it pleases God to do something then he will do it even if it doesn't line up with your 'logic'.

Round and round and round she goes, where she stops? Nobody knows...

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 06:37 PM
Just to answer the original question... it's just dawned on me that it's very easy.

If God does elect people, and choose who He will save, the criteria is this...

God does what He does, because He is God, and He has the right to do whatsoever He wants to.

Yes, exactly. To some people this just isn't 'logical' to believe.

1of7000
May 18th 2008, 09:09 PM
Keep it simple guys God's Word was written so that even a fool need not err therein.

God wants all men saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth and he gave us His Son as a mediator. (IITim2:4ff)

For God so loved the world... (John 3:16-18)

Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. (Rom 10:9,10)


Seated us in the heavenlies (Eph 2:6)

The faith in Eph 2:8 that saved us is the faith of Jesus Christ. not our meager attempts at godliness.

There are five kinds of Biblical faith, man's,the faith of Jesus Christ, family faith,the manifestation of believing and fruit of the spirit faith.

You would know this if you studied God's Bible and not human babble

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 10:19 PM
Grace, Faith, and Salvation are all God's part. We can't just conjure up faith to respond to a call from God. God has to give you the faith and the other verses I posted clearly express this.Then you actualy believe that God condemns people for what He does not provide.
This is why you malign HIS character.


Are you saying that God is confined to the scientific laws he made? Is God confined to gravity and the laws of physics?Laws of physics, no. Jesus walked on water.
Howeve, God must abide within the laws of logic, or else HE becomes nonsencical.
Again, this is why you malign HIS character.
That is wht my point is, God must make sence.



You can't use your own logic to say what God can and cannot do. God isn't limited by math or your mindYes, otherwise you are putting God in the relm of lies.
2+2 can never be 3, or anything else but 4. Anything else would be a lie.
Again, this is why you malign HIS character. Please Stop!!!


But why are these people prideful and you aren't?I obeyed the comand to humble myself, they did not.
If no one can, the disability makes them not responcible for not obeying.


Why can you 'respond' to God's call but others can't?I answered thyis already.
Not that I can, but that I will.
Not that they "can't", but they will not.
If they couldn't, it would be rediculouse for God to command them to.


answer to this question is that if it weren't for God working in you then you would be one of these stubborn, prideful people.He only works "in" Those who are already submitted to Him both to will and to do of his good pleasure(Philip 2:13).
No where in the Scripturse is it said that HE works "in" the rebelious.


There is nothing good in you.Actulay there is no good thing in my flesh:
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good. For to will is present to me, but to work out the good I do not find.
Notice, Paul says that the "will to do it is present".


You can't invent your own faith.True, I never say that anybody does. All I say is that every one is able to redirect the faith that they already have.
All men every where are commanded to redirect their faith and repent(Act 17:30).


You can't come to Christ on your own as the verses I posted clearly say.You misconstrue the whole context of the meaning of those verses.
Simple logic that you deny tells us that faith can not be a gift.
Why are you so stuborn?


What do you think of them?
Php 1:29 for to you it is graciously granted, for Christ's sake, not only to be believing on Him, but to be suffering for His sake also,
All this is say that the ones who Paul was writing to are not only to be just believing, but also to be suffering for Christ's sake.

In other words. to you it is graciously granted to be suffering for His sake, not only to be believing on Him.
The thought here is, some thing that all they will be doing is believing only with no trials or tribulations.

2 Peter 1:1 To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Translation as this make it rather self explanitory.

Joh 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 ones who obey the call are given to HIM by the Father.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not.
Theses are the ones who refuse to obey the call.


And timmyb, I believe in free will but I believe it's a slave to sin.Rom 6:16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
This is telling us thay we are choose who we are slaves to.


Our will can only go in one direction, down. We can't use this free will to seek God.Now your just making things up.

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm saying that you and others are saying, with no scriptural support, just 'logic', that God cannot make people for the purpose of sending them to hell.There you go again, maligning the chracter of GOD. Is that all your theology does?

If God were to create some for the purpose of sending them to hell. He would then portray HIS character as trash, for HE created man in HIS image. If HE were to make people for the purpose of sending them to hell, He is virtualy saying, "MY character is something worth throwing away as rubbish.

When will you repent from this autroshis theology of prtraying God in a very bad light.


If it pleases God to do something then he will do it even if it doesn't line up with your 'logic'.What do you mean "your logic"?
Ther is no other logic , but what there is.
Again, 2+2 can never be 3, or anything else but 4. Anything else would be a lie. You are putting God in the relm of lies!!!

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 10:30 PM
I answered thyis already.
Not that I can, but that I will.
Not that they "can't", but they will not.
If they couldn't, it would be rediculouse for God to command them to.

But why do you will? Why don't others will as well? If they are stubborn then why aren't you stubborn? These questions will go all the way back until you find the root of why you believe. And that's God. God is the one that changed you.


Joh 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 ones who obey the call are given to HIM by the Father.

You make no sense with your interpretation of the verse. The reason the people obey the call are because God choose them. This verse clearly teaches that no man can come to Christ unless the Father chooses them to. Other verses say the same thing and yet you deny this.

Take a look at that pdf book and see for yourself how many scriptures there are that plainly disagree with you. I think it's incredibly sad that you think you save yourself or become a half savior and the finisher of your faith.

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 10:32 PM
Just to answer the original question... it's just dawned on me that it's very easy.

If God does elect people, and choose who He will save, the criteria is this...

God does what He does, because He is God, and He has the right to do whatsoever He wants to.This is only arbitrary choice.
Do you actualy think that God chooses arbitrarily?
That would be against God's very nature to do anything as such.

There is no criteria in what you posted.
Do I need to post the definition for the word arbitrary?

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 10:33 PM
What do you mean "your logic"?
Ther is no other logic , but what there is.
Again, 2+2 can never be 3, or anything else but 4. Anything else would be a lie. You are putting God in the relm of lies!!!

I am talking about the human logic that says it's wrong for God to save some and not others. That's human logic that you say God is confined to but God isn't. God will do what he pleases not what you think is pleasing. My friend, you are seriously deluded in your thinking and you need to stop with the personal attacks by saying I make God a satanic lier.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 10:42 PM
This is only arbitrary choice.
Do you actualy think that God chooses arbitrarily?
That would be against God's very nature to do anything as such.

There is no criteria in what you posted.
Do I need to post the definition for the word arbitrary?

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 should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6

These verses say it all but you reject them. It doesn't say man chose God but God chose man. Why did God choose certain men? "according to the good pleasure of His will" You can deny this if you want but it's plain as day.

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of 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 given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. 2 Timothy 1:8-9

This verse doesn't say man saved themselves but that God saved us and why did he do this? Because it was 'according to His own purpose and grace'. Again, plain as day.

Why don't you start looking at the scriptures instead of your mind?

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 10:45 PM
But why do you will? Why don't others will as well? If they are stubborn then why aren't you stubborn? These questions will go all the way back until you find the root of why you believe. And that's God. God is the one that changed you.The "root" brings us back to the original quetion of the post.
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

Why did God choose to chang some and not others if all mankind has sinned?
What is the answer that does not have God acting arbitrarily and without partiality?


You make no sense with your interpretation of the verse. The reason the people obey the call are because God choose them.Back to the question.
By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

Why did God choose to chang some and not others if all mankind has sinned?
What is the answer that does not have God acting arbitrarily and without partiality?


This verse clearly teaches that no man can come to Christ unless the Father chooses them to. Other verses say the same thing and yet you deny this.Where did I deny them? I acknowlege that God chooses (elects)
That is the basis on the reason for this whole thread.
Furthermore, you never have answered the main question in all this thread.



Take a look at that pdf book and see for yourself how many scriptures there are that plainly disagree with you. I think it's incredibly sad that you think you save yourself I have never implyed that I save my self.
I acknowlege the God saved me from His wrath by grace becuase I obeyed His command.
The command which implyes the ability to obey.


or become a half savior and the finisher of your faith.Huh?

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 10:51 PM
Furthermore, you never have answered the main question in all this thread.

:rofl: I have answered the original question many times and even daughter answer with the right answer but you won't have none of it since you don't like it.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. John 15:16

You did not choose Christ, You did not come to Christ on your own free will, You are not the finisher of your faith. God chose you not because he foresaw you coming to Christ but because it was well pleasing for him to do so. Take a look at the scriptures I posted that clearly say God elects certain people according to his good pleasure and will.

If you don't like this answer the take it up with God, not me.

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 11:06 PM
I am talking about the human logic that says it's wrong for God to save some and not others.I never implyed that it is wrong for God to save some and not others
However, it is wrong for God to do it arbitrarily and with partiality.



God will do what he pleases not what you think is pleasing.What pleases God to choose some and not other?
Do you think God acts arbitrarily and with partiality?
Do you think that God elects soley on the basis of just because HE wants to and that HE can?


My friend, you are seriously deluded in your thinking and you need to stop with the personal attacks by saying I make God a satanic lier They are not attacks, becaus that is what you are actualy doing.
An attack is uncalled for.
What I am saying is true.
If I was attacking you, it would mean that you are not portraying GOD as a sadistic tyrant.

If you don't see it, you are blinded by you theology/doctrins of men.
You conform Scripture to fit your dreadfull theology, when you should be conforming your theology to the Scrptures.


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 should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6
These verses say it all but you reject them.These are arbitray reasons for election.
They are regected because there is no criteria in them.
Criteria are not arbitrary.

You are basicaly saying that God elects some with out purpose, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".

This is the basis of your answeres.


Why did God choose certain men? "according to the good pleasure of His will" You can deny this if you want but it's plain as day.I don't deny this, but I'm asking for UNarbitrary UNpartial election crieria which you can not provide with in the bounds of your theology.


Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of 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 given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. 2 Timothy 1:8-9

This verse doesn't say man saved themselves but that God saved us and why did he do this? Because it was 'according to His own purpose and grace'. Again, plain as day.Where have I ever claimed that man saves himself.
All you are doing is fighting a strawman. I will provide the matches to set him to flaimes if you want.


Why don't you start looking at the scriptures instead of your mind?Are you implying that our faith is mindless?

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 11:07 PM
:rofl: I have answered the original question many times and even daughter answer with the right answer but you won't have none of it since you don't like it.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. John 15:16

You did not choose Christ, You did not come to Christ on your own free will, You are not the finisher of your faith. God chose you not because he foresaw you coming to Christ but because it was well pleasing for him to do so. Take a look at the scriptures I posted that clearly say God elects certain people according to his good pleasure and will.

If you don't like this answer the take it up with God, not me.
If your only going to give arbitrary reasons that God elects, Pleas stop posting here.

BrckBrln
May 18th 2008, 11:20 PM
If your only going to give arbitrary reasons that God elects, Pleas stop posting here.

:rofl: Wow. Did you actually just quote a scripture I posted and say that it's wrong? You are really unbelievable. You have your mind set on an answer and nothing, not even scripture, can change it.

I will state the Biblical answer on election once again. God elects some to salvation because it is well pleasing for him to do so. It's not because God foresees man coming to Christ on their own, but it's due to God's good will that he elects some and not others. The exact reasoning behind why this is pleasing to God is not something that is revealed to us in the Bible. However, we have no right to question God or what he does and this is exactly what you are doing.

You keep saying God can't do this but you post no scripture and ignore the scripture that says God can and does. Please, read the scriptures, read the book of scriptures I posted.

Diolectic
May 18th 2008, 11:38 PM
:rofl: Wow. Did you actually just quote a scripture I posted and say that it's wrong?where would that be? I most likly said that your interatation is wrong.
Not the Scritpure that was wrong.


You are really unbelievable. You have your mind set on an answer and nothing, not even scripture, can change it.Scripture with the correct interp will be accepted.


I will state the Biblical answer on election once again. God elects some to salvation because it is well pleasing for him to do so.In other words:
electing some and not others, merely because he could or would.
&
To exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".


It's not because God foresees man coming to Christ on their own, but it's due to God's good will that he elects some and not others.There is no other answer which is NOT with partiality and Arbitraryness.
You have failed to give an answere that are not with partiality and Arbitraryness.


The exact reasoning behind why this is pleasing to God is not something that is revealed to us in the Bible.Then how can you say that I am wrong?


However, we have no right to question God or what he does and this is exactly what you are doing.How so?


You keep saying God can't do this but you post no scripture and ignore the scripture that says God can and does.To do anything arbitrarily is a breach of justice, God can not be arbitrary. I don't need to give Scripture because it is evident to any who knows Scripture.

God can't do injustice. That does not need to give Scripture because it is evident to any who knows Scripture.

God can't act with with partiality. That does not need to give Scripture because it is evident to any who knows Scripture.


Please, read the scriptures, read the book of scriptures I posted.Which others have I missed?

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 12:06 AM
where would that be? I most likly said that your interatation is wrong.
Not the Scritpure that was wrong.

You quoted this and said it was basically wrong.

"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 should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6
These verses say it all but you reject them."

I gave no interpretation but it's clear from the scripture that God elects people 'according to the good pleasure of His will'.

If you find this so hard to believe then that's too bad. You keep saying that God cannot elect people according to His good pleasure and will but the scriptures say otherwise. I have answered the original question many many times with many scriptures to support it but you just refuse to believe it since it's not pleasing to you.

So I'm not going to keep repeating myself and reposting scriptures just so you can reject them. You have a lot of scripture ponder over and I will leave you to it.

Diolectic
May 19th 2008, 12:46 AM
Criteria = a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
any established law, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.


You quoted this and said it was basically wrong.

&quot;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 should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6
These verses say it all but you reject them.&quot;

I gave no interpretation but it's clear from the scripture that God elects people 'according to the good pleasure of His will'.

If you find this so hard to believe then that's too bad. You keep saying that God cannot elect people according to His good pleasure and will but the scriptures say otherwise.I didn't say that this is wrong. I did not say that God can not elect people according to His good pleasure.
All I'm saying is that is not criteria.

That is an arbitrary reason that God elects.
Why can't you see it.
Do you know what criteria is?
Apparently you don't since you have not given any.
all you give are arbitrary reasons with partiality.


I have answered the original question many many times with many scriptures to support it but you just refuse to believe it since it's not pleasing to you.They are not answers, because they only arbitrary reasons with out criteira.
Where have you gave any a standard of judgment for wich God elects?
God's own will
or
For His good plesure
or
according to His own purpose and grace
or
that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain
These are not standards of judgment.

This tells us nothing why HE does not elect eather.


So I'm not going to keep repeating myself and reposting scriptures just so you can reject them.Good, then give the standard of judgment, rule, principle for evaluating or testing those which God elects or does not elect.


You have a lot of scripture ponder over and I will leave you to it.If you would tell me how those Scriptures that you preseanted are standards of judgment or criticism which God uses to elect or not to elect?
How are they rules or principles for evaluating or testing something those which HE elect or does not elect?

How are those Scriptures are established law, rule, principles or facts that God uses to choose which He wil save or condemn?

watchinginawe
May 19th 2008, 01:18 AM
Yeah cause us Calvinists don't believe man is responsible for anything. :rolleyes:

That is interesting. Maybe it would help to know what exactly the Calvinist believes man is responsible for.

What is man responsible for, if anything?I'll expand this a bit to get the ball rolling. I am hoping for you (BrckBrin) or other Calvinists to help us "of the other persuasion" :) to understand just what man is responsible for. I may have read the above quote incorrectly, but it seemed that you were suggesting that Calvinists do belive that man is responisble for some things and maybe understanding where that dividing line is may help some to understand Calvinism.

Recently in the thread, you made these statements:
If you still want to believe that we can somehow conjure up our own faith and come to Christ on our own 'free will' then go ahead but it's not the Biblical teaching. We are spiritually dead and a dead person can't come back to life unless God says so.
...
Huh? I am not saying that these people aren't saved, or of the elect. I am saying they are misinformed on the way God saves people and how they got saved.:dunno: So we see above that you claim that man can can decide to "believe" whatever he wants. Indeed, you go on to say that they can still be saved I suppose because salvation requires no cooperation from man but they can be "misinformed" on how they became saved. :hmm: One would have to summarize this to mean that man is responsible for the doctrine they hold of salvation, but not that it has anything to do with salvation itself.

Continuing...
But why are you persuaded and other are not? What makes you so special? Why can you believe but others won't? These are the questions that Spurgeon struggled over and that eventually led him to see the truth behind his salvation. It's all God. God is the one that persuaded him, God is the one that gave him the gift of salvation. Salvation is from the lord, not man like you believe it is.I have these same questions regarding doctrine everytime I ponder this theology (Calvinism). It seems you are asking others to "change" their beliefs since they are responsible for them and that they are "in error". Now, I just have to ask. Why are you persuaded and we others are not? What makes you so special? :dunno:

Now there are some Calvinists who have no problem at going on to state that even doctrine comes from God and can be the distinguishing element of the elect. Not that I agree with Calvinism, but that seems a natural extension of the doctrine to me. Or else they would have to take credit, and thus boast, of how it is they came to the "truth" of the doctrine while others do not.

Does that make any sense to you? Do you see where I am coming from on this? I have more, but I don't want to make this so long that it can't be read.

God Bless!

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 01:41 AM
I'll expand this a bit to get the ball rolling. I am hoping for you (BrckBrin) or other Calvinists to help us "of the other persuasion" :) to understand just what man is responsible for. I may have read the above quote incorrectly, but it seemed that you were suggesting that Calvinists do belive that man is responisble for some things and maybe understanding where that dividing line is may help some to understand Calvinism.

Recently in the thread, you made these statements::dunno: So we see above that you claim that man can can decide to "believe" whatever he wants. Indeed, you go on to say that they can still be saved I suppose because salvation requires no cooperation from man but they can be "misinformed" on how they became saved. :hmm: One would have to summarize this to mean that man is responsible for the doctrine they hold of salvation, but not that it has anything to do with salvation itself.

Continuing...I have these same questions regarding doctrine everytime I ponder this theology (Calvinism). It seems you are asking others to "change" their beliefs since they are responsible for them and that they are "in error". Now, I just have to ask. Why are you persuaded and we others are not? What makes you so special? :dunno:

Now there are some Calvinists who have no problem at going on to state that even doctrine comes from God and can be the distinguishing element of the elect. Not that I agree with Calvinism, but that seems a natural extension of the doctrine to me. Or else they would have to take credit, and thus boast, of how it is they came to the "truth" of the doctrine while others do not.

Does that make any sense to you? Do you see where I am coming from on this? I have more, but I don't want to make this so long that it can't be read.

God Bless!

I believe God is fully sovereign and man is fully responsible. The relationship these two have together is complex and not easy to understand and isn't within the scope of this thread.

And concerning the criteria of God electing people. Diolectic, show me in the Bible where it says man has to meet God's criteria for God to elect them. Where in scripture does it say, in one passage preferably, that man must come to Christ on their own and only then can God 'elect' them.

watchinginawe
May 19th 2008, 02:24 AM
I believe God is fully sovereign and man is fully responsible. The relationship these two have together is complex and not easy to understand and isn't within the scope of this thread. Is there anyone posting in this thread that doesn't believe the above?

Maybe we will find occasion to discuss it further in the future.

God Bless!

9Marksfan
May 19th 2008, 09:33 AM
Just to answer the original question... it's just dawned on me that it's very easy.

If God does elect people, and choose who He will save, the criteria is this...

God does what He does, because He is God, and He has the right to do whatsoever He wants to.

That is about as perfect an answer as could be given, daughter! It reminds me of this verse:-

"..being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will" Eph 1:11b NKJV

As British Bible teacher David Pawson once said of this verse "When God wants to do something, He consults Himself - and no one else".

9Marksfan
May 19th 2008, 09:34 AM
Round and round and round she goes, where she stops? Nobody knows...

Abra, abra, cadabra! ;)

daughter
May 19th 2008, 09:49 AM
Thank you for that verse Mark.

9Marksfan
May 19th 2008, 09:53 AM
Thank you for that verse Mark.

No problem - but it's Nigel, not Mark - my Forum name comes from this website:-

www.9marks.org (http://www.9marks.org)

daughter
May 19th 2008, 10:06 AM
ARGH! I should have remembered that... thank you Nigel!

9Marksfan
May 19th 2008, 10:45 AM
Criteria = a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.
any established law, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.

I didn't say that this is wrong. I did not say that God can not elect people according to His good pleasure.
All I'm saying is that is not criteria.

That is an arbitrary reason that God elects.

But if God were whimsical or capricious in His choice, I could see your argument - but look at Eph 1:4-5 in a number of transaltions (remember there was no punctutation in the original Greek):-

For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to His pleasure and will. Eph 1:4-5 NIV

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. Eph 1:4-5 NASB

Even as 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 as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will. Eph 1:4-5 ESV

According as He did choose us in Him before the foundation of the world for our being holy and unblemished before Him in love having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will. Eph 1:4-5 YLT

So God's choice is neither arbitrary nor partial - because it is rooted in love.


Where have you gave any a standard of judgment for wich God elects?
God's own will
or
For His good plesure
or
according to His own purpose and grace
or
that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain
These are not standards of judgment.

But you seem to misunderstand grace and mercy completely - if God were to make His decision on the fate of man according to the criteria of judgement, then NONE would be saved! For we are ALL guilty of FAR MORE than we realise (including our pride and shaking our fist at God in His sovereignty) - that is why His grace is INDEED TRULY AMAZING, for NO ONE should receive it!


This tells us nothing why HE does not elect eather.

Because no one deserves to be elected. So God is in no way obligated to elect anyone.


Good, then give the standard of judgment, rule, principle for evaluating or testing those which God elects or does not elect.

If it were anything that we were or had done, then that WOULD be partiality - and not salvation by grace, because it would be based on our response.


If you would tell me how those Scriptures that you preseanted are standards of judgment or criticism which God uses to elect or not to elect?
How are they rules or principles for evaluating or testing something those which HE elect or does not elect?

How are those Scriptures are established law, rule, principles or facts that God uses to choose which He wil save or condemn?

There's a Scripture that comes to mind that (as far as I can see) no one has used yet which is very apposite:-

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways", says the LORD, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts". Is 55:8-9 NKJV

It's not that God's logic doesn't make sense - it's that it is HIGHER than human logic, without being contrary to it - God chooses on the basis of His love, purpose and grace. Yet man is responsible for His sin and His rejection of God. Both are true, yet in our finite minds we cannot understand how they work together and cannot reconcile them.

Tell me - was it an arbitrary decision of God to condemn all mankind when Adam fell, so that the curse results in all being born with original sin? Or don't you believe that?

9Marksfan
May 19th 2008, 12:49 PM
ARGH! I should have remembered that... thank you Nigel!

No worries, Mary! :)

ARCHER42
May 19th 2008, 02:41 PM
Because no one deserves to be elected. So God is in no way obligated to elect anyone.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this statement...

None of us 'deserve' to have Eternal Life... Eternal life is 'freely given' because of His Grace.. His Goodness.. His Mercy. Before the foundation of the world God chose His vessels of Mercy. The Scripture declares it. Those He chose.. did they deserve to be chosen? no but He did it anyways. What were the critieria for this 'election' or 'being chosen'? His Goodness and His Mercy...... If your looking for 'criteria' there they are.. If it wasnt for His Mercy and His Goodness then none of us would ever make it. This planet as we know it wouldnt even make it.

God is Sovereign.. He does what He does and He'll see His plan thru to perfection. His plan was implemented 'before' the Foundation of the World.
Most importantly was the 'plan of Redemption'.. God coming to this earth and putting on flesh in the Person of Jesus the Christ. He was crucified before the Foundation of the World. That's God's Mercy and His Goodness. Jesus stated that 'many' will be called... but FEW will be CHOSEN.

You can't force God's Hand... you can't force salvation on anybody. It's God who draws that person in to Him and He saves them. He starts it and He finishes it. He is the author and finisher of those 'vessels' faith. To try to put God in a box or some forumula according to some 'criteria' based on mans interpretation or logic is really useless..... He 'chose' His vessels based on His Mercy and His Goodness.

Grace is a 'gift'.. its freely given.. We don't deserve it.. we cant earn it.. we cant buy it.... Its unmerited favor.. We dont deserve it but He gives it to us anyways.why? Because He alone is God and we're not!

This will be my last post on this thread... If you do post and make remarks please dont refer to me as 'calvanistic'... Calvin was a mortal man and he certainly wasn't crucified for me... Jesus the Christ was.. He is God in the flesh.

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 03:00 PM
:rofl: I have answered the original question many times and even daughter answer with the right answer but you won't have none of it since you don't like it.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. John 15:16

You did not choose Christ, You did not come to Christ on your own free will, You are not the finisher of your faith. God chose you not because he foresaw you coming to Christ but because it was well pleasing for him to do so. Take a look at the scriptures I posted that clearly say God elects certain people according to his good pleasure and will.

If you don't like this answer the take it up with God, not me.

Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.

Jas 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Jas 4:8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.



it seems to me like there is a choice that man has to make of his own free will to follow God... God is sovereign, but he is so sovereign that he allows man to have free will and if he were less than sovereign he would be afraid to do so...

If I have no free will then why do I sin?
If I have no free will then why do I sin after I am supposedly chosen?

The main issue of free will is sin... If God hates it so much then why does he make a man do it, especially his own elect. If I am chosen why doesn't God just do what he sovereignly desires and make me mature and perfect as the father in heaven is perfect (Matt 5:48). Why am I struggling to love my brother which is the will of God if I have no free will of my own? Why does the Bible encourage me to press on to holiness if I have no free will of myself?

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 03:05 PM
If I have no free will then why do I sin?
If I have no free will then why do I sin after I am supposedly chosen?

The only free will we have is slanted in one direction. Toward sin.

John146
May 19th 2008, 03:15 PM
???

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

I agree that God desires all men to be saved but that doesn't mean that all will be saved.

And why won't all be saved? Because that's God's will? No. We've already established that you agree that it's God's will for all to be saved. So, what makes someone not saved? The Bible clearly explains what makes a person unsaved repeatedly! What makes someone not saved is their resistance of the Spirit (Acts 7:51) and their choosing their own ways rather than God's ways (Isaiah 66:1-4) and refusal to repent and believe the truth of the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 2:10).



I just did.

Here is a quote from Spurgeon.

It would also be unnecessary to repeat the whole of the 9th chapter of Romans. As long as that remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism. So long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures. C.H. Spurgeon

Romans 9 has to do with God doing as He pleases, such as He did with Pharaoh in order that His "name might be declared throughout all the earth.". This doesn't mean that Pharaoh was damned to hell from birth with no chance to be saved. Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God ever made an example out of him and used Him for His purposes. God also chose to make Gentile believers His people just like the Israelite believers were. Some Israelites couldn't understand how God could see Gentiles the same as He saw them, but who were they to question God about that? Again, that chapter has nothing to do with God predetermining, using no discernible criteria, who would be saved and who would be lost.

The criteria for salvation are laid out plainly for us throughout scripture. People must humble themselves and repent of their sins. One must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. One must believe that He died and rose again on the third day. God doesn't do those things for anyone. He's not interested in being a puppet master or robot programmer.

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 03:23 PM
God doesn't do those things for anyone.

I guess you don't agree with the writer of Hebrews then.

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2

If we all could come to Christ on our own free will then this verse wouldn't say what it does.

Brother Mark
May 19th 2008, 03:24 PM
I guess you don't agree with the writer of Hebrews then.

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2

If we all could come to Christ on our own free will then this verse wouldn't say what it does.

God always starts and finishes the faith. It is from Him, through Him, unto Him. He calls, we respond and accept through his enabling. One does not disqualify the other.

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 03:26 PM
The only free will we have is slanted in one direction. Toward sin.

then that means I have free will? If I have free will to sin, then I have free will to choose God then don't I?

Brother Mark
May 19th 2008, 03:27 PM
then that means I have free will? If I have free will to sin, then I have free will to choose God then don't I?

Faith comes by _____.... How does faith come?

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 03:32 PM
then that means I have free will? If I have free will to sin, then I have free will to choose God then don't I?

No, and that's the point. As I said, our free will is slanted toward sin and because of this nobody can come to Christ on their own free will.

There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. Romans 3:10

Do you disagree with this verse?

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 03:34 PM
Faith comes by _____.... How does faith come?

Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

does God's sovereignty mean he's a control freak?...

what is the definition of Sovereign? because I don't think we define God's sovereignty correctly...

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 03:38 PM
what is the definition of Sovereign? because I don't think we define God's sovereignty correctly...

I would say this is a good description of God's sovereignty.

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. Psalms 115:3

Brother Mark
May 19th 2008, 03:39 PM
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

does God's sovereignty mean he's a control freak?...

what is the definition of Sovereign? because I don't think we define God's sovereignty correctly...

So unless God speaks, one cannot have faith. The Pharisees read scriptures and memorized them, but they had no faith. Faith starts with God speaking to someone.

However, look at Romans 1.

Rom 1:19-21
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
NASB

He has spoken to every man, even the man in Romans 1 who ultimately rejects him. This man had faith, but did not trust God. He actually denied that which God made evident to him.

But the point is, that no one can freely come to God without direct intervention from God himself. Sadly, some reject that intervention.

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 03:45 PM
I would say this is a good description of God's sovereignty.

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. Psalms 115:3

and he delights in mercy.... Micah 7:18

does he arbitrarily do something that he says he loves to do? Where is the love in that? You are making God like someone who hates people and begrudgingly gives mercy... The Bible does not say that at all...

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 03:46 PM
If I have no free will... then why are we having this argument?

John146
May 19th 2008, 03:51 PM
But why are you persuaded and other are not? What makes you so special? Why can you believe but others won't?

Because people are given choices. Some choose to humble themselves and repent and believe and some don't. This is the choice that everyone must make. It has nothing to do with one being given a special ability to make the right choice and another doesn't. If you think that people can't make moral choices without God making them for us, then explain the following passages to me:

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:15

2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. - Isaiah 66:2-4

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. - Acts 7:51

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. - 2 Thess 2:10

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. - Matt 13:15

They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. - Jonah 2:8

8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. - Jonah 3:8-10




These are the questions that Spurgeon struggled over and that eventually led him to see the truth behind his salvation. It's all God. God is the one that persuaded him, God is the one that gave him the gift of salvation. Salvation is from the lord, not man like you believe it is. No one here believes that salvation is not from the Lord. But part of receiving salvation is willfully obeying the requirements that God has given mankind to repent and believe in the gospel of His Son.

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 03:52 PM
If I have no free will... then why are we having this argument?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying we don't have free choices that we make, I am saying that we can't use this free will to come to Christ on our own because this will is a slave to sin. Allow me to quote Spurgeon one more time.

"God never treats man as though he were a brute; He does not drag him with cart ropes; He treats men as men; and when He binds them with cords, they are the cords of love and the bands of a man. I may exercise power over another’s will, and yet that other man’s will may be perfectly free; because the constraint is exercised in a manner accordant with the laws of the human mind. If I show a man that a certain line of action is much for his advantage, he feels bound to follow it, but he is perfectly free in so doing. If man’s will were subdued or chained by some physical process, if man’s heart should, for instance, be taken from him and be turned round by a manual operation, that would be altogether inconsistent with human freedom, or indeed with human nature; and yet I think some few people imagine that we mean this when we talk of constraining influence and Divine grace. We mean nothing of the kind; we mean that Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of His Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas it was once rebellious it becomes obedient; whereas it stood stoutly against the Most High, it throws down the weapons of its rebellion and cries, ‘I yield! I yield! subdued by sovereign love, and by the enlightenment which Thou hast bestowed upon me, I yield myself to Thy will’" C.H. Spurgeon

John146
May 19th 2008, 03:55 PM
and he delights in mercy.... Micah 7:18

does he arbitrarily do something that he says he loves to do? Where is the love in that? You are making God like someone who hates people and begrudgingly gives mercy... The Bible does not say that at all...

Also, God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). But according to Calvinism, the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire according to God's good pleasure because that is His will for them.

Scubadude
May 19th 2008, 03:55 PM
I would say this is a good description of God's sovereignty.

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. Psalms 115:3

I just have to ask. Why does every board I've been to lately end up being dominated by Calvinists and a conversation about free will and the literal translation of scripture? It's as if no one can have a conversation unless they can bring the subject back to predestination and election. I find it very frustrating, and unnecessary.

There is no end to the wrangling of words and linguistic babble. The argument is very seductive, isn't it?

watchinginawe
May 19th 2008, 04:00 PM
I guess you don't agree with the writer of Hebrews then.

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2

If we all could come to Christ on our own free will then this verse wouldn't say what it does.Huh? If one doesn't believe it your way then they don't agree with the writer of Hebrews? Let us see the verse in context...

Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

We see the author of Hebrews asking us to do a few things here. Also, the other half of verse 2 describes what Jesus finished. We place our faith in that, the finished work of Jesus Christ. Not some future action, and not some action of our own, but that of Jesus Christ which is finished. We should look to Jesus to accomplish those things in verse 1.

In the same chapter we have this: Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Now I suppose that from your viewpoint this is just one of those admonishments that really isn't possible anyway. God can't be refused, right? God can't be refused not, or accepted, right? :dunno:Is there nothing to see to, nothing to heed here?

The whole chapter I agree with, but somehow do not agree with you. That would make the test of agreeing with you not valid for agreeing with the writer of Hebrews. At least from my point of view. ;)

God Bless!

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 04:02 PM
Also, God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). But according to Calvinism, the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire according to God's good pleasure because that is His will for them.

:) I was just about to comment on that verse. Take a look at this verse.

because the LORD desired to kill them. 1 Samuel 2:25

And the greek word translated 'desired' is the same used in Ezekiel 33:11. So it seems we have a contradiction, no? Of course not. This is where the two wills of God come in to play. The Lord doesn't desire the death of anybody just like he does desire for all to be saved, however, God does decree that people will be killed and that not all will be saved.

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 04:04 PM
I just have to ask. Why does every board I've been to lately end up being dominated by Calvinists and a conversation about free will and the literal translation of scripture? It's as if no one can have a conversation unless they can bring the subject back to predestination and election. I find it very frustrating, and unnecessary.

There is no end to the wrangling of words and linguistic babble. The argument is very seductive, isn't it?

:confused I don't think this board is dominated by Calvinists, just the opposite I presume.

John146
May 19th 2008, 04:07 PM
I would say this is a good description of God's sovereignty.

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. Psalms 115:3

Yes, and it pleased Him to make salvation available to all people through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:1-2

Scubadude
May 19th 2008, 04:07 PM
:confused I don't think this board is dominated by Calvinists, just the opposite I presume.


Yep, I thought so.

BrckBrln
May 19th 2008, 04:14 PM
Anyway, I think I am also going to quit this thread. It's gotten way off topic and I, along with a few others, already answered the original question many times with the scriptural support. We debated over it for several pages and then the topic changed to various others. I appreciate the discussion though and all the views shared in it.

John146
May 19th 2008, 04:15 PM
:) I was just about to comment on that verse. Take a look at this verse.

because the LORD desired to kill them. 1 Samuel 2:25

And the greek word translated 'desired' is the same used in Ezekiel 33:11. So it seems we have a contradiction, no? Of course not. This is where the two wills of God come in to play. The Lord doesn't desire the death of anybody just like he does desire for all to be saved, however, God does decree that people will be killed and that not all will be saved.

It's Hebrew, not Greek. ;) Plus, the word can mean different things. It can mean to delight or take pleasure in or it can just mean to desire or want to do something. So, it doesn't mean the same thing in Ezekiel 33:11 as it does in 1 Samuel 2:25. He doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked. That is a fact. But He can desire to kill them. Not because it pleases Him or gives Him any joy, but because He is holy and a holy God punishes evil. Only after much longsuffering and patience with them, though.

John146
May 19th 2008, 04:25 PM
Huh? If one doesn't believe it your way then they don't agree with the writer of Hebrews? Let us see the verse in context...

Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

We see the author of Hebrews asking us to do a few things here. Also, the other half of verse 2 describes what Jesus finished. We place our faith in that, the finished work of Jesus Christ. Not some future action, and not some action of our own, but that of Jesus Christ which is finished. We should look to Jesus to accomplish those things in verse 1.

In the same chapter we have this: Hebrews 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Now I suppose that from your viewpoint this is just one of those admonishments that really isn't possible anyway. God can't be refused, right? God can't be refused not, or accepted, right? :dunno:Is there nothing to see to, nothing to heed here?

The whole chapter I agree with, but somehow do not agree with you. That would make the test of agreeing with you not valid for agreeing with the writer of Hebrews. At least from my point of view. ;)

God Bless!

Agree. Good job of illustrating why context is important.

Son_kissed
May 19th 2008, 06:13 PM
Ezra 7:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=15&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

God's chosen, of their own free will, could go to Jerusalem or not.

Just something else to consider...

Diolectic
May 19th 2008, 06:46 PM
Anyway, I think I am also going to quit this thread. It's gotten way off topic and I, along with a few others, already answered the original question many times with the scriptural support. We debated over it for several pages and then the topic changed to various others. I appreciate the discussion though and all the views shared in it.No, you didn't.

You gave arbutrary answers with partialty.
All calvinist answers are basicaly this:
God elects some with out basis of judgment, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".

He chose us in Him according to the good pleasure of His will.
OR
according to His own purpose and grace
OR
that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain

These are allarbutrary, uncontrolled or unrestricted by law.

God does all things according to set standards, rules on which HE makes a judgment or a decision.
God always moves according to rules or principles for evaluating every thing HE does.

There is no Calvinist that that can answer the question correctly and keep with-in their theology.

Diolectic
May 19th 2008, 07:07 PM
I guess you don't agree with the writer of Hebrews then.

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. Hebrews 12:2

If we all could come to Christ on our own free will then this verse wouldn't say what it does.You do not know what it says.

The best way of understanding what That verse means is this:
Hebrews 12:2 Looking to the Prince who leads us in our walk to completion and who is the very One who will complete our salvation by the glorification of our bodies. who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Author - a chief leader
Finisher - one who completes a task
faith - Belief, Loyalty, Fidelity...ect...

What was to be lead?
We were lead in our walk of faith

What was completed, or to be completed?
Our salvation is not complete yet, therefore it is to be completed by the glorification of our bodies.
Rom 8:23b ...waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body.

What is "our faith" which is authorised and finished?
It is not be our personal belief in Christ only, but all that ecompasses our walk with HIM frome beginning to end.

Scubadude
May 19th 2008, 07:51 PM
CRITERIA: n. plu. [Gr., to judge]
A means by which individuals are compared and judged.
A standard of judging;; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something, rule, principle or fact, by which facts, propositions and opinions are compared, in order to discover their truth or falsehood, or by which a correct judgment may be formed.


By what CRITERIA does God elect and not elect?

Well, brother, for what this is worth....... I think you've got moxy starting this thread. :yes:

Diolectic
May 19th 2008, 08:36 PM
Well, brother, for what this is worth....... I think you've got moxy starting this thread. :yes:
I hope that is a good thing.
Moxy is not in a dictionary, so I'll take that as a complement.
Thanx

timmyb
May 19th 2008, 09:03 PM
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying we don't have free choices that we make, I am saying that we can't use this free will to come to Christ on our own because this will is a slave to sin. Allow me to quote Spurgeon one more time.

"God never treats man as though he were a brute; He does not drag him with cart ropes; He treats men as men; and when He binds them with cords, they are the cords of love and the bands of a man. I may exercise power over another’s will, and yet that other man’s will may be perfectly free; because the constraint is exercised in a manner accordant with the laws of the human mind. If I show a man that a certain line of action is much for his advantage, he feels bound to follow it, but he is perfectly free in so doing. If man’s will were subdued or chained by some physical process, if man’s heart should, for instance, be taken from him and be turned round by a manual operation, that would be altogether inconsistent with human freedom, or indeed with human nature; and yet I think some few people imagine that we mean this when we talk of constraining influence and Divine grace. We mean nothing of the kind; we mean that Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of His Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas it was once rebellious it becomes obedient; whereas it stood stoutly against the Most High, it throws down the weapons of its rebellion and cries, ‘I yield! I yield! subdued by sovereign love, and by the enlightenment which Thou hast bestowed upon me, I yield myself to Thy will’" C.H. Spurgeon

I could give a rat's butt about what Spurgeon says... I want to know what the Bible says... i find your biblical argument wanting friend

Diolectic
May 19th 2008, 09:34 PM
nd concerning the criteria of God electing people. Diolectic, show me in the Bible where it says man has to meet God's criteria for God to elect them. Where in scripture does it say, in one passage preferably, that man must come to Christ on their own and only then can God 'elect' them.Luk 17:10 So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

What things are commanded us, that we would say, "We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do"

God commands Faith, Repntence,Obediance, & Humility.
This is the criteria that God uses to elect.

The Criteria
Faith:
Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Romans 9:31-32 But Israel, who followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
:32 Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Hebrews 11:6a But without faith it is impossible to please him...
There is many other Scriptures that tell us we nee to have faith as a criteria that God requires to save us.
However, those of you who insist that faith is a gift, you must explain why God would be angry(Hebrews 4:3) at those who do not have faith if all he needs to do is give it to them.

Furthermore, if faith was a gift, this would be the equivalent to that:
"I command that you have faith, however, I will not give it to you.
Just because I will not give faith to you, I will condemn you for not having it."
This is pure injustice, not to mention, rediculous.

Repntence:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ
Now, if repentence is also a gift, it would not be a command.
It would be rediculous to command that which is needed for you to give.
Furthermore, to command and not give that which is commanded is despicable.
It would be the equivalent to this:
"I command that you repent, however, I will not let you.
Just because I will not give you repentence, I will condemn you for not having doing it."
This is pure injustice!

Obediance:

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
The apostleship is in order to produce, or promote obedience to the faith; in other words, to induce them to render that obedience to God.
Therefore, if it wasn't a criteria, it woldn't be needed.

Romans 6:16 Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
This is telling us that all mankind is able to choose whom they are slaves or a servant to.

Romans 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not worked by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
This obedience implies salvation.

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience to the faith:

2 Corinthians 10:5-6 Casting down arguments, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
There is many other Scriptures that tell us we need to obey as one of the criteria that God requires to save us.
There are some that would caim, obedience is a work which is against salvation that would be meritable as works of the law is, if so, then obedience would not be an obligation or preached about.

James 2:21-22 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
:22 See how faith worked with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Humility:

Luke 11:14 For whosoever exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.

Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for everyone that exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted.
The Tax collecter was still not saved since he was asking for mercy, but he was still able to humble himself.

James 4:6,10 But he gives more grace. Therefore he says, God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble.
10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

1Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

BrckBrln
May 20th 2008, 12:27 AM
I could give a rat's butt about what Spurgeon says... I want to know what the Bible says... i find your biblical argument wanting friend

nevermind................

1of7000
May 20th 2008, 06:33 AM
Hi Guys, just stopped by to see how the expired equine flailing was going. carry on.

John146
May 20th 2008, 02:31 PM
The Criteria
Faith:
Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Romans 9:31-32 But Israel, who followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
:32 Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Hebrews 11:6a But without faith it is impossible to please him...
There is many other Scriptures that tell us we nee to have faith as a criteria that God requires to save us.
However, those of you who insist that faith is a gift, you must explain why God would be angry(Hebrews 4:3) at those who do not have faith if all he needs to do is give it to them.

Furthermore, if faith was a gift, this would be the equivalent to that:

"I command that you have faith, however, I will not give it to you.
Just because I will not give faith to you, I will condemn you for not having it."
This is pure injustice, not to mention, rediculous.

Repntence:

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God overlooked; but now commands all men everywhere to repent:

Acts 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ
Now, if repentence is also a gift, it would not be a command.
It would be rediculous to command that which is needed for you to give.
Furthermore, to command and not give that which is commanded is despicable.
It would be the equivalent to this:
"I command that you repent, however, I will not let you.
Just because I will not give you repentence, I will condemn you for not having doing it."
This is pure injustice!
Absolutely right. The argument that God can do as He pleases doesn't work here. We can't ignore that while God can indeed do as He pleases, scripture also teaches that He is fair and just and not a respecter of persons. The scenarios you outlined above would portray God as not being fair and just, which goes against what the Bible teaches about His character.

9Marksfan
May 20th 2008, 02:37 PM
Absolutely right. The argument that God can do as He pleases doesn't work here. We can't ignore that while God can indeed do as He pleases, scripture also teaches that He is fair and just and not a respecter of persons. The scenarios you outlined above would portray God as not being fair and just, which goes against what the Bible teaches about His character.

No - this is a clear example of God's ways being above ours - the old divines used to say "Command what Thou wilt and give what Thou commandest" - God is pleased to do both and we are not permitted to criticise Him for doing so, just because it offends OUR idea of what is fair and just - we only deserve His wrath, so are in no position to question His wisdom......

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 02:44 PM
Absolutely right. The argument that God can do as He pleases doesn't work here. We can't ignore that while God can indeed do as He pleases, scripture also teaches that He is fair and just and not a respecter of persons. The scenarios you outlined above would portray God as not being fair and just, which goes against what the Bible teaches about His character.

He may be just, but he's certainly not fair! Was it fair that Jesus had to suffer for our sins? Was it fair that he did more works in the cities of Israel than he did in Sodom and Gomorrah even though had he done those same works in them they would have repented?

Praise God he is just. But I am just as thankful that he is not fair. For if he was fair, I would be doomed to hell.

Brother Mark
May 20th 2008, 02:45 PM
No - this is a clear example of God's ways being above ours - the old divines used to say "Command what Thou wilt and give what Thou commandest" - God is pleased to do both and we are not permitted to criticise Him for doing so, just because it offends OUR idea of what is fair and just - we only deserve His wrath, so are in no position to question His wisdom......

What pleases God is to save them through faith. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. He has chosen to have mercy on those that believe.

John146
May 20th 2008, 03:55 PM
No - this is a clear example of God's ways being above ours - the old divines used to say "Command what Thou wilt and give what Thou commandest" - God is pleased to do both and we are not permitted to criticise Him for doing so, just because it offends OUR idea of what is fair and just - we only deserve His wrath, so are in no position to question His wisdom......When it comes to salvation, we would have room to criticize because of what scripture says about God wanting all men to be saved, all men to repent, and the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. We are talking about the difference between spending eternity in God's kingdom or in the lake of fire here and not merely the difference between what purpose God has for one person's life compared to another person's.

John146
May 20th 2008, 04:06 PM
He may be just, but he's certainly not fair! Was it fair that Jesus had to suffer for our sins? Was it fair that he did more works in the cities of Israel than he did in Sodom and Gomorrah even though had he done those same works in them they would have repented?

Praise God he is just. But I am just as thankful that he is not fair. For if he was fair, I would be doomed to hell.

Okay, so we have a case of confusion of terms here. Obviously, I was looking at the terms as being synonymous. If the term "fair" means giving everyone what they deserve and just means dealing with people equally without respect of persons according to their beliefs and works, then I agree with you.

watchinginawe
May 20th 2008, 04:31 PM
No - this is a clear example of God's ways being above ours - the old divines used to say "Command what Thou wilt and give what Thou commandest" - God is pleased to do both and we are not permitted to criticise Him for doing so, just because it offends OUR idea of what is fair and just - we only deserve His wrath, so are in no position to question His wisdom......Just wondering, but how is it that we aren't permitted to criticise the doctrine of Calvinism? Assuming for a moment that doing so actually is criticising God about what we think is fair and just, are we not permitted? What exactly is going on in the thread?

Furthermore, if Calvinism be right, there apparently must not be any eternal consequence in salvation by criticizing God in the matter, right? So if God is doing the saving and desires no cooperation from man in the matter, why isn't it wise for man to then select the doctrine that puts God in the best light according to our idea of fair and just? Why would we select a doctrine that offends OUR idea of a just, fair, and wise God if there is no consequence in doctrine?

God Bless!

timmyb
May 20th 2008, 11:07 PM
Just wondering, but how is it that we aren't permitted to criticise the doctrine of Calvinism? Assuming for a moment that doing so actually is criticising God about what we think is fair and just, are we not permitted? What exactly is going on in the thread?

Furthermore, if Calvinism be right, there apparently must not be any eternal consequence in salvation by criticizing God in the matter, right? So if God is doing the saving and desires no cooperation from man in the matter, why isn't it wise for man to then select the doctrine that puts God in the best light according to our idea of fair and just? Why would we select a doctrine that offends OUR idea of a just, fair, and wise God if there is no consequence in doctrine?

God Bless!

there really is not a question with me... Calvinism is wrong... period... Don't get me wrong, this isn't a salvation issue... how you view God is the way you are going to live.... this is very important if you ask me...

BrckBrln
May 20th 2008, 11:10 PM
how you view God is the way you are going to live.... this is very important if you ask me...

Don't you find it odd then that most of the great champions of Christianity have been Calvinists? Of course this doesn't mean it's right but it does mean these people don't view God as a sadist.

9Marksfan
May 20th 2008, 11:26 PM
What pleases God is to save them through faith. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. He has chosen to have mercy on those that believe.

But they believe because He is merciful to them and brings them to that point - not the other way round! :)

9Marksfan
May 20th 2008, 11:27 PM
When it comes to salvation, we would have room to criticize

Criticize God?!?

9Marksfan
May 20th 2008, 11:39 PM
Just wondering, but how is it that we aren't permitted to criticise the doctrine of Calvinism? Assuming for a moment that doing so actually is criticising God about what we think is fair and just, are we not permitted? What exactly is going on in the thread?

I'm not saying that there aren't certain aspects of some forms of Calvinism that can't be criticised, but I'm thinking of God's sovereign purpose in election - Scripture SPECIFICALLY forbids criticising this:-

You will say to me then "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But 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?" Rom 9:19-20 NKJV


Furthermore, if Calvinism be right, there apparently must not be any eternal consequence in salvation by criticizing God in the matter, right?

Wrong - Calvinism is not fatalism or a free ticket to blaspheme God - in fact, it would teach that those who think so WILL experience eternal consequences...


So if God is doing the saving and desires no cooperation from man in the matter, why isn't it wise for man to then select the doctrine that puts God in the best light according to our idea of fair and just?

Why should we do ANYTHING in our doctrine that fits in with what WE think? "Let GOD be true, and every man a liar".


Why would we select a doctrine that offends OUR idea of a just, fair, and wise God if there is no consequence in doctrine?

God Bless!

It's not about making up a doctrine that suits us - it's about accepting what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. I would be the first to accept that I struggle with certain aspects of Reformed doctrine, becasue they offend human pride - but after being a Christian for 26 years by the end of this month and a fully convinced Calvinist for nearly 22 of them, I still think it is the theology that most closely fits Scripture - Arminianism is based on human reasoning and logic and is therefore bound to be contrary to Scripture.

9Marksfan
May 20th 2008, 11:41 PM
there really is not a question with me... Calvinism is wrong... period... Don't get me wrong, this isn't a salvation issue... how you view God is the way you are going to live.... this is very important if you ask me...

If by that you think that Calvinists are antinomina ("do as you please"), then you are very much mistaken - true Calvinists are as much in favour of personal holiness as any Wesleyan Arminian!

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 12:03 AM
But they believe because He is merciful to them and brings them to that point - not the other way round! :)

Calvinist insist on taking the conundrum further than God takes it. He clearly says in Romans 9 he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Then he states he chooses to have mercy on those that come to him by faith. No need to go further than that, but many try to.

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 12:05 AM
If by that you think that Calvinists are antinomina ("do as you please"), then you are very much mistaken - true Calvinists are as much in favour of personal holiness as any Wesleyan Arminian!

I have seen Calvinist here in the states live very holy lives. Yet, I have not seen many that love the lost nor give to the poor, nor live with humility. But perhaps in England, they are better represented. Very little about their walk has ever impressed me when it comes to compassion. However, I did know one man, years ago when I first got saved that walked in great compassion and purity and holiness that was a Calvinist. Would to God that more Christians of all flavors were like him!

9Marksfan
May 21st 2008, 12:16 AM
I have seen Calvinist here in the states live very holy lives. Yet, I have not seen many that love the lost nor give to the poor, nor live with humility.

I cannot understand ANY Calvinist not being humble - the doctrines are the most humbling in the universe.....


But perhaps in England,

AHEM!!!! :eek:


they are better represented. Very little about their walk has ever impressed me when it comes to compassion. However, I did know one man, years ago when I first got saved that walked in great compassion and purity and holiness that was a Calvinist. Would to God that more Christians of all flavors were like him!

There are many others I have met or come across - if you check out John Piper's website, you will find that all the qualities you refer to are abundantly taught and practised by him and his church:-

www.desiringgod.org (http://www.desiringgod.org)

9Marksfan
May 21st 2008, 12:18 AM
Calvinist insist on taking the conundrum further than God takes it. He clearly says in Romans 9 he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Then he states he chooses to have mercy on those that come to him by faith. No need to go further than that, but many try to.

But if you read Rom 9 carefully, you will see that God's sovereign choice is made BEFORE people do any good or evil - so mercy comes FIRST, THEN faith. Repentance and faith are gifts of God, granted as a result of His grace and mercy! :pp

Brother Mark
May 21st 2008, 12:23 AM
But if you read Rom 9 carefully, you will see that God's sovereign choice is made BEFORE people do any good or evil - so mercy comes FIRST, THEN faith. Repentance and faith are gifts of God, granted as a result of His grace and mercy! :pp

And if you read the rest of scripture carefully, you discover his choice had to do with nations, with spirit and flesh. :pp

Faith is not denied to those before they are born.

watchinginawe
May 21st 2008, 03:09 AM
I'm not saying that there aren't certain aspects of some forms of Calvinism that can't be criticised, but I'm thinking of God's sovereign purpose in election - Scripture SPECIFICALLY forbids criticising this:-

You will say to me then "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But 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?" Rom 9:19-20 NKJV

Furthermore, if Calvinism be right, there apparently must not be any eternal consequence in salvation by criticizing God in the matter, right? So if God is doing the saving and desires no cooperation from man in the matter, why isn't it wise for man to then select the doctrine that puts God in the best light according to our idea of fair and just? Wrong - Calvinism is not fatalism or a free ticket to blaspheme God - in fact, it would teach that those who think so WILL experience eternal consequences...I think this thread demonstrates that concerning salvation, Calvinism teaches fatalism. Doctrine matters not. Doctrine comes after salvation, and apparently is something that Calvinists at least in this thread believe is controlled, chosen, and decided upon by man, or in the least in cooperation with God.

Here is a definition of fatalism: a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them

Many Calvinists in my opinion go so far in their definition of sovereignty that they believe ALL EVENTS are predetermined by God. In any event, regarding salvation, Calvinism is 100% a fatalist doctrine.


Why should we do ANYTHING in our doctrine that fits in with what WE think? "Let GOD be true, and every man a liar".You will note I preconditioned my comments with "if Calvinism be right". In my opinion, if Calvinism is right, doctrine just doesn't matter.

Indeed, how is it that the Calvinist can find such freedom within man to declare doctrine? Wouldn't it really be fair to say that Calvinism might imply that I hold and defend the exact doctrine that God permits me?

An example:
It's not about making up a doctrine that suits us - it's about accepting what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. I would be the first to accept that I struggle with certain aspects of Reformed doctrine, becasue they offend human pride - but after being a Christian for 26 years by the end of this month and a fully convinced Calvinist for nearly 22 of them, I still think it is the theology that most closely fits ScriptureWe see above that you believe all that we need to do is "accept" what God has revealed. Where does all the free will regarding the doctrines we hold come from? :dunno: Is doctrine chosen? Accepted? Or by the will of God?

If offensiveness is the standard of truth, then Calvinism as represented in this thread seems to fall short IMO. Calvinism can be way more offensive in insisting that even in doctrine God is sovereign.
- Arminianism is based on human reasoning and logic and is therefore bound to be contrary to Scripture.That is getting close to what I am talking about. Maybe you are just a few more years from full offensive truth. ;) Maybe Arminians are simply reprobate ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Perhaps Arminians have been sent a strong delusion by God to believe a lie. Perhaps you didn't accept your doctrine but God Himself is sovereign in giving the elect the true doctrine of Calvinism. :rolleyes: See? Isn't that more offensive? Isn't it prideful for man to think that they might "accept, change, come to" or otherwise determine their doctrine regarding salvation? What good thing is in you that is not present in me? Must the above therefore be closer to truth?

Now I offer that in analytical form only. I am not trying to put words in your mouth or beliefs in your doctrine. :) But rest assured, the Christian believes that they base their doctrine on Scripture. So while I believe you are wrong, I believe you come by it honestly.

God Bless!

Diolectic
May 21st 2008, 03:34 AM
I'm not saying that there aren't certain aspects of some forms of Calvinism that can't be criticised, but I'm thinking of God's sovereign purpose in election - Scripture SPECIFICALLY forbids criticising this:-The purpose of election is to bring about a liniage for His SEED, and to and to preserve a reminent.


You will say to me then "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But 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?" Rom 9:19-20 NKJV
Romans 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
:19 You will say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
Pharaoh hardened his own heart first, then after resisting God, God, then hardened his heart in judgment. Now, after God hardens ones heart, "who has resisted his will" then?
1Sam 6:6 Why then do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had worked wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?
Here, this Scripture actually say that Pharaoh hardened his heart and that God didn't.
Why didn't this Scripture say that God did it?


Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
The answer to this is; You made your saelf like this by sinning and God gave you over to your wicked ways out of judgment.



It's not about making up a doctrine that suits us - it's about accepting what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture.It's more of miss interpratation of Scripture.


I would be the first to accept that I struggle with certain aspects of Reformed doctrine, becasue they offend human prideNot your human pride but your God given sence of justice.
Example:
IF repentance is a gift, why God would be angry(Hebrews 4:3) at those who do not repent if all he needs to do is give it to them.

How do you get passed this logical reason of God's condemnation:

GOD - "Since I sent my son to die for you, the only reason that you are condemned is for not repenting.
Therefore, I command that you repent, however, I will not give it to you.
Just because I will not give repentence to you, I will condemn you for not doing it."

The same for IF Faith is a gift too.

I am serious, How do you get passed these?


- but after being a Christian for 26 years by the end of this month and a fully convinced Calvinist for nearly 22 of them, I still think it is the theology that most closely fits ScriptureHave you ever chalenged your self and looked contrary to your theology in prary?



- Arminianism is based on human reasoning and logic and is therefore bound to be contrary to Scripture.That is rediculous.
There is not God's kind of reasoning and logic contrary to Human.

Human reasoning is based upon logic.

Logic: If a+b= c then c= a+b
However, God must abide within the laws of logic, or else HE becomes nonsencical.

Are you saying that God's logic is not of reality?
2+2 can never be 3, or anything else but 4. Anything else would be a lie.
You are putting God in the relm of lies.

Diolectic
May 21st 2008, 03:37 AM
Don't you find it odd then that most of the great champions of Christianity have been Calvinists? Don't you find it odd Calvinism offends alot of Christians enough to make the stumble and think of abandoning their faith?This is because Calvinism portrays god as a devilish tyrant.Furthermore, it turns away the unsaved and keeps them away because a god like that is not any to worship.

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 03:47 AM
Logic: If a+b= c then c= a+b
However, God must abide within the laws of logic, or else HE becomes nonsencical.

Are you saying that God's logic is not of reality?
2+2 can never be 3, or anything else but 4. Anything else would be a lie.
You are putting God in the relm of lies.

There you go putting restraints on God again. Tell me, why does 2 plus 2 equal 4? God made it that way right? Ok, then, do you believe in supernatural miracles like the parting of the Red Sea? Do you believe God can do something outside of the laws of nature He has created? If so, then why can't, if it ever was pleasing to God, change 2 plus 2 to equal 3?

God doesn't have to abide by anything. He does do things that He won't change but to say that God is confined by your human logic, which he created, is completely absurd and is a denial of God's power.

And you asked 9Marksfan if he ever challenged himself and looked at the other views. Well have you? Apparently not even scripture can change your mind since you just have no desire to.

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 03:52 AM
Don't you find it odd Calvinism offends alot of Christians enough to make the stumble and think of abandoning their faith?This is because Calvinism portrays god as a devilish tyrant.Furthermore, it turns away the unsaved and keeps them away because a god like that is not any to worship.

You didn't answer the question.

"A lot" of Christians nowadays don't even believe, or are unaware, of the doctrines of Grace because it isn't well pleasing to the ears of man. Calvinism portrays God as God, not the devil. Arminianism confines God and picks and chooses when He is sovereign over something.

And if the Calvinist God isn't one to be worshiped then how come the most worshipful Christians throughout history have been Calvinists?

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 04:01 AM
And if the Calvinist God isn't one to be worshiped then how come the most worshipful Christians throughout history have been Calvinists?

They weren't Calvinists. It's like saying Augustine was a theistic evolutionist--he wasn't. Even if his beliefs resembled those we now acquaint with theistic evolution (or in your case, Calvinism), it doesn't make him as such.

God can't make two and two equal three, because the numbers 'two' and 'three' are arbitrary definitions. Six and seven can equal ten, I'd only be using different words to describe what we might now call 'five' (and five), or 'six' and 'four', or 'seven' and 'three', or 'nine' and 'one'--it's an arbitrary definition, linguistically your question doesn't make sense. Fundamentally you misunderstand the nature of numbers.

Now let me ask you a question; can God make a married bachelor? If you answer no, how are you not restricting God?

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 04:05 AM
They weren't Calvinists. It's like saying Augustine was a theistic evolutionist--he wasn't. Even if his beliefs resembled those we now acquaint with theistic evolution (or in your case, Calvinism), it doesn't make him as such.

Haven't we been over this? Calvinism is a nickname that isn't restricted to people born after Calvin.


God can't make two and two equal three, because the numbers 'two' and 'three' are arbitrary definitions. Six and seven can equal ten, I'd only be using different words to describe what we might now call 'five' (and five), or 'six' and 'four', or 'seven' and 'three', or 'nine' and 'one'--it's an arbitrary definition, linguistically your question doesn't make sense.

Now let me ask you a question; can God make a married bachelor? If you answer no, how are you not restricting God?

My point in saying what I said was that God isn't confined to human logic. God isn't bound by the laws that He created.

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 04:06 AM
Haven't we been over this? Calvinism is a nickname that isn't restricted to people born after Calvin.

Yes, we have. It'd be better off if you didn't label them Calvinists, because they weren't.



My point in saying what I said was that God isn't confined to human logic. God isn't bound by the laws that He created.

Answer the question; can God create a married bachelor? Human logic would tell us no. But then again human logic tells us two and two can't equal anything but four, and you seem to think God can make two and two equal three. So, can God create a married bachelor? Just be careful not to limit God.

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 04:12 AM
Yes, we have. It'd be better off if you didn't label them Calvinists, because they weren't.

If somebody holds to what Calvinism teaches and were born before Calvin, I will very much call them a Calvinist as it's just a nickname. Don't you get that it's just a nickname?




Answer the question; can God create a married bachelor? Human logic would tell us no. But then again human logic tells us two and two can't equal anything but four, and you seem to think God can make two and two equal three. So, can God create a married bachelor? Just be careful not to limit God.

Who are we to say what God can and cannot do? If God wants a meteorite to fall on your head can He not do it? Isn't your question, and probably my response to 2 plus 2, just like the question of whether God can create a rock so big not even He can lift it? It isn't a valid question to begin with but my point is that God isn't confined to what we as humans think is right.

Miracles are not human logic and yet God can do them.

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 04:17 AM
If somebody holds to what Calvinism teaches and were born before Calvin, I will very much call them a Calvinist as it's just a nickname. Don't you get that it's just a nickname?

No it's not, it's an assertion that every great theologian in history was a Calvinist, so surely Calvinist doctrine must be correct (which is exactly what you've been claiming). Otherwise I'd probably want to start referring to Augustine as an evolutionist, Luther as a Charismatic... These are things that didn't exist then, you can't go back through history and apply them anachronistically.



Who are we to say what God can and cannot do? If God wants a meteorite to fall on your head can He not do it? Isn't your question, and probably my response to 2 plus 2, just like the question of whether God can create a rock so big not even He can lift it? It isn't a valid question to begin with but my point is that God isn't confined to what we as humans think is right.

Miracles are not human logic and yet God can do them.

I remember you saying...

There you go putting restraints on God again. Tell me, why does 2 plus 2 equal 4? God made it that way right? Ok, then, do you believe in supernatural miracles like the parting of the Red Sea? Do you believe God can do something outside of the laws of nature He has created? If so, then why can't, if it ever was pleasing to God, change 2 plus 2 to equal 3?

Now I ask you a similar question and your reply is, 'Who are we to say what God can and cannot do?"? You are, as my gaming friends would say, 'dodging the question'.
I admit that neither of our questions make sense, linguistically (they don't make sense at all...), but hopefully the point has been proven.

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 04:20 AM
No it's not, it's an assertion that every great theologian in history was a Calvinist, so surely Calvinist doctrine must be correct (which is exactly what you've been claiming). Otherwise I'd probably want to start referring to Augustine as an evolutionist, Luther as a Charismatic... These are things that didn't exist then, you can't go back through history and apply them anachronistically.

I'm just not seeing what the big deal is here? But fine, from now on I will call anyone born before Calvin who believed in what Calvinism teaches, a doctrines of grace believer. Is this better? :rolleyes:




I remember you saying...

There you go putting restraints on God again. Tell me, why does 2 plus 2 equal 4? God made it that way right? Ok, then, do you believe in supernatural miracles like the parting of the Red Sea? Do you believe God can do something outside of the laws of nature He has created? If so, then why can't, if it ever was pleasing to God, change 2 plus 2 to equal 3?

Now I ask you a similar question and your reply is, 'Who are we to say what God can and cannot do?"? You are, as my gaming friends would say, 'dodging the question'.

Now I admit that neither of our questions make sense, linguistically (they don't make sense at all...), but hopefully the point has been proven.

None of the questions posed make any sense. That I agree with. I shouldn't have done the analogy but as I said, my point is that God isn't confined to human logic. Do you agree with this?

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 04:23 AM
I'm just not seeing what the big deal is here? But fine, from now on I will call anyone born before Calvin who believed in what Calvinism teaches, a doctrines of grace believer. Is this better? :rolleyes:

Just call them what they were at the time they believed.



None of the questions posed make any sense. That I agree with. I shouldn't have done the analogy but as I said, my point is that God isn't confined to human logic. Do you agree with this?

Absolutely not. I think God is bound by God's logic. We happen to get our logic from God, and so rather than God being bound by man's logic, man is bound by God's logic.

Otherwise we're moving away from YHWH and into Allah... Allah who isn't bound by even rationality.

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 04:28 AM
Just call them what they were at the time they believed.

What was Augustine? Augustinian? And everybody after that before Calvin is an Augustinian but after Calvin they are Calvinists? Even though they all believe in most of the same things? :confused




Absolutely not. I think God is bound by God's logic. We happen to get our logic from God, and so rather than God being bound by man's logic, man is bound by God's logic.

Otherwise we're moving away from YHWH and into Allah... Allah who isn't bound by even rationality.

Doesn't human logic say miracles don't exist? I mean, parting of the Red Sea, just doesn't scream 'logical' to me. What about all the scientists who use their logic, which is according to you God logic, to deny God?

fewarechosen
May 21st 2008, 04:34 AM
then why can't, if it ever was pleasing to God, change 2 plus 2 to equal 3?

2+2 is whatever god wants it to be

do you forgot how many fish christ had yet how many he fed ?

9There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

5+2 = 5000
god does what he wants when he wants to and woe is me if i say he cant

BrckBrln
May 21st 2008, 04:36 AM
then why can't, if it ever was pleasing to God, change 2 plus 2 to equal 3?

2+2 is whatever god wants it to be

do you forgot how many fish christ had yet how many he fed ?

9There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

5+2 = 5000
god does what he wants when he wants too and woe is me if i say he cant

Wow I didn't even think about this. This is exactly my point. Does human logic say that five loaves of bread and two fishes can fed 5000? Of course not.

Athanasius
May 21st 2008, 04:43 AM
What was Augustine? Augustinian? And everybody after that before Calvin is an Augustinian but after Calvin they are Calvinists? Even though they all believe in most of the same things? :confused

Augustine was a theistic evolutionist who believed science should be believed over the Bible (where they conflicted). He was somewhat of a believer in scientism, in lines with Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Stephen J. Gould, etc.

Who knows; maybe they didn't have a label at the time? But that doesn't make Calvinism appropriate. Personally, I'm a Kierkegaardian.



Doesn't human logic say miracles don't exist? I mean, parting of the Red Sea, just doesn't scream 'logical' to me. What about all the scientists who use their logic, which is according to you God logic, to deny God?

No one said logic was logical (or that there was only one 'logic'). Remember, the Greek root of logic is... Logos, word (John 1:1). Human disbelief tells me miracles aren't logical; but logic doesn't tell me miracles aren't logical; logic is neither here nor there and could be used to validate (or invalidate) almost any position one could imagine. Personally I hold to the opinion that miracles don't violate the laws of the universe, only our knowledge of the [known] laws of the universe.


Wow I didn't even think about this. This is exactly my point. Does human logic say that five loaves of bread and two fishes can fed 5000? Of course not.

There's nothing illogical about this miracle.
For some reason you seem to think logic is limited to naturalism...