PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Calvinian Vs Arminianist



Pages : [1] 2 3

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 01:19 PM
Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time :P, so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other? :P

Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Now, I'm not a "one verse charlie" by any means :lol: but this is illustrative of my point.

So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes) :hug:

MidnightsPaleGlow
May 23rd 2008, 01:48 PM
As somebody who adheres more to Arminianism, I believe in Free Will and NOSAS, I share the shared tenet between both systems of Original Sin (we inherit a sin nature from Adam) and Total Depravity (mankind is naked before God, and our sinfulness seperates us from God). Just as Jesus said nobody could come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), I do believe that we are unable to make our own approaches toward God without divine intervention. However, unlike the Calvinists, who believe that that Grace cannot be resisted, I believe it can (which is where the issue of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit comes in). Calvinists believe that Christ died only for a select few, chosen for salvation before they were even born, but in 2 Peter 3:9 we see that God wants NONE to perish, but ALL to come to repentance, if somebody becomes a Christian, regardless of who they are, they're part of the elect, so anybody who heeds the Holy Spirit's calling can become part of the elect, but if they blaspheme him, then they will be forever lost and die in their sins. I reject OSAS on the grounds that a believer can lose his salvation through complete apostasy (not temporary apostasy on the grounds of backsliding, backsliders can be restored to full fellowship).

timmyb
May 23rd 2008, 02:41 PM
I believe that God is so sovereign that he allows man to have free will and has no fear of man's actions. He does not need to control man...

If God were less than sovereign he would be afraid to allow man free will

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 03:38 PM
As somebody who adheres more to Arminianism, I believe in Free Will and NOSAS, I share the shared tenet between both systems of Original Sin (we inherit a sin nature from Adam) and Total Depravity (mankind is naked before God, and our sinfulness seperates us from God). Just as Jesus said nobody could come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44), I do believe that we are unable to make our own approaches toward God without divine intervention. However, unlike the Calvinists, who believe that that Grace cannot be resisted, I believe it can (which is where the issue of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit comes in). Calvinists believe that Christ died only for a select few, chosen for salvation before they were even born, but in 2 Peter 3:9 we see that God wants NONE to perish, but ALL to come to repentance, if somebody becomes a Christian, regardless of who they are, they're part of the elect, so anybody who heeds the Holy Spirit's calling can become part of the elect, but if they blaspheme him, then they will be forever lost and die in their sins. I reject OSAS on the grounds that a believer can lose his salvation through complete apostasy (not temporary apostasy on the grounds of backsliding, backsliders can be restored to full fellowship).

Thanks for your answer! :)

If you would, could you expound a little bit on the part of your quote that I bolded...how they can be compatible?

This is where I seem to have a mental "disconnect" if you will....if we are the "Elect" because we are saved, that is to say that if at the moment of salvation we become the "chosen" of God (and all that goes with it...i.e. given an inheritance, born-again new creations, bought by the Blood of Christ, et.al.)

Then in losing that salvation, would not man's free will in essence override God's sovereign will in keeping His purchase (us)?

Not debating, just trying to see how others reconcile this (to me) incongruity...:)

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 03:41 PM
I believe that God is so sovereign that he allows man to have free will and has no fear of man's actions. He does not need to control man...

If God were less than sovereign he would be afraid to allow man free will

Thanks timmyb :)

Could you expound on that statement a little bit?

What is your opinion on the interrelationship between man's will and God's sovereignty? :)

timmyb
May 23rd 2008, 03:43 PM
as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord... and that just as freely as one chose him they can just as freely walk away from God... Jesus warns that the love of many will grow cold and they will be offended... this will be state of much of the church... How does God choose someone then change his mind?

I find it hard to biblically link God choosing someone and not choosing someone else and say it's for his glory... It doesn't fit with the Bible

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 03:57 PM
as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord... and that just as freely as one chose him they can just as freely walk away from God... Jesus warns that the love of many will grow cold and they will be offended... this will be state of much of the church... How does God choose someone then change his mind?

I find it hard to biblically link God choosing someone and not choosing someone else and say it's for his glory... It doesn't fit with the Bible

Thanks again timmyb :)

I agree fully with the first part of your statement: "God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord..."

In doing so, would you not agree that we then become the elect? That we then become the chosen of God (for that is the basic definition for "elect")?

If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

How do you reconcile these one to the other?

Once again, not trying to debate, just understand the point of view :)

ARCHER42
May 23rd 2008, 04:00 PM
May I ask you.. was John Calvin 'crucified' for you or was J. Arminius 'crucified' for you..

One says.. I follow Calvin. another I follow J. Arminius...


Were you 'baptized' in the name of John Calvin.. or J. Arminius..


Do you follow Calvin or Arminius or do you follow the God of the Bible.. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. One must pose himself this question...

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 04:22 PM
May I ask you.. was John Calvin 'crucified' for you or was J. Arminius 'crucified' for you..

One says.. I follow Calvin. another I follow J. Arminius...


Were you 'baptized' in the name of John Calvin.. or J. Arminius..


Do you follow Calvin or Arminius or do you follow the God of the Bible.. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. One must pose himself this question...

This is part of the reason (though not the whole of it) that I started this thread...

To answer your question: In some things I lean toward the Arminian viewpoint (or explanation), in others the Calvinistic viewpoint (or explanation)....

In ALL things I seek to follow Christ.

Therefore I do not wish to be classified as being fully in either theological "camp"...yet I think that the views and incongruities found in both Calvinism and Arminianism are worthy of discussion; if for no other reason than so many Christians do identify themselves as one or the other. :)

Are we not admonished to "test all things, hold fast what is good"? 1 Thes 5:17 :hug:

ARCHER42
May 23rd 2008, 04:39 PM
I understand where your coming from.. There is nothing wrong in discussing the different views.. the Danger comes in putting all of our faith and trust in these 'views'... or 'interpretations'. Whether it be one or the other.. Letting one view or another 'become your God'..... thats dangerous .. There needs to be balance..... if there is no balance then one spends all his/her time defending a 'view' instead of Defending Truth and the Simplicity of the Gospel.

But then we're in a time when many will say.... even those professing Christ.. 'what is Truth'?....... Narrow is the way that leads to Eternal Life... Broad is the path to destruction.... One needs to keep their Eyes on Jesus the Christ and what He has accomplished for His children.....the rest will come into place.. in its correct time and place.

timmyb
May 23rd 2008, 04:42 PM
Thanks again timmyb :)

I agree fully with the first part of your statement: "God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord..."

In doing so, would you not agree that we then become the elect? That we then become the chosen of God (for that is the basic definition for "elect")?

If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

How do you reconcile these one to the other?

Once again, not trying to debate, just understand the point of view :)

when a believer chooses Christ he becomes predestined for heaven elect according to the foreknowledge of Christ... his foreknowledge doesn't cancel out man's freewill nor does man's free will cancel out his sovereignty... Tozer has the best theology concerning God's sovereignty that I have ever heard

BrckBrln
May 23rd 2008, 04:55 PM
as far as salvation goes.. God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord.

So in theory, nobody could ever have been saved? I mean, if God has already done His part and the rest, the final say in Salvation, is left up to man, then in theory, if all the man decided not to choose Christ, then nobody would have been saved. So Jesus went to the cross knowing that, in theory, it was possible for nobody to come to Him and therefore His dying was in vain?

Calvinism sees the Atonement as a perfect one.

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 04:56 PM
Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time :P, so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

Greetings Mcgyver,

What is R/L?



I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

I define myself as a Christian following the doctrine of the Bible. But, I will admit that I do find Calvinistic doctrine faithful to the Sovereign Grace of God, and I also find Arminian doctrine faithful to the sovereignty of man above God, because it teaches that God cannot fulfill whatever He wills without the aid of fallen man.



Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I realize there are extremes in every camp, however if you spoke of the doctrines of Calvin, as he taught them, you will find John Calvin teaches perseverance of the saints. I stopped using the term OSAS when I realized that it implies there is no responsibility on the part of man. But Scripture surely teaches us that once man has become born again, he will most certainly work out his/her salvation with fear and trembling....why? because it is God working in him to both will and do of His good pleasure. So, just because God is in them, guiding them and teaching them, does this mean there is no responsibility on the part of man? No at all, very clearly it will be manifest through good works that a man has been born again. The fruit of the Spirit will be known.



I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

I don't know what you mean by "ardent Calvinism" but the Bible teaches us that man's will is bound to his/her nature. As long as man remains in unbelief, then in his natural, fallen will he/she cannot come to God for salvation. It is only when the natural man receives a new nature, new will, a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit, giving him/her life, that he/she is able to choose the will of God.



So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other?

Since the Arminian view begins with the wrong foundation, everything that follows has been built upon an erroneous foundation, how then can anything built upon the wrong foundation become sound biblical doctrine? I'm not interested in being right or wrong, I desire biblical truth. Frankly I find Scripture always affirms the sovereignty of God over man, and never affirms that man's will can supercede the will of Almighty God.



Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

Agree.



and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

Man's free will? But didn't you just say that no man can come to the Son unless the Father draw him? If the Father is drawing one to come to the Son, how can this be said is man's free will choice to come?



I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Absolutely agree. So we find God sovereignly drawing, and sovereignly keeping. All of God, none of fallen man's free will.



So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

If Sovereign God does not make man willing by changing his/her natural, fallen will, then no man will come to Him for salvation, and no man can persevere unless the Lord keeps them (Ph 1:6).



Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

You've already shown the problem with this thinking, "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"



And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes) :hug:


If God is not Sovereign in the affairs of fallen man, then heaven will be without any human. Man cannot save themselves, and man cannot keep themselves saved without the intervention of the Lord of all grace and mercy.

Many Blessings,
RW

ARCHER42
May 23rd 2008, 05:03 PM
So in theory, nobody could ever have been saved? I mean, if God has already done His part and the rest, the final say in Salvation, is left up to man, then in theory, if all the man decided not to choose Christ, then nobody would have been saved. So Jesus went to the cross knowing that, in theory, it was possible for nobody to come to Him and therefore His dying was in vain?

Calvinism sees the Atonement as a perfect one.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this statement...

ARCHER42
May 23rd 2008, 05:08 PM
There were 2 thieves crucified with Jesus

The one who believed and was saved ... did he 'will' himself up that Crucifix....... so that he could be saved?

No, by the Foreknowledge of God he was there... This in turn shows the Providence and Soveriegnty of God and that He is able to Save based on What He does and not man's 'willing' themselves to God to be saved...

And what happened to the other theif?

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 05:14 PM
Extremely good posts!!!

Roger...R/L (I probably abbreviated it incorrectly) = Real Life :rofl:
Also...You've made some good points!

To clarify my (personal) stance as I understand it :rolleyes: (most imperfectly btw):


God's desire is that no one perish, but that all come to repentance.
Therefore God draws men to Christ.
Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation.
However, having accepted the Gift of God, God keeps the believer secure in that salvation.

That's the REALLY short version :lol:, and of course I acknowledge that there are problems with that view as well...especially as applies to the omniscience of God....(I'm just thankful that He isn't finished with me yet :P)

timmyb, I may have misinterpreted your post :blush:...Do you then subscribe to conditional or eternal security of the believer? (Just to clarify in my own mind)

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 05:15 PM
PS...this is turning into a GREAT discussion!!! Thanks to all!! :pp

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 05:37 PM
Extremely good posts!!!

Roger...R/L (I probably abbreviated it incorrectly) = Real Life :rofl:
Also...You've made some good points!

To clarify my (personal) stance as I understand it :rolleyes: (most imperfectly btw):


God's desire is that no one perish, but that all come to repentance.
Therefore God draws men to Christ.
Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation.
However, having accepted the Gift of God, God keeps the believer secure in that salvation.
That's the REALLY short version :lol:, and of course I acknowledge that there are problems with that view as well...especially as applies to the omniscience of God....(I'm just thankful that He isn't finished with me yet :P)

timmyb, I may have misinterpreted your post :blush:...Do you then subscribe to conditional or eternal security of the believer? (Just to clarify in my own mind)

Greetings Mcgyver,

Thanks for the explanation of R/L...guess maybe its true what people say when they tell me, "but this is real life!" :hmm:

In an attempt to keep my answers brief, I'm only going to speak to point 3 "Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation." I've emboldened 'offer of salvation' because this is the part I'm commenting on.

Have you ever considered that Scripture does not speak of salvation as an offer? In fact have you considered that salvation is not a gift offered, but a gift given? Can you see the difference? Does it even matter?

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
May 23rd 2008, 06:06 PM
Greetings Mcgyver,

Thanks for the explanation of R/L...guess maybe its true what people say when they tell me, "but this is real life!" :hmm:

In an attempt to keep my answers brief, I'm only going to speak to point 3 "Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation." I've emboldened 'offer of salvation' because this is the part I'm commenting on.

Have you ever considered that Scripture does not speak of salvation as an offer? In fact have you considered that salvation is not a gift offered, but a gift given? Can you see the difference? Does it even matter?

Many Blessings,
RW

but can a gift not also be refused?... you can give me something but I can refuse it... God does not force salvation on us... it's ours to either accept or refuse

I believe that I am secure in my salvation in that God isn't going to just arbitrarily take away my salvation... but if I don't choose his ways his truth and his life there is a different story... If I don't want my salvation I could renounce it... only believers can commit the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit and that's a total and complete apostate position... that's like going past the point of no return

mcgyver
May 23rd 2008, 06:18 PM
In an attempt to keep my answers brief, I'm only going to speak to point 3 "Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation." I've emboldened 'offer of salvation' because this is the part I'm commenting on.

Have you ever considered that Scripture does not speak of salvation as an offer? In fact have you considered that salvation is not a gift offered, but a gift given? Can you see the difference? Does it even matter?

Many Blessings,
RW

I understand, and your points are valid...

I have considered the difference between a "gift offered" and "gift given"...as there are indeed profound theological implications in between the two, as I am sure you're aware.

The reason(s) briefly that I term salvation as a "gift offered" are based on several things:

First is the nature of God (None perish...) which we've already seen.

Next, we have an example in the rich young ruler who asked Christ what he needed to do to be saved. He sought Jesus out, and got an answer...yet he walked away.

But more significantly (I think) are the parables found in Matthew chapters 20 and 22. In each case our Savior starts by saying that "The Kingdom of God is like" and ends with "many are called but few chosen".

The obvious conflict we run into if we hold to the "gift given" (e.g. limited atonement); is that if many are called, why then are not all who are called chosen?

I hope I explained that in a lucid manner :P

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 06:45 PM
but can a gift not also be refused?... you can give me something but I can refuse it... God does not force salvation on us... it's ours to either accept or refuse

Greetings timmyb,

That's true! For instance if someone were to give me money, I could not say that money is really mine unless I accept it...right? But lets look at this gift He gives as the Lord shows us He gives it in Scripture. You see life, whether physical or spiritual is NOT a gift that can be accepted or rejected, and this is why Christ uses the analogy of physical birth to demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit when we are born of the Spirit.

Remember when Christ spoke to Nicodemus? When Jesus told Nicodemus "ye must be born again", Nicodemus was confused, and thought that Christ spoke of entering again into his mother's womb. So Christ told him, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Then Christ says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Clearly Christ is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth. Just as man is not able to accept or reject the gift of physical birth, neither is he able to accept or reject the gift of spiritual re-birth. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Christ tells us that He calls His own by name (Jo 10:3), and they hear His voice and follow Him.

Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

All who hear the voice of the Lord follow Him, and He gives them eternal life. This eternal life is given it is not offered. How are His own able to hear the voice of the Lord?

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
May 23rd 2008, 06:52 PM
Greetings timmyb,

That's true! For instance if someone were to give me money, I could not say that money is really mine unless I accept it...right? But lets look at this gift He gives as the Lord shows us He gives it in Scripture. You see life, whether physical or spiritual is NOT a gift that can be accepted or rejected, and this is why Christ uses the analogy of physical birth to demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit when we are born of the Spirit.

Remember when Christ spoke to Nicodemus? When Jesus told Nicodemus "ye must be born again", Nicodemus was confused, and thought that Christ spoke of entering again into his mother's womb. So Christ told him, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Then Christ says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Clearly Christ is contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth. Just as man is not able to accept or reject the gift of physical birth, neither is he able to accept or reject the gift of spiritual re-birth. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

Christ tells us that He calls His own by name (Jo 10:3), and they hear His voice and follow Him.

Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

All who hear the voice of the Lord follow Him, and He gives them eternal life. This eternal life is given it is not offered. How are His own able to hear the voice of the Lord?

Many Blessings,
RW

but that decision to be born again and to go through that process is a decision I have to make... or else how can God make ME accountable for MY sins at the day of Judgement... If I say yes, then I am saved, and If I refuse a free gift, I am stuck up the creek without a paddle not to mention that I have insulted the giver of the gift... People refuse this gift... every day they refuse it... it's as close as just calling upon his name

John146
May 23rd 2008, 07:00 PM
Greetings Mcgyver,

Thanks for the explanation of R/L...guess maybe its true what people say when they tell me, "but this is real life!" :hmm:

In an attempt to keep my answers brief, I'm only going to speak to point 3 "Man either accepts or rejects the offer of salvation." I've emboldened 'offer of salvation' because this is the part I'm commenting on.

Have you ever considered that Scripture does not speak of salvation as an offer? In fact have you considered that salvation is not a gift offered, but a gift given? Can you see the difference? Does it even matter?

Many Blessings,
RW

In the following verse, Jesus is offering salvation to "him that is athirst" and "whosoever will".

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. - Rev 22:17

Salvation is conditional upon one humbling themselves, repenting of their sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jesus cannot be the propitiation or atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world unless salvation is offered to the whole world.

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

God desires all men to be saved and Christ offered Himself as a ransom for all people.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. - 1 Timothy 2:3-6

It is an offer that can be accepted or rejected, as the following passages show.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36

One must choose whether to believe on the Son or not. God is not going to make someone not believe on the Son so that they will have to spend eternity in the lake of fire. Why would He do such a thing?

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

Notice that the wicked choose their own ways. Likewise, believers choose to not go their own way, but instead choose to acknowledge that they can't save themselves and they give their lives to Christ.

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
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 2:9-10

The Greek word for "deceived" in that verse is "dechomai" (Strong's 1209) and it means to accept or approve something that has been offered. The wicked refuse to accept the gospel and that is the reason they are not saved. But you would try to say the reason they are not saved is because God chose not to give them saving faith. But that is not what scripture teaches.

Redimido
May 23rd 2008, 08:10 PM
In the following verse, Jesus is offering salvation to "him that is athirst" and "whosoever will".

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. - Rev 22:17

Salvation is conditional upon one humbling themselves, repenting of their sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.



agreed.

It is an offer that can be accepted or rejected, as the following passages show.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36...



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

Notice that the wicked choose their own ways. Likewise, believers choose to not go their own way, but instead choose to acknowledge that they can't save themselves and they give their lives to Christ.

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
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 2:9-10

The Greek word for "deceived" in that verse is "dechomai" (Strong's 1209) and it means to accept or approve something that has been offered. The wicked and that is the reason they are not saved. I agree with all of this. the only difference between you (an arminian) and I (a calvinist) is this.

And that is why do some desire to remain in sin willingly rejecting Christ while others humble themselves and come before God in repentance?

calvinists would say it is because of God (regeneration)
Arminians would say...? I don't know i have never get an answer that goes deeper than the question I just ask.







God is not going to make someone not believe on the Son so that they will have to spend eternity in the lake of fire. Why would He do such a thing?...

But you would try to say the reason they are not saved is because God chose not to give them saving faith. But that is not what scripture teaches.No calvinist that I know of believes this. God does not force man to reject Christ. Man doesn't need God help to reject Christ he does a real good job of doing that all by himself

mikebr
May 23rd 2008, 08:55 PM
Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time :P, so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other? :P

Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Now, I'm not a "one verse charlie" by any means :lol: but this is illustrative of my point.

So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes) :hug:



I've asked this question many times like this:
Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't

Yes it seems that both sides are missing something. I'm in limbo concerning the two which means that I too am missing something.

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 08:56 PM
I understand, and your points are valid...

I have considered the difference between a "gift offered" and "gift given"...as there are indeed profound theological implications in between the two, as I am sure you're aware.

The reason(s) briefly that I term salvation as a "gift offered" are based on several things:

First is the nature of God (None perish...) which we've already seen.

Next, we have an example in the rich young ruler who asked Christ what he needed to do to be saved. He sought Jesus out, and got an answer...yet he walked away.

But more significantly (I think) are the parables found in Matthew chapters 20 and 22. In each case our Savior starts by saying that "The Kingdom of God is like" and ends with "many are called but few chosen".

The obvious conflict we run into if we hold to the "gift given" (e.g. limited atonement); is that if many are called, why then are not all who are called chosen?

I hope I explained that in a lucid manner :P

Greetings Mcgyver,

Your explanation was most lucid, very clear, and compels me to examine the parable of the wedding feast of Mt 22.

The first invitation went out to those who were bidden (called) by the servants of the certain king. These servants are the OT prophets God sent to Israel, but they were unwilling to come even though they had received a special invitation.

The second group of servants would have been John the Baptist, Jesus Himself, and His disciples. But they made light of Christ, rejected His gospel, and killed Christ and the ones He sent.

There is a limit to God’s patience. “The king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (AD 69-70).

Now the gospel call is sent unto all the world. No longer is God limiting salvation to the Jew only, now the gospel goes unto people of every nation, tribe, kindred, and tongue. Through the gospel all manner of people are bidden to come, both bad and good.

Mt 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

But the king found one there who did not have on the proper wedding garment. He had not been clothed in the righteousness of Christ. This one came to the wedding through the gospel call that goes unto all people of the world without limitation, or distinction, but not everyone who hears the call of the gospel also hears the voice of the Lord. Everyone hears the outward call through the gospel, but the parables show us that hearing the message does not necessarily mean you will hear His voice and be imputed with the righteousness of Christ unto salvation (have the proper wedding garment). It is only His sheep who hear His voice and follow Him (see my reply to timmyb), therefore it is only His own who believe and are imputed with like precious faith through the righteousness of Christ.

Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Those who have been chosen from the beginning be saved are called by the gospel, hear His voice, and obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, eternal life.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Though the gospel of salvation is efficacious only to those chosen from the beginning to receive eternal life, it is not withheld from any man. If the gospel call were limited to only those who have been chosen for salvation, then we would know who will be saved and who will remain in unbelief. But God tells us that this is not for us to know. So, because no man knows who God has chosen for salvation, the gospel call goes unto all the world, and all who ’hear’ the voice of the Lord are imputed with Christ righteousness and believe (have faith).

Therefore, we can rightly say the gospel call is offered unto all man, but salvation is given to those who believe!

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 09:28 PM
In the following verse, Jesus is offering salvation to "him that is athirst" and "whosoever will".

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. - Rev 22:17

You neglected to embolden "let him that heareth". Why is this important? If one does not first hear His voice, then he will not know that he thirsts, and he will not come and take the water of life freely.



Jesus cannot be the propitiation or atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world unless salvation is offered to the whole world.

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

Are you saying that Christ death on the cross guarantees that every man can be saved? If that is what you are saying, but then not every human is saved, wouldn't that mean that God is dependent upon fallen, sinful man to accomplish His eternal covenant of redemption, established in heaven before the foundation of the world? Are you saying the death of Christ, though it is able to save every human, cannot save unless fallen, sinful man, who cannot choose to be born again, must choose to be born again? Why does 1Jo 4:10 limit propitiation through the Son to those whom God loves?

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation is the means by which the wrath of God is satisfied through the atoning blood of Christ. So whether the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner at the cross, or applied to the sinner when he/she is cast into the lake of fire, the atoning blood of Christ, either way (LOF or CROSS) the wrath of God is satisfied. Because at the Judgment sin will be no more, and the whole world will be filled with His righteousness.

Blessings,
RW

mikebr
May 23rd 2008, 09:34 PM
Though the gospel of salvation is efficacious only to those chosen from the beginning to receive eternal life, it is not withheld from any man.

Lets say that I grow tomatoes. And I have chosen to give my tomatoes to a specific group of people yet I won't withhold my tomatoes from anyone who wants them so that anyone who comes can get my tomatoes. Is this kinda what you are saying?

Redimido
May 23rd 2008, 11:26 PM
Lets say that I grow tomatoes. And I have chosen to give my tomatoes to a specific group of people yet I won't withhold my tomatoes from anyone who wants them so that anyone who comes can get my tomatoes. Is this kinda what you are saying?nope that not it at all

hears how I would put it.

say your hungry and I offered you some food. I told you that you sit at the table and have some stake cooked just the way you like it with mashed potatoes or you could eat a bucket of slop like a pig. those are your only 2 options. you would always chose the stake diner right?

well in the same way when man is freely given the choice to accept or recto Christ man will always going to reject Christ . to a sinner christ is always going to be like that bucket of slop, disgusting and sin like that nice juicy stake. the more they know about god the more they will hate him.


Rom 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (19) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (20) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (24) Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, (25) because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Paul doesn't paint a good picture of us now does he?
so while god offer salvation freely to man no man will ever want to come to him. Anything less than supernaturally changing that heart of stone to a heart of flesh will never persuade man to love God. That is the most humbling truth in scripture that it was not I that chose him but him that chose me

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

hope this helps

RogerW
May 23rd 2008, 11:46 PM
Lets say that I grow tomatoes. And I have chosen to give my tomatoes to a specific group of people yet I won't withhold my tomatoes from anyone who wants them so that anyone who comes can get my tomatoes. Is this kinda what you are saying?

Lets say you grow tomatoes, and you have chosen to give them to specific people. These people are all over the world, and living among people you have not chosen to give your tomatoes. You know who these people are, but neither the people you chose to receive your tomatoes, nor those who have not been chosen have any way of knowing who would receive your tomatoes and who would not. So, you advertise in a language that only those chosen to receive your tomatoes can understand. Now everyone can hear about these tomatoes you have, but since only some can understand what you are saying, they are the only ones who will finally receive your tomatoes. Did those chosen to receive your tomatoes have to do anything to receive the tomatoes? No, all that was necessary is that they were given to understand the language telling them that the tomatoes were for them. Everyone heard the advertisment, but only those given to hear your specific language are able to understand and receive those big, fat, red, juicy tomatoes. :D

Does that analogy help?

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
May 24th 2008, 12:41 AM
Thanks again timmyb :)

I agree fully with the first part of your statement: "God did his part in sending his only begotten son, now it's man's turn... that whosoever believes in him... it's our part to choose him as our king and our savior and Lord..."

In doing so, would you not agree that we then become the elect? That we then become the chosen of God (for that is the basic definition for "elect")?

If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?"

How do you reconcile these one to the other?

Once again, not trying to debate, just understand the point of view :)

i totally missed your question... sorry... here's my answer...

those who believe in predestination link it to the undeniable eternal security of the believer... meaning that a person can lose their salvation... when I say lose... deny is a better word... they would deny their salvation to the point of being apostate... I for one believe in NOSAS because a person can freely choose Christ that means that a person who has chosen Christ can freely deny him... but as far as Calvinism goes, this is where they have very little to show me in the Bible, because most of them would say that those salvations were not genuine, and I find very little biblical backing for their point... basically a person can choose Christ and find that God had not chosen them, or God has chosen them and changed his mind about them... that's about as much sense as I can make of it....

as freely as I chose Christ, I have the same freedom to reject Christ
- A.W. Tozer

Redimido
May 24th 2008, 07:17 PM
basically a person can choose Christ and find that God had not chosen them, or God has chosen them and changed his mind about them... that's about as much sense as I can make of it....


:huh:
I am so confused. is this how you explain apostacy or how you think calvinist view apotacy or ...?:confused

KingFisher
May 29th 2008, 06:15 PM
Good Morning all!

First, this is not a "drive by" post...but R/L is intruding (gasp) on my internet time :P, so I'll post as much as the Lord allows...

I've got a question that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

Seems that the vast majority of Christians either define themselves as Calvinistic or Arminian in their views...

Outside of the issue of tongues, the Eternal/Conditional security of the believer seems to be the second largest issue causing division within the body of Christ.

If one is a "Calvinist" then OSAS is the order of the day...If one is "Arminian" then NOSAS is "king".

I have a real problem with both extremes: Ardent Calvinism denies the free-will of man, but yet ardent Arminianism denies the sovereignty of God IMO.

So then, my question is this: Is it not possible that both men were in some points correct, and in other points incorrect? I mean here we have two theologians who are trying to plumb the infinite mind of God with our limited human understanding....so why is it that we seem to want to line up on one side or the other? :P

Now let me throw out a passage that (to me) seems to both confirm and deny at the same time both Calvinism and Arminianism:

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,(God's sovereignty seen here. We know that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him: John 6:44)

and the one who comes to Me (Man's free will seen here in the choice given to "come to" i.e. "receive" Christ-- John 1:11-13)

I will by no means cast out.(God's sovereignty seen in securing the one who comes...cross reference with John 6:44)

Now, I'm not a "one verse charlie" by any means :lol: but this is illustrative of my point.

So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end).

Does man's will trump God's sovereignty...(i.e. the ability for a "True" "born-again" believer to apostate).

And why do you feel that way?

Please keep this nice (as we see where it goes) :hug:


Hi mcgyver,

I found this quote awhile back and would like to share...

Charles Spurgeon (a believer in the TULIP to some extent) had this
to say:

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that
few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but
they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgement. Two truths
cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then I find taught in one place
that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place
that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly
that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.
These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any
human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are
so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never
discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet
somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth
spring" (C.H. Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 4 (1858), p. 337).

KingFisher

timmyb
May 29th 2008, 08:21 PM
:huh:
I am so confused. is this how you explain apostacy or how you think calvinist view apotacy or ...?:confused

i don't think Calvinists believe in apostasy... that's the one hole in their theology.. the great falling away... I have never heard a calvinist biblically and within their theology explain the great apostasy at the end of the age

9Marksfan
May 29th 2008, 09:21 PM
i don't think Calvinists believe in apostasy... that's the one hole in their theology.. the great falling away... I have never heard a calvinist biblically and within their theology explain the great apostasy at the end of the age

Well I believe in apostasy (if that's not an oxymoron!) - I'm surprised you haven't found any other Calvinists that believe it. The thing is, it's entirely possible to be orthodox in your belief and considered Christian by all around you - for years - and even to fool yourself - and yet never be regenerate and, once persecution comes, you fall away - irrevocably. I don't see how that conflicts wiuth Reformed doctrine at all.

timmyb
May 30th 2008, 03:07 PM
Well I believe in apostasy (if that's not an oxymoron!) - I'm surprised you haven't found any other Calvinists that believe it. The thing is, it's entirely possible to be orthodox in your belief and considered Christian by all around you - for years - and even to fool yourself - and yet never be regenerate and, once persecution comes, you fall away - irrevocably. I don't see how that conflicts wiuth Reformed doctrine at all.

but the Bible says that many believers who were once born again will fall away at the end of the age... that's going to be situation in the church. I've heard it said that they were never really saved to begin with, but i disagree... according to the Bible, one has to call upon the name of Jesus and endure to the end to be saved... many of them will call upon the name of Jesus, but they will not endure to the end... was it God's will that they not endure?

9Marksfan
May 30th 2008, 10:02 PM
but the Bible says that many believers who were once born again will fall away at the end of the age... that's going to be situation in the church.

Chapter and verse, please that they were ALL born again.


I've heard it said that they were never really saved to begin with, but i disagree... according to the Bible, one has to call upon the name of Jesus and endure to the end to be saved...

So are you saying that NO ONE is saved until they finish their life? That no Christian can say "God has saved me"?


many of them will call upon the name of Jesus, but they will not endure to the end... was it God's will that they not endure?

He has His purposes through those who will fall away - they will fulfil His threats that, if we run after idols, we will be cut off - without remedy.

SweetSomber
May 31st 2008, 05:47 AM
"So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end)."

In God's sovereignty, man's free will does not threaten His reign, He allows free, uncaused, will to all men. Yet, if a person truly is promised eternal life and salvation from his sin nature, God fulfills those promises and does not hand us over to that which He promised us delivery from: our old sinful, unfaithful nature. I am not a calvinist, but I am not arminist either. I do not believe that a born again christian can lose their salvation, I believe that the Bible makes that quite clear many times, but I also believe that everyone could be saved, and that God's grace is not irresistable. Many refuse God's help, and others respond to his help and repent. I believe that both positions have part of the truth, but the truth found in God's word supports neither extreme.

"I've asked this question many times like this:
Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't"

The way I see it, God can save (and keep) people, wants to, but chooses not to save those who, given grace, reject salvation from sin. He saves whom He wills (those who respond to the convicting of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=16&verse=8&version=50&context=verse))) and gives the nonelect (those who will harden their heart in response to God's convicting and help) the desire of their heart - an eternity away from Him.

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:41 PM
"So, for both sides of the debate:

Does God's sovereignty trump man's will...(i.e eternal security in causing the saint to "persevere" until the end)."

Put that way, yes.


In God's sovereignty, man's free will does not threaten His reign, He allows free, uncaused, will to all men.

But how "free" is it? Is man free to say no to sin, for example?


Yet, if a person truly is promised eternal life and salvation from his sin nature, God fulfills those promises and does not hand us over to that which He promised us delivery from: our old sinful, unfaithful nature.

Excellent point!


I am not a calvinist, but I am not arminist either. I do not believe that a born again christian can lose their salvation, I believe that the Bible makes that quite clear many times, but I also believe that everyone could be saved, and that God's grace is not irresistable. Many refuse God's help, and others respond to his help and repent.

What do you think makes the difference between them?


I believe that both positions have part of the truth, but the truth found in God's word supports neither extreme.

"I've asked this question many times like this:
Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't"

The second is accurate - I'd say the first should read "God can, wants to and DOES!"


The way I see it, God can save (and keep) people, wants to, but chooses not to save those who, given grace, reject salvation from sin.

Incorrect - those who ultimately reject salvation from sin did not have saving grace in the first place, whatever spiritual affections they may have had.


He saves whom He wills (those who respond to the convicting of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=16&verse=8&version=50&context=verse))) and gives the nonelect (those who will harden their heart in response to God's convicting and help) the desire of their heart - an eternity away from Him.

Agreed there.

fewarechosen
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:48 PM
the good news for me is i had never heard calvinists, or arminians till i came to this forum

im a holy spiritist

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:52 PM
the good news for me is i had never heard calvinists, or arminians till i came to this forum

im a holy spiritist

I prefer to be a Biblicist :)

KingFisher
Jun 2nd 2008, 01:57 PM
How about a Holy Spirit led, Christian Biblicist? ;)

Roelof
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:10 PM
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) to make any effort towards salvation
Salvation is possible by grace alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia)
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)
God's election is conditional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_election) on faith in Jesus
Jesus' atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) was for all people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement)
God allows his grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints)

wikipedia

timmyb
Jun 2nd 2008, 02:25 PM
Matthew 24:12

And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold

those who loved God will become offended with him...

born again believers, saved, loving God, and their love growing cold. Jesus was talking about the state of his church, not the world.. the world was already like this... The church in Paul's day was already being decieved by false teachings and false prophets and many were in serious danger of departing from the faith. 1 Timothy 4:1 says that many will depart the faith giving in to decieving spirits and doctrines of demons... Not that we should look for false teaching but that we should keep our eyes on Jesus and test all things with the word... but the reality of born again believers in the faith will depart it before the end

fewarechosen
Jun 2nd 2008, 08:28 PM
hmmm

the anology of the tree grafting is fitting i think,

if a branch is not grafted in the sap (holy spirit) does not flow through it, i dont feel there is any half grafting or almost grafted.

when he says your grafted in you have the holy spirit. the point at which some say " IM SAVED"

but thats not the case at all pointed out by christ

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

endure till the end- if enduring till the end was not also needed to be saved he would have never said that.
he coudl have said something like --you are saved now and i will give you strength to endure.

i feel its also like passing judgment to say "im saved"
its like you are saying 100% you know your name is in the book of life.

also why god says judge no man
we arent to judge who is going to heaven and hell , not even judge ourselves.

its like going to court saying " i didnt do it " then walking out -yet the judge didnt tell you to go yet

SweetSomber
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:23 PM
]But how "free" is it? Is man free to say no to sin, for example?

According the Bible, people are naturally enslaved to sin. However, even an unsaved person can desire to do the right thing. A person who is addicted to this or this may not be able to break the habit by without much help, but they can wish to. They are free to desire what they want, and do what they can to get it. Sometimes, though, what they want is out of reach. Some people want a million dollars and do not have it, does that show a lack of free will? No. They freely want it, and free decide to buy a lottery ticket, but they don't usually become millionaires.



What do you think makes the difference between them?The different between those who refuse God's help, and others who respond to his help I'd say is usually pride. Even in non-christian circles, you can see this sort of thing at work. Some people, though very sick, refuse to go see a doctor. Some people refuse charity. If someone is having trouble, and you offer to help, sometimes the person will get angry at you because they want help, they don't want to be object of someone's pity. Men who would rather drive, lost, for hours, than ask for directions sometimes also do this because of pride. As an old quote goes, "I don't want no bleedin' charity!"

Religious people generally feel that they don't need help. They are good enough as it is. That is pride - the original sin, which caused Satan to fall from heaven. Some depressed people are offered counseling and therapy, which could release them from cutting themselves and feeling suicidal, but sometimes they say no. They trust only themselves and no one else to get themselves out of trouble. Some humanists in their pride claim that there is no God, and put faith in their intellect. All this is pride.

You may ask "How do some people become more prideful than others?" You might than ask me to explain "If then, it is because of our humility that we are saved, how can we say that we are not saved because of works?"

I'd say that pride, like any other sin, comes one small decision at a time. We are constantly choosing to get harden or soften our hearts in different areas of life, and whichever we choose more often becomes easier and easier to choose until it absolutely runs our life.

We are saved from a nasty situation by God's help, and not by anything that we can do. It's like we're hanging off of a cliff, holding on by one hand. It's just a matter of time until we fall to our death, and God comes along and says "There's nothing you can do to save yourself. If you keep trying, you will just die. I can help you, I can save you. Just take my hand." God also sends the Holy Spirit to the heart to convict, to show truth to, to offer humility. If that is accepted, and God saves the person, the person cannot later go to his friends and boast about how he almost died, but was able to use his quick mind or strong arms to save himself. Rather he would have to admit that he was utterly helpless, and only because there was One who offered humility and help that he lived to tell about it.


The second is accurate - I'd say the first should read "God can, wants to and DOES!

"Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't"

Well, see, the reason Calvinism's view of God is described as a lack of desire is that He does not save all. If truly, God "can, wants to, and DOES" save everyone, then everyone on earth would die a christian. This is clearly not the case. God, then, according to the good counsel of His will, must not want (to the point of taking action) all people to be saved. I desire all people to be saved to the point of taking action. Am I more loving than God? No, for I only love because it is God's love within me.


Incorrect - those who ultimately reject salvation from sin did not have saving grace in the first place, whatever spiritual affections they may have had.

I had said, "The way I see it, God can save (and keep) people, wants to, but chooses not to save those who, given grace, reject salvation from sin." I did not say that those who rejected salvation were given saving grace, so of course they did not have it. They were given grace to be able to accept saving grace. They were given help so that they would be able to choose God's ultimate saving help. Given that help, and being able to ask for salvation, they choose not to. They choose to reject the saving grace, the salvation, offered them.

"Many are called, but few are chosen." God calls everyone to salvation, but only chooses those who do not reject his help.

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:42 PM
How about a Holy Spirit led, Christian Biblicist? ;)

Like it! :thumbsup:

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:47 PM
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) to make any effort towards salvation
Salvation is possible by grace alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia)
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)
God's election is conditional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_election) on faith in Jesus

That makes faith a work meriting salvation - it isn't.


Jesus' atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) was for all people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement)

Why then is anyone condemned?


God allows his grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) to be resisted by those unwilling to believe

Fair enough - but why is ANYONE willing to believe in the first place?


Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints)

wikipedia



So we save ourselves, then? Folks, salvation is UNCONDITIONAL from start to finish! Actually, I'll rephrase that - it's conditional ONLY on God keeping His promises to us - but it seems that many on this board feel that He regularly breaks them........

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:51 PM
Matthew 24:12

And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold

those who loved God will become offended with him...

born again believers, saved, loving God, and their love growing cold. Jesus was talking about the state of his church, not the world.. the world was already like this... The church in Paul's day was already being decieved by false teachings and false prophets and many were in serious danger of departing from the faith. 1 Timothy 4:1 says that many will depart the faith giving in to decieving spirits and doctrines of demons... Not that we should look for false teaching but that we should keep our eyes on Jesus and test all things with the word... but the reality of born again believers in the faith will depart it before the end

You still haven't proved that born again believers can/will lose their salvation. I think your problem is with the nature of the visible church - do you believe that 100% of the members or adherents of every single visible church is born again - no fakes, no one deluded, no wolves among the sheep?

fewarechosen
Jun 2nd 2008, 09:56 PM
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

who will have all men to be saved ?
he wants all to be saved -- but then why wouldnt they if something was not up to the individual

if he gave himself a ransom for all - and we cannot reject him then arent we all saved ?

9Marksfan
Jun 2nd 2008, 11:16 PM
You may ask "How do some people become more prideful than others?" You might than ask me to explain "If then, it is because of our humility that we are saved, how can we say that we are not saved because of works?"

I'd say that pride, like any other sin, comes one small decision at a time. We are constantly choosing to get harden or soften our hearts in different areas of life, and whichever we choose more often becomes easier and easier to choose until it absolutely runs our life.

We are saved from a nasty situation by God's help, and not by anything that we can do. It's like we're hanging off of a cliff, holding on by one hand. It's just a matter of time until we fall to our death, and God comes along and says "There's nothing you can do to save yourself. If you keep trying, you will just die. I can help you, I can save you. Just take my hand." God also sends the Holy Spirit to the heart to convict, to show truth to, to offer humility. If that is accepted, and God saves the person, the person cannot later go to his friends and boast about how he almost died, but was able to use his quick mind or strong arms to save himself. Rather he would have to admit that he was utterly helpless, and only because there was One who offered humility and help that he lived to tell about it.

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture "offers" humility? Do you accept that mankind enslaved to sin is DEAF to God and, like Zacharias, needs to be given spiritual "ears to hear? Do you believe that mankind enslaved to sin is BLIND and, like Bartimaeus, needs to be given spiritual sight? Do you believe that mankind enslaved to sin is DEAD and, like Lazarus, needs to be raised spiritually from death?


"Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't"

Well, see, the reason Calvinism's view of God is described as a lack of desire is that He does not save all. If truly, God "can, wants to, and DOES" save everyone, then everyone on earth would die a christian.

I didn't say that - I said that God can, wants to and DOES save all He PURPOSES to save!


This is clearly not the case.

Agreed.


God, then, according to the good counsel of His will, must not want (to the point of taking action) all people to be saved.

No - he desires that all men be saved - but He does not purpose to do it. You may see this as a contradiction but it is one of the deepest mysteries of Scripture.


I desire all people to be saved to the point of taking action. Am I more loving than God? No, for I only love because it is God's love within me.

God commands us to emulate His desires - but we are not to emulate certain parts of His character - like His judgements. They are His sole prerogative.


I had said, "The way I see it, God can save (and keep) people, wants to, but chooses not to save those who, given grace, reject salvation from sin." I did not say that those who rejected salvation were given saving grace, so of course they did not have it. They were given grace to be able to accept saving grace. They were given help so that they would be able to choose God's ultimate saving help. Given that help, and being able to ask for salvation, they choose not to. They choose to reject the saving grace, the salvation, offered them.

I am conscious of the distinction betwen what is called common grace and special/redemptive/saving grace - but I do not see common grace enabling us to receive saving grace - can you point me to any verses that teach this? or any theologians down throught the centuries who have taught this and what their Scriptural arguemnts for it are?


"Many are called, but few are chosen." God calls everyone to salvation, but only chooses those who do not reject his help.

But why do they accept His help? Is it not because He has unstopped their ears, opened their eyes and given new life to their souls, so that they might freely choose to accept Him?

lmwal931
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:48 AM
i believe that the calvinists and the arminians are trying to put GOD in a box. sometimes GOD makes a calvinist decision and sometimes a arminian decision. i believe in free will most of the time but GOD didn't give paul much of a choice when he was on the damascus road.

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:47 AM
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

who will have all men to be saved ?
he wants all to be saved -- but then why wouldnt they if something was not up to the individual

Becuae, desite desiring that all men be saved, God does not purpose it - this is a great mystery.


if he gave himself a ransom for all - and we cannot reject him then arent we all saved ?

We can and do reject Him -but the ransom for all was the price - if everyone WANTED to be saved, then Christ's death as payment for sin would be enough to save them. This is another mystery - people are lost because they reject God. But those who are saved are saved by His sovereign, electing grace. Else we could boast of our "wise choice" - God will not tolerate such boasting, so all free willers take note......

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 09:51 AM
i believe that the calvinists and the arminians are trying to put GOD in a box. sometimes GOD makes a calvinist decision and sometimes a arminian decision. i believe in free will most of the time but GOD didn't give paul much of a choice when he was on the damascus road.

GREAT point! And Jesus didn't give Lazarus, Jairus' daughter or the son of the widow at Nain a choice either! And if someone will say "But that didn't apply to those alive - they all ASKED Jesus to bless them!" What about Zaccheus? Did he ASK Jesus to come to dinner? Or the woman with the spirit of infirmity in Lk 13? Or the demon possessed Gadarene man and the demon possessed child? etc etc

As a matter of interest, where do you see God making an "Arminian decision"?

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:07 AM
If GOD makes an Arminian decision, isn't that rather Calvinist? :D

Okay, I've just had a brainwave.

Let's look at the points in these two doctrines that bring honour to God... then the alleged points which are supposed to bring Him dishonour. (This is what I think causes debate between the two camps.

Calvinism... they believe, as we all do I'm sure, that God is glorious, wonderful, mighty, that He loves even the most abject and helpless, and that He'll never once fail when He has purposed something.

That surely brings honour to God?

Arminians... they believe that God does not delight in the death of the wicked, that He wants to bring all to repentance, that He would gather everyone to Him as a mother hen gathers her chicks... but we WILL not.

Both focus on God's love. In my case... I was a blasphemous, self righteous, self idolatrous witch, who had no desire to be saved, and no fear of hell. He saved me anyway, and I had no option but to fall on my face amazed at what He had done. He loved me! Even though I was so ugly, so unlovely and unloving and unloved. I was disgusting! And He loved me...

That's how Calvinism displays God's love.

Arminianism displays God's love, because it takes seriously the scripture... the fact... that God wants ALL to be saved, and does not delight in the death of the wicked. The Christ who wept for Jerusalem weeps for all those who stone the prophets, and prays for those who nail Him to a tree.

Arminianism meets its difficulty at this question: "if God wants everyone saved, then why did He kick down the door of Mary's heart, even though she didn't love Him or want Him... but He would let someone else "choose" against Him? Did He not love them as much as her? She didn't deserve it anymore than anyone else... why save her and not her next door neighbour?"

Calvinism meet's it's difficulty at this question: "how can you say He's a God of love, if He is all powerful... yet allows some, planned from all eternity, to burn in hell?"

Frankly... these are mysteries. My own experience indicates that we're saved not by our will, but by God's drawing. You can be the smugest witch in the world, and He will shatter all your idols, destroy all your certainties, bring you to your knees. I do believe that Jesus wept outside Jerusalem because they WOULD not hear... which implies free will.

Our much vaunted free will is not something to be proud of. Everything in my life that I have freely willed has tended to sin and destruction, and everything that I have given to Him has turned into mercy and grace.

How these two theories can be reconciled... I don't know. I do know that so long as whatever doctrine we profess we make God to be all and all, Jesus to be King, the Name at which every knee shall bow... that is the single most important thing.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:13 AM
GREAT point! And Jesus didn't give Lazarus, Jairus' daughter or the son of the widow at Nain a choice either! And if someone will say "But that didn'y apply to those alive - they all ASKED Jesus to bless them!" WHat about Zaccheus? Did he ASK Jesus to come to dinner? Or the woman with the spirit of infirmity in Lk 13? Or the demon possessed Gadarene man and the demon possessed child? etc etc

As a matter of interest, where do you see God making an "Arminian decision"?

The Gadarene man ran to Christ.

Mark 5:5-7
5 And constantly night and day, among the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out and gashing himself with stones. 6 And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; 7 and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!"
NASB

The man ran to Jesus for help and Jesus helped him.

Zacheus, climbed up a tree in order to see Jesus better.

Many people ran to Jesus during the day.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:22 AM
Becuae, desite desiring that all men be saved, God does not purpose it - this is a great mystery.

Would to God that Calvinist would allow mystery at an earlier road. There is mystery in scripture, including that God makes an offer to all and all have the ability to accept the offer, yet not all will. God does not offer a meal to a prisoner that is beyond his reach.


We can and do reject Him -but the ransom for all was the price - if everyone WANTED to be saved, then Christ's death as payment for sin would be enough to save them. This is another mystery - people are lost because they reject God. But those who are saved are saved by His sovereign, electing grace. Else we could boast of our "wise choice" - God will not tolerate such boasting, so all free willers take note......

Yet, no man is saved without choosing to be.

Josh 24:15
15 And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
NASB

It is not right to ignore the scriptures where man makes a decision any more than it is right to ignore the scriptures where God makes a decision.

Let me give an example... like all examples, none are quite satisfactory, but hopefully this will do. A small child can do nothing for himself. An adult, reaches out to the child, and the child reaches back. The adult then picks up the child and hugs him. The child did not pick himself up into the arms of the adult, nor did he do anything or cause it to happen with his will. His will was nothing other than simple agreement. Yet, his outstretched arms were part of the scenario.

It seems that some think that man choosing God is somehow man's will saving himself. Such is not the case! Nor could man choose God without God's direct intervention. God preached repent! Not to rocks who cannot repent, (though he can raise them up to praise him), but to men who can repent with the enabling power of God himself.

Did Adam choose to sin or did God sovereignly make him sin?

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:36 AM
The Gadarene man ran to Christ.

Mark 5:5-7
5 And constantly night and day, among the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out and gashing himself with stones. 6 And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; 7 and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!"
NASB

The man ran to Jesus for help and Jesus helped him.

The context looks to me MUCH more like Jesus supernaturally summoned the man - and the demons in him obeyed and bowed down! - they knew Jesus had called them and, while they bowed in reverence, they were fearful of the purpose of His summoning - that they would be tormented!


Zacheus, climbed up a tree in order to see Jesus better.

He was curious - but Jesus said "I MUST stay at your house today!" - Jesus sought him (the large leaves of the sycamore-fig tree would have hidden him - he didn't WANT Jesus to see him!) and effectually called him to Himself! He HAD to stay with him that day - there was a divine appointment and Zaccheus HAD to keep it!


Many people ran to Jesus during the day.

But why did ONLY some, and others follow at a distance or reject Him?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:43 AM
The context looks to me MUCH more like Jesus supernaturally summoned the man - and the demons in him obeyed and bowed down! - they knew Jesus had called them and, while they bowed in reverence, they were fearful of the purpose of His summoning - that they would be tormented!

Demons don't run to God to worship him. The man ran to worship God and God delivered him! We know that all who come to God are supernaturally called. But hey, everyone gets called anyway. But the demons rose up in the man after he ran to Christ, IMO. The man wanted help and the demons rose up to prevent it. When the man fell and worshiped, Jesus helped him.


He was curious - but Jesus said "I MUST stay at your house today!" - Jesus sought him (the large leaves of the sycamore-fig tree would have hidden him - he didn't WANT Jesus to see him!) and effectually called him to Himself! He HAD to stay with him that day - there was a divine appointment and Zaccheus HAD to keep it!And the appointment was made partly because Zach was in the tree looking for Jesus. ;)


But why did ONLY some, and others follow at a distance or reject Him?Because many love sin. John 1 answers the question in general that men loved darkness more than light. As for specifics, let us leave mystery where scripture leaves it. Scripture says that God died for the whole world and that he loved the whole world.

MidnightsPaleGlow
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:57 AM
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) to make any effort towards salvation-Agree strongly
Salvation is possible by grace alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia)-Agree Strongly
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)-Exactly
God's election is conditional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_election) on faith in Jesus-Agree
Jesus' atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) was for all people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement)-Agree
God allows his grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) to be resisted by those unwilling to believe-Exactly.
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints)-Ditto, Rev. 2:10, 3:5 and a host of other scriptures seem to say this, we're given divine power to persevere, God won't leave us, but somebody, on their own free will, can leave God. I wonder if the apostle Paul rejected eternal security, as some of his writings at times seem to indicate, seems like Peter had some NOSAS style views as well in a few of his writings. I read a story about a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher who lived an authentic, Christian life for over 30 years (obviously believed in OSAS like almost all Baptists do), and then left and converted to Islam, that alone, plus some other stories and a host of verses from Paul and Peter's letters and the above cited verses from Revelation respectively, to me, shoot the idea of OSAS full of bullet holes IMO.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:04 AM
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity) to make any effort towards salvation-Agree strongly
Salvation is possible by grace alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_gratia)-Agree Strongly
Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)-Exactly

Agree to all of the above.


God's election is conditional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_election) on faith in Jesus-Agree

Agree. However, some are elected irresistibly but I do not believe all are.


Jesus' atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) was for all people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement)-Agree

Payment was made for all sins. Scripture doesn't dance around around that issue.

1 John 2:1-2

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB


God allows his grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) to be resisted by those unwilling to believe-Exactly.

Yep. Here's a good example that is often ignored.

Luke 7:30
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
NASB

God had a purpose for them that they rejected.


Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints)-Ditto, Rev. 2:10, 3:5 and a host of other scriptures seem to say this, we're given divine power to persevere, God won't leave us, but somebody, on their own free will, can leave God. I wonder if the apostle Paul rejected eternal security, as some of his writings at times seem to indicate, seems like Peter had some NOSAS style views as well in a few of his writings. I read a story about a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher who lived an authentic, Christian life for over 30 years (obviously believed in OSAS like almost all Baptists do), and then left and converted to Islam, that alone, plus some other stories and a host of verses from Paul and Peter's letters and the above cited verses from Revelation respectively, to me, shoot the idea of OSAS full of bullet holes IMO.


I wouldn't put much stock in someone that goes to a different faith altogether having ever met Jesus. Not saying one can't fall away. But when one says "Jesus is not God", then they were never a part of us.

1 John 2:18-23

18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
NASB

It is one thing to fall away. It is another to say "Jesus is not God". Saying Jesus is not the Christ is antichrist. Such a one did not fall away for he was never a part of us.

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:15 AM
The man may have run to worship because Jesus drew Him.

Okay... here's another thing I've been pondering recently.

The year I was saved... things that happened.

Every month, as usual, was based around the cycles of the moon. Around the three nights of the dark moon I'd worship the crone, when the moon was waxing to full, I'd worship the maid, when the moon was full, I'd worship the mother.

On good Friday that year a street preacher tried to give my husband and I a tract. I shrieked abuse at him, and if there hadn't been so many cameras trained on the town square I'd have probably beaten him. I do still remember where the cameras are in that town square... I did a quick check to see if I could get away with clouting the man.

I hated him. My husband hated him. Our lad was horrified by our vitriol, but figured we must have been justified, so by the time we got home this wee nine year old hated him too.

Last thing the man said. "I'll pray for you."

My response, "yeah, f... you, you b@stard Jesus freak, I'll p.ss on you when you're in hell, you judgemental piece of sh.t".

I was a very pc, normally very tolerant of ethnic and religious diversity, witch.

Then what happened?

That day my husband and I had a wonderful idea for a book. I've had several books published... we decided this would be the one that would break into mainstream culture, make us a fortune... and really annoy all those idiot Christians. (To be honest, given the blasphemous premise, I'm sure it would have done, and I'm sure that someone else will write it in the not too distant future.)

With a great deal of enthusiasm I started to write.

I couldn't approach the blasphemous premise without feeling sick. This bothered me. I'd never had writers block before.

I decided to leave it on hold.

There are a whole series of events that led up to this... and I'm writing a full testimony for publication at the moment... but eventually I was in a hospital, waiting for news on my husband. I went into this little chapel, which was "ecumenical." You could pray to Krishna, Visnu, Allah, or any other deity... nobody minded.

I went in to pray to my goddess.

So, I'm standing there looking at a statue of the virgin Mary. It was the right time of month to honour her...

Instead, I looked at the cross.

And I thought, He understands, she can't. I'm praying for Neil, she never died for him...

And suddenly, though still a witch, I'm praying to Jesus Christ.

At that point I wasn't a Christian. I remember as I prayed feeling a whole flurry of confusion and attacks hitting me, that I won't go into. You can imagine. But despite the fact that AT THAT TIME I despised Jesus, and was in the process of writing blasphemous fiction about Him... He drew me to pray to Him.

As you know, I, my son, my husband, were all saved.

When we ran to Him, I don't think it was because of anything good in us at all. It's because He loved us so much He raised those dead bones.

Does that make sense?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:33 AM
The man may have run to worship because Jesus drew Him.

No doubt that is the case. Unless we are drawn, we can't come to Him.


When we ran to Him, I don't think it was because of anything good in us at all. It's because He loved us so much He raised those dead bones.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. No doubt the demons that were you were extremely angry at the street preacher and at Jesus. They knew they would have to go into dry places if you and Christ hooked up. That's why they fought you so hard. But God wouldn't let you go too far.

I can't honestly say why I was interested in God. I hated him but I prayed to Him too. When I looked inside of me, I saw nothing but great darkness and hopelessness and anger. But God loved me. I cannot explain what happened when His uncreated life and my finite life united. Nor can I explain why some get saved and others don't. Who knows? But I do know that Jesus said he would draw all men and the Father sent Jesus to die for all men, yet not all will be saved.

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:38 PM
Would to God that Calvinist would allow mystery at an earlier road. There is mystery in scripture, including that God makes an offer to all and all have the ability to accept the offer, yet not all will. God does not offer a meal to a prisoner that is beyond his reach.

But God knows whether the man WILL accept the offer (IS it an offer? Not a command?), and yet He still makes it.....


Yet, no man is saved without choosing to be.

Josh 24:15
15 And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
NASB

It is not right to ignore the scriptures where man makes a decision any more than it is right to ignore the scriptures where God makes a decision.

But IS it a choice to be born again? I would argue it isn't - but it IS a choice to follow and serve. Are you saying that God is DETACHED from that choice? That He does NOT enable us to make it - we make it entirely by ourselves, apart from His enabling?


Let me give an example... like all examples, none are quite satisfactory, but hopefully this will do. A small child can do nothing for himself. An adult, reaches out to the child, and the child reaches back. The adult then picks up the child and hugs him. The child did not pick himself up into the arms of the adult, nor did he do anything or cause it to happen with his will. His will was nothing other than simple agreement. Yet, his outstretched arms were part of the scenario.

What if the same child is running into a busy road and is about to be struck dead by an oncoming truck - what if the child's elder brother runs out and lunges at the child to rescue it, but is killed by the oncoming car? The elder brother is near enough to save the child - and close enough to his father to look for his approval before he lunges in supreme self-sacrifice to save that child - the father agrees to it and has the pain of losing his son - but of saving his child, who would otherwise have been lost - THAT is the picture of salvation - that the father and the son would love that child so much that the father would allow the son to be killed in order for the young child to be saved - THAT is the gospel.


It seems that some think that man choosing God is somehow man's will saving himself. Such is not the case! Nor could man choose God without God's direct intervention. God preached repent! Not to rocks who cannot repent, (though he can raise them up to praise him), but to men who can repent with the enabling power of God himself.

Did Adam choose to sin or did God sovereignly make him sin?

Adam chose to sin, but could God have prevented it? If so, why didn't He? Because He had a purpose in allowing it. So - was it His will that Adam sinned, if it furthered His purposes?

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:53 PM
Demons don't run to God to worship him.

But they DO! Look at Col 1:16, 2:10, 1 Pet 3:22 - if you look at Matthew's account, as well as Luke's, you will see that it is the DEMON(S) who are speaking - this is VERY clear in Matthew's account (apologies that I said demonS in my reply - each demoniac had one demon - that's why it's plural in Matthew - the two demoniacs are referred to there).


The man ran to worship God and God delivered him!

Agreed - yet the demons were unable to hold him back! They felt like THEY were getting summoned too! Remember the man was POSSESSED and CONTROLLED by them! But Jesus was stronger! :pp


We know that all who come to God are supernaturally called. But hey, everyone gets called anyway.

We've had this discussion already - not in the way you think! Did Jesus call the Pharisees? No! He did NOT come to call the "righteous" (ie those who THOUGHT they were righteous) but SINNERS to repentance!


But the demons rose up in the man after he ran to Christ, IMO.

The text dosn't say that - the demon controlled him - they were BOTH irresistibly summoned to come to Christ!


The man wanted help and the demons rose up to prevent it.

Where does it say that? It's clear they are just fearful of the authority of Christ over them!


When the man fell and worshiped, Jesus helped him.

Aw, come ON!!!!!!!!


And the appointment was made partly because Zach was in the tree looking for Jesus. ;)

How did Jesus know his name? ;) We've been looking at Luke in our midweek studies and we just looked at the story of Zaccheus last week - like Bartimaeus before him, he positioned himself where he would receive blessing - but it was entirely Christ's decision to save that saved both - "the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost".


Because many love sin.

Er, not ALL?!?


John 1 answers the question in general that men loved darkness more than light. As for specifics, let us leave mystery where scripture leaves it. Scripture says that God died for the whole world and that he loved the whole world.

There certainly is mystery there - but salvation is God's sovereign work from start to finish -we are spiritually dead and He MUST make us spiritually alive FIRST before we will respond.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 12:55 PM
But God knows whether the man WILL accept the offer (IS it an offer? Not a command?), and yet He still makes it.....

There is a difference in knowing if a man will or will not and knowing a man cannot accept an offer. God does not put a meal outside the reach of a man in prison and look at him longingly and say "I wish you could reach that meal I am offering to you. You cannot not ever get to it. It is beyond you. Nor will I get it close enough to you so that you can taste it. It is forever beyond your hope to eat of this meal. But I offer it to you." That is a contradiction in character and basically, God telling a lie to the one he is offering it to. For if the man is incapable of ever accepting the offer outside of the Father drawing him, yet, the Father refuses to draw him, well... you get the point.


But IS it a choice to be born again? I would argue it isn't - but it IS a choice to follow and serve. Are you saying that God is DETACHED from that choice? That He does NOT enable us to make it - we make it entirely by ourselves, apart from His enabling? I never said that. I have always said God draws us. God enables us. I have said it repeatedly and will say it again. God is entirely involved in salvation and no one can be saved apart from his work of grace in us.


What if the same child is running into a busy road and is about to be struck dead by an oncoming truck - what if the child's elder brother runs out and lunges at the child to rescue it, but is killed by the oncoming car? The elder brother is near enough to save the child - and close enough to his father to look for his approval before he lunges in supreme self-sacrifice to save that child - the father agrees to it and has the pain of losing his son - but of saving his child, who would otherwise have been lost - THAT is the picture of salvation - that the father and the son would love that child so much that the father would allow the son to be killed in order for the young child to be saved - THAT is the gospel.No. It's not the gospel Nigel. It is only part of the gospel. It's Calvinism and Calvinism is incomplete when it comes to the gospel. The gospel is this...

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. NASB

When one receives God, God wills him to be saved. One may will himself to be saved and remain damned. But if he receives the offer of God, then he will be saved because God wills that man to be born again.


Adam chose to sin, but could God have prevented it? If so, why didn't He? Because He had a purpose in allowing it. So - was it His will that Adam sinned, if it furthered His purposes?Adam's sin did not further God's purposes. Nor did it hinder it.
Adam chose but God's purpose would not have changed whether Adam sinned or not. God's purpose is much greater than redemption. If God willed Adam to sin through decree, then God is the author of sin for he made it happen. We know God did not do this.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:13 PM
But they DO! Look at Col 1:16, 2:10, 1 Pet 3:22 - if you look at Matthew's account, as well as Luke's, you will see that it is the DEMON(S) who are speaking - this is VERY clear in Matthew's account (apologies that I said demonS in my reply - each demoniac had one demon - that's why it's plural in Matthew - the two demoniacs are referred to there).

Col 1:16 speaks nothing of worship. It does say all things were created for him. But when they refused the purpose for which they were created, God still used them to further his ultimate purpose, just as he used the Pharisees and lawyers when they refused his purpose for them.

Col 1:16
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him.
NASB

Col 2:10 and 1 Pet 3:22 speaks to the authority of Christ. He has dominion over all. But that does not mean demons love and worship Christ.

Nigel, there is a clear difference between Jesus having authority and the demons running to him and worshiping him. They wanted to be away from Jesus.

And yes, I am aware that the demons spoke. Like I said, the man ran to him and fell down to worship Jesus. The demons then rose up and took control. They knew their time was up and were fighting. The man was about to be delivered.


Agreed - yet the demons were unable to hold him back! They felt like THEY were getting summoned too! Remember the man was POSSESSED and CONTROLLED by them! But Jesus was stronger! :pp

No. They weren't being summoned. The man was called. Before Jesus went there, a huge storm rose up to prevent him getting there and he rebuked the storm. The storm was demonic too and was a lost battle by the enemy to keep Jesus from getting there.


We've had this discussion already - not in the way you think! Did Jesus call the Pharisees? No! He did NOT come to call the "righteous" (ie those who THOUGHT they were righteous) but SINNERS to repentance!

And all are sinners. But to those who refuse to see their sin because of pride, God will actively resist. The pharisees refused the purpose God intended for them and Jesus resisted them as a result. But Nicodemus, humbled himself and was saved. He fulfilled God's purpose for himself.


The text dosn't say that - the demon controlled him - they were BOTH irresistibly summoned to come to Christ!

We'll just have to disagree on this one. The text says the man ran to Christ. I will stick with the text. Matthew clears up who was speaking, and the demons were speaking.


Where does it say that? It's clear they are just fearful of the authority of Christ over them!

Of course they were fearful.


Aw, come ON!!!!!!!!

Demons don't worship God. He has authority over him but they don't worship him. They will submit because they have to.


How did Jesus know his name? ;) We've been looking at Luke in our midweek studies and we just looked at the story of Zaccheus last week - like Bartimaeus before him, he positioned himself where he would receive blessing - but it was entirely Christ's decision to save that saved both - "the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost".

Of course Jesus seeks. In John, we find out that men seek too. The first words in John were "What do you seek?" They sought Jesus and Jesus invited them in. We cannot eliminate man's response from salvation because scripture does not! Nor can we eliminate God's complete and total role in salvation because scripture does not. Both are ditches.


Er, not ALL?!?

I don't love sin. Do you?


There certainly is mystery there - but salvation is God's sovereign work from start to finish -we are spiritually dead and He MUST make us spiritually alive FIRST before we will respond.

He calls all men, thus enabling them to respond. The offer is genuine. Man can and does respond to God's offer but not without his calling. Eternity is set in the heart of man. God's witness is set in the heart of man. What man does with that will determine his ultimate fate.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

God makes himself evident to men. When they suppress the truth, they are judged.

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:18 PM
I guess that since I started this thread, I ought to stick my head in and say something :lol:

I haven't had the opportunity to post...between a sick little boy, a wife who threw her back out, and the church...my time's been a wee bit full! :)

I do want to thank everyone involved in this discussion for the tone and timbre of this thread...it's really a thought provoking and edifying discussion without the heated "debate" that too often occurs in these things...thanks again! :hug:

I've read every post to date, and there have been some things brought up that I find thought-provoking...

Here's something that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

I agree that the Calvinistic view best explains God's omniscience...We of course accept that God is all-knowing; and therefore if He is all knowing then He must have a foreknowledge of those who will be saved and those who will be lost.

Here then is what I find to be a great mystery:

If God desires that no one perish, but all come to repentance (which of course is as it is written)...yet He knows that many of those whom He creates will perish...does not Arminius' view that Calvin presented God as something less than "loving" (i.e. every one is on an escalator to Hell, and God picks and chooses whom He will save) have some merit?

Not that I agree...just interested in your thoughts :)

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:31 PM
If God desires that no one perish, but all come to repentance (which of course is as it is written)...yet He knows that many of those whom He creates will perish...does not Arminius' view that Calvin presented God as something less than "loving" (i.e. every one is on an escalator to Hell, and God picks and chooses whom He will save) have some merit?

Not that I agree...just interested in your thoughts :)

If God elects all saved men to the point where they cannot resist, and does nothing to elect all other men to the point where they are damned, then it would seem that he loves the elect more than he loves the non-elect. Yet, scripture doesn't teach that either. Because it says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...."

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:33 PM
There is a difference in knowing if a man will or will not and knowing a man cannot accept an offer. God does not put a meal outside the reach of a man in prison and look at him longingly and say "I wish you could reach that meal I am offering to you. You cannot not ever get to it. It is beyond you. Nor will I get it close enough to you so that you can taste it. It is forever beyond your hope to eat of this meal. But I offer it to you." That is a contradiction in character and basically, God telling a lie to the one he is offering it to. For if the man is incapable of ever accepting the offer outside of the Father drawing him, yet, the Father refuses to draw him, well... you get the point.

But you just agreed with Midnight'sPaleGlow that man is UNABLE to save himself - and you believe that we are saved by believing in Christ!


I never said that. I have always said God draws us. God enables us. I have said it repeatedly and will say it again. God is entirely involved in salvation and no one can be saved apart from his work of grace in us.

But you have also said that the FINAL step of trusting Christ is what God in effect leaves up to us! He will go so far - but no further!


No. It's not the gospel Nigel. It is only part of the gospel. It's Calvinism and Calvinism is incomplete when it comes to the gospel.

Had you said I had missed out the resurrection, I would have accepted your criticism - but in what way is Calvinism (remember Spurgeon said it was a "nickname for the gospel" - I agree!) that is "incomplete"?


The gospel is this...

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. NASB

No - the gospel is stated for us clearly in 1 Cor 15:3-4 - what you are talking about is our RECEIVING the gospel - NOT the same thing!


When one receives God, God wills him to be saved.

No - God wills His people to be saved from before the foundation of the world.


One may will himself to be saved and remain damned.

No - only those who are God's elect will will themselves to be saved.


But if he receives the offer of God, then he will be saved because God wills that man to be born again.

Correct, if it were in the right order - if God wills a man to be born again, he will receive the offer of God and be saved.


Adam's sin did not further God's purposes.

Of course it did - Christ was the Lamb of God slain from BEFORE the foundation of the world - had Adam not sinned, we would have never needed a Saviour to die for our sins - and we would never have seen the riches of the glorious grace of God in Christ's death and resurrection for us.


Nor did it hinder it.

Well we're agreed on that - but you're saying that Adam's sin was somehow "neutral" - neither furthering nor hindering God's purposes? But surely the Fall was HUGELY important in God's ALL-IMPORTANT REDEMPTIVE PURPOSES?


Adam chose but God's purpose would not have changed whether Adam sinned or not.

What WAS God's purpose, in your opinion?


God's purpose is much greater than redemption.

I'd be interested to hear what is greater than redemption (in every sense of the word) in God's purposes?


If God willed Adam to sin through decree, then God is the author of sin for he made it happen. We know God did not do this.

We know God did not force Adam to sin - but He knew it would happen and He elected not to prevent it - you accept he COULD have intervened to prevent it if He had intended to? - and so, as everything He permits has a purpose, He permitted Adam to sin, because it fulfilled His redemptive purposes - yet Adam FREELY chose to sin - THAT is mystery.

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:39 PM
One other thing I'd like to throw out since I have a couple of minutes, in reference to the "perseverance of the Saints" (which I agree with BTW ;)).

From some of the secular writings of the era(s), this didn't seem to be much of an issue.

Pliny the Younger in writing to the emperor Trajan about how to deal with those accused of being Christians wrote (paraphrased here):

That he would offer them the opportunity to recant. That if the accused would offer a "wine sacrifice" to the bust of the emperor (which he had brought for that purpose) and pronounce a curse upon Christ, then he or she would be free to go BECAUSE:

He (Pliny) understood that no TRUE Christian would be able to do such a thing...that was his litmus test in determining if one was a Christian.

I found it fascinating that a pagan Roman governor would have that view! :)

Just an aside...

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:49 PM
One other thing I'd like to throw out since I have a couple of minutes, in reference to the "perseverance of the Saints" (which I agree with BTW ;)).

From some of the secular writings of the era(s), this didn't seem to be much of an issue.

Pliny the Younger in writing to the emperor Trajan about how to deal with those accused of being Christians wrote (paraphrased here):

That he would offer them the opportunity to recant. That if the accused would offer a "wine sacrifice" to the bust of the emperor (which he had brought for that purpose) and pronounce a curse upon Christ, then he or she would be free to go BECAUSE:

He (Pliny) understood that no TRUE Christian would be able to do such a thing...that was his litmus test in determining if one was a Christian.

I found it fascinating that a pagan Roman governor would have that view! :)

Just an aside...

Excellent point, mcgyver - and thanks for returning to your own thread! On a personally challenging note for everyone (most of all myself) - I wonder how many of US - whether Calvinist or Arminian - would refuse to be set free in such circumstances, because we COULD NOT curse Christ? That would show where we REALLY stood - would we be those who did not love our lives to death? :hmm:

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 01:58 PM
As the TULIP set believer on this board, I did all I could to avoid this one, but it's too good. :)

Think of a drowning man.

A ship passes by (God) and throws out a round life preserver (salvation) to a man (you) drowning in the ocean. Now, it is up to the man to grab the preserver (receive salvation), but the ship has enabled him to be saved from drowning.

That was the arminian view.

My view, and those of "calvinism", believe otherwise.

A ship passes by a 50 drowned men (dead in his sins). They draw some of the dead man out of the water. The dead men are given the gift of life and made alive. The dead men did not have the ability to reach out for life preservers. They had no choice but to receive the gift of life. They did nothing to deserve the gift.

When Christ said "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him unto me.", this is not tug, pull, guide, etc.

The word draw is interpreted in other places in the New Testament as dragged, drawing water from a well, pulled forcefully and irresistably.

Now, I know there are those that will holler "where's free will?"

It ain't there.


If God elects all saved men to the point where they cannot resist, and does nothing to elect all other men to the point where they are damned, then it would seem that he loves the elect more than he loves the non-elect. Yet, scripture doesn't teach that either. Because it says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...."

God loves the world. However, God also said through Paul that before they had done anything good or bad that He loved Jacob, but hated Esau.

Yuke

Partaker of Christ
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:06 PM
but can a gift not also be refused?... you can give me something but I can refuse it... God does not force salvation on us... it's ours to either accept or refuse

I believe that I am secure in my salvation in that God isn't going to just arbitrarily take away my salvation... but if I don't choose his ways his truth and his life there is a different story... If I don't want my salvation I could renounce it... only believers can commit the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit and that's a total and complete apostate position... that's like going past the point of no return

Hi Timmyb!

What part of our will was involved in being born?
What part of our will, can utterly sever us from being a child of our parents?

Partaker of Christ
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:17 PM
In the following verse, Jesus is offering salvation to "him that is athirst" and "whosoever will".

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. - Rev 22:17

Salvation is conditional upon one humbling themselves, repenting of their sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Jesus cannot be the propitiation or atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world unless salvation is offered to the whole world.

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

God desires all men to be saved and Christ offered Himself as a ransom for all people.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. - 1 Timothy 2:3-6

It is an offer that can be accepted or rejected, as the following passages show.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36

One must choose whether to believe on the Son or not. God is not going to make someone not believe on the Son so that they will have to spend eternity in the lake of fire. Why would He do such a thing?

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

Notice that the wicked choose their own ways. Likewise, believers choose to not go their own way, but instead choose to acknowledge that they can't save themselves and they give their lives to Christ.

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
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 2:9-10

The Greek word for "deceived" in that verse is "dechomai" (Strong's 1209) and it means to accept or approve something that has been offered. The wicked refuse to accept the gospel and that is the reason they are not saved. But you would try to say the reason they are not saved is because God chose not to give them saving faith. But that is not what scripture teaches.

Hi John146!

How can we 'choose' to believe except our eyes have been opened

It is God's will that we would be saved.
How can we choose to do His will (be saved) except, He works in us, to will and to do His will?

RogerW
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:31 PM
I guess that since I started this thread, I ought to stick my head in and say something :lol:

I haven't had the opportunity to post...between a sick little boy, a wife who threw her back out, and the church...my time's been a wee bit full! :)

I do want to thank everyone involved in this discussion for the tone and timbre of this thread...it's really a thought provoking and edifying discussion without the heated "debate" that too often occurs in these things...thanks again! :hug:

I've read every post to date, and there have been some things brought up that I find thought-provoking...

Here's something that I'd like to throw out for discussion:

I agree that the Calvinistic view best explains God's omniscience...We of course accept that God is all-knowing; and therefore if He is all knowing then He must have a foreknowledge of those who will be saved and those who will be lost.

Here then is what I find to be a great mystery:

If God desires that no one perish, but all come to repentance (which of course is as it is written)...yet He knows that many of those whom He creates will perish...does not Arminius' view that Calvin presented God as something less than "loving" (i.e. every one is on an escalator to Hell, and God picks and chooses whom He will save) have some merit?

Not that I agree...just interested in your thoughts :)

Greetings Mcgyver,

Welcome back to the thread! I would challenge you to look at this from a wee different perspective. The loving God knows the heart of every man. He sees mankinds fallen condition, and without ability to save themselves. God is grieved that not one from all His created humanity will seek Him for life. Because God is a God of love, instead of allowing all humanity to perish, and not have even one to call His own, He, from before the foundation of the world chose some to redeem. God's choice was (1) choose no man, but wait and hope they will choose Him...which of course He knows no man will or can, so all will perish OR (2) He chooses to save some men to fill His Kingdom, a people for Himself, and live with Him forever. Which is the God of love, the one that leaves all mankind to perish; i.e. free will, or the one who chooses to redeem some people for Himself; Sovereign Grace?

Many Blessings,
RW

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 02:35 PM
Greetings Mcgyver,

Welcome back to the thread! I would challenge you to look at this from a wee different perspective. The loving God knows the heart of every man. He sees mankinds fallen condition, and without ability to save themselves. God is grieved that not one from all His created humanity will seek Him for life. Because God is a God of love, instead of allowing all humanity to perish, and not have even one to call His own, He, from before the foundation of the world chose some to redeem. God's choice was (1) choose no man, but wait and hope they will choose Him...which of course He knows no man will or can, so all will perish OR (2) He chooses to save some men to fill His Kingdom, a people for Himself, and live with Him forever. Which is the God of love, the one that leaves all mankind to perish; i.e. free will, or the one who chooses to redeem some people for Himself; Sovereign Grace?

Many Blessings,
RW

Very good point...Hadn't looked at it this way before...:)

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:03 PM
So let me see how this works and reading much of this... it is what I see. We are saved by election? Come on guys... that's exactly how it sounds and it tears me up to even read this. You'll say NO WAY but then YES WAY. That's exactly what is being said. God elected some even before the world was created for heaven. And this loving God also elected MANY MORE so that He could enlarge hell to accommodate all the folks that He created for that place. That's a freaky outlook on Scripture... got it to say.

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:19 PM
So let me see how this works and reading much of this... it is what I see. We are saved by election? Come on guys... that's exactly how it sounds and it tears me up to even read this. You'll say NO WAY but then YES WAY. That's exactly what is being said. God elected some even before the world was created for heaven. And this loving God also elected MANY MORE so that He could enlarge hell to accommodate all the folks that He created for that place. That's a freaky outlook on Scripture... got it to say.

Seeing both sides of the discussion brings into sharp focus the question:

"Are we saved because we are the elect?".....OR

"Are we the elect because we are saved?"

Both views have positive points...both views have negative points...How do we as mere men ever hope to fathom the infinite mind of God?

As far as "freaky" outlook on Scripture...(respectfully) the same could be said of the Arminian view ;)

Hyper-Calvinism negates any will of man...

Hyper-Arminianism negates the sovereignty of God...

I merely propose that neither view is 100% correct, nor 100% wrong either.

Where is the "middle ground" (if indeed there is middle ground)? Therein lies the great question...:)

I personally am finding the different viewpoints to be quite thought provoking...

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:22 PM
But you just agreed with Midnight'sPaleGlow that man is UNABLE to save himself - and you believe that we are saved by believing in Christ!

Yep. Man can't save himself. Only Jesus can save us.


But you have also said that the FINAL step of trusting Christ is what God in effect leaves up to us! He will go so far - but no further!

That's what scripture says. Romans 1 says that those folks "suppress the truth".


Had you said I had missed out the resurrection, I would have accepted your criticism - but in what way is Calvinism (remember Spurgeon said it was a "nickname for the gospel" - I agree!) that is "incomplete"?

It leaves out the ability to receive God's gift. As the scripture I quoted above says; to those that receive Him, he has given the power to become the sons of God.


No - the gospel is stated for us clearly in 1 Cor 15:3-4 - what you are talking about is our RECEIVING the gospel - NOT the same thing!

Just for those reading along, here is what 1 Cor says.

1 Cor 15:3-4
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
NASB

You said the gospel was God forcing man's salvation. I said nope, not the gospel. The gospel, or good news, is the offer of the gift. Calvinism leaves off part of this scripture.

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life
NASB

God loved, not just the elect, but the world! Calvin preaches a partial gospel.


No - God wills His people to be saved from before the foundation of the world.

Yet, scripture says....

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

Receiving is part of the process.


No - only those who are God's elect will will themselves to be saved.

You misunderstood my statement. I will say it again. One may will himself to be saved and remain damned. In other words, he cannot save himself with his will. That's the point. No man can, through his own will, save himself.


Correct, if it were in the right order - if God wills a man to be born again, he will receive the offer of God and be saved.

Partial gospel again. For God desires that all to be saved and the offer is made to all. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. When a man receives Christ, God wills him to be saved. Not the other way around. Man cannot will himself to salvation. Nor will God will all the elect to salvation.


Of course it did - Christ was the Lamb of God slain from BEFORE the foundation of the world - had Adam not sinned, we would have never needed a Saviour to die for our sins - and we would never have seen the riches of the glorious grace of God in Christ's death and resurrection for us.

Being slain before the foundation of the world does not mean Christ died before the foundation of the world. He was not human then. What it means is that he was dead to himself before the foundation of the world. The cross was already in Him. It was fully displayed when he got up on the cross and died for the sins of the elect and the world.



Well we're agreed on that - but you're saying that Adam's sin was somehow "neutral" - neither furthering nor hindering God's purposes? But surely the Fall was HUGELY important in God's ALL-IMPORTANT REDEMPTIVE PURPOSES?

Right. Redemption is only necessary because of Adam's sin. But redemption is not God's ultimate purpose.


What WAS God's purpose, in your opinion?

I'd be interested to hear what is greater than redemption (in every sense of the word) in God's purposes?

To have everything summed up in Christ and to have men become like Jesus in their character. There is much more to this than can be stated here. But redemption is the starting point not the ending point. New birth begins a new life. God's purpose for us is not fulfilled the moment we are saved. There is so much more.


We know God did not force Adam to sin - but He knew it would happen and He elected not to prevent it - you accept he COULD have intervened to prevent it if He had intended to? - and so, as everything He permits has a purpose, He permitted Adam to sin, because it fulfilled His redemptive purposes - yet Adam FREELY chose to sin - THAT is mystery.

And that is where the mystery properly rest. Adam did freely choose to sin. There is a HUGE difference in God permitting something and electing it. He permits people, like he permitted Adam, to choose to sin. That is what Romans 1 is saying.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

Just as Adam was permitted to suppress the truth within himself and rebel, so are men today allowed to suppress the truth. God permitting something does not make him less sovereign.

But many Calvinist don't say "God chose to permit it". Instead they say, God chose for Adam to sin. Has God changed?

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:25 PM
Seeing both sides of the discussion brings into sharp focus the question:

"Are we saved because we are the elect?".....OR

"Are we the elect because we are saved?"

Both views have positive points...both views have negative points...How do we as mere men ever hope to fathom the infinite mind of God?

As far as "freaky" outlook on Scripture...(respectfully) the same could be said of the Arminian view ;)

Hyper-Calvinism negates any will of man...

Hyper-Arminianism negates the sovereignty of God...

I merely propose that neither view is 100% correct, nor 100% wrong either.

Where is the "middle ground" (if indeed there is middle ground)? Therein lies the great question...:)

I personally am finding the different viewpoints to be quite thought provoking...
Hyper or not... it still puts election before Christ and that is going to be very problematic Scripturally. Folks need to pay attention to the sin of the Jew. They thought that because they were "children of Abraham" and "elect" that they were in like flint with God. Nothing was further from the truth. Christ makes that painfully clear in the gospel of John as does Paul in many of his epistle's.

It wasn't the called who got into the wedding feast (parable of Christ)... it was those out on the highway and byways. It isn't the "called" that enter heaven... it is those chosen. Those chosen are chosen when the race is run. Many are called. Few chosen. Many called take the wide path that leads to destruction. Few are chosen who take the difficult and narrow path that LEADS to life.

Middle ground is something we all like to think works in all instances... but that doesn't always work either. That can be said about several doctrinal divides I would suppose.

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:28 PM
I've asked this question many times like this:
Calvinism-God can but don't want to
Arminianism-God wants to but can't

Yes it seems that both sides are missing something. I'm in limbo concerning the two which means that I too am missing something.

My response:

Why does any person rely on either of those two isms? Both Calvinism as well as Arminianism doesn't have the answer.

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:29 PM
@ ProjectPeter: My point exactly...:)

But yet worthy of discussion

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:32 PM
So let me see how this works and reading much of this... it is what I see. We are saved by election? Come on guys... that's exactly how it sounds and it tears me up to even read this. You'll say NO WAY but then YES WAY. That's exactly what is being said. God elected some even before the world was created for heaven. And this loving God also elected MANY MORE so that He could enlarge hell to accommodate all the folks that He created for that place. That's a freaky outlook on Scripture... got it to say.

But it IS what Scripture teaches - and where do you get the idea that, in the final analysis there will be MANY MORE in Hell?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:32 PM
Very good point...Hadn't looked at it this way before...:)

But think of this... Does God love some differently than he loves others? Is he a respecter of persons? Does he love the elect more than he loves the world?

"For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son..."

He loves some enough to save them but he doesn't love others enough to intervene? How does that line up with John 3:16?

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:37 PM
But it IS what Scripture teaches - and where do you get the idea that, in the final analysis there will be MANY MORE in Hell?

Because narrow is the way that leads to life and broad is the way that leads to destruction. Hell continues to enlarge itself! Many are called but few are chosen. All of scripture suggest that only few will come to Christ. The vast majority of mankind is condemned. Only 8 were saved in Noah's day. Only 8!

If God, a God of love, willed for man to sin, and only through "sovereign election" saves some, then he willed for the overwhelming majority of people to sin and go to hell. He is not nor will he ever be the author of sin. Or perhaps God didn't will man to sin, but still only provides a way out for a few. He then, being love, still wills the vast majority of mankind to spend eternity in hell. Yet, he explicitly has stated his desire is that all men are saved and that hell was created for Satan and his demons. It was not created for man.

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM
But think of this... Does God love some differently than he loves others? Is he a respecter of persons? Does he love the elect more than he loves the world?

"For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son..."

He loves some enough to save them but he doesn't love others enough to intervene? How does that line up with John 3:16?

And the flip side of the issue :rofl:

Seriously, I was merely commenting on the explanation...which admittedly is a good one from the Calvinistic viewpoint, and one that I had not heard (put that way) before...

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:45 PM
But it IS what Scripture teaches - and where do you get the idea that, in the final analysis there will be MANY MORE in Hell?Broad is the way and many find it... narrow is the way and few do. Seems right clear doesn't it? What do you think Jesus was speaking of in that passage?

Matthew 7:13 ¶"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.
14 "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 03:55 PM
And the flip side of the issue :rofl:

Seriously, I was merely commenting on the explanation...which admittedly is a good one from the Calvinistic viewpoint, and one that I had not heard (put that way) before...

Yea, I know. But I wanted to throw out some fodder for thought. Calvinism has some major issues with God's character and his ways. Often, they will explain away verses by giving words totally different meanings. There are simple scriptures that teach simple things that some Calvinist deny. For instance, they will not often acknowledge that God loves the world as stated in John 3:16 and instead say that world there, actually means elect. They often do the same with 1 John 2:2.

Now, on a less controversial note, there have been great Calvinist teachers of the past. Spurgeon was one. Piper has some great things to say today about finding joy and satisfaction in God. Pink could see great types and shadows in scripture (something some modern Calvinist don't like). Spurgeon would say "God has chosen some to go to heaven. Why don't you be one of them." Spurgeon was criticized in his day for preaching the gospel to the "unelect" but he did so anyway.

A 5 point Calvinist will have trouble looking a lost man in the eye and saying "Jesus died for your sins. Repent!"

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:18 PM
Agreed...

I personally have great problems with Irresistible Grace (Calvin), as an example.

We know that no one comes to the Son unless The Father draws him...yet we also know that many are called but few are chosen.

Ergo (IMO) if Irresistible Grace were fact: the implication would be that all who were called would be chosen...but that is not so.

Therefore Irresistible Grace by definition must negate man's "will" (for lack of a better term).


But then again I have great problems with the Conditional Security (Arminius) aspect.

We know that in order to be "saved" one must be "born-again". That one must not only "confess with the mouth" but also "believe with the heart".

Having been sealed with the Holy Spirit, given the "mind of Christ", becoming "new creations", and that sin would not have "dominion" over us...if we can then "walk away" from it we negate God's power in keeping His purchase safe....

In either case there are Scriptural Paradoxes evident for those who embrace (whole-heartedly) either viewpoint...JMO :P

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:21 PM
Agreed...

I personally have great problems with Irresistible Grace (Calvin), as an example.

We know that no one comes to the Son unless The Father draws him...yet we also know that many are called but few are chosen.

Ergo (IMO) if Irresistible Grace were fact: the implication would be that all who were called would be chosen...but that is not so.

Therefore Irresistible Grace by definition must negate man's "will" (for lack of a better term).


But then again I have great problems with the Conditional Security (Arminius) aspect.

We know that in order to be "saved" one must be "born-again". That one must not only "confess with the mouth" but also "believe with the heart".

Having been sealed with the Holy Spirit, given the "mind of Christ", becoming "new creations", and that sin would not have "dominion" over us...if we can then "walk away" from it we negate God's power in keeping His purchase safe....

In either case there are Scriptural Paradoxes evident for those who embrace (whole-heartedly) either viewpoint...JMO :P
That's easy... must that one CONTINUE to confess with their mouth and believe with their heart or is a one time deal enough? If it is the latter then I can see your problem with "conditional security" but if the former... then you believe in conditional security as well. ;)

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:24 PM
In either case there are Scriptural Paradoxes evident for those who embrace (whole-heartedly) either viewpoint...JMO :P

If folks are willing to leave the mystery where scripture leaves it, then no problem. Some of that mystery goes away as we grow in the Lord. But we will continue to see through a glass darkly and perhaps see mystery and paradoxes until we die and the dark glass is removed. However, when we push aside the teachings of scripture in an effort to remove mystery, I think we fall into a trap. If scripture says Jesus died for the whole world in several places, then it is wise to believe that is what Jesus did!

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:25 PM
That's easy... must that one CONTINUE to confess with their mouth and believe with their heart or is a one time deal enough? If it is the latter then I can see your problem with "conditional security" but if the former... then you believe in conditional security as well. ;)

Simply making the observation that neither viewpoint can be 100%

(See how slickly I evaded the Conditional/Eternal Security-possible-derail issue :rofl::rofl::rofl:)

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:28 PM
If folks are willing to leave the mystery where scripture leaves it, then no problem. Some of that mystery goes away as we grow in the Lord. But we will continue to see through a glass darkly and perhaps see mystery and paradoxes until we die and the dark glass is removed. However, when we push aside the teachings of scripture in an effort to remove mystery, I think we fall into a trap. If scripture says Jesus died for the whole world in several places, then it is wise to believe that is what Jesus did!

I agree 100%

Isn't it interesting though...that people will get into theological "knife fights" over those self-same mysteries :P.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:32 PM
Ah but it isn't a derail slick or not... ;) Very much part of the thread discussion. :lol:

fewarechosen
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:35 PM
in the battle of calvinians vs arminianists -- god will win :)

mcgyver
Jun 3rd 2008, 04:38 PM
Ah but it isn't a derail slick or not... ;) Very much part of the thread discussion. :lol:

Ain't that the truth!!! :lol:

Just that everyone is being too nice and thoughtful in their replies...I'd prefer to keep the issue incidental to the discussion at hand instead of focusing on that one point exclusively! :)

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:21 PM
Ain't that the truth!!! :lol:

Just that everyone is being too nice and thoughtful in their replies...I'd prefer to keep the issue incidental to the discussion at hand instead of focusing on that one point exclusively! :)
But then there isn't one conclusive point in Calvinism. All five hinge totally off of each other. That particular one being the caboose. ;)

grit
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:34 PM
Agreed...

I personally have great problems with Irresistible Grace (Calvin), as an example.

We know that no one comes to the Son unless The Father draws him...yet we also know that many are called but few are chosen.

Ergo (IMO) if Irresistible Grace were fact: the implication would be that all who were called would be chosen...but that is not so.

Therefore Irresistible Grace by definition must negate man's "will" (for lack of a better term).


Ah, the acrostic TULIP really is in want of some tweaking toward better clarity of the Reformed position (which would include the hallmark of Luther and the rest of the Reformation, and not simply Calvinianastinism), when it comes to detailed analysis. Irresistible grace, for example, is better termed effectual grace, so as not to misconstrue what is meant. But in a more accurate acrostic rendering, the flower of RSDEP (radical corruption, sovereign election, definite atonement, effectual grace, and preservation of the saints) or TSPEP (total inability, sovereign election, particular atonement, effectual grace, and preservation of the saints) sounds more like far less flowery R2D2 language.

Irresistible grace is not irresistible in the sense that there is no human capability of resisting it – sinners always are in a state of resisting God’s will and the outward call of the Gospel. Irresistible grace, or the better effectual grace, simply means the sinners resistance is no match for the invincible grace of the power of the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, which must precede any genuine saving faith. That’s what makes grace so gracious and defines God as sovereign in salvation. Thus, God’s inward call is made effectual by the Word and the Holy Spirit. – it accomplishes the unstoppable purpose for which it is divinely intended. :)

Do I still get to pull the train whistle?

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:42 PM
How does unconditional grace and limited atonement mix with God's desire to see all men saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? If God's grace is unconditional and man has no part and can only say that they are saved via arbitrary choice of God and they can do nothing about it and the sinner chosen to go to hell likewise then God would be sovreignly denying something that he desires meaning that Jesus Christ didn't die for all mankind as the Bible says and God really doesn't mean what he says.. he only means it for the 'lucky' ones

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:44 PM
Ah, the acrostic TULIP really is in want of some tweaking toward better clarity of the Reformed position (which would include the hallmark of Luther and the rest of the Reformation, and not simply Calvinianastinism), when it comes to detailed analysis. Irresistible grace, for example, is better termed effectual grace, so as not to misconstrue what is meant. But in a more accurate acrostic rendering, the flower of RSDEP (radical corruption, sovereign election, definite atonement, effectual grace, and preservation of the saints) or TSPEP (total inability, sovereign election, particular atonement, effectual grace, and preservation of the saints) sounds more like far less flowery R2D2 language.

Irresistible grace is not irresistible in the sense that there is no human capability of resisting it – sinners always are in a state of resisting God’s will and the outward call of the Gospel. Irresistible grace, or the better effectual grace, simply means the sinners resistance is no match for the invincible grace of the power of the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, which must precede any genuine saving faith. That’s what makes grace so gracious and defines God as sovereign in salvation. Thus, God’s inward call is made effectual by the Word and the Holy Spirit. – it accomplishes the unstoppable purpose for which it is divinely intended. :)

Do I still get to pull the train whistle?


Interesting wording. But as we say in the south, a rose by any other name is still a rose. ;)

Effectual grace, as you call it, still seems to suggest that for those upon whom it is laid, they will in no wise be able to resist it. Shoot, sounds irresistible to me. :D

As for the outward call of the gospel, we see that God actually placed the call in the heart of man.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

And we haven't even begun to discuss how Jesus died for the sins of the world and not just for the elect.

fewarechosen
Jun 3rd 2008, 05:49 PM
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

who will have all men to be saved ?
he wants all to be saved -- but then why wouldnt they if something was not up to the individual

if he gave himself a ransom for all - and we cannot reject him then arent we all saved ?

it was brought up lol ;)

grit
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:28 PM
How does unconditional grace and limited atonement mix with God's desire to see all men saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? If God's grace is unconditional and man has no part and can only say that they are saved via arbitrary choice of God and they can do nothing about it and the sinner chosen to go to hell likewise then God would be sovreignly denying something that he desires meaning that Jesus Christ didn't die for all mankind as the Bible says and God really doesn't mean what he says.. he only means it for the 'lucky' ones



Well, when it is understandably approached that way there indeed would seem to be some inconsistencies in the Christian Scriptures, which hopefully none of us here gathered would claim. Augustine vs. Pelagius, Luther vs. Erasmus, Calvin vs. Arminius, all dealing with the issue of predestination vs. free will, have attempted a presentation of the doctrines of Christian Scripture as a consistent whole, a theological system that is logically consistent within itself and where every single verse of Holy Scripture is understood as essentially true and non-contradictory.

Admittedly this often proves a difficult task when given the paradoxes of Scriptural truth. In particular address of the concerns you’ve expressed, we would emphasize a difference between the decree of God that some be saved and the desire of God that all be saved. We might agree that God did not rejoice in the death of his own sinless Son, that he did not desire it or even, in one sense, will for Christ to suffer in agony and die upon the cross as a criminal. Yet God decreed that it happen, having planned it to happen just as it did according to his own timetable and as he detailed it through prophets in the OT, all the way back to the promises he made to Adam and Eve. Clearly God predestined one thing while desiring another. The question may remain as to why? In fact, I had a uncle whose chief testimony was that the mystery of the Gospel is why God would bend to save any one of us when he owes us nothing but death for our sin and rebellion. God is not evil. He is never unjust. Some people receive what they deserve, while other people receive gracious mercy. God’s love is not lessened by his justice, and his justice is not lessened by his mercy.

Calvinists and Arminians both assert that whoever desires to be saved can be saved. Calvinists, or rather Reformed theology, simply find in Scripture that man’s will is bound by what he desires, which, in a fallen state of rebellion and imperfection, is contrary to joyfully obeying God in sinless worship. Arminians find in Scripture that God commands obedience and joyful worship and find it difficult to imagine that God would not grant what he commands. Both would find place in man for a great need of God’s grace, of being blessed by God toward redemption. :hug:

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:34 PM
and God is not lessened by giving man free will to choose him... without having his hand in it... he's offered us a gift... meaning if we refuse it.. we have to find our own way to heaven, not to mention insulting the one offering the gift thus justifying God all the more...

but you didn't answer my question... how does limited atonement equate with God's sovreign desire to see all men saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth? If God's desires are so great for mankind, and if he's sovreign over even the will of man, why doesn't he do that what he so sovereignly desires?

I know the doctrine of atonement... but where is limited atonement justified in the Bible in the sense where God chooses who get's this and who doesn't?

Cannot a gift be refused? Grace can be resisted... I did for 21 years before I finally accepted it.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:41 PM
Well, when it is understandably approached that way there indeed would seem to be some inconsistencies in the Christian Scriptures, which hopefully none of us here gathered would claim. Augustine vs. Pelagius, Luther vs. Erasmus, Calvin vs. Arminius, all dealing with the issue of predestination vs. free will, have attempted a presentation of the doctrines of Christian Scripture as a consistent whole, a theological system that is logically consistent within itself and where every single verse of Holy Scripture is understood as essentially true and non-contradictory.

That is all well and good, as long as it doesn't leave out scriptures. For instance, some will argue that Jesus did not die for the world (i.e. non-elect). But scripture says that he did. There are things of mystery that we just accept. For instance, the Trinity can be understood to a degree, but it is still mystery to us. Yet, we accept it. For some reason, we refuse to accept mystery in other areas of scripture.


Admittedly this often proves a difficult task when given the paradoxes of Scriptural truth. In particular address of the concerns you’ve expressed, we would emphasize a difference between the decree of God that some be saved and the desire of God that all be saved.

I know God makes a difference between his desires and his decrees. Yet, we do not see in scripture where he decreed Adam to sin nor for man to end up in hell. Hell was made for Satan and his angels.



God is not evil. He is never unjust. Some people receive what they deserve, while other people receive gracious mercy. God’s love is not lessened by his justice, and his justice is not lessened by his mercy.

Is God a respecter of persons? Does he love some more than he loves others?


Both would find place in man for a great need of God’s grace, of being blessed by God toward redemption. :hug:

In this we agree.

grit
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:43 PM
Interesting wording. But as we say in the south, a rose by any other name is still a rose. ;)

Effectual grace, as you call it, still seems to suggest that for those upon whom it is laid, they will in no wise be able to resist it. Shoot, sounds irresistible to me. :D

As for the outward call of the gospel, we see that God actually placed the call in the heart of man.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

Ah, but cannot the same be said of Satan? There is a difference between bearing what I might term a stamp of God as one of his creatures, or even a bearing of the image of God as the crown of his creation, and being born again of God by water and the Spirit. There is a difference between knowing and/or "believing" in God as the deamons do (and "tremble")(James 2:19, KJV), as the Romans pasage indicates, and between having an inward call of God's Holy Spirit quickening one to the salvation of the soul. On this point I think we might agree. :hug:

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 06:46 PM
Ah, but cannot the same be said of Satan? There is a difference between bearing what I might term a stamp of God as one of his creatures, or even a bearing of the image of God as the crown of his creation, and being born again of God by water and the Spirit. There is a difference between knowing and/or "believing" in God as the deamons do (and "tremble")(James 2:19, KJV), as the Romans pasage indicates, and between having an inward call of God's Holy Spirit quickening one to the salvation of the soul. :hug:

Of course there is a difference. Those folks that suppress the truth in Romans go to hell for doing so. Yet, God placed within them a witness of himself that they must suppress in order to go to hell. The witness can be resisted and has been by countless folks. But the offer is genuine and can be accepted because of what God has placed within man.

That is why he says "As man as received Him, to them gave he power..."

All can be saved. Not all will be saved.

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:05 PM
My response:

Why does any person rely on either of those two isms? Both Calvinism as well as Arminianism doesn't have the answer.

What about your theology isn't Arminian?

grit
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:07 PM
and God is not lessened by giving man free will to choose him... without having his hand in it... he's offered us a gift... meaning if we refuse it.. we have to find our own way to heaven, not to mention insulting the one offering the gift thus justifying God all the more...

but you didn't answer my question... how does limited atonement equate with God's sovreign desire to see all men saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth? If God's desires are so great for mankind, and if he's sovreign over even the will of man, why doesn't he do that what he so sovereignly desires?

I know the doctrine of atonement... but where is limited atonement justified in the Bible in the sense where God chooses who get's this and who doesn't?

Cannot a gift be refused? Grace can be resisted... I did for 21 years before I finally accepted it.

I'm sorry. I think that I answered the question exactly as I have understood it was posed- in a distinction being made between desire and decree. Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are intending. You are not meaning that all will be saved, are you - the doctrine of universalism?

Calvinists would agree with you that God can in no way be lessened by man and that the gift of free will to choose God comes exclusively from God and is prerequisite to salvation. All good gifts come from God and are given by God, and the Scriptures teach this throughout. I think we most likely agree on this.

By definition a gift is not a gift if it is refused. The best one might term it is an offer. If it is a gift, then it has been effectually given and received. If it has been refused, then it is not a gift. The giver might still think of it as a gift and even describe it as a gift, but since it remains unapplied as a gift, it is but a suggestion of giving. Had Christ's sacrifice been effectively applied to none, then it would not be thought of as a gift, since its application would then be ineffectual. :hug:

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:12 PM
I'm sorry. I think that I answered the question exactly as I have understood it was posed- in a distinction being made between desire and decree. Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are intending. You are not meaning that all will be saved, are you - the doctrine of universalism?

Universalism is not very far removed from calvinism. They share many tenents.


Calvinists would agree with you that God can in no way be lessened by man and that the gift of free will to choose God comes exclusively from God and is prerequisite to salvation. All good gifts come from God and are given by God, and the Scriptures teach this throughout. I think we most likely agree on this.

Except that I believe God has granted the ability to all to choose. Calvinist teach that God does not allow all the ability to accept his gift. God's offer is made in vain.


By definition a gift is not a gift if it is refused. The best one might term it is an offer. If it is a gift, then it has been effectually given and received. If it has been refused, then it is not a gift. The giver might still think of it as a gift and even describe it as a gift, but since it remains unapplied as a gift, it is but a suggestion of giving. Had Christ's sacrifice been effectively applied to none, then it would not be thought of as a gift, since its application was ineffectual. :hug:

If the Giver calls it a gift, should we not also? Even if the gift was refused, it was not ineffectual. Either one's heart is harden or softened. It has an impact both ways.

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:12 PM
I personally have great problems with Irresistible Grace (Calvin), as an example.

We know that no one comes to the Son unless The Father draws him...yet we also know that many are called but few are chosen.

Ergo (IMO) if Irresistible Grace were fact: the implication would be that all who were called would be chosen...but that is not so.

Therefore Irresistible Grace by definition must negate man's "will" (for lack of a better term).

But there are two types of "call" - the external call of the gospel (which can be resisted) and the internal call of God's spirit (which cannot). Our wills MUST be overcome, albeit graciously and lovingly - similar to falling in love - because we CANNOT change our own hearts - God MUST take away the heart of stone and give us the heart of flesh - we need to be MADE new creations!

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:15 PM
But there are two types of "call" - the external call of the gospel (which can be resisted) and the internal call of God's spirit (which cannot). Our wills MUST be overcome, albeit graciously and lovingly - similar to falling in love - because we CANNOT change our own hearts - God MUST take away the heart of stone and give us the heart of flesh - we need to be MADE new creations!

Yet, God placed within us a witness. The call is internal and not external. That's what Romans 1 says. In order to deny God, one must suppress the truth that God placed within them. When one listens to what God is saying, God changes his heart and softens it. When one rejects what God is saying, the heart is hardened.

But as you wrote before you erased it, there are problems with either side that ignores plain scriptures. Some remove the seeming paradoxes where God does not!

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:15 PM
That's easy... must that one CONTINUE to confess with their mouth and believe with their heart or is a one time deal enough? If it is the latter then I can see your problem with "conditional security" but if the former... then you believe in conditional security as well. ;)

Nah, he believes in the truth - Perseverance of the Saints! :P

SweetSomber
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:20 PM
Where does Scripture teach that Scripture "offers" humility? Do you accept that mankind enslaved to sin is DEAF to God and, like Zacharias, needs to be given spiritual "ears to hear? Do you believe that mankind enslaved to sin is BLIND and, like Bartimaeus, needs to be given spiritual sight? Do you believe that mankind enslaved to sin is DEAD and, like Lazarus, needs to be raised spiritually from death?
...
But why do they accept His help? Is it not because He has unstopped their ears, opened their eyes and given new life to their souls, so that they might freely choose to accept Him?


And we touch on the issue of man's inability - total depravity. What does the Bible say?

Romans 3:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=23&version=50&context=verse)
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Romans 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=10&version=50&context=verse)
"As it is written: “ There is none righteous, no, not one;"

Romans 6:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=6&verse=20&version=50&context=verse)
"For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness."

Ephesians 2:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=2&verse=1&version=50&context=verse)
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,"

2 Corinthians 3:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=3&verse=14&version=50&context=verse)
"But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ."

First I'll address the "deadness" and "blindness" so often talked about by calvinists. We were dead in sin. Death is separation: physical death is the separation of our body from our spirit, the death that happened in the garden of eden was a separation between us and God, and the second death is eternal separation of a person from the presence of God. Another meaning of death, as used in Romans 6 is "out of effect." Our old nature is considered dead, and yet since it is not gone yet, we still feel it's urgings. We can be separated from God, and still wish that things were different. We can be technically dead, and yet wish things and do things. Scripturally, nowhere does it say that someone who is a slave to sin, and dead in trespasses cannot wish to be no longer a slave. Blinded people also can ask for help - those whose minds are blinded can ask God to open their eyes. We are not capable of saving ourselves, of course, but where does the Bible say that nonchristians are not capable of asking for help?

Now, the big thing is faith. Does faith come from us or from God? Well, I'd say that before we get into that, there begs the question, is faith a virtue? I say not. Faith in something is a mental belief and a choice. In this sense, everyone has faith all the time. Everyone believes something, and acts on that belief everyday. People have faith when they sit on a chair, they have faith when they turn a steering wheel, they have faith when they choose not to eat a donut, and people even have faith when they punch someone in the face (belief that it will hurt the other person, and a choice to do act on that) That's not a virtue. Faith can be a vice if you believe in wrong things, or a vice if you choose to make bad decisions. So of course we can produce faith. Even a completely depraved individual can believe that a friend can help him and ask for help, right? A guy in jail can call up his dad to bail him out! Is that a virtue? I say not. In the same way, if a person believes that God can help him out of a fix, (maybe because he was raised to think so) and chooses to ask for help because he's selfish and wants out, where is the virtue in that?

In all this, I believe that the Bible says the we are sinful and depraved, and yet I don't see where it says that we are unable to selfishly ask him for help! To ask for Him to free us from our slavery (to sin) and to rescue us from punishment, is that not self-seeking?




I didn't say that - I said that God can, wants to and DOES save all He PURPOSES to save!
...
No - he desires that all men be saved - but He does not purpose to do it. You may see this as a contradiction but it is one of the deepest mysteries of Scripture.I agree that He desires that all men be saved, but does not purpose to do it. But I can give a Biblical reason as to why He does not purpose to save all.

Numbers 21:8 (New King James Version)
"Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.”

God wants all to be saved, but He only purposes to help those who want his help, and purposes not to help those who would shun his help. This verse was before salvation, and yet shows the same principle: He helps those who want it. If someone stubborn refused to look, they would die.


I am conscious of the distinction betwen what is called common grace and special/redemptive/saving grace - but I do not see common grace enabling us to receive saving grace - can you point me to any verses that teach this? or any theologians down throught the centuries who have taught this and what their Scriptural arguemnts for it are? I don't like the term 'common grace,' it's like, what does that even mean? Sometimes people say that it means that God prevents the expression of the majority of evil in the hearts of men. I disagree with that. Mostly, I see that grace means God helping people. I do believe that God gives help to people, and yes, help to see that they might need salvation (which is saving grace) The Bible says:
John 16:7-8 (New King James Version)

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment."

God sends to Holy Spirit to convict people, which presses humility on their conscience at the realization of their sin. I'm sure that in your own life, you've had the experiences of both heeding your conscience and ignoring it. So then if that if what you mean by common grace, a help given to all to see their sorry state, a help that can be unheeded, then yes, I believe that the Bible teaches it.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:23 PM
Nah, he believes in the truth - Perseverance of the Saints! :P
Well all should believe in perseverance of the Saints. Nothing more Scriptural than that. Where it differs in the "they will" or "if they do" issue. The "they will" is not Scriptural... "if they will" is very much so. ;)

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:29 PM
Ah, the acrostic TULIP really is in want of some tweaking toward better clarity of the Reformed position (which would include the hallmark of Luther and the rest of the Reformation, and not simply Calvinianastinism), when it comes to detailed analysis. Irresistible grace, for example, is better termed effectual grace, so as not to misconstrue what is meant.

Fair point - with you so far.


But in a more accurate acrostic rendering, the flower of
RSDEP (radical corruption,

Why not "total"? This would actually be semi-Pelagianism, not Calvinism!


sovereign election,

Again, accommodating Arminianism - the UNconditional part is VITALLY important!


definite atonement, effectual grace,

Agreed on both of those.


and preservation of the saints)

Nah - that's the OSAS teaching that gives TRUE Calvinism a bad name! It's not just that God preserves us - but (because of that) WE PERSEVERE in faith AND life!


or
TSPEP (total inability, sovereign election, particular atonement, effectual grace, and preservation of the saints) sounds more like far less flowery R2D2 language.

Again, don't go with sovereign election or preservation ONLY - but points 1 and 3 are both an improvement! ;)


Irresistible grace is not irresistible in the sense that there is no human capability of resisting it – sinners always are in a state of resisting God’s will and the outward call of the Gospel. Irresistible grace, or the better effectual grace, simply means the sinners resistance is no match for the invincible grace of the power of the Holy Spirit’s regeneration, which must precede any genuine saving faith. That’s what makes grace so gracious and defines God as sovereign in salvation. Thus, God’s inward call is made effectual by the Word and the Holy Spirit. – it accomplishes the unstoppable purpose for which it is divinely intended. :)

Very well put!


Do I still get to pull the train whistle?

You do in my book! Or rather "on my line"!

timmyb
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:33 PM
where in the Bible does it say that grace cannot be resisted?

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:36 PM
All men are not totally depraved or reprobate as commonly used. That is something that I never understood how folks could swallow. Born in sin sure... because of Adam we all are. But that is a far cry from total depravity or reprobate.

Romans 1 should honestly slam the door shut on such as that.

Romans 1:18 ¶For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
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.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 ¶Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 ¶For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 ¶And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

There is a clear process of rejecting God before God gives folks over to reprobation. If they were already reprobate... then this passage makes absolutely no sense.

Everyone knows God. God sees to that Himself. It is up to man to acknowledge Him as God. That is up to man himself.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:42 PM
OK PP. I was going to agree with you using wit and humor and sarcasm. But laying all sarcasm aside for a moment, what you are speaking of is deadly serious. We read over Romans 1 far too casually. There, man rejects the inner call of God.

Rom 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 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. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASB

God placed his call within them. He put evidence inside of them that witnesses to his existence and nature. When they suppress that truth, and reject his inner calling, he will eventually turn them over to a reprobate mind. It is a scary passage and a warning for all.

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:43 PM
Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." ust as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Honestly, could it be more blatant?

Free willers, if it was your choice to come to God, what made you choose God? Is it that you are smarter? More deserving of faith? More intelligent than those that did not come to faith?

No. The Father dragged you out of your grave, being dead in your sins and made you alive in Christ.

Yuke

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:45 PM
OK PP. I was going to agree with you using wit and humor and sarcasm. But laying all sarcasm aside for a moment, what you are speaking of is deadly serious. We read over Romans 1 far too casually. There, man rejects the inner call of God.

Rom 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 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. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASB

God placed his call within them. He put evidence inside of them that witnesses to his existence and nature. When they suppress that truth, and reject his inner calling, he will eventually turn them over to a reprobate mind. It is a scary passage and a warning for all.
That it certainly should be.

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:45 PM
What about your theology isn't Arminian?

My own personal theology takes from Arminianism what I find agrees with Scripture, but at the same time other parts of my personal theology agrees with Calvinism. Finally my personal theology disagrees with certain points of both Calvinism as well as Arminianism. Therefore my personal theology is neither Arminian or Calvinistic. Both Arminianism as well as Calvinism has flaws.
Here's a Question for you, Is it your opinion that one of those schools of theology is without any flaw?

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 07:48 PM
Honestly, could it be more blatant?

Free willers, if it was your choice to come to God, what made you choose God? Is it that you are smarter? More deserving of faith? More intelligent than those that did not come to faith?

No. The Father dragged you out of your grave, being dead in your sins and made you alive in Christ.

Yuke
Did He? When Jesus told the disciples to come, follow Him... did He drag them? When that group up and left... did He force them to stay or did He let them go and then offer that same choice to the 12?

As to what made someone choose... they heeded the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Some do... some ignore it... some outright reject it. The reasons why would be many I figure. Has nothing to do with being "smarter", "good-er" or any other such straw man type question.

grit
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:10 PM
Except that I believe God has granted the ability to all to choose. Calvinist teach that God does not allow all the ability to accept his gift. God's offer is made in vain.


I think we might be disparately mincing words. That's not what Calvin or Reformed theology teaches, so any misunderstanding toward such might be thought misnamed. A clearer understanding would be in the description popularized by Luther as man's will being bound to what he desires, which is in conflict with sinless obedience to God. In other words, man has free will in so much as it reflects his desires, which desires are at enmity with God. Man can not, apart from the intervening grace of God, perfectly and completely please God. Man is free to choose what he desires, but his desire to do good or to rightly understand how good relates to perfectly honouring God is bound to the wickedness and imperfection within him.


In his On the Bondage of the Will, Luther writes; “for free-will… does no good, nor can do, without grace.” He writes, “Let all the 'free-will' in the world do all it can with all its strength; it will never give rise to a single instance of ability to avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or of meriting mercy if it is left to its own strength."


And at greater length he writes;

“I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want free-will to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my free-will (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved); but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleases God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. No one, He says, shall pluck them out of my hand, because my father which gave them me is greater than all [John 10:28-29]. Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of free-will none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.”

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:21 PM
I think we might be disparately mincing words. That's not what Calvin or Reformed theology teaches, so any misunderstanding toward such might be thought misnamed. A clearer understanding would be in the description popularized by Luther as man's will being bound to what he desires, which is in conflict with sinless obedience to God. In other words, man has free will in so much as it reflects his desires, which desires are at enmity with God. Man can not, apart from the intervening grace of God, perfectly and completely please God. Man is free to choose what he desires, but his desire to do good or to rightly understand how good relates to perfectly honouring God is bound to the wickedness and imperfection within him.


In his On the Bondage of the Will, Luther writes; “for free-will… does no good, nor can do, without grace.” He writes, “Let all the 'free-will' in the world do all it can with all its strength; it will never give rise to a single instance of ability to avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or of meriting mercy if it is left to its own strength."


And at greater length he writes;

“I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want free-will to be given to me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavor after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my free-will (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved); but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labor with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleases God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. No one, He says, shall pluck them out of my hand, because my father which gave them me is greater than all [John 10:28-29]. Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of free-will none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.”


Me thinkest that both Calvin and Luther never grasped the following Scripture.

Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

Brother Mark
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:26 PM
I think we might be disparately mincing words. That's not what Calvin or Reformed theology teaches, so any misunderstanding toward such might be thought misnamed. A clearer understanding would be in the description popularized by Luther as man's will being bound to what he desires, which is in conflict with sinless obedience to God. In other words, man has free will in so much as it reflects his desires, which desires are at enmity with God. Man can not, apart from the intervening grace of God, perfectly and completely please God. Man is free to choose what he desires, but his desire to do good or to rightly understand how good relates to perfectly honouring God is bound to the wickedness and imperfection within him.

I don't think we are mincing words. I have read Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will". Nowhere have I proclaimed man can of his "free will" come to God. Yet, I do declare that God has given all men that ability to respond to him. He has given an "inner call" to all men. Yet, some will suppress the inner call from God. That's what Romans 1 is all about. The inner call can be suppressed and it can be responded to as well. But only with the grace given to all men by God. All can choose to repent. But not all do.

Some Calvinist of today preach that some men are created for hell and there is no hope for them. They cannot come to God. There is no chance they will ever repent. They have no say in the matter at all and God will not equip them to repent. They teach that these men are created doomed for hell. Such teachings do not square with all the scriptures. If some men are bound for hell with no hope for redemption, then God's offer of salvation to them is not genuine and it is in vain (i.e. meaningless).


In his On the Bondage of the Will, Luther writes; “for free-will… does no good, nor can do, without grace.” He writes, “Let all the 'free-will' in the world do all it can with all its strength; it will never give rise to a single instance of ability to avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or of meriting mercy if it is left to its own strength."Right. Free will accomplishes nothing. That's why God placed his inner call (that is grace) within the heart of man. Let man not suppress that inner call or he will be turned over to a reprobate mind. At that point, God has cut him off and there is no hope for that man's soul.

ProjectPeter
Jun 3rd 2008, 08:34 PM
Let man not suppress that inner call or he will be turned over to a reprobate mind. At that point, God has cut him off and there is no hope for that man's soul.
That's right. Adikimos... cast away or rejected. As Daniel Webster defined it... beyond salvation.

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:01 PM
Some Calvinist of today preach that some men are created for hell and there is no hope for them. They cannot come to God. There is no chance they will ever repent. They have no say in the matter at all and God will not equip them to repent. They teach that these men are created doomed for hell. Such teachings do not square with all the scriptures. If some men are bound for hell with no hope for redemption, then God's offer of salvation to them is not genuine and it is in vain (i.e. meaningless).



Yep - lets hear it right from the mouth of Calvinist's

"Those therefore whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children." - Calvin's Institutes 3:23:1

"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." - Westminister Confession of Faith

9Marksfan
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:20 PM
where in the Bible does it say that grace cannot be resisted?

All that the Father gives me will come to me... Jn 6:37a NKJV

It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God". Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father [inner call] comes to me. Jn 6:45 NKJV

The "all" Jesus is speaking of are those whom He would draw - and it's NOT everyone, because such people would be raised up at the last day - this CANNOT mean the resurrection to damnation, for that would mean that we are drawn to Christ and then condemned! No, when Jesus speaks of raising these people up, He is meaning those to whom He will give eternal life and He is therefoe speaking of the resurrection body (cf 6:39).

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:26 PM
Did He? When Jesus told the disciples to come, follow Him... did He drag them? When that group up and left... did He force them to stay or did He let them go and then offer that same choice to the 12?

Of course Jesus didn't drag them! The Father did. :)

"No one comes to me unless the Father drags him to me."

These are not my words, but Christ's.


As to what made someone choose... they heeded the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Some do... some ignore it... some outright reject it. The reasons why would be many I figure. Has nothing to do with being "smarter", "good-er" or any other such straw man type question.

What you are referring to is a man being not dead in their sins. A man still able to take action.

Dead men don't reject, ignore, or take any action. Dead is dead. See my post about the drowning man compared to the dead man.

It is Christ who makes us alive, not us.

There is no work we can do. There was no work Esau did to be hated by God, but hated by God he was. There was no work Jacob did to be loved by God, but loved by God he was.

Yuke

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:31 PM
"No one comes to me unless the Father drags him to me."

These are not my words, but Christ's.

In which translation do you find that wording?

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:45 PM
John 6:44

From the Septuagint

helkuo is used here. It is also used in Acts 16:19 - dragging Paul and Silas
Acts 21:30 - drag Paul
James 2:6 - drag you.

Don't let the translation you use be considered the Word of God. Look at what is said in the Greek and see how else that same word is used throughout the Bible.

In every case that draw was used as the translation for helkuo, drag would be a better fit.

They did not draw (meaning tempt, lead, guide, etc.) Paul and Silas.

They drug them. Pulled them against their will.

Yuke

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 10:55 PM
John 6:44

From the Septuagint

helkuo is used here. It is also used in Acts 16:19 - dragging Paul and Silas
Acts 21:30 - drag Paul
James 2:6 - drag you.

Don't let the translation you use be considered the Word of God. Look at what is said in the Greek and see how else that same word is used throughout the Bible.

In every case that draw was used as the translation for helkuo, drag would be a better fit.

They did not draw (meaning tempt, lead, guide, etc.) Paul and Silas.

They drug them. Pulled them against their will.

Yuke

In other words you believe the translators can't be trusted!!!!!!!

Jer. 31:3
The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

That doesn't sound like dragging to me.

Lets research this a bit.

There is a difference between those of the Reformed faith and those who hold other beliefs over the meaning of the word draw in John 6:44; whether this divine drawing or assistance is irresistible or resistible, and whether it extends to all people as John 12:32 suggests, or just to some people. We need to keep in mind that there is a huge difference between being irresistibly compelled or forced to believe in Christ and being graciously enabled to believe.

Reformer, R. C. Sproul's position is obvious from his following words: "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it [draw] to mean to compel by irresistible superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means 'to compel' " [Chosen by God, p. 69; Grace Unknown, p. 153]. He goes on argue for this meaning by appealing to two additional texts: James 2:6 and Acts 16:19. He points out that both of these texts translate the Greek word helkuo as "drag" and therefore John 6:44 cannot mean woo or lovingly persuade.

Another Reformed theologian Loraine Boettner would be in agreement with Sproul as seen in how he inserts the following words in John 6:44: "No man can come unto me except the Father that sent me draw [literally, drags] him" [The Reformed Faith, p. 11].

Robert W. Yarbrough sets forth the same argument that Sproul does but in more detail. He writes,
"Draw" in 6:44 translates the Greek helkuo. Outside John it appears in the New Testament only at Acts 16:19: "they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace...." John's Gospel uses the word to speak of persons being drawn to Christ (12:32), a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (21:6,11). The related form helko appears in Acts 21:30 ("they dragged him from the temple") and James 2:6 ("Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?"). It is hard to avoid the impression that John 6:44 refers to a "forceful attraction" in bringing sinners to the Son ["Divine Election in the Gospel of John," in Still Sovereign, p. 50, fn. 10].
There are a couple of problems with both Yarbrough's and Sproul's approach to understanding draw in John 6:44. First, their procedure of looking at helkuo is an example of a word-study fallacy known as "word-loading." This occurs when a person takes a meaning of a word in one context and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context. They both do this when they appeal to the use of helkuo in James 2:6, Acts 16:19 and other places, as justification for understanding John 6:44 as meaning drag or force.
Secondly, while Yarbrough does not cite from any reference work to support his conclusions, Sproul at least cites one, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). After investigating "Big" Kittel's definition for myself, I was surprised to find that it did not agree with Sproul's definition of draw. Albrecht Oepke comments that in John's usage of helkuo "force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element" [TDNT, 2:503]. Yet for Sproul's definition to hold up, John's usage must mean to compel or force. When I turned to find out what "Little" Kittel (the one-volume abridged edition of Kittel's massive ten volume work) had to say on "draw," I was shocked at what it had to say in comparison to Sproul's dogmatic assertions. Here is the entire comment as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley:
The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff.; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic [p. 227].

helkuo can literally mean drag, compel, or force in certain contexts (John 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44, nor for that manner, John 12:32.

The Lexical Meaning for the Word "Draw" in John 6:44 and 12:32
I have surveyed every available Lexicon, Exegetical Dictionary, and Greek-English Dictionary, that I could find in bookstores, Seminaries, and College libraries available to me. Here is a sampling of the evidence:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, says helkuo is used figuratively "of the pull on man's inner life.... draw, attract J 6:44" [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, p. 251].
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, states that helkuo is used metaphorically "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32" [William Mounce, p. 180].
The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament has, "met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44" [W.J. Hickie, p. 13].
The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller says, "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)" [p. 144].
Calvinist Spiros Zodhiates, in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, says, "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (Jn. 6:44; 12:32)" [New Testament Lexical Aids, p. 1831].

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:13 PM
In other words you believe the translators can't be trusted!!!!!!!

True. Your point?


The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Jeremiah 31:3 is HEBREW. Mashak is used here. Mashak can be used as draw, drag, and seize. With lovingkindness puts it in context as drawn instead of drag.

Helkuo, however, in every case in the NT is used as DRAG, except to draw water from a well (which is still dragging if you think it through). However, some people wish it wasn't and then try to imply the word to mean guide, tug, tempt, because it doesn't fit THEIR beliefs.

To say "it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44" is to inject opinion into what is otherwise fact.

daughter
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:22 PM
John 6:44

From the Septuagint

helkuo is used here. It is also used in Acts 16:19 - dragging Paul and Silas
Acts 21:30 - drag Paul
James 2:6 - drag you.

Don't let the translation you use be considered the Word of God. Look at what is said in the Greek and see how else that same word is used throughout the Bible.

In every case that draw was used as the translation for helkuo, drag would be a better fit.

They did not draw (meaning tempt, lead, guide, etc.) Paul and Silas.

They drug them. Pulled them against their will.

YukeIt's used about fishing as well, dragging in nets... interesting!:hmm:

alethos
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:26 PM
True. Your point?



Jeremiah 31:3 is HEBREW. Mashak is used here. Mashak can be used as draw, drag, and seize. With lovingkindness puts it in context as drawn instead of drag.

Helkuo, however, in every case in the NT is used as DRAG, except to draw water from a well (which is still dragging if you think it through). However, some people wish it wasn't and then try to imply the word to mean guide, tug, tempt, because it doesn't fit THEIR beliefs.

To say "it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44" is to inject opinion into what is otherwise fact.

Lets try this.

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Now reword that same verse as follows

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I dragged thee.

Dragging isn't a word used in conjunction with loving kindness.

If he draws with lovingkindness (and He does), then any dragging which you mention is necessarily excluded. In other words the translators got it correct. Not a single translation or translator saw fit to change "draw" in John 6:44,65 to drag. That should tell you something.

Yukerboy
Jun 3rd 2008, 11:45 PM
Lets try this.

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Now reword that same verse as follows

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I dragged thee.

Dragging isn't a word used in conjunction with loving kindness.

If he draws with lovingkindness (and He does), then any dragging which you mention is necessarily excluded. In other words the translators got it correct. Not a single translation or translator saw fit to change "draw" in John 6:44,65 to drag. That should tell you something.

If your point is that the translators correctly translated mashak (Hebrew) as drawn, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

If you are trying to say that mashak would be used had the Septuagint been written in Hebrew, I strongly disagree.

God made no mistakes. He could have used any word He willed there, but the word He chose to use in John 6:44 was helkuo, the Greek word for drag. Not, guide, not lead, not bring along lovingly. Drag, and drag alone. Sadly, the translators decided drag might be too strong a word even though they used drag for helkuo all throughout the New Testament. Translators are human, they have and continue to make mistakes.

Yuke

alethos
Jun 4th 2008, 12:00 AM
If your point is that the translators correctly translated mashak (Hebrew) as drawn, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

If you are trying to say that mashak would be used had the Septuagint been written in Hebrew, I strongly disagree.

God made no mistakes. He could have used any word He willed there, but the word He chose to use in John 6:44 was helkuo, the Greek word for drag. Not, guide, not lead, not bring along lovingly. Drag, and drag alone. Sadly, the translators decided drag might be too strong a word even though they used drag for helkuo all throughout the New Testament. Translators are human, they have and continue to make mistakes.

Yuke

You are incorrectly assuming that helkuo can only mean drag. See below.

helkuō / helkō
Thayer Definition:
1) to draw, drag off
2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel
Part of Speech: verb

Every single translator saw fit to use draw instead of drag in John 6:44.65.

Enough said.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 12:18 AM
It's used about fishing as well, dragging in nets... interesting!:hmm:

Fishing is an excellent analogy and one that Jesus used. In James, the word "entice" is also a fishing term when one is "enticed" to sin. Both God and Satan go fishing for men. Once one is caught, his will is changed one way or the other.

Calvinism falls apart when we look at a few things about God. God is love. Calvinist, of necessity, must say that God loves some more than others. Yet, God does not say that in the scriptures. He says he loves sinners and that he is no respecter of persons. Some will say "No, God loves all the same". Yet, we must admit that if we are to believe only in election, that he doesn't love man enough to save him.

Like PP pointed out above. Calvinist say election saves. It doesn't. The cross saves. Who did God choose to have mercy on?

Rom 9:30-33

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
NASB

Israel, God's elect was cut off because they did not trust God. They suppressed the truth he put in them. He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. And Romans 9 answers who that is... those that come to him in faith.

Partaker of Christ
Jun 4th 2008, 12:45 AM
Because narrow is the way that leads to life and broad is the way that leads to destruction. Hell continues to enlarge itself! Many are called but few are chosen. All of scripture suggest that only few will come to Christ. The vast majority of mankind is condemned. Only 8 were saved in Noah's day. Only 8!

If God, a God of love, willed for man to sin, and only through "sovereign election" saves some, then he willed for the overwhelming majority of people to sin and go to hell. He is not nor will he ever be the author of sin. Or perhaps God didn't will man to sin, but still only provides a way out for a few. He then, being love, still wills the vast majority of mankind to spend eternity in hell. Yet, he explicitly has stated his desire is that all men are saved and that hell was created for Satan and his demons. It was not created for man.

Hi Brother Mark!

The wide gate/path that leads to destruction, is leads to 'apoleia' (indicating "loss of well-being, not of being,")

This word does not have to mean 'utterly destroyed' or 'utterly perished' or cast into hell.

The same meaning as 'apollumi' is use for the prodical son; "my son was lost[apollumi], but now is found" They may be lost, they may be perished/ing, by taking the wide path (as many of us were)

Many might not by enquiry 'learn' or 'discover' [heurisko] the narrow gate/path (Christ Jesus), but they may be found by Him.

You quoted Romans 1 earlier. It basically speaks about how people have the evidence of there being a living God, and therefore are without excuse. But it does not speak about the narrow gate, and the narrow way, or about His Grace and mercy.

Only those who are looking for the gate or the path, are capable of not finding it.

When many look around and see that there is a God, I would dare believe that many having a 'fear' of God, would begin to search. Many in there search would initially enter the wide gate, and the wide path. Even when many believe that Christ is the narrow gate, there are many false religions on the wide path, who say here is the Christ or 'this is the way'

The scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Pro 19:23 The fear of the LORD tendeth to life: and he that hath it shall abide satisfied; he shall not be visited with evil.

SweetSomber
Jun 4th 2008, 01:06 AM
Calvinism falls apart when we look at a few things about God. God is love. Calvinist, of necessity, must say that God loves some more than others. Yet, God does not say that in the scriptures. He says he loves sinners and that he is no respecter of persons. Some will say "No, God loves all the same". Yet, we must admit that if we are to believe only in election, that he doesn't love man enough to save him.

Well, with calvinism, one main problem is the problem of illogic. They will say x, and logically, x = y, and then say that y is not true. :hmm: I do not appeal to tradition, but to reason, logical, and examination of scripture to see what true love, justice, and freedom is.

Calvinists do not say (well, the ones I've heard don't say) that God loves some more than others. They say that God loves people in different ways. Like a human is commanded to love their spouse with a different love than the love they have for someone who is not their spouse. God loves everyone, they claim, and desires for all to be saved, giving no reason why God then does not save everyone. They call it a "great scriptural mystery." Why is this all illogical? Because creating someone just to live a rebellious life and then be condemned to hell without even a chance of being saved is not "different" love, it is NOT love. If I had a pet rat who would only bite me and, no matter what length I went to become tamed, I might have to give him up to a pet shelter than would, well, put him under. I would do that, but would I buy a pet rat just so that because of his rebellion he would be put under? Even worse, would I buy a pet to rebel and have to then be tortured forever? Humanly, we would call this sadistic. But Calvinists would say that God does the equivalent, but this is Love. What love is that? Not Biblical love.

Calvinisms will insist that God decrees all, and places desires in the hearts of men to cause them to do things, and then yet claims that man has free will. Free, in my mind, can mean influences, but not caused. If a person was brainwashed, even though they would agree with their new position, I would not call that free. If someone put a gun to your head, you may claim that you were forced to comply, and yet I would say no - you still had a choice, and could have chosen to face death. I say that physical circumstances can be changed, but you still have choice internally. Calvinism says you do not have internal choice, but that still you are free. What freedom is this?

Calvinism says that God's condemnation of the nonelect, without giving them the opportunity to be saved (an opportunity that they can take), is Justice. Well, if in a real life court, two criminals were tried of the same crime, both being found guilty, neither one repentant and the judge sentenced one to death, and to the other he gave freedom, that would be unjust! It would be called favoritism! Even if he knew neither party, and had no reason for choosing one over the other, to give one the penalty and the other not is not justice. (As a side note, when judges give lighter penalties to those who are repentant, that's not called unjust) Yet calvinism calls the same thing in God just. If God condemned us all to hell for ours sins, that would be just, but to condemn some and not condemn the same is different. What justice is this?

If God wants all to be saved, and yet, for no particular reason(unconditional) chooses some to perish, calvinism would call this a mystery. A mystery? So they don't have a Biblical answer for calling this contradiction "truth"?

Calvinism claims to have the highest view of God's power, but even man could control everything if He could manipulate both physical events and the human mind and heart. A higher view of God's power indeed is that all of us make uncaused decisions, and His will is done in the end. God did not change Jonah's mind by giving him a truckload of grace, God put him in a giant fish for a couple of days! God's plans always work out. If a particular person, being in particular family and time would mess up his plans, maybe He puts them somewhere else in History. I am in charge of my pets, and yet they have free will. I can keep them in their cage, and manipulate their physical surroundings to keep control. Training takes more wisdom than mere mind control. God's wisdom and power is so great that He gladly could give man uncaused will, and still His plans will not fail.


God has a purpose, and Calvinism goes on and on about God's glorification being that purpose. Where is this found in the Bible? Are not relationships between God and man found throughout the Bible instead? What if His own glorification was not the reason God placed that one off-limits tree in the garden? Perhaps God loves man with the same kind of affection that we have for each other - sometimes we love one another free of agenda, unconditionally, and enjoy the person's company. Perhaps God put that tree in the garden so that man would have a choice, for if man had no choice but to serve God, as if would have been if there were not option of disobedience, then the relationship would have been different. Maybe true love must be a choice you make, and so God gave them a choice. Perhaps God still wants relationships with each one of us, but wants us to choose to love Him and give Him glory. What is Calvinism to limit God's purpose?


And my last question now, is, why are so many christians following a doctrine named after a man believed to be a non-christian? (See the introduction to Debating Calvinism) "Beginning as intensive study of calvinism, I noticed that nowhere in the many volumes of Calvin's writings and sermons does he tell us when, why, or how he, a Roman Catholic from the cradle, became a christian. In fact, Calvin never documented an experience of being born again of the Holy Spirit through believing the gospel. He considered that new birth unnecessary for all those who had been baptized into the Roman Catholic church in infancy and had confirmed their baptism." He denounced the anabaptists for their teaching of baptism after believing the gospel, and of Serventus, (an anabaptist accused of that teaching and other false teachings, who was burned at the stake) he said "One must not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn the cruelly."

If, "by their fruits you shall know" false teachers, then he is one for sure! This is the man who has uncovered the mysteries of God's love? We should follow his understanding of God's justice?

I know that this will probably offend calvinists, but I mean no offense. We all make mistakes and accidentally believe incorrect things. I say this to help calvinists and others come to a better understanding of God; I don't just say this all to be critical. :) Peace to you all.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:08 AM
All that the Father gives me will come to me... Jn 6:37a NKJV

It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God". Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father [inner call] comes to me. Jn 6:45 NKJV

The "all" Jesus is speaking of are those whom He would draw - and it's NOT everyone, because such people would be raised up at the last day - this CANNOT mean the resurrection to damnation, for that would mean that we are drawn to Christ and then condemned! No, when Jesus speaks of raising these people up, He is meaning those to whom He will give eternal life and He is therefoe speaking of the resurrection body (cf 6:39).Sure... and He gave Jesus Judas and Judas came to him. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:16 AM
Of course Jesus didn't drag them! The Father did. :)

"No one comes to me unless the Father drags him to me."

These are not my words, but Christ's.



What you are referring to is a man being not dead in their sins. A man still able to take action.

Dead men don't reject, ignore, or take any action. Dead is dead. See my post about the drowning man compared to the dead man.

It is Christ who makes us alive, not us.

There is no work we can do. There was no work Esau did to be hated by God, but hated by God he was. There was no work Jacob did to be loved by God, but loved by God he was.

YukeUh... you cannot show in Scripture (because Scripture don't say it) that God hated Esau at birth or before he was born. Only thing that happened then was that God said that the older will serve the younger... a pattern seen throughout Scripture.

As to drawing... like when they drew in the nets. It has nothing at all to do with dragging such as a caveman dragging woman by the hair of the head or any such that you guys make it out to be. In other words... if you're kicking and screaming... God ain't dragging you no where. Again... that is just a man made up doctrine and a total misuse of the Greek word in that instance. If what you say is true... then Israel would have never turned their back on God and the Gentile would be a Jew today if they were going to be part of the inheritance. Again... made crystal clear by both Christ and Paul. ;)

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:18 AM
In which translation do you find that wording?
The word "draw" means to drag. It would be with the analogy... I'll make you fishers of men. You'll cast out the net and those you catch you will draw in. While it is a correct translation of the word... it is often horribly misapplied.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:23 AM
John 6:44

From the Septuagint

helkuo is used here. It is also used in Acts 16:19 - dragging Paul and Silas
Acts 21:30 - drag Paul
James 2:6 - drag you.

Don't let the translation you use be considered the Word of God. Look at what is said in the Greek and see how else that same word is used throughout the Bible.

In every case that draw was used as the translation for helkuo, drag would be a better fit.

They did not draw (meaning tempt, lead, guide, etc.) Paul and Silas.

They drug them. Pulled them against their will.

YukeSo much for "irresistible" grace eh? What you describe is resistible but they have no choice therefore they are prisoners to the puppet master. ;)

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 02:54 AM
You are incorrectly assuming that helkuo can only mean drag. See below.

helkuō / helkō
Thayer Definition:
1) to draw, drag off
2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel
Part of Speech: verb


Exactly! it is not:
1) to draw
2) to drag off

They are the same. Like drawing water from a well or dragging a fishnet onto a ship.


Calvinism falls apart when we look at a few things about God. God is love. Calvinist, of necessity, must say that God loves some more than others. Yet, God does not say that in the scriptures.

AND

Uh... you cannot show in Scripture (because Scripture don't say it) that God hated Esau at birth or before he was born. Only thing that happened then was that God said that the older will serve the younger... a pattern seen throughout Scripture.

Romans 9:11-13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


Israel, God's elect was cut off because they did not trust God.

AND

If what you say is true... then Israel would have never turned their back on God and the Gentile would be a Jew today if they were going to be part of the inheritance.

True, however, Romans 11:26, 28-29 "...And so all Israel will be saved.....As far as the gospel is concerned, they (Israel) are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they (Israel) are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."


So much for "irresistible" grace eh?

It is very much irresistable. As a sinner and being in the flesh and having my mind on fleshly things, I could not come to Christ. If left to my desires, I could not be saved.

God, in His Grace, chose me to be saved....and it didn't matter if I liked it or not.

Yuke

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:09 AM
Exactly! it is not:
1) to draw
2) to drag off

They are the same. Like drawing water from a well or dragging a fishnet onto a ship.



Romans 9:11-13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."



True, however, Romans 11:26, 28-29 "...And so all Israel will be saved.....As far as the gospel is concerned, they (Israel) are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they (Israel) are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."



It is very much irresistable. As a sinner and being in the flesh and having my mind on fleshly things, I could not come to Christ. If left to my desires, I could not be saved.

God, in His Grace, chose me to be saved....and it didn't matter if I liked it or not.

Yuke
ANd you missed my point just as you missapply that passage. Jacob God hated but why did God hate Jacob? For giggles he decided... let me create Jacob so I can hate the chap? Come on now... you can do better than that. ;)

And right... had nothing to do with Christ. Had to do with your being "chosen/elect" You are saved by election... simple as that. And that... is a monster problem. :)

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 03:23 AM
ANd you missed my point just as you missapply that passage. Jacob God hated but why did God hate Jacob?

It was Esau that God hated.

The reason is in the passage. in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls

It wasn't because of their works, or their order of birth, or that either had done wrong (though when I read Genesis, I think Jacob was actually the bad boy compared to Esau, but who am I to judge? :). The only reason was that God's purpose in election might stand. What does that mean exactly?


And right... had nothing to do with Christ. Had to do with your being "chosen/elect" You are saved by election... simple as that. And that... is a monster problem.

God in His Grace chose me to be saved through Jesus Christ, whether I wanted it or not. Better? ;)

Yuke

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:26 AM
It was Esau that God hated.

The reason is in the passage. in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls

It wasn't because of their works, or their order of birth, or that either had done wrong (though when I read Genesis, I think Jacob was actually the bad boy compared to Esau, but who am I to judge? :). The only reason was that God's purpose in election might stand. What does that mean exactly?



God in His Grace chose me to be saved through Jesus Christ, whether I wanted it or not. Better? ;)

Yuke
Tis late and I typo'd bigtime. ;) Staying up way passed my bedtime so I sleep late tomorrow. Have a ten hour road trip beginning at about 7 tomorrow evening!

So again... God hated Esau therefore God made him serve the younger? Can the same be said of Joseph's boys and even Joseph's older brothers? Don't think that has anything at all to do with God's pattern. We know clearly why God hated him (Scripturally)... so why make it an "election" thing?

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 03:36 AM
So again... God hated Esau therefore God made him serve the younger? Can the same be said of Joseph's boys and even Joseph's older brothers? Don't think that has anything at all to do with God's pattern. We know clearly why God hated him (Scripturally)... so why make it an "election" thing?

1. God hated Esau.

2. God made Esau serve the younger.

3. Joseph's older brothers served the younger

4. Joseph's boys served the ypunger

5. It is a pattern

6. Clearly he hated Esau so that His purpose of election might stand (according to the Scripture). It is an election thing.

7. Take a nap, I will too, and we'll discuss later :saint:

Yuke

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 03:48 AM
1. God hated Esau.

2. God made Esau serve the younger.

3. Joseph's older brothers served the younger

4. Joseph's boys served the ypunger

5. It is a pattern

6. Clearly he hated Esau so that His purpose of election might stand (according to the Scripture). It is an election thing.

7. Take a nap, I will too, and we'll discuss later :saint:

Yuke
Can't just yet... have a time target so I can nap tomorrow afternoon!!!! :lol:

And did God hate Josephs brothers? The youngest son of Joseph? The others who were last and yet first?

And no... just like with Cain... had nothing to with the person. Had to do with what the person did eh? Esau did what that brought about that hatred... he was born or was it because he despised his birthright? Clue... Esau wasn't ungodly because he was born ungodly... Esau was ungodly for despising that birthright. ;)

And keeping it to Bible Chat...

Hebrews 12:16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 04:03 AM
before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad....Jacob I loved but Esau I hated.

There was no action they could take to gain God's love or earn His hate. For God's purpose in election to stand, God loves some more than others which I feel this verse shows. The question then becomes why? That's a tough question.

Why did He choose me instead of someone else? Lord knows I didn't deserve to be saved. There was nothing I could do to earn salvation. There was nothing the other person could do to change God's mind.

I got no answer as to the why. Just the who, what, where, when and how. :)

Yuke

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 04:19 AM
before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad....Jacob I loved but Esau I hated.

There was no action they could take to gain God's love or earn His hate. For God's purpose in election to stand, God loves some more than others which I feel this verse shows. The question then becomes why? That's a tough question.

Why did He choose me instead of someone else? Lord knows I didn't deserve to be saved. There was nothing I could do to earn salvation. There was nothing the other person could do to change God's mind.

I got no answer as to the why. Just the who, what, where, when and how. :)

Yuke
But that isn't what it said. It simply said that the older would serve the younger at birth. No where do you read where Jacob was hated UNTIL he sold the birthright. That passage in Hebrews makes that same point. At birth it was said that the older would serve the younger... again the pattern of the first will be last and the last will be first. It doesn't say nor imply that Esau was hated at birth. That is what Calvinism adds based on that ONLY ONE passage of Scripture and even that is misapplied. Even that passage makes it clear that at birth... simply the older shall serve the latter.

Let me state again. God didn't "hate Esau" because he was born hated by God. God hated Esau because Esau DESPISED his birthright. That is Scriptural in BOTH Testaments.

lmwal931
Jun 4th 2008, 05:16 AM
in john's gospel JESUS says "my FATHER'S will is that none be lost". so you can choose JESUS or calvin. but not both. sometimes calvin is applicable and sometimes arminius is applicable. but we want to put GOD in a box.

alethos
Jun 4th 2008, 10:09 AM
The word "draw" means to drag. It would be with the analogy... I'll make you fishers of men. You'll cast out the net and those you catch you will draw in. While it is a correct translation of the word... it is often horribly misapplied.

I must say that in my subjective experience, I wasn't dragged to Christ, I was drawn to Him with loving kindness just as Jer 31:3 says.

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

.

ProDeo
Jun 4th 2008, 10:10 AM
If that is so...then you've in essence asked the exact question that I find hard to reconcile: "How does God choose someone then change his mind?" How do you reconcile these one to the other?
Just started reading this looooooong thread and wanted to point to the parable of the sower in which our Lord describes 4 types of religious people. I think the key to answer the OSAS vs NOSAS issue is how you interpret type-2 and type-3 in the parable as saved or not (yet) saved.

Type-2 and type-3 obviously responded positively to the Word and their lives changed but somehow they lost it. Type-2 because their faith had no roots, type-3 because of the sorrows and pleasures of life that got the upper hand. Lack off perseverance looks the key-word here.

I still remember my own conversion very well because it was so intense and I received it with great joy (type-2). Then after a while the "feelings" slowly faded away and daily life got the upper hand again (type-3) and although it's 30+ years ago I very well remember the moment I had to make a firm choice, either to further let the fire fade away or to give it all and research what I had found, God. Fortunately I choose the latter but I will always remember how crucial and decisive that moment was.

The question I asked myself is the moment when I got saved, was it the moment I met God (type-2) or the moment (about 4-5 months later) when my life entered the type-3 position and I decided to search God and follow Him whatever it would cost when the initial Godly fire was on the point of expiration. My take, the latter, after I had shown perseverance moving to type-4, saved.

That's why I believe in OSAS. Type-4 has (proven) roots and only wants one thing, to please the Lord. Can type-4 fall? I doubt that seriously since Christ has bought me with a high price and will not give up on me and will plea for me with "groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom 8:26).

Of course I am not 100% sure, only God knows the real answer........ but I recognize so much in the parable of the sower. As if was written for me, that is, so to say ;)

Ed

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 12:41 PM
I must say that in my subjective experience, I wasn't dragged to Christ, I was drawn to Him with loving kindness just as Jer 31:3 says.

Jer 31:3 Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

.
No, you weren't dragged (against your own will) to Christ. That is exactly why the translator's used the word "draw" as opposed to "dragged" which while meaning the same thing in a way... yet the two words denote a different kind of dragging. Lots of mom's drag their kids along even when the kids want to come. Many a shepherd has to drag a sheep or two along in the flock. Those sheep aren't kicking and screaming... just a bit slow on the take. The reason that they didn't use the word "drag" is because it totally goes against much of the Scripture.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 01:18 PM
No, you weren't dragged (against your own will) to Christ

Any man, without God dragging him, cannot find salvation. There is no one righteous, no, not one. There is no one who seeks Him. There is no one who does good, not even one.

To say one chose salvation and another did not is to say one is more righteous than the other. It is God who chose you. It is God who dragged you out of the grave where you were dead in sins and made you alive in Christ.

What made me choose God? Was it because I am more righteous than an unbeliever? More intelligent? More deserving? A "better sinner" as you claim Jacob was compared to Esau below?


"God didn't "hate Esau" because he was born hated by God. God hated Esau because Esau DESPISED his birthright."


No, I didn't choose God. If I did, I would have to answer yes to one of the questions above. Then I would have something to boast of.

Yuke

Partaker of Christ
Jun 4th 2008, 01:24 PM
No, you weren't dragged (against your own will) to Christ. That is exactly why the translator's used the word "draw" as opposed to "dragged" which while meaning the same thing in a way... yet the two words denote a different kind of dragging. Lots of mom's drag their kids along even when the kids want to come. Many a shepherd has to drag a sheep or two along in the flock. Those sheep aren't kicking and screaming... just a bit slow on the take. The reason that they didn't use the word "drag" is because it totally goes against much of the Scripture.

I think that in a sense, it is against our will.

Left alone, our natural Adamic will has no desire to seek God. But I believe that God works on us, by putting that desire in us (His will), so that His will becomes our will.

Smite the shepherd and the sheep will scatter. The natural will of the sheep is to scatter, but the good shepherd will do what he will, to bring them safely into the fold. Even if it means using his rod, or putting them across his shoulder.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are 'led' [ago] by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall 'lead' [ago] you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

John 18:28 Then 'led' [ago] they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 01:25 PM
Any man, without God dragging him, cannot find salvation. There is no one righteous, no, not one. There is no one who seeks Him. There is no one who does good, not even one.

To say one chose salvation and another did not is to say one is more righteous than the other. It is God who chose you. It is God who dragged you out of the grave where you were dead in sins and made you alive in Christ.

What made me choose God? Was it because I am more righteous than an unbeliever? More intelligent? More deserving? A "better sinner" as you claim Jacob was compared to Esau below?

No, I didn't choose God. If I did, I would have to answer yes to one of the questions above. Then I would have something to boast of.

Yuke

Oh, you couldn't boast. Romans 1 and 9 tell us the difference.

Rom 1:18

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
NASB

Proud men suppress the truth. The Pharisees suppressed the truth and therefor missed God's purpose for them.

Luke 7:30
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
NASB

And Romans 9 goes into even greater detail about "whom he shows mercy" on.

Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
NASB

Those that go to hell suppress the inner call of God in their hearts. Those that go to heaven, in humility trust God. God resist the proud but gives grace to the humble. The word of God will always have this effect on people. Either it will humble them or harden them depending on how they respond. That is why God tells us in Hebrews to not "harden our hearts" when we hear the word.

Romans 9 is about nations and not individuals. Somehow that often gets lost in the discussion. Paul was speaking completely about Israel and the Gentiles and even his quote concerning Jacob and Esau was from Mal. and referred to Israel and Edom. There are some awesome things there for those that wish to dig through it.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 01:36 PM
In Malachi, it is two nations.

When Paul quotes Malachi in Romans 9, he puts it in the context of two twins being born from Rebekkah, neither having done anything good or bad yet.

Yuke

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 01:46 PM
In Malachi, it is two nations.

When Paul quotes Malachi in Romans 9, he puts it in the context of two twins being born from Rebekkah, neither having done anything good or bad yet.

Yuke

In Romans 9 it's about nations as well.


Rom 9:1-6

9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

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

And he goes on to show how Abraham had 2 sons and Israel had 2 sons and Jacob had 2 sons. Even the child of promise (Isaac) had 2 sons. Jacob, the continued son of promise came second. Esau was the first. From Esau came Edom and Amalek. Amalek and Esau are flesh. In the flesh, we can never, ever please God. God hates flesh. In the Spirit, we please God. Jacob is of the Spirit and of faith and came second. Esau is of the flesh and came first.

The mistake many make is seeing Romans 9 as speaking about these two boys individually instead of as corporate groups and types. Paul makes it plain in Romans 9 he is speaking of Israel and he is speaking in shadows. He is doing the same thing here he did in Galatians.

God hates my flesh (Esau) and he loves my spirit (Jacob). There is a battle between them just as there is a battle between Ishmael (flesh) and Isaac (spirit). All of Romans 9 is about nations and shadows. And why was Esau despised? Why was Jacob accepted? In the end, why was one cut off and the Gentiles grafted in? He sums the whole thing up and answers it with the following scripture...

Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
NASB

Partaker of Christ
Jun 4th 2008, 02:02 PM
Oh, you couldn't boast. Romans 1 and 9 tell us the difference.

Rom 1:18

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
NASB

Proud men suppress the truth. The Pharisees suppressed the truth and therefor missed God's purpose for them.

Luke 7:30
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
NASB

And Romans 9 goes into even greater detail about "whom he shows mercy" on.

Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
NASB

Those that go to hell suppress the inner call of God in their hearts. Those that go to heaven, in humility trust God. God resist the proud but gives grace to the humble. The word of God will always have this effect on people. Either it will humble them or harden them depending on how they respond. That is why God tells us in Hebrews to not "harden our hearts" when we hear the word.

Romans 9 is about nations and not individuals. Somehow that often gets lost in the discussion. Paul was speaking completely about Israel and the Gentiles and even his quote concerning Jacob and Esau was from Mal. and referred to Israel and Edom. There are some awesome things there for those that wish to dig through it.

But did we not all belong to those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," at least for a season?

Did not Paul/Saul suppress the truth in unrighteousness?

To say that those who suppress the truth, will go to hell, is a big judgmental call, for who are we to say 'who will ascend, and who will descend'

What of those who have not understood the truth, but yet they may have given water to the thirsty, feed those who are hungry, visited the sick, and those in prison. Even among these shall be sheep and goat.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 02:08 PM
Paul makes it plain in Romans 9 he is speaking of Israel and he is speaking in shadows. He is doing the same thing here he did in Galatians.


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

I think it is clear we are talking of two individual boys.

However, nation or boys, the tenets don't change. God's purpose in election. By him who calls, not by works. Before they did anything good or bad. God chose one and not the other.


In the flesh, we can never, ever please God. God hates flesh. In the Spirit, we please God. Jacob is of the Spirit and of faith and came second. Esau is of the flesh and came first.


:agree:

[QUOTE]why was Esau despised? Why was Jacob accepted? In the end, why was one cut off and the Gentiles grafted in? [QUOTE]

So that God's purpose in election might stand. Even with faith being a gift from God, anything pursued by faith would be of God.

And let us not forget the mystery.

Romans 11:25-28 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 02:18 PM
Not so plain. "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

I think it is clear we are talking of two individual boys.

However, nation or boys, the tenets don't change. God's purpose in election. By him who calls, not by works. Before they did anything good or bad. God chose one and not the other.

The entire discussion in Romans 9 is about nations. It's entirely about nations. It does matter as we are gathering doctrine from it. The entire point of Romans 9 is missed if we miss the shadows he is writing with and miss the nations that Paul is writing about. He uses the shadows (the boys) to illustrate what he is saying about the nations. Esau had his shot and blew it.



So that God's purpose in election might stand. Even with faith being a gift from God, anything pursued by faith would be of God.And his purpose in election? That it be by faith. Calvinist love to quote Romans 9. But two things in the chapter they love to discard. 1. It was about Israel. 2. At the end of the chapter, God declares his purpose in election... it is by faith.

Rom 9:30-32

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.
NASB

God purposed that salvation should come through faith. He purposed to show mercy upon whom he would have mercy. And who was that? Those that chose not to suppress the truth (as those in Romans 1 suppressed the inner call) but instead, yield to him in faith, they are the ones that get mercy.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:22 PM
Any man, without God dragging him, cannot find salvation. There is no one righteous, no, not one. There is no one who seeks Him. There is no one who does good, not even one.Until one believes in Christ. And again... that's something that man has to do. The Spirit convicts them and ALL men are drawn to Him.

John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

He was lifted up... and the Spirit is doing His work as well. You have to change the entire text to make it say elect although that is exactly what you guys do. Problem is... it's highway and byway time. If you could understand that then you'd understand the parable of the wedding feast. ;)




To say one chose salvation and another did not is to say one is more righteous than the other. It is God who chose you. It is God who dragged you out of the grave where you were dead in sins and made you alive in Christ.Again... why did Jesus give the parable of the wedding feast? The "called" didn't come. Did the servants "drag" them in? Nope. Simply called them to come. They chose not to for their variety of reasons/excuses. Then it was alrighty then... the feast will be full guys so go on out to the highways and byways and fill this place up. This should be rather simple I hope although it is apparent that it isn't.


What made me choose God? Was it because I am more righteous than an unbeliever? More intelligent? More deserving? A "better sinner" as you claim Jacob was compared to Esau below?



No, I didn't choose God. If I did, I would have to answer yes to one of the questions above. Then I would have something to boast of.

YukeThat's nothing more than a straw man. Why did the called (God's elect) not come and those on the highways did?

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying,
2 "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king, who gave a wedding feast for his son.
3 "And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
4 "Again he sent out other slaves saying, `Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."´
5 "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,
6 and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.
7 "But the king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire.
8 "Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 `Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.´
10 "And those slaves went out into the streets, and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.
11 "But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes,
12 and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?´ And he was speechless.
13 "Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.´
14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

When you see the account Luke gave on this... it speaks of the sick, lame and blind... then those simply out on the street because there was still room. ALL were invited save those first invited who weren't worthy. Yes, this is speaking of the vast majority of Jews and then how it would go to the Gentile... but the pattern is set and God is certainly a God of patterns. Why did the invited folk not pay Him attention and yet the lame, blind, poor and sinner pay him attention? The recognized their sin and need for a savior. Has not a thing to do with "being good" or "being smarter" or "being better in some way." If you figure you being a sinner is something you can boast about then I'll use the words of Paul... God forbid, may it never be.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 02:46 PM
but the pattern is set and God is certainly a God of patterns. Why did the invited folk not pay Him attention and yet the lame, blind, poor and sinner pay him attention? The recognized their sin and need for a savior. Has not a thing to do with "being good" or "being smarter" or "being better in some way." If you figure you being a sinner is something you can boast about then I'll use the words of Paul... God forbid, may it never be.


Never understood the argument that if I agreed with God concerning my sin, then I have something to boast in. Shoot, when that was going on in my life I felt utterly and totally helpless. Thank God he did not leave me that way. He offered me a way out and I was thrilled! Nothing was good in me that I could boast about at all.

ProjectPeter
Jun 4th 2008, 02:55 PM
Never understood the argument that if I agreed with God concerning my sin, then I have something to boast in. Shoot, when that was going on in my life I felt utterly and totally helpless. Thank God he did not leave me that way. He offered me a way out and I was thrilled! Nothing was good in me that I could boast about at all.
Sure... and that's exactly Paul's point. That whole discourse in Romans 2 was about hey... you think because you are a Jew (have the Law) that you're something special... you aren't. Just as every Gentile out there... you are equally rotten to the core because it AIN'T ABOUT BEING A JEW or HAVING THE LAW!

ProDeo
Jun 4th 2008, 03:09 PM
Having finished reading the whole thread (ufff...) I must say I find it hard to believe so many well educated Christians falling for this "election doctrine" which IMO is a grave insult to God's love for His creatures. The focus is entirely on a couple of texts which in no way are conclusive also ignoring tons of biblical examples and principles that speak against it. One example of the latter, someone (alethos) pointed to:

Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

No reply seen by the "election adherents". This text alone undermines the doctrine. The whole concept makes a farce of an all-loving God. What kind of father has random love for his children?

Election: God in His wisdom and omniscience knew on beforehand A&E would fall, He knew (and knows) on beforehand who will be obedient (the elect) and those who are not, there is no mystery about that, just that. It doesn't harm the concept of free will at all. And the Bible is full of that, full of choices people must make, before or against Him.

Sorry for the harsh tone-setting, it's not personal, I just don't get it. Or maybe I have some idea as I have been a member of a Calvinist church in my early days as a Christian for a couple of years. And I noticed a lot of unholy fear among these poor people, the fear of being hurled into hell by a wrathful god, the fear of the balance and found to be under weight (Dan 5:27). These poor people live their whole live in fear, the fear of being elected or not. What a cruel concept it is!

Is our God really like that?

Ed

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 05:05 PM
"And again... that's something that man has to do."

Do = work. Faith = gift.

"Esau had his shot and blew it. "

Paul states that Esau, being hated by God, before he had done anything wrong, before he was even born, never had a shot.


Why did the invited folk not pay Him attention and yet the lame, blind, poor and sinner pay him attention? The recognized their sin and need for a savior. Has not a thing to do with "being good" or "being smarter" or "being better in some way."

Sounds to me like they were smarter. If someone recognizes the truth and another does not, that's almost the definition of intelligence.


"For many are called, but few are chosen."


Hallelujah, Amen!


Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

Yes, one of the top 50 verses against free will. It is God that works in you to will (desire) and work (do). If it was you that willed and worked alone, you would do nothing righteous.

Yuke

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 05:08 PM
"And again... that's something that man has to do."

Do = work. Faith = gift.

"Esau had his shot and blew it. "

Paul states that Esau, being hated by God, before he had done anything wrong, before he was even born, never had a shot.

He was speaking of Edom. ;) When we read about Israel, do we always think of the person Jacob? God changed his name to Israel. Of course we don't because we understand God was speaking of the nation. In Romans 9, God is speaking of Edom and Israel two nations born from one man, Isaac. Just as we have two natures, one that God hates before it does anything, and one that God loves before it does anything.

But again, we see the last part of Romans 9 being ignored. God has mercy on those that believe. That's he elected way and preordained way of doing business.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 05:20 PM
He was speaking of Edom. ;) When we read about Israel, do we always think of the person Jacob? God changed his name to Israel. Of course we don't because we understand God was speaking of the nation. In Romans 9, God is speaking of Edom and Israel two nations born from one man, Isaac. Just as we have two natures, one that God hates before it does anything, and one that God loves before it does anything.

But again, we see the last part of Romans 9 being ignored. God has mercy on those that believe. That's he elected way and preordained way of doing business.

Nation or boys, the tenets don't change. God's purpose in election. By him who calls, not by works. Before they did anything good or bad. God chose one and not the other.

Whether you put nation or fetus in there, the conclusical points that Paul make stand.

I don't think you will ever find where the condemned ever had two natures.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 05:27 PM
Nation or boys, the tenets don't change. God's purpose in election. By him who calls, not by works. Before they did anything good or bad. God chose one and not the other.

Whether you put nation or fetus in there, the conclusical points that Paul make stand.

I don't think you will ever find where the condemned ever had two natures.

And such is the calvinist argument. They ignore what Paul was clearly teaching concerning Israel and apply it to the individual. It makes a HUGE difference in what scripture is saying and changes the entire context of the passage.

And of course, we go on further to read the end of Romans 9 which is largely ignored by Calvinist... That God desired to show mercy on those that approach him in faith. Take any passage out of context and we get a whole new meaning. Context is everything. And has been pointed out in this thread countless times, God gave an inner call to those in Romans 1 but they rejected what he placed inside of them.

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 05:29 PM
Having finished reading the whole thread (ufff...) I must say I find it hard to believe so many well educated Christians falling for this "election doctrine" which IMO is a grave insult to God's love for His creatures. The focus is entirely on a couple of texts which in no way are conclusive also ignoring tons of biblical examples and principles that speak against it.

I can assure you there are a lot more than a few texts that teach the doctrine of election. The problem with the Arminian view of 'election' (they can't ignore it so they make it mean something else) is that it is more of a Presidential election.

Apparently God was up in heaven looking at all the people he would ever create and only picked ('elected') the people who already came to Him in faith. This defeats the whole purpose of election. It makes God a voter who only casts His vote to certain people who meet His requirements.

That is not election that's an election. The only reason these people have faith is because God chose them before the foundation of the world. Faith in God doesn't just spring up from out of nowhere, it's something God graciously gives to us. It's not something we do so that God can 'elect' us after the fact as if that really does anything. If I already have faith then why do I need to be elected? Aren't I going to heaven anyway?

God isn't a psychic. He isn't just someone who 'knows' the (changeable?)future as if He saw it in a vision. The reason God knows everything that will ever happen, is not because something or somebody else planned it and gave God the knowledge, it's because God Himself planned it all and what He has planned will not change.

The Arminian view of election make absolutely no sense at all. It says that God only elects people after they already elected themselves to Salvation. They say the cause (God's election) comes after the effect (man's faith). It's only a way to get around the hard truth that God alone elects people based on His sovereign good will. And it's this election that causes people to have faith in Him.

And if you have this faith in Christ then you can be assured that you are one of the elect. No Calvinist, who understands it properly, will ever go around wondering if they are one of the elect even though they have faith in Christ. And no Calvinist, who again understands it properly, will ever not evangelize to people because he thinks they are one of the non elect. There is no way of knowing so we should evangelize to all.

Well, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. ;)

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 05:39 PM
The Arminian view of election make absolutely no sense at all. It says that God only elects people after they already elected themselves to Salvation. They say the cause (God's election) comes after the effect (man's faith). It's only a way to get around the hard truth that God alone elects people based on His sovereign good will. And it's this election that causes people to have faith in Him.

Calvinist / Arminian.

I'm defined as a Calvinist (though after reading the beliefs of John Calvin, I beg to differ). I definitely believe in the TULIP principle.

But in no way could I ever say arminians views don't make sense. There is legitimate backing in the Bible for both views. And as long as one is saved, it doesn't matter to Christ if they are arminian or calvinist.

Christ will tell everyone (me included) that "You had it right here, here, and here, but wow, you were WAAAAAYYY off here, here, and here."

The calvinist/arminian debate has existed long before my flesh and will continue long after I'm gone.

But, I'm going to enjoy it while I'm here ;)

Paul states that God chose his own before the foundation of the world. Paul also states He has called all men to come to repentance, but as Jesus states in Luke, few are chosen.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 05:42 PM
I can assure you there are a lot more than a few texts that teach the doctrine of election. The problem with the Arminian view of 'election' (they can't ignore it so they make it mean something else) is that it is more of a Presidential election.

Really? You mean like changing the word "world" to mean "elect" in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:1-2? Romans 9 is the clearest scripture for calvinism in all of scripture and it speaks of nations in context.


Apparently God was up in heaven looking at all the people he would ever create and only picked ('elected') the people who already came to Him in faith. This defeats the whole purpose of election. It makes God a voter who only casts His vote to certain people who meet His requirements.

Just so you know, that's not what arminians teach.


That is not election that's an election. The only reason these people have faith is because God chose them before the foundation of the world. Faith in God doesn't just spring up from out of nowhere, it's something God graciously gives to us. It's not something we do so that God can 'elect' us after the fact as if that really does anything. If I already have faith then why do I need to be elected? Aren't I going to heaven anyway?

Again, not what arminians teach. But it makes for a nice straw man.


God isn't a psychic. He isn't just someone who 'knows' the (changeable?)future as if He saw it in a vision. The reason God knows everything that will ever happen, is not because something or somebody else planned it and gave God the knowledge, it's because God Himself planned it all and what He has planned will not change.

Indeed he did! And he purposed that salvation would come through faith. Oh, and he also had a purpose for the pharisees which they rejected.


The Arminian view of election make absolutely no sense at all. It says that God only elects people after they already elected themselves to Salvation. They say the cause (God's election) comes after the effect (man's faith). It's only a way to get around the hard truth that God alone elects people based on His sovereign good will. And it's this election that causes people to have faith in Him.

Again, this is not what arminians teach. But it does make for a good straw man.


And if you have this faith in Christ then you can be assured that you are one of the elect. No Calvinist, who understands it properly, will ever go around wondering if they are one of the elect even though they have faith in Christ. And no Calvinist, who again understands it properly, will ever not evangelize to people because he thinks they are one of the non elect. There is no way of knowing so we should evangelize to all.

Well, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. ;)


I know personally a man that grew up Calvinist believing he was condemned to hell. After getting saved, he left that view and Calvinism. Of course, how many Calvinist evangelize at all. Shoot, even Spurgeon caught a lot of flack from Calvinist for his efforts in evangelism.

One thing is for sure, a calvinist can look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you".

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 05:48 PM
Really? You mean like changing the word "world" to mean "elect" in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:1-2? Romans 9 is the clearest scripture for calvinism in all of scripture and it speaks of nations in context.

Well this is a different subject and one I don't know much on. But I do know that sometimes when the Bible uses the world 'world' it doesn't necessarily mean the whole world.




Just so you know, that's not what arminians teach.

Again, not what arminians teach. But it makes for a nice straw man.Can you tell me what the Arminain teaching on election is then?




Indeed he did! And he purposed that salvation would come through faith. Oh, and he also had a purpose for the pharisees which they rejected.I agree.



I know personally a man that grew up Calvinist believing he was condemned to hell. After getting saved, he left that view and Calvinism. Of course, how many Calvinist evangelize at all. Shoot, even Spurgeon caught a lot of flack from Calvinist for his efforts in evangelism.

One thing is for sure, a calvinist can look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you".What do you mean 'how many Calvinists evangelize at all'? The best teachers, preachers, evangelizers out there are Calvinists. I know that John Piper and Paul Washer are huge on missions. All, or most, of the great Bible teachers in the past have been Calvinists who have no problem evangelizing to people.

It seems we both don't have a firm grasp on what the other system teaches because your last few words are just plain wrong.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 05:50 PM
Shoot, even Spurgeon caught a lot of flack from Calvinist for his efforts in evangelism.


Yes he did, and it sickened me when I found out about it. God's will and purpose is for us to evangelize and whosoever God chooses to come will come. We don't know who will be saved, so everyone's an open target.


One thing is for sure, a calvinist can look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you".

I think you meant cannot.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, but it is in effect only for the elect.

If it was in effect for all sin, then no one needs faith, for Christ has made the sacrifice good for all.

Yuke

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 05:50 PM
Nation or boys, the tenets don't change. God's purpose in election. By him who calls, not by works. Before they did anything good or bad. God chose one and not the other.

Whether you put nation or fetus in there, the conclusical points that Paul make stand.

I don't think you will ever find where the condemned ever had two natures.

but where does God have two natures? by your own admission he either loves you or hates you. I mean either you are 'elect' or not... Where is this nature of God found anywhere else in the Bible other than your eschewed interpretation of Romans 9? You can make the special argument here as well... if God is no respecter of persons and he desires for all men to be saved, then why are you saying that you are so special as to be of the 'elect'. God chose you and not the lost so obviously you can make the same argument on both sides and potentially detach yourself from the emotions of God especially his heart for the lost...

I am not trying to condemn anyone... I'm just showing you the other side of the coin

He didn't condemn Esau to hell before he was born... he just chose Jacob to be the one he would build his nation through... besides hate is a very strong word if you apply it like that... we had a conversation over the word hate in another thread, you have to read it in context with his emotions and his feelings toward the world... you cannot compute your interpretation to God's desire to see all men saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth... because if you apply your interpretation of election that means God really didn't mean what he said and he's 'sovereignly' and intentionally withholding salvation from select individuals thereby countermanding his own desires and thus making him a liar

RogerW
Jun 4th 2008, 05:52 PM
He was speaking of Edom. ;) When we read about Israel, do we always think of the person Jacob? God changed his name to Israel. Of course we don't because we understand God was speaking of the nation. In Romans 9, God is speaking of Edom and Israel two nations born from one man, Isaac. Just as we have two natures, one that God hates before it does anything, and one that God loves before it does anything.

But again, we see the last part of Romans 9 being ignored. God has mercy on those that believe. That's he elected way and preordained way of doing business.

How is there a nation unless that nation consists of individuals? How do you explain the names; individual names, written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world? It is true that Esau symbolizes those of the flesh, and Jacob symbolizes those of the Spirit corporately, but it is also true that those of the flesh and those of the Spirit are individuals; i.e. Jacob and Esau.

Many blessings,
RW

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 05:55 PM
Yes he did, and it sickened me when I found out about it. God's will and purpose is for us to evangelize and whosoever God chooses to come will come. We don't know who will be saved, so everyone's an open target.



I think you meant cannot.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, but it is in effect only for the elect.

If it was in effect for all sin, then no one needs faith, for Christ has made the sacrifice good for all.

Yuke

without faith it is impossible to please God...

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 05:55 PM
Well this is a different subject and one I don't know much on. But I do know that sometimes when the Bible uses the world 'world' it doesn't necessarily mean the whole world.

Many Calvinist teach that Jesus did not die for the sins of the world. So when they read this verse, the say "whole world" does not mean "whole world". Interestingly enough, the verse uses "whole world".

1 John 2:1-2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB


Can you tell me what the Arminain teaching on election is then?

More on this later.


I agree.

Not many Calvinist will agree that people can reject the purpose God has for them as they believe his purpose is decreed.

Luke 7:30-31
30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.
NASB


What do you mean 'how many Calvinists evangelize at all'? The best teachers, preachers, evangelizers out there are Calvinists. I know that John Piper and Paul Washer are huge on missions. All, or most, of the great Bible teachers in the past have been Calvinists who have no problem evangelizing to people.

As I said, how many of them evangelize? Most Calvinist I know leave it to Paul Washer and others to evangelize. Very few of them (ones I know) witness to their friends, neighbors, on the internet, or in any other form.


It seems we both don't have a firm grasp on what the other system teaches because your last few words are just plain wrong.

Limited atonement, as taught by many Calvinist, is that God only died for the elect. He did not die for the world for then his purpose was not fulfilled because some of the world go to hell.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 05:58 PM
How is there a nation unless that nation consists of individuals? How do you explain the names; individual names, written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world? It is true that Esau symbolizes those of the flesh, and Jacob symbolizes those of the Spirit corporately, but it is also true that those of the flesh and those of the Spirit are individuals; i.e. Jacob and Esau.

Many blessings,
RW

not at all.. it's not for God to decide who has faith and who doesn't... it's only about God's process of elimination to build his holy nation and why Israel is still God's chosen...

Faith is man's part... Read Hebrews 11...

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 06:02 PM
God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

However, God also chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world.

Both are Scripture, and therefore, fact.

God hated Esau (or those in the nation of Esau) before he (they) had done anything good or bad. Before Esau (or his nation) even came to be.

Now, the question becomes, was it because God knew what Esau (or his nation) would do, or because God foreordained what Esau (or his nation) would do?

Yuke

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:03 PM
Not many Calvinist will agree that people can reject the purpose God has for them as they believe his purpose is decreed.

Well I only gave you a half answer. :)

Sure they rejected the purpose of God. Isn't it God's purpose or desire for all to be saved also? People reject that all the time. However, I don't believe anybody can go against something that God has decreed. If God has decreed that a certain person will be saved then that person will get saved no matter what.




As I said, how many of them evangelize? Most Calvinist I know leave it to Paul Washer and others to evangelize. Very few of them (ones I know) witness to their friends, neighbors, on the internet, or in any other form.

As opposed to Arminians who are always evangelizing? I think this is a redundant argument. I don't know what the ratio is of how many Arminians evangelize to people as opposed to Calvinists and I would guess you don't either.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:08 PM
God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

However, God also chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world.

Both are Scripture, and therefore, fact.

God hated Esau (or those in the nation of Esau) before he (they) had done anything good or bad. Before Esau (or his nation) even came to be.

Now, the question becomes, was it because God knew what Esau (or his nation) would do, or because God foreordained what Esau (or his nation) would do?

Yuke

so it looks to me like you take a radical stance on either verse... either God chooses or God desires... you can side with God chooses and become detached... or you can say God desires and become a student of his emotions... his choice isn't arbitrary... besides, there are plenty of Edomites today that call upon the name of Jesus.... When God chose Jacob and not Esau he was choosing a nation... he wasn't condemning a nation to hell because they descended from Esau... he desired them too even though they rejected him too...

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 06:08 PM
Faith is man's part... Read Hebrews 11...

For it is by grace (unmerited favor) you have been saved (washed, sanctified, glorified, justified), through faith (belief in Christ)—and this (belief in Christ) not from yourselves, it (faith) is the gift of God—

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:10 PM
Well I only gave you a half answer. :)

Sure they rejected the purpose of God. Isn't it God's purpose or desire for all to be saved also? People reject that all the time. However, I don't believe anybody can go against something that God has decreed. If God has decreed that a certain person will be saved then that person will get saved no matter what.

yes they can... and those that choose not to agree with him are going to be crushed in the end... man can choose to reject God's decree... Israel has rejected God's call and decree upon them for over 6000 years...






As opposed to Arminians who are always evangelizing? I think this is a redundant argument. I don't know what the ratio is of how many Arminians evangelize to people as opposed to Calvinists and I would guess you don't either.

i don't...

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 06:11 PM
besides, there are plenty of Edomites today that call upon the name of Jesus

If that is the case, then can you truly say that Paul meant that God hates the nation of Esau, or is Romans 9 is referring to Esau the individual?

Yuke

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:11 PM
For it is by grace (unmerited favor) you have been saved (washed, sanctified, glorified, justified), through faith (belief in Christ)—and this (belief in Christ) not from yourselves, it (faith) is the gift of God—

salvation is a gift of God that cannot be had but through faith... whosoever believes upon him will have everlasting life...

and a gift can be refused... just because you offer me something doesn't mean I have no choice but to accept it... if man so chooses to reject God's grace and his offer of faith it's not God's fault... the offer is still on the table for WHOSOEVER believes

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:13 PM
If that is the case, then can you truly say that Paul meant that God hates the nation of Esau, or is Romans 9 is referring to Esau the individual?

Yuke

it means that he favored Jacob more than Esau concerning his choice of a nation.... Romans 9 is about God's initial and continuing choice of Israel... nothing more nothing less

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:14 PM
Well I only gave you a half answer. :)

Sure they rejected the purpose of God. Isn't it God's purpose or desire for all to be saved also? People reject that all the time. However, I don't believe anybody can go against something that God has decreed. If God has decreed that a certain person will be saved then that person will get saved no matter what.

Yet, he purposed for the Pharisees to be saved. They weren't. This is where Calvinist and I fall out. I take that scripture at face value. They don't. There are plenty of scriptures that teach man can come to God when he draws them and that he draws all men.


As opposed to Arminians who are always evangelizing? I think this is a redundant argument. I don't know what the ratio is of how many Arminians evangelize to people as opposed to Calvinists and I would guess you don't either.My group of friends is small compared to the whole. But in my limited experience, it is so. However, I will stand by the statement I made earlier, a Calvinist can't look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you". That's what got Spurgeon in trouble in his day. He evangelized.

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:14 PM
man can choose to reject God's decree

So let's say that God has decreed that I go the the fridge and get a coke. So I go to the fridge but instead of the coke I get a bottled water. I went against what God decreed, right? And you say I can do that, right? Now did God know I would choose the water? Why would God decree something He knows won't happen? Does God have a whole list of failed decrees in heaven?

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:16 PM
So let's say that God has decreed that I go the the fridge and get a coke. So I go to the fridge but instead of the coke I get a bottled water. I went against what God decreed, right? And you say I can do that, right? Now did God know I would choose the water? Why would God decree something He knows won't happen? Does God have a whole list of failed decrees in heaven?

He doesn't decree people go to hell. He places within all men an inner call. That's what Romans 1 teaches. Some reject it others don't.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:16 PM
So let's say that God has decreed that I go the the fridge and get a coke. So I go to the fridge but instead of the coke I get a bottled water. I went against what God decreed, right? And you say I can do that, right? Now did God know I would choose the water? Why would God decree something He knows won't happen? Does God have a whole list of failed decrees in heaven?

and why would God decree that you get something as trivial as a Coke for starters? Your application makes no sense... besides he hasn't DECREED that all men would be saved... but he DESIRES it... big difference if you ask me

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:19 PM
Yet, he purposed for the Pharisees to be saved. They weren't. This is where Calvinist and I fall out. I take that scripture at face value. They don't.

Well Calvinists will say there are at least two wills of God. Will of command and Will of decree. I'm sure you will laugh at this but it does make sense.


My group of friends is small compared to the whole. But in my limited experience, it is so. However, I will stand by the statement I made earlier, a Calvinist can't look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you". That's what got Spurgeon in trouble in his day. He evangelized.

I just don't understand how you can say this when you just don't know. You make it sound like Spurgeon was the only Calvinist who ever evangelized.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:22 PM
keep in mind Whitfield was one of the greatest preachers ever...

RogerW
Jun 4th 2008, 06:22 PM
not at all.. it's not for God to decide who has faith and who doesn't... it's only about God's process of elimination to build his holy nation and why Israel is still God's chosen...

Faith is man's part... Read Hebrews 11...

Election is not salvation, we are elect that we may obtain salvation.

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

1Pe 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.

But you've steered away from the question. There are names of individuals written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the foundation of the world, who are they?

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:23 PM
keep in mind Roger,

his foreknowledge doesn't cancel out man's free will to choose him.... he already knows, but he doesn't make our decision for us

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:24 PM
and why would God decree that you get something as trivial as a Coke for starters? Your application makes no sense... besides he hasn't DECREED that all men would be saved... but he DESIRES it... big difference if you ask me

Yes there is a difference between desire and decree. That's the two wills of God. The problem is if God decreed everybody to salvation then that's universalism, which is clearly wrong. Now if God just desires all to be saved then in theory nobody could ever have gotten saved. These are two extremes that don't present the truth. The middle ground is that God does desire all to be saved but has decreed only some to salvation.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:26 PM
Well Calvinists will say there are at least two wills of God. Will of command and Will of decree. I'm sure you will laugh at this but it does make sense.

It makes sense if one has already decided God has decreed the individual to go to hell. The Calvinist concept of God has him desiring one thing and willing another. His desire and will are in conflict concerning man's salvation. But we will disagree on this scripture. Perhaps God decreed that I not believe in the Calvinist viewpoint. ;)


I just don't understand how you can say this when you just don't know. You make it sound like Spurgeon was the only Calvinist who ever evangelized.If a Calvinist believes that Jesus only died for a few, he cannot look at one and say with conviction "Jesus died for you". Perhaps he can say "Maybe Jesus died for your sins, if you are the elect". That's the point. If he says to one who is non-elect "Jesus died for you" then he has lied or told an untruth. It is a part of limited atonement that is often ignored. If one believes God only died for a few, then he can't say to the masses "God died for you".

As I said before, 1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. If you believe that, then you are not a TULIP Calvinist. For they do not believe he died for all mankind.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:27 PM
Yes there is a difference between desire and decree. That's the two wills of God. The problem is if God decreed everybody to salvation then that's universalism, which is clearly wrong. Now if God just desires all to be saved then in theory nobody could ever have gotten saved. These are two extremes that don't present the truth. The middle ground is that God does desire all to be saved but has decreed only some to salvation.

that's not biblical... he desires all men to be saved but he gives man the free will to choose him or not... if God chooses a man arbitrarily then why doesn't he sovereignly just make him mature and complete... why are there exhortations to keep in the faith? Why are there warnings against deception to fall away? If God chooses his elect then does he choose those who fall away by deception?

RogerW
Jun 4th 2008, 06:31 PM
Yet, he purposed for the Pharisees to be saved. They weren't. This is where Calvinist and I fall out. I take that scripture at face value. They don't. There are plenty of scriptures that teach man can come to God when he draws them and that he draws all men.

My group of friends is small compared to the whole. But in my limited experience, it is so. However, I will stand by the statement I made earlier, a Calvinist can't look a lost man in the eye and say "Jesus died for you". That's what got Spurgeon in trouble in his day. He evangelized.

Let's stop misquoting this verse. Men was added to help the reader, but like so many other additions it simply causes more confusion then help.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The verse says, "draw all unto me." So what's the big deal, doesn't that imply every man? No it does not! What it is saying is that all who are drawn (literally dragged) to Him are drawn by Him and none other.

Many Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:31 PM
If a Calvinist believes that Jesus only died for a few, he cannot look at one and say with conviction "Jesus died for you". Perhaps he can say "Maybe Jesus died for your sins, if you are the elect". That's the point. If he says to one who is non-elect "Jesus died for you" then he has lied or told an untruth. It is a part of limited atonement that is often ignored. If one believes God only died for a few, then he can't say to the masses "God died for you".

As I said before, 1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. If you believe that, then you are not a TULIP Calvinist. For they do not believe he died for all mankind.

But we are commanded to preach the Gospel to everyone, are we not? Calvinist believe this just as much as Arminians do. We just believe that not all, i.e. the non elect, will accept it. And Arminians also believe that not all, i.e. could be elect but it's up to them, will accept it either.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Calvinist or Arminian concept of evangelizing. They are basically the same but differ over how the people got saved.

RogerW
Jun 4th 2008, 06:32 PM
He doesn't decree people go to hell. He places within all men an inner call. That's what Romans 1 teaches. Some reject it others don't.

With this I can agree! God elects people to save them from hell, otherwise everyman would surely go there.

Many Blessings,
RW

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:34 PM
Let's stop misquoting this verse. Men was added to help the reader, but like so many other additions it simply causes more confusion then help.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The verse says, "draw all unto me." So what's the big deal, doesn't that imply every man? No it does not! What it is saying is that all who are drawn (literally dragged) to Him are drawn by Him and none other.

Many Blessings,
RW

I think it does imply every man. And men was added to show clearly what the scriptures teach. But here's another verse.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

These guys rejected that which God placed within them. They suppressed his inner call to them and he eventually turned the over to a reprobate mind.

He called. They rejected. They went to hell.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:34 PM
But we are commanded to preach the Gospel to everyone, are we not? Calvinist believe this just as much as Arminians do. We just believe that not all, i.e. the non elect, will accept it. And Arminians also believe that not all, i.e. could be elect but it's up to them, will accept it either.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Calvinist or Arminian concept of evangelizing. They are basically the same but differ over how the people got saved.

which is a big deal because then you have to tell this person how to live a godly life and how a man views God is how he's going to view the world and his neighbor... How you view God IS how you live.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:35 PM
With this I can agree! God elects people to save them from hell, otherwise everyman would surely go there.

Many Blessings,
RW

And there is the Calvinist twist. God calls all men to be saved. I have no issue that some are elected. But I do have issue that there is no hope for some. All men can be saved. The Calvinist twist denies this basic premise in scripture even going so far as to say Jesus did not die for the sins of the world.

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:36 PM
that's not biblical... he desires all men to be saved but he gives man the free will to choose him or not.

And couldn't have all man with this 'free will' not choose Him? So in your theology it's a wonder that anybody is saved if it's left up to man to make the final decision. Why do these men choose God?

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:36 PM
With this I can agree! God elects people to save them from hell, otherwise everyman would surely go there.

Many Blessings,
RW

i do not agree... man chooses to agree with God's election or not... it's not God arbitrarily choosing... it's man choosing to agree with God

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:36 PM
But we are commanded to preach the Gospel to everyone, are we not? Calvinist believe this just as much as Arminians do. We just believe that not all, i.e. the non elect, will accept it. And Arminians also believe that not all, i.e. could be elect but it's up to them, will accept it either.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Calvinist or Arminian concept of evangelizing. They are basically the same but differ over how the people got saved.

And yet, what about limited atonement? Can I preach to the masses "Jesus died for you" and be faithful to Calvinist doctrine that he didn't die for all?

RogerW
Jun 4th 2008, 06:36 PM
keep in mind Roger,

his foreknowledge doesn't cancel out man's free will to choose him.... he already knows, but he doesn't make our decision for us

Of course not! What He does do is change our will, our desire, our fallen nature, that we freely desire to follow Him. That's not deciding for us, that is simply giving us the ability, otherwise we would remain spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins.

Many Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:38 PM
which is a big deal because then you have to tell this person how to live a godly life and how a man views God is how he's going to view the world and his neighbor... How you view God IS how you live.

Throughout history haven't Calvinists been the most Godly living people? Jonathan Edwards comes to mind.

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:40 PM
And yet, what about limited atonement? Can I preach to the masses "Jesus died for you" and be faithful to Calvinist doctrine that he didn't die for all?

But how do you know that those people in front of you aren't all elected to be saved? You don't, so that's why you do it. This is just another one of those mysteries of God. We are to preach to everyone yet not everyone will accept it. We both agree on this but we disagree over why they don't accept it. It's really not a big deal at all to me.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:41 PM
And couldn't have all man with this 'free will' not choose Him? So in your theology it's a wonder that anybody is saved if it's left up to man to make the final decision. Why do these men choose God?

God is still God whether man chooses him or not... God is sovereign right?

so why is any man saved?

Because in every man God has placed within him a desire for truth, for something real. What makes us desire anything? God who knows our frame and who desires to fill every hole that he has placed within us. He has given us his son and drawn men unto himself. The sacrifice of Christ has been made evident to the world. Even skeptics believe that Christ is the most influential person who ever lived. So within every man lies the controversy of Christ and man of his own free will must decide what to do with it. Some accept the free gift and some do not. But the decision is of man. God has done his part and he won't do our part. Choose this day whom you will serve said Joshua to the nation of Israel. God didn't choose for them despite his choice of them as a nation... they had to make the decision to agree with God's choice of them.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:43 PM
But how do you know that those people in front of you aren't all elected to be saved? You don't, so that's why you do it. This is just another one of those mysteries of God. We are to preach to everyone yet not everyone will accept it. We both agree on this but we disagree over why they don't accept it. It's really not a big deal at all to me.

So you tell them an untruth? It's not a mystery. God doesn't say for us to preach untruth. Yet, we are to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Why? Because it is true that God died for all men and desires all men to be saved!

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:45 PM
Of course not! What He does do is change our will, our desire, our fallen nature, that we freely desire to follow Him. That's not deciding for us, that is simply giving us the ability, otherwise we would remain spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins.

Many Blessings,
RW

He gives all men the ability. As ecclesiastes says, he has placed eternity in the heart of man. Romans 1 says he placed truth within man. Only those that suppress the truth go to hell. But they don't have to go. God has enabled them and given them what they need to come to him.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:45 PM
from my corner... I would rather preach God's desires from the pulpit rather than lifeless theology... that's just my opinion

BrckBrln
Jun 4th 2008, 06:50 PM
God has done his part and he won't do our part.

How do you know God's 'part' is over? Was only God's part to send His Son to die for 'the whole world' and sit back and see how many come to faith in Him? That's quite a passive thing for God to do. Calvinists say that God is never done in the salvation of a man until he dies. God chooses us, justifies us, and sanctifies us. I forget the verse that says all these things but God didn't just quit after His Son died.

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:50 PM
from my corner... I would rather preach God's desires from the pulpit rather than lifeless theology... that's just my opinion

Calvinist must also eventually preach that God does not love men. He only loves the elect. He may have a certain love for all men but his love for the elect is different. He loves them enough to save them. But he doesn't love mankind enough to save mankind. That is not love. At best, it's compassion. But even compassion is motivated to act and to do something. It motivated Christ greatly while he was on the earth to heal.

In the end, if God is love, he then provides a way for all men for he loves the world.

timmyb
Jun 4th 2008, 06:51 PM
How do you know God's 'part' is over? Was only God's part to send His Son to die for 'the whole world' and sit back and see how many come to faith in Him? That's quite a passive thing for God to do. Calvinists say that God is never done in the salvation of a man until he dies. God chooses us, justifies us, and sanctifies us. I forget the verse that says all these things but God didn't just quit after His Son died.

he didn't just quit.... but you cannot say that man does not have a choice... he hasn't stopped doing his part... but he will not in any way do our part.. he will not violate our free will

explain the rest of my post... you only took out a part of it...

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 06:51 PM
How do you know God's 'part' is over? Was only God's part to send His Son to die for 'the whole world' and sit back and see how many come to faith in Him? That's quite a passive thing for God to do. Calvinists say that God is never done in the salvation of a man until he dies. God chooses us, justifies us, and sanctifies us. I forget the verse that says all these things but God didn't just quit after His Son died.

God isn't passive. He's very active. He loved the whole world. That's why he sent Jesus, to save the whole world. He actively works with man to save mankind. But man represses the truth. It is sad.

But God is love and he loved all men, not just some.

alethos
Jun 4th 2008, 08:38 PM
God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

However, God also chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world.

Both are Scripture, and therefore, fact.

God hated Esau (or those in the nation of Esau) before he (they) had done anything good or bad. Before Esau (or his nation) even came to be.

Now, the question becomes, was it because God knew what Esau (or his nation) would do, or because God foreordained what Esau (or his nation) would do?

Yuke

Following the logic Calvinism presents in which God foreordains all things. (whatsoever comes to pass), then that means God foreordained my disbelief of Calvinism.

.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 08:54 PM
Following the logic Calvinism presents in which God foreordains all things. (whatsoever comes to pass), then that means God foreordained my disbelief of Calvinism.

True that.

But then, there's no saying that God didn't foreordain you to believe in Calvinism in the future either. Doubtful, but possible. :bounce:

Brother Mark
Jun 4th 2008, 08:57 PM
Following the logic Calvinism presents in which God foreordains all things. (whatsoever comes to pass), then that means God foreordained my disbelief of Calvinism.

.

To my Calvinist friends, I say I was predestined to be arminian. To my arminian friends, I say I choose to be calvinist. :lol:

The logic issues are why Calvinist will change the basic meanings of some words in scripture. Limited atonement is the easiest, IMO, to deal with. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

Some go so far as to say that God decreed Adam to sin, thereby making God the author of sin. Others won't go that far, yet, will say that all after Adam don't have a choice as Adam did. I think the second far easier to support in scripture than the former.

ProDeo
Jun 4th 2008, 08:59 PM
For it is by grace YES (unmerited favor YES) you have been saved YES (washed YES, sanctified YES, glorified YES, justified YES), through faith YES (belief in Christ YES)—and this (belief in Christ YES) not from yourselves YES, it (faith) is the gift of God YES YES,YES,YES,YES,YES,YES—

And still after all this wisdom you are not sure if you are saved because you don't know if you are elected or not. In fear you live, in fear you will die because God may hurl you into the lake of fire after all when it's your turn on judgement day and you will suffer and tormented forever and ever.

Is that what you believe?

Following your logic John perhaps is not elected also, the same John who wrote:

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Boldness in the day of judgement! No fear!

How does this fit into your doctrine of fear?

Ed

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 09:09 PM
"And still after all this wisdom you are not sure if you are saved because you don't know if you are elected or not. In fear you live, in fear you will die because God may smite you into the lake of fire after all when it's your turn on judgement day and you will suffer and tormented forever and ever.

Is that what you believe?

Following your logic John perhaps is not elected also, the same John who wrote:

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Boldness in the day of judgement! No fear!

How does this fit into your doctrine of fear?

Not at all. I don't know where this calvinistic fear comes from, but as a defined calvinist, I am sure of my election. I have no fear of judgement as that is exactly what you are saved from. Nor do I feel I teach or preach fear.

Actually, I always felt it was the arminian that taught fear because they claim that a person could lose salvation. Fear of losing salvation could be huge.

Eternal Security. That is what I believe. No fear at all.

Yuke

alethos
Jun 4th 2008, 09:25 PM
True that.

But then, there's no saying that God didn't foreordain you to believe in Calvinism in the future either. Doubtful, but possible. :bounce:

The thing is, my belief in Calvinism is in the past tense. God allowed and foreordained me to taste it and see that it doesn't have the right answers.

.

Yukerboy
Jun 4th 2008, 09:32 PM
The thing is my belief in Calvinism is in the past tense.

See. God foreordained you to believe in calvinism, then change to arminianism, then hopefully in the future, Yukerism :)

Seriously though, I can't count how many times I bounced around from pre-trib to post-trib, to no rapture, to preterist view, to post-trib.

9Marksfan
Jun 4th 2008, 09:37 PM
Wow! Eight pages in 24 hours must be some kind of RECORD!

alethos
Jun 4th 2008, 09:44 PM
See. God foreordained you to believe in calvinism, then change to arminianism, then hopefully in the future, Yukerism :)

Seriously though, I can't count how many times I bounced around from pre-trib to post-trib, to no rapture, to preterist view, to post-trib.

Actually God foreordained me to believe the Scriptures which disagree with both Calvinism, and Arminianism.

Partaker of Christ
Jun 4th 2008, 09:56 PM
I think it does imply every man. And men was added to show clearly what the scriptures teach. But here's another verse.

Rom 1:18-19

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
NASB

These guys rejected that which God placed within them. They suppressed his inner call to them and he eventually turned the over to a reprobate mind.

He called. They rejected. They went to hell.


Hi Brother Mark!

I very much doubt that this passage refers to all men everywhere, but only of those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness"

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

Other translations are "manifest among them", of which I agree with, because to have known 'God in them' (as you imply) would mean that they are alive in the spirit, to have known God, who is Spirit.


1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Act 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Act 17:23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Act 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Act 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Act 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
Act 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Act 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."
Act 17:33 So Paul went out of their midst.
Act 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

ProDeo
Jun 5th 2008, 08:31 AM
Not at all. I don't know where this calvinistic fear comes from, but as a defined calvinist, I am sure of my election. I have no fear of judgement as that is exactly what you are saved from. Nor do I feel I teach or preach fear.

Actually, I always felt it was the arminian that taught fear because they claim that a person could lose salvation. Fear of losing salvation could be huge.

Eternal Security. That is what I believe. No fear at all.

Yuke

:pp

Thanks Yuke, I am relieved to hear that. The Calvinists I know say that they never can be sure of their election/salvation and saying such a thing is considered blasphemy. I am left with one question, why are you sure of your election? Any biblical reference to offer?

Ed

9Marksfan
Jun 5th 2008, 01:31 PM
Sure... and He gave Jesus Judas and Judas came to him. ;)

Nope - Judas was chosen to be an apostle - yet he had a devil - Judas aligned himself with the others and put up the best "act" in history (convinced everyone except Jesus until the last supper) - yet he was the son of perdition - ie ALWAYS lost.

9Marksfan
Jun 5th 2008, 01:36 PM
from my corner... I would rather preach God's desires from the pulpit rather than lifeless theology... that's just my opinion

If you think Calvinism is lifeless theology, you need to listen to John Piper!

RogerW
Jun 5th 2008, 01:48 PM
He gives all men the ability. As ecclesiastes says, he has placed eternity in the heart of man. Romans 1 says he placed truth within man. Only those that suppress the truth go to hell. But they don't have to go. God has enabled them and given them what they need to come to him.

If God has enabled them and given them what they need to come to Him...and they don't come to Him? That means that man's free will is greater than God. Can you not see this? You have God enabling them and giving them what they need to come to Him, then God stands back waiting and wishing and pleading with fallen man...oh please, please, please come to Me that you might have life. This is not the God of Scripture. The God of Scripture is able to fulfill whatsoever He wills. Obviously, since God enables them and gives them what they need to come to Him, it is His will they come to Him, otherwise why bother? Yet they don't come to Him, even though they have everything they need to come to Him for life???? So according to you, the loving Almighty God will leave fallen man to His free will, even though He desires their salvation...??? What kind of love will leave a man to perish when He is able to change their will, just so they can keep their free will? Certainly not the God of Scripture.

Blessings,
RW

ARCHER42
Jun 5th 2008, 01:49 PM
:pp

Thanks Yuke, I am relieved to hear that. The Calvinists I know say that they never can be sure of their election/salvation and saying such a thing is considered blasphemy. I am left with one question, why are you sure of your election? Any biblical reference to offer?

Ed
----------------------------------------------------------

KNOWING, brethren beloved, YOUR ELECTION of God....... 1 Thess 1:4

That word means to 'understand', to have knowledge, percieve, BE SURE.... 1492 in the Greek...

Those 'elected' will not be ignorant of 'their' election...

I don't consider myself to be a Calvinist... for John Calvin was not 'crucified' for my sins... The Bible tells me thru the Work of the Holy Ghost that I'll know my election and be 'sure' of it...

RogerW
Jun 5th 2008, 01:50 PM
Calvinist must also eventually preach that God does not love men. He only loves the elect. He may have a certain love for all men but his love for the elect is different. He loves them enough to save them. But he doesn't love mankind enough to save mankind. That is not love. At best, it's compassion. But even compassion is motivated to act and to do something. It motivated Christ greatly while he was on the earth to heal.

In the end, if God is love, he then provides a way for all men for he loves the world.

God loves His own, and all who belong to Him will be saved!

Blessings,
RW

ProjectPeter
Jun 5th 2008, 06:23 PM
Nope - Judas was chosen to be an apostle - yet he had a devil - Judas aligned himself with the others and put up the best "act" in history (convinced everyone except Jesus until the last supper) - yet he was the son of perdition - ie ALWAYS lost.Well in the same sense that "he had a devil" so did Peter. Judas didn't have the devil until he dipped and ate the sop. As to him putting on the best act... no. He went out healing and preaching the gospel with the full authority as the other eleven. Had nothing to do with "an act".

ProjectPeter
Jun 5th 2008, 06:27 PM
If God has enabled them and given them what they need to come to Him...and they don't come to Him? That means that man's free will is greater than God. Can you not see this? You have God enabling them and giving them what they need to come to Him, then God stands back waiting and wishing and pleading with fallen man...oh please, please, please come to Me that you might have life. This is not the God of Scripture. The God of Scripture is able to fulfill whatsoever He wills. Obviously, since God enables them and gives them what they need to come to Him, it is His will they come to Him, otherwise why bother? Yet they don't come to Him, even though they have everything they need to come to Him for life???? So according to you, the loving Almighty God will leave fallen man to His free will, even though He desires their salvation...??? What kind of love will leave a man to perish when He is able to change their will, just so they can keep their free will? Certainly not the God of Scripture.

Blessings,
RWRoger,

It is in fact you who limits God. You guys often talk of God's sovereignty and yet you don't allow God to be sovereign in your theology. Here is how it works... God, in His sovereignty gave man free moral agency. Has nothing to do with man's will being stronger than God's and that is just a pet phrase that Reformed folk like tossing out there because they figure it makes some sort of valid point. It doesn't. Using that logic... Satan wouldn't even be an enemy of God... why is God so weak a God that He can't just POOF and the devil be gone? I mean that sort of logic does ultimately do what you said... create a God that isn't the God in Scripture.

fewarechosen
Jun 5th 2008, 06:27 PM
Well in the same sense that "he had a devil" so did Peter. Judas didn't have the devil until he dipped and ate the sop. As to him putting on the best act... no. He went out healing and preaching the gospel with the full authority as the other eleven. Had nothing to do with "an act".

i completely agree

ProjectPeter
Jun 5th 2008, 06:28 PM
God loves His own, and all who belong to Him will be saved!

Blessings,
RW
Absolutely... in the end... when the race has been won. No doubt about that. Until then... we've a race to run and we're to run it to win.

alethos
Jun 5th 2008, 06:37 PM
If you think Calvinism is lifeless theology, you need to listen to John Piper!

http://www.reesedds.com/Images/snoreman.gif

ProjectPeter
Jun 5th 2008, 06:56 PM
http://www.reesedds.com/Images/snoreman.gif
That was cold!!! :lol: I actually like Piper... he generally has some pretty good sermons.

alethos
Jun 5th 2008, 07:02 PM
That was cold!!! :lol: I actually like Piper... he generally has some pretty good sermons.

Use to like him, these days he puts me to sleep. zzzzzzzzzzz!!!!

ProjectPeter
Jun 5th 2008, 07:04 PM
Well I've not listened to him in a while now but hey... folks get older and more mellow with age! :lol:

9Marksfan
Jun 5th 2008, 08:18 PM
Well in the same sense that "he had a devil" so did Peter.

No - but now you mention it, what made the difference between Peter and Judas when it came to dealing with their sin?


Judas didn't have the devil until he dipped and ate the sop.

Er, Jn 6:70 is several chapters befoe Jn 13 in my Bible!

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Jn 6:70 NKJV

As to him putting on the best act... no. He went out healing and preaching the gospel with the full authority as the other eleven. Had nothing to do with "an act".[/quote]

And ministry had nothing to do with character. The fact that Judas did these things is a CHILLING warning to all of us involved in ministry that it is NO GUARANTEE that we will be (or even are) saved.

9Marksfan
Jun 5th 2008, 08:21 PM
i completely agree

I would be interested to receive your response to my reply as well.

ARCHER42
Jun 5th 2008, 08:47 PM
Jesus 'knew' what was in Judas..... The Scripture says and states that Jesus 'knew' what was in man...... That's why He said he was a devil... Why was Judas, also known as the son of perdition.. according to Jesus's Words, why was he lost? or gone where he was suppose to go?

So that the Scripture might be fullfilled.... There are Scritures in Psalms that point toward Judas's betrayal... Did this suprise Jesus or take Him by suprise? I think not... He knew what was in store for Him and who would betray Him... Thats why He asked in Gethsemane... You betray your master with a kiss?

9Marksfan
Jun 5th 2008, 08:55 PM
Well I've not listened to him in a while now but hey... folks get older and more mellow with age! :lol:

Piper's 62 and he ain't mellow - he's as passionate and joyful as ever!