PDA

View Full Version : Unconditional Election



Yukerboy
Nov 18th 2008, 07:25 PM
Wikipedia's Definition in black, Scripture in purple.

Before God created the world, he chose to save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) some people (You did not choose me, but I chose you; as many as were appointed to eternal life believed; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy; he chose us in him before the foundation of the world; God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,") according to his own purposes (God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.; Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.; In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will; according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.; who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,;) and apart from any conditions related to those persons (You did not choose me; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works; If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.; God credits righteousness apart from works:; not by works but by him who calls; It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.; 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—; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.)

I would say Wikipedia is 2 for 2 so far.

Diolectic
Nov 18th 2008, 08:15 PM
Unconditional Election:
The doctrine of “Unconditional election” also called “election of the saints” or “Predestination” which comes from Bible verses as Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:11-16, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, and the like. The doctrine of Unconditional election concerns God's decision to determine ahead of time what the destiny of groups and/or individuals will be. God's decision concerning the salvation of people is predetermined before time.

The doctrine of Unconditional Election denies man's choice by figuring that if man had free will to choose his own destiny, it would diminish God's sovereignty. This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose or even free will it would diminish His sovereignty or He would not have any ability to perform his own will over that of mans. While in reality, this magnifies God's sovereignty by showing His ability to have government over what man has authority of.

This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose, it would be giving some glory to the one willing; however, this is a false Idea in that the one willing is actually glorifying God by acknowledging HIM to be right in HIS charges against mankind. The one willing to be saved is also humbling himself in humiliation by admitting that:
1: There is a God which he offended.

2: He is a sinner under God's wrath.
3: He needs to be saved.
4: He can not save himself
5: Jesus is the savior.
6: All he can do is only repent and believe.

The real difficulty here is that the doctrine of Unconditional Election claims that God has elected only a few, while it must explain why He only chooses those who He elects and let the others die impenitent, and suffer eternally in hell without any choice of their own.

This doctrine fails to acknowledge that Christ's work on the cross is for all (1John 2:2), but limits Christ's work on the cross for only the elect. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Knowing that the ungodly is the entirity of mankind without Christ.
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.


If man is unable to choose his own destiny, there is no justice for hell and hell would not only be created for the devil and his angels, but for man also (Matthew 25:41) because they were created chosen for destruction. This denies the very concept that, in order to be damned, one must, first, reject the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection. The whole reason for preaching the Gospel is to persuade people to repent and for the opportunity to make a conscious decision for Christ. Rom 10:14-15

mikebr
Nov 18th 2008, 08:34 PM
Wikipedia's Definition in black, Scripture in purple.

Before God created the world, he chose to save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)some people (You did not choose me, but I chose you; as many as were appointed to eternal life believed; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy; he chose us in him before the foundation of the world; God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,") according to his own purposes (God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.; Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.; In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will; according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.; who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,;) and apart from any conditions related to those persons (You did not choose me; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works; If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.; God credits righteousness apart from works:; not by works but by him who calls; It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.; 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—; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.)

I would say Wikipedia is 2 for 2 so far.






What if the elect aren't the only ones saved? Is there scripture that says that is the case or that those who aren't the elect will go into the Lake of Fire?

John146
Nov 18th 2008, 08:43 PM
Wikipedia's Definition in black, Scripture in purple.

Before God created the world, he chose to save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)some people (You did not choose me, but I chose you; as many as were appointed to eternal life believed; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy; he chose us in him before the foundation of the world; God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,") according to his own purposes (God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.; Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.; In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will; according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.; who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,;) and apart from any conditions related to those persons (You did not choose me; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works; If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.; God credits righteousness apart from works:; not by works but by him who calls; It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.; 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—; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.)

I would say Wikipedia is 2 for 2 so far.I would say 0 for 2. Does Wikipedia equal scripture? Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is conditional upon man repenting of his sins (2 Cor 7:9-10, Mark 1:15, Acts 2:38, etc.) and putting his faith and trust in Jesus Christ (John 3:16, John 3:36, Romans 10:9-10, Acts 16:27-34, etc.). Scripture teaches that God desires all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 12:40 AM
Wikipedia defines Total Depravity as the following: (definition in black, Scriptures in Purple)

As a consequence of the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man) (For as in Adam all die; the many died by the trespass of the one man; the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men), every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) ("Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.'"; death came to all men, because all sinned; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.) and, apart from the efficacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace) or prevenient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) grace of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace) (and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus; For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—; , is utterly unable to choose to follow God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or choose to accept salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) as it is freely offered. ("None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."; "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."; 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'"; "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.")

Sounds right so far....

Yuke


Wikipedia's Definition in black, Scripture in purple.

Before God created the world, he chose to save (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation)some people (You did not choose me, but I chose you; as many as were appointed to eternal life believed; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy; he chose us in him before the foundation of the world; God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,") according to his own purposes (God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.; Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.; In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will; according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.; who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,;) and apart from any conditions related to those persons (You did not choose me; it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God; who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works; If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.; God credits righteousness apart from works:; not by works but by him who calls; It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.; 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—; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.; it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.)

I would say Wikipedia is 2 for 2 so far.



I have to agree Yuke...Wikipedia is on a roll :pp

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 12:51 AM
What if the elect aren't the only ones saved? Is there scripture that says that is the case or that those who aren't the elect will go into the Lake of Fire?

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

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.

The names of the elect are written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world and Christ is the Lamb slain for them (his people) from the foundation of the world. At the Judgment those whose names are not found in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire.

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

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

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

Therefore only the elect are saved, and if you are not among the elect of God, your name will not be written in His Book, therefore you will be cast into the lake of fire.

Many Blessings,
RW

Back2Front
Nov 19th 2008, 12:55 AM
What if the elect aren't the only ones saved? Is there scripture that says that is the case or that those who aren't the elect will go into the Lake of Fire?

Exactly!

The doctrine of election is completely different from the work-a-day believer who is working out their salvation, and indeed does not apply to them.

The thing about the eternal elect though, you would never know who they are because they would never presume to be such a one. Nor does not presuming to be such a one, automatically qualify one to be the elect.

But then again there is a difference between the elect regarding eternity and predestination, and the elect that are Gods people on earth also working out there salvation.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 02:05 AM
What if the elect aren't the only ones saved? Is there scripture that says that is the case or that those who aren't the elect will go into the Lake of Fire?

Judas was one of the elect.

TrustingFollower
Nov 19th 2008, 02:17 AM
Unconditional Election:

The doctrine of “Unconditional election” also called “election of the saints” or “Predestination” which comes from Bible verses as Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:11-16, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, and the like. The doctrine of Unconditional election concerns God's decision to determine ahead of time what the destiny of groups and/or individuals will be. God's decision concerning the salvation of people is predetermined before time.

The doctrine of Unconditional Election denies man's choice by figuring that if man had free will to choose his own destiny, it would diminish God's sovereignty. This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose or even free will it would diminish His sovereignty or He would not have any ability to perform his own will over that of mans. While in reality, this magnifies God's sovereignty by showing His ability to have government over what man has authority of.

This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose, it would be giving some glory to the one willing; however, this is a false Idea in that the one willing is actually glorifying God by acknowledging HIM to be right in HIS charges against mankind. The one willing to be saved is also humbling himself in humiliation by admitting that:
1: There is a God which he offended.

2: He is a sinner under God's wrath.
3: He needs to be saved.
4: He can not save himself
5: Jesus is the savior.
6: All he can do is only repent and believe.

The real difficulty here is that the doctrine of Unconditional Election claims that God has elected only a few, while it must explain why He only chooses those who He elects and let the others die impenitent, and suffer eternally in hell without any choice of their own.

This doctrine fails to acknowledge that Christ's work on the cross is for all (1John 2:2), but limits Christ's work on the cross for only the elect. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Knowing that the ungodly is the entirity of mankind without Christ.
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.


If man is unable to choose his own destiny, there is no justice for hell and hell would not only be created for the devil and his angels, but for man also (Matthew 25:41) because they were created chosen for destruction. This denies the very concept that, in order to be damned, one must, first, reject the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection. The whole reason for preaching the Gospel is to persuade people to repent and for the opportunity to make a conscious decision for Christ. Rom 10:14-15
Excellent post and spot on.

Yankee Candle
Nov 19th 2008, 02:28 AM
Tis a divine paradox: the free will of man and the Soverignty of God. Though opposites in human understanding and yet both true at the same time.


"...and whosoever will may come..."


is just as valid and true as


"chosen from the founation of the world".


http://www.free-pictures-photos.com/clouds/clouds-mu4u_small.jpg (http://www.free-pictures-photos.com/clouds/clouds-mu4u.jpg)


Come Quickly, Lord Jesus!

Yukerboy
Nov 19th 2008, 02:36 AM
Still have some more threads to start, will come back to this when done.

TrustingFollower
Nov 19th 2008, 02:44 AM
So you have to get the other three points of our doctrine posted also? Why not come here to discuss the issues rather than push an agenda?

Yukerboy
Nov 19th 2008, 03:10 AM
Because I wish to address each point separately, though I know they are intertwined.

I do not want to discuss Total Depravity and then jump ahead in the same thread to perseverance of the saints.

Dominoes...if one fall down, they all fall down.

Yuke

TrustingFollower
Nov 19th 2008, 04:15 AM
Because I wish to address each point separately, though I know they are intertwined.

I do not want to discuss Total Depravity and then jump ahead in the same thread to perseverance of the saints.

Dominoes...if one fall down, they all fall down.

Yuke
I completely understand that, but letting time for discussion before moving on is a key part of a discussion forum. Promote the discussion of the topic to the fullest before moving on would be the best approach. That is all I am getting at here.

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 04:21 AM
Unconditional Election:
The doctrine of “Unconditional election” also called “election of the saints” or “Predestination” which comes from Bible verses as Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:11-16, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11, and the like. The doctrine of Unconditional election concerns God's decision to determine ahead of time what the destiny of groups and/or individuals will be. God's decision concerning the salvation of people is predetermined before time.

The doctrine of Unconditional Election denies man's choice by figuring that if man had free will to choose his own destiny, it would diminish God's sovereignty. This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose or even free will it would diminish His sovereignty or He would not have any ability to perform his own will over that of mans. While in reality, this magnifies God's sovereignty by showing His ability to have government over what man has authority of.

This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose, it would be giving some glory to the one willing; however, this is a false Idea in that the one willing is actually glorifying God by acknowledging HIM to be right in HIS charges against mankind. The one willing to be saved is also humbling himself in humiliation by admitting that:
1: There is a God which he offended.

2: He is a sinner under God's wrath.
3: He needs to be saved.
4: He can not save himself
5: Jesus is the savior.
6: All he can do is only repent and believe.

The real difficulty here is that the doctrine of Unconditional Election claims that God has elected only a few, while it must explain why He only chooses those who He elects and let the others die impenitent, and suffer eternally in hell without any choice of their own.

This doctrine fails to acknowledge that Christ's work on the cross is for all (1John 2:2), but limits Christ's work on the cross for only the elect. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Knowing that the ungodly is the entirity of mankind without Christ.
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.


If man is unable to choose his own destiny, there is no justice for hell and hell would not only be created for the devil and his angels, but for man also (Matthew 25:41) because they were created chosen for destruction. This denies the very concept that, in order to be damned, one must, first, reject the sacrifice that Jesus paid on the cross, along with His resurrection. The whole reason for preaching the Gospel is to persuade people to repent and for the opportunity to make a conscious decision for Christ. Rom 10:14-15

Great post...I agree...I so dislike the idea of God choosing some to go to hell...I just don't see that in scripture!

God bless

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:18 AM
Great post...I agree...I so dislike the idea of God choosing some to go to hell...I just don't see that in scripture!

God bless

I don't believe Unconditional Election says that God chooses people to go to hell (isn't that hyper-calvinism?). He chooses people who are dead in their sins and are on their way to hell for salvation and passes over the rest. He gives some Mercy and others Justice. Either way, whether you believe that or that God waits for people to respond to Him knowing not all will do so, you still have God allowing people to go to hell.

drew
Nov 19th 2008, 05:45 AM
The doctrine of “Unconditional election” also called “election of the saints” or “Predestination” which comes from Bible verses as Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:11-16, 6If we allow Paul to speak for himself, and not impose our own systems on what he has to say, we see that Romans 9:11-16 has nothing at all to say on the matter of persons being elected to salvation or loss:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28153d)] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28154e)]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28156f)] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy

Ultimate salvation is nowhere in sight here - you have to read it in. Granted, later in the chapter, Paul does indeed allude to ultimate fates, specifically in respect to the vessels of mercy. But, we need to honour what Paul actualy says and not "jump ahead".

With respect to Jacob and Esaul, Paul tells us what "choice" God has made - that one will serve the other. So why do people read pre-destination into this? This is simply not Paul's point. He is talking about "election" or choice to very real purpose in this very world - that the nation of Edom will be in a subservient relation to the nation of Israel. And the reference that Paul makes to Genesis 25 bears this out.

So this part of the account is only about "heaven and hell" if you choose to read that in to what Paul says.

Now in respect to what Paul says to Moses: Again, all that this chunk of text justifies is a conclusion that God can "choose" one over another in an unspecified, general sense. To see this is about "personal salvation and loss" is, yet again, to read an interpretation over top what Paul is actually saying.

And if we read on, we find that verse 17 tells us what Paul's point is through its allusion to Exodus 9. Here is Romans 9:17

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

And now here is the relevant stuff from Exodus 9:

But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go.

Is Paul making an argument about election to heaven and hell? Obviously not. The Pharoah - Moses bit is about God "electing" Pharaoh - not to hell - but to resist the exodus.

Again, we need to let Paul speak and not add to his argument. Paul may indeed be progressing toward an argument that deals with eternal destiny. But he is not there in this chunk of Romans 9.

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 03:43 PM
I don't believe Unconditional Election says that God chooses people to go to hell (isn't that hyper-calvinism?). He chooses people who are dead in their sins and are on their way to hell for salvation and passes over the rest. He gives some Mercy and others Justice. Either way, whether you believe that or that God waits for people to respond to Him knowing not all will do so, you still have God allowing people to go to hell.

And I don't buy that either... Omitting some by not offering salvation is the SAME as choosing them to go to hell and its just not biblically...passing over them as you say...but then you say He waits for people to respond..how can they if they are passed over?

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 everlasting life.


Notice this verse doesn't say only 'some' or the 'chosen' or a 'few', or even 'most' that believes in Him will not perish but 'whoever'...meaning anyone...

John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

'All' are drawn to Him...again, not some, a few or even most...but 'all'...everyone has a chance.

Matthew 18:14
Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance

I have a very hard time with this whole doctrine of election on any level outside of the disciples, because I nearly lost my faith over it...I found it THAT repulsive. I cannot worship a God that would allow people to go to hell by omission....that is not even logically to punish people forever when they never had a choice to start with! That makes totally no sense at all.

People seem to think it takes away the Sovereignty of God by Him allowing us to choose....but the way they describe it, its more like He is a dictator instead! They say you have no choice...He forces you to be saved....or ignores you to be damned. What happened to the love and grace and mercy we say God is all about?

If I allow my child to choose between two things, does that make me less of a parent somehow? No of course not.

Isn't our 'relationship' with God suppose to be a relationship? Since when are relationships built on one compelling the other to do something and the lesser one has no say so at all? How is that a Father child relationship as the bible describes our relationship with Him to be?

Jesus did indeed chose the disciples...

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

Yet did that mean they were devoid of freewill? No..otherwise Judas couldn't have rejected and betrayed Him. Jesus gives a real life example of FIRST drawing people to Him...but we clearly see not everyone accepted Him. They had freewill to reject Him and many did.

No we don't seek out God as Paul says...but I truly believe, because scriptures say so...that God draws ALL people to Him..all are chosen...all predestined to be His....yet clearly we see time and time again people reject Him...obviously He doesn't work things like a dictator. He knows in advance who will accept and who will reject but the offer goes out to literally everyone...

God bless

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 03:48 PM
Moonglow, you say you basically find the doctrine of election repulsive, right? How is it any more repulsive than somebody spending an eternity in hell (which I assume you believe)? I would bet people 'lose' their faith over that more than election. Also, do you believe that God has the power to stop a person from going to hell? In His foreknowledge does God see all the people who will go to hell but is He not powerful enough to stop them? If God is powerful enough to stop them or not have them be born at all, then why doesn't He? How is that not essentially the same as sending them to hell or passing them over?

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:01 PM
I don't believe Unconditional Election says that God chooses people to go to hell (isn't that hyper-calvinism?). He chooses people who are dead in their sins and are on their way to hell for salvation and passes over the rest. He gives some Mercy and others Justice. Either way, whether you believe that or that God waits for people to respond to Him knowing not all will do so, you still have God allowing people to go to hell.There's a big difference between allowing people to go to hell and not giving people any chance to go to heaven. He does allow people to go to hell but they can't try to say they weren't given any chance to repent and believe in Christ so that they would be saved. This puts all the responsiblity for someone being in hell on the people themselves rather than on God for not giving them a chance to be saved.

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 04:03 PM
Moonglow, you say you basically find the doctrine of election repulsive, right? How is it any more repulsive than somebody spending an eternity in hell (which I assume you believe)? I would bet people 'lose' their faith over that more than election. Also, do you believe that God has the power to stop a person from going to hell? In His foreknowledge does God see all the people who will go to hell but is He not powerful enough to stop them? If God is powerful enough to stop them or not have them be born at all, then why doesn't He? How is that not essentially the same as sending them to hell or passing them over?

Huge difference...they choose hell for themselves. It would be worse to force people to be with a God that they hate and cannot stand! And since He isn't a dictator, He won't force them to be where they don't want to be. Of course He could force His will on everyone and make them into robots with no freewill so all would be saved...but what would be the point of that? That would make us no better then pull string dolls that say I love you...its not real love for sure.

I realize some reject Him because of hell of course...which really makes no sense to me...its like saying I don't like your hell but I am choosing to go there! :confused

God bless

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:04 PM
Moonglow, you say you basically find the doctrine of election repulsive, right? How is it any more repulsive than somebody spending an eternity in hell (which I assume you believe)? I would bet people 'lose' their faith over that more than election. Also, do you believe that God has the power to stop a person from going to hell? In His foreknowledge does God see all the people who will go to hell but is He not powerful enough to stop them? If God is powerful enough to stop them or not have them be born at all, then why doesn't He? How is that not essentially the same as sending them to hell or passing them over?It's not the same at all. In one case, He gives them a chance to go to heaven but they willfully refuse and reject Him. In the other case, they have no chance at all. You tell me which case is more fair with the understanding that God is not partial?

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 04:12 PM
It would be worse to force people to be with a God that they hate and cannot stand

Where do you get this idea from? God changes the hearts of the elect so that they will love God. This idea that we can't love God unless we choose of our own free will is just absurd. God changes us from hating Him to genuinely loving Him.

Also, what about that kid that grew up in a dungeon or something who never heard about Christ or hell or anything? Did he choose hell? Of course not but will he go to hell?

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 04:15 PM
The doctrine of “Unconditional election” also called “election of the saints” or “Predestination” which comes from Bible verses as Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:11-16, 6
If we allow Paul to speak for himself, and not impose our own systems on what he has to say, we see that Romans 9:11-16 has nothing at all to say on the matter of persons being elected to salvation or loss:


11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28153d)] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28154e)]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209&version=31#fen-NIV-28156f)] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy

Ultimate salvation is nowhere in sight here - you have to read it in. Granted, later in the chapter, Paul does indeed allude to ultimate fates, specifically in respect to the vessels of mercy. But, we need to honour what Paul actualy says and not "jump ahead".Hey, Im sorry that I gave the impression that I'm a T.U.L.I.P. Fan, but I am the least bit Calvinist/reformed.
I am definatly not!!!

I only attempted to give a cleare view of what they believ.
With respect to Jacob and Esaul, Paul tells us what "choice" God has made - that one will serve the other. So why do people read pre-destination into this? This is simply not Paul's point. He is talking about "election" or choice to very real purpose in this very world - that the nation of Edom will be in a subservient relation to the nation of Israel. And the reference that Paul makes to Genesis 25 bears this out.

So this part of the account is only about "heaven and hell" if you choose to read that in to what Paul says.

Now in respect to what Paul says to Moses: Again, all that this chunk of text justifies is a conclusion that God can "choose" one over another in an unspecified, general sense. To see this is about "personal salvation and loss" is, yet again, to read an interpretation over top what Paul is actually saying.

And if we read on, we find that verse 17 tells us what Paul's point is through its allusion to Exodus 9. Here is Romans 9:17

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

And now here is the relevant stuff from Exodus 9:

But I have raised you up [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-1759a)] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go.

Is Paul making an argument about election to heaven and hell? Obviously not. The Pharoah - Moses bit is about God "electing" Pharaoh - not to hell - but to resist the exodus.

Again, we need to let Paul speak and not add to his argument. Paul may indeed be progressing toward an argument that deals with eternal destiny. But he is not there in this chunk of Romans 9.
Amen!
I agree whole heartedly.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:15 PM
And I don't buy that either... Omitting some by not offering salvation is the SAME as choosing them to go to hell and its just not biblically...passing over them as you say...but then you say He waits for people to respond..how can they if they are passed over?

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 everlasting life.


Notice this verse doesn't say only 'some' or the 'chosen' or a 'few', or even 'most' that believes in Him will not perish but 'whoever'...meaning anyone...

John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

'All' are drawn to Him...again, not some, a few or even most...but 'all'...everyone has a chance.

Matthew 18:14
Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance

I have a very hard time with this whole doctrine of election on any level outside of the disciples, because I nearly lost my faith over it...I found it THAT repulsive. I cannot worship a God that would allow people to go to hell by omission....that is not even logically to punish people forever when they never had a choice to start with! That makes totally no sense at all.

People seem to think it takes away the Sovereignty of God by Him allowing us to choose....but the way they describe it, its more like He is a dictator instead! They say you have no choice...He forces you to be saved....or ignores you to be damned. What happened to the love and grace and mercy we say God is all about?

If I allow my child to choose between two things, does that make me less of a parent somehow? No of course not.

Isn't our 'relationship' with God suppose to be a relationship? Since when are relationships built on one compelling the other to do something and the lesser one has no say so at all? How is that a Father child relationship as the bible describes our relationship with Him to be?

Jesus did indeed chose the disciples...

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

Yet did that mean they were devoid of freewill? No..otherwise Judas couldn't have rejected and betrayed Him. Jesus gives a real life example of FIRST drawing people to Him...but we clearly see not everyone accepted Him. They had freewill to reject Him and many did.

No we don't seek out God as Paul says...but I truly believe, because scriptures say so...that God draws ALL people to Him..all are chosen...all predestined to be His....yet clearly we see time and time again people reject Him...obviously He doesn't work things like a dictator. He knows in advance who will accept and who will reject but the offer goes out to literally everyone...

God blessVery well said. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). So, people are going to try to say that He commands everyone to repent but not everyone can repent? That makes no sense.

Scripture also says that God desires for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Would He desire for all to be saved without also giving all a chance to be saved? No. Again, that would make no sense.

Scripture says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and whosoever believes in Him will have everlasting life (1 John 2:2, John 3:16). Would He die for people who had no ability to believe in Him? Of course not. Once again, that would make no sense. He died for all people so that all people would have a chance to be saved.

It makes complete sense that a truly loving, gracious and impartial God would give everyone a chance to be saved rather than choosing only a select few while not giving everyone else any chance, which results in them being cast into the lake of fire for eternity.

People are ultimately condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). So, God condemns people for not doing something (believing in Christ) that He supposedly never gave them the ability to do? Does that sound like something the God of the Bible would do, based on what scripture says about His character? No! It makes no sense.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 04:19 PM
It's not the same at all. In one case, He gives them a chance to go to heaven but they willfully refuse and reject Him. In the other case, they have no chance at all. You tell me which case is more fair with the understanding that God is not partial?

Neither because the end result is the same. Hell. Whether you actively chose to go there by saying 'yeah I know there is a God and heaven but I'm gonna choose hell for some reason' or you just ignore all this 'God talk' and end up in hell, it's the same, really. An eternity in hell when God could stop it.

The problem with your theology (from what I can tell) is that it assumes everybody is neutral. That we are on Earth to make a decision where we want to spend eternity. Some will choose heaven and others hell but until we do we are all neutral in that we have no leaning one way or the other. That is wrong, we are all headed to hell unless God intervenes and saves us, which is what He did. Now, He didn't save all of us but He also didn't have to save any of us. It's tough to accept that God demands Justice since He is a Holy God, but it's true. However, it's easy to accept that God grants us Mercy that no one deserves. Some get Justice, some get Mercy, all deserve hell.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:24 PM
Where do you get this idea from? God changes the hearts of the elect so that they will love God. This idea that we can't love God unless we choose of our own free will is just absurd. God changes us from hating Him to genuinely loving Him. So, God only does this for a few while not doing it for everyone else? Why would that be? Don't you know that God is not partial?

Ezekiel 18
23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? 24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

1 Peter 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:35 PM
Neither because the end result is the same. Hell. Whether you actively chose to go there by saying 'yeah I know there is a God and heaven but I'm gonna choose hell for some reason' or you just ignore all this 'God talk' and end up in hell, it's the same, really. An eternity in hell when God could stop it. God did all He could do to stop it without being like a puppet master, which He is not. He sent His Son to die for their sins, He gave the world His Word and He speaks to people's hearts and consciences regarding their sins. Therefore, people aren't in hell because God chose to not give them any chance to go to heaven. People are in hell because they chose not to accept the offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.


The problem with your theology (from what I can tell) is that it assumes everybody is neutral. That we are on Earth to make a decision where we want to spend eternity. Some will choose heaven and others hell but until we do we are all neutral in that we have no leaning one way or the other.You're not understanding my doctrine correctly. It's obvious that you haven't even given any thought to any other doctrine but the one you hold. You are brainwashed. Of course we need God's intervention in order to be saved. I never said otherwise. But once the truth is revealed to people in their hearts then they are then required to make a decision whether or not to accept it. If we are nothing more than puppets or robots then this means God is up in heaven playing games with us and scripture's portrayal of a spiritual war over people's souls would have to be interpreted as just a big game that God is playing.


That is wrong, we are all headed to hell unless God intervenes and saves us, which is what He did. Now, He didn't save all of us but He also didn't have to save any of us. It's tough to accept that God demands Justice since He is a Holy God, but it's true. However, it's easy to accept that God grants us Mercy that no one deserves. Some get Justice, some get Mercy, all deserve hell.Nonsense. God is impartial. Yes, no one deserves to be saved because we're all sinners. But since God is impartial, if He decides that He wants to be gracious towards people and give them a chance to have eternal life then He would extend that grace to all people He offers salvation to all people. And that's what He did by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). He would have been equally justified in not offering salvation to anyone. But He desires all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

drew
Nov 19th 2008, 04:42 PM
Hey, Im sorry that I gave the impression that I'm a T.U.L.I.P. Fan, but I am the least bit Calvinist/reformed.
I am definatly not!!!

I only attempted to give a cleare view of what they believ.
Amen!
I agree whole heartedly.[/color]
Actually, I realized from the start that you were not a TULIP type Calvinist. I merely picked up on the Romans 9 issue and wanted to say something about that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.....

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 04:49 PM
It's obvious that you haven't even given any thought to any other doctrine but the one you hold. You are brainwashed.

And this is why I rarely do these threads. You disagree with somebody and out comes the accusation that you're brainwashed and never gave any thought to the other side.

May I ask, how did I get to the doctrine that I hold? I wasn't presented with a work of John Calvin and said 'this is it, the truth' and not care to see what the other side believed. I grew up an Arminian, mister. Found Calvinism sometime last year and thought it made much more sense. I prefer a God who is in control. Is this being brainwashed? :rolleyes:

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 04:50 PM
Where do you get this idea from? God changes the hearts of the elect so that they will love God. This idea that we can't love God unless we choose of our own free will is just absurd. God changes us from hating Him to genuinely loving Him.

Also, what about that kid that grew up in a dungeon or something who never heard about Christ or hell or anything? Did he choose hell? Of course not but will he go to hell?

You're jumping ahead in the act of salvation...first its just knowing their is a God...right? The bible says God puts the knowledge of Him in all of us...including people growing up in dungeons..

Romans 1:18
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Can a person be aware there is a God and not love Him...obviously yes by this passage an others...

James 2:19
You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror

Knowing there is a God doesn't make a person love Him...that comes later with a changed heart...the person has to accept God into their life first though! I know people that know there is a God and hate Him to the very core of their being...probably much like satan hates God...yet satan obviously doesn't love God...

I have no problems with God dealing out justice..where its deserved...but how can it be deserved if the person isn't drawn to Him...truly doesn't know His message of the gospel? That is like the police hiding the speed limit sign...catching people speeding and writing them a ticket. Is that even just or fair at all when we would have no choice to obey the speed limit if we don't know what it is? More then likely everyone would be speeding...just like everyone sins. No judge in the court of law would let those tickets stand...but if we see the speed limit and still choose to break it, then the ticket would be justified....right? Same thing with God. If they have no choice at all...why in the world should they be punished for it?

God bless

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 04:56 PM
I have no problems with God dealing out justice..where its deserved

Do you not believe that we all deserve God's Justice? Have not we all sinned against Him? Therefore, God is perfectly just in giving us His Justice and sending us to hell. Thankfully, though, God also has Mercy which He has given us so that we won't go to hell. But for some reason (maybe because God needs to implement some Justice) not all will receive this Mercy.

And you didn't really answer my question. Does that kid go to hell? He may wonder that there is a God somewhere out there but He certainly doesn't know about Jesus Christ and what He did so does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell, how is that fair? He had no chance to hear the gospel, right?

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 04:57 PM
And this is why I rarely do these threads. You disagree with somebody and out comes the accusation that you're brainwashed and never gave any thought to the other side.

May I ask, how did I get to the doctrine that I hold? I wasn't presented with a work of John Calvin and said 'this is it, the truth' and not care to see what the other side believed. I grew up an Arminian, mister. Found Calvinism sometime last year and thought it made much more sense. I prefer a God who is in control. Is this being brainwashed? :rolleyes:How did you find Calvinism? And if you really understood the other side of the argument why did you misrepresent it so badly?

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 05:03 PM
Do you not believe that we all deserve God's Justice? Have not we all sinned against Him? Therefore, God is perfectly just in giving us His Justice and sending us to hell. Thankfully, though, God also has Mercy which He has given us so that we won't go to hell. But for some reason (maybe because God needs to implement some Justice) not all will receive this Mercy. This is incredibly weak. Your answer as to why people are condemned without being given a chance to be saved is that God just felt a need to implement some justice. Unbelievable. So, God is only a partially loving God and partially gracious God. I see.


And you didn't really answer my question. Does that kid go to hell? He may wonder that there is a God somewhere out there but He certainly doesn't know about Jesus Christ and what He did so does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell, how is that fair? He had no chance to hear the gospel, right?People will be judged based on what they understand. That kid may understand more than you realize.

Rom 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 10
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 05:04 PM
Neither because the end result is the same. Hell. Whether you actively chose to go there by saying 'yeah I know there is a God and heaven but I'm gonna choose hell for some reason' or you just ignore all this 'God talk' and end up in hell, it's the same, really. An eternity in hell when God could stop it.

The problem with your theology (from what I can tell) is that it assumes everybody is neutral. That we are on Earth to make a decision where we want to spend eternity. Some will choose heaven and others hell but until we do we are all neutral in that we have no leaning one way or the other. That is wrong, we are all headed to hell unless God intervenes and saves us, which is what He did. Now, He didn't save all of us but He also didn't have to save any of us. It's tough to accept that God demands Justice since He is a Holy God, but it's true. However, it's easy to accept that God grants us Mercy that no one deserves. Some get Justice, some get Mercy, all deserve hell.

Greetings BrckBrln,

You make some very good points. I think we often forget why we were created in the first place. We tend to have this notion that God created humans, and made them to have dominion over all of creation so we could be happy in this world. We think His primary goal is to show us His love, and through this teach us to express love to one another, and to work together to cure and heal every malady so that we can alleviate sin and suffering in the world. We begin to think that God desires that we change this world from one of sin and suffering to one of goodness and peace by serving Him through doing good works. I'm not saying these things are not important, or that we should not do them. But I am saying this is NOT why we were created.

With this thinking is it any wonder that free will is so pervasive in Christianity? The focus is on man, and what he does for God, rather than on God and what He has already done for man. The simple truth, God did not create man so he could be happy in this life. God created man to be holy, and this life is where we learn to become holy. It's not about making all things in this world better, and its not about us, it's all about God, and His glory. When one understands that creation is all about God, then they understand that God is Sovereign and working all things for the good pleasure of His will, for His glory.

Because God wants a people for Himself, a people to serve Him, and to glorify Him, He enacted a covenant in eternity, whereby He will draw, change, and save an elect people. In time, these will come to Him, because He will do all the work necessary for them to, and He will make them willing by changing their hearts of stone into hearts that long to serve and glorify Him. As you point out we all deserve hell, but because He loves His people He alone will keep His elect people from going there.

We spend so much time trying to understand how God can be so unfair, that we forget that He did not have to create any of us, nor did He have to save any of us. God created humans to serve Him, for His glory, but we don't like that He has not chosen to save every man. So we create this doctrine that tells us we can create ourselves by our free will choice to make ourselves spiritually alive. Then free will says we do not serve Him, but He serves us, because He only chooses those whom He knows will choose Him first. In free will the whole focus is on man, and what they can do for Sovereign God. They don't even realize that their doctrine denies God's sovereignty, and makes man the Sovereign, because man can makes himself alive, by making God choose to save them because they loved Him first.

Many Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:04 PM
How did you find Calvinism? And if you really understood the other side of the argument why did you misrepresent it so badly?

I believe it was on the internet when I had my first run in with Reformed theology. I didn't even know it existed. And before you say I should have gotten it from the Bible if it were true, to be honest I didn't really read the Bible back then. So here I have Arminianism and Calvinism and then I go into the scriptures and find that, in my opinion, they support Calvinism more than Arminianism.

And what have I misrepresented about Arminianism? And by the way, there are misrepresentations about Calvinism also in this thread.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:07 PM
This is incredibly weak. Your answer as to why people are condemned without being given a chance to be saved is that God just felt a need to implement some justice. Unbelievable. So, God is only a partially loving God and partially gracious God. I see.

I'm saying that God demands Justice, do you not agree? So some people will get Justice even though we all deserve it. Why? Ask God, not me.


People will be judged based on what they understand. That kid may understand more than you realize.

So you're saying that every person who has never heard the gospel is saved?

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:11 PM
Greetings BrckBrln,

You make some very good points. I think we often forget why we were created in the first place. We tend to have this notion that God created humans, and made them to have dominion over all of creation so we could be happy in this world. We think His primary goal is to show us His love, and through this teach us to express love to one another, and to work together to cure and heal every malady so that we can alleviate sin and suffering in the world. We begin to think that God desires that we change this world from one of sin and suffering to one of goodness and peace by serving Him through doing good works. I'm not saying these things are not important, or that we should not do them. But I am saying this is NOT why we were created.

With this thinking is it any wonder that free will is so pervasive in Christianity? The focus is on man, and what he does for God, rather than on God and what He has already done for man. The simple truth, God did not create man so he could be happy in this life. God created man to be holy, and this life is where we learn to become holy. It's not about making all things in this world better, and its not about us, it's all about God, and His glory. When one understands that creation is all about God, then they understand that God is Sovereign and working all things for the good pleasure of His will, for His glory.

Because God wants a people for Himself, a people to serve Him, and to glorify Him, He enacted a covenant in eternity, whereby He will draw, change, and save an elect people. In time, these will come to Him, because He will do all the work necessary for them to, and He will make them willing by changing their hearts of stone into hearts that long to serve and glorify Him. As you point out we all deserve hell, but because He loves His people He alone will keep His elect people from going there.

We spend so much time trying to understand how God can be so unfair, that we forget that He did not have to create any of us, nor did He have to save any of us. God created humans to serve Him, for His glory, but we don't like that He has not chosen to save every man. So we create this doctrine that tells us we can create ourselves by our free will choice to make ourselves spiritually alive. Then free will says we do not serve Him, but He serves us, because He only chooses those whom He knows will choose Him first. In free will the whole focus is on man, and what they can do for Sovereign God. They don't even realize that their doctrine denies God's sovereignty, and makes man the Sovereign, because man can makes himself alive, by making God choose to save them because they loved Him first.

Many Blessings,
RW

Amen, brother. And people wonder why Calvinism has produced such Godly men. It's all about God, not us. Wonderful post, my friend.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 05:15 PM
Greetings BrckBrln,

You make some very good points. I think we often forget why we were created in the first place. We tend to have this notion that God created humans, and made them to have dominion over all of creation so we could be happy in this world. We think His primary goal is to show us His love, and through this teach us to express love to one another, and to work together to cure and heal every malady so that we can alleviate sin and suffering in the world. We begin to think that God desires that we change this world from one of sin and suffering to one of goodness and peace by serving Him through doing good works. I'm not saying these things are not important, or that we should not do them. But I am saying this is NOT why we were created.

With this thinking is it any wonder that free will is so pervasive in Christianity? The focus is on man, and what he does for God, rather than on God and what He has already done for man. The simple truth, God did not create man so he could be happy in this life. God created man to be holy, and this life is where we learn to become holy. It's not about making all things in this world better, and its not about us, it's all about God, and His glory. When one understands that creation is all about God, then they understand that God is Sovereign and working all things for the good pleasure of His will, for His glory.

Because God wants a people for Himself, a people to serve Him, and to glorify Him, He enacted a covenant in eternity, whereby He will draw, change, and save an elect people. In time, these will come to Him, because He will do all the work necessary for them to, and He will make them willing by changing their hearts of stone into hearts that long to serve and glorify Him. As you point out we all deserve hell, but because He loves His people He alone will keep His elect people from going there.

We spend so much time trying to understand how God can be so unfair, that we forget that He did not have to create any of us, nor did He have to save any of us. God created humans to serve Him, for His glory, but we don't like that He has not chosen to save every man. So we create this doctrine that tells us we can create ourselves by our free will choice to make ourselves spiritually alive. Then free will says we do not serve Him, but He serves us, because He only chooses those whom He knows will choose Him first. In free will the whole focus is on man, and what they can do for Sovereign God. They don't even realize that their doctrine denies God's sovereignty, and makes man the Sovereign, because man can makes himself alive, by making God choose to save them because they loved Him first.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

That is a gross misrepresentation of the free will position.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 05:16 PM
Amen, brother. And people wonder why Calvinism has produced such Godly men. It's all about God, not us. Wonderful post, my friend.

What godly men would they be?

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 05:18 PM
Greetings BrckBrln,

You make some very good points. I think we often forget why we were created in the first place. We tend to have this notion that God created humans, and made them to have dominion over all of creation so we could be happy in this world. We think His primary goal is to show us His love, and through this teach us to express love to one another, and to work together to cure and heal every malady so that we can alleviate sin and suffering in the world. We begin to think that God desires that we change this world from one of sin and suffering to one of goodness and peace by serving Him through doing good works. I'm not saying these things are not important, or that we should not do them. But I am saying this is NOT why we were created.

With this thinking is it any wonder that free will is so pervasive in Christianity? The focus is on man, and what he does for God, rather than on God and what He has already done for man. The simple truth, God did not create man so he could be happy in this life. God created man to be holy, and this life is where we learn to become holy. It's not about making all things in this world better, and its not about us, it's all about God, and His glory. When one understands that creation is all about God, then they understand that God is Sovereign and working all things for the good pleasure of His will, for His glory.

Because God wants a people for Himself, a people to serve Him, and to glorify Him, He enacted a covenant in eternity, whereby He will draw, change, and save an elect people. In time, these will come to Him, because He will do all the work necessary for them to, and He will make them willing by changing their hearts of stone into hearts that long to serve and glorify Him. As you point out we all deserve hell, but because He loves His people He alone will keep His elect people from going there.

We spend so much time trying to understand how God can be so unfair, that we forget that He did not have to create any of us, nor did He have to save any of us. God created humans to serve Him, for His glory, but we don't like that He has not chosen to save every man. So we create this doctrine that tells us we can create ourselves by our free will choice to make ourselves spiritually alive. Then free will says we do not serve Him, but He serves us, because He only chooses those whom He knows will choose Him first. In free will the whole focus is on man, and what they can do for Sovereign God. They don't even realize that their doctrine denies God's sovereignty, and makes man the Sovereign, because man can makes himself alive, by making God choose to save them because they loved Him first.

Many Blessings,
RW



Genesis 4:6-7 ( KJV ) 6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:20 PM
What godly men would they be?

Luther, Calvin, Edwards to name just three. I know it's not a contest or anything but I think it's obvious that Calvinism produces more Godly people precisely because it's more God centered than anything else. You may object, though.

songladyjenn
Nov 19th 2008, 05:32 PM
I"ve never thought of it as God choosing some to go to hell, actually we are all bound for hell initially it is by the grace of God that some will not. And something else we must remember when talking about fair or unfair or anything of that nature is that we not being God have no business whatsoever judging if we think what he does is fair or not. :D

That's just my 2 cents anyway...

carry on . . . . .

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 05:33 PM
Do you not believe that we all deserve God's Justice? Have not we all sinned against Him? Therefore, God is perfectly just in giving us His Justice and sending us to hell. Thankfully, though, God also has Mercy which He has given us so that we won't go to hell. But for some reason (maybe because God needs to implement some Justice) not all will receive this Mercy.

And you didn't really answer my question. Does that kid go to hell? He may wonder that there is a God somewhere out there but He certainly doesn't know about Jesus Christ and what He did so does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell, how is that fair? He had no chance to hear the gospel, right?

Yes we all deserve hell but God loved us enough to send His Son for everyone...the thing is I have backed up everything I have said with scriptures and I haven't seen you post any at all...it would be helpful for me to more fully understand your thinking..what scriptures you are thinking of, if you posted them. I realize you came to this understanding through the study of scripture...so can you please post them. And what do you think of the scriptures I have posted? Where it says when Jesus was lifted upon the cross He would draw ALL men to Him? What do you think that means?


But for some reason (maybe because God needs to implement some Justice) not all will receive this Mercy.

Can you post scriptures on this? thanks.


And you didn't really answer my question. Does that kid go to hell? He may wonder that there is a God somewhere out there but He certainly doesn't know about Jesus Christ and what He did so does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell, how is that fair? He had no chance to hear the gospel, right?

How could I know if he went to hell? I could not know what choice he made. I showed the scriptures that states God puts the knowledge of Him in all of us...my point was this boy...or anyone, has a choice! Because scriptures clearly shows God puts the knowledge of Him in everyone...no matter how isolated they are.

Knowing God IS knowing Jesus...correct? Isn't Jesus God? Bible says He is.

John 6:45-47
45 As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 (Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) 47 “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes has eternal life.

Jesus is part of the trinity...you can't have God without Jesus..nor can we have Jesus without God.

John 14
9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. 11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do.


God bless

songladyjenn
Nov 19th 2008, 05:36 PM
Luther, Calvin, Edwards to name just three. I know it's not a contest or anything but I think it's obvious that Calvinism produces more Godly people precisely because it's more God centered than anything else. You may object, though.

Calvinism can't produce anything ;) it's God that does the changing in people not a 'form of theology' ;)

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 05:42 PM
Calvinism can't produce anything ;) it's God that does the changing in people not a 'form of theology' ;)

Well of course, that's what I mean. I was just saying that a lot of these Godly men are Calvinists.

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 19th 2008, 05:50 PM
The 'thief' on the cross next to Jesus...

did he 'free will' himself to God? When Jesus said that he would be in Paradise with Jesus... did that 'thief' somehow 'free will' himself up that cross so he was there to 'make a decision' for heaven or hell?


That 'thief' was there hanging next to Jesus by the foreknowledge of God... he was there by divine appointment.... predestination............

and what of the other thief who 'railed' on Jesus?

God chooses His own.. its says His own were chosen In Him before the foundation of the world...

When God saves you ... He starts it and finishes it.. PERIOD... He draws.. He converts and He empowers... When He saves you.. you will 'know' it... and testify to the Truth..

No man comes to Him on his/her own.. The Father 'draws'... He starts and finishes!

Paul declares there are 'vessels' of Mercy.. those whom God has chosen to show the 'riches' of His Mercy and Grace upon...

then there are those 'vessels' of Wrath... fitted to destruction...

Scripture delcares that He is longsuffering in not showing His wrath upon these vessels fitted for destruction... so that He may make 'known' the riches of His Glory, Mercy and Grace... upon "HIS" vessels of Mercy....

which He had 'afore' prepared unto Glory... 'afore' when you look at means He 'knows' or 'knew' ahead of time... before the 'foundation of the world'!

these 'vessels'....my friends are not 'tableware' or place settings..

I dont follow Calvin and I dont follow Arminianism..... for these are 'mere' men and they were not crucified for my sins...

The idea that men are able to somehow 'free-will' themselves to God flies in the face of God's Sovereignty and His Providence...

Jesus said 'many' wil be called... but 'few' are chosen...

God 'knows'.. He knew from the foundation of the world.....

Salvation 'belongs' to God and Him alone... He draws, He saves, and He empowers...

He is the Author and Finisher of His Children's faith.... those He has chosen... not the other way around...

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 06:00 PM
The 'thief' on the cross next to Jesus...

did he 'free will' himself to God? When Jesus said that he would be in Paradise with Jesus... did that 'thief' somehow 'free will' himself up that cross so he was there to 'make a decision' for heaven or hell?


That 'thief' was there hanging next to Jesus by the foreknowledge of God... he was there by divine appointment.... predestination............

and what of the other thief who 'railed' on Jesus?

God chooses His own.. its says His own were chosen In Him before the foundation of the world...

When God saves you ... He starts it and finishes it.. PERIOD... He draws.. He converts and He empowers... When He saves you.. you will 'know' it... and testify to the Truth..

No man comes to Him on his/her own.. The Father 'draws'... He starts and finishes!

Paul declares there are 'vessels' of Mercy.. those whom God has chosen to show the 'riches' of His Mercy and Grace upon...

then there are those 'vessels' of Wrath... fitted to destruction...

Scripture delcares that He is longsuffering in not showing His wrath upon these vessels fitted for destruction... so that He may make 'known' the riches of His Glory, Mercy and Grace... upon "HIS" vessels of Mercy....

which He had 'afore' prepared unto Glory... 'afore' when you look at means He 'knows' or 'knew' ahead of time... before the 'foundation of the world'!

these 'vessels'....my friends are not 'tableware' or place settings..

I dont follow Calvin and I dont follow Arminianism..... for these are 'mere' men and they were not crucified for my sins...

The idea that men are able to somehow 'free-will' themselves to God flies in the face of God's Sovereignty and His Providence...

Jesus said 'many' wil be called... but 'few' are chosen...

God 'knows'.. He knew from the foundation of the world.....

Salvation 'belongs' to God and Him alone... He draws, He saves, and He empowers...

He is the Author and Finisher of His Children's faith.... those He has chosen... not the other way around...

No one said people will themselves to God...the bible is clear...no one seeks God, (Romans 3:11)..He draws ALL men to Himself...John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

At that point a person is able to accept or reject Him...as you clearly showed with the good examples of the two thieves on the cross...one accepted, one rejected...neither were forced to accept or forced to reject...

God bless

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 06:06 PM
How could I know if he went to hell? I could not know what choice he made. I showed the scriptures that states God puts the knowledge of Him in all of us...my point was this boy...or anyone, has a choice! Because scriptures clearly shows God puts the knowledge of Him in everyone...no matter how isolated they are.

Knowing God IS knowing Jesus...correct? Isn't Jesus God? Bible says He is.

So you can be saved without knowing and accepting what Christ did on the cross?

Here are some verses by the way.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. John 6:44

Can't get any clearer than this. And I don't know greek or anything but from what I heard the word for 'draws' here is translated elsewhere as 'drag'.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

Does this not imply that there are people who are 'appointed to eternal life'?

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16

There's a whole lot more too. The point is that God is a choosing God. He choose Israel remember?

For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:6-8

If God chose Israel then why is it hard to believe that God chooses man? What did Israel do to deserve being chosen by God? Nothing. What do we do to deserve being chosen by God? Nothing.

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 06:12 PM
when talking about fair or unfair or anything of that nature is that we not being God have no business whatsoever judging if we think what he does is fair or not. :D.We have every right to judge if what he does is fair or not.
However, it is not that God does injustice, but ones theology that shows God to do injustice.
That is what we are judging, not God but ones theology'd description of God.

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 06:15 PM
Originally Posted by moonglow (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1873481#post1873481)
How could I know if he went to hell? I could not know what choice he made. I showed the scriptures that states God puts the knowledge of Him in all of us...my point was this boy...or anyone, has a choice! Because scriptures clearly shows God puts the knowledge of Him in everyone...no matter how isolated they are.

Knowing God IS knowing Jesus...correct? Isn't Jesus God? Bible says He is.IIf what you mean by "God" is the Father;
Then, No!
It is the other way around.
Knowing Jesus is knowing the Father.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 06:17 PM
We have every right to judge if what he does is fair or not.

So Job was right in questioning God? What was God's response to that?

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 06:20 PM
No one said people will themselves to God...the bible is clear...no one seeks God, (Romans 3:11)..He draws ALL men to Himself...John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

At that point a person is able to accept or reject Him...as you clearly showed with the good examples of the two thieves on the cross...one accepted, one rejected...neither were forced to accept or forced to reject...

God bless

Greetings Moonglow,

How do you reconcile Joh 12:32 and Joh 6:44?

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Men" in vs 32 is in italics, which means it does not belong there. Christ says no man can come to Him except the Father draw him. The only way to harmonize these two verses is to understand that not all humans are drawn to Christ by the Father to His cross. The Father draws all who come to Christ through the message of His cross. Therefore Jo 12:32 is in complete harmony with Jo 6:44 when we realize Christ is telling us that all who come to Him, come to Him because the Father draws them to His work on the cross. This is the message of the gospel that His people will believe.

Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Not all men are drawn to hear and believe, because their minds are blinded and they cannot believe. The gospel is hidden to them that are lost.

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Many Blessings,
RW

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 06:53 PM
We have every right to judge if what he does is fair or not.So Job was right in questioning God? What was God's response to that?If God actualy did an injustice, surly we would have a right to question God.
But, God never does injustice.

Job was not accusing God of injustice.
Job was asking why the trials?

Your theology portrays God as being a sadistic tyrant.
I do not question God, but your theology.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 06:55 PM
But, God never does injustice.

Agreed.


Your theology portrays God as being a sadistic tyrant.
I do not question God, but your theology.

:rolleyes: There you go again with the 'sadistic tyrant' nonsense. I hope you know you will have to answer to God as to why you call Him sadistic.

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 07:04 PM
Hey thanks for the scriptures...I would rather we 'discuss' this then 'argue it'...if you know what I mean. When I posted my first post to you my negativity wasn't directed towards you personally...but to this doctrine..I hope you realize that.


Originally Posted by moonglow
How could I know if he went to hell? I could not know what choice he made. I showed the scriptures that states God puts the knowledge of Him in all of us...my point was this boy...or anyone, has a choice! Because scriptures clearly shows God puts the knowledge of Him in everyone...no matter how isolated they are.


Knowing God IS knowing Jesus...correct? Isn't Jesus God? Bible says He is.

So you can be saved without knowing and accepting what Christ did on the cross?

No I didn't say that...you gave the example of someone isolated so they could not be witnessed too and never know God so had no chance of being saved...I showed you scriptures that says God puts the knowledge of Him in everyone and it clearly says they have no excuse for not knowing who He is. My goal in my response was to show you that while we can't reach everyone in the world due to isolation or their governments not allowing us in or whatever...that God is capable of making Himself known to them. This comes up alot on the board...the question, what about those that have never known God or Jesus...how do they have a chance of being saved. So I was responding with that in mind. The bible says they have NO excuse for not knowing God...everyone has a choice...

Then I replied later with the scriptures showing knowing God leads them to know Christ...so if they know that much don't you think God is capable of putting the knowledge of what Christ did in their hearts too and making a choice?

John 6

45 As it is written in the Scriptures, ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.


Here are some verses by the way.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. John 6:44

I agree! And Christ says all men will be drawn to Him...I don't see those verses excluding anyone, do you? When Jesus says He will not cast them out...does that mean He forces them to accept Him?

My understanding is these verses reaffirms everyone is welcomed! Does that mean they have no choice though? Clearly they do or everyone would be saved.


Can't get any clearer than this. And I don't know greek or anything but from what I heard the word for 'draws' here is translated elsewhere as 'drag'.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

Does this not imply that there are people who are 'appointed to eternal life'?

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16

Then what happened with Judas who was one of the chosen?


There's a whole lot more too. The point is that God is a choosing God. He choose Israel remember?

For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:6-8

If God chose Israel then why is it hard to believe that God chooses man? What did Israel do to deserve being chosen by God? Nothing. What do we do to deserve being chosen by God? Nothing.



Where did I say God didn't chose man? Obviously He chose to save us...I posted John 3:16 right off the bat. Yes He choose Israel but what happened? They rejected Him time and time again and finally..rejected His Son...is this freewill in action or not?

God bless

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 07:12 PM
Where did I say God didn't chose man? Obviously He chose to save us...I posted John 3:16 right off the bat. Yes He choose Israel but what happened? They rejected Him time and time again and finally..rejected His Son...is this freewill in action or not?

But God hasn't rejected Israel, they are still chosen and have a future purpose. Yes, they are in rebellion now but that doesn't mean anything except that's what God has planned.

Your definition of 'chosen' and 'elect' is not the Biblical definition of one who is elected to salvation. That's what 'chosen' and 'elect' mean. Check out Ephesians 1.

songladyjenn
Nov 19th 2008, 07:18 PM
Well of course, that's what I mean. I was just saying that a lot of these Godly men are Calvinists.


I know i was just teasing..i couldn't find my 'tongue in cheek' smilie lol

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 07:32 PM
:rolleyes: There you go again with the 'sadistic tyrant' nonsense. I hope you know you will have to answer to God as to why you call Him sadistic.I hope you know that I'm not calling God a sadistic tyrant.

I"m calling the god of your theology a sadistic tyrant.
I wonder when you will understand that.
Therefore, will not have to answer to God as to why I call Him a sadistic tyrant.
But you might need to explain to Him why you portray Him as one.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 07:37 PM
I hope you know that I'm not calling God a sadistic tyrant.

I"m calling the god of your theology a sadistic tyrant.

I hope you know the God of my theology is the God of the Bible.

What you are saying is sick.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 07:41 PM
But you might need to explain to Him why you portray Him as one.

What exactly is sadistic about Calvinism? Is it the God is sovereign part? Is it that man is not sovereign? Is it that God doesn't shower everybody with His Mercy but demands Justice since He is a Holy God? Is it sadistic that God chooses a people for Himself and even a Nation for Himself?

Most people (non Christians) say it's sadistic for God to have people in hell for an eternity. How is this less 'sadistic', or fair, or whatever, than what Calvinism teaches?

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 07:43 PM
Greetings BrckBrln,

You make some very good points. I think we often forget why we were created in the first place. We tend to have this notion that God created humans, and made them to have dominion over all of creation so we could be happy in this world. We think His primary goal is to show us His love, and through this teach us to express love to one another, and to work together to cure and heal every malady so that we can alleviate sin and suffering in the world. We begin to think that God desires that we change this world from one of sin and suffering to one of goodness and peace by serving Him through doing good works. I'm not saying these things are not important, or that we should not do them. But I am saying this is NOT why we were created.

With this thinking is it any wonder that free will is so pervasive in Christianity? The focus is on man, and what he does for God, rather than on God and what He has already done for man. The simple truth, God did not create man so he could be happy in this life. God created man to be holy, and this life is where we learn to become holy. It's not about making all things in this world better, and its not about us, it's all about God, and His glory. When one understands that creation is all about God, then they understand that God is Sovereign and working all things for the good pleasure of His will, for His glory.

Because God wants a people for Himself, a people to serve Him, and to glorify Him, He enacted a covenant in eternity, whereby He will draw, change, and save an elect people. In time, these will come to Him, because He will do all the work necessary for them to, and He will make them willing by changing their hearts of stone into hearts that long to serve and glorify Him. As you point out we all deserve hell, but because He loves His people He alone will keep His elect people from going there.

We spend so much time trying to understand how God can be so unfair, that we forget that He did not have to create any of us, nor did He have to save any of us. God created humans to serve Him, for His glory, but we don't like that He has not chosen to save every man. So we create this doctrine that tells us we can create ourselves by our free will choice to make ourselves spiritually alive. Then free will says we do not serve Him, but He serves us, because He only chooses those whom He knows will choose Him first. In free will the whole focus is on man, and what they can do for Sovereign God. They don't even realize that their doctrine denies God's sovereignty, and makes man the Sovereign, because man can makes himself alive, by making God choose to save them because they loved Him first.

Many Blessings,
RWThis is a complete misrepresentation of the free will view. At least it is of my view. This view does not say that man can make himself spiritually alive. It says that man is responsible to respond to the call of the gospel with repentance and faith in Christ. If he does so as God expects all people to do then it is God who then makes man spiritually alive.

Also, this view does not focus on man. It focuses on God's grace and mercy in offering salvation to all people despite them not deserving it. The only focus that it has on man is that man cannot save himself and is a sinner and therefore needs to, like the publican in the parable of Luke 18:9-14, humble himself and acknowledge to God that He is a sinner, and put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

You incorrectly try to say that this view elevates the status of man while instead it points out the fallen status of all men and their inability to save themselves. Just because God requires us to repent and believe doesn't mean we save ourselves. That is a false notion. Your view removes responsibility from man and says that God is impartial. Both of those notions contradict a great deal of scripture. And, as you are not willing to acknowledge, your view contradicts the fact that God desires all people to repent and be saved.

Eric

moonglow
Nov 19th 2008, 07:45 PM
IIf what you mean by "God" is the Father;[/I]
Then, No!
It is the other way around.
Knowing Jesus is knowing the Father.

No of course Jesus isn't God the Father, He is God the Son...they cannot be separated though they play different roles.

I realize Jesus says no one comes to the Father but by me, but as was just posted by BrckBrln:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. John 6:44

Looks like they both work in drawing people ..God draws people to Christ...and they go through Christ to God.


BrckBrln
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonglow
Where did I say God didn't chose man? Obviously He chose to save us...I posted John 3:16 right off the bat. Yes He choose Israel but what happened? They rejected Him time and time again and finally..rejected His Son...is this freewill in action or not?
But God hasn't rejected Israel, they are still chosen and have a future purpose. Yes, they are in rebellion now but that doesn't mean anything except that's what God has planned.

That's a whole another subject...the point is they had freewill to reject Him and they did.


Your definition of 'chosen' and 'elect' is not the Biblical definition of one who is elected to salvation. That's what 'chosen' and 'elect' mean. Check out Ephesians 1.

Ok not sure what you want me to see in that chapter...but according to the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2949) elect and chosen are the same thing:

ELECT

e-lekt':

That is, "chosen," "selected."

In the Old Testament the word represents derivatives of bachar, elegit;

In the New Testament eklektos. It means properly an object or objects of selection.

This primary meaning sometimes passes into that of "eminent," "valuable," "choice"; often thus as a fact, in places where the King James Version uses "chosen" (or "elect") to translate the original (eg. Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 2:6). In the King James Version "elect" (or "chosen") is used of Israel as the race selected for special favor and to be the special vehicle of Divine purposes (so 4 times in Apocrypha, Tobit and Ecclus); of the great Servant of Yahweh (compare Luke 23:35; the "Christ of God, his chosen"); compare eminent saints as Jacob, Moses, Rufus (Romans 16:13); "the lady," and her "sister" of 2 Jn; of the holy angels (1 Timothy 5:21); with a possible suggestion of the lapse of other angels. Otherwise, and prevalently in the New Testament, it denotes a human community, also described as believers, saints, the Israel of God; regarded as in some sense selected by Him from among men, objects of His special favor, and correspondingly called to special holiness and service.

See further under ELECTION. In the English versions "elect" is not used as a verb:

"to choose" is preferred; eg. Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4.

Handley Dunelm

BrckBrln it would be really nice if you would be kind enough to answer the questions I have asked you...I have asked you how Judas, one of the elected...chosen was able to betray Jesus...I have asked you what you think the verse where all men are drawn to Christ means..I would like to know your thoughts on the verses where it says God doesn't want to see anyone perish...

This conversation has been pretty one sided...me mostly defending my stance with you asking all the questions...



RogerW
Quote:

Originally Posted by moonglow
No one said people will themselves to God...the bible is clear...no one seeks God, (Romans 3:11)..He draws ALL men to Himself...John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

At that point a person is able to accept or reject Him...as you clearly showed with the good examples of the two thieves on the cross...one accepted, one rejected...neither were forced to accept or forced to reject...

God bless
Greetings Moonglow,

How do you reconcile Joh 12:32 and Joh 6:44?

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

"Men" in vs 32 is in italics, which means it does not belong there.

I am sure I am messing up on the quotes here so I am going to highlight what I say so it won't get lost. Are you truly saying that word, 'men' was an error in text? That the translators got it wrong? :confused


Christ says no man can come to Him except the Father draw him. The only way to harmonize these two verses is to understand that not all humans are drawn to Christ by the Father to His cross. The Father draws all who come to Christ through the message of His cross. Therefore Jo 12:32 is in complete harmony with Jo 6:44 when we realize Christ is telling us that all who come to Him, come to Him because the Father draws them to His work on the cross. This is the message of the gospel that His people will believe.

Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Not all men are drawn to hear and believe, because their minds are blinded and they cannot believe. The gospel is hidden to them that are lost.

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Many Blessings,
RW [/QUOTE]

Why are they blinded though? Because they refused to hear the message in the first place...

Adam Clark Bible Commentary: (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2co&chapter=004)

Verse 3. But if our Gospel be hid
κεκαλυμμενον. Veiled; he refers to the subject that he had treated so particularly in the conclusion of the preceding chapter. If there be a veil on the Gospel, it is only to the wilfully blind; and if any man's heart be veiled that hears this Gospel, it is a proof that he is among the lost, απολλυμενοι, those who are fully under the power of sin; who have given up themselves to work wickedness; persons who are mere heathens, or live like such, and yet such as Jesus Christ came to seek and save; for the word does not necessarily imply those that will perish eternally, but is a common epithet to point out a man without the Gospel and without God in the world.

Christ commands his disciples in preaching the Gospel to go to προβατατα απολωλοτα, the LOST sheep of the house of Israel; Matthew 10:6; for himself says, Matthew 18:11, and ; Luke 19:10: The Son of man is come ζητησαικαισωσαιτοαπολωλος, to seek and to SAVE that which is LOST. And such persons he represents under the parable of the lost sheep; for to find τοαπολωλος, that which is LOST, the good shepherd leaves the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and goes in search of it; Matthew 18:12; ; Luke 15:4. The word more properly signifies, in all those connections, and in the parallel passages, not those who ARE LOST, but those who are perishing; and will perish, if not sought and saved.

Verse 4. In whom the god of this world, those whose minds are blinded, are they who believe not; and because they believe not, their minds continue in darkness, and are proper subjects for Satan to work on; and he deepens the darkness, and increases the hardness. But who is meant by the god of this world?

It is generally answered, the same who is called the prince of this world, John 16:11. But the question recurs, who is the prince of this world? and the answer to both is, SATAN. The reader will do well to consult the notes on "Joh 12:31", and the concluding observations on "Joh 14:30". I must own I feel considerable reluctance to assign the epithet οθεος, THE God, to Satan; and were there not a rooted prejudice in favour of the common opinion, the contrary might be well vindicated, viz. that by the God of this world the supreme Being is meant, who in his judgment gave over the minds of the unbelieving Jews to spiritual darkness, so that destruction came upon them to the uttermost. Satan, it is true, has said that the kingdoms of the world and their glory are his, and that he gives them to whomsoever he will; Matthew 4:8,9.

But has God ever said so? and are we to take this assertion of the boasting devil and father of lies for truth? Certainly not. We are not willing to attribute the blinding of men's minds to God, because we sometimes forget that he is the God of justice, and may in judgment remove mercies from those that abuse them; but this is repeatedly attributed to him in the Bible, and the expression before us is quite a parallel to the following, Isaiah 6:9: Go and tell this people,

Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. MAKE the HEART of this PEOPLE FAT, and MAKE their EARS HEAVY, and SHUT their EYES; LEST they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, Matthew 13:14,15; ; Mark 4:12; ; John 12:40; and particularly Romans 11:8-10: God HATH GIVEN THEM THE SPIRIT of SLUMBER, EYES that they SHOULD not SEE, and EARS that they SHOULD not HEAR; let their EYES be DARKENED, in the same circumstances of wilful rebellion and obstinate unbelief; and the great God of heaven and earth is he who judicially blinds their eyes; makes their hearts fat, i.e. stupid; gives them the spirit of slumber: and bows down their back, apostle means the true God by the words the god of this world. (more at the link)

I am sure I didn't answer every question exactly right..I am tired of talking about it and its a beautiful day outside, so I am anxious to get off of here...I hope you all have a great day...I am outta here! :) (sorry about the quotes messing up!)

God bless

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 07:53 PM
What exactly is sadistic about Calvinism? Is it the God is sovereign part? Is it that man is not sovereign? Is it that God doesn't shower everybody with His Mercy but demands Justice since He is a Holy God? Is it sadistic that God chooses a people for Himself and even a Nation for Himself?

Most people (non Christians) say it's sadistic for God to have people in hell for an eternity. How is this less 'sadistic', or fair, or whatever, than what Calvinism teaches?It's sadistic to suggest that an impartial God would cast people into the lake of fire for eternity without ever giving them a chance to be saved while just giving salvation to others. You are not willing to acknowledge that God is impartial and not a respecter of persons when it comes to how He judges people. You're not willing to accept what scripture teaches about God's character. You don't agree with scripture that says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and instead desires that they would turn from their evil ways before they die (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11).

You have no explanation for why people are condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) despite supposedly not being given any ability to believe in Him. That would be like condemning people for not being able to lift a cruise ship up out of the water or for not being able to fly like Superman. Why condemn people for something that they supposedly could never do? What is your explanation for that? Do you have one?

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 07:56 PM
And, as you are not willing to acknowledge, your view contradicts the fact that God desires all people to repent and be saved.

Eric

It's not a desire, it's a command! God commands all men to repent and believe. Who will do this? The ELECT! Why will only the elect obey God's command to repent and believe? You say it is because man of His own free will must accept His kind offer of salvation, thereby making the Sovereign God dependent upon the goodness of men (who btw are not good) to save a people for Himself. I say it is because salvation is not a mere offer to be accepted or rejected by sinners, therefore God will intervene in the hearts of His elect making them willing, and GIVE (not offer) salvation to them. If He does not intervene then NO MAN will be saved! Salvation, from beginning to end is all of God's grace through His gift of faith. The elect of God, chosen from the foundation of the world, and written in the book of life will be saved, and none others.

Mr 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 07:58 PM
Ok not sure what you want me to see in that chapter...but according to the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2949) elect and chosen are the same thing:

Yes, the do mean the same thing. They mean somebody who has been chosen, or elected, to salvation.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will. ..Ephesians 1:3-5

God chooses people to be saved. If everybody has been chosen then everybody will be saved. That is clearly not the case.


BrckBrln it would be really nice if you would be kind enough to answer the questions I have asked you...I have asked you how Judas, one of the elected...chosen was able to betray Jesus.

Where does it say Judas was one of the elected to salvation? He was chosen to betray Christ. Somebody had to do it and it was him. I don't believe Judas was saved. Was it not better for him to have never been born?


I have asked you what you think the verse where all men are drawn to Christ means.

First, you have to understand that not every time the Bible uses the word 'all' it means all men everywhere. It can also mean all kinds of men, you know, like every nation, tongue, kindred, and all of that. I think that is what that verse means because if all men are drawn to Christ then all men will be saved.


I would like to know your thoughts on the verses where it says God doesn't want to see anyone perish

I don't believe God does want any to perish but that's the way it is. He has the power to stop it but He doesn't. If you are a Judge in court and your son is on trial for murder and gets the death penalty, do you delight in that? Of course not, but you have to give out the Justice it deserves. And besides that verse could also mean God is not willing that any of the elect would perish, which won't happen.


This conversation has been pretty one sided...me mostly defending my stance with you asking all the questions.

Umm, no.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:04 PM
It's sadistic to suggest that an impartial God would cast people into the lake of fire for eternity without ever giving them a chance to be saved while just giving salvation to others. You are not willing to acknowledge that God is impartial and not a respecter of persons when it comes to how He judges people. You're not willing to accept what scripture teaches about God's character. You don't agree with scripture that says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and instead desires that they would turn from their evil ways before they die (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11).

You have no explanation for why people are condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) despite supposedly not being given any ability to believe in Him. That would be like condemning people for not being able to lift a cruise ship up out of the water or for not being able to fly like Superman. Why condemn people for something that they supposedly could never do? What is your explanation for that? Do you have one?

Was God impartial when He chose Israel? Why did He choose Israel and not another nation? Why didn't He say to all the nations 'Hey, there's an open invitation to come and be My people so somebody come and choose me'?

And you are getting mad at me for God not saving all people. As RogerW said, salvation isn't a mere offer, it's a command. If God doesn't want everyman to be saved then I have no right to question Him.

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 08:08 PM
Why are they blinded though? Because they refused to hear the message in the first place...

I am sure I didn't answer every question exactly right..I am tired of talking about it and its a beautiful day outside, so I am anxious to get off of here...I hope you all have a great day...I am outta here! :) (sorry about the quotes messing up!)

God bless

Moonglow,

Every man is born in Adam, therefore every man born of flesh is born without ability to see (know) or hear (with spiritual ears) the things of Christ until God, through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit enables them. Every man refuses the message of salvation until God makes them willing to turn to Christ for life. The gospel message goes unto all the world, and through the message God gives salvation to His elect. He alone knows who they are, therefore we indiscrimately proclaim the gospel unto all people, knowing that God will save all whom He has elected to save from the foundation of the world.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:09 PM
It's not a desire, it's a command! God commands all men to repent and believe. Who will do this? The ELECT! Why will only the elect obey God's command to repent and believe? You say it is because man of His own free will must accept His kind offer of salvation, thereby making the Sovereign God dependent upon the goodness of men (who btw are not good) to save a people for Himself.Wrong. Once again you are misrepresenting my view. I guess that's the only way you can try to make your own view look better. Having free will to choose has nothing to do with man being good. It has to do with man being able to acknowledge that he is not good and is a sinner in need of mercy, forgiveness and salvation. Like the publican in this parable:

Luke 18
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Your view says that man is not responsible to make any decision to acknowledge that he is a sinner who needs God's mercy and that he can't save himself and instead needs to surrender to Christ for salvation. Scripture, however, says that man is responsible and is condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). It simply makes no sense at all for man to be condemned for not believing in Christ if he never had any ability to do so. Period.


I say it is because salvation is not a mere offer to be accepted or rejected by sinners, therefore God will intervene in the hearts of His elect making them willing, and GIVE (not offer) salvation to them. If He does not intervene then NO MAN will be saved!He does have to intervene, but He doesn't have to intervene to the extent that you try to say He does. People are not like puppets or robots no matter what you say. Your view removes all responsibility from man and therefore makes the idea of a day of judgment seem pointless.


Salvation, from beginning to end is all of God's grace through His gift of faith.We've been over this and it's becoming tiresome. Saving faith is not a gift.


The elect of God, chosen from the foundation of the world, and written in the book of life will be saved, and none others.But you don't acknowledge why they are saved. Ephesians 2:8 tells us. John 3:16 tells us. Romans 10:9-10 tells us. 2 Cor 7:9-10 tells us. And so on. But you deny that one is required to willfully repent and put their faith in Christ in order to be saved despite the fact that it is taught clearly in scripture.


Mr 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Who was He saying that to? Everyone. He didn't say anything about anyone being regenerated before repenting and believing. He came to call sinners to repentance. All people are sinners. He wouldn't call all people to repentance if not all people had the ability to repent.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:12 PM
Moonglow,

Every man is born in Adam, therefore every man born of flesh is born without ability to see (know) or hear (with spiritual ears) the things of Christ until God, through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit enables them. Every man refuses the message of salvation until God makes them willing to turn to Christ for life. The gospel message goes unto all the world, and through the message God gives salvation to His elect. He alone knows who they are, therefore we indiscrimately proclaim the gospel unto all people, knowing that God will save all whom He has elected to save from the foundation of the world.

Many Blessings,
RWHow did Paul and Silas know that the prison keeper and those in his household (Acts 16:27-34) were among the elect? If your view was true then they must have known somehow because they promised those people that if they would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ then they would be saved. Would they say such a thing if not all people could believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? No. Instead, they would have said that there was nothing they could do to be saved because God does it all. But, thankfully, Paul and Silas didn't hold to your doctrine.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:13 PM
But you deny that one is required to willfully repent and put their faith in Christ in order to be saved despite the fact that it is taught clearly in scripture.

You sure are presumptive. You get mad at us for 'misrepresenting' your view yet here you are saying we don't believe one is required to repent and have faith in Christ for salvation.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:14 PM
I don't believe God does want any to perish but that's the way it is. He has the power to stop it but He doesn't.What more did He need to do than to send His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:17 PM
What more did He need to do than to send His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?

If you believe in Christ and repent you will be saved. That's how you know you are one of the elect.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:19 PM
You sure are presumptive. You get mad at us for 'misrepresenting' your viewIf you would stop misrepresenting my view then I won't have to point it out anymore.


yet here you are saying we don't believe one is required to repent and have faith in Christ for salvation.I guess you don't agree with Roger then. He says people are given saving faith and are not required to put their faith in Christ.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:20 PM
If you believe in Christ and repent you will be saved. That's how you know you are one of the elect.Do you believe that just kind of happens out of the blue or does one have to willingly do so?

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:21 PM
If you would stop misrepresenting my view then I won't have to point it out anymore.

Stop misrepresenting my view, then.


I guess you don't agree with Roger then. He says people are given saving faith and are not required to put their faith in Christ.

Salvation is a gift. God changes us so that we do put our faith in Christ and this is the gift of Salvation.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:22 PM
Do you believe that just kind of happens out of the blue or does one have to willingly do so?

What do you mean? The Holy Spirit quickens us and changes us so that we will put our faith in Christ and be saved. It's not random.

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 08:23 PM
What exactly is sadistic about Calvinism?Hhmm, where do I start.
You’re theology has God to create the very nature of man to be sinful by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" which HE Himself instituted. This nature causes all mankind to do that which HE hates.
With this, mankind can not even repent as commanded to.

Your theology has God to make the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born, which make them to go to hell for no reason of their own sin.
Knowing that no one is responsible for being born with something or being born a certain way, therefore no one is responsible for their destiny of hell.

Your theology has the definition of sovereignty as the ultimate cause of everything and ultimate control of everything.
Along with this, man has no free will to make a choice, God per-programs all mankind’s decisions and actions by His "fore-ordination"

Your theology has God commands all mankind to do the impossible and condemns man for not obeying. Man is condemned for that which is unavoidable. Therefore, man is doing that which he was created to do, that is to sin.
This would make sin to be God's will for that man.
That man would be condemned for doing the will of God.

Your theology has faith and repentance as gifts:
That would mean God condemns mankind for that which HE is responsible for.
Furthermore, it would make God directly responsible for the unfaithfulness of the world.

Your theology has God commanding one thing and really wanting another, deceitfully manipulating people.
Example, Pharaoh:
Your theology has God commanding Pharaoh HIS will to free His people.
Then God secretly has a opposing will contrary to His command which doesn't want Pharaoh to free His people.
Your theology has God actually doing the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to deceptively manipulate Pharaoh to do that which is against his so called "will" so that he will do God's secret will which is contrary to the command.

I could go on, but these are only a few.


Is it the God is sovereign part?Your definition of God is sovereignty.


Is it that God doesn't shower everybody with His Mercy but demands Justice since He is a Holy God?Well, your theology has a god very finite in mercy & so very likited in grace.


Is it sadistic that God chooses a people for Himself and even a Nation for Himself?The way you have it, yes.


Most people (non Christians) say it's sadistic for God to have people in hell for an eternity.They are humistic in their carnal minds.


How is this less 'sadistic', or fair, or whatever, than what Calvinism teaches?See above.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:24 PM
Stop misrepresenting my view, then.Where have I done so?


Salvation is a gift. God changes us so that we do put our faith in Christ and this is the gift of Salvation.So, it's just like I thought. You don't believe that man is required to willingly repent and believe and instead God makes it so that man does so. This means that you don't believe man is responsible for anything, including believing in Christ. And yet man is condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). Can you explain why man would be condemned for not believing in Christ if he is never given the ability to believe in Him?

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 08:25 PM
One other thing.
The reformed theology & Calinism's god is arbitrary and partial.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:26 PM
What do you mean? The Holy Spirit quickens us and changes us so that we will put our faith in Christ and be saved. It's not random.It's not random? What does that mean? You make salvation out to be something random because you don't see God as using any certain criteria with which to use to determine who should be saved and who should not.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:28 PM
Well, your theology has a god very finite in mercy & so very likited in grace.

NEVER say God is limited in Grace or Mercy. These things are not deserved. If God gives Mercy to one person He is not obligated to give it to another person as both don't deserve it. If it weren't for God's Mercy you would be on your way to hell like all of us.

And would you give me your definition of God's sovereignty? Also why you think God chose Israel and not another nation?

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:31 PM
It's not random? What does that mean? You make salvation out to be something random because you don't see God as using any certain criteria with which to use to determine who should be saved and who should not.

You are misrepresenting my view right here. I have to tell you to stop being a hypocrite. I'm not trying to be mean here.

The criteria God uses for election is His own perfect will as clearly seen in Ephesians 1. I don't know the details. If you want them ask God and maybe He will tell you.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:36 PM
NEVER say God is limited in Grace or Mercy. These things are not deserved.No one here is trying to make the case that any of us deserve grace and mercy. Instead, the point that I'm trying to make is that since God did decide to extend His grace and mercy to man, it only makes sense that since He is impartial in His judgments that He would then extend His grace and mercy to all people if He decided to extend His grace and mercy to anyone, which He was not obligated to do.


If God gives Mercy to one person He is not obligated to give it to another person as both don't deserve it. If it weren't for God's Mercy you would be on your way to hell like all of us.

And would you give me your definition of God's sovereignty? Also why you think God chose Israel and not another nation?You need to respond to the fact that God is impartial in His judgments. Your view contradicts that aspect of God's character. What do you have to say in response to this?

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:41 PM
You are misrepresenting my view right here. I have to tell you to stop being a hypocrite. I'm not trying to be mean here. Don't worry, I'm not taking anything you say personally. I know we're all passionate here. I mean, I'd certainly prefer you not call me a hypocrite, since I'm not, but whatever.


The criteria God uses for election is His own perfect will as clearly seen in Ephesians 1. I don't know the details. If you want them ask God and maybe He will tell you.I don't need to ask because it tells us in scripture. God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). With that being the case, it only makes sense that He would then want to make a way for all people to be saved. And He did by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But He is not going to save anyone who does not want to willingly humble themselves, acknowledge they are sinners and put their faith in Christ for salvation.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:48 PM
But He is not going to save anyone who does not want to willingly humble themselves, acknowledge they are sinners and put their faith in Christ for salvation.

You seem to think that if God chooses people to salvation they will come kicking and screaming against their will and be saved. That's not how it is. God elects people to salvation, the means of which is what Christ did on the cross, the Holy Spirit then changes us so that we will be willing to come to Christ and be saved.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 08:50 PM
You seem to think that if God chooses people to salvation they will come kicking and screaming against their will and be saved. That's not how it is. God elects people to salvation, the means of which is what Christ did on the cross, the Holy Spirit then changes us so that we will be willing to come to Christ and be saved.What then is the difference between us and robots in your view?

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 08:55 PM
Wrong. Once again you are misrepresenting my view. I guess that's the only way you can try to make your own view look better. Having free will to choose has nothing to do with man being good. It has to do with man being able to acknowledge that he is not good and is a sinner in need of mercy, forgiveness and salvation. Like the publican in this parable:

This is exactly what I am talking about Eric. All of your focus above is on man, and what he can and cannot do. Man must acknowledge his need, man must ask for forgiveness, man must turn to Christ for salvation.

Scripture teaches us that our focus is to be on God, not on man. God changes the heart making man see his need, and God turns man to Christ for salvation. He does this through the power of His Word and Holy Spirit. Salvation is a supernatural miracle, therefore no part of our salvation can come from ourselves. It is all of the Lord and none of us.

In the parable the publican shows by his crying out to God for mercy that his heart had already been supernaturally changed. He would not have recognized himself to be a sinner in need of God's mercy unless God had already changed his heart.



Luke 18
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.



Your view says that man is not responsible to make any decision to acknowledge that he is a sinner who needs God's mercy and that he can't save himself and instead needs to surrender to Christ for salvation. Scripture, however, says that man is responsible and is condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). It simply makes no sense at all for man to be condemned for not believing in Christ if he never had any ability to do so. Period.

You see again, your doctrine focuses on man. Man must make a decision to acknowledge that he is a sinner. Man must surrender to Christ for salvation. My doctrine focuses on Sovereign God. God draws His elect through the gospel. God shows man that he is a sinner in need of mercy and grace. God changes our hearts, enabling us to turn to Christ for salvation. Man is condemned because he does not have Christ to pay his sin debt.

All men are guilty before God, and all men would die in their sins if God had not elected some men to be saved. Every man is without excuse, because all men know God and have no excuse for not believing His Son. They do not believe because they love their sin more than God. This is man's fate without the grace of God. But God will not be denied having a people to serve Him and show His glory. Therefore God elected some men to salvation. Knowing that no man can turn to Him for life, He sent His Son, and His Holy Spirit to draw His elect to Him through the message of the gospel.



He does have to intervene, but He doesn't have to intervene to the extent that you try to say He does. People are not like puppets or robots no matter what you say. Your view removes all responsibility from man and therefore makes the idea of a day of judgment seem pointless.

The Day of Judgment is for those who die in their sins. Here once more your focus is on man. You say God must intervene, but He cannot intervene so much that it interfers with the will of man. You'll let God be a little bit Sovereign, but then in the end it is up to man to save himself through the choice he makes. You turn salvation into a gift offered, rather than a gift God gives to His elect people.



We've been over this and it's becoming tiresome. Saving faith is not a gift.

Yes we have, and you continue in your state of denial.



But you don't acknowledge why they are saved. Ephesians 2:8 tells us. John 3:16 tells us. Romans 10:9-10 tells us. 2 Cor 7:9-10 tells us. And so on. But you deny that one is required to willfully repent and put their faith in Christ in order to be saved despite the fact that it is taught clearly in scripture.

Where is the focus of your doctrine once again? Is it not on man? God enables man to turn from their sins and to trust in Christ, not to be saved, but because we have been saved. No where in Scripture can you that salvation is offered and must be accepted or rejected. Granted many men reject the message that brings salvation, but salvation is a gift GIVEN to His elect people.



Repent ye, and believe the gospel. Who was He saying that to? Everyone. He didn't say anything about anyone being regenerated before repenting and believing. He came to call sinners to repentance. All people are sinners. He wouldn't call all people to repentance if not all people had the ability to repent.

And you say your doctrine does not focus on what man does for God? God commands every man to repent and believe...who does? His elect! No people, dead in their trespasses and sins has any desire to repent and believe. They never will unless they are freed from bondage to satan, sin and death, and made alive in Christ. God will save His elect people; everyone of them, and not one of them will be lost!

Many Blessings,
RW

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 08:55 PM
What then is the difference between us and robots in your view?

Our voice?

Again, you seem to think that if God actively and effectively saves us then we are reduced to robots which is absurd. Besides, I'd rather be a saved robot than a condemned free willer.

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 08:58 PM
If you would stop misrepresenting my view then I won't have to point it out anymore.

I guess you don't agree with Roger then. He says people are given saving faith and are not required to put their faith in Christ.

What I say is what Scripture teaches. That faith is a gift of God's grace. Once we receive this gift of faith we do believe, and our faith we have received from God does work.

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 09:10 PM
No one here is trying to make the case that any of us deserve grace and mercy. Instead, the point that I'm trying to make is that since God did decide to extend His grace and mercy to man, it only makes sense that since He is impartial in His judgments that He would then extend His grace and mercy to all people if He decided to extend His grace and mercy to anyone, which He was not obligated to do.

You need to respond to the fact that God is impartial in His judgments. Your view contradicts that aspect of God's character. What do you have to say in response to this?

God is not a respecter of persons in that salvation is unto all people, not only to the Jews. The context of these passages clearly show this. God extends His grace and mercy to whosoever He chooses. It is your man centered theology that tries to say God extends grace and mercy to every man. It is your man centered doctrine that misunderstands God character. You try to make God bend to your will rather than accepting that it is the will of God to save His people, and they are those elected from the foundation of the world and written in the book of life.

Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Nov 19th 2008, 09:20 PM
I don't need to ask because it tells us in scripture. God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). With that being the case, it only makes sense that He would then want to make a way for all people to be saved. And He did by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But He is not going to save anyone who does not want to willingly humble themselves, acknowledge they are sinners and put their faith in Christ for salvation.

No God commands all people to repent and be saved. In the man centered free will theology it makes sense that God will make a way for all people to be saved. Scripture focuses on God and His ability to save His elect people, and leave the rest in their sins. Christ is the propitiation for all sin. However His sacrificial atonement was only for His elect people. He expiated the sin of the world and all who continue in unbelief will be thrown into the lake of fire. Because of Christ death all sin will be no more.

Many Blessings,
RW

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 09:29 PM
NEVER say God is limited in Grace or Mercy. These things are not deserved. If God gives Mercy to one person He is not obligated to give it to another person as both don't deserve it.According to you theology, God does not want to save all, but only some, this makes him limited, finite in mercy.
The fact that salvation is for only a few lucky one who win the lotto of election shows that god is limited, finite in grace.


If it weren't for God's Mercy you would be on your way to hell like all of us.I agree, however, according to your theology, God did not want to save my grandpa who cursed Him with his dying breath. According to your theology, god would not have mercy or grace.
As my mother prayed for him in the spirit with tears.
According to your theology, god aid, "speak to the hand, the god's not listening. This man is not elected just because I don't want to save him"



And would you give me your definition of God's sovereignty?God's sovereignty:
Ultimate authority, and ultimately all mankind is accountable to God.
authority,:


Also why you think God chose Israel and not another nation?
Because God had to choose some one.
Not a family, but an old couple, way passed their prime, with no children.


God chose Abraham for the purpose of bringing about a lineage for His SEED, a holy remnant.
Not according to he flesh as with Hagar, the servant girl, but through faith in God to bring a child by miricle; they were passed the age therefore it was from a miracle of God.
God's corporate election of Israel does not come from man's favorite; Abraham willed or desired that it the promise might be given to his favorite, Ishmael.


Isaac is willing for his favorite, Esau to have the blessing.


Jacob wanted Rachel because he favored her more than Leah. But God shown HIS favor on Leah by her child bringing the SEED through Judah.


What’s your answer?

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by John146
What then is the difference between us and robots in your view?
Our voice?

Again, you seem to think that if God actively and effectively saves us then we are reduced to robots which is absurd. Besides, I'd rather be a saved robot than a condemned free willer.That is opposit to Calinism and reformed theology.
Thgey say that men never have free will.
So we are jast a pre-programed robots &/or pupetts only doing God's bidding as HE plays a game of solitare by Himself.

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 09:37 PM
This is exactly what I am talking about Eric. All of your focus above is on man, and what he can and cannot do. Man must acknowledge his need, man must ask for forgiveness, man must turn to Christ for salvation. Man is responsible. That is what scripture teaches. You would be wrong if you think that is my main focus. I have mentioned that salvation is not possible without God's grace many times and that no one could be saved without Christ's sacrifice. So, you are simply flat out wrong in thinking all my focus is on man. Unlike you, I am willing to acknowledge that God has given man responsibility.


Scripture teaches us that our focus is to be on God, not on man.Actually, scripture teaches that we are to love God with all our hearts, souls and minds AND we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. If we didn't focus at all on man then who would evangelize the lost? Who would teach others? Who would serve others?


God changes the heart making man see his need, and God turns man to Christ for salvation. He does this through the power of His Word and Holy Spirit. Salvation is a supernatural miracle, therefore no part of our salvation can come from ourselves. It is all of the Lord and none of us. You eliminate responsibility from man by saying that. But scripture says that God holds man responsible for what He believes (or doesn't believe).


In the parable the publican shows by his crying out to God for mercy that his heart had already been supernaturally changed.What? You talk about adding to scripture what isn't there. Why don't you show me in Luke 18 where it says that, Roger. Good luck with that.


He would not have recognized himself to be a sinner in need of God's mercy unless God had already changed his heart. Where does it say that?


You see again, your doctrine focuses on man. Man must make a decision to acknowledge that he is a sinner.That is a focus on what scripture teaches, not on man.


Man must surrender to Christ for salvation. My doctrine focuses on Sovereign God.And ignores those poor suckers who weren't lucky enough to be chosen.


God draws His elect through the gospel. God shows man that he is a sinner in need of mercy and grace. God changes our hearts, enabling us to turn to Christ for salvation. Man is condemned because he does not have Christ to pay his sin debt. That isn't what the scripture says Roger. Here, you can read it for yourself. It doesn't say what you said.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


All men are guilty before God, and all men would die in their sins if God had not elected some men to be saved. Every man is without excuse, because all men know God and have no excuse for not believing His Son.They would have an excuse if they didn't all have the ability to believe as you try to claim. They BECOME vain in their imaginations and BECOME fools. You deny that and say they are born that way.


They do not believe because they love their sin more than God.By choice. And when presented with the gospel and the need to repent they choose not to do so. But some do repent and believe. It's a choice people have to make.


This is man's fate without the grace of God. But God will not be denied having a people to serve Him and show His glory. Therefore God elected some men to salvation. Knowing that no man can turn to Him for life, He sent His Son, and His Holy Spirit to draw His elect to Him through the message of the gospel. Is God partial, Roger? If so, perhaps you can show me the scripture that teaches that.


The Day of Judgment is for those who die in their sins. Here once more your focus is on man.Well, it is man who will be judged that day, afterall. Again, my focus isn't just on man. I happen to not ignore that man will be held responsible for not believing in Christ rather than trying to say that he never had any ability to do so.


You say God must intervene, but He cannot intervene so much that it interfers with the will of man. You'll let God be a little bit Sovereign, but then in the end it is up to man to save himself through the choice he makes. You turn salvation into a gift offered, rather than a gift God gives to His elect people. Your definition of Sovereign is flawed. By your definition you might as well just go all the way with it and agree with a hyper-Calvinist like legoman.


Yes we have, and you continue in your state of denial. I deny that your doctrine is true and I will continue to be in that state of denial.


Where is the focus of your doctrine once again? Is it not on man?I don't ignore that man has responsibility, that's all. I also acknowledge that salvation is not possible apart from God's love for the world and Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.


God enables man to turn from their sins and to trust in Christ, not to be saved, but because we have been saved. No where in Scripture can you that salvation is offered and must be accepted or rejected. Granted many men reject the message that brings salvation, but salvation is a gift GIVEN to His elect people. If man has no choice in the matter, then how could man reject anything? The very idea of accepting or rejecting implies choice with either choice being a valid possibility.


And you say your doctrine does not focus on what man does for God? God commands every man to repent and believe...who does? His elect! No people, dead in their trespasses and sins has any desire to repent and believe.The publican in the Luke 18 parable did. The prison keeper from Acts 16 did. The Ethiopian eunuch did. And so on.


They never will unless they are freed from bondage to satan, sin and death, and made alive in Christ. God will save His elect people; everyone of them, and not one of them will be lost!People are made alive in Christ/born again after they have repented and believed. Not before or at the same time.

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 09:40 PM
Our voice?

Again, you seem to think that if God actively and effectively saves us then we are reduced to robots which is absurd. Besides, I'd rather be a saved robot than a condemned free willer.In other words, you don't see that there is really any difference. Just as I thought.

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 09:58 PM
Why does election have to have anything to do with foreknowledge?

I believe in freedom of the will of man being an essential part of being created in the image of God.

I believe in election.

I believe in predestination.

I believe in foreknowledge.

God knowing is not the same as God choosing.

BrckBrln
Nov 19th 2008, 09:58 PM
In other words, you don't see that there is really any difference. Just as I thought.

:rofl: Sometimes when I look at myself in pictures, I see red eyes. :eek:

John146
Nov 19th 2008, 10:03 PM
No God commands all people to repent and be saved. In the man centered free will theology it makes sense that God will make a way for all people to be saved. Scripture focuses on God and His ability to save His elect people, and leave the rest in their sins.Yes, praise God for leaving the rest in their sins and not giving them a chance to be saved! Isn't that great that He (supposedly) did that?!

Or not. Roger, can you tell me your understanding of the following passage?

Ezekiel 18
20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Since God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked and instead wants the wicked to turn from their ways and live, what does that tell you? Is there any reason to conclude that God takes pleasure in the death of any of the wicked or that He does not want all the wicked to turn from their ways so that they can live? And what is your answer to God's question, "Is not my way equal"? Your answer would be "Yes", I would hope. Yet, you believe God unequally chooses some to be saved while leaving the rest in their sins. You are contradicting God's character by believing that.


Christ is the propitiation for all sin. However His sacrificial atonement was only for His elect people.And that is supposed to make sense? If His atonement was only made for the elect then it couldn't be said that He is the propitiation for the sins of everyone in the world but instead it would have to say that He is the propitiation for the sins of the elect only. But that isn't what it says. The only logical conclusion is that this either means that all people are automatically forgiven and saved or all people are given the opportunity to be forgiven and saved but are responsible to do something (repent and believe the gospel) before they are forgiven and saved. Obviously, not all are saved so this leaves the latter option as the only valid one.


He expiated the sin of the world and all who continue in unbelief will be thrown into the lake of fire. Because of Christ death all sin will be no more. You have people being condemned for not believing in Christ despite supposedly not being given the ability to do so. So far you have not given any kind of convincing explanation for why that would be the case.

drew
Nov 19th 2008, 10:43 PM
I can think of another reason to be dubious of “election” as commonly understood. In Romans, Paul goes out of his way to undermine the "national boast" of Israel - namely that they are God's covenant people simply in virtue of their ethnicity – by being born into a people under Torah. This is not so, Paul argues, and refers to the establishment of the covenant in Genesis 15 and repeats the key statement "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness".

Faith, not nationality, is the criteria for covenant membership. It would seem awfully odd that Paul would argue this point and yet also believe that people are indeed “born unto salvation” after all by believing the existence of an "elect".

Even though the elect unto salvation are, of course, not national Israel - they still would constitute a set of people who are essentially privileged by birth unto salvation, just as the Jews believed that they were automatically members of the covenant by virtue of being born an ethnic Jew. It seems to me that this is the kind of thinking that Paul clearly repudiates in Romans.

If the "election" view is in fact correct, Paul's entire argument seems to be odd and misguided. The Calvinist will have us believe that while Paul repudiates that grace is limited to the Jew, he likewise endorses the belief that grace is still limited to a different family one is effectively born into- the elect.

That should strike the reader as odd and suspicious. Paul bends over backwards to dismantle the exclusive claim of the Jew to God's grace. How odd it would be for Paul to believe that there is a different "special" family after all that has unique access to God's grace.

Butch5
Nov 19th 2008, 11:00 PM
God is not a respecter of persons in that salvation is unto all people, not only to the Jews. The context of these passages clearly show this. God extends His grace and mercy to whosoever He chooses. It is your man centered theology that tries to say God extends grace and mercy to every man. It is your man centered doctrine that misunderstands God character. You try to make God bend to your will rather than accepting that it is the will of God to save His people, and they are those elected from the foundation of the world and written in the book of life.

Blessings,
RW

Ah, it appears you have not considered anything I have said.

Diolectic
Nov 19th 2008, 11:06 PM
Personal Election (not corporate)

Some peoples theology have God electing some with out purpose, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 20th 2008, 03:04 AM
No one said people will themselves to God...the bible is clear...no one seeks God, (Romans 3:11)..He draws ALL men to Himself...John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

At that point a person is able to accept or reject Him...as you clearly showed with the good examples of the two thieves on the cross...one accepted, one rejected...neither were forced to accept or forced to reject...

God bless

--------------------------------------------------


One would have to understand when one is Saved...

who starts that Process?

is it the person who is being saved? his/her will.. coming to God on their own power?

making a 'decision'...

out of their own will?

I've heard people talk and preach about how they came to God... it was like Salvation belonged to them and they came to God under their own power... they were doing God a favor by accepting Him.... there are people out there that believe that... One does not have to go very far to see that ....

When God saves His child.. He initiates it.. and draws that person into Himself... He continues to draw... He reveals His unmerited Grace and Mercy to that Person... He reveals His longsuffering....He reveals the Glory of the Cross and what was accomplished there.... This revelation is what brings that person to repentance... the Revelation of His Goodness...AND ITS UNMERITED... THIS IS THE PLACE OF NEW BIRTH.. BEING BORN AGAIN...

When He saved me Feb 3 1994, I was going in the opposite direction of Him.. I was lost, without hope in this world.. dead in trespasses and sins.. bound in shackles to devilish powers that controlled my life...It was my 'will' fueled by the 'will of the devils' that controlled me.. This all CONTRARY.. TO HIS WILL ... I had no clue as to what being born again was about.. Had no clue about the Bible... I had gone thru a religious service as a young kid and told that was fine.. your going to Heaven... But that was not the case... When He drew me in the His presense was so strong and it was so real... He revealed Himself to me in such a way that there was no way I could of said 'no' to Him... I didn't choose Him.. I didnt make some 'decision'.. sign a card.. sign my name to a membership roster.. etc... I wasn't offered a Bible tract and told to choose Him or reject Him..... no.. that was not the case...

He 'chose' me.. and Revealed Himself to me in such a way I could not say NO to the Revelation of His Goodness and Mercy..... as He has done in the past with His Own and will continue to do so in the future with those who have yet to come to Know Him as LORD and SAVIOUR........and from what I read and understand now.. is that He had chosen me IN HIM...and KNOWN ME from the foundation of the world... That my friend brings me to tears... 'knowing' that..

Its not that I loved God first... and that out of my own will power nor did I come to Him out of my own will power... and make a decision... or sign a card or do something 'man made'...

the fact is ..... that He FIRST LOVED ME.. AND THOSE He Came for...

One would have to ask..... who ELECTS... the 'elect'? What constitutes the 'election' of God... are they the majority.. is everybody who calls themselves a Christian .. the 'elect' of God?

Jesus stated.. MANY ARE CALLED.. but 'FEW' AR CHOSEN.....

This would seem to point that the 'elect' of God... those chosen In Him.. are few.. they are not the majority.. they are not the populace...

And what of those who are 'called'.. but are not chosen?? Where do they end up? Is God un righteous? :o:o

Does not God have the 'right' to Choose whom He wants to choose?

And what of the Master Potter? does He not have the right to mold and form whom He chooses?

It amazes me that people can talk about the Soveriengty of God and His Providence... they say they believe it.. but when we start discussing the 'reality'.. that God 'chooses' His own... and that He has the 'sole right' over the clay and can choose to do as He may... some people are offended... taken back... Calling God a Sadistic God...

I guess you need to start at the beginning..... many days I sit here wondering.......

How many who confess Jesus Christ.. are 'truly' Born-Again ' From above ...... Born of the Spirit... this not man made or some religious ritual... but truly Born Again from Above and this the Work of the Spirit of the Living God.. A wonderful and miraculous event that makes the Angels in Heaven rejoice... a process initiated by God Himself and finished by Him.........and not man..

Jesus Himself said it... Ye must be born again... this from Above... you hear the wind blow... but you cannot percieve from where it comes or where it goes.... So is everyone who Is Born of the Spirit or Born Again from Above..



For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that 'not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:'

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

RogerW
Nov 20th 2008, 03:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------
One would have to understand when one is Saved...

who starts that Process?

is it the person who is being saved? his/her will.. coming to God on their own power?

making a 'decision'...

out of their own will?

I've heard people talk and preach about how they came to God... it was like Salvation belonged to them and they came to God under their own power... they were doing God a favor by accepting Him.... there are people out there that believe that... One does not have to go very far to see that ....

When God saves His child.. He initiates it.. and draws that person into Himself... He continues to draw... He reveals His unmerited Grace and Mercy to that Person... He reveals His longsuffering....He reveals the Glory of the Cross and what was accomplished there.... This revelation is what brings that person to repentance... the Revelation of His Goodness...AND ITS UNMERITED... THIS IS THE PLACE OF NEW BIRTH.. BEING BORN AGAIN...

When He saved me Feb 3 1994, I was going in the opposite direction of Him.. I was lost, without hope in this world.. dead in trespasses and sins.. bound in shackles to devilish powers that controlled my life...It was my 'will' fueled by the 'will of the devils' that controlled me.. This all CONTRARY.. TO HIS WILL ... I had no clue as to what being born again was about.. Had no clue about the Bible... I had gone thru a religious service as a young kid and told that was fine.. your going to Heaven... But that was not the case... When He drew me in the His presense was so strong and it was so real... He revealed Himself to me in such a way that there was no way I could of said 'no' to Him... I didn't choose Him.. I didnt make some 'decision'.. sign a card.. sign my name to a membership roster.. etc... I wasn't offered a Bible tract and told to choose Him or reject Him..... no.. that was not the case...

He 'chose' me.. and Revealed Himself to me in such a way I could not say NO to the Revelation of His Goodness and Mercy..... as He has done in the past with His Own and will continue to do so in the future with those who have yet to come to Know Him as LORD and SAVIOUR........and from what I read and understand now.. is that He had chosen me IN HIM...and KNOWN ME from the foundation of the world... That my friend brings me to tears... 'knowing' that..

Its not that I loved God first... and that out of my own will power nor did I come to Him out of my own will power... and make a decision... or sign a card or do something 'man made'...

the fact is ..... that He FIRST LOVED ME.. AND THOSE He Came for...

One would have to ask..... who ELECTS... the 'elect'? What constitutes the 'election' of God... are they the majority.. is everybody who calls themselves a Christian .. the 'elect' of God?

Jesus stated.. MANY ARE CALLED.. but 'FEW' AR CHOSEN.....

This would seem to point that the 'elect' of God... those chosen In Him.. are few.. they are not the majority.. they are not the populace...

And what of those who are 'called'.. but are not chosen?? Where do they end up? Is God un righteous? :o:o

Does not God have the 'right' to Choose whom He wants to choose?

And what of the Master Potter? does He not have the right to mold and form whom He chooses?

It amazes me that people can talk about the Soveriengty of God and His Providence... they say they believe it.. but when we start discussing the 'reality'.. that God 'chooses' His own... and that He has the 'sole right' over the clay and can choose to do as He may... some people are offended... taken back... Calling God a Sadistic God...

I guess you need to start at the beginning..... many days I sit here wondering.......

How many who confess Jesus Christ.. are 'truly' Born-Again ' From above ...... Born of the Spirit... this not man made or some religious ritual... but truly Born Again from Above and this the Work of the Spirit of the Living God.. A wonderful and miraculous event that makes the Angels in Heaven rejoice... a process initiated by God Himself and finished by Him.........and not man..

Jesus Himself said it... Ye must be born again... this from Above... you hear the wind blow... but you cannot percieve from where it comes or where it goes.... So is everyone who Is Born of the Spirit or Born Again from Above..

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that 'not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:'

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Beloved Disciple,

What a beautiful witness to the Sovereignty of God! This is what I mean when I say it is all about God, and not about man! We are the benefactors of His bountiful grace, but He alone is the giver of life. Without Him we can do nothing! A wonderful testimony! Praise God!

Many Blessings,
RW

legoman
Nov 20th 2008, 01:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------


One would have to understand when one is Saved...

who starts that Process?

is it the person who is being saved? his/her will.. coming to God on their own power?

making a 'decision'...

out of their own will?

I've heard people talk and preach about how they came to God... it was like Salvation belonged to them and they came to God under their own power... they were doing God a favor by accepting Him.... there are people out there that believe that... One does not have to go very far to see that ....

When God saves His child.. He initiates it.. and draws that person into Himself... He continues to draw... He reveals His unmerited Grace and Mercy to that Person... He reveals His longsuffering....He reveals the Glory of the Cross and what was accomplished there.... This revelation is what brings that person to repentance... the Revelation of His Goodness...AND ITS UNMERITED... THIS IS THE PLACE OF NEW BIRTH.. BEING BORN AGAIN...

When He saved me Feb 3 1994, I was going in the opposite direction of Him.. I was lost, without hope in this world.. dead in trespasses and sins.. bound in shackles to devilish powers that controlled my life...It was my 'will' fueled by the 'will of the devils' that controlled me.. This all CONTRARY.. TO HIS WILL ... I had no clue as to what being born again was about.. Had no clue about the Bible... I had gone thru a religious service as a young kid and told that was fine.. your going to Heaven... But that was not the case... When He drew me in the His presense was so strong and it was so real... He revealed Himself to me in such a way that there was no way I could of said 'no' to Him... I didn't choose Him.. I didnt make some 'decision'.. sign a card.. sign my name to a membership roster.. etc... I wasn't offered a Bible tract and told to choose Him or reject Him..... no.. that was not the case...

He 'chose' me.. and Revealed Himself to me in such a way I could not say NO to the Revelation of His Goodness and Mercy..... as He has done in the past with His Own and will continue to do so in the future with those who have yet to come to Know Him as LORD and SAVIOUR........and from what I read and understand now.. is that He had chosen me IN HIM...and KNOWN ME from the foundation of the world... That my friend brings me to tears... 'knowing' that..

Its not that I loved God first... and that out of my own will power nor did I come to Him out of my own will power... and make a decision... or sign a card or do something 'man made'...

the fact is ..... that He FIRST LOVED ME.. AND THOSE He Came for...

One would have to ask..... who ELECTS... the 'elect'? What constitutes the 'election' of God... are they the majority.. is everybody who calls themselves a Christian .. the 'elect' of God?

Jesus stated.. MANY ARE CALLED.. but 'FEW' AR CHOSEN.....

This would seem to point that the 'elect' of God... those chosen In Him.. are few.. they are not the majority.. they are not the populace...

And what of those who are 'called'.. but are not chosen?? Where do they end up? Is God un righteous? :o:o

Does not God have the 'right' to Choose whom He wants to choose?

And what of the Master Potter? does He not have the right to mold and form whom He chooses?

It amazes me that people can talk about the Soveriengty of God and His Providence... they say they believe it.. but when we start discussing the 'reality'.. that God 'chooses' His own... and that He has the 'sole right' over the clay and can choose to do as He may... some people are offended... taken back... Calling God a Sadistic God...

I guess you need to start at the beginning..... many days I sit here wondering.......

How many who confess Jesus Christ.. are 'truly' Born-Again ' From above ...... Born of the Spirit... this not man made or some religious ritual... but truly Born Again from Above and this the Work of the Spirit of the Living God.. A wonderful and miraculous event that makes the Angels in Heaven rejoice... a process initiated by God Himself and finished by Him.........and not man..

Jesus Himself said it... Ye must be born again... this from Above... you hear the wind blow... but you cannot percieve from where it comes or where it goes.... So is everyone who Is Born of the Spirit or Born Again from Above..



For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that 'not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:'

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Hi BelovedDisciple,

Yes, as Roger said, what you have written is a beautiful testimony to the power of God. I fully agree, people can be going in the full opposite direction of God's stated will, and then God reveals himself to that person. Changes happen, things start to make sense. God is drawing you to him. You said it beautifully: "He revealed Himself to me in such a way that there was no way I could of said 'no' to Him"

He didn't force you against your will, he changed your will to be in line with his stated will! Right? So much for a free will choice...

Sounds like you had your own conversion on the "road to damascus". I always like to point out Paul called himself the "chief of sinners" ie. the worst sinner ever, yet when God plainly revealed himself, it probably took about 5 seconds for him to convert. He didn't really have a choice to not convert :)


--

I've been reading the posts being made on both sides, and they are each making some good points.

To me its very clear that we have no free will about anything, let alone salvation. God is operating all according to his will (Eph 1:11), all the proverbs, jer 10:23, etc about God directing our steps. Isaiah 46:10 God declares everything and brings it to pass.

(See this post: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1869785&postcount=3)

So it seems we cannot have free will (we do have choice, just not free choice).


BUT the other side of the story:

1 Tim 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


2 Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


We know from these verses that it is God's will that all be saved. John146 has brought this up as well.

For those of the calvinist persuasion (and others), what do these verses mean?


Legoman

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 02:43 PM
If the "election" view is in fact correct, Paul's entire argument seems to be odd and misguided. The Calvinist will have us believe that while Paul repudiates that grace is limited to the Jew, he likewise endorses the belief that grace is still limited to a different family one is effectively born into- the elect.

No Drew, Paul argues that election comes prior to birth.

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 02:51 PM
BUT the other side of the story:

1 Tim 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The phrase "all men" here is intended to include politicians and government officials. It doesn't intend to bring each and every man under God's will.


2 Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

In this context, Peter is talking to those who just can't wait for the end of the world to come so that we might get on with our wonderful glorious life in the coming age. In essence, Peter is saying that we must have patience and wait because God intends to save other people, even perhaps, people like us who hadn't been born yet. He is NOT saying that God wants people to get saved but is thwarted by their free will to do anything about it.

These are quick answers. I can go into a more detailed explanation if needed.

RogerW
Nov 20th 2008, 04:58 PM
How did Paul and Silas know that the prison keeper and those in his household (Acts 16:27-34) were among the elect? If your view was true then they must have known somehow because they promised those people that if they would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ then they would be saved. Would they say such a thing if not all people could believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? No. Instead, they would have said that there was nothing they could do to be saved because God does it all. But, thankfully, Paul and Silas didn't hold to your doctrine.

Greetings Eric,

Paul and Silas, like all of us have no ability to know who is among the elect of God. This is why they and we proclaim Christ unto all men indiscrimately. Paul and Silas told the jailer to believe, how is the jailer able to believe in whom he had never heard?

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

So what did Paul and Silas do? Did they leave the jailer to believe in Him they have not heard? Of course they didn't! They spoke to him the Word of the Lord.

Ac 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

What happened after they spoke the Word of the Lord to him?

Ac 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Ac 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Paul and Silas spoke the truth. They had no way of knowing whether or not the jailer was among the elect, but they did know that if he (jailer) believed he would be saved. We aren't being dishonest when we tell people the way of salvation is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But if we tell them this and then don't tell them about the Lord, then we have not given them the way to obtain eternal life in Christ. Because faith (believing) comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Eric I don't know how many times I have shown you through the Scripture that you are not properly understanding Act 16. I know, from our many discussions that you do not disagree with what I have said here. To continue to try to use this passage of Scripture to prove your doctrine, is neither wise nor noble. So I hope that with this passage, at least, you will stop trying to use it to promote your doctrine of free will. Defend your doctrine through Scripture if you are able, but when you are clearly shown time and again why you are wrong, and yet insist your opinion is right, then it becomes a matter of needing to be right, rather than a desire for having truth.

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Nov 20th 2008, 05:03 PM
No Drew, Paul argues that election comes prior to birth.
I knew that. My wording was perhaps not that well chosen. But I think that principle of the argument is still sound - it would be very strange indeed to argue, on the one hand, that salvation is not limited to the Jew but extends to the Gentile as well, and on the other hand also believe that there are indeed "class" distinction that put some people "on the outside" with respect to salvation.

The important point is one's being sorted into arbitrary classes by external agency. So if God is not in the business of "selecting Jews not Gentiles", why would He be in the business of sorting by some other seeminlgy arbitrary criteria?

legoman
Nov 20th 2008, 05:24 PM
1 Tim 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.The phrase "all men" here is intended to include politicians and government officials. It doesn't intend to bring each and every man under God's will.


Not sure if I can buy that one. Are you saying this is a special case for politicians and government officials? It is God's will that all politicians and government officials be saved? Cause I'm sure we can both think of a few Kings & Politicians through the ages that haven't confessed their sins and repented. Hmm, perhaps I need a career change... ;)



In this context, Peter is talking to those who just can't wait for the end of the world to come so that we might get on with our wonderful glorious life in the coming age. In essence, Peter is saying that we must have patience and wait because God intends to save other people, even perhaps, people like us who hadn't been born yet. He is NOT saying that God wants people to get saved but is thwarted by their free will to do anything about it.

These are quick answers. I can go into a more detailed explanation if needed.I agree with you about God "being thwarted by free will". Not gonna happen. That's one of the biggest problems with free will. It diminishes God's sovereignty to the point where God can only do something if our "free will" allows it. He is no longer sovereign, we are! Its completely backwards.

Everything is operating according to the council of God's will. Eph 1:11. God has declared everything that will happen (Isa 46:10), and will bring it to pass (Isa 46:11). And his word will accomplish that which he pleases (Isa 55:11).

Cheers,
Legoman

RogerW
Nov 20th 2008, 05:36 PM
The phrase "all men" here is intended to include politicians and government officials. It doesn't intend to bring each and every man under God's will.


Not sure if I can buy that one. Are you saying this is a special case for politicians and government officials? It is God's will that all politicians and government officials be saved? Cause I'm sure we can both think of a few Kings & Politicians through the ages that haven't confessed their sins and repented. Hmm, perhaps I need a career change... ;)

Greetings Legoman,

If you look at the context I think you'll agree with BroRog's assessment. I'm not sure if there was this thinking that we don't need to pray for those in authority, but Paul makes it clear that supplication, prayer, and intercession, and giving thanks be made for all men. That would include kings, and all who are in authrority. Why? Because it is the will of God that they too might be saved and come unto the knowledge of truth. Not that all of them will be saved, but that salvation is unto all "kinds" of people including them.

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 07:26 PM
Personal Election (not corporate)


Some peoples theology have God electing some with out purpose, as electing some and not others, merely because he could or would. In other words, to exhibit his own sovereignty without any other reason than "just because HE wants to and that HE can".

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

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

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

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

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

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

This will appear to be true if we take into consideration the fact that the only reason why the non-elect will not be saved is because they stubbornly refuse salvation.
If the non-elect are condemned just because they are non-elect and not only because they did not repent, they would have a valid complaint for their condemnation. It would be that God did not do all HE could to forgive them without being partial.Completely agree. It is apparent to me that those who believe in unconditional election to salvation do not bother taking God's character or man's responsibility into account when studying this issue.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 07:30 PM
Greetings Eric,

Paul and Silas, like all of us have no ability to know who is among the elect of God. This is why they and we proclaim Christ unto all men indiscrimately. Paul and Silas told the jailer to believe, how is the jailer able to believe in whom he had never heard?

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

So what did Paul and Silas do? Did they leave the jailer to believe in Him they have not heard? Of course they didn't! They spoke to him the Word of the Lord.

Ac 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

What happened after they spoke the Word of the Lord to him?

Ac 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Ac 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Paul and Silas spoke the truth. They had no way of knowing whether or not the jailer was among the elect, but they did know that if he (jailer) believed he would be saved. We aren't being dishonest when we tell people the way of salvation is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But if we tell them this and then don't tell them about the Lord, then we have not given them the way to obtain eternal life in Christ. Because faith (believing) comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.

Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Eric I don't know how many times I have shown you through the Scripture that you are not properly understanding Act 16.Not even once so far.


I know, from our many discussions that you do not disagree with what I have said here. To continue to try to use this passage of Scripture to prove your doctrine, is neither wise nor noble.Sure it is. Your answer to the question "what must I do to be saved" would be "Nothing". That is what you believe, that no one can do anything to be saved and God does it all.


So I hope that with this passage, at least, you will stop trying to use it to promote your doctrine of free will.Sorry, that isn't going to happen. I can understand why you would want that to happen since your doctrine contradicts the passage.


Defend your doctrine through Scripture if you are able, but when you are clearly shown time and again why you are wrong,When did that happen?


and yet insist your opinion is right, then it becomes a matter of needing to be right, rather than a desire for having truth.Absolutely false. Again, I can understand why you would not want me to bring that passage up any more.

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 07:34 PM
Beloved Disciple,

What a beautiful witness to the Sovereignty of God! This is what I mean when I say it is all about God, and not about man! We are the benefactors of His bountiful grace, but He alone is the giver of life. Without Him we can do nothing! A wonderful testimony! Praise God!

Many Blessings,
RWPraise God that He doesn't give most people any chance to be saved! Right, Roger?

The mistake you and others make is in thinking that God calls many who have no ability to answer the call. That is preposterous. You make God out to look like a fool for calling people for no reason. Your understanding of "many are called, but few are chosen" is completely flawed. God would not call anyone who was not able to respond to the call.

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 20th 2008, 08:09 PM
Praise God that He doesn't give most people any chance to be saved! Right, Roger?

The mistake you and others make is in thinking that God calls many who have no ability to answer the call. That is preposterous. You make God out to look like a fool for calling people for no reason. Your understanding of "many are called, but few are chosen" is completely flawed. God would not call anyone who was not able to respond to the call.
---------------------------------------------------------

John146......

I hope your not calling what I expeienced almost 15 years ago preposterous... I say this gently.. I hope your not.. Cause if You are implying that...then you are calling His testimony .. His testimony of how He saved me......... a lie.. ...and that my dear friend .. you will have to take up with HIM.... and I know its not a lie...for I know whom I have believed in and trusted and I 'know' that the ONLY TRUE Living God is Jesus the Christ.. God manifest in the flesh.. and it was 'HIM" who reached down from Heaven and found His Lost Sheep that day... Him and ONLY HIM>> No other man could of done what He did.

And they overcame Him by the Blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony......

May God Bless you JOHN146

John146
Nov 20th 2008, 08:16 PM
---------------------------------------------------------

John146......

I hope your not calling what I expeienced almost 15 years ago preposterous... I say this gently.. I hope your not.. Cause if You are implying that...then you are calling His testimony .. His testimony of how He saved me......... a lie.. ...and that my dear friend .. you will have to take up with HIM.... and I know its not a lie...for I know whom I have believed in and trusted and I 'know' that the ONLY TRUE Living God is Jesus the Christ.. God manifest in the flesh.. and it was 'HIM" who reached down from Heaven and found His Lost Sheep that day... Him and ONLY HIM>> No other man could of done what He did.

And they overcame Him by the Blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony......

May God Bless you JOHN146Where did you come up with the idea that I would find your experience to be preposterous? I did not say anything at all to suggest that I would think that your experience is preposterous. Please read my post again. What I was referring to was the idea that God would call a person who supposedly has no ability to repent and believe to salvation. Why would He do that? That is what the parable of Matthew 22:1-14 is about. God calling all people to salvation but only few being chosen because only few answer the call with repentance and faith in Christ. The rest willfully rejected the call.

BroRog
Nov 20th 2008, 09:18 PM
I knew that. My wording was perhaps not that well chosen. But I think that principle of the argument is still sound - it would be very strange indeed to argue, on the one hand, that salvation is not limited to the Jew but extends to the Gentile as well, and on the other hand also believe that there are indeed "class" distinction that put some people "on the outside" with respect to salvation.

The important point is one's being sorted into arbitrary classes by external agency. So if God is not in the business of "selecting Jews not Gentiles", why would He be in the business of sorting by some other seeminlgy arbitrary criteria?

We tend to analogize our relationship to God as if God were like us in every way. But he isn't. In these discussions we tend to weigh the idea of free will against unconditional election as if God were, as you say, sorting people out. That's what we would do. We would find some desirable criteria by which to sort people out, and "elect" the ones that fit the criteria. According to human activity, that's how WE choose or elect someone.

And it these discussions it's easy to get lost in the question, "did we choose God or did he choose us?" Again, the question is only relevant if God is "choosing" the way a human would "choose." But in reality, according to Paul, God isn't actually "choosing" the elect the way we think of choice.

Human choice is a function of judgment. We will judge the merits of one person over the other, one flavor over another, one color of dress over another, etc. We identify the various options and choose according to our preference, likes, hopes, aspirations, or whether one choice better fits the desired criteria.

God's election isn't a matter of judgment, according to Paul. It's a matter of creation. God isn't so much choosing between two people. Rather, he creates the people he wants to see. He wills them into existence.

In Romans 9, Paul defends God's right to create whatever he wants to create. If God were merely choosing one person over another, he would be unjust. But since God's "choosing" isn't a matter of judgment but a matter of his creative expression, he is not unjust to create whatever he wants to create.

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

We understand that Paul's answer finds its basis in the right of creation, since he makes analogy with a potter. The potter has a right over the clay. And for this reason, he has the right to create any kind of pot he desires.

Some people read Paul wrong here. When he asks, "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" some people tend to think Paul is actually saying, "how dare you answer back to God you impudent fool!!" But that is not how he means it.

Instead of chastising his readers for asking the question, he is actually asking his readers to consider who they are. Who are you? What are you? The proper answer is, "I'm a creature. I was made. Someone constructed me." If I first acknowledge that I am a created thing, then I am ready to agree with Paul that, "the thing molded will not say to the potter, why did you make me like this?" The obvious answer is I made you that way because I wanted to.

If the potter needs a vase, he makes a vase. If the vase asks the potter, why did you make me into a vase, the answer is I wanted a vase. If the potter makes a toilet, the toilet might ask, "why did you make me into a toilet?" But the potter will simply say, "I needed a toilet." Doesn't the potter have the right to make toilets?

So then, we call it "unconditional election", not because God makes an arbitrary judgment call between two people or two groups of people. He isn't making a judgment at all. Rather, "election" is an act of creation, not judgment.

When we read,

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls . . .

it may sound as if God is choosing between Jacob and Esau, but according to Paul's explanation, God wanted a Jacob so he made one. And God wanted an Esau so he made one. And the reason why God created both a Jacob and Esau was so that HIS purpose would stand. His "choice" wasn't an matter of assessment or drawing a conclusion; it was a creative act.

Yukerboy
Nov 21st 2008, 07:37 AM
The above post couldn't have explained it any better.

We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. When God knew He would create you, He knew he would create you saved or doomed. Not because of works you would do, but because He Himself chose it.

This is why I refer to OSAS as just AS.

Yuke

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 03:09 PM
Greetings Legoman,

If you look at the context I think you'll agree with BroRog's assessment. I'm not sure if there was this thinking that we don't need to pray for those in authority, but Paul makes it clear that supplication, prayer, and intercession, and giving thanks be made for all men. That would include kings, and all who are in authrority. Why? Because it is the will of God that they too might be saved and come unto the knowledge of truth. Not that all of them will be saved, but that salvation is unto all "kinds" of people including them.

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Many Blessings,
RW

I have no doubt that verse 2 is talking about kings, politicians, etc. And I have no doubt that we should pray for them, and everyone else too (all men in verse 1).

But to suggest that verse 4 should read as follows seems silly:

"Who will have all Kings and those in authority be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth".

And I don't see where it says "all kinds".

JMHO,
Legoman

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 03:12 PM
The above post couldn't have explained it any better.

We were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. When God knew He would create you, He knew he would create you saved or doomed. Not because of works you would do, but because He Himself chose it.

This is why I refer to OSAS as just AS.

YukeThis would mean that He chose most people to be condemned for eternity in the lake of fire before the foundation of the world. Do you have any explanation for why that would be the case? Keep in mind that the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels and not for people (Matt 25:41).

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 03:42 PM
This would mean that He chose most people to be condemned for eternity in the lake of fire before the foundation of the world. Do you have any explanation for why that would be the case? Keep in mind that the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels and not for people (Matt 25:41).

Hi Eric,

I always wonder why you say "the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels" and not for people?

The word "originally" is not in there.

Matt 25:41 (KJV) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

From this we know this fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, but it doesn't restrict that fire to only one purpose or one set of inhabitants.

Thoughts?

Legoman

drew
Nov 21st 2008, 04:26 PM
In Romans 9, Paul defends God's right to create whatever he wants to create. If God were merely choosing one person over another, he would be unjust. But since God's "choosing" isn't a matter of judgment but a matter of his creative expression, he is not unjust to create whatever he wants to create.

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

We understand that Paul's answer finds its basis in the right of creation, since he makes analogy with a potter. The potter has a right over the clay. And for this reason, he has the right to create any kind of pot he desires.
The problem is that this text from Romans 9 and the potter analogy are about something other than the question of personal election. The examples that lead up to the potter analogy have been appropriated to make a point Paul never intended. The Esau / Jacob story is indeed a point about God's right to exercise choice, but it is not in respect to the matter of pre-destination. Paul tells us what the choice is - it is the choice that the nation that springs from Esau will be in a subservient relationship to the nation that springs from Jacob. The reference to Genesis 25 seals the deal on this.

To co-opt this as evidence to support the doctrine of individual pre-destination is to read something into the text. Paul is indeed "heading toward" a discussion of "ultimate destiny", but he is not there yet at the point of the Esau / Jacob account. Pauls' point about Jacob and Esau is what he says it is - that God has made a choice that one will serve the other. The issue of the ultimate destinies of people is nowhere in sight.

Same thing with Moses and Pharaoh. Paul effectively tells us what Pharaoh was hardened unto, and it is not a final destination for Pharaoh as an individual. The choice at issue here is God's choice to harden Pharaoh to resist the exodus, so that God can then demonstrate His power to the world through the delivery of the Hebrews from Egypt. God's glory is hardly demonstrated to the world by pre-destining one man to eternal loss - the "world" will not have any knowledge of where Pharaoh ends up at all. But the world will certainly notice the parting of the Red Sea.

And while the potter analogy arguably marks the point at which Paul's argument starts to veer toward issues of ulitimate destinies, one thing is clear: the vessels of destruction are not the set of people who are pre-destined to ultimate loss. The vessels are non-believing Jews who, like Pharaoh, have been hardened so that the world can be saved.

The evidence for this is voluminuos and one could write pages on it. If asked to make this case in detail, I will be happy to oblige.

But we need to let Paul set the terms of his own argument. And when he talks about choice in relation to Esau / Jacob and Moses / Pharaoh, he is talking about God's work in this present world, not about the eternal fates of human beings.

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 05:46 PM
Hi Eric,

I always wonder why you say "the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels" and not for people?

The word "originally" is not in there.

Matt 25:41 (KJV) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

From this we know this fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, but it doesn't restrict that fire to only one purpose or one set of inhabitants.

Thoughts?

Legoman

Hi Legoman,

Exactly! You get a better picture of this when you interpret the word "angels" as messengers as it should have been. Satan has his messengers just as God has His angelic hosts. To prove the lake of fire is for all who remain in unbelief, whether it be satan, his demonic spirits, or his human messengers we need only turn to the Judgment.

Re 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

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

Clearly the lake of fire was not "originally" created only for the devil and his demonic hosts.

Many blessings,
RW

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 06:51 PM
Hi Eric,

I always wonder why you say "the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels" and not for people?

The word "originally" is not in there.

Matt 25:41 (KJV) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

From this we know this fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, but it doesn't restrict that fire to only one purpose or one set of inhabitants.

Thoughts?

LegomanWell, if the "everlasting fire" was also prepared for mankind, that means God wanted some of mankind to end up there.

This means that God created some of mankind for the sole purpose of being tormented eternaly.

If this is true, those who are created to end up there, are actualy doing God's will by doing that which causes one to end up there.

This means that they are not sent to "everlasting fire" for sin, but because they did the will of God.
This is all nonsense!

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 07:29 PM
Well, if the "everlasting fire" was also prepared for mankind, that means God wanted some of mankind to end up there.

This means that God created some of mankind for the sole purpose of being tormented eternaly.

If this is true, those who are created to end up there, are actualy doing God's will by doing that which causes one to end up there.

This means that they are not sent to "everlasting fire" for sin, but because they did the will of God.
This is all nonsense!

The passage tells us who these messengers of satan are. Christ is speaking to "people" who are under the influence of the devil. Christ says to these people (devils messengers) "these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mt 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mt 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mt 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

How do you reconcile the fact that God created the everlasting fire for humans with your doctrine? Did he create them for the sole purpose of being eternally tormented? Is it true that those who go there are going there because it is the will of God?

Didn't God create man "very good"? Did God force His very good creation to disobey?

Blessings,
RW

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 07:29 PM
Hi Eric,

I always wonder why you say "the lake of fire was prepared originally for the devil and his angels" and not for people?

The word "originally" is not in there.

Matt 25:41 (KJV) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

From this we know this fire has been prepared for the devil and his angels, but it doesn't restrict that fire to only one purpose or one set of inhabitants.

Thoughts?

LegomanI say that because it only says that it was prepared for the devil and his angels and makes no mention of it being prepared for people. Pretty simple.

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 07:39 PM
The passage tells us who these messengers of satan are. Christ is speaking to "people" who are under the influence of the devil. Christ says to these people (devils messengers) "these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mt 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mt 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mt 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mt 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

How do you reconcile the fact that God created the everlasting fire for humans with your doctrine?My theology/doctrine knows that God did not create the everlasting fire for humans.
However, man goes there by his own fault because he rejected the grace of God and refused to repent by faith.
It is man;s fault for going there, not God's as you imply.



Did he create them for the sole purpose of being eternally tormented?No!
Is it true that those who go there are going there because it is the will of God? No!



Didn't God create man "very good"? Did God force His very good creation to disobey?According to Calvinism/Reformed Theology, which sais that God causes all things and makes all things happen, because all is ordained from eternity to happen; Yes, god did cause creation to disobey by his sovrenity.

But, that is not true.

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 07:50 PM
My theology/doctrine knows that God did not create the everlasting fire for humans.
However, man goes there by his own fault because he rejected the grace of God and refused to repent by faith.
It is man;s fault for going there, not God's as you imply.


But the problem with this theology is it admits that something happened God was not aware of. God had to change his plan. Hm, I can just imagine God thinking "Dag nab those pesky humans. Sinning all over the place. What will I do with them? Oh oh! Oh I know, I'll throw them in the lake of fire that I meant for Satan and his angels. I'm so good at coming up with plan B!"

Unfortunately that is unscriptural. God does not change. His plan does not change. He knew everything that would ever happen before he even created the creation. You are admiting God is not omniscient and not sovereign.



According to Calvinism/Reformed Theology, which sais that God causes all things and makes all things happen, because all is ordained from eternity to happen; Yes, god did cause creation to disobey by his sovrenity.

But, that is not true.Ah but it is. God subjected the creation to vanity:

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Verse 22 says the whole creation is groaning in pain. Why? Because God put them in that position subjecting them to their own vanity. But he has given them all hope, that they will be delivered from that bondage.

God really is running the show how he wants.

Legoman

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 08:03 PM
Hi Legoman,

Exactly! You get a better picture of this when you interpret the word "angels" as messengers as it should have been. Satan has his messengers just as God has His angelic hosts. To prove the lake of fire is for all who remain in unbelief, whether it be satan, his demonic spirits, or his human messengers we need only turn to the Judgment.

Re 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

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

Clearly the lake of fire was not "originally" created only for the devil and his demonic hosts.

Many blessings,
RWOh, this is rich! In the discussion we had regarding the phrase "faith of Christ" in verses like Galatians 2:16 you tried to criticize me for referring to other translations besides the KJV. But look at this. You don't accept the KJV's translation of "aggelos" (Strong's G32) as "angels". That's rather hypocritical of you.

The same word is used here:

Rev 12
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels (aggelos) fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels (aggelos),
8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels (aggelos) were cast out with him.

You wouldn't try to say that the word "aggelos" refers at all to human messengers here, would you? Just as in Matthew 25:41, this refers to Satan and "his angels" and clearly "his angels" refer to the fallen angels that he rules over. Once again you have conveniently twisted scripture to support your doctrine.

The lake of fire was indeed originally prepared for the devil and his angels because they, of their own free will, chose to reject God and rebel against Him. So, He prepared a place of punishment for them. When man, too, willingly chose to reject God, He decided that unrepentant people would be cast there as well.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 08:10 PM
But the problem with this theology is it admits that something happened God was not aware of. God had to change his plan. Hm, I can just imagine God thinking "Dag nab those pesky humans. Sinning all over the place. What will I do with them? Oh oh! Oh I know, I'll throw them in the lake of fire that I meant for Satan and his angels. I'm so good at coming up with plan B!"

Unfortunately that is unscriptural. God does not change. His plan does not change. He knew everything that would ever happen before he even created the creation. You are admiting God is not omniscient and not sovereign.How do you interpret these scriptures:

Jonah 3
8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Matthew 23
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


Ah but it is. God subjected the creation to vanity:

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Verse 22 says the whole creation is groaning in pain. Why? Because God put them in that position subjecting them to their own vanity. But he has given them all hope, that they will be delivered from that bondage.When you say "he has given them all hope" you mean just those who He chose and not those who He chose not to give any chance to be saved, right? Just wanted to clarify.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 08:17 PM
Didn't God create man "very good"? Did God force His very good creation to disobey? Of course He didn't. So what does that mean? What else can it mean except that man disobeyed by his own free will choice? This should be obvious! Instead, you must believe that God intended for man to rebel against Him since you believe that God does not offer most of them any chance to be reconciled to Him and to be saved.

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 08:18 PM
Oh, this is rich! In the discussion we had regarding the phrase "faith of Christ" in verses like Galatians 2:16 you tried to criticize me for referring to other translations besides the KJV. But look at this. You don't accept the KJV's translation of "aggelos" (Strong's G32) as "angels". That's rather hypocritical of you.

The same word is used here:

Rev 12
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels (aggelos) fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels (aggelos),
8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels (aggelos) were cast out with him.

You wouldn't try to say that the word "aggelos" refers at all to human messengers here, would you? Just as in Matthew 25:41, this refers to Satan and "his angels" and clearly "his angels" refer to the fallen angels that he rules over. Once again you have conveniently twisted scripture to support your doctrine.

The lake of fire was indeed originally prepared for the devil and his angels because they, of their own free will, chose to reject God. So, He prepared a place of punishment for them. When man, too, willingly chose to reject God, He decided that unrepentant people would be cast there as well.

aggelos - from aggello (probably derived from 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

God has both spirit messengers and angel messengers, but angels do not belong to Satan. Although I love the KJV and believe it is the most faithful translation of Scripture, I have never said the translators of any translation were perfect. Truth is that since the translators randomly chose to translate both "angel" and "messenger" from the same Greek word, context must be considered when trying to show whether this is a human messenger, as with John the Baptist, or and angelic messenger.

The context of Mt 25 as I have shown clearly shows us these are NOT demonic spirits, but are humans. That professed to be messengers of God, but their lack of love showed them to be messengers of satan.

In Rev 12 you should read the passage as "Michael and His messengers" and "the dragon and his messengers". That way you don't become confused in thinking that satan is an angel of God, or that his messengers are angels of God. That is one of the most tortured doctrines in the Bible.

Your argument is with the plain language of the Word of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 08:24 PM
aggelos - from aggello (probably derived from 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

God has both spirit messengers and angel messengers, but angels do not belong to Satan. Although I love the KJV and believe it is the most faithful translation of Scripture, I have never said the translators of any translation were perfect. Truth is that since the translators randomly chose to translate both "angel" and "messenger" from the same Greek word, context must be considered when trying to show whether this is a human messenger, as with John the Baptist, or and angelic messenger.

The context of Mt 25 as I have shown clearly shows us these are NOT demonic spirits, but are humans.You showed what clearly? The only thing you have clearly shown is that you will go to any length to twist scripture and take it out of context.


That professed to be messengers of God, but their lack of love showed them to be messengers of satan.

In Rev 12 you should read the passage as "Michael and His messengers" and "the dragon and his messengers". That way you don't become confused in thinking that satan is an angel of God, or that his messengers are angels of God. That is one of the most tortured doctrines in the Bible. Do you think Rev 12 is including human messengers as you do with Matthew 25:41? It speaks of a war in heaven. Clearly, it's not including human messengers. We should let scripture interpret scripture for us. Rev 12:7-9 mentions Satan and his angels and it clearly refers only to angels and not humans. We should read Matthew 25:41 the same way for consistency.


Your argument is with the plain language of the Word of God. No, my argument is with your habit of twisting the plain language of the Word of God.

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 08:39 PM
How do you interpret these scriptures:

Jonah 3
8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Matthew 23
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


I have given you an answer on these verses before, but you just don't believe the scriptures. Fair enough it is your perogative.

My answer would be God has planned all these events, including giving warnings, and including what the responses would be. Otherwise Isaiah 46:10-11 is not true. I hold the view that God actually did plan everything that was going to happen and is bringing it to pass, just as Isaiah 46:11 says. Many verses including Eph 1:11 and 1 Cor 12:6 is consistent with this belief. Don't forget Jer 10:23 and the proverbs/psalms describing a man's steps.



When you say "he has given them all hope" you mean just those who He chose and not those who He chose not to give any chance to be saved, right? Just wanted to clarify.
No, I believe what the verse says. Its everyone:

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

It says "who hath subjected the same in hope", referring to all the creatures of his creation (including all of us - everyone). Verse 21 clarifies further: "the creature" (that's us) shall be delivered from bondage etc.

Legoman

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 09:05 PM
My theology/doctrine knows that God did not create the everlasting fire for humans.
However, man goes there by his own fault because he rejected the grace of God and refused to repent by faith.
It is man;s fault for going there, not God's as you implyBut the problem with this theology is it admits that something happened God was not aware of.No, God was aware of Man's sining, but God did not intend for man to sin.
God had better plans for man, but He knew otherwise.


God had to change his plan.God has Plan A, B, and you could say that HE has plan C.
In this verse, I will show you what I mean:
Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
:31 Therefore have I poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, says the Lord GOD.
If we don't pray, God does have plan B, which is what He does if He does not find a man to to pray.

Plan A was to find a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap before Him.
Plan B Is to pour out indignation upon as judgment.

Just as Moses prayed, And God kept Plan A (Exodus 32:14)

One could say that as one chooses to sin, God must turn to Plan B to work around your sin; because sin is never God's plan.

Here is another scenario:
Plan A: Nobody Ever Sin

Plan B: Those who sin can repent and be forgiven through Jesus

Plan C: Those who refuse to repent and are not forgiven through Jesus & go to hell.


Hm, I can just imagine God thinking "Dag nab those pesky humans. Sinning all over the place. What will I do with them? Oh oh! Oh I know, I'll throw them in the lake of fire that I meant for Satan and his angels. I'm so good at coming up with plan B!"More like:
God: My plan is for mankind to not sin, but they did.
Therefore, my Plan to send my Son to reconcile them back to me is my will and intent; My will and intent is for them to comply with my plan.

They who, by their own willfull, volitional choice to reject this will suffer the consequnces, which was not my intention.


God does not change. His plan does not change. He knew everything that would ever happen before he even created the creation. I agree that God knew everything, nut, just because He knew it, does not make it His intention.


You are admiting God is not omniscient and not sovereign.No, if you understand, you will agree that I am not admiting God is not omniscient.
The correct definition of sovereign is that God is the ultimate authority of all.
And
All is accountable to Him.

Your definition of sovereign is that God is the ultimate cause of everything and controler of evrything.



According to Calvinism/Reformed Theology, which says that God causes all things and makes all things happen, because all is ordained from eternity to happen; Yes, god did cause creation to disobey by his sovereignty.

But, that is not true.Ah but it is. God subjected the creation to vanity:God subjected the creation to vanity before Adam sinned.


Verse 22 says the whole creation is groaning in pain. Why? Because God put them in that position subjecting them to their own vanity.Not their "own vanity", but to "transientness" or "not eternal"
Adam and Eve, if they never sinned, would have died a natural death if he never have eaten from the Tree of Life.
This is because flesh was never created to be eternal.

WE all die because the way to the Tree of Life is cut off so that we who know good and evil lest we put forth our hand, and have take also of the tree of life to eat and lived for ever(Gen 3:22)

Understand that which is made "with hands" is temporal, that which is "made without hands" is eternal.
Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple (His body) that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
2Corinth 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Now, if Jesus had a Body wich is temporal (made with hands) as HE never sinned and not "totaly depraved", their is no reason to think that our body is temporal because of our sinfulness.


But he has given them all hope, that they will be delivered from that bondage.That "bondage was not because of Adam's sin, but because of HIM who has subjected it in hope(Romans 8:20)

God really is running the show how he wants.Yah, but we mess it up.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 09:11 PM
I have given you an answer on these verses before, but you just don't believe the scriptures. Fair enough it is your perogative.

My answer would be God has planned all these events, including giving warnings, and including what the responses would be. Otherwise Isaiah 46:10-11 is not true. I hold the view that God actually did plan everything that was going to happen and is bringing it to pass, just as Isaiah 46:11 says. Many verses including Eph 1:11 and 1 Cor 12:6 is consistent with this belief. Don't forget Jer 10:23 and the proverbs/psalms describing a man's steps.That isn't an answer to those verses. That is avoidance of those verses. In Matthew 23:37-38, Jesus clearly said what He would have done for them and the reason that He did not do it is because they were not willing. Yet, you are trying to say that He didn't do it because God was not willing. You aren't accepting that passage for what it says. You have an understanding of the verses you mentioned without taking the counsel of scripture as a whole into account. You are not reading those verses in context and you are not reading them while also taking passages like Jonah 3:8-10 and Matthew 23:37-38 into account.

This leads you to a an utterly astounding belief that God even plans it when people are raped, murdered and tortured. Unbelievable. This leads you to believe that God commands people to do things that He doesn't give them the ability to do. I say that because you believe even their disobedience is His doing. He tells all people everywhere to repent and you say when people don't repent it's because God made it so that they wouldn't. This makes Him out to look foolish. It's complete nonsense.



No, I believe what the verse says. Its everyone:

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

It says "who hath subjected the same in hope", referring to all the creatures of his creation (including all of us - everyone). Verse 21 clarifies further: "the creature" (that's us) shall be delivered from bondage etc.

LegomanSo, do you then believe that all people have hope to be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" and that all people have the hope of the redemption of their bodies?

Yukerboy
Nov 21st 2008, 09:22 PM
This would mean that He chose most people to be condemned for eternity in the lake of fire before the foundation of the world. Do you have any explanation for why that would be the case?

By default.

All men are to be condemned to the lake of fire, (for the wages of sin is death; all have sinned and come short of the glory of God) but God, by His grace, chose the elect from all who were condemned (for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.; You did not choose me, but I chose you) and God, in choosing them, does not save all, (as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.; those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened)

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 09:25 PM
You showed what clearly? The only thing you have clearly shown is that you will go to any length to twist scripture and take it out of context.

Do you think Rev 12 is including human messengers as you do with Matthew 25:41? It speaks of a war in heaven. Clearly, it's not including human messengers. We should let scripture interpret scripture for us. Rev 12:7-9 mentions Satan and his angels and it clearly refers only to angels and not humans. We should read Matthew 25:41 the same way for consistency.

Eric, the context must determine whether the passage is referring to spirit beings; i.e. angels, or human beings or demonic messengers of satan. Make no mistake the devil has messengers, however angels are God's spirit messengers, so the messengers that belong to the devil are NOT angels, they are demons and evil spirits, and antichrists, to name a few.

Look at this verse that speaks of the messenger of Satan given to literally beat Paul. Aggelos is translated angel, messenger, and pastor.

2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Lets look at the root word that aggelos is derived from.

71 ago a primary verb; properly, to lead; by implication, to bring, drive, (reflexively) go, (specially) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce:--be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep, lead away, be open.

The way to interpret Mt 25:41 is "prepared for the devil and his messengers" not angels. Very clearly the devil and his messengers are those who showed no love or compassion for the least of these. These are under the power of the devil, being lead away, or induced to evil. The everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his messengers, and those who lack compassion and love for the least of these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

You want to pretend that this everlasting punishment for humans is not the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his messengers, but I have shown through the Scripture that humans will be cast into the lake of fire.

Just as God has both spirit messengers and human messengers, so too does the dragon, devil, satan. This passage tells us the Michael and his angelic spirit messengers fought against the dragon and his demonic spirit messengers.

Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [spiritual messengers] fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels [demonic messengers],
Re 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 09:26 PM
By default.

All men are to be condemned to the lake of fire, (for the wages of sin is death; all have sinned and come short of the glory of God) but God, by His grace, chose the elect from all who were condemned (for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.; You did not choose me, but I chose you) and God, in choosing them, does not save all, (as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.; those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened)This didn't answer my question. Obviously, all people are sinners and if God chose to send us all to the lake of fire, He could justifiably do so. However, since He chose not do so, what reason would He have for choosing some to salvation without giving them the responsibility to choose while leaving the rest in their sins with no chance to be saved? This contradicts His character because scripture teaches that He is impartial.

Also, when Jesus said "You did not choose me, but I chose you" you have to understand the context. He was speaking specifically to His disciples. They were chosen for a special purpose of being His closest disciples. And, remember, He also chose Judas Iscariot, who was lost. So, when He said that it didn't have anything to do with choosing them to be saved while they had no choice in the matter. If it had to do with Him choosing them to be saved then how does that explain Judas Iscariot not being saved?

Scripture says that people are condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18). Why would people be condemned for
not doing something that they supposedly had no ability to do? That would be like people being condemned for not being able to lift a mountain.

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 09:27 PM
My theology/doctrine knows that God did not create the everlasting fire for humans.
However, man goes there by his own fault because he rejected the grace of God and refused to repent by faith.
It is man;s fault for going there, not God's as you imply.

Yes it is man's fault that he goes into the everlasting fire. Every man would go there unless God changes his heart and makes him willing to come to Christ for life.

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 09:32 PM
That isn't an answer to those verses. That is avoidance of those verses. In Matthew 23:37-38, Jesus clearly said what He would have done for them and the reason that He did not do it is because they were not willing. Yet, you are trying to say that He didn't do it because God was not willing. You aren't accepting that passage for what it says. You have an understanding of the verses you mentioned without taking the counsel of scripture as a whole into account. You are not reading those verses in context and you are not reading them while also taking passages like Jonah 3:8-19 and Matthew 23:37-38 into account.

This leads you to a an utterly astounding belief that God even plans it when people are raped, murdered and tortured. Unbelievable. This leads you to believe that God commands people to do things that He doesn't give them the ability to do. I say that because you believe even their disobedience is His doing. He tells all people everywhere to repent and you say when people don't repent it's because God made it so that they wouldn't. This makes Him out to look foolish. It's complete nonsense.


Yes, I expected this would be your answer. The many times we have had this discussion, you have never told me how these scriptures I am about to post fit into the doctrine of free will. It is my belief they contradict free will, therefore I can either believe the scriptures or believe we have free will. I choose to believe the scriptures. Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways, and explain right now how all these scriptures below prove conclusively we have free will.

Job 14:16
For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin?

Psalm 37:23
The steps of a man are established by the LORD, And He delights in his way.

Proverbs 16:9
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Proverbs 20:24
A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Proverbs 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.

Jer 10:23 and Prov 20:24 is particularly revealing. If you don't realize God is directing your steps, you will never understand what our purpose is here.

God has determined when we will die (by implication, he has also determined how we will die):

Job 14:5
Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

But not only that, God has also determined how many days we must wait until we are made alive again at the resurrection:

Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.


God is directing it all for his good purposes:

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please. 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.

1 Cor 12:6
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:



All of these verses are completely consistent with each other. They all show God is operating everything according to his plan. By definition, that includes evil. But it is all for a good purpose.

These verses all completely contradict free will. Please explain to me how free will can exist and these scriptures still be true?

Cheers,
Legoman

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 09:34 PM
Eric, the context must determine whether the passage is referring to spirit beings; i.e. angels, or human beings or demonic messengers of satan. Make no mistake the devil has messengers, however angels are God's spirit messengers, so the messengers that belong to the devil are NOT angels, they are demons and evil spirits, and antichrists, to name a few. Are demons and evil spirits not fallen angels? Obviously, I was referring to fallen angels and not God's angels. Yes, Satan rules over the other fallen angels. He is their leader.


Look at this verse that speaks of the messenger of Satan given to literally beat Paul. Aggelos is translated angel, messenger, and pastor.

2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Lets look at the root word that aggelos is derived from.

71 ago a primary verb; properly, to lead; by implication, to bring, drive, (reflexively) go, (specially) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce:--be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep, lead away, be open.

The way to interpret Mt 25:41 is "prepared for the devil and his messengers" not angels. Very clearly the devil and his messengers are those who showed no love or compassion for the least of these. These are under the power of the devil, being lead away, or induced to evil. The everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his messengers, and those who lack compassion and love for the least of these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.

Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

You want to pretend that this everlasting punishment for humans is not the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his messengers, but I have shown through the Scripture that humans will be cast into the lake of fire.You are completely ignoring everything I'm saying. When did I say that humans will not be cast into the lake of fire? Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:15 make it clear that they will be. You are debating something that I'm not even trying to debate. My point is to say that God did not originally intend for man to be in the lake of fire but man will be there as a result of willfully rejecting Him.


Just as God has both spirit messengers and human messengers, so too does the dragon, devil, satan. This passage tells us the Michael and his angelic spirit messengers fought against the dragon and his demonic spirit messengers.

Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels [spiritual messengers] fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels [demonic messengers],
Re 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.In Revelation 12, human messengers are not included in the war in heaven. Is that what you're trying to say? It's clearly only evil spirits, demons, fallen angels, whatever you want to call them! Human messengers would not be cast down from heaven, obviously. And that is how Matthew 25:41 should be understood as well. It says the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. Not human messengers. Fallen angels. The lake of fire was originally intended for the devil and his angels but once man turned from God and rejected Him God made it so that the lake of fire would be the eternal destiny of unrepentant people as well.

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 09:40 PM
Yes, I expected this would be your answer. The many times we have had this discussion, you have never told me how these scriptures I am about to post fit into the doctrine of free will. It is my belief they contradict free will, therefore I can either believe the scriptures or believe we have free will. I choose to believe the scriptures. Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways, and explain right now how all these scriptures below prove conclusively we have free will.

Job 14:16
For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin?

Psalm 37:23
The steps of a man are established by the LORD, And He delights in his way.

Proverbs 16:9
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Proverbs 20:24
A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Proverbs 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.

Jer 10:23 and Prov 20:24 is particularly revealing. If you don't realize God is directing your steps, you will never understand what our purpose is here.

God has determined when we will die (by implication, he has also determined how we will die):

Job 14:5
Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

But not only that, God has also determined how many days we must wait until we are made alive again at the resurrection:

Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.


God is directing it all for his good purposes:

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please. 11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.

1 Cor 12:6
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:



All of these verses are completely consistent with each other. They all show God is operating everything according to his plan. By definition, that includes evil. But it is all for a good purpose.

These verses all completely contradict free will. Please explain to me how free will can exist and these scriptures still be true?

Cheers,
LegomanActually, I have commented on several of those before. Just shows how much effort you put into considering what others have to say (none). Why should I respond to every single verse you listed when you didn't bother giving me your interpretation of two passages that I quoted?

John146
Nov 21st 2008, 09:43 PM
Yes it is man's fault that he goes into the everlasting fire. Every man would go there unless God changes his heart and makes him willing to come to Christ for life.Since man is condemned for not believing in Christ (John 3:18), whose fault is it for people not believing in Christ? According to your doctrine, it is God's fault because He does not give them the ability to believe in Christ. But if man is given a truly free choice between two options with and given the capability of choosing one or the other then it becomes man's fault for not believing.

Yukerboy
Nov 21st 2008, 10:09 PM
"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

If it was left up to man's choice, no one would be saved. (See Total Depravity).

legoman
Nov 21st 2008, 10:28 PM
Actually, I have commented on several of those before. Just shows how much effort you put into considering what others have to say (none).


Um, sure. If you feel to the need to attack my character and not the argument, then so be it.


Why should I respond to every single verse you listed when you didn't bother giving me your interpretation of two passages that I quoted?

Eric please help me out here. I am being sincere here. I know you have responded on a couple of them. From what I remember, you believe Eph 1:11 is only about Christ's church (even though it says all things), and you believe Isaiah 46:10 is only about Israel (even though it says God brings all things to pass). I don't agree with your interpretations as I believe the other verses support reading them as they stand. ie. God directs all because he has declared it all.

What about the other verses? You must have a reasonable explanation (at least to you) of how God is directing our steps, and yet there could still be free will. What about the fact that God has determined when we will die, and by implication how we will die? It is maybe not a pleasant thought, but it is scriptural.


From what I have seen, you seem to be familiar with the scriptures, yet you are ignoring the very scriptures that deny free will.

To make you happy, I will try to comment on the 2 verses you posted again, but I'm not sure if there is much more I can add.

Jonah 3
8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah is saying to turn from your evil ways and repent, or God will punish them. And when God saw that they had turned from their evil, God didn't punish them because they had repented. But this doesn't mean God changed his mind. God sent out Jonah to tell them what would happen if they didn't repent. God knew they would eventually repent so he wouldn't have to do what he said he would do. It was all planned by God. Like I said in my first answer, see Isaiah 46:10.


Matthew 23
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Similar thing applies here. God plans for people to be disobedient to him for a reason. So they will learn obedience. See Romans 11:32.

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 10:47 PM
Are demons and evil spirits not fallen angels? Obviously, I was referring to fallen angels and not God's angels. Yes, Satan rules over the other fallen angels. He is their leader.

No, I do not believe that Scripture teaches that satan is a fallen angel, or that he rules over fallen angels. Serpent in Scripture is often used as a reference to Satan.

Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God created the serpent, called the great dragon, the devil and satan, and made him more subtil (cunning, crafty, prudent) than any beast of the field which He made. Then God pemitted the serpent to tempt Eve. Never do we find satan, the devil, or the beast referred to as an angel, fallen or otherwise. And since this is not a discussion about Satan please don't bring in vague passages from Ezekiel, and Isaiah to prove satan is a fallen angel.

Job 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Satan is the prince of this world, and he has both spirit and human messengers, but they are not angels. Angels are God's spirit messengers, not satans.



You are completely ignoring everything I'm saying. When did I say that humans will not be cast into the lake of fire? Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:15 make it clear that they will be. You are debating something that I'm not even trying to debate. My point is to say that God did not originally intend for man to be in the lake of fire but man will be there as a result of willfully rejecting Him.

Show me Scripture that says men will be cast into the lake of fire for rejecting Christ. Rev 20 tells us they are cast into the lake of fire because their names are not found in the book of life.



In Revelation 12, human messengers are not included in the war in heaven. Is that what you're trying to say? It's clearly only evil spirits, demons, fallen angels, whatever you want to call them! Human messengers would not be cast down from heaven, obviously. And that is how Matthew 25:41 should be understood as well. It says the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. Not human messengers. Fallen angels. The lake of fire was originally intended for the devil and his angels but once man turned from God and rejected Him God made it so that the lake of fire would be the eternal destiny of unrepentant people as well.

It says the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his messengers. That includes both spirit and human messengers.

songladyjenn
Nov 21st 2008, 10:56 PM
Show me Scripture that says men will be cast into the lake of fire for rejecting Christ. Rev 20 tells us they are cast into the lake of fire because their names are not found in the book of life.

And what is the reason their names are not found in the book of life? ;)

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 10:57 PM
And what is the reason their names are not found in the book of life? ;)

They were not written there from the foundation of the world.

songladyjenn
Nov 21st 2008, 11:30 PM
Why not?????? :D

RogerW
Nov 21st 2008, 11:36 PM
Why not?????? :D

Well songladyjenn because they were not among the elect of God from the foundation of the world. The OP says it fairly well. ;)

Diolectic
Nov 21st 2008, 11:55 PM
My theology/doctrine knows that God did not create the everlasting fire for humans.
However, man goes there by his own fault because he rejected the grace of God and refused to repent by faith.
It is man;s fault for going there, not God's as you imply.Yes it is man's fault that he goes into the everlasting fire. Every man would go there unless God changes his heart and makes him willing to come to Christ for life.According to Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine, It is not mans fault for ending up in hell, for the ones who end up there were created for that purpose.
Therefore, it is only God's fault, because He did not want to save them and it was His will for them to be there.
He did not give them that which is needed, faith and repentance, all God's fault, none of man's.

According to Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine, Man can not choose God, therefore, man can not choose to sin.
One needs a alternative other than to sin to manke a choice to sin.

Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine demonizes God.
Why don't you follow the logical conclusion to your own theology?

RogerW
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:23 AM
According to Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine, It is not mans fault for ending up in hell, for the ones who end up there were created for that purpose.[/i]
Therefore, it is only God's fault, because He did not want to save them and it was His will for them to be there.
He did not give them that which is needed, faith and repentance, all God's fault, none of man's.

According to Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine, Man can not choose God, therefore, man can not choose to sin.
One needs a alternative other than to sin to manke a choice to sin.

Calvinism/reformed theology/doctrine demonizes God.
Why don't you follow the logical conclusion to your own theology?

According to the Bible all who end up in the lake of fire go there because their names are not found written in the book of life. Since their names were not written there, and it is God Who writes the names in the book of life, then I would agree they go into the lake of fire because they are not among the elect of God.

Does that make God the demon you seem to think it does? Not at all! Why? Because you are viewing God from a negative perspective. Every man is born in Adam, therefore every man born of the flesh would be condemned to the lake of fire. But, God desires to have a people for Himself. A people to serve Him and to display His glory. Therefore from the foundation of the world God elected a people for Himself, and these people He gives everlasting life. So you see if God, in His great love, and mercy did not choose some people to be saved, then no people could be saved.

You would rather dwell on the fairness of God, measuring Him according to man's opinions of what they think He ought to be. But I dwell on the rich grace of God, His great all encompassing love to save any humans, because frankly none of us deserve the awesome love that God bestows upon His elect children.

Men don't end up in the lake of fire because God did not choose them to be saved. Men end up in the lake of fire because, like their father they love their sin more than they love God. No man is good, no man would choose God, and therefore no man would be saved, except for the grace of God. You can continue to complain that God doesn't give every man a chance to be saved, but you should be thanking Him, and praising Him, and giving Him all glory and honor for saving worthless wretches like you and I. And since God makes Himself known unto His elect people through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit, you should make it a point to proclaim the good news of the Savior to everyone you meet. Because how do you or I know if the next one we share the gospel with may be one of God's elect children. The sooner His kingdom is complete, the sooner Christ will return to claim His beloved Bride.

Many Blessings,
RW

theBelovedDisciple
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:38 AM
According to the Bible all who end up in the lake of fire go there because their names are not found written in the book of life. Since their names were not written there, and it is God Who writes the names in the book of life, then I would agree they go into the lake of fire because they are not among the elect of God.

Does that make God the demon you seem to think it does? Not at all! Why? Because you are viewing God from a negative perspective. Every man is born in Adam, therefore every man born of the flesh would be condemned to the lake of fire. But, God desires to have a people for Himself. A people to serve Him and to display His glory. Therefore from the foundation of the world God elected a people for Himself, and these people He gives everlasting life. So you see if God, in His great love, and mercy did not choose some people to be saved, then no people could be saved.

You would rather dwell on the fairness of God, measuring Him according to man's opinions of what they think He ought to be. But I dwell on the rich grace of God, His great all encompassing love to save any humans, because frankly none of us deserve the awesome love that God bestows upon His elect children.

Men don't end up in the lake of fire because God did not choose them to be saved. Men end up in the lake of fire because, like their father they love their sin more than they love God. No man is good, no man would choose God, and therefore no man would be saved, except for the grace of God. You can continue to complain that God doesn't give every man a chance to be saved, but you should be thanking Him, and praising Him, and giving Him all glory and honor for saving worthless wretches like you and I. And since God makes Himself known unto His elect people through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit, you should make it a point to proclaim the good news of the Savior to everyone you meet. Because how do you or I know if the next one we share the gospel with may be one of God's elect children. The sooner His kingdom is complete, the sooner Christ will return to claim His beloved Bride.

Many Blessings,
RW
----------------------------------------------------------

Amen! Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus!

Butch5
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:17 AM
According to the Bible all who end up in the lake of fire go there because their names are not found written in the book of life. Since their names were not written there, and it is God Who writes the names in the book of life, then I would agree they go into the lake of fire because they are not among the elect of God.

Does that make God the demon you seem to think it does? Not at all! Why? Because you are viewing God from a negative perspective. Every man is born in Adam, therefore every man born of the flesh would be condemned to the lake of fire. But, God desires to have a people for Himself. A people to serve Him and to display His glory. Therefore from the foundation of the world God elected a people for Himself, and these people He gives everlasting life. So you see if God, in His great love, and mercy did not choose some people to be saved, then no people could be saved.

You would rather dwell on the fairness of God, measuring Him according to man's opinions of what they think He ought to be. But I dwell on the rich grace of God, His great all encompassing love to save any humans, because frankly none of us deserve the awesome love that God bestows upon His elect children.

Men don't end up in the lake of fire because God did not choose them to be saved. Men end up in the lake of fire because, like their father they love their sin more than they love God. No man is good, no man would choose God, and therefore no man would be saved, except for the grace of God. You can continue to complain that God doesn't give every man a chance to be saved, but you should be thanking Him, and praising Him, and giving Him all glory and honor for saving worthless wretches like you and I. And since God makes Himself known unto His elect people through the power of the Word and Holy Spirit, you should make it a point to proclaim the good news of the Savior to everyone you meet. Because how do you or I know if the next one we share the gospel with may be one of God's elect children. The sooner His kingdom is complete, the sooner Christ will return to claim His beloved Bride.

Many Blessings,
RW

Here, this is from the book of contradition.


The Westminster Confession with Shorter and Larger Catechisms

Chapter III: Of God’s Eternal Decree 3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Prov 16:33; Matt 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28). 3:2 Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions (Matt 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18; 1 Sam 23:11, 12), yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions (Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18). 3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Matt 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22, 23; Eph 1:5, 6). 3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeable designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19).

God ordained all things but He is not responsible for sin??????????????????????????? That's like saying I painted the house but I am not responsible for the house being painted.

God has foreknowledge of all things but that foreknowledge has no bearing on who He chose??????????????????????????

Notice, according to this, the book of contradiction, man is fore ordained to eternal punishment.

This is the wonderful book of the Calvinists.

Butch5
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:24 AM
By default.

All men are to be condemned to the lake of fire, (for the wages of sin is death; all have sinned and come short of the glory of God) but God, by His grace, chose the elect from all who were condemned (for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.; You did not choose me, but I chose you) and God, in choosing them, does not save all, (as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.; those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened)

You keep saying God chose, can you show me where gentiles were chosen before the foundaton of the world?

Butch5
Nov 22nd 2008, 02:27 AM
They were not written there from the foundation of the world.

Your still going on about the names, which you cannot prove were written in the book, from the foundation of the world???

Yukerboy
Nov 22nd 2008, 03:22 AM
can you show me where gentiles were chosen (When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.) before the foundaton of the world? (For he chose us (For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.)

BroRog
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:27 PM
To co-opt this as evidence to support the doctrine of individual pre-destination is to read something into the text.

Not really. First of all, we must bear in mind the fact that Jacob, his father Isaac, and his grandfather Abraham placed their hope in a promise God made to each of them, which involved an inheritance of a land, many descendants, and a blessing for them and other nations. The fact that God blessed Jacob's family line over the family line of Esau based on a predetermined plan and purpose of God, having chose to bless Jacob rather than Esau, fits right in with the doctrine of individual election. Jacob got both the blessing and the birthright, which God announced in advance, and Paul assigns to the purposes of God.

Secondly, the same God who is not embarrassed to manipulate people and orchestrate history so that things turn out well for one family line, while things turn out really bad for another, is the same God who does this on an individual level. For what is history if not the combined activity of individual people?

It amazes me how folks can accept the idea that God manipulates other people, orchestrates history and events just so a man might make a free will choice to serve him. But why is it okay for God to manipulate other people, taking away their free will, just so he can allow ME a moment of free will to make a decision? Hardly seems to make sense. Doesn't it?

Paul says that God works all things to the good of those whom he loves and has called according to his purposes. But he can hardly be allowed to cause everything to work to my good if he isn't able to thwart the free will choice of those who want to do me bad.


Paul is indeed "heading toward" a discussion of "ultimate destiny", but he is not there yet at the point of the Esau / Jacob account. Pauls' point about Jacob and Esau is what he says it is - that God has made a choice that one will serve the other. The issue of the ultimate destinies of people is nowhere in sight.


:) So then, you accept the idea that God is allowed to predestine the history of, not just one, but two family lines such that Esau's family line will serve Jacob's family line, but you are not willing to accept that God predestined two boys?

Aren't we denying the obvious again? :)


Same thing with Moses and Pharaoh. Paul effectively tells us what Pharaoh was hardened unto, and it is not a final destination for Pharaoh as an individual. The choice at issue here is God's choice to harden Pharaoh to resist the exodus, so that God can then demonstrate His power to the world through the delivery of the Hebrews from Egypt.

Let's not downplay the significance of what God did. Paul reminds us of what God said to him.

"For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."

We tend to focus on the question, "did God harden Pharaoh's heart or did Pharaoh harden his own heart", as if this was the only issue here. But God says that he raised Pharaoh up, which involves more people than just Pharaoh. We have Pharaoh's parents, who raised him. We have Pharaoh's teachers who educated him. We have the circumstances surrounding Pharaoh's rise to power, each of them being orchestrated by God just so that God might demonstrate his power.

We get the wrong impression if we think God merely reached down one day to harden the heart of a man who was just walking down the sunny street. For God to raise him up, he would have had to orchestrate every step in a long line of events to bring a particular man into a position of authority over all of Egypt. Even those who have decided that Pharaoh hardened his own heart must admit that God was able to orchestrate history to such a high degree that he was able to advance a man's political career such that he would attempt to war against the God of the universe, the final result of which caused the entire world to proclaim God's name.

Nonetheless, in order for Paul's argument to hold water, his comment about the Pharaoh is intended to prove his conclusion that God will have mercy on whom he desires and harden whom he desires. If one is going to argue that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then they attempt to undercut Paul's argument.


God's glory is hardly demonstrated to the world by pre-destining one man to eternal loss - the "world" will not have any knowledge of where Pharaoh ends up at all. But the world will certainly notice the parting of the Red Sea.

But Paul isn't arguing that point. Of course the parting of the Red Sea brings glory to God. The issue here is whether God has both the right and the ability to harden the hearts of people and whether softening the hearts of people is by his choice or theirs. The central focus of his argument is that God acts according to his own purposes.


And while the potter analogy arguably marks the point at which Paul's argument starts to veer toward issues of ulitimate destinies, one thing is clear: the vessels of destruction are not the set of people who are pre-destined to ultimate loss.


Actually, the opposite is quite clear. And since Paul has made such an audacious claim, i.e. that certain people were predestined to destruction, he feels the need to explain why this isn't unjust.

legoman
Nov 22nd 2008, 04:40 PM
It amazes me how folks can accept the idea that God manipulates other people, orchestrates history and events just so a man might make a free will choice to serve him. But why is it okay for God to manipulate other people, taking away their free will, just so he can allow ME a moment of free will to make a decision? Hardly seems to make sense. Doesn't it?

Paul says that God works all things to the good of those whom he loves and has called according to his purposes. But he can hardly be allowed to cause everything to work to my good if he isn't able to thwart the free will choice of those who want to do me bad.


Well said BroRog.

I believe it is a logical impossibility for some people to be predestined to certain events, yet other people still have free will. The reason being, those with free will would be free to mess up the events that have been predestined. Either everything is predestined and no one has free will, OR nothing is predestined and we all have free will. Since the bible makes it very clear that at least some events were predestined, logically there can be no free will anywhere. Otherwise we would thwart God's will.

It even sounds silly. Who is powerful enough to thwart God's will? No one.



We tend to focus on the question, "did God harden Pharaoh's heart or did Pharaoh harden his own heart", as if this was the only issue here. But God says that he raised Pharaoh up, which involves more people than just Pharaoh. We have Pharaoh's parents, who raised him. We have Pharaoh's teachers who educated him. We have the circumstances surrounding Pharaoh's rise to power, each of them being orchestrated by God just so that God might demonstrate his power.

We get the wrong impression if we think God merely reached down one day to harden the heart of a man who was just walking down the sunny street. For God to raise him up, he would have had to orchestrate every step in a long line of events to bring a particular man into a position of authority over all of Egypt. Even those who have decided that Pharaoh hardened his own heart must admit that God was able to orchestrate history to such a high degree that he was able to advance a man's political career such that he would attempt to war against the God of the universe, the final result of which caused the entire world to proclaim God's name.

Exactly.

God doesn't just predestine one history changing event (ie. Pharaoh becoming a great leader and hardening his heart). By implication, he also predestines all of the sub-events that lead up to that event. And likewise, any other outside event that could impact one of "sub-events" leading to the main event - they too all must be predestined. And so on, and so on, and so on, ...

If you follow it through to its logical conclusion, you will realize that every single event of every moment of time that every human experiences has been predestined.

And the bible supports it.

If you believe the scriptures and use rational logical thinking, there can be no denying this. This is the truth, you may not believe it, but it cannot be any other way.

The next step is to realize what this does to our preconceived ideas about God's love, good and evil, and our very salvation.

Legoman

Diolectic
Nov 22nd 2008, 05:57 PM
Not really. First of all, we must bear in mind the fact that Jacob, his father Isaac, and his grandfather Abraham placed their hope in a promise God made to each of them, which involved an inheritance of a land, many descendants, and a blessing for them and other nations.According to you, Jacob, his father Isaac, and his grandfather Abraham had no choice to placed their hope in a promise God made to each of them. They have no free will, God made them to hope.

God is playing a game of solitare with Himself.
No other players allowed.


The fact that God blessed Jacob's family line over the family line of Esau based on a predetermined plan and purpose of God, having chose to bless Jacob rather than Esau, fits right in with the doctrine of individual election. Jacob got both the blessing and the birthright, which God announced in advance, and Paul assigns to the purposes of God.Yep, according to you god's will was fulfilling His own desire to only save some of the creation which HE cursed with a nature that HE hates ,all because He wanted Adam's sin to curse all mankind.


Secondly, the same God who is not embarrassed to manipulate people and orchestrate history so that things turn out well for one family line, while things turn out really bad for another, is the same God who does this on an individual level. For what is history if not the combined activity of individual people?According to you, God does not want his creation to willfuly, volitionaly, choose Him. According to you, God wanted All mankind to not be able to choose Him, just so He can make people to love Him, instead of realy loving Him on their own.

The sarcasm is to show the absurdity of these ideas.

It amazes me how folks can accept the idea that God manipulates other people, orchestrates history and events just so a man might make a free will choice to serve him.Love must be a free will choice.


But why is it okay for God to manipulate other people, taking away their free will, just so he can allow ME a moment of free will to make a decision? Hardly seems to make sense. Doesn't it?WHo says that God taking away their free will, just so he can allow YOU a moment of free will to make a decision?



"For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."

We tend to focus on the question, "did God harden Pharaoh's heart or did Pharaoh harden his own heart", as if this was the only issue here. But God says that he raised Pharaoh up, which involves more people than just Pharaoh. We have Pharaoh's parents, who raised him. We have Pharaoh's teachers who educated him. We have the circumstances surrounding Pharaoh's rise to power, each of them being orchestrated by God just so that God might demonstrate his power.First of all, God hardenned Pharaoh's heart just as I can harden another's heart by offence.
One may say that I hardenned ones heart, but in rerality, it was his own choice to harden his heart.
So it is with God and Pharaoh.

Second; is isn't that God raised Pharaoh up, as from a little boy to adulthood.
Romans 9:17: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the Earth."
As we look the word up in the Hebrew, the word for "stand" also means to "keep alive, continue, remain, repair, tarry, endure, stay, be present...ect...
Therfore it could read as :
Exod 9:16 "For this sake I keep you alive, in order to make you see My power, and that My name may resound in the entire earth."
:17 "And yet you exalt yourself against my people, that you will not let them go?"
"yet" pharaoh exalts himself against God's people.
This is an expression of wonder or amazement.
As if God is saying, "I let you live, how &/or why whould/could you still rebel?
The saying of Solomon in Ecc 8:11 is true, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
IOW, God let Pharaoh to keep living and not judge him speedily to show Pharaoh HIS power in him.
Yet, Pharaoh still is proud and rebellious.
This is why Paul says what he does in Romans 9:18: God had Mercy on Pharaoh by keeping him alive to show him His power & He also hardens pharaoh unintentionally from the circumstance of the plagues.

It does not say that Pharaoh was born for wrath.
Pharaoh hardened his own heart from the circumstances which God brought about because of judgment because of his pride.
Eph 4:18

Moreover, God could have shown His power in Pharaoh, if Pharaoh let Israel go.



Nonetheless, in order for Paul's argument to hold water, his comment about the Pharaoh is intended to prove his conclusion that God will have mercy on whom he desires and harden whom he desires. If one is going to argue that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then they attempt to undercut Paul's argument. Only in your interpretaion.


But Paul isn't arguing that point. Of course the parting of the Red Sea brings glory to God.God could have shown His power in Pharaoh, if Pharaoh let Israel go.
If God, literaly, actualy hardened Pharaoh'd heart, then God would be insincere and stoop to deceptive manipulation; commanding him to let His people go, but realy not wanting him to.

According to you &/or your theology/doctrine &/or Calvinism/Reformed theology, God commands one thing to make it seem as if it is His will, but secretly wants somthing else.
God is wrather schizophrenic having a divided will, as you call it a desire with a seperate and sometimes differing will.

When God commands Pharoah to let His people free, that is what all mankind is suposed to think is the will of God.
however, God's true will is for Pharaoh to keep sinning and disobey the command.
This is evil.


The issue here is whether God has both the right and the ability to harden the hearts of people and whether softening the hearts of people is by his choice or theirs. The central focus of his argument is that God acts according to his own purposes.The issue here is whether God actualy commands his will and desire.
If God's will and desire is what He commands, then He would not hinder His own commands.


Actually, the opposite is quite clear. And since Paul has made such an audacious claim, i.e. that certain people were predestined to destruction, he feels the need to explain why this isn't unjust.If people were predestined to destruction, then that which they do to fullfill their destination is God's will. They would be eternaly tormented for only doing God's will.
This is rediculous.
No were in Scripture does it say that mankind is predestined to destruction.

BroRog
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:03 AM
According to you, Jacob, his father Isaac, and his grandfather Abraham had no choice to placed their hope in a promise God made to each of them. They have no free will, God made them to hope.

God is playing a game of solitare with Himself.
No other players allowed.

I never said Abraham had no choice. In my view, freedom of the will and God providence are not mutually exclusive. Your charge against my view assumes, incorrectly I think, that God's will is an external cause with respect to human agency.

Simply put, God is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. When God asserts his will, his is an act of creation. Under those conditions, the alternatives are existence or non-existence. And so, if Abraham didn't come to hope in his inheritance, the alternative, with respect to God's will, is not Abraham's refusal to hope. The true alternative is Abraham didn't exist.

Freedom of self determination only makes sense in the realm of human experience. As CARM puts it free will is "Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes." But God is not an external cause. He is neither external nor internal because these terms take the human being as the point of reference. Whereas God transcends them both as the author of everything that exists.

apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3
If the talk concerns Abraham's will, it is free to act within the boundaries of our existence. Abraham, like everyone else, is free to choose. But as soon as the talk shifts to God's will and his providence, we must shift our thinking to take into account how God brings about his will on earth, i.e. through an act of creation. He doesn't force anyone to do anything. If he needs a man to have hope in him, he simply creates one.

Most of the time the Bible speaks from a human point of reference, presumably because human beings are the intended audience. At the same time, however, the Bible intends to reveal God to us, necessitating a peek behind the curtain, so to speak. We find one such "peek" in Joseph's comment to Pharaoh.

In Genesis 50:20 we see two intentions at work: the will of Joseph's brothers, and God's will. The brothers were agents of conscious choice the whole time. And yet, God was working through, outside, inside, beside, apart, along with, (I don't know) the brothers to bring about HIS purposes.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

God's providence is a wholly different thing that operates on an entirely different level of existence. He doesn't force, tease, argue, entice, pester, manipulate, trick, or any other thing that we might do in order to get someone to do something we want. He doesn't act at our level. If he wants something, he makes it.


Yep, according to you god's will was fulfilling His own desire to only save some of the creation which HE cursed with a nature that HE hates ,all because He wanted Adam's sin to curse all mankind.

Again, at the level of God's will, the alternative is non-existence. Either God creates Jacob and Esau to fulfill his purposes or he doesn't. And if Jacob or Esau didn't suit his purposes, the alternative isn't another Esau whom he does love; the alternative is no Esau at all.


According to you, God does not want his creation to willfuly, volitionaly, choose Him.


That is not my view at all. Rather, God creates those who willfully do choose him and love him of their own free will. The alternative isn't that they don't choose him. The alternative is they don't exist. :)


According to you, God wanted All mankind to not be able to choose Him, just so He can make people to love Him, instead of realy loving Him on their own.


Again, that is not my view and hopefully you can see the difference.


Love must be a free will choice.

Love may be a free will choice. But this does not negate the fact that it is a created choice.


WHo says that God taking away their free will, just so he can allow YOU a moment of free will to make a decision?


No one is saying this. But this is the logical implication of the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace.


First of all, God hardenned Pharaoh's heart just as I can harden another's heart by offence.
One may say that I hardenned ones heart, but in rerality, it was his own choice to harden his heart.
So it is with God and Pharaoh.

This is simply a question of technique. For Paul's purposes it matters not how Pharaoh's heart got hardened, but that God is the agent of the hardening.


It does not say that Pharaoh was born for wrath.


That idea comes later in Paul's argument when he says some were made for destruction while others were made for mercy.


God could have shown His power in Pharaoh, if Pharaoh let Israel go.
If God, literaly, actualy hardened Pharaoh'd heart, then God would be insincere and stoop to deceptive manipulation; commanding him to let His people go, but realy not wanting him to.

Above, you said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by offense. And though I don't agree with you, the fact remains that whether God created a pharaoh that would be hardened against him or whether God hardened Pharaoh's heart "by offense", God is still the agent of the hardening. So, what ever problem you have with my view is the same problem with your's. :)


According to you &/or your theology/doctrine &/or Calvinism/Reformed theology, God commands one thing to make it seem as if it is His will, but secretly wants somthing else.
God is wrather schizophrenic having a divided will, as you call it a desire with a seperate and sometimes differing will.


That is not my view. I don't find what you said in the Bible.


When God commands Pharoah to let His people free, that is what all mankind is suposed to think is the will of God.

You have conflated the story a bit. God didn't actually command Pharaoh to let the people go. It was Moses who commanded Pharaoh. If you recall, God met Moses in advance and he explained the entire scenario in advance. God had told Moses in advance that Pharaoh wouldn't let the people go, and that this was his plan all along.


If people were predestined to destruction, then that which they do to fulfill their destination is God's will. They would be eternally tormented for only doing God's will.


No one acts to fulfill God's providence because no one knows what it is. But even when God announces his providential will, and man tries to thwart it, they can not.

random arrows and such. :)

Diolectic
Nov 23rd 2008, 03:17 AM
I never said Abraham had no choice. In my view, freedom of the will and God providence are not mutually exclusive. Your charge against my view assumes, incorrectly I think, that God's will is an external cause with respect to human agency.

Simply put, God is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. When God asserts his will, his is an act of creation. Under those conditions, the alternatives are existence or non-existence. And so, if Abraham didn't come to hope in his inheritance, the alternative, with respect to God's will, is not Abraham's refusal to hope. The true alternative is Abraham didn't exist.

Freedom of self determination only makes sense in the realm of human experience. As CARM puts it free will is "Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes." But God is not an external cause. He is neither external nor internal because these terms take the human being as the point of reference. Whereas God transcends them both as the author of everything that exists.

apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3
If the talk concerns Abraham's will, it is free to act within the boundaries of our existence. Abraham, like everyone else, is free to choose. But as soon as the talk shifts to God's will and his providence, we must shift our thinking to take into account how God brings about his will on earth, i.e. through an act of creation. He doesn't force anyone to do anything. If he needs a man to have hope in him, he simply creates one.

Most of the time the Bible speaks from a human point of reference, presumably because human beings are the intended audience. At the same time, however, the Bible intends to reveal God to us, necessitating a peek behind the curtain, so to speak. We find one such "peek" in Joseph's comment to Pharaoh.

In Genesis 50:20 we see two intentions at work: the will of Joseph's brothers, and God's will. The brothers were agents of conscious choice the whole time. And yet, God was working through, outside, inside, beside, apart, along with, (I don't know) the brothers to bring about HIS purposes.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

God's providence is a wholly different thing that operates on an entirely different level of existence. He doesn't force, tease, argue, entice, pester, manipulate, trick, or any other thing that we might do in order to get someone to do something we want. He doesn't act at our level. If he wants something, he makes it.If I understand you corectly, God creates men preprogramed to do that which He wants them to do.
God created me to do what I do as His will by choice.
The alternative is that I don't exist, not that I refuse to do His will.

Is this correct?



Yep, according to you god's will was fulfilling His own desire to only save some of the creation which HE cursed with a nature that HE hates ,all because He wanted Adam's sin to curse all mankind. Again, at the level of God's will, the alternative is non-existence. Either God creates Jacob and Esau to fulfill his purposes or he doesn't. And if Jacob or Esau didn't suit his purposes, the alternative isn't another Esau whom he does love; the alternative is no Esau at all.God created Jacob and Esau as Jacob to be loved and Esau to be hated. right?



According to you, God does not want his creation to willfuly, volitionaly, choose Him. That is not my view at all. Rather, God creates those who willfully do choose him and love him of their own free will. The alternative isn't that they don't choose him. The alternative is they don't exist. :)This one is a hard one.
The opposit of this is:
God creates those who willfully do deny him and love him of their own free will. The alternative isn't that they will choose him. The alternative is they don't exist.
Correct?


God is the agent of the hardening.In what way?
That God literaly hardend his heart or God did it with the circumstances?



It does not say that Pharaoh was born for wrathThat idea comes later in Paul's argument when he says some were made for destruction while others were made for mercy.Please, Iv'e explaind this before.
Why will you not take this as fact.
God does not creat people to be born as vessles of wrath/dishonor.
God reforms them because of judgment.

I"ve proven this.

I guess, it is because your theology can not acknowlege this.
This would give man a part to play in creation and your theology has a God that just wound up a "toy" and let it run.
Or a God the has pre-programed everything and its just running its course.
Or playing a grand game of solitare by Himself.

If I am understanding you correctly, your theology has man playing no part to play in creation accept that which he was created for (just another term for being pre-programed).



God could have shown His power in Pharaoh, if Pharaoh let Israel go.
If God, literaly, actualy hardened Pharaoh'd heart, then God would be insincere and stoop to deceptive manipulation; commanding him to let His people go, but realy not wanting him to.Above, you said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart by offense. And though I don't agree with you, the fact remains that whether God created a pharaoh that would be hardened against him or whether God hardened Pharaoh's heart "by offense", God is still the agent of the hardening. So, what ever problem you have with my view is the same problem with your's. :)Not realy. My view has Pharaoh totaly at fault with out God wanting Pharaoh to harden his heart, or creating him to do such.



According to you &/or your theology/doctrine &/or Calvinism/Reformed theology, God commands one thing to make it seem as if it is His will, but secretly wants somthing else.
God is wrather schizophrenic having a divided will, as you call it a desire with a seperate and sometimes differing will.
That is not my view. I don't find what you said in the Bible.It is the logical conclustion of those who say that God literaly hardened Pharaoh's heart on purpose.



When God commands Pharoah to let His people free, that is what all mankind is suposed to think is the will of God.You have conflated the story a bit. God didn't actually command Pharaoh to let the people go. It was Moses who commanded Pharaoh.God is the one who told Moses to command Pharaoh.
God said that Moses will be God to him(Exodus 7:1).
Therfore it was God's command.


If you recall, God met Moses in advance and he explained the entire scenario in advance. God had told Moses in advance that Pharaoh wouldn't let the people go, and that this was his plan all along.That's called foreknowledge, not His planGod's plan was to free His people no matter what, not to harden Pharaoh's heart.
It might be God's plan, in that God worked with what HE knew Pharaoh would do.



If people were predestined to destruction, then that which they do to fulfill their destination is God's will. They would be eternally tormented for only doing God's will.No one acts to fulfill God's providence because no one knows what it is. But even when God announces his providential will, and man tries to thwart it, they can not.It don't matter if they know God's will or not.
The fact is, if God creates them for a purpose and they fullfill that purpose, they have done God's will.
Therefore, if a man's purpose is to end up in hell, and they do, they would be in hell for doing God's will, be in hell for fullfilling God's purpose.

This is nonsense.

With what i understand what you told me of your theology:
A man is "made for destruction" the alternative is not that he does not be detroyed, but that he does not exist.

Therefore, you have God making a creation without any variables, which is only a running program that ends with nothing out fo his will.
God wills all those who are d@mned to be damed, they are d@amned for doing His will with out effort.

This is not a intimate god at all, he only appears to be because we are created to think so.
Fatalism, inevitable predetermination.

Butch5
Nov 23rd 2008, 04:38 AM
can you show me where gentiles were chosen (When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.) before the foundaton of the world? (For he chose us (For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.)

In Ephesians 1:4 Paul is referring to himself and the believing Jews, not the Ephesians. Look at the context, notice the in verse 3-12 Paul uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, our, then in verse 13 he switch to second person plural pronouns, you and your. Also notice in verse 12 Paul say, we who first trusted in Christ, that would be the Jews.

Ephesians 1:3-14 ( KJV ) 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Paul is speaking of two groups here, one group is the group he describes as us, we, our, and hte other group is the group he describes as you and your. Paul includes himself in the first group, the, we, our, us, group. This is the group that he says first trusted in Christ. Also notice that the description in verses 3-12 describe the Jews, consider,

Romans 9:1-5 ( KJV ) 1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Notice Paul also says,

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ,

Who was it that God revealed the mystery to? Paul says in all wisdom and prudence, It was revealed to the Apostles directly,


Luke 24:36-49 ( KJV ) 36And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43And he took it, and did eat before them. 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48And ye are witnesses of these things. 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Galatians 1:10-12 ( KJV ) 10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So you see my friend, the gentiles were not chosen before the foundation of the world.

BroRog
Nov 23rd 2008, 06:27 PM
If I understand you corectly, God creates men preprogramed to do that which He wants them to do.

No, preprograming assumes, again, that God is on our level. That is how WE would do it if we wanted to dictate in advance what someone or something will do.


God created me to do what I do as His will by choice.
The alternative is that I don't exist, not that I refuse to do His will.

Is this correct?

Essentially, yes.


God created Jacob and Esau as Jacob to be loved and Esau to be hated. right?

Yes, that but not only that. He has higher purposes and goals in what he does.


This one is a hard one.
The opposit of this is:
God creates those who willfully do deny him and love him of their own free will. The alternative isn't that they will choose him. The alternative is they don't exist.
Correct?


The point is, God is not choosing, the way a human being chooses. His "choice" is not an act of assessment as if waiting for someone to love him or believe in him. Rather, as Paul explains, God's "choosing" is an act of creation. God is much bigger than we first imagine.


In what way?
That God literaly hardend his heart or God did it with the circumstances?


I'm not sure what you mean by "literally" here. Whether God is the direct cause or the indirect cause of his hardening, he is still the agent behind the hardening.


Please, Iv'e explaind this before.
Why will you not take this as fact.
God does not creat people to be born as vessles of wrath/dishonor.
God reforms them because of judgment.


I understand you explained this before. I just happen to disagree with you based on my understanding of Paul's argument.


If I am understanding you correctly, your theology has man playing no part to play in creation accept that which he was created for (just another term for being pre-programed).

You are not understanding me correctly. That happens, sometimes when we are discussing some important issue we feel passionate about, we begin to argue against a phantom person, someone from the past perhaps. Your idea that my view is essentially the preprogramming of human beings, for instance, sounds like a paper someone wrote, but not a direct response to my statements.

For instance, here is my first line in my last post.


Me:I never said Abraham had no choice. In my view, freedom of the will and God providence are not mutually exclusive.

I underlined the last few words for emphasis. Now, if I were to read this opening line in a post by some other person, I would look for support of that statement in the rest of the post. As I read the rest of the post, I would be asking myself, "How does this support his opening statement?"

The concept of "advance programming" is obviously antithetical to my opening statement in which I say freedom and providence are not mutually exclusive. Someone reading my post sympathetically would ask the question, "you are not saying that God has programmed human beings in advance are you?"

The second sentence of my previous post begins to hint at how God's providence and human freedom are not mutually exclusive.


ME: Your charge against my view assumes, incorrectly I think, that God's will is an external cause with respect to human agency.


Subsequently, I cited the quote from CARM I had in mind, the one in which CARM defines human freedom. According to them, human freedom is "independant of external causes." I accept that view and others like it with regard to human agency. But when the issue is God's providence, we are not in the same ball park. God is not an "external cause."; God is a "transcendant cause."

The concept of advanced programming continues to view God as if he were a being on our same ontological level. But in my last post, I dealt briefly with this issue when I said,


Me:God's providence is a wholly different thing that operates on an entirely different level of existence.


I'm going through this exercise for two reasons: 1) I have reiterated what I already said in hopes of being more clear, and 2) to give the reader a window into my process of Bible interpretation. Whether we interpret each other or interpret the Bible, we have similiar goals and use similar methods.


Not realy. My view has Pharaoh totaly at fault with out God wanting Pharaoh to harden his heart, or creating him to do such.

Well, my comment was based on your earlier statement that God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart through "offense." If, for instance, a man was standing on the edge of a precipice with the full intention of commiting suicide, and rather than helping him come away from danger I pushed him over. You can argue that he intended to jump anyway but my judge and jury wouldn't buy that argument. :)

But if you want to argue that Pharaoh was totally at fault, then you would have to explain how Paul's statement works to make his argument that membership in the Israel of the promise is by God's choice. If Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then it was by Pharaoh's choice to not let the people go, not according to God's choice.

If it was Jacob's choice that God would love him, and it was Esau's choice that God would hate him, then Paul's argument breaks down again, since he is using the lives of these two boys as a case in point that it is indeed, God's choice. Not only does Paul argue that Jacob would be loved by God's choice, but by putting God's choice in advance of Jacob's birth, he deals a direct blow to those who submit that God was reacting to Jacob's behavior and motives.


God is the one who told Moses to command Pharaoh.
God said that Moses will be God to him(Exodus 7:1).
Therfore it was God's command.


Perhaps I wasn't clear last time. If we simply see Moses as God's proxy we have gotten the wrong picture. It's easy to get the idea, from academia especially, that the Exodus of the Jews was simply a story about how God (or Moses, depending on whether one accepts the supernatural or not) came to free the slaves. Like Superman, he looks around the world to see what good he can do, and he uses his super powers to affect change for the better.

That's how human beings to things. We look around and react to situations and circumstances as we find them, doing everything in our power to affect change for the better (or for the worse depending on our motives.) But God is not like us human beings who react to things. He is the divine Spirit proactive in all his ways.

We pick up the story of the Exodus in chapter 3.

The LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings. Exodus 3:7

On the surface this sounds as if God is reacting to the suffering and affliction of his people. As "superman" he sees what needs to be done and he uses his power and proxy to get the job done. Or is this what is really going on?

But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?" And He said, "Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain." Exodus 3:11-12

What a strange thing to say. Most of us are familiar with signs and how they work. Typically God gives people a sign in order to credential himself so that the person taking action knows in advance that God is the one making the request and not some other spirit or invisible agent. In this case, however, the entire Exodus from the first miracle in front of Pharaoh to the gathering of the people at the foot of the mountain -- the entire story from start to finish is going to be the sign.

God isn't simply reacting to the outcry of the oppressed. He has orchestrated the entire Exodus story from start to finish as a signitory event that he is God. In this we weaken the impact of his sign if we simply view God as a fortune teller. Not only does God know what will happen, he is orchestrating the entire show for the benefit of Moses and his people.


It don't matter if they know God's will or not.
The fact is, if God creates them for a purpose and they fullfill that purpose, they have done God's will.
Therefore, if a man's purpose is to end up in hell, and they do, they would be in hell for doing God's will, be in hell for fullfilling God's purpose.

This is nonsense.

Obviously, it sounds that way from a human point of reference. That's why Paul deals with this issue next in his argument.

We find your exact question in verse 19 of Romans 9.

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

You are asking the very same question, which is a logical question based on what Paul just said immediately before that. It isn't wrong to ask your question. It's logical and makes sense and it's the very next place Paul wants to take his readers.

In summary, Paul's answer to your question is that God, as the creator, has a creator's prerogative and rights. God has the right of creation.

By analogy, human beings make up stories in which someone is murdered and the criminal is brought to justice. And by the same logic, we do not accuse the author of murder or conspiracy to commit murder. If the author needs to have a character commit murder in order that he might also have the character go to prison for his crimes, and if the author creates this story in order to help his readers understand his personal views of crime and punishment, then we judge that story to be a good story.

Likewise, if God creates a vessel destined for wrath, a wrath he deserves, then God is telling a good story. If, on the other hand, all of those who deserve hell end up in heaven, and all those who should be in heaven end up in hell, then God is telling a bad story.

Paul argues that God's will is an act of creation in which he, like the potter, has the right to do whatever he wants with the clay.


With what i understand what you told me of your theology:
A man is "made for destruction" the alternative is not that he does not be detroyed, but that he does not exist.

That's right. With respect to God, the talk centers around God as creator and our perspective shifts from a human point of reference to a creator's point of reference. Paul's doesn't argue that human beings are culpable for what they do and so God is not the unjust person here. Rather, Paul argues that God is just because he has the right of creation.

In other words, Paul isn't making the argument you want to make, i.e. God is innocent because man has freedom and is solely culpable for his actions. Rather Paul's argument assumes that God creates people to be destroyed and the reason why this is not unjust is that God has the right of creation.

Your rebuttal assumes the human point of reference in which God merely acts or reacts based on exigent circumstances, much like the character Superman. In this arena, it makes no sense to say that Superman caused Lex Luthor to set off a nuclear bomb on a fault line in California. Superman and Lex are both characters in a story. But it does make sense to say that the author of the story wrote the events of the story into the script. When the talk shifts from the characters to the author, we expect to judge the author from a different point of reference. Likewise, since God is the creator of everything that exists, we must evaluate his role in creation from his point of reference, not ours.

Issues of advanced programming and a creation without variables continues to evaluate God from a human point of reference. Fatalism says that it doesn't matter at all what we do. Whereas, the Biblical perspective has what we do making all the difference. Unlike the fatalists who become inactive and disfunctional, those who believe in divine determinism act in faith that God is in control and has our best interests at heart.

Rhyfelwr
Nov 23rd 2008, 09:40 PM
I've been looking into this subject, and I've come to the conclusion that salvation must come 100% from God.

If we ourselves were to take any credit whatsoever for our salvation, then how could we acknowledge our total state of sin, which totally absorbs us and clouds our mind to God? You might then say that God enters the hearts of all at some point to give them a choice - but then you must believe that sin could overpower God, if we take a human as being a powerless creature in comparison to God or even Satan.

If we are to truly humble ourselves before God and realise that we are absolutedly no better than what may appear to be the most depraved sinner, then we must accept that our salvation came purely from the Lord God, and in no way from our own merit. If I believe that I'm better as a person than a non-believer (which I must be if I chose salvation with equal opportunity to them), then I would surely be greater than them? This line of thought appears dangerous, it stops us from totally humbling ourselves before God, a fundamental Christian principle. He is everything, we are nothing.

When we are saved, what shines in us? Is it some natural goodness in our own souls? Or the glory of Jesus Christ emanating from our hearts?

Diolectic
Nov 23rd 2008, 09:59 PM
I've been looking into this subject, and I've come to the conclusion that salvation must come 100% from God.

If we ourselves were to take any credit whatsoever for our salvation, then how could we acknowledge our total state of sin, which totally absorbs us and clouds our mind to God?Doing that which is our reasonable service is nothing to take credit in.
Luk 17:9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not.
:10 So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Our reasonable service, or "duty" is to repent and put your faith in & on Christ ans what HE said & done.

Since God commanded it, all mankind is able.



You might then say that God enters the hearts of all at some point to give them a choice - but then you must believe that sin could overpower God,What do you mean "overpower"? You mean do what Adam did and disobey?


If we are to truly humble ourselves before God and realise that we are absolutedly no better than what may appear to be the most depraved sinner, then we must accept that our salvation came purely from the Lord God, and in no way from our own merit.Amen, however we have an obligation to believe and repnet before God will save.


If I believe that I'm better as a person than a non-believer (which I must be if I chose salvation with equal opportunity to them), then I would surely be greater than them?Yep.
Who is a greater lost perston:
A law abiding policeman or a hardened criminal?
Don't say that they are equale because one has lost his moral conscience.


When we are saved, what shines in us? Is it some natural goodness in our own souls? Or the glory of Jesus Christ emanating from our hearts?So likewise you, when you shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.Luk 17:10

Butch5
Nov 24th 2008, 01:51 AM
I've been looking into this subject, and I've come to the conclusion that salvation must come 100% from God.

If we ourselves were to take any credit whatsoever for our salvation, then how could we acknowledge our total state of sin, which totally absorbs us and clouds our mind to God? You might then say that God enters the hearts of all at some point to give them a choice - but then you must believe that sin could overpower God, if we take a human as being a powerless creature in comparison to God or even Satan.

If we are to truly humble ourselves before God and realise that we are absolutedly no better than what may appear to be the most depraved sinner, then we must accept that our salvation came purely from the Lord God, and in no way from our own merit. If I believe that I'm better as a person than a non-believer (which I must be if I chose salvation with equal opportunity to them), then I would surely be greater than them? This line of thought appears dangerous, it stops us from totally humbling ourselves before God, a fundamental Christian principle. He is everything, we are nothing.

When we are saved, what shines in us? Is it some natural goodness in our own souls? Or the glory of Jesus Christ emanating from our hearts?


Revelation 3:3-4 ( KJV ) 3Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.