PDA

View Full Version : Since 'Election' has come up;...



Samsheep2
Dec 9th 2008, 03:26 PM
...I thought why not, why not start a new thread on the subject as Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles presented it by letter to the first local church of the NT:

1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Since Paul was only there approx. 22 days establishing this local church prior to sending them this first letter I'm curious what any might think he means by 'knowing...your election'.

The reason I ask this is because of all the arguments and confusion we see today over a subject that was given to be known???

What think/say you!!!

God bless,

Walstib
Dec 9th 2008, 04:02 PM
I think this has to do with trusting one has been justified by the Blood of Christ and is included in the body of The Elect, Jesus. Isa 42:1

I don’t see calling those who receive the Holy Spirit while still alive in their bodies of flesh elect means that they were predetermined to be in the body. But that in God’s foreordained plan there would be a type of people who of their own will chose to believe Jesus is who He says He is and become His elect through their faith in The Elect and by His grace.

And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, (1Th 1:6 NKJV)

They received the word, like in the parable of the seed, and through the Joy of the Holy Spirit can know they are included in God’s plan of redemption for all those who confess the truth of the Gospel. We can know our election in this way I think. Not that God made us believe and therefore are known to be elect, but as I believe we have freedom of thought, we know as evidenced by the seal of the Holy Spirit and by faith in His promises. Really it is great to know and I think available to whoever heads to His call. We make our calling and election sure by standing on these promises I think.

How I see it,
Joe

Samsheep2
Dec 9th 2008, 07:14 PM
I think this has to do with trusting one has been justified by the Blood of Christ and is included in the body of The Elect, Jesus. Isa 42:1

I don’t see calling those who receive the Holy Spirit while still alive in their bodies of flesh elect means that they were predetermined to be in the body. But that in God’s foreordained plan there would be a type of people who of their own will chose to believe Jesus is who He says He is and become His elect through their faith in The Elect and by His grace.

And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, (1Th 1:6 NKJV)

They received the word, like in the parable of the seed, and through the Joy of the Holy Spirit can know they are included in God’s plan of redemption for all those who confess the truth of the Gospel. We can know our election in this way I think. Not that God made us believe and therefore are known to be elect, but as I believe we have freedom of thought, we know as evidenced by the seal of the Holy Spirit and by faith in His promises. Really it is great to know and I think available to whoever heads to His call. We make our calling and election sure by standing on these promises I think.

How I see it,
Joe

Thanks friend and I promise to read your reply tonight after I return from school.
God bless,

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 01:53 AM
Joe, it is not our intention to pick you apart, correct you or put you down – that was not the motive we had in asking what we asked. I thank you for stating what you see and may our LORD increase our faith that we may see more.

God bless,


I think this has to do with trusting one has been justified by the Blood of Christ and is included in the body of The Elect, Jesus. Isa 42:1 No doubt one has to be able to trust what Jesus Christ did at Calvary.


I don’t see calling those who receive the Holy Spirit while still alive in their bodies of flesh elect means that they were predetermined to be in the body. But that in God’s foreordained plan there would be a type of people who of their own will chose to believe Jesus is who He says He is and become His elect through their faith in The Elect and by His grace.May I ask you a question as to how/what made these will to be saved? Thanks,


And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, (1Th 1:6 NKJV)

They received the word, like in the parable of the seed, and through the Joy of the Holy Spirit can know they are included in God’s plan of redemption for all those who confess the truth of the Gospel. We can know our election in this way I think. Not that God made us believe and therefore are known to be elect, but as I believe we have freedom of thought, we know as evidenced by the seal of the Holy Spirit and by faith in His promises. Really it is great to know and I think available to whoever heads to His call. We make our calling and election sure by standing on these promises I think. Joe, to be made to do and to will to do are the very two factors that have caused so-much confusion over the years. I was desirous of being saved when on that day He drew me too Him and I saw 'me' for the first time as only He could.

Thanks again for taking part;...

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 01:56 AM
I love to read after other men of God and share their thoughts on this subject:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. There is no great difference between "being beloved of God," and "being chosen of God." The sense then is, "knowing that you are chosen by God unto salvation." One must comp. Eph.1:4,5,11;
The word "knowing," here refers to Paul himself, and to Silas and Timothy, who united with him in writing the epistle, and in rendering thanks for the favours shown to the church at Thessalonica. The meaning is, that they had so strong confidence that they had been chosen of God as a church unto salvation, that they might say they knew it. The way in which they knew it seems not to have been by direct revelation, or by inspiration, but by the evidence which they had furnished, and which constituted such a proof of piety as to leave no doubt of the fact. Calvin.
What this evidence was, the apostle states in the following verses. It was shown by the man- ner in which they embraced the gospel, and by the spirit which they had demonstrated under its influence. The meaning here seems to be, not that all the members of the church at Thessalonica were certainly chosen of God to salvation--for, as in other churches, there might have been those there who were false professors; but that the church, as such, had given evidence that it was a true church--that it was founded on Christian principles--and that, as a church, it had furnished evidence of its "election by God." Nor can it mean, as Clarke and Bloomfield suppose, that God "had chosen and called the Gentiles to the same privileges to which he chose and called the Jews; and that as they (the Jews) had rejected the gospel, God had now elected the Gentiles in their stead;" for a considerable portion of the church was composed of Jews, Ac 17:4 (vr:6B88),6 (vr:6B8A); and it cannot, therefore, mean that the Gentiles had been selected in the place of the Jews. Besides, the election of the Gentiles, or any portion of the human family, to the privileges of salvation, to the neglect or exclusion of any other part, would be attended with all the difficulties which occur in the doctrine of personal and individual election. Nothing is gained on this subject in removing the difficulties, by supposing that God chooses masses of men instead of individuals. How can the one be more proper than the other? What difficulty in the doctrine of election is removed by the supposition? Why is it not as right to choose an individual as a nation? Why not as proper to reject an individual as a whole people? If this means that the church at Thessalonica had shown that it was a true church of Christ, chosen by God, then we may learn
(1.) that a true church owes what it has to the "election of God." It is because God has chosen it; has called it out from the world; and has endowed it in such a manner as to be a true church.
(2.) A church may give evidence that it is chosen of God, and is a true church. There are things which it may do, which will show that it is undoubtedly such a church as God has chosen, and such as he approves. There are just principles on which a church should be organized; and there is a spirit which may be manifested by a church which will distinguish it from any other association of men.
(3.) It is not improper to speak with strong confidence of such a church as undoubtedly chosen of God. There are churches which, by their zeal, self-denial, and deadness to the world, show beyond question their "election of God;" and the world may see that they are founded on other principles, and manifest a different spirit, from other organizations of men.
(4.) Every church should evidence such a spirit, that there may be no doubt of its "election of God." It should be so dead to the world; so pure in doctrine and in practice, and so much engaged in spreading the knowledge of salvation, that the world will see that it is governed by higher principles than any worldly association, and that nothing could produce this but the influence of the Holy Spirit of God.

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 01:57 AM
William Burkitt's Expository Notes


V4, Observe here, 1. One special ground and reason assigned, why the apostle's heart was thus extraordinarily carried out in praise and thanksgivings unto God, on the Thessalonians' behalf, and that was the knowledge of their election, knowing your election of God; that is, knowing cerainly and infallibly, by your proficiency in the forementioned Christian graces of faith, love, and hope, that God had certainly chosen you out of the Gentile world, to be a church and people to himself, and that it was the good pleasure of God to gather a Christian church at Thessalonica; and also he did know and believe, with a judgement of charity, that Almighty God had chosen them to eternal life also, to be a part of his church truimphant in heaven, as well as of his church militant upon earth; the preaching of the gospel having met with such visible success amongst them. It is our unquestionable duty, and we learn it from St. Paul's example, in charity to number them amongst God's chosen, in whom we see, as much as man may see, the fruits and signs of God's election.
Observe, 2. The ground which St. Paul had to build his confidence upon, that the Thessalonians were a people chosen of God, and that was rational evidence, knowing your election of God; for our gospel came to you not in word only, but in power.
Where note, the piety and prudence of St. Paul's charity, it was not weakly grounded or credulous, but guided by reasonable evidence; Charity hopeth all things, that is, all things that it hath good ground to hope, but nothing more than what probable evidence may induce it to hope. St. Paul, when he saw the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Alexander into error and vice, without censoriousness and uncharitableness, pronounces that they had made shipwreck of the faith, 1Ti 1:2 (vr:7403) . For he had sufficient reason to believe, there could be no faith where there was no holiness. There are a generation of men amongst us, who brand the ministers of God with censoriousness, and rash judging the present state of men, though they judge by their lives and actions; they would have us hope well concerning them, against hope, and judge quite contrary to rational evidence; we must believe them to have faith, when they have no knowledge; that they are right penitents, and sorrowful for their sins, when they make a sport of sin; that their hearts are chaste, when their mouths foam out nothing but filthiness; but let them know, we dare not bring a curse upon ourselves, by calling good evil, and evil good; our charity though not causelessly susupicious, yet neither is it foolishly blind.
Observe, 3. The particular and special evidence which the apostle had of the Thessalonians election, and that was the great and gracious success of this ministry amongst them. Our gospel came - But how our gospel? Not as if he were the author of it, but the dispenser only; not our gospel by original revelation, but by ministerial despensation only.
But how did the gospel come amongst the Thessalonians?
Not in word only, sounding in the ear, or to gaze upon; but in power, that is, accompanied then with the power of miracles, now with a convincing, terrifying, humbling, renewing, and reforming power.
It follows, and in the Holy Ghost; that is, the preaching of the word was at that time attended, as with a mighty power of miracles, so with an extraordinary effusion and pouring out the Holy Ghost upon them that heard it, prevailing upon them to embrace it, and to submit themselves unto it. With this miraculous power of the Holy Ghost was the preaching of the word accompanied then, with an enlightening, quickening, regenerating, and sanctifying power now; the ministry of the word is the great instrument in the hand of the Spirit, for the conversion of sinners, for the edification of saints, and for the salvation of both.
Again, the apostle's ministration came unto them in much assurance, that is, with a full conviction of the truth of his doctrine; and to him, it was a full persuasion, yea, a firm assurance, that God had chosen them to be a church and special people to himself.
And lastly, as to his own conduct and conversation amongst them, he appeals to them, and to their own knowledge, whether it was not answerable to the doctrine delivered by him; Ye know what manner of men we were amongst you for your sake.
Happy is it when the pious and prudent conversation of a minister amongst his people, is, and has been such, that upon a fit occasion, he can and dare appeal to God and them as witnesses and observers of it; Ye know what we were among you: ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you, 1Th 2:10 (vr:738D).
An heterodox conversation will carry an orthodox preacher to hell; there is a preaching life, as well as a preaching doctrine; if religion be taught by the first, and irreligion by the latter, we sadly disappoint the end of what is spoken; though, like a cracked bell, we may be instrumental to ring others to heaven, yet for ourselves there is no remedy, but to the fire we must go, either for our refining, or for our condemnation. The throne and the pulpit, above all places, call for holiness; the prince and the preacher, above all persons, are most accountable to God for their example; Ye know what manner of men we were among you.

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 01:58 AM
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
1Th 1:4 (vr:737D), Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. Which intends not an election to an office, for this epistle is written not to the officers of the church only, but to the whole church; nor to the Gospel, the outward means of grace, since this was common to them with others, and might be known without the evidence after given; nor does it design the effectual calling, sometimes so called for this is expressed in the following verse as a fruit, effect, and evidence of the election here spoken of, which is no other than the eternal choice of, them to everlasting life and happiness: this is of God, an act of God the Father, made in Christ Jesus before the world began, and which springs from his sovereign will, and is the effect of his pure love and free favour; and therefore these persons who are the objects of it are said to be "beloved of God"; for so the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read the words, and which agree with 2Th 2:13 (vr:73EB) for this choice does not arise from the merits of men, or any conditions in them, or from the foresight of their faith, holiness, and good works, but from the free grace and good pleasure of God; and is the source and spring of all grace, and the blessings of it, and even of good works; and is a sure, immutable, and irreversible act of God, being founded on his own will, and not on the works of men; the knowledge they had of this was not what the Thessalonians themselves had, though they might have, and doubtless had the knowledge of this grace, and which may be concluded with certainty from the effectual calling; and is a privilege which many particular believers may, and do arrive unto the knowledge of, without any extraordinary revelation made unto them: but here it intends the knowledge which the apostle and his companions had of the election of the members of this church; not by inspiration of the Spirit of God, but by the manner of the Gospel's coming unto them, and the effects it had upon them, as expressed in the following verses; and from their faith, hope, and love, mentioned in the preceding verse; and which was the ground and foundation of their thanksgiving for them;

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 02:07 AM
Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible


Ver. 4. Another ground of his thanksgiving for them. By the manner of their receiving the gospel, and the evident operation of the graces of God's Spirit, the apostle knew their election of God. We cannot know election as in God's secret decree, but as made manifest in the fruits and effects of it. As there is a knowledge of things a priori, when we argue from the cause to the effect, so a posteriori, when we argue from the effects to the cause. And thus the apostle came to know their election. Not, we hope it, or conjecture it, but we know it; and not by extraordinary revelation, but by evident outward tokens. And if the apostle knew this, why should we think they themselves might not know it also; and the words may be read: Ye knowing your election of God. And election imports the choosing of some out of others; for election cannot comprehend all. Some deny all eternal election of particular persons, and make it a temporal separation of persons to God in their conversion; but is not this separation from a pre-existing decree, God doing all things after the counsel of his own will? Eph 1:11 (vr:7222). Or, they will yield an eternal election of persons, but only conditional; one condition whereof is perseverance to the end. But the apostle asserts their election at present, before he saw their perseverance.

Walstib
Dec 10th 2008, 02:44 AM
Hi,
May I ask you a question as to how/what made these will to be saved? Thanks, If I understand your question... A decision made in their own mind.

Peace,
Joe

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 12:14 PM
Hi,If I understand your question... A decision made in their own mind.

Peace,
Joe

Good morning Joe, and maybe I was not as clear with my question as I needed to be - let me say it like this:

If any man ever wills to be saved was it because they willed it themselves or was it first because another willed it? For instance:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God bless,

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 12:20 PM
I was raised in a Reformed Faith Presbyterian Church. One in which they taught the concept of Unconditional Election. That being that God chose before time who he would save.

However, when I began digging into certain passages, what the Lord revealed from his word was not that he was picking and choosing who was a sheep and who was a ram, but that those who came to him, he elected/apointed to serve him as witnesses, ambassadors, or just generally a good works doer. That would seem to be more in keeping with the concept of election as we know from the time of the Greek democracies and Roman republics too.

For example:

Eph 2:4-10

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

It is through the grace Christ shed on the Cross that we are saved, and notice we are not just saved but raised up together, and made to sit together in heavenly places with Christ Jesus (v. 6) This salvation comes by faith in that grace, and not of some work lest any of us should boast (8-9), and then we who are saved are his workmanship (a new creature) created in Christ Jesus for good works. (We are recreated fora purpose), which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in him.

In other words God knows who will come to him, and those he knew would come he prepared/recreated in Christ for doing his Good works, and he did so before we were ever born so that we should walk in him.

Walstib
Dec 10th 2008, 01:23 PM
Hi Sam, should I call you sam?
If any man ever wills to be saved was it because they willed it themselves or was it first because another willed it? For instance:


John 1:12-13But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I myself think the confusion comes more with the definition of will. Will is the explanation of a decision before any action is taken. I’ll give an example. A father before dinner decides he wants all his children to eat peas but still gives his children a couple options. “You can have peas with dinner or not." One son with freedom thinks within himself and makes a decision for peas. The child can then say that it is his will that he have peas. This has never given the power of the giving of vegetables to the child as that power has always remained with the father. So the child does not get the peas because it is his will, but because the father still holding the vegetable giving power has previously made the decision to give the child what he asks for. Still no peas have been given out yet.

But as many of his children that asked for peas, to them he gave a fork so they could eat them, these pea eaters did not eat the peas because they wanted to but because it was the fathers will to give them a fork to eat them with.

So I think your question has a false premise that the will does the action instead of it simply revealing a decision. God always does the saving no matter what my decision was. He always holds the power to give or not give salvation regardless of how much we want or don’t want it. This in itself does not prove we don’t have the option to decide we want what he is offering.

Know what I mean?
Peace,
Joe

Samsheep2
Dec 10th 2008, 05:04 PM
Sure Sam is fine;...and allow me to say I'm enjoying the fellowship with you and others in here. This appears to be the kind of forum I've been looking for.


I myself think the confusion comes more with the definition of will. Will is the explanation of a decision before any action is taken. So I think your question has a false premise that the will does the action instead of it simply revealing a decision. God always does the saving no matter what my decision was. He always holds the power to give or not give salvation regardless of how much we want or don’t want it. This in itself does not prove we don’t have the option to decide we want what he is offering.

<If any man ever wills to be saved was it because they willed it themselves or was it first because another willed it for them?>

We may not agree as to your explanation of will according to your def. of meaning but we can agree that there has to be a manifestation of in order to know the extent of motive and this was and is where my question starts - I added 'for them' to accentuate the 'because'.
The Greek is saying this in the passage of John 1:13, 'of God' meaning He quickens whom he will.

1.The bible to me is clear that my name was written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.
2.That which God willed back before I was ever born was carried out in the day of His power which was 1/19/71.
3.The Providence of God worked in all the events of my life to bring me to that day.
4.Options had no more to do with it than did decisions.

God bless,

Walstib
Dec 11th 2008, 12:29 AM
Sure Sam is fine;...and allow me to say I'm enjoying the fellowship with you and others in here. This appears to be the kind of forum I've been looking for. Hi Sam,

It’s nice to meet you too. Great place to find some good spiritual food. If you knew the number of vegetable and food analogies I have run into this week my last post might make more sense. :)
We may not agree as to your explanation of will according to your def. of meaningI can understand that. I would be interested in what your definition is, see if we can find some common ground with that word maybe.
but we can agree that there has to be a manifestation of in order to know the extent of motive and this was and is where my question startsSorry if I misunderstood your question. Do you mean; before you can know what someone willed there has to be a result that shows it? I’ll wait to make sure what you mean.
The Greek is saying this in the passage of John 1:13, 'of God' meaning He quickens whom he will.I agree God does the quickening and add we can’t do the quickening. Being born is I believe what the “of God” refers to, or motive is if I understand you above. Compared to the motive being who He gives “the right to become children”.

“Those who believe in His name” these people have been given the right to become children. The rebirth itself is not accomplished because they were born special, or by muscle power or by the decision itself, but God does the regenerating itself.

Am I at least understanding what you want to discuss?

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

Peace,
Joe

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 04:13 AM
Am I at least understanding what you want to discuss?

Yes if you are understanding what 'knowing' as attached to 'your election of God' means. Personaly I do not think the word 'right' as used in the NKJV has the same meaning as 'power' as used in the KJV below.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: It was not until after the Spirit of adoption has witness to my spirit that I am a son of God thereby placing the power of in the hands of God and not in the rights of man. This is why one cannot be born via either the will of the flesh nor the will of mankind. The "power", as it is here called, of becoming the sons of God: by which is meant, not a power of free will to make themselves the sons of God, if they will make use of it; but it signifies the honour and dignity conferred on such persons by our Sovereign.
It is an undeserved and distinguishing gift, and is attended with many other privileges; for such are of God's household and family, and are provided for by him; have liberty of access unto him; are Christ's free men, and are heirs to an incorruptible inheritance. This is a privilege that excels all others, even justification and remission of sins; and is an everlasting one: and it also intends the open right which believers have unto this privilege, and their claim of it: hence it follows,

...even to them that believe in his name; that is, in himself, in Christ, the word: the phrase is explained from the former part of the verse, and is a descriptive and manifestative character of the sons of God; for though the elect of God, by virtue of electing grace, and the covenant of grace, are the children of God before faith ever comes; and were so considered in the gift of them to Christ, and when he came into the world He came to gather them together, and birth them; and so, prior to the Spirit of God, being sent down into their hearts, to make this known to them; yet no man can know his adoption, nor enjoy the comfort of it, or claim his interest in it, until he becomes a believer.
God bless,

P.S. Of course I can back this up with scripture but would take too long - know what I mean!

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 04:47 AM
1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Since Paul was only there approx. 22 days establishing this local church prior to sending them this first letter I'm curious what any might think he means by 'knowing...your election'.

So as to not cause any confusion allow me to add a thought to the above by stating the reason we are to rightly divide the 'word' of truth - I coined the phrase "WORD ASSOCIATION"

One of the reasons for using the KJV for these past 40 years in the study of word association - no other version is laid out whereby one can accomplish this - for instance:

Knowing, even though I posted the thoughts of three men of God they are still nothing more than that - thoughts and if thoughts were what we needed then mine are as good as theirs and so are yours. But this word 'knowing' via word association tells me much about the word 'election'.

< eido> is used 625 times in the NT - we therefore are interested in a look at a few of them since knowing ones election of God is an important issue with God, Paul and others;...

Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, If you will allow me may i go back to this passage which is a help;...
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) knowing ones calling has to do with knowing ones election - Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: Enough for tonigh but the Lord willing we hope to continue tomorrow.

God bless the elect,

Walstib
Dec 11th 2008, 05:22 AM
Hi Sam,
Yes if you are understanding what 'knowing' as attached to 'your election of God' means. Personaly I do not think the word 'right' as used in the NKJV has the same meaning as 'power' as used in the KJV below. I hear you, in my vegetable example I used the word fork thinking of power. Then when my wife read it she said "what is the fork?" It really is hard to comunicate sometimes.

Still it is my point, the power to do anything in regards to regenerating is always in God's hand. Hard to argue against God’s sovereignty. A focus would be why God uses His power to regenerate people. Is it because it was predetermined or because they changed their minds from unbelief to belief.

Do you think God is the author of our belief? In other words, do we have the freedom to change our minds?
P.S. Of course I can back this up with scripture but would take too long - know what I mean! I do, can’t talk about everything at once. ;) I will post three from John as he talks of belief as I see it relates to the discussion and my questions.

And many more believed because of His own word. Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world." (Joh 4:41-42 NKJV)

These people believed because they heard Jesus and changed their minds I think.

But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish--the very works that I do--bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.(Joh 5:36-40 NKJV)

Jesus talks of a bunch of evidence that is available to these people. His works and the scriptures. The type of people who don’t have the Word abiding in them still choose not to believe Jesus is Lord regardless of the evidence. Seems to me to say that if they did change their mind and were then willing to go to Jesus, they would then have life. Regeneration after belief with their will being in the process.

Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
(Joh 6:28-29 NKJV)

Jesus seems to me to be saying God would like us to do the believing.

Sorry we don’t seem to be agreeing yet. Still trying to define things the same way I guess.

Peace,
Joe

Veretax
Dec 11th 2008, 12:46 PM
So as to not cause any confusion allow me to add a thought to the above by stating the reason we are to rightly divide the 'word' of truth - I coined the phrase "WORD ASSOCIATION"

One of the reasons for using the KJV for these past 40 years in the study of word association - no other version is laid out whereby one can accomplish this - for instance:

Knowing, even though I posted the thoughts of three men of God they are still nothing more than that - thoughts and if thoughts were what we needed then mine are as good as theirs and so are yours. But this word 'knowing' via word association tells me much about the word 'election'.

< eido> is used 625 times in the NT - we therefore are interested in a look at a few of them since knowing ones election of God is an important issue with God, Paul and others;...

Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, If you will allow me may i go back to this passage which is a help;...
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) knowing ones calling has to do with knowing ones election - Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: Enough for tonigh but the Lord willing we hope to continue tomorrow.

God bless the elect,


The KJV has its own flaws though, and its english was written for a time both different, and in many places no longer used anywhere in the world except in the KJV. I use a NKJV, and when I have a question about a passage will go to Strongs or to the Greek to compare the words in the translation. However, the shocking thing is even gievn some of its dated language, it is still one of the more reliable translations for englishs speakers. However, I still have chosen the NKJV and I plan to stick with it.

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 01:32 PM
Good morning Joe and let me say first off I'm enjoying our discussions on this matter of 'knowing our election of God'.


Hard to argue against God’s sovereignty. A focus would be why God uses His power to regenerate people. Is it because it was predetermined or because they changed their minds from unbelief to belief.

On my part I must say because He chose 'us' in Him before the foundation of the world.


Do you think God is the author of our belief? In other words, do we have the freedom to change our minds? I do, can’t talk about everything at once. ;) I will post three from John as he talks of belief as I see it relates to the discussion and my questions.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe God is the author of our belief! Acts 11:18 ...Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.


Jesus talks of a bunch of evidence that is available to these people. His works and the scriptures. The type of people who don’t have the Word abiding in them still choose not to believe Jesus is Lord regardless of the evidence. Seems to me to say that if they did change their mind and were then willing to go to Jesus, they would then have life. Regeneration after belief with their will being in the process.

Joe, the reason is explained in 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. Of course we could share much more but?


Jesus seems to me to be saying God would like us to do the believing. Sorry we don’t seem to be agreeing yet. Still trying to define things the same way I guess.

Joe, allow me to be short in my answer since this is growing larger and larger - It's not that he would like for us to do the believing but the scope of this is seen in "WITHOUT HIM WE COULD DO NOTHING" - for instance Paul speaks to Timothy about pastoral problems one of which is seen in the context of this answer:

2 Timothy 2:25-26 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. Joe, I'm sorry that we seem to not be agreeing on this subject at hand and to be honest I think we are on the same "TRAIN" just different tracks. One track is Human responsibility and the other is Sovereign Election; neither can be understood fully by themselves but together they take the train (sinner saved by pure grace) to it's final destination.

God bless,

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 01:42 PM
The KJV has its own flaws though, and its english was written for a time both different, and in many places no longer used anywhere in the world except in the KJV. I use a NKJV, and when I have a question about a passage will go to Strongs or to the Greek to compare the words in the translation. However, the shocking thing is even gievn some of its dated language, it is still one of the more reliable translations for englishs speakers. However, I still have chosen the NKJV and I plan to stick with it.

Flaws??? did you say flaws;...I wonder who told you this and I'm sure you will be more than eager to explain all the flaws - but please start a new thread and I will gladly discuss it with you.

God bless,

Veretax
Dec 11th 2008, 01:46 PM
Flaws??? did you say flaws;...I wonder who told you this and I'm sure you will be more than eager to explain all the flaws - but please start a new thread and I will gladly discuss it with you.

God bless,


Every English translation I've read has at least two or three passages that could have been translated better. My main reason for choosing the NKJV is its more modern version of english used. However, I in no way care to debate this, was merely responding to your stand which seemed to be claiming we should all be using the KJV, and I don't personally believe that. Its a good translation, but it is not the only good translation.

Peace

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 03:11 PM
Every English translation I've read has at least two or three passages that could have been translated better. My main reason for choosing the NKJV is its more modern version of english used. However, I in no way care to debate this, was merely responding to your stand which seemed to be claiming we should all be using the KJV, and I don't personally believe that. Its a good translation, but it is not the only good translation.

Peace

Friend, that's not what i requested of you so allow me to start a new thread if the hosts will allow so.

God bless,

Veretax
Dec 11th 2008, 03:17 PM
Friend, that's not what i requested of you so allow me to start a new thread if the hosts will allow so.

God bless,


I was only explaining why I replied as i did. I'll say no more on it.

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 08:15 PM
I was only explaining why I replied as i did. I'll say no more on it.

I appreciate that and only thought it might be worth while to start a thread as I have - no problem.

God bless,

Walstib
Dec 11th 2008, 08:28 PM
Hi Sam,

I was thinking about this all today. I could continue to share my views and we very well may end up back to the same sets of scriptures that have been gone over many many times. Agreeing on how salvation unto repentance is accomplished seems to be another thing in a list we are working on that we define differently. I have enjoyed going over why I believe what I do but have other topics I want find growth in other than this one.

So I am politely leaving the thread with thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the time you took and the spirit you approached it in. Indeed the agreement we have is God’s sovereignty and the need for His son Jesus, without whom we would have no hope. Thanks be to God He loved us when we far from Him, and still does now.

See you around eh,
Peace
Joe

Samsheep2
Dec 11th 2008, 08:51 PM
Hi Sam,

I was thinking about this all today. I could continue to share my views and we very well may end up back to the same sets of scriptures that have been gone over many many times. Agreeing on how salvation unto repentance is accomplished seems to be another thing in a list we are working on that we define differently. I have enjoyed going over why I believe what I do but have other topics I want find growth in other than this one.

So I am politely leaving the thread with thanks for the discussion. I appreciate the time you took and the spirit you approached it in. Indeed the agreement we have is God’s sovereignty and the need for His son Jesus, without whom we would have no hope. Thanks be to God He loved us when we far from Him, and still does now.

See you around eh,
Peace
Joe

Thanks Joe and many 'ditto's' to you also - I look forward to other discussions in other areas that criss-cross some time, some where with the doctrine of 'knowing'

God bless,

Sirus
Dec 13th 2008, 06:22 AM
If any man ever wills to be saved was it because they willed it themselves or was it first because another willed it? For instance:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.Hi Sam.

What is the 'will of God', 'purpose of God', and 'mystery of Christ' that was hidden from the foundation of the world? Therein is your answer.
God willed the invitation.
Man wills his own salvation.



1.The bible to me is clear that my name was written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the worldwhere does it say that, other than the assumption of and according to the foreknowledge of God?


2.That which God willed back before I was ever born was carried out in the day of His power which was 1/19/71God willed the Son of God in the flesh before man was created. According to the verse you quoted above, 1/19/71 is when you believed it and God knew that by His foreknowledge.


3.The Providence of God worked in all the events of my life to bring me to that day.Is this to say Providence didn't work in the events of others lives that refused that day?


4.Options had no more to do with it than did decisions.What scripture backs this up? Do you have any at all? Just one? Don't apply king Saul to you he was a requested king.

Samsheep2
Dec 13th 2008, 02:21 PM
God willed the invitation. Man wills his own salvation. Good morning to you Sirus - and to answer your blanket statement I must say you appear to be placing the will of man higher than the will of God. No way did you come up with this from within the passage used?



where does it say that, other than the assumption of and according to the foreknowledge of God? Sirus, I'm surprised that you appear to equate 'assumption & foreknowledge' in one lump? But where does it say that you ask!!! - I'm sure that a lengthy showing will do no more good than what I am about to share - but study is a laborious thing and you understand that. Having so said allow me to now answer you according to my convictions:
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,...
Our names, it says, in Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world. We are, says Peter, chosen...chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by the sanctifying work of the Spirit that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood. We are chosen unto salvation. We are chosen to belong to Him. (1Pet.1:2)
When you look at your salvation, thank God. Thank God because you're a Christian because He chose you. I don't understand the mystery of that, that's just what the Word of God teaches. That is the most humbling doctrine in all of Scripture. I take no credit, not even credit for my faith. It all came from Him. He chose me. He selected people to be made holy in order to be with Him forever. Why He selected me I will never know. I'm no better than anyone else, I'm worse than many. But He chose me. Thank God he didn’t choose me according to my goodness, works, desires or merit since none of these could ever measure up to His marvelous grace.
Someone wrote, "I sought the Lord and afterwards knew He moved my soul to seek Him seeking me. It was not that I found O Savior true, no, I was found by Thee." He chose us. He gets all the credit.


God willed the Son of God in the flesh before man was created. According to the verse you quoted above, 1/19/71 is when you believed it and God knew that by His foreknowledge. Exactly and that is what I said?


Is this to say Providence didn't work in the events of others lives that refused that day? Not at all since I was speaking about myself only.


What scripture backs this up? Do you have any at all? Just one? Don't apply king Saul to you he was a requested king. Would it change your if I do? Well, since i know what I meant then we will give this one:
Romans 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
I hope this answers all that you have asked and even though we may or may not agree together thanks for all you say.

Sam,

Sirus
Dec 13th 2008, 06:31 PM
Good morning to you Sirus - and to answer your blanket statement I must say you appear to be placing the will of man higher than the will of God. No way did you come up with this from within the passage used?God, in His sovereignty, gave man a will to choose or reject Him. I have not place mans will any higher or lower than God has. It says, as many as received him. You said you believed.



Sirus, I'm surprised that you appear to equate 'assumption & foreknowledge' in one lump? But where does it say that you ask!!! - I'm sure that a lengthy showing will do no more good than what I am about to share - but study is a laborious thing and you understand that. Having so said allow me to now answer you according to my convictions:Thanks. Rev 17:8 was what I needed to see again. Eph 1 and Rev 13 do not say written before the foundation, Rev 17 does. Thanks.



Exactly and that is what I said?No, it's not what you said, or at least you have not explained how your believing excluded you from willing to receive Him.



Would it change your if I do?Of course not, but that's because I knew you were going to post Rom 9. :D
One of the most misunderstood chapters in all the Bible.


Well, since i know what I meant then we will give this one:
Romans 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
I hope this answers all that you have asked and even though we may or may not agree together thanks for all you say. Does it make sense to say God chooses to have mercy on only some (Rom 9:15-18) when Romans 11:32 says His will is to have mercy upon all?

Why did He saith that to Moses? What was happening and what was needing to happen? Israel which Christ in the flesh was to come through needed to be established!

The context is the “purpose of God“ (9:11), “seed” (singular), “word of promise“ and “word of God“ (which is Christ Rom 9:5-8)! It is not about how God arbitrarily chooses some men to be saved and damns all the rest based on His sovereign will apart from the will and volition of man, but how God determined to have mercy upon all (11:32) through Christ, the promised seed (singular) and inheritor of the covenant blessings. It is corporate not individualist.

So lets look at the context of Romans 9.


Verse 4 says the covenant promises were made to Israel
Verse 5 says Christ came in the flesh through the nation of Israel
Verses 6-8 say the promises made to Abraham’s seed (“which is Christ” Galatians 3:16.) are in effect


Election is Christocentric (Isa 42:1,6; Mat 12:17-21; 1Pet 2:4, 6). Christ is “mine elect”. Paul begins the extended discussion of election by laying the foundation. Not only does chapter 9 start with Christ (v5-8) it ends with Christ, the “stumblingstone and rock of offense” (v32-33). The foundation is continued into chapter 10 where Israel’s zeal is not according to knowledge because they have not submitted to Christ, “the righteousness of God” (v2-4) and continues further into chapter 11 where we partake of the root (Christ) which bears us.

To ensure Christ, the promised seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), would come into the world to be the Savior of man (purpose of God), God used men of faith and men that rejected Him, and He chose to accomplish His purpose and will through one nation (Jacob/Israel) and one man (seed/Christ) from that nation. That’s simple isn’t it? Just as He has always shown mercy to those that do not harden their hearts (Romans 2:7, 10), He hardens those that harden their hearts (Romans 1:18-28; 2:8-9) to accomplish His purpose and will to send His only Son into the world, for the world, that the world through Him might be saved. Who can stop this Christocentric purpose and this Christocentric will of God? That is the question being asked in verse 19 because that is the context.

Just as there is a context of Romans 1-3 to conclude all under their own sin, a context of Romans 4-5 of Justification by faith, and a context of Romans 6-8 of an experiential walk for the “elect” in this world ‘by faith’ in the one act of Justification and Sanctification by the death burial and resurrection of Christ, the context of chapters 9-11 is the nation of Israel’s past election (9:1-29), present rejection of the gospel (9:30 – 10:21), future salvation (ch 11), and the Gentiles acceptance of the gospel (Rom 9:23-30, 10:10-20, 11:7-32). The context is the “purpose of God” (Rom 8:28; 9:11), which He “purposed in Himself“ (Eph 1:9 – 2:19) in Christ, ‘mine elect’ (Isa 42:1,6; Mat 12:18; 1Pet 2:4, 6), coming in the flesh (Rom 9:5-9), the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world before man was created. This “purpose of God“ and “mystery of His will” (Eph 1:9 – 2:20) was hid since the foundation of the world and was revealed in Christ (Rom 8:28; 11:25-26; 16:25-26; 1Cor 2:7; Eph 1:9 – 2:19; 3:3-19; 5:30-32; 6:19; Col 1:26 –2:2; 4:3; 1Ti 3:9; Rev 10:7; 11:15, 18-19). That Jew and Gentile would be part of one body, which is Christ. One people of God, as members of Christ’s body – one new man made of both Jew and Gentile.

The argument boils down to understanding the doctrine of election –selected/chosen, by implication of being favored. While most claim we cannot fully understand how God elects, the Bible is quite clear God elects according to His foreknowledge. Romans 9 cannot be rightly divided and understood if one departs from this simple concept, departs from the context, and doesn’t holistically read the scriptures concerning the people being referenced. God’s election is not arbitrary but based on what He knows about the individual from the foundation of the world.

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

Rom 8:28- And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Now, if you want to say ‘God gives us faith so we can believe’ I’ll have to ask for scriptural support. Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t say God gave faith, it says God gave grace and salvation through faith in His Son. Faith is the means of obtaining the gift, but it is not the gift. Many passages say this but not one says faith is the gift.

If you want to say we must be drawn by the Father and it must be given to us by the Father, I’ll ask you to read John 6 again and notice v44, 65, the ‘therefore’ in v65, and that in between and in all the chapter it says that we believe on Jesus. The context is that it is the Cross of Christ that all men are drawn by! Jesus said that if He was raised up He would draw all men unto Him (John 12:32)! We are drawn by the Father through the Son that God gave to be slain so that whosoever believes on Him might be saved. We are drawn by the gospel, which Jesus called the Fathers work.

Samsheep2
Dec 13th 2008, 09:30 PM
Does it make sense to say God chooses to have mercy on only some (Rom 9:15-18) when Romans 11:32 says His will is to have mercy upon all? Why did He saith that to Moses? What was happening and what was needing to happen? Israel which Christ in the flesh was to come through needed to be established!

Sirus, as you see I have condensed your argument into three areas which we shall deal with one at a time as time permits.


Now, if you want to say ‘God gives us faith so we can believe’ I’ll have to ask for scriptural support. Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t say God gave faith, it says God gave grace and salvation through faith in His Son. Faith is the means of obtaining the gift, but it is not the gift. Many passages say this but not one says faith is the gift.

I hope to take these three one by one so as to attempt to keep out any confusion. It's not that I disagree with you in all that you posted but that the largeness of your explanation overlap too much and I felt this would be better.


If you want to say we must be drawn by the Father and it must be given to us by the Father, I’ll ask you to read John 6 again and notice v44, 65, the ‘therefore’ in v65, and that in between and in all the chapter it says that we believe on Jesus. The context is that it is the Cross of Christ that all men are drawn by! Jesus said that if He was raised up He would draw all men unto Him (John 12:32)! We are drawn by the Father through the Son that God gave to be slain so that whosoever believes on Him might be saved. We are drawn by the gospel, which Jesus called the Fathers work.

Thanks, Sam,

Samsheep2
Dec 13th 2008, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Sirus http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1904381#post1904381) Does it make sense to say God chooses to have mercy on only some (Rom 9:15-18) when Romans 11:32 says His will is to have mercy upon all? Why did He saith that to Moses? What was happening and what was needing to happen? Israel which Christ in the flesh was to come through needed to be established!

No, as far as the human mind goes it never makes any sense to say God chose to have mercy on some but He did and the bible is clear about that truth - what is not clear is as to why???

Allow me to add one more verse to the above: Romans 9:14-18 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Sirus, context is as always very important when one attempts to prove their point - I would ask you 'who' are the 'all' He speaks of in Ro.11:32; that he might have mercy upon all: certainly not upon 'all' the individuals of Jews and Gentiles; for all are not concluded in, or convinced of the sin of unbelief, but only such who are eventually believers, as appears from the parallel text, Ga.3:22; and designs all God's elect among the Jews, called "their fulness", Ro.11:12; and all God's elect among the Gentiles, called "the fulness of the Gentiles", Ro 11:25 (vr:6E4B); for whom he has mercy in store, and will bestow it on them; and in order to bring them to a sense of their need of it, and that he may the more illustriously display the riches of it, he leaves them for a while in a state of unbelief, and then by his Spirit thoroughly convinces them of it, and gives them faith to look to, and believe in, the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.

Surely you are not one of those that believes the 'all' is all Israel will be saved? Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Sirus, I promise by the Lord's help to get back to the other two points as soon as I can.

Thanks, Sam,

Samsheep2
Dec 13th 2008, 10:42 PM
Now, if you want to say ‘God gives us faith so we can believe’ I’ll have to ask for scriptural support. Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t say God gave faith, it says God gave grace and salvation through faith in His Son. Faith is the means of obtaining the gift, but it is not the gift. Many passages say this but not one says faith is the gift.

Sirus, Since much of contemporary evangelism leaves people thinking their salvation is predicated on their decision for Christ. But how could anyone ever decide for God on his own? First Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him." Second Corinthians 4:4 says, "The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Man is ignorant, in darkness, and dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). In his natural state he could never muster up enough of whatever it takes to turn around and follow God. God must make the first move. He purposes to save us in eternity past and redeem us for eternity future. God saved you not just to keep you out of hell or to make you happy. His ultimate reason is to conform you to Christ's image so you will be able to give glory to the One who is most glorious.
How does a sinner obtain saving faith? While God knows what is going to happen in the future, that still doesn't explain how sinners get saving faith. How can a person who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, unable to understand the things of God, and continuously filled with evil suddenly exercise saving faith? A corpse could sooner come out of a grave and walk!
It includes foreordination God's foreknowledge is not a reference to His omniscient foresight but to His foreordination. God does foresee who is going to be a believer, but the faith He foresees is the faith He Himself creates. Jesus said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.... No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him" (John 6:37, 44). John 1:13 says Christians are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it [faith] is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast." Saving faith comes from God. Always has and always will.
Acts 13:48 says, "When the Gentiles heard ... they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Salvation is ordained of God. It ultimately ends in eternal life and glory and a person's being conformed to the image of Christ. These particular Gentiles in Acts 13 believed because they were ordained to do so. Of course they heard the gospel, that is God’s chosen way of saving them that will believe.
God doesn't merely see what will happen in the future, but ordains what will happen. The Bible clearly teaches that God sovereignly chooses people to believe in Him. The epistle of 1 Peter begins, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father" (vv. 1-2). We are elect by God's foreknowledge.
It includes forelove God predetermined to love us. "Foreknow" (Gk., prognosis) is the key word in Romans 8:29. The word know is often used in Scripture to speak of a love relationship. Genesis 4:17 says, "Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch." That doesn't mean Cain knew who his wife was or what her name was; it means he knew her intimately. Joseph was surprised when Mary became pregnant with Jesus because he had not yet known her intimately (Matt 1:18, 25). Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them" (John 10:27). God told Israel, "You only have I known" (Amos 3:2). He didn't mean He knew only about the Jewish people. According to Matthew 7:23 the Lord will someday say to unbelievers, "I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." In that case there was no predetermined love relationship, as when a man knows his wife.
God's foreknowledge means He predetermined to love certain people. He foreordained the redemption of those people, and could foresee it all happening in the future. So foreknowledge is a predetermined, foreordained, foreseen love relationship. Romans 8:28 says we are "called according to his purpose." Before the world began God purposed to love us and redeem us so we might be conformed to Christ's image. Second Timothy 2:19 says, "The Lord knoweth them that are his." Christ knows us intimately. Sirus, in closing this second part pay close attention to this: Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Since the new you now lives by the faith of the Son of God, the old you will go back to the dust from whence it came.

Thanks, Sam,

Samsheep2
Dec 13th 2008, 11:21 PM
If you want to say we must be drawn by the Father and it must be given to us by the Father, I’ll ask you to read John 6 again and notice v44, 65, the ‘therefore’ in v65, and that in between and in all the chapter it says that we believe on Jesus.

Sirus, I’m amazed at how you attempt to build a case against the plain teaching of the word of God – of course I delight in attempting to share my beliefs while knowing it takes the Holy Spirit to illuminate – know what I mean, therefore we will conclude this with our response to your third point. By no means am I stating that I alone am correct in all this and you are wrong – just that we differ in what I believe to be the rightly dividing of the word of truth.
For instance it is the bible that states we must be drawn by the Father’s Spirit.
…No man can come to me,… That is, by faith, as in John 6:35;for otherwise they could corporeally come to him, but not spiritually, John 2:23-25; because they had neither power nor will of themselves; being dead in trespasses and sins, and impotent to everything that is spiritual: and while men are in a state of unregeneracy, blindness, and darkness, they see no need of coming to Christ, nor anything in him worth coming for; they are prejudiced against him, and their hearts are set on other things; and besides, coming to Christ and believing in Christ being the same thing, it is certain faith is not of a man's self, it is the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and therefore efficacious grace must be exerted to enable a soul to come to Christ; which is expressed in the following words,
…except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: which is not to be understood of moral persuasion, or a being persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that he was the true Messiah, but of the internal and powerful influence of the grace of God; for this act of drawing is something distinct from, and superior to, both doctrine and miracles. The Capernaites had heard the doctrine of Christ, which was taught with authority, and had seen his miracles, which were full proofs of his being the Messiah, and yet believed not, but murmured at his person and parentage. This gave occasion to Christ to observe to them, that something more than these was necessary to their coming to him, or savingly believing in him; even the powerful and efficacious grace of the Father in drawing: and if it be considered what men in conversion are drawn off "from" and "to", from their beloved lusts and darling righteousness; to look unto, and rely upon Christ alone for salvation; from that which was before so very agreeable, to that which, previous to this work, was so very disagreeable; to what else can this be ascribed, but to unfrustrable and insuperable grace? but though this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force; God in drawing of unwilling, makes willing in the day of his power: he enlightens the understanding, bends the will, gives an heart of flesh, sweetly allures by the power of his grace, and engages the soul to come to Christ, and give up itself to him; he draws with the bands of love. Drawing, though it supposes power and influence, yet not always co action and force: music draws the ear, love the heart, and pleasure the mind.
…And I will raise him at the last day; compare with this verse John 6:40.
Sirus, allow me to answer the rest of this later.

Thanks, Sam,

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 02:43 AM
The context is that it is the Cross of Christ that all men are drawn by! Jesus said that if He was raised up He would draw all men unto Him (John 12:32)! We are drawn by the Father through the Son that God gave to be slain so that whosoever believes on Him might be saved. We are drawn by the gospel, which Jesus called the Fathers work.

Sirus, no doubt in my mind you mean well by what you say above but I’m wondering are you really taking the time to think as to what you’re saying above? For instance:

1.All men have not been drawn to Christ since He died on the cross! Matter of fact more have died and gone to hell than has ever come to Christ. You do understand the difference between the words “MANY” & “FEW”.

2. I will draw all men to me; which is not to be understood of all the people about him that day, some were for him, and others against him, some to bewail him, and others to reproach him; but it speaks rather of the gathering of the elect to him, and in him, as their head and representative, when he was crucified for them; or of the collection of them, through the ministry of the apostles, and of their being brought to believe on him for eternal life and salvation: and this drawing of them to him, in consequence of his death, supposes distance from him, want of power, and will, to came to him, and the efficacious grace of God to bring them, though without any force and compulsion; and this is to be understood not of every individual of human nature; for all are not drawn to Christ, or enabled to come to him, and believe in him. There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him; moreover, in the preceding verse, "a world" is spoken of, whose judgment, or condemnation, was now come; and besides, there was already at this time a multitude of souls in hell, who could not, nor never will be, drawn to Christ; and a greater number still there will be at the last day, who, instead of drawing to him in this gracious way and manner, will be bid to depart from him, as having been workers of iniquity. Matt.7:21-23; Christ died indeed for all men who are drawn unto him; but this is not true of all men, that are, were, or shall be in the world. Add to this, that the word "men" is not in the text, it is only, "all": The translators added this for help.
Gentiles as well as Jews, and especially the former; which agrees with the ancient prophecy Gen.49:10, and with the context, and the occasion of the words, which was the desire of the Greeks, that were come to the feast, to see Jesus; and which was a specimen of the large numbers of them, that should be drawn to Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel, after his death: Christ's cross is the standard, his love is the banner, and he himself is the ensign, which draw souls to himself, and engage them to enlist themselves under him, and become his volunteers in the day his power; see Isa.11:10.

Sirus, so as not to go back and forth in a repeat or bring dishonor to the truth by disagreeing on truth I have now concluded my remarks.

Thanks, Sam,

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2008, 12:53 PM
Guys, this is not a debate forum. This is the maturing in Christ forum. Please read the rules. If you are going to debate, do so in biblechat. If the debating continues, I will move the thread over there.

Thanks,

Mark

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 01:03 PM
Guys, this is not a debate forum. This is the maturing in Christ forum. Please read the rules. If you are going to debate, do so in biblechat. If the debating continues, I will move the thread over there.

Thanks,

Mark
Hi Mark, and thanks for pointing out this - I was under the impression we were still discussing since we were answering back and forth - Speaking for myself I was in hopes the subject was more of a maturing nature than that of debating. As for my voice in this if you wish to move it over there please do so.

God bless,
Sam,

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 02:02 PM
Please accept my apology for maybe not using the correct verbiage in this discussion, my motive was not for a debate but a discussion as i explained to the host. I will ask that he move this thread to Bible chat so there will be liberty for differences to be expressed in a sound, scriptural and spiritual tone.

God bless,
Sam,

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2008, 02:04 PM
No problem Sam. I'll move the thread per your request. Since you started it, that will be fine. Enjoy!

Blessings,

Mark

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 02:07 PM
No problem Sam. I'll move the thread per your request. Since you started it, that will be fine. Enjoy!

Blessings,

Mark

Thanks my friend and may our LORD give us both a great day.

Sam,

Brother Mark
Dec 14th 2008, 02:14 PM
Thanks my friend and may our LORD give us both a great day.

Sam,

Amen! All the days are his creation. May we rejoice in them. ;)

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 02:14 PM
...I thought why not, why not start a new thread on the subject as Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles presented it by letter to the first local church of the NT:

1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Since Paul was only there approx. 22 days establishing this local church prior to sending them this first letter I'm curious what any might think he means by 'knowing...your election'.

Since Mark brought to my attention a drift in this text, and since he has moved in this forum where debates (healthy debates) may be persuaded then I shall re-direct this to any and all:

What does 'knowing' say to you, I mean by this question is Paul stating under inspiration that they knew they were the 'elect' or was he meaning he and his party with him recognized this?

thanks, Sam,

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 06:05 PM
Repost: Election

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.)

Also, if you look to Paul, who was killing Christians left and right, he states about himself that he was chosen, appointed, and set apart before he was born.

Samsheep2
Dec 14th 2008, 07:14 PM
Repost: Election

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.)

Also, if you look to Paul, who was killing Christians left and right, he states about himself that he was chosen, appointed, and set apart before he was born.

Yukerboy, I agree 110% with all said above and appreciate your post but, what do you think about the word 'knowing' as far as how I asked the question?

Thanks, Sam,

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:13 PM
No, as far as the human mind goes it never makes any sense to say God chose to have mercy on some but He did and the bible is clear about that truth - what is not clear is as to why???

Allow me to add one more verse to the above: Romans 9:14-18 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Sirus, context is as always very important when one attempts to prove their point - I would ask you 'who' are the 'all' He speaks of in Ro.11:32; that he might have mercy upon all: certainly not upon 'all' the individuals of Jews and Gentiles; for all are not concluded in, or convinced of the sin of unbelief, but only such who are eventually believers, as appears from the parallel text, Ga.3:22; and designs all God's elect among the Jews, called "their fulness", Ro.11:12; and all God's elect among the Gentiles, called "the fulness of the Gentiles", Ro 11:25; for whom he has mercy in store, and will bestow it on them; and in order to bring them to a sense of their need of it, and that he may the more illustriously display the riches of it, he leaves them for a while in a state of unbelief, and then by his Spirit thoroughly convinces them of it, and gives them faith to look to, and believe in, the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.

Surely you are not one of those that believes the 'all' is all Israel will be saved? Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: This is Calvin’s Limited atonement from the TULIP to which I do not subscribe. Concerning limited atonement, you know the verses but in short, Jesus died for the sins of the world and His will is that ALL come to repentance.

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:15 PM
Sirus, Since much of contemporary evangelism leaves people thinking their salvation is predicated on their decision for Christ. But how could anyone ever decide for God on his own? First Corinthians 2:14 says, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him." Second Corinthians 4:4 says, "The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Man is ignorant, in darkness, and dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). In his natural state he could never muster up enough of whatever it takes to turn around and follow God. God must make the first move. He purposes to save us in eternity past and redeem us for eternity future. God saved you not just to keep you out of hell or to make you happy. His ultimate reason is to conform you to Christ's image so you will be able to give glory to the One who is most glorious.
How does a sinner obtain saving faith? While God knows what is going to happen in the future, that still doesn't explain how sinners get saving faith. How can a person who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, unable to understand the things of God, and continuously filled with evil suddenly exercise saving faith? A corpse could sooner come out of a grave and walk!
It includes foreordination God's foreknowledge is not a reference to His omniscient foresight but to His foreordination. God does foresee who is going to be a believer, but the faith He foresees is the faith He Himself creates. Jesus said, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.... No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him" (John 6:37, 44). John 1:13 says Christians are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it [faith] is the gift of God--not of works, lest any man should boast." Saving faith comes from God. Always has and always will. I care not what contemporary evangelism says but I certainly cannot subscribe to what ‘the church’ as Jesus said has grown from leaven has said from the days of the apostles until now, which is what you are propagating here. I only care what the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles wrote.
While the natural man receives not the things of God a spiritual man does. You won’t find one single scripture to support a dead inoperative spirit, but I can post 100 for the spirit of man alive and well, interacting with God.

You say man is ignorant but my Bible says man is born knowing God and is without excuse. (Rom 1)
You say man is in darkness, but my Bible says the level of darkness depends on the truth each individual man has rejected. (Rom 1) (foolish heart darkened from a lighter state - not born dark)

I agree man is dying physically and has a veiled relationship with God because of his sins.

You have assumed man is only in a natural state, but man has a spirit from God in him and he has a soul patterned after God.

I agree God makes the first move. It’s called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Saving faith is not in the Bible. Faith is not a thing to be given. It’s just trust. That cannot be given. The grace of God seen by every man is in the Bible.

Blinded by Satan is like the Jews being blinded by God. They hardened their heart. They rejected their Messiah. God hardened them. God didn’t harden them so that they would reject Him. It says they were blinded because of their unbelief! Satan hardens those that love sin. Some people that have grown into a life of sin according to the course of this world naturally, as we all do, do not want to continue in sin and do not love sin when they commit sin. An individual like this can trust in God just hearing the gospel.

Faith is not a thing to be created. It is something innate in every man because every man in created in His image and has a spirit and soul created by God, for God.

Yes, as I said, John 6 says the gospel is how the Father draws men.

Yes, as I said, Ephesians 2 says grace and salvation is the gift and we all know those verses don’t we? It says faith is the means we obtain the gift and we all know that to be absolute truth, don’t we? In no way does it say faith is the gift and I am not at all surprised you didn’t post any supporting scripture.

I agree faith is stirred by God. There are many passages for that. Still, not one verse or passage says faith is a gift or that faith is a work.

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:15 PM
Acts 13:48 says, "When the Gentiles heard ... they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Salvation is ordained of God. It ultimately ends in eternal life and glory and a person's being conformed to the image of Christ. These particular Gentiles in Acts 13 believed because they were ordained to do so. Of course they heard the gospel, that is God’s chosen way of saving them that will believe. Ah yes. Well let me ask you a question. Why don’t we see the signs and wonders today as we did then? I know some of it happens sometimes, I know missionaries and translators. I agree skepticism and doubt play a part. Most put in prison for Christ stay in prison, but Peter was let out. I am not at all alone when I say God was starting His Church, and much of what we see in Acts is just not the norm. So where else is this ordination found in the NT? Paul? Yes, again, God was starting His Church. It’s no different than God bringing Israel out of Egypt and establishing the nation with His mighty right arm. Besides, as you said, the Gentiles did hear the gospel which is the ordained way unto salvation, so I have to wonder……why did you go there in an attempt to establish a salvation that is arbitrarily based on God’s choosing according to His sovereign will alone, apart from the will and volition of each individual man to choose his own eternal destiny when it plainly says they believed?

Context!
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Again, God was establishing His Church!

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:16 PM
God doesn't merely see what will happen in the future, but ordains what will happen. The Bible clearly teaches that God sovereignly chooses people to believe in Him. The epistle of 1 Peter begins, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father" (vv. 1-2). We are elect by God's foreknowledge.
It includes forelove God predetermined to love us. "Foreknow" (Gk., prognosis) is the key word in Romans 8:29. The word know is often used in Scripture to speak of a love relationship. Genesis 4:17 says, "Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch." That doesn't mean Cain knew who his wife was or what her name was; it means he knew her intimately. Joseph was surprised when Mary became pregnant with Jesus because he had not yet known her intimately (Matt 1:18, 25). Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them" (John 10:27). God told Israel, "You only have I known" (Amos 3:2). He didn't mean He knew only about the Jewish people. According to Matthew 7:23 the Lord will someday say to unbelievers, "I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." In that case there was no predetermined love relationship, as when a man knows his wife.
God's foreknowledge means He predetermined to love certain people. He foreordained the redemption of those people, and could foresee it all happening in the future. So foreknowledge is a predetermined, foreordained, foreseen love relationship. Romans 8:28 says we are "called according to his purpose." Before the world began God purposed to love us and redeem us so we might be conformed to Christ's image. Second Timothy 2:19 says, "The Lord knoweth them that are his." Christ knows us intimately. Sirus, in closing this second part pay close attention to this: Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Since the new you now lives by the faith of the Son of God, the old you will go back to the dust from whence it came.
Here you are saying God’s love was not extended towards unbelievers, but earlier I asked ;
“Is this to say Providence didn't work in the events of others lives that refused that day?”
and you said
“Not at all since I was speaking about myself only.”
So which is it?

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:17 PM
Sirus, I’m amazed at how you attempt to build a case against the plain teaching of the word of God – of course I delight in attempting to share my beliefs while knowing it takes the Holy Spirit to illuminate – know what I mean, therefore we will conclude this with our response to your third point. By no means am I stating that I alone am correct in all this and you are wrong – just that we differ in what I believe to be the rightly dividing of the word of truth.
For instance it is the bible that states we must be drawn by the Father’s Spirit.
…No man can come to me,… That is, by faith, as in John 6:35;for otherwise they could corporeally come to him, but not spiritually, John 2:23-25; because they had neither power nor will of themselves; being dead in trespasses and sins, and impotent to everything that is spiritual: and while men are in a state of unregeneracy, blindness, and darkness, they see no need of coming to Christ, nor anything in him worth coming for; they are prejudiced against him, and their hearts are set on other things; and besides, coming to Christ and believing in Christ being the same thing, it is certain faith is not of a man's self, it is the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and therefore efficacious grace must be exerted to enable a soul to come to Christ; which is expressed in the following words,
…except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: which is not to be understood of moral persuasion, or a being persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that he was the true Messiah, but of the internal and powerful influence of the grace of God; for this act of drawing is something distinct from, and superior to, both doctrine and miracles. The Capernaites had heard the doctrine of Christ, which was taught with authority, and had seen his miracles, which were full proofs of his being the Messiah, and yet believed not, but murmured at his person and parentage. This gave occasion to Christ to observe to them, that something more than these was necessary to their coming to him, or savingly believing in him; even the powerful and efficacious grace of the Father in drawing: and if it be considered what men in conversion are drawn off "from" and "to", from their beloved lusts and darling righteousness; to look unto, and rely upon Christ alone for salvation; from that which was before so very agreeable, to that which, previous to this work, was so very disagreeable; to what else can this be ascribed, but to unfrustrable and insuperable grace? but though this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force; God in drawing of unwilling, makes willing in the day of his power: he enlightens the understanding, bends the will, gives an heart of flesh, sweetly allures by the power of his grace, and engages the soul to come to Christ, and give up itself to him; he draws with the bands of love. Drawing, though it supposes power and influence, yet not always co action and force: music draws the ear, love the heart, and pleasure the mind.
…And I will raise him at the last day; compare with this verse John 6:40.
Sirus, allow me to answer the rest of this later.

Thanks, Sam,Actually, it doesn’t say “we must be drawn by the Father’s Spirit” or “drawn by the Spirit”, it’s just been said so much people think it says that, but it doesn’t. It says the Father draws by the Son (gospel) who speaks words of spirit and life.
John 6 is very clear.....No man comes to the Father but by the bread of life from heaven. My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. The work of God is to believe on Him who the Father has sent. He came to do the Fathers will and the Fathers will is to believe on the Son. He that believes on Jesus has everlasting life because He is the bread of life the Father gives.

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:19 PM
Sirus, no doubt in my mind you mean well by what you say above but I’m wondering are you really taking the time to think as to what you’re saying above? For instance:

1.All men have not been drawn to Christ since He died on the cross! Matter of fact more have died and gone to hell than has ever come to Christ. You do understand the difference between the words “MANY” & “FEW”.

2. I will draw all men to me; which is not to be understood of all the people about him that day, some were for him, and others against him, some to bewail him, and others to reproach him; but it speaks rather of the gathering of the elect to him, and in him, as their head and representative, when he was crucified for them; or of the collection of them, through the ministry of the apostles, and of their being brought to believe on him for eternal life and salvation: and this drawing of them to him, in consequence of his death, supposes distance from him, want of power, and will, to came to him, and the efficacious grace of God to bring them, though without any force and compulsion; and this is to be understood not of every individual of human nature; for all are not drawn to Christ, or enabled to come to him, and believe in him. There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him; moreover, in the preceding verse, "a world" is spoken of, whose judgment, or condemnation, was now come; and besides, there was already at this time a multitude of souls in hell, who could not, nor never will be, drawn to Christ; and a greater number still there will be at the last day, who, instead of drawing to him in this gracious way and manner, will be bid to depart from him, as having been workers of iniquity. Matt.7:21-23; Christ died indeed for all men who are drawn unto him; but this is not true of all men, that are, were, or shall be in the world. Add to this, that the word "men" is not in the text, it is only, "all": The translators added this for help.
Gentiles as well as Jews, and especially the former; which agrees with the ancient prophecy Gen.49:10, and with the context, and the occasion of the words, which was the desire of the Greeks, that were come to the feast, to see Jesus; and which was a specimen of the large numbers of them, that should be drawn to Christ, through the preaching of the Gospel, after his death: Christ's cross is the standard, his love is the banner, and he himself is the ensign, which draw souls to himself, and engage them to enlist themselves under him, and become his volunteers in the day his power; see Isa.11:10. I’ll just repeat what I said at first……This is Calvin’s Limited atonement from the TULIP to which I do not subscribe. Concerning limited atonement, you know the verses but in short, Jesus died for the sins of the world and His will is that ALL come to repentance.

I really am disappointed. I thought you wanted to discuss election but you need to lean on limited atonement.

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 08:22 PM
Actually, it doesn’t say “we must be drawn by the Father’s Spirit” or “drawn by the Spirit”, it’s just been said so much people think it says that, but it doesn’t.

I finally have to admit that Sirius is correct.

When the Bible says "No one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him." The word draws doesn't mean to guide, or to lead to.

No, if you check the Greek, it means to force, to drag.

Thanks for keeping us right, Sirius.

:rofl:

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:29 PM
Glad you find that amusing. As a sinner that didn't want to continue in sin and had no hope of any future, I couldn't resist the free gift offer of eternal life and freedom from the acts of sin to have abundant life that comes by one way called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The definition of the greek -draw- in no way changes how we are drawn. It just confirms everything I have said. Thanks!

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 08:35 PM
As a sinner that didn't want to continue in sin and had no hope of any future, I couldn't resist the free gift offer of eternal life and freedom from the acts of sin to have abundant life that comes by one way called the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Irresistable grace.

As a sinner, you did want to continue in sin, for the sinful mind does not submit to God's law, nor can it. This is why God, if He is to save anyone, must drag them to His Son.

If you mean it when you say you "couldn't resist the free gift offer of eternal life and freedom from the acts of sin to have abundant life that comes by one way called the gospel of Jesus Christ", then I am not only surprised, but impressed. :hug:

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 08:39 PM
I said I do not subscribe to the TULIP. That includes "Irresistable grace". As I said above

"Some people that have grown into a life of sin according to the course of this world naturally, as we all do, do not want to continue in sin and do not love sin when they commit sin. An individual like this can trust in God just hearing the gospel."

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 09:01 PM
I said I do not subscribe to the TULIP. That includes "Irresistable grace". As I said above


What you said above was Irresistable Grace. You couldn't resist the free gift. The gift was grace and that was irresistable.


"Some people that have grown into a life of sin according to the course of this world naturally, as we all do, do not want to continue in sin and do not love sin when they commit sin. An individual like this can trust in God just hearing the gospel."

Nice but not Biblical.

God chooses us to come out of sinour sinful nature. We can't choose to, for the sinful nature cannot submit to God's law.

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 09:42 PM
Sure Sam is fine;...and allow me to say I'm enjoying the fellowship with you and others in here. This appears to be the kind of forum I've been looking for.

[/font][/color]

<If any man ever wills to be saved was it because they willed it themselves or was it first because another willed it for them?>

We may not agree as to your explanation of will according to your def. of meaning but we can agree that there has to be a manifestation of in order to know the extent of motive and this was and is where my question starts - I added 'for them' to accentuate the 'because'.
The Greek is saying this in the passage of John 1:13, 'of God' meaning He quickens whom he will.

1.The bible to me is clear that my name was written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.
2.That which God willed back before I was ever born was carried out in the day of His power which was 1/19/71.
3.The Providence of God worked in all the events of my life to bring me to that day.
4.Options had no more to do with it than did decisions.

God bless,







You have all keywords of Calvinsim, however, can you show me where in Scripture, you find that your name was written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of hte world?

Sirus
Dec 14th 2008, 09:43 PM
What you said above was Irresistable Grace. You couldn't resist the free gift. The gift was grace and that was irresistable.Since Adam sinned man looked forward to the seed of the woman coming to crush the serpents head. Upon seeing what man is looking for, he runs to it. Can a man resist the freedom he so desires? No. But that is not the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, is it? No. Because it says none seek for God, which is true. God seeks us first through the gospel. Those that desire truth and freedom believe the gospel.



Nice but not Biblical.

God chooses us to come out of sinour sinful nature. We can't choose to, for the sinful nature cannot submit to God's law.What is not biblical is a sinful nature at birth. Romans 1 says man holds the truth and knows God and is therefore without excuse. Rejecting the truth and knowledge given to all men by God in conscience darkens the heart. It's not born that way. It becomes that way walking after the course of this world making yourself the target of God's wrath. What's not Biblical about that? That is exactly what it says.

The assumption is that all men have so rejected the truth they are all darkened to the point of being reprobate and are turned over to do all the intentions of their heart and take pleasure in doing so. That's an assumption. However Romans 7 shows a man that wants to do good and can't under the law, yet can under grace through the Lord Jesus Christ who crucified this body of sin and death. That, I desired. That, I sought after and found in Christ. The gospel.

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 09:59 PM
Sirus, I’m amazed at how you attempt to build a case against the plain teaching of the word of God – of course I delight in attempting to share my beliefs while knowing it takes the Holy Spirit to illuminate – know what I mean, therefore we will conclude this with our response to your third point. By no means am I stating that I alone am correct in all this and you are wrong – just that we differ in what I believe to be the rightly dividing of the word of truth.
For instance it is the bible that states we must be drawn by the Father’s Spirit.
…No man can come to me,… That is, by faith, as in John 6:35;for otherwise they could corporeally come to him, but not spiritually, John 2:23-25; because they had neither power nor will of themselves; being dead in trespasses and sins, and impotent to everything that is spiritual: and while men are in a state of unregeneracy, blindness, and darkness, they see no need of coming to Christ, nor anything in him worth coming for; they are prejudiced against him, and their hearts are set on other things; and besides, coming to Christ and believing in Christ being the same thing, it is certain faith is not of a man's self, it is the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and therefore efficacious grace must be exerted to enable a soul to come to Christ; which is expressed in the following words,
…except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: which is not to be understood of moral persuasion, or a being persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that he was the true Messiah, but of the internal and powerful influence of the grace of God; for this act of drawing is something distinct from, and superior to, both doctrine and miracles. The Capernaites had heard the doctrine of Christ, which was taught with authority, and had seen his miracles, which were full proofs of his being the Messiah, and yet believed not, but murmured at his person and parentage. This gave occasion to Christ to observe to them, that something more than these was necessary to their coming to him, or savingly believing in him; even the powerful and efficacious grace of the Father in drawing: and if it be considered what men in conversion are drawn off "from" and "to", from their beloved lusts and darling righteousness; to look unto, and rely upon Christ alone for salvation; from that which was before so very agreeable, to that which, previous to this work, was so very disagreeable; to what else can this be ascribed, but to unfrustrable and insuperable grace? but though this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force; God in drawing of unwilling, makes willing in the day of his power: he enlightens the understanding, bends the will, gives an heart of flesh, sweetly allures by the power of his grace, and engages the soul to come to Christ, and give up itself to him; he draws with the bands of love. Drawing, though it supposes power and influence, yet not always co action and force: music draws the ear, love the heart, and pleasure the mind.
…And I will raise him at the last day; compare with this verse John 6:40.
Sirus, allow me to answer the rest of this later.

Thanks, Sam,

Hi Sam,

Can you prove any of this from Scripture???

Jesus said no one can come to me except the Father draws him. Why did He say this?

He also said, If I be lifted up I will draw "all" men unto me. Why the change? If you answer this question, you will see how your understanding of John 6:44 is incorrect.

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 10:05 PM
What is not biblical is a sinful nature at birth.

The result of one man's transgression made (forced, formed, caused) all to be sinners.


Romans 7 shows a man that wants to do good and can't under the law, yet can under grace through the Lord Jesus Christ who crucified this body of sin and death. That, I desired. That, I sought after and found in Christ. The gospel.

Not just any man, but Paul himself.

This is where Paul states that it is no longer he who sins, but the sin living within him that does it. This is to concur with John who said that One who abides in Christ cannot (impossible, unable, not shouldn't) sin.

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 10:46 PM
He also said, If I be lifted up I will draw "all" men unto me. Why the change?

There is no change. Draw means drag, compel, force, throughout the New Testament.

Jesus does draw all men to Him. At the Last Judgement. And every knee shall bow.

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 10:52 PM
Sam---Sirus, I'm surprised that you appear to equate 'assumption & foreknowledge' in one lump? But where does it say that you ask!!! - I'm sure that a lengthy showing will do no more good than what I am about to share - but study is a laborious thing and you understand that. Having so said allow me to now answer you according to my convictions:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,...

A careful study will show that Ephesians 1:4 is speaking of Paul and the Jews with him.

In this verse Paul is speaking of himself and the believing Jews who were with him. notice in verses 3-14 the use of first and second person plural pronouns.

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 different groups of people, one group in which Paul includes himself is the us, we, our group, the other group is the you, your group. All of the things contained in verses 3-12 pertain to Israel. These were promises made to Israel,

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.

God chose the Jews to be his people and these are promises made to them, which Paul speaks of in Ephesians 1. Also notice what Paul says in Ephesians 1:12, "who first trusted in Christ", it was the Jews who first trusted in Christ. Paul says all of these things pertain to those who first trusted in Christ, that is the Jews. In verse 13 He says, in who you also trusted, when you heard the gospel of your salvation, now he is speaking to the Ephesians. Paul says that you also were sealed into Christ "AFTER" you believed, not before the foundation of the world. Then in verse 14 Paul brings the two groups together and says the holy Spirit is the earnest of "OUR" inheritance.




Sam---Our names, it says, in Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world.

A careful study will show that it cannot be determined in the Greek language whether the phrase, from the foundation of the world, applies to the names written, or to the book of life. We cannot determine whether the verse says, the names were written before the foundation of the world or if it is says that the book of life is from the foundation of the world, Rev. 17:8. However, if we look at Rev.13:8 we can get a clue.

Revelation 13:8 ( KJV ) 8And 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.

In Rev. 13:8, we see it is the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So, while we can't prove either way in Rev. 17:8, I think Rev.13:8 gives us a good indication of what John may have meant in Rev. 17:8, namely that it is the book of life which is from the foundation of the world and not the names written from the foundation of the world.





Sam---We are, says Peter, chosen...chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by the sanctifying work of the Spirit that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood. We are chosen unto salvation. We are chosen to belong to Him. (1Pet.1:2)

1 Peter was written to the Jews, they were chosen by God.

1 Peter 1:1-2 ( YLT ) 1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

The Dispersion was the Jews.



Sam---When you look at your salvation, thank God. Thank God because you're a Christian because He chose you. I don't understand the mystery of that, that's just what the Word of God teaches.

Here is why He chose you,


Romans 8:28-30 ( KJV ) 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Those who love God, they are the called as it says in verse 28. God had predetermined to conform to the image of His Son those who love Him.



Sam---That is the most humbling doctrine in all of Scripture. I take no credit, not even credit for my faith. It all came from Him. He chose me. He selected people to be made holy in order to be with Him forever. Why He selected me I will never know. I'm no better than anyone else, I'm worse than many. But He chose me.

He Chose you because you love Him.


Sam---Thank God he didn’t choose me according to my goodness, works, desires or merit since none of these could ever measure up to His marvelous grace.

He chose you because you love Him, this is your initial salvation. However for you to ultimately be saved in the end, you will need your goodness, works, and merit.


Matthew 25:31-46 ( KJV )31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then 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: 42For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then 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. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Romans 2:3-10 ( KJV ) 3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

John 5:28-29 ( KJV ) 28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 3:4 ( KJV ) 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.

Hebrews 5:9 ( KJV ) 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 11:07 PM
There is no change. Draw means drag, compel, force, throughout the New Testament.

Jesus does draw all men to Him. At the Last Judgement. And every knee shall bow.

He didn't say at the judgment, He said if I be lifted up, that is the cross. However let me clear something up.


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


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

The word draw is the same in both verses, Strong's # 1670

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1670 ἑλκύω, ἕλκω helkuō helkō hel-koo'-o, hel'-ko Probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively):—draw. Compare G1667.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G1670 ἑλκύω / ἕλκω helkuō / helkō Thayer Definition: 1) to draw, drag off 2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel Part of Speech: verb

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G1670. ἕλκύω helkuō and ἕλκω helkō; fut. helkusō, aor. heilkusa. To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force as in surō (G4951).

NOtice it says "NOT" suro

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G4951. σύρω surō; fut. surō. To draw, drag, whether of things (John 21:8; Rev. 12:4; Sept.: 2 Sam. 17:13) or persons (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6). It involves the notion of violence.

So, the dragging in John is "NOT" by force as indicated in the above definitions.

The question wasn't to you, but since you chose to address my post, how about answering the question?

The question about the change did not concern the word draw. The question was why the change between, being drawn by the Father and Jesus drawing all men unto Himself.

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 11:08 PM
I finally have to admit that Sirius is correct.

When the Bible says "No one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him." The word draws doesn't mean to guide, or to lead to.

No, if you check the Greek, it means to force, to drag.

Thanks for keeping us right, Sirius.

:rofl:

No, it doesn't mean by force, as I have shown in the other post.

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 11:10 PM
He Chose you because you love Him.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I see, and we loved Him from the beginning?

Butch5
Dec 14th 2008, 11:11 PM
Irresistable grace.

As a sinner, you did want to continue in sin, for the sinful mind does not submit to God's law, nor can it. This is why God, if He is to save anyone, must drag them to His Son.

If you mean it when you say you "couldn't resist the free gift offer of eternal life and freedom from the acts of sin to have abundant life that comes by one way called the gospel of Jesus Christ", then I am not only surprised, but impressed. :hug:

Can you please put the verse from 1 Corinthians in context, and tell us why the the natural mind cannot be subject to the law of God?

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 11:34 PM
He didn't say at the judgment, He said if I be lifted up, that is the cross. However let me clear something up.


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


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

The word draw is the same in both verses, Strong's # 1670

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

G1670 ἑλκύω, ἕλκω helkuō helkō hel-koo'-o, hel'-ko Probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively):—draw. Compare G1667.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions

G1670 ἑλκύω / ἕλκω helkuō / helkō Thayer Definition: 1) to draw, drag off 2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel Part of Speech: verb

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G1670. ἕλκύω helkuō and ἕλκω helkō; fut. helkusō, aor. heilkusa. To draw toward without necessarily the notion of force as in surō (G4951).

NOtice it says "NOT" suro

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament

G4951. σύρω surō; fut. surō. To draw, drag, whether of things (John 21:8; Rev. 12:4; Sept.: 2 Sam. 17:13) or persons (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6). It involves the notion of violence.

So, the dragging in John is "NOT" by force as indicated in the above definitions.

The question wasn't to you, but since you chose to address my post, how about answering the question?

The question about the change did not concern the word draw. The question was why the change between, being drawn by the Father and Jesus drawing all men unto Himself.

Being drawn by the Father = to salvation
Jesus drawing all men unto Himself = to judgment

As for the Greek.

The word and tense used in John 6:44 is used 8 times throughout the Bible. The ones drawn to Christ by God weren't willing, they were forced. They were dead (in their sins)

Let's look at the other seven, shall we?

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Here I have claimed that all men are drawn to Christ at the judgment. They weren't willing, they were forced. They were dead (in their sins). Let's see why.

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

The sword wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.

The net wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.

WOW! The Bible translated the same word found in John 6:44 and John 12:32 as dragged now. Tense stayed the same, word stayed the same, but the translators decided to use the real meaning this time.

The net wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.

Oops, they did it again....

Except, now it's live things we are talking about. Do you think Paul and Silas were seized and dragged willingly? They weren't willing, they were forced. Live things do will, but sometimes they are forced against their will.....just as the word helko means.

Let's continue.

And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut.

See above, except of course, no Silas this time.

Finally, the last usage...

But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?

So, let's get this straight...it is translated as drag more often than draw.

However, it would seem that some of the translators had the same thinking you had and decided to use draw for helko for the two verses they didn't want to put drag in, but used drag all those other times.

It's so easy, a caveman can do it (I apologize to Geico)

For them, it was either change their doctrine, or change the Bible.

Seems they chose the latter.

Do you?

Butch5
Dec 15th 2008, 12:51 AM
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

I see, and we loved Him from the beginning?

He chose them from the beginning of what?

He chose, from the beginning to save them who love Him. Before there were any people, God decided to saved all those who would love Him.

Butch5
Dec 15th 2008, 12:59 AM
Being drawn by the Father = to salvation
Jesus drawing all men unto Himself = to judgment

As for the Greek.

The word and tense used in John 6:44 is used 8 times throughout the Bible. The ones drawn to Christ by God weren't willing, they were forced. They were dead (in their sins)

Let's look at the other seven, shall we?

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Here I have claimed that all men are drawn to Christ at the judgment. They weren't willing, they were forced. They were dead (in their sins). Let's see why.

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

The sword wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish.

The net wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.

WOW! The Bible translated the same word found in John 6:44 and John 12:32 as dragged now. Tense stayed the same, word stayed the same, but the translators decided to use the real meaning this time.

The net wasn't willing, it was forced. Dead things don't will.

But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.

Oops, they did it again....

Except, now it's live things we are talking about. Do you think Paul and Silas were seized and dragged willingly? They weren't willing, they were forced. Live things do will, but sometimes they are forced against their will.....just as the word helko means.

Let's continue.

And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut.

See above, except of course, no Silas this time.

Finally, the last usage...

But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?

So, let's get this straight...it is translated as drag more often than draw.

However, it would seem that some of the translators had the same thinking you had and decided to use draw for helko for the two verses they didn't want to put drag in, but used drag all those other times.

It's so easy, a caveman can do it (I apologize to Geico)

For them, it was either change their doctrine, or change the Bible.

Seems they chose the latter.

Do you?

Read the meanings, helko does not have to mean drawn by force. If drawn by force is definitely implied then Jesus would have used suro. Just because the word is used one way doesn't require it to be used-that way in every instance. As for the sword and the net they are not alive and don't have a will.

Now, can you show me where John 12:32 is referring to judgement???

You still have not answered the original question, why the change?

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 12:59 AM
You really are so close, just backwards, and there's nothing wrong with that.

He didn't choose us because we would love Him. We love Him because He chose us.

From the begninning (Genesis 1:1)
God chose us to be saved.
We come to that salvation through belief in the truth and the sanctifying work of the spirit.

Butch5
Dec 15th 2008, 01:28 AM
Yuckerboy---He didn't choose us because we would love Him. We love Him because He chose us.


No, I have it correct, it is Calvinism that has it backwards.


Romans 8:28 ( KJV ) 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

To those who love God, to them who are the called. Who are the called? Those who love God. Why are they called? Because they love God. Loving God is the prerequisite.


Yuckerboy---From the begninning (Genesis 1:1)
God chose us to be saved.


Sorry my friend, Paul doesn't tell us what the beginning is, for you to say Gen. 1:1 is an assumption. Either way it doesn't matter, because those in the church at Thessalonica are all people who love God, and we know that God chose to save those who would love Him.

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 02:22 AM
Read the meanings, helko does not have to mean drawn by force. If drawn by force is definitely implied then Jesus would have used suro. Just because the word is used one way doesn't require it to be used-that way in every instance. As for the sword and the net they are not alive and don't have a will.

Now, can you show me where John 12:32 is referring to judgement???

You still have not answered the original question, why the change?

There is no change.

It means by force everytime helko is used. Saying not by force is trying to change the Bible. I won't do that. The sword was drawn by force. The net was drawn by force. Paul and Silas were dragged by force. Paul was dragged by force. When Christ said helko, He meant by force too. Unfortunately, translators used draw instead of drag to change the Bible to their doctrines instead of changing their doctrines to the Bible.

Christ knew what He was saying.

All men are drawn to Christ at judgment. I showed you where they are all there. To say all men are drawn to Christ at any other time is to make Christ a liar.

Not all men are drawn to Christ until the judgment.

You are allowed to disagree with the Bible. I cannot show you any more. Besides, it seems to be your MO. I showed you the passages, I showed you that helko is ONLY used when drag is meant. I showed you when all men are drawn to Christ.

Change the Bible to your doctrine, or change your doctrine to the Bible. There is nothing left to teach.

Sirus
Dec 15th 2008, 02:29 AM
God chooses us to come out of sinour sinful nature. We can't choose to, for the sinful nature cannot submit to God's law.Here's another one for ya ;)

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

Lets talk about that sin nature, shall we?

Sirus
Dec 15th 2008, 02:31 AM
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.Oh look.....
and through belief in the truth

Butch5
Dec 15th 2008, 02:34 AM
There is no change.

It means by force everytime helko is used. Saying not by force is trying to change the Bible. I won't do that. The sword was drawn by force. The net was drawn by force. Paul and Silas were dragged by force. Paul was dragged by force. When Christ said helko, He meant by force too. Unfortunately, translators used draw instead of drag to change the Bible to their doctrines instead of changing their doctrines to the Bible.

Christ knew what He was saying.

All men are drawn to Christ at judgment. I showed you where they are all there. To say all men are drawn to Christ at any other time is to make Christ a liar.

Not all men are drawn to Christ until the judgment.

You are allowed to disagree with the Bible. I cannot show you any more. Besides, it seems to be your MO. I showed you the passages, I showed you that helko is ONLY used when drag is meant. I showed you when all men are drawn to Christ.

Change the Bible to your doctrine, or change your doctrine to the Bible. There is nothing left to teach.

First of all it is not me who is changing anything. The word helko does not have to mean drag by force. However in order to fit your doctrine you claim the translators translated it wrong.

You have not shown me where John 12:32 is speaking of judgment, I am very interested to see how you came up with this.

Jesus said He will draw all men, he didn't say anything about judgment in this regard.

However, you have not yet answered the question, why the change? Why did Jesus say in John 6:44, that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws them, and then in John 12:32 say that He would draw all men?

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 02:53 AM
Lets talk about that sin nature, shall we?

"For when we were in the flesh(sinful nature), the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature(flesh). For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

"I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

"the sinful mind (nature, flesh) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."


Oh look.....
and through belief in the truth

And through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

God chooses us to be saved. Then we are born. Then God saves us through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and belief in the truth.

I wasn't chosen because I believe. I believe because I was chosen.

But then, that's Paul talking, I remember you now.

I am to rip out Paul's epistles. And John was wrong according to you too.

My bad.

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 03:00 AM
First of all it is not me who is changing anything. The word helko does not have to mean drag by force. However in order to fit your doctrine you claim the translators translated it wrong.

You have not shown me where John 12:32 is speaking of judgment, I am very interested to see how you came up with this.

Jesus said He will draw all men, he didn't say anything about judgment in this regard.

However, you have not yet answered the question, why the change? Why did Jesus say in John 6:44, that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws them, and then in John 12:32 say that He would draw all men?

Helko either always means by force or never means by force.

Net, sword, Paul, Silas, us? Yeah, it's by force.

Ask a Greek what Helko means.

Better yet, go to Greece. Once there, ask the first Greek you meet in the airport to helko you to a restarant.

See if it is by force or if he guides you.

Sirus
Dec 15th 2008, 03:40 AM
"For when we were in the flesh(sinful nature), the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature(flesh). For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."

"I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."

"the sinful mind (nature, flesh) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."Wow! are you adding that or is that the trans you are using? The word is sarx. Used 147x as flesh, twice as carnal, once as carnally. Flesh -dying, decaying, rotting flesh. Flesh cannot be a nature because it is only one part of three that make up your nature -essence. So again, lets talk about sin nature.



And through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

God chooses us to be saved. Then we are born. Then God saves us through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and belief in the truth.

I wasn't chosen because I believe. I believe because I was chosen.

But then, that's Paul talking, I remember you now.

I am to rip out Paul's epistles. And John was wrong according to you too.

My bad.Umm...no, it doesn't say sanctifying work. That's quite a process you got there. Can any man live up to it? That's that life long dying to self stuff that no man has ever accomplished and that is not found in scripture. The sanctification IS when we are born again. So I suggest you hear Paul through inspiration of the Spirit.

Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

not Paul but....
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
......
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

Sirus
Dec 15th 2008, 03:51 AM
We have gone from election, to limited atonement, to irresistible grace, to total depravity, to a process of sanctification. I love it. Anyone want to talk about election? :lol:

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 04:20 AM
Wow! are you adding that or is that the trans you are using? The word is sarx. Used 147x as flesh, twice as carnal, once as carnally. Flesh -dying, decaying, rotting flesh. Flesh cannot be a nature because it is only one part of three that make up your nature -essence. So again, lets talk about sin nature.

The only things I added were in parenthesis.

The flesh was translated as sinful nature quite a few times.

The flesh is the sinful nature. As Paul said, it is no longer he who sins (because he is sanctified), but the sin that dwells within his flesh (his sinful nature)


Umm...no, it doesn't say sanctifying work. That's quite a process you got there. Can any man live up to it? That's that life long dying to self stuff that no man has ever accomplished and that is not found in scripture. The sanctification IS when we are born again. So I suggest you hear Paul through inspiration of the Spirit.

Wait a second, you are supposed to be on the other side of this debate. Do not build up the straw man and then tear it down.

It does say the sanctifying work of the Spirit. I do not believe it is a process.

I believe it goes as the Bible says.

God chose us in the beginning, then we were born, then we were saved through both the sanctifying work of the Spirit (one time act, not a process) and belief in the truth (one time act, not a process)

Now, one can believe the truth for a time and not be saved, but that is because the sanctifying work of the Spirit which was necessary to make him persevere did not happen. Why? Because he wasn't chosen by God.

Butch5
Dec 15th 2008, 04:49 AM
Helko either always means by force or never means by force.

Net, sword, Paul, Silas, us? Yeah, it's by force.

Ask a Greek what Helko means.

Better yet, go to Greece. Once there, ask the first Greek you meet in the airport to helko you to a restarant.

See if it is by force or if he guides you.

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter what it means to a Greek today. What matters is what it meant 2000 years ago. And yes, the word can mean with or without force. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition?

Sirus
Dec 15th 2008, 06:16 AM
The only things I added were in parenthesis.

The flesh was translated as sinful nature quite a few times.

The flesh is the sinful nature. As Paul said, it is no longer he who sins (because he is sanctified), but the sin that dwells within his flesh (his sinful nature)Yes, that would be the NIV, correct? While it may fit your theology, that's a paraphrase bible.

Concerning
KJV Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

His purpose in expressing himself in this language was to show to his readers more vividly the failure of man without Christ and under the law which was weak through the flesh. It was not to put blame on the flesh which is only one part of his being. In another place Paul said every man ought to know how to possess his own vessel.

Still, the word is sarx=flesh
Same word used in the following. Why don't they translate sarx to sinful nature here?
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

It is the same word! It is not a translators job to inject their theology into the translation. Sadly that is what most modern translation do, some more than others.

Flesh is flesh. One part of three cannot be a nature. We do not have two natures. That's gnostic dualism started by Origin refined by Augustine and perfected by Calvin and it's running rampant in the church, but it is not Biblical.




Wait a second, you are supposed to be on the other side of this debate. Do not build up the straw man and then tear it down.

It does say the sanctifying work of the Spirit. I do not believe it is a process.

I believe it goes as the Bible says.

God chose us in the beginning, then we were born, then we were saved through both the sanctifying work of the Spirit (one time act, not a process) and belief in the truth (one time act, not a process)

Now, one can believe the truth for a time and not be saved, but that is because the sanctifying work of the Spirit which was necessary to make him persevere did not happen. Why? Because he wasn't chosen by God.I do apologize! and I am thrilled to see you understand we ARE sanctified by faith just as we are justified by faith!

I mis-read
"Then we are born."
to say
"Then we are born again."

Samsheep2
Dec 15th 2008, 12:00 PM
We have gone from election, to limited atonement, to irresistible grace, to total depravity, to a process of sanctification. I love it. Anyone want to talk about election? :lol:

I thought we were!!! least wise I have been trying to keep the subject the center of conversation - but!!! :lol:

Yukerboy
Dec 15th 2008, 10:20 PM
it doesn't matter what it means to a Greek today. What matters is what it meant 2000 years ago. And yes, the word can mean with or without force. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition?

It meant with force 2,000 years ago too.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition?

Sirus
Dec 16th 2008, 02:22 AM
I thought we were!!! least wise I have been trying to keep the subject the center of conversation - but!!! :lol:Two out of four of your replies to me were just limited atonement because your understanding of election depends on it. Mine is only dependent on what the text says, God's foreknowledge.

Calvin's
-unconditional election
-limited atonement
-irresistible grace
are connected and require one another. They also require his total depravity. In the end they all lead to his P. I don't believe any of them except half his P.

Butch5
Dec 16th 2008, 03:40 AM
It meant with force 2,000 years ago too.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the definition?

I haven't refused to acknowledge the definition, I said it doesn't have to mean force, it may but doesn't have to, where as, suro, definitely implies force. If Jesus wanted to make the point that it was by force, He could easily have said suro, instead of helko, but He didn't.

Sirus
Dec 16th 2008, 06:07 AM
No doubt if we look at how the Greek is used elsewhere it implies force;
Jam 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Joh 21:10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

Act 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

The other two instances are;
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.

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

That's all of them.
Thayers and the Greek Lexicon say;
1) to draw, drag off
2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel

We know Greek words can have multiple nuances and as a matter of translation the interpretation is decided by context. Nothing in either contexts implies force. Both contexts reveal the Cross. All scripture reveals a gift. A gift forced, is not a gift, but a law.

Lead and impel can be both force and suggestion. Lead can also be, go before, which clearly God did in sending His only Son which is both contexts. That's the context in both cases. Force is not in either context.

Personally I always use the holistic method of interpretation so I always consider the OT as well.

Hebrew
mâshak
1) to draw, drag, seize

It has many more usages than the greek. Is it used without the implication of force?

Son 1:3 Because of the savor of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Son 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Hos 11:3 I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them.
Hos 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

Of course, verses could be posted to support force as well. However, I can't imagine why anyone would want to support, believe, and view, choosing and salvation by force. So that 'leads' :rofl: (see how that works?) to my next question. How does God get glory out of salvation by force?

Samsheep2
Dec 16th 2008, 07:55 PM
Two out of four of your replies to me were just limited atonement because your understanding of election depends on it. Mine is only dependent on what the text says, God's foreknowledge. I beg your pardon I have not used the 'term' limited atonement at all and do not believe you even understand bible election in the first place - must less 2 out of 4!!!


Calvin's -unconditional election-limited atonement-irresistible grace
are connected and require one another. They also require his total depravity. In the end they all lead to his P. I don't believe any of them except half his P. Sirus, I am a historical Baptist, never have I at any time ever been a Calvinist - not even when as a boy our family attended a Presbyterian church simply because it open less than a block from our house and my dad did not own a vehicle.
Are you saying that you only believe half of the p? And if so then have you ceased are when are you expecting to stop?

drew
Dec 16th 2008, 08:17 PM
Wow! are you adding that or is that the trans you are using? The word is sarx. Used 147x as flesh, twice as carnal, once as carnally. Flesh -dying, decaying, rotting flesh. Flesh cannot be a nature because it is only one part of three that make up your nature -essence. So again, lets talk about sin nature.
Since I have disagreed with yukerboy on some matters, I am going to agree with him here. Paul routinely uses the word "sarx" (flesh) not to refer to "physical stuff" but to our "fallen nature". To broaden the point out, I am going to suggest that Paul, like all Hebrews, never really bought into the "spirit-material" dualism that so much of western Christendom has bought into. So when Paul refers to "flesh", he is not so much making a "physical - nonphysical" distinction as he is making a "new creation" - "fallen man" distinction.

Yukerboy
Dec 16th 2008, 09:15 PM
I haven't refused to acknowledge the definition, I said it doesn't have to mean force,

Then you refuse to acknowledge the definition, because the definition of helko is by force and there are zero times it is used to imply guiding or directing.

helko = drag, nothing more, nothing less. It means to drag today in Greece, and it meant to drag 2,000 years ago. The people who decided that did not fit their theology try to add definitions to the word. Helko has never meant anything else but to drag.

Yuke

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 03:04 AM
I beg your pardon I have not used the 'term' limited atonement at all and do not believe you even understand bible election in the first place - must less 2 out of 4!!!Who said you used the term? Not I but that is what 2 out of 4 of your replies where.


Sirus, I am a historical Baptist, never have I at any time ever been a Calvinist - not even when as a boy our family attended a Presbyterian church simply because it open less than a block from our house and my dad did not own a vehicle.Like, Luther came first so Lutheran's are not Calvinist? I don't care about the label but so far you seem to be a 5points on the TULIP scale regardless of what you call your self and where TULIP came from.

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 03:10 AM
Since I have disagreed with yukerboy on some matters, I am going to agree with him here. Paul routinely uses the word "sarx" (flesh) not to refer to "physical stuff" but to our "fallen nature". To broaden the point out, I am going to suggest that Paul, like all Hebrews, never really bought into the "spirit-material" dualism that so much of western Christendom has bought into. So when Paul refers to "flesh", he is not so much making a "physical - nonphysical" distinction as he is making a "new creation" - "fallen man" distinction.routinely? I'd love to see a few.

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 03:15 AM
Then you refuse to acknowledge the definition, because the definition of helko is by force and there are zero times it is used to imply guiding or directing.Where is force in the contexts? Nowhere!
Where is love in the contexts? Everywhere!

If all a translator ever did was randomly take 1 of 5 meanings of a Greek word and plop it into the verse, all translations would read like the NASB /joke
but seriously, it'd make for some hard reading.

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 03:52 AM
Then you refuse to acknowledge the definition, because the definition of helko is by force and there are zero times it is used to imply guiding or directing.

helko = drag, nothing more, nothing less. It means to drag today in Greece, and it meant to drag 2,000 years ago. The people who decided that did not fit their theology try to add definitions to the word. Helko has never meant anything else but to drag.

Yuke

Well, if you are not willing to accept the definition, which is the same from several different dictionaries, I guess there is need it discuss it any further.

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 04:17 AM
Yuckerboy,

Let me show how John 6:44 is not talking about unconditional election.

We can reconcile John 6:44 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/John%206.44) rather quickly though. Look at what was going on. Jesus said in John 6:44 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/John%206.44) that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him, then in John 12:32 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/John%2012.32) Jesus says he will draw all men. We have what appears to be two conflicting statements, however when we look at the totality of Scripture we see otherwise. The reason no one could come to the Father during Jesus Ministry was because the mystery had not yet been revealed. The Gospel was being preached but only certain people were given understanding to comprehend it. After Christ went to the cross the entirety of the mystery was revealed. Before the cross, the mystery was hidden and only revealed to certain people, because God was setting up the crucifiction.

Mark 4:10-12 ( KJV ) 10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Here Jesus clearly says that the12 and those believers with them were given to understand the mystery. So while Jesus was on earth only those who were drawn by the Father could come to Him. Even the apostles did not understand the mystery. Jesus had to open the understanding of the apostles so that they could understand the the Scriptures,

Luke 24:44-49 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/Luke%2024.44-49) ( KJV ) 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.

Even the apostles did not understand the mystery until Christ opened their understanding, this is why no one could come to Christ unless the Father drew them. However, once Christ went to the cross, things changed. Hence Jesus statement, if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me. Even Paul acknowledges this,

1 Corinthians 2:6-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/1%20Corinthians%202.6-10) ( KJV ) 6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Paul says that the mystery was hidden and not revealed (that is why no one could come to Christ unless drawn by the Father). He says that if the princes of this world had known it the would not have crucified Christ, hence the reason for hiding it. But Paul says, now it has been revealed (after the cross, so that the princes of this world could not interfere) to us. The us is the apostles. Consider What Paul says here,

Ephesians 3:1-6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/kjv/Ephesians%203.1-6) ( KJV ) 1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Ephesians 3:7-11 ( KJV ) 7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Paul says that He is a minister of this mystery to make all men see.

Romans 16:25-27 ( KJV ) 25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.



Again, Paul says that the mystery was not made known in other ages as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets. This is the reason that no one could come to Christ unless drawn by God prior to the cross. Because the mystery had not yet been revealed. However, after the cross the mystery was revealed to the apostles and they spread the mystery. So, the mystery is no longer hidden, anyone can come to Christ now, hence Jesus statement, if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me. John also said that Christ gives light to every man the comes into the world.

reformedct
Dec 17th 2008, 04:31 AM
God forces things.

Sounds unfair huh?

makes you uncomfortable maybe?

God makes some vessels for honor and others he makes for dishonor

HEY THATS NOT FAIR! GOD IS UNJUST! HOW CAN HE JUDGE ME IF I CANT EVEN RESIST HIS WILL?

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9#f2) but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




Have you read the funny story of nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? Nebuchadnezzar a King was chillin on his roof in the royal palace.

Suddenly a voice from heaven came and said Nebeuchdnezzar, you are about to start eating grass like an animal and living like a wild animal.

Im sure the King laughed, ha, of course not, i am in my right mind, i do what i wanna do!

Daniel 4:33- The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Sounds like force to me



People will except God makes people


people will not accept GOD MAKES PEOPLE FOR A PURPOSE

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THEM FOR HIS GLORY

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF POURING OUT HIS WRATH ON THEM FOR HIS GLORY


GOD KILLED THOUSANDS AT A TIME FOR HIS GLORY



People don't get it. They think life is about them and their choice and their goodness and their faith.

No, your view is too narrow

GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE FOR HIS GLORY


Humans don't like the idea that God can force them to do something. It hurts their ego.

they think this makes God unjust. Oh well

9 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




God creates everything FOR HIS GLORY

some by saving them,
some by crushing them

what a terrifying, amazing, worship-worthy, awesome, big, holy trmendous, magnificent GOd! amen



Just imagine if there were no sin:

God would say, i am a just God
We would say, ok whatever that means but yeah

God will say, i am a merciful God
We would say well we havent sinned so we don't need mercy so whatever

God would say, my wrath is on all evildoers and they will suffer
We would say yeeeeah God sure. To bad nobody has sinned so you can just keep your wrath to yourself


DO YoU SEE NOW? Everything is for his glory! He has let the universe be what it is SO THAT HE WILL BE GLORIFIED. HE MADE SOME UGLY FOR HIS GLORY. HE SENDS SOME TO HELL FOR HIS GLORY. HE SAVES SOME FOR HIS GLORY.



It is simple. who initiates salvation????


do we dare say it is us who initiate or participate in initiation, when God has clearly said no one does good, not one? Have we said no God, I have done a good thing. Choosing you is a good thing, and i have done just that. No. We are saved by grace. not of ourselves. lest any man should boast


IF YOUR THEOLOGY ALLOWS ANY GOOD DOING ON MANS PART IT IS FLAWED.

must we repent and believe? yes! but only those who have been born of the Spirit not of the will of man as Jesus said, will do such things.

A spiritually dead sinner cannot understand the gospel, repent of his own nature then place faith in God UNLESS GOD IS INVOLVED

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 04:57 AM
God forces things.

Sounds unfair huh?

makes you uncomfortable maybe?

God makes some vessels for honor and others he makes for dishonor

HEY THATS NOT FAIR! GOD IS UNJUST! HOW CAN HE JUDGE ME IF I CANT EVEN RESIST HIS WILL?

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9#f2) but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




Have you read the funny story of nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? Nebuchadnezzar a King was chillin on his roof in the royal palace.

Suddenly a voice from heaven came and said Nebeuchdnezzar, you are about to start eating grass like an animal and living like a wild animal.

Im sure the King laughed, ha, of course not, i am in my right mind, i do what i wanna do!

Daniel 4:33- The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Sounds like force to me



People will except God makes people


people will not accept GOD MAKES PEOPLE FOR A PURPOSE

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THEM FOR HIS GLORY

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF POURING OUT HIS WRATH ON THEM FOR HIS GLORY


GOD KILLED THOUSANDS AT A TIME FOR HIS GLORY



People don't get it. They think life is about them and their choice and their goodness and their faith.

No, your view is too narrow

GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE FOR HIS GLORY


Humans don't like the idea that God can force them to do something. It hurts their ego.

they think this makes God unjust. Oh well

9 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




God creates everything FOR HIS GLORY

some by saving them,
some by crushing them

what a terrifying, amazing, worship-worthy, awesome, big, holy trmendous, magnificent GOd! amen



Just imagine if there were no sin:

God would say, i am a just God
We would say, ok whatever that means but yeah

God will say, i am a merciful God
We would say well we havent sinned so we don't need mercy so whatever

God would say, my wrath is on all evildoers and they will suffer
We would say yeeeeah God sure. To bad nobody has sinned so you can just keep your wrath to yourself


DO YoU SEE NOW? Everything is for his glory! He has let the universe be what it is SO THAT HE WILL BE GLORIFIED. HE MADE SOME UGLY FOR HIS GLORY. HE SENDS SOME TO HELL FOR HIS GLORY. HE SAVES SOME FOR HIS GLORY.



It is simple. who initiates salvation????


do we dare say it is us who initiate or participate in initiation, when God has clearly said no one does good, not one? Have we said no God, I have done a good thing. Choosing you is a good thing, and i have done just that. No. We are saved by grace. not of ourselves. lest any man should boast


IF YOUR THEOLOGY ALLOWS ANY GOOD DOING ON MANS PART IT IS FLAWED.

must we repent and believe? yes! but only those who have been born of the Spirit not of the will of man as Jesus said, will do such things.

A spiritually dead sinner cannot understand the gospel, repent of his own nature then place faith in God UNLESS GOD IS INVOLVED

Where does it say God elected anyone to salvation? We know he elects people for service, look at the Jews, look at Jacob over israel, look at Pharaoh, etc.

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 05:08 AM
God forces things.

Sounds unfair huh?

makes you uncomfortable maybe?
Nope, just don't see it in scripture.



God makes some vessels for honor and others he makes for dishonor

HEY THATS NOT FAIR! GOD IS UNJUST! HOW CAN HE JUDGE ME IF I CANT EVEN RESIST HIS WILL?

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9#f2) but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Would you agree there is only One Potter? If yes, tell me how this jives with the Potter in Jeremiah 18?

"his will" and "purpose of God" is laid out in the beginning of chapter 9! Christ coming in the flesh! You are out of context!

Where in Romans 9 is it suggested the eternal destiny of ALL men is arbitrarily predetermined by God separate from His foreknowledge and the will and volition of each individual man to choose his eternal destiny? Where is all mankind as individuals in the context? It’s not there! For examples we have Esau and Jacob, Pharaoh, and Cyrus. Lets assume this Reformed and Calvinist doctrine is correct and say God made Esau, Pharaoh, and Cyrus, before any resistance to God on their own, either from the womb or afterwards, to be wicked to accomplish His purpose and will. Lets assume He created or coerced Esau to despise the birthright and Jacob to desire the birthright, and lets assume He created or coerced Pharaoh to harden his own heart before God hardened it further. Lets assume Cyrus had no desire and will to expand the Persian Empire. OK. Where is all mankind as individuals in the context? It’s not there! So if context is good enough for us, and it should be, we’ll have to find another passage of scripture to support the Reformed and Calvinist doctrine of election by God arbitrarily for ALL men.

You may ask, “where do you see Cyrus in the context of Romans 9?” Verses 19-21 refer to Isaiah 45, which is a prophecy about Cyrus, a Type of Christ (anointed one -Isaiah 45:1), who was used by God to capture Babylonia and allow Israel to return to their land and build a house for the Lord (Ezra 1). This accomplished His purpose and will for a child to be born (Isaiah 9:6) through Israel (Jacob). Whenever Old Testament scripture (in this case Isaiah 45:9-10) is quoted in the New Testament (in this case Romans 9:19-21) it verifies meaning and context. It never contradicts or establishes a new doctrine. It’s to help us properly understand the passages. Isaiah 45 doesn’t say anything about ALL men arbitrarily being saved or damned anymore than Romans 9 does. It says God directly used Cyrus to re-establish Israel so that God could extend an invitation to all to be saved through Christ’s (anointed one) righteousness and strength (Isaiah 45:22-25), which is the context of Romans 9-11!

Verse 22 is also pulled out of context and used as support where the question is asked,

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

First, Paul already defined vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and they are those that treasure up wrath to themselves in rejecting their Creator and the truth (Romans 1-2), not someone created or coerced to be evil.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; ….Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
……… even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 2:5- But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

Also, it is asked “what if”, so where is the answer? “That he might…” do what? to whom?

Rom 9:23- And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

So again we see the “purpose of God“ in the Savior of the world through a nation, not how ALL men are either elected or rejected arbitrarily. In other words, what if God created man in an environment of faith where the choice of good and evil existed, knowing man would be evil, so He would be glorified because of those that believe in Him by faith? It’s His plan not ours. It’s His salvation, not ours. He created all things for His good will and pleasure, not ours. He is Judge and knows the heart and we do not. There’s evil in the world because God made evil possible through will and volition and Satan is the god of this world. How is God glorified if man has no choice? Just as God showed wrath towards Pharaoh who deserved His judgment so that He might show mercy towards Israel, God has shown wrath towards Israel who deserved His judgment so that He might show mercy towards Gentiles. Did Israel deserve mercy? No. Did Gentiles deserve mercy? No. It was God’s will to have mercy upon Israel just as it is God’s will to have mercy upon all. To the Jew first, then the Gentile.

Did God create Pharaoh and Esau and force them to do what they did from birth, or were they in opposition to God and His righteous standards and God knew their heart through His foreknowledge? Pharaoh hardened his own heart so God hardened it further, therefore God acted according to His righteous standard of either hardening the heart of those that harden their own heart, resist His will, and continue in sin (Romans 1:18-28; 2:8-9), or having mercy on those that repent and believe (Romans 2:7, 10). This principle is for all nations and all men and is a very basic Biblical principle from cover to cover. Esau despised the covenant blessings (Gen 25:34), while Jacob honored God by desiring the unseen covenant blessings showing his faith in God. Faith is not a work and is the one thing God requires that pleases Him, so “not of works” in v11 is very applicable and not at all a contradiction. If He hardened someone that had not hardened their own heart or created someone to be evil, then judged them for acting as He coerced them or created them to act, He would be an unrighteous Judge and it clearly says, “God forbid” (9:14). Romans 3:4, quoting Psalm 51:4, says this very same thing.

Some say, “but it says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” and I’d point out Romans 11:32 says “….that he might have mercy upon all.” and that IS the “purpose of God”. This is what hundreds of passages say about man believing and happens to be in the context as well (Romans 10:8-13).

Some say, “but it says not of him that willeth”…nor of him that runneth, and I say “not of him that wills” is man choosing his own will and running his own course, not someone aligning themselves with God’s will (Rom 10:3) in Christ, to run God’s course. Verse 16 is in between Esau and Pharaoh, and chaoosing their own will over God’s will is exactly what Esau and Pharaoh did. We see the conflict between Pharaoh’s will and God’s will. Jacob’s will desired the birthright and believed in the covenant promises, which was God’s will, and Esau’s will desired a bowl of soup. He elected (chose) to trade future long-range blessings for temporary and present momentary pleasures. What is being decided is whom God shows mercy to.

Some say, “but is says Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” and I say it is obviously God favoring one over the other based on their faith in God and His covenant promises and that He knew this before they were born. Jesus said (same Greek word),
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
We are to hate the world our family and ourselves and love Christ. We are to prefer Christ over all others and the world. Obviously, it’s just a s/election of one over another, not a hatred in the modern definition of the word.

Some say, “but it says not of works in 9:11” and I ask, since when is faith a work? Again, Jacob believed in the God of the covenant and desired the blessings but Esau did not. Also, it clearly says they were not born yet and had not done good or evil when God made His choice through foreknowledge of Jacob’s faith and Esau’s unbelief. Either way, no works had been done.

As I said earlier, the argument boils down to understanding the doctrine of election –selected/chosen, by implication of being favored. While most claim we cannot fully understand how God elects, the Bible is quite clear God elects according to His foreknowledge. Romans 9 cannot be rightly divided and understood if one departs from this simple concept, departs from the context, and doesn’t holistically read the scriptures concerning the people being referenced. God’s election is not arbitrary but based on what He knows about the individual from the foundation of the world. It really is just that simple.

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

Rom 8:28- And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.




Have you read the funny story of nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? Nebuchadnezzar a King was chillin on his roof in the royal palace.

Suddenly a voice from heaven came and said Nebeuchdnezzar, you are about to start eating grass like an animal and living like a wild animal.

Im sure the King laughed, ha, of course not, i am in my right mind, i do what i wanna do!

Daniel 4:33- The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Sounds like force to meOh, you mean the one God called a king of kings and was used for judgment on Israel? Yes, the bible is filled with examples like these of a lot of believers!!!

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 05:37 AM
Nope, just don't see it in scripture.


Would you agree there is only One Potter? If yes, tell me how this jives with the Potter in Jeremiah 18?

"his will" and "purpose of God" is laid out in the beginning of chapter 9! Christ coming in the flesh! You are out of context!

Where in Romans 9 is it suggested the eternal destiny of ALL men is arbitrarily predetermined by God separate from His foreknowledge and the will and volition of each individual man to choose his eternal destiny? Where is all mankind as individuals in the context? It’s not there! For examples we have Esau and Jacob, Pharaoh, and Cyrus. Lets assume this Reformed and Calvinist doctrine is correct and say God made Esau, Pharaoh, and Cyrus, before any resistance to God on their own, either from the womb or afterwards, to be wicked to accomplish His purpose and will. Lets assume He created or coerced Esau to despise the birthright and Jacob to desire the birthright, and lets assume He created or coerced Pharaoh to harden his own heart before God hardened it further. Lets assume Cyrus had no desire and will to expand the Persian Empire. OK. Where is all mankind as individuals in the context? It’s not there! So if context is good enough for us, and it should be, we’ll have to find another passage of scripture to support the Reformed and Calvinist doctrine of election by God arbitrarily for ALL men.

You may ask, “where do you see Cyrus in the context of Romans 9?” Verses 19-21 refer to Isaiah 45, which is a prophecy about Cyrus, a Type of Christ (anointed one -Isaiah 45:1), who was used by God to capture Babylonia and allow Israel to return to their land and build a house for the Lord (Ezra 1). This accomplished His purpose and will for a child to be born (Isaiah 9:6) through Israel (Jacob). Whenever Old Testament scripture (in this case Isaiah 45:9-10) is quoted in the New Testament (in this case Romans 9:19-21) it verifies meaning and context. It never contradicts or establishes a new doctrine. It’s to help us properly understand the passages. Isaiah 45 doesn’t say anything about ALL men arbitrarily being saved or damned anymore than Romans 9 does. It says God directly used Cyrus to re-establish Israel so that God could extend an invitation to all to be saved through Christ’s (anointed one) righteousness and strength (Isaiah 45:22-25), which is the context of Romans 9-11!

Verse 22 is also pulled out of context and used as support where the question is asked,

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

First, Paul already defined vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and they are those that treasure up wrath to themselves in rejecting their Creator and the truth (Romans 1-2), not someone created or coerced to be evil.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; ….Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
……… even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 2:5- But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

Also, it is asked “what if”, so where is the answer? “That he might…” do what? to whom?

Rom 9:23- And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

So again we see the “purpose of God“ in the Savior of the world through a nation, not how ALL men are either elected or rejected arbitrarily. In other words, what if God created man in an environment of faith where the choice of good and evil existed, knowing man would be evil, so He would be glorified because of those that believe in Him by faith? It’s His plan not ours. It’s His salvation, not ours. He created all things for His good will and pleasure, not ours. He is Judge and knows the heart and we do not. There’s evil in the world because God made evil possible through will and volition and Satan is the god of this world. How is God glorified if man has no choice? Just as God showed wrath towards Pharaoh who deserved His judgment so that He might show mercy towards Israel, God has shown wrath towards Israel who deserved His judgment so that He might show mercy towards Gentiles. Did Israel deserve mercy? No. Did Gentiles deserve mercy? No. It was God’s will to have mercy upon Israel just as it is God’s will to have mercy upon all. To the Jew first, then the Gentile.

Did God create Pharaoh and Esau and force them to do what they did from birth, or were they in opposition to God and His righteous standards and God knew their heart through His foreknowledge? Pharaoh hardened his own heart so God hardened it further, therefore God acted according to His righteous standard of either hardening the heart of those that harden their own heart, resist His will, and continue in sin (Romans 1:18-28; 2:8-9), or having mercy on those that repent and believe (Romans 2:7, 10). This principle is for all nations and all men and is a very basic Biblical principle from cover to cover. Esau despised the covenant blessings (Gen 25:34), while Jacob honored God by desiring the unseen covenant blessings showing his faith in God. Faith is not a work and is the one thing God requires that pleases Him, so “not of works” in v11 is very applicable and not at all a contradiction. If He hardened someone that had not hardened their own heart or created someone to be evil, then judged them for acting as He coerced them or created them to act, He would be an unrighteous Judge and it clearly says, “God forbid” (9:14). Romans 3:4, quoting Psalm 51:4, says this very same thing.

Some say, “but it says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” and I’d point out Romans 11:32 says “….that he might have mercy upon all.” and that IS the “purpose of God”. This is what hundreds of passages say about man believing and happens to be in the context as well (Romans 10:8-13).

Some say, “but it says not of him that willeth”…nor of him that runneth, and I say “not of him that wills” is man choosing his own will and running his own course, not someone aligning themselves with God’s will (Rom 10:3) in Christ, to run God’s course. Verse 16 is in between Esau and Pharaoh, and chaoosing their own will over God’s will is exactly what Esau and Pharaoh did. We see the conflict between Pharaoh’s will and God’s will. Jacob’s will desired the birthright and believed in the covenant promises, which was God’s will, and Esau’s will desired a bowl of soup. He elected (chose) to trade future long-range blessings for temporary and present momentary pleasures. What is being decided is whom God shows mercy to.

Some say, “but is says Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” and I say it is obviously God favoring one over the other based on their faith in God and His covenant promises and that He knew this before they were born. Jesus said (same Greek word),
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
We are to hate the world our family and ourselves and love Christ. We are to prefer Christ over all others and the world. Obviously, it’s just a s/election of one over another, not a hatred in the modern definition of the word.

Some say, “but it says not of works in 9:11” and I ask, since when is faith a work? Again, Jacob believed in the God of the covenant and desired the blessings but Esau did not. Also, it clearly says they were not born yet and had not done good or evil when God made His choice through foreknowledge of Jacob’s faith and Esau’s unbelief. Either way, no works had been done.

As I said earlier, the argument boils down to understanding the doctrine of election –selected/chosen, by implication of being favored. While most claim we cannot fully understand how God elects, the Bible is quite clear God elects according to His foreknowledge. Romans 9 cannot be rightly divided and understood if one departs from this simple concept, departs from the context, and doesn’t holistically read the scriptures concerning the people being referenced. God’s election is not arbitrary but based on what He knows about the individual from the foundation of the world. It really is just that simple.

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

Rom 8:28- And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.


Oh, you mean the one God called a king of kings and was used for judgment on Israel? Yes, the bible is filled with examples like these of a lot of believers!!!

Well said my friend.

Samsheep2
Dec 17th 2008, 04:01 PM
God forces things.

Sounds unfair huh?

makes you uncomfortable maybe?

God makes some vessels for honor and others he makes for dishonor

HEY THATS NOT FAIR! GOD IS UNJUST! HOW CAN HE JUDGE ME IF I CANT EVEN RESIST HIS WILL?

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9#f2) but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




Have you read the funny story of nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? Nebuchadnezzar a King was chillin on his roof in the royal palace.

Suddenly a voice from heaven came and said Nebeuchdnezzar, you are about to start eating grass like an animal and living like a wild animal.

Im sure the King laughed, ha, of course not, i am in my right mind, i do what i wanna do!

Daniel 4:33- The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

Sounds like force to me



People will except God makes people


people will not accept GOD MAKES PEOPLE FOR A PURPOSE

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THEM FOR HIS GLORY

GOD MADE PEOPLE WITH THE PURPOSE OF POURING OUT HIS WRATH ON THEM FOR HIS GLORY


GOD KILLED THOUSANDS AT A TIME FOR HIS GLORY



People don't get it. They think life is about them and their choice and their goodness and their faith.

No, your view is too narrow

GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE FOR HIS GLORY


Humans don't like the idea that God can force them to do something. It hurts their ego.

they think this makes God unjust. Oh well

9 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?




God creates everything FOR HIS GLORY

some by saving them,
some by crushing them

what a terrifying, amazing, worship-worthy, awesome, big, holy trmendous, magnificent GOd! amen



Just imagine if there were no sin:

God would say, i am a just God
We would say, ok whatever that means but yeah

God will say, i am a merciful God
We would say well we havent sinned so we don't need mercy so whatever

God would say, my wrath is on all evildoers and they will suffer
We would say yeeeeah God sure. To bad nobody has sinned so you can just keep your wrath to yourself


DO YoU SEE NOW? Everything is for his glory! He has let the universe be what it is SO THAT HE WILL BE GLORIFIED. HE MADE SOME UGLY FOR HIS GLORY. HE SENDS SOME TO HELL FOR HIS GLORY. HE SAVES SOME FOR HIS GLORY.



It is simple. who initiates salvation????


do we dare say it is us who initiate or participate in initiation, when God has clearly said no one does good, not one? Have we said no God, I have done a good thing. Choosing you is a good thing, and i have done just that. No. We are saved by grace. not of ourselves. lest any man should boast


IF YOUR THEOLOGY ALLOWS ANY GOOD DOING ON MANS PART IT IS FLAWED.

must we repent and believe? yes! but only those who have been born of the Spirit not of the will of man as Jesus said, will do such things.

A spiritually dead sinner cannot understand the gospel, repent of his own nature then place faith in God UNLESS GOD IS INVOLVED

My new friend, I assure you this post will blow the minds of some in here simply because of either a lack of study or blinded by the god of this world. I appreciate the truth of your content.

God bless,
Sam

drew
Dec 17th 2008, 04:21 PM
Since I have disagreed with yukerboy on some matters, I am going to agree with him here. Paul routinely uses the word "sarx" (flesh) not to refer to "physical stuff" but to our "fallen nature". To broaden the point out, I am going to suggest that Paul, like all Hebrews, never really bought into the "spirit-material" dualism that so much of western Christendom has bought into. So when Paul refers to "flesh", he is not so much making a "physical - nonphysical" distinction as he is making a "new creation" - "fallen man" distinction.

routinely? I'd love to see a few.
Although Paul sometimes uses "sarx" to refer to the "merely physical", he commonly uses it in a manner that does not even draw a "physical - immaterial" distinction.

Example 1: Romans 8:13

13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

Paul cannot be using the word "flesh" here to refer to the physicality of the human person. If he were, he would be suggesting "living physically" leads to death. And since Christians have to live "physically" (obviously), and since presumably continuing to live physically does not mean we do not ultimately live eternally, Paul cannot intend us to understand "flesh" here as a reference to the domain of the physical. Clearly, Paul believes that we can live "physically" (indeed what other choice is there) and also live by the Spirt. Therefore, he cannot mean "flesh" to denote physicality since he plays it off as the alternative to living by the Spirit.

Example 2: Romans 7:18

18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Considering what Paul immediately goes on to say (following) he cannot be referring to mere physicality in verse 18:

19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28112AJ))I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Clearly, Paul is using the word "flesh" to refer to the whole person here. In verse 18, he says nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh - a rather clear assertion that "flesh" refers to more than just Paul's physicality.

But verses 19 and 20 make it even more clear. Paul's is talking about his entire person - he is saying that "both spirit and body" practice evil. If Paul, in verse 18, is saying that only his physicality is tainted, then the reader will be left wondering why his "spirit" cannot overcome this purely physical drive to sin. No - the entire person is at issue here.

At the risk appealing to authority, I believe that scholars are fairly unanimous on this issue - Paul does not use the word "sarx" simply to refer to "physicality", he more typically uses the word "soma" for that.

Paul even uses "sarx" to refer to the nation of Israel in some places (like Galatians 5).

Samsheep2
Dec 17th 2008, 04:27 PM
Where does it say God elected anyone to salvation? We know he elects people for service, look at the Jews, look at Jacob over israel, look at Pharaoh, etc.

I shall wait on our new friend to have first crack at answering your question but i assure you I shall later.

Thanks, Sam

drew
Dec 17th 2008, 04:27 PM
God forces things.

Sounds unfair huh?

makes you uncomfortable maybe?

God makes some vessels for honor and others he makes for dishonor

HEY THATS NOT FAIR! GOD IS UNJUST! HOW CAN HE JUDGE ME IF I CANT EVEN RESIST HIS WILL?

16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9#f2) but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

This Romans 9 material has nothing to do with the election of individual persons to salvation or to loss.

Let's focus on Pharaoh in this post - I hope to address the whole "potter metaphor" later.

Let's return to Pharoah. Given this statement from God;

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."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 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. 18

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

drew
Dec 17th 2008, 04:39 PM
Verse 22 is also pulled out of context and used as support where the question is asked,

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

First, Paul already defined vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and they are those that treasure up wrath to themselves in rejecting their Creator and the truth (Romans 1-2), not someone created or coerced to be evil.
I agree that it is an error to see the vessels of destruction as the "pre-destined lost", but I suggest that the vessels of destruction are not who you suggest they are, but rather unbelieving Jews.

Note that Romans 9 is an argument about Israel - it starts with a clear focus on Israel and it ends with a clear focus on Israel. It is exceedingly unlikely that Paul would have an argument in the middle of Romans 9 that is not in any sense relevant to Israel. Yet that would have to be the case if your claim about who the vessels of destruction are is correct. But there is lots more substantial evidence that the vessels of destruction are unbelieving Jews.

Now look at this from Romans 11:12:

But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

In the Romans 11 text. "their" clearly refers to the unbelieving Jews (check the context).

Now I have been arguing that Paul intends us to understand that the unbelieving Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction. I suggest the Romans 11 text, rhetorically part of a single argument about Israel spanning chapters 9 to 11, strongly endorses this position. In Romans 11, we have the "transgression" of the unbelieving Jew meaning riches for the word. And in Romans 9, we have this exact same pattern: the vessels of destruction bring mercy and riches to "true Israel" (comprised of both Jew and Gentile).

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence.

If the vessels of destruction are the pre-destined lost, then Paul is a horribly misleading and incompetent writer. Why? Because Romans 11:12 clearly states that is the transgression of the unbelieving Jew that has brought salvation to the world - including the Gentiles. And in Romans 9, if the Calvinist is right, it is instead the "pre-destined lost" whose "molding" has brought glory to "true Israel".

How likely is that Paul would mislead us in this way?

Samsheep2
Dec 17th 2008, 05:00 PM
This Romans 9 material has nothing to do with the election of individual persons to salvation or to loss. Drew, I must jump into this because of your blanket remark - not because I disagree 110% with all you say to prove your point nor to defend the one you reply too - but, well let me say it this way;...starting at V4 and proceeding on I have no doubt from my own personal study that the chapter does have to do with personal election to salvation since it is incooperated within the promises of God:
Since Paul was foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made by saying that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching of the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect; to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not; wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former, Ro 9:6, and that there was such a distinction, he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who were both Abraham's seed; yet one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh, and were emblematical of the children of the promise, and the children of the flesh among that people; Ro 9:7, and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not; and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign will of God in election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Ro 9:11, and that this was notified to Rebekah before hand, Ro 9:12, as appears from a passage in Ge 25:23, and by another passage in Mal 1:2, which is cited, Ro 9:13, then an objection is started, Ro 9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness; which he answers and removes, first by a detestation of such a charge against God, and then by producing testimonies out of the books of Moses, proving both election and reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the will of God; the former of these he proves, Ro 9:15, from Ex 33:19, by which it appears, that the choice of men to salvation is not according to the will of man, but according to the grace and love of God, Ro 9:16, the latter he proves by the case of Pharaoh, Ro 9:17, and the Scripture relating to that, Ex 9:16, and from both testimonies concludes, Ro 9:18, that God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Ro 9:19, to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made; and by observing the folly and madness of replying against God, and the absurdity of such a procedure, taken from the consideration of the one being a creature, and the other the Creator, Ro 9:20, and by instancing in the case of the potter, who has power over his clay, to form it in what shape, and for what use he pleases, Ro 9:21, and accommodates this, both to the affair of election and reprobation, and to the business of the latter first, Ro 9:22, where he observes the end of God in it to show forth his power and wrath, and describes the subjects of it, which clears him from injustice, and points at the patience of God towards them, which frees him from the charge of cruelty, Ro 9:22, and then proceeds to apply the metaphor before used, to the objects of election styled vessels of mercy, and the end of the Lord to manifest the riches of his glory in them, and the method he takes to bring them to eternal happiness, by preparing them for it by grace, Ro 9:23, which is done in the effectual calling, the objects of which are both Jews and Gentiles, Ro 9:24, And then he concludes the chapter by observing the free and distinguishing grace of God, in the calling of the Gentiles, and the justification of them by the righteousness of Christ; that such who were far off from it, and sought not after it, should enjoy it, Ro 9:30, when the Israelites, who were diligent and zealous in seeking after a righteousness to justify them before God, yet did not arrive to one, Ro 9:31, the reasons of which are given, Ro 9:32, because it was not the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of Christ received by faith they sought; but a legal one, and by works which can never be attained by sinful men: they sought after a wrong righteousness, and in a wrong way, because they stumbled at Christ, and rejected him and his righteousness; and this removes an objection which is suggested in the two preceding verses, that God is unrighteous in calling the Gentiles, who never sought after righteousness, and in rejecting the Jews that followed after one: and that they did stumble at Christ and his righteousness, is no other than what was foretold in Isa 8:14, and that whoever believes in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be saved, he suggests is a doctrine agreeably to Isa 28:16, which passages are referred to, Ro 9:33. This is why he stated at the first of the chapter:

...I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,… The apostle being about to discourse concerning predestination, which he had mentioned in the preceding chapter, and to open the springs and causes of it, and also concerning the induration and rejection of the Jewish nation; he thought it necessary to preface his account of these things with some strong assurances of his great attachment to that people, and his affection for them, lest it should be thought he spoke out of prejudice to them; and well knowing in what situation he stood in with them, on account of his preaching up the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and how difficult it might be for him to obtain their belief in what he should say, he introduces it with a solemn oath, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not": which refers not to what he had said in the foregoing chapter, but to what he was going to say; and is all one as if he had said, as I am in Christ, a converted person, one born again, and renewed in the spirit of my mind, what I am about to speak is truth, and no lie; or I swear by Christ the God of truth, who is truth itself, and I appeal to him as the true God, the searcher of hearts, that what I now deliver is truth, and nothing but truth, and has no falsehood in it. This both shows that the taking of an oath is lawful, and that Christ is truly God, by whom only persons ought to swear:
...my conscience bearing me witness. The apostle, besides his appeal to Christ, calls his conscience to witness to the truth of his words; and this is as a thousand witnesses; there is in every man a conscience, which unless seared as with a red hot iron, will accuse or excuse, and bear a faithful testimony to words and actions; and especially a conscience enlightened, cleansed, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, as was the apostle's: hence he adds, ...in the Holy Ghost; meaning either that his conscience was influenced and directed by the Holy Ghost in what he was about to say; or it bore witness in and with the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost with that; so that here are three witnesses called in, Christ, conscience, and the Holy Ghost; and by three such witnesses, his words must be thought to be well established. Even though most of this I credit John Gill for my words are never as important as the precious, preserved wor of God.

Thanks, Sam

reformedct
Dec 17th 2008, 05:18 PM
OK lets not even talk "election" or use deep complex theological debate.

Lets start with a simple question:

Does God know the beginning and end of every man? Yes or No

Yes. God is the Alpha and Omega. He knows everything, including the future

Does God know some people will go to hell? Yes or No

Yes. even we know that

So then. Does God knowingly shape and create human beings KNOWING THEY WILL GO TO HELL?

can you see the confines of the will of God?

God knows that some people have a 100% chance of going to hell if he made them....

...And then He makes them

If God looks into the future, sees that a man named esau will go to hell, and still creates him anyway, what does that say about God?

God creates people knowing full good and well where they will end up

Now God does not delight in the perishing o the wicked. That does not mean it is not His will.

My parents didn't delight in disciplining me as a child. But they did it anyway according to their will (for the good of me)

Now if God knows that the person he creates will go to hell, what is the purpose of that human being? To just exist? No, God does everything with a purpose

"Our God is in the heavens: He does whatever pleases Him" psalms 115:3

He says, this person is going to end up in hell, but i will create them and use them to my glory anyway

The question boils down to this: who is in ultimately in control of their destiny?

Does God put destiny in our hands, and we decide what we will do

Or does God actually raise some up and cast some down behind the scenes?

Does God react to us, or do we react to God?

Don't you see? we are all in God's will

God could have gave us three arms but he gave us two. We have different choices on how to use our two arms, but even in our choices we are limited by the two arms he has given. Even our movement of our arms can be intervened and constrained by God when he wants, as seen when Abrahams hand was held back before he killed his son Isaac

As humans we make choices, but the choices are limited within the constraints of the will of God.

Humans don't have wings. Why? its not in God's will

Do you see that even how your body works, how you breathe, how smart you can be, is in the hand and control of God?

Why is it so hard to believe God chooses man and not the other way around?

i think its because we want to believe that everyone who would just accept christ will be saved and that we like to tell everyone SMILE! GOD LOVES YOU!

but the bible says we are by nature objects of God's wrath. He hates all who do evil.

Now that doesn't mean we as humans treat others harshly, because vengence is the Lord's

but it is very biblical that everyone acts and thinks within the confines of God's will

If God is in full control
Then whatever happens in this life is in His will.
Why? Because he has control, and sometimes chooses not to use it at times

God has the power right now to stop rape from happening, but he is choosing to allow sin to run rampant for a time. He is in full control, is He not?

To say God doesn't choose people is to say God is not in full control. It is simple as that in my opinion and i believe it is very biblical no?

i think we sometimes don't like this because it is scary. It is final. Our joy of "free will" is destroyed. We see ourselves as helpless. I think people don't like to see the truth that without God doing something to us we wiill perish. Jesus says that whatever is born of the Spirit is Spirit, and it doesn't happen by the will of man.

I know this may sound harsh, but someone could say, Jesus save me Jesus save me! and not be born again. They may be saying the right words but their hearts are far from Him. Our hearts are wicked. We are spiritually dead unless as Ephesians 2 proclaims: BUT GOD MADE US ALIVE


saying God doesn't choose robs Him of His Godness lol imo
Thats what it means to be GOD
You can do whatever you want

drew
Dec 17th 2008, 06:02 PM
Since Paul was foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made by saying that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching of the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect; to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not; wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former,
Thanks for your answer. With respect to the above: Fair enough, but you need to give the reader to believe that your belief in the concept of election is, in fact, Biblical. It is not really enough to show how the text is consistent with an election model, you need to ground your belief in election in actual scriptural arguments.

The point being is that there is nothing, I suggest, in Romans 9, that supports the doctrine of election. If you come to the text already believing in election, then perhaps indeed there is a way to see how the text works with such a view. But I think it is clear that there are better ways to interpret the Romans 9 material - ways that have nothing at all to do with matters of personal election.

So, for example, I think Romans 9 works better if we propose a model where we understand that Paul is addressing how God has used the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles, rather than a model where we think Paul is talking about election of individuals. I think Paul is talking at the level of nations and races, not individuals. But, I need to give the relevant argument (and perhaps I will).



Ro 9:7, and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not; and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign will of God in election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Ro 9:11, and that this was notified to Rebekah before hand, Ro 9:12, as appears from a passage in Ge 25:23, and by another passage in Mal 1:2, which is cited, Ro 9:13, then an objection is started, Ro 9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness;
I am not entirely sure I follow your argument here, but I will now argue that the better way to the Jacob / Esau account is to see it as being an argument not about "election to heaven or to hell" but rather about "election" to a role in this very world:

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, 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." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

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

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

Paul has also said that he "hated" Esau and loved Jacob. Does this give us license to draw the further conclusion, over and above the "Edom serving Israel", that God was also pre-destining Esau to hell and Jacob to heaven?

Again, no. Look at what Paul is quoting from in verse 13:

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

A careful reading of this text shows that it in no way justifies reading "election to heaven" (for Jacob) and "election to hell" (for Esau).

Malachi is talking about the real world and how God works in history. Consistent with all we have seen thus far in respect to the Esau-Jacob matter - from Paul and from the author of Genesis - Malachi is talking about this present world - the cursing of the land of Edom.

If the issue were election to heaven or to hell, why does Malachi say:

You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel

Could people be eyewitnesses to Esau going to hell and Jacob to heaven? Of course not.

Could people be eyewitnesses to Israel dominating Edom? Of course.

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 10:25 PM
My new friend, I assure you this post will blow the minds of some in here simply because of either a lack of study or blinded by the god of this world. I appreciate the truth of your content.

God bless,
Sam

Have you ever considered that it might be you who are blinded?

Butch5
Dec 17th 2008, 11:11 PM
Thanks for your answer. With respect to the above: Fair enough, but you need to give the reader to believe that your belief in the concept of election is, in fact, Biblical. It is not really enough to show how the text is consistent with an election model, you need to ground your belief in election in actual scriptural arguments.

The point being is that there is nothing, I suggest, in Romans 9, that supports the doctrine of election. If you come to the text already believing in election, then perhaps indeed there is a way to see how the text works with such a view. But I think it is clear that there are better ways to interpret the Romans 9 material - ways that have nothing at all to do with matters of personal election.

So, for example, I think Romans 9 works better if we propose a model where we understand that Paul is addressing how God has used the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles, rather than a model where we think Paul is talking about election of individuals. I think Paul is talking at the level of nations and races, not individuals. But, I need to give the relevant argument (and perhaps I will).



I am not entirely sure I follow your argument here, but I will now argue that the better way to the Jacob / Esau account is to see it as being an argument not about "election to heaven or to hell" but rather about "election" to a role in this very world:

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, 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." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

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

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

Paul has also said that he "hated" Esau and loved Jacob. Does this give us license to draw the further conclusion, over and above the "Edom serving Israel", that God was also pre-destining Esau to hell and Jacob to heaven?

Again, no. Look at what Paul is quoting from in verse 13:

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

A careful reading of this text shows that it in no way justifies reading "election to heaven" (for Jacob) and "election to hell" (for Esau).

Malachi is talking about the real world and how God works in history. Consistent with all we have seen thus far in respect to the Esau-Jacob matter - from Paul and from the author of Genesis - Malachi is talking about this present world - the cursing of the land of Edom.

If the issue were election to heaven or to hell, why does Malachi say:

You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel

Could people be eyewitnesses to Esau going to hell and Jacob to heaven? Of course not.

Could people be eyewitnesses to Israel dominating Edom? Of course.

Not to mention that the first mention of God hating Esau comes in Malachi. From the Genesis account up up to Malachi we have no mention of God hating Esau. To find out why God hated Esau, all we have to do is read the book of Obadiah.

Here is why God hated Esau,

Obadiah 1:1-21 ( KJV ) 1The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle. 2Behold, I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised.



3The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground? 4Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD. 5If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave some grapes? 6How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up! 7All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him. 8Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? 9And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter.


10For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever. 11In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them. 12But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress. 13Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity; 14Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress. 15For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. 16For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.


17But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions. 18And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame,and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it. 19And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. 20And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. 21And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’S.




After all of this happened, it was then that we see in Scripture the statement Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.




Malachi 1:1-5 ( KJV ) 1The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 2I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. 5And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel.




There is no mention of God hating Esau before all of these atrocities against Israel.

Yukerboy
Dec 17th 2008, 11:24 PM
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...

God chose to love one before works were done and hate the other before works were done. He chose one to serve the other before they had done any works.

Butch5
Dec 18th 2008, 12:04 AM
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...

God chose to love one before works were done and hate the other before works were done. He chose one to serve the other before they had done any works.

It doesn't say He chose to love one and hate one. It says He chose one over the other for service. The wole point of my post was to show that God did not hate Esau in Genesis, it was not until Esau had done all of those atrocities to Israel that we see God hating Esau.

Yukerboy
Dec 18th 2008, 12:17 AM
Paul's not stating that love Jacob / hate Esau thing out of the blue.

Paul states that to show that God's purpose in election would stand and that is not by works.

Butch5
Dec 18th 2008, 01:06 AM
Paul's not stating that love Jacob / hate Esau thing out of the blue.

Paul states that to show that God's purpose in election would stand and that is not by works.

Correct, Paul give that as an example, God said Esau/Edom would serve Jacob/Israel. God loved Jacob and Hated Esau. The point is God didn't hate Esau until after the atrocities. There is no mention anywhere in Genesis or elsewhere in OT of God hating Esau before the verses in Malachi. These verses are the result of what happened in the book of Obadiah. Read the Malachi verses and then read the book of Obadiah, the things that Malachi says are the things done in the book of Obadiah. Hence the reason God hated Esau.

Yukerboy
Dec 18th 2008, 01:22 AM
Correct, Paul give that as an example, God said Esau/Edom would serve Jacob/Israel. God loved Jacob and Hated Esau. The point is God didn't hate Esau until after the atrocities. There is no mention anywhere in Genesis or elsewhere in OT of God hating Esau before the verses in Malachi. These verses are the result of what happened in the book of Obadiah. Read the Malachi verses and then read the book of Obadiah, the things that Malachi says are the things done in the book of Obadiah. Hence the reason God hated Esau.

My point is that God did the electing at the beginning of time.
Paul is discussing election when he writes about God's choice to love Jacob and hate Esau.
Paul's point is that it wasn't because of anything they had done that they received love or hatred from God.
If it was after Esau had done works, then Paul wouldn't have quoted that Scripture to prove election.

reformedct
Dec 18th 2008, 01:26 AM
Butch5
im sorry if you already covered this but can you sum up what you think it is referring to when it states "who can resist his will" and "who are you o man, to question God?" and why does he ask the question "is God unjust?"

im not trying to force people to believe what i do but it just seems like there is something more powerful going on here in these verses. It seems that it is stating that the will of God cannot be resisted but God is not unjust because He is the creator and He can create whomever He wants for whatever purpose He wants

Samsheep2
Dec 18th 2008, 02:25 AM
Have you ever considered that it might be you who are blinded?Not at all since I am in the light and know what I'm talking about - But I was at one time.

Samsheep2
Dec 18th 2008, 02:57 AM
Thanks for your answer. With respect to the above: Fair enough, but you need to give the reader to believe that your belief in the concept of election is, in fact, Biblical. It is not really enough to show how the text is consistent with an election model, you need to ground your belief in election in actual scriptural arguments. The point being is that there is nothing, I suggest, in Romans 9, that supports the doctrine of election. If you come to the text already believing in election, then perhaps indeed there is a way to see how the text works with such a view. But I think it is clear that there are better ways to interpret the Romans 9 material - ways that have nothing at all to do with matters of personal election. Sorry to be so late in seeing this I've been out and about since 3:30 PM my time and just arrived back - now since you seem to be saying one thing and I said the opposite I doubt we will agree and I'm sure I shared enough to prove my point then no need in re-hashing it.


So, for example, I think Romans 9 works better if we propose a model where we understand that Paul is addressing how God has used the nation of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles, rather than a model where we think Paul is talking about election of individuals. I think Paul is talking at the level of nations and races, not individuals. But, I need to give the relevant argument (and perhaps I will). Strange, but I was under the impression that individuals made up Nations and not vice-versa? Of course you are free to believe what you just said if you want to but I do not find where any one Nation was ever saved (elected) - to attempt to separate election from salvation is like saying one must be baptised in water to be saved - you are all wet and that will either wear off or dry out - either way it doesn't last.


I am not entirely sure I follow your argument here, but I will now argue that the better way to the Jacob / Esau account is to see it as being an argument not about "election to heaven or to hell" but rather about "election" to a role in this very world: Nah, since God already settle the election before the foundation of the world in individuals He later called them out of the world - Oh and by the way i do not believe God ordained one to hell - hell was prepared for the devil and his angels and when a sinner dies w/out Christ hell doth enlarge it;s self to receive them.


In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other: Is that a fact!


The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis: And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.
Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?" So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight. My friend, why is it I feel you are ignorant of the meaning of bible election?


If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other. What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election? Paul has also said that he "hated" Esau and loved Jacob. Does this give us license to draw the further conclusion, over and above the "Edom serving Israel", that God was also pre-destining Esau to hell and Jacob to heaven?Again, no. Look at what Paul is quoting from in verse 13: Since I already know which way you're headed no need to deviate from the truth below:

...As it is written,… In Mal 1:2; ...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are explanative of the former; they are of like import, and the one interpret the other; and show, that the former are to be understood in a spiritual, and not in a temporal sense, and of the persons, and not the posterity of Jacob and Esau; for though Malachi prophesied long after Jacob and Esau were personally dead, yet the Lord in that prophecy manifestly directs the murmuring Jews to the personal regard he had had to Jacob and Esau, and which had continued in numberless instances to their respective posterities, in order to stop their mouths, and reprove their ingratitude; and though he speaks of the nation of the Edomites, and to the posterity of Israel, yet it is evident, that he has a respect to the persons of Jacob and Esau, from whence they sprung, when he says, "was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Mal 1:2, now though an Edomite may be said to be brother to an Israelite, yet Esau is never said, nor can he with any propriety be said to be the brother of Jacob's posterity: it remains, that these words regard their persons, and express the true spring and source of the choice of the one, and the rejection of the other; and which holds true of all the instances of either kind: everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, you know just like most of Abram's family in Ur - when he chose others; so the word "hate" is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Lu 14:26.

If you are still prone to follow youe National election path then that is entirely up to you - I shall stick to this.

Thanks, Sam

Samsheep2
Dec 18th 2008, 03:01 AM
...I thought why not, why not start a new thread on the subject as Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles presented it by letter to the first local church of the NT:

1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Since Paul was only there approx. 22 days establishing this local church prior to sending them this first letter I'm curious what any might think he means by 'knowing...your election'.

The reason I ask this is because of all the arguments and confusion we see today over a subject that was given to be known???

After all is said and done and you who disagree so adamantly with me are debating over this and that I shall still be where I was when the above was stated - 'knowing'

God bless,
Sam

Butch5
Dec 18th 2008, 03:21 AM
Butch5
im sorry if you already covered this but can you sum up what you think it is referring to when it states "who can resist his will" and "who are you o man, to question God?" and why does he ask the question "is God unjust?"

im not trying to force people to believe what i do but it just seems like there is something more powerful going on here in these verses. It seems that it is stating that the will of God cannot be resisted but God is not unjust because He is the creator and He can create whomever He wants for whatever purpose He wants

You said the key words, He can create who ever He wants for whatever He wants. He can use people for the service He chooses. There is nothing here about election to heaven or hell. Jacob over Esau for service, I posted why God hated Esau. Paul quotes a verse from Genesis to support what he has just stated, yet the verse he quotes has nothing to do with salvation. It says the elder shall serve the younger. How does that prove Paul's point? If Paul is trying to say that Jacob was chosen for heaven and Esau for hell, how does the Scripture quote, the elder shall serve the younger, prove His point? However, if you look at the whole context of what Paul is saying, that God chooses who He will for the service that He chooses, it makes perfect sense. Consider Pharaoh, God chose to use Pharaoh to glorify Himself, In Pharaoh's resistance to free the Israelites God is Glorified. However, as someone already mentioned, how is God glorified by sending Pharaoh to hell? Is He glorified before the heathen by send Pharaoh to hell.

I think the question of being unjust goes to Jacob and Esau. Why would a Jew ask Paul if this election was unjust? According to the Jewish tradition, Esau, the first born had the birthright, not Jacob. So, it would appear to the Jew that choosing Jacob over Esau was unjust. However Paul says no God is not unjust, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. If God wants to pick the second born over the first He can. He is the potter, Jacob and Esau are the clay, if God chooses to make on vessel to honor (Jacob) and another to dishonor (Esau) that is His privilege.

Romans 9:19-20 ( KJV ) 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

If God hardens who He will, and has mercy on who He will, why does He find fault with men? The guy is saying ,if God doesn't have mercy on me, why does He find fault with If God does this why does He find fault with me. In other words the man is blaming God for him being a vessel prepared for destruction, Paul says who are you to reply against God. Paul makes it clear how the vessels are prepared.

2 Timothy 2:19-21 ( KJV ) 19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

Butch5
Dec 18th 2008, 03:31 AM
Sorry to be so late in seeing this I've been out and about since 3:30 PM my time and just arrived back - now since you seem to be saying one thing and I said the opposite I doubt we will agree and I'm sure I shared enough to prove my point then no need in re-hashing it.

Strange, but I was under the impression that individuals made up Nations and not vice-versa? Of course you are free to believe what you just said if you want to but I do not find where any one Nation was ever saved (elected) - to attempt to separate election from salvation is like saying one must be baptised in water to be saved - you are all wet and that will either wear off or dry out - either way it doesn't last.

Nah, since God already settle the election before the foundation of the world in individuals He later called them out of the world - Oh and by the way i do not believe God ordained one to hell - hell was prepared for the devil and his angels and when a sinner dies w/out Christ hell doth enlarge it;s self to receive them.

Is that a fact!

My friend, why is it I feel you are ignorant of the meaning of bible election?

Since I already know which way you're headed no need to deviate from the truth below:

...As it is written,… In Mal 1:2; ...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are explanative of the former; they are of like import, and the one interpret the other; and show, that the former are to be understood in a spiritual, and not in a temporal sense, and of the persons, and not the posterity of Jacob and Esau; for though Malachi prophesied long after Jacob and Esau were personally dead, yet the Lord in that prophecy manifestly directs the murmuring Jews to the personal regard he had had to Jacob and Esau, and which had continued in numberless instances to their respective posterities, in order to stop their mouths, and reprove their ingratitude; and though he speaks of the nation of the Edomites, and to the posterity of Israel, yet it is evident, that he has a respect to the persons of Jacob and Esau, from whence they sprung, when he says, "was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Mal 1:2, now though an Edomite may be said to be brother to an Israelite, yet Esau is never said, nor can he with any propriety be said to be the brother of Jacob's posterity: it remains, that these words regard their persons, and express the true spring and source of the choice of the one, and the rejection of the other; and which holds true of all the instances of either kind: everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, you know just like most of Abram's family in Ur - when he chose others; so the word "hate" is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in Lu 14:26.

If you are still prone to follow youe National election path then that is entirely up to you - I shall stick to this.

Thanks, Sam


My friend, If you believe God predestined certain to be saved, How can it be that He did not predestine the others to hell? Even Calvin who espoused this doctrine admitted that.

I notice you write off the connection of Jacob/Esau to Israel/Edom, even in light of the fact that the Scripture that Paul quotes speaks of two nations

Butch5
Dec 18th 2008, 03:32 AM
Not at all since I am in the light and know what I'm talking about - But I was at one time.

Therein lies the problem.

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 04:11 AM
Although Paul sometimes uses "sarx" to refer to the "merely physical", he commonly uses it in a manner that does not even draw a "physical - immaterial" distinction.

Example 1: Romans 8:13

13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

Paul cannot be using the word "flesh" here to refer to the physicality of the human person. If he were, he would be suggesting "living physically" leads to death. And since Christians have to live "physically" (obviously), and since presumably continuing to live physically does not mean we do not ultimately live eternally, Paul cannot intend us to understand "flesh" here as a reference to the domain of the physical. Clearly, Paul believes that we can live "physically" (indeed what other choice is there) and also live by the Spirt. Therefore, he cannot mean "flesh" to denote physicality since he plays it off as the alternative to living by the Spirit.

Example 2: Romans 7:18

18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Considering what Paul immediately goes on to say (following) he cannot be referring to mere physicality in verse 18:

19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28112AJ))I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

Clearly, Paul is using the word "flesh" to refer to the whole person here. In verse 18, he says nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh - a rather clear assertion that "flesh" refers to more than just Paul's physicality.

But verses 19 and 20 make it even more clear. Paul's is talking about his entire person - he is saying that "both spirit and body" practice evil. If Paul, in verse 18, is saying that only his physicality is tainted, then the reader will be left wondering why his "spirit" cannot overcome this purely physical drive to sin. No - the entire person is at issue here.

At the risk appealing to authority, I believe that scholars are fairly unanimous on this issue - Paul does not use the word "sarx" simply to refer to "physicality", he more typically uses the word "soma" for that.

Paul even uses "sarx" to refer to the nation of Israel in some places (like Galatians 5).Oh. Well thanks for replying. I didn't think you would think I was seriously asking for examples. I know what people say but it is in fact the flesh on your bones. The same literal flesh scripture says lusts and desires come from and is weak and corruptible. We need incorruptible flesh that is heavenly, after Christ, for a different glory than this corruptible flesh made for another glory. We are corruptible like Adam and need to be resurrected incorruptible after the last Adam.

Flesh is never Israel in Galatians 5.

What scholars are unanimous on only speaks to the corrupt mustard seed inhabited by devils Jesus spoke of.

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 04:15 AM
I agree that it is an error to see the vessels of destruction as the "pre-destined lost", but I suggest that the vessels of destruction are not who you suggest they are, but rather unbelieving Jews.

Note that Romans 9 is an argument about Israel - it starts with a clear focus on Israel and it ends with a clear focus on Israel. It is exceedingly unlikely that Paul would have an argument in the middle of Romans 9 that is not in any sense relevant to Israel. Yet that would have to be the case if your claim about who the vessels of destruction are is correct. But there is lots more substantial evidence that the vessels of destruction are unbelieving Jews.

Now look at this from Romans 11:12:

But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

In the Romans 11 text. "their" clearly refers to the unbelieving Jews (check the context).

Now I have been arguing that Paul intends us to understand that the unbelieving Jews are the vessels fitted for destruction. I suggest the Romans 11 text, rhetorically part of a single argument about Israel spanning chapters 9 to 11, strongly endorses this position. In Romans 11, we have the "transgression" of the unbelieving Jew meaning riches for the word. And in Romans 9, we have this exact same pattern: the vessels of destruction bring mercy and riches to "true Israel" (comprised of both Jew and Gentile).

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence.

If the vessels of destruction are the pre-destined lost, then Paul is a horribly misleading and incompetent writer. Why? Because Romans 11:12 clearly states that is the transgression of the unbelieving Jew that has brought salvation to the world - including the Gentiles. And in Romans 9, if the Calvinist is right, it is instead the "pre-destined lost" whose "molding" has brought glory to "true Israel".

How likely is that Paul would mislead us in this way?Interesting. I will look more closely at that.

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 04:46 AM
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...

God chose to love one before works were done and hate the other before works were done. He chose one to serve the other before they had done any works.


Paul's not stating that love Jacob / hate Esau thing out of the blue.

Paul states that to show that God's purpose in election would stand and that is not by works.Ummm.....you forget how to understand election. FOREKNOWLEDGE!!!

Again, the purpose of election is Christ, mine elect, coming in the flesh and that was done through the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob). So it is with us. Before we are born and done any works God chooses us based on what He foreknows. You are straying from the context and picking a verse out that fits your theology. If you do not attempt to understand election according to how the Bible says his foreknowledge affects election, you will not understand it.

Yukerboy
Dec 18th 2008, 05:11 AM
Ummm.....you forget how to understand election. FOREKNOWLEDGE!!!

Again, the purpose of election is Christ, mine elect, coming in the flesh and that was does through the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob). So it is with us. Before we are born and done any works God chooses us based on what He foreknows. You are straying from the context and picking a verse out that fits your theology. If you do not attempt to understand election according to how the Bible says his foreknowledge affects election, you will not understand it.

You're wrong, and there's nothing wrong with that.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Who are those God foreknew? Is it everyone or those that he predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son?

If it was all that were predestined, then they are all called, justified, and glorified. Universalism.

So, obviously, this is not to say that God elected through foreknowledge. God elected through His own choice. God drags men to Christ, not of works, but of him who calls.

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 05:17 AM
Ummm...I didn't say anything about predestination there. Predestination is our inheritance in Christ, now and future. The Elect are ALL predestined, called, justified, and glorified. It is not universalism. Bible plainly, ever so plainly, says he elects according to foreknowledge. Did you just say he doesn't? :o

Samsheep2
Dec 18th 2008, 01:52 PM
Ummm.....you forget how to understand election. FOREKNOWLEDGE!!!

Again, the purpose of election is Christ, mine elect, coming in the flesh and that was done through the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob). So it is with us. Before we are born and done any works God chooses us based on what He foreknows. You are straying from the context and picking a verse out that fits your theology. If you do not attempt to understand election according to how the Bible says his foreknowledge affects election, you will not understand it.

Good morning Sirus, nice to see you are still around and inserting your arguments for/against and how ever the direction appears to be going - I couldn't help but remember you saying this way back the first time you replied to me:

"Hi Sam. What is the 'will of God', 'purpose of God', and 'mystery of Christ' that was hidden from the foundation of the world? Therein is your answer.
God willed the invitation. Man wills his own salvation."

Sirus, are you saying you understand election by what you say here as opposed to your answer above to YB? And please don't think I am straw picking - below you will find what I believe as theological, balanced and scriptural when it comes to understanding election:

...Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness which was because of the first Adam's sin and brought spiritual death on all mankind.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, except the Father who sent Me draws him."
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just 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 to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."
Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. Sirus, I'm not saying that is exactly what you are saying - but then are you? This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. Sirus, from your own words I take it that you understand all this and really no need to say more; ...but because there are others not yet on that plane we continue: We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice. With thanks to my friend John MacArthur and a few words of mine I have spoken of what I believe my elect salvation means to me. This in no way was an attack at you/others but my answer to my original post as to "knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God"
In closing might I say to me you appear to believe most of this or have I read you wrong?

God bless,
Sam (1 John 5:12)

Sirus
Dec 19th 2008, 05:12 AM
If you'd be so kind and split that up a little so I can read it, I'd be glad to. :eek:

Samsheep2
Dec 19th 2008, 12:26 PM
If you'd be so kind and split that up a little so I can read it, I'd be glad to. :eek:

Good morning Sirus, nice to see you are still around and inserting your arguments for/against and how ever the direction appears to be going - I couldn't help but remember you saying this way back the first time you replied to me:

SIRUS SAYS: "Hi Sam. What is the 'will of God', 'purpose of God', and 'mystery of Christ' that was hidden from the foundation of the world? Therein is your answer.
God willed the invitation. Man wills his own salvation."

Sirus, are you saying you understand election by what you say here as opposed to your answer above to YB? And please don't think I am straw picking - below you will find what I believe as theological, balanced and scriptural when it comes to understanding election:

...Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness which was because of the first Adam's sin and brought spiritual death on all mankind.

The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, except the Father who sent Me draws him."

This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just 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 to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."

Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."

Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."

Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. Sirus, I'm not saying that is exactly what you are saying - but then are you? This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.

The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. Sirus, from your own words I take it that you understand all this and really no need to say more; ...but because there are others not yet on that plane we continue: We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice. With thanks to my friend John MacArthur and a few words of mine I have spoken of what I believe my elect salvation means to me. This in no way was an attack at you/others but my answer to my original post as to "knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God"

In closing might I say to me you appear to believe most of this or have I read you wrong?

God bless,
Sam (1 John 5:12)

drew
Dec 19th 2008, 03:15 PM
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...

God chose to love one before works were done and hate the other before works were done. He chose one to serve the other before they had done any works.
I think that Paul here is not referring to "good works" but specifically to "works" that mark the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. Paul is making an argument about the nature of Israel - drawing a distinction between "genetic Israel" and "true Israel". In the context of such a distinction, and given the context of chapters 9 to 11 as a whole - which is Paul's full dress treatment of the issue of how God has used Israel - it is most reasonable to see the reference to "works" as a reference to those actions which mark Jew from Gentile, and not as a reference to "good works".

This might be a tangent to the OP, so I will not attempt to give a more rigorous defence of my position here.

drew
Dec 19th 2008, 03:47 PM
Interesting. I will look more closely at that.
Thanks for being open to this line of thinking in respect to the vessels of destruction. To supplement what I have already written, here are some texts demonstrating the Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor. All of them are about the nation of Israel.

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

Note that in the above text from Isaiah 30, the connection to Romans 9 is even tighter. Not only do we note Isaiah’s identification of the pot with Israel, we can appeal to the more refined point that this pot has broken or shattered. This coheres perfectly well with the argument in chapter 9 where Paul not only invokes the potter / pot metaphor, he makes the further point that some pots are “fitted for destruction”. Therefore, seeing the pots “fitted for destruction” as Israel maps cleanly to Isaiah 30 both in regard to the identity of the pot and in regard to what happens to it.

And this one from Jeremiah is particularly clear:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Here we have another example of a correlation to Romans 9 that works at multiple levels. First, we have the pot clearly identified as Israel. But beyond this, we have the potter marring the pot in order to make another pot. Note how, in Romans 9, Paul is making the very same point about the pots – the vessels of destruction are “fitted for destruction” precisely for the benefit of the vessels of mercy:

if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory

The Parson
Dec 19th 2008, 07:17 PM
Arguements or assertions are starting to head in a circle here folks. Probably best to make your summations before the thread is closed.

Butch5
Dec 19th 2008, 11:12 PM
Yuckerboy---Who are those God foreknew?


Who are those God knew before? Before what?

Butch5
Dec 19th 2008, 11:15 PM
Good morning Sirus, nice to see you are still around and inserting your arguments for/against and how ever the direction appears to be going - I couldn't help but remember you saying this way back the first time you replied to me:

"Hi Sam. What is the 'will of God', 'purpose of God', and 'mystery of Christ' that was hidden from the foundation of the world? Therein is your answer.
God willed the invitation. Man wills his own salvation."

Sirus, are you saying you understand election by what you say here as opposed to your answer above to YB? And please don't think I am straw picking - below you will find what I believe as theological, balanced and scriptural when it comes to understanding election:

...Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness which was because of the first Adam's sin and brought spiritual death on all mankind.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, except the Father who sent Me draws him."
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just 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 to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."
Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. Sirus, I'm not saying that is exactly what you are saying - but then are you? This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. Sirus, from your own words I take it that you understand all this and really no need to say more; ...but because there are others not yet on that plane we continue: We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice. With thanks to my friend John MacArthur and a few words of mine I have spoken of what I believe my elect salvation means to me. This in no way was an attack at you/others but my answer to my original post as to "knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God"
In closing might I say to me you appear to believe most of this or have I read you wrong?

God bless,
Sam (1 John 5:12)

Sam,

On what do you base the statement that election is unconditional?

Samsheep2
Dec 20th 2008, 12:39 AM
Sam, On what do you base the statement that election is unconditional?
Hi Butch, the article - plus!!!

Sirus
Dec 20th 2008, 09:07 PM
...Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence. It is not unconditional

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

….and no, faith in not a gift at some moment of salvation neither is it a work. I asked for scripture and you could not produce any, so why do you continue to promote this concept?



The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness which was because of the first Adam's sin and brought spiritual death on all mankind. How did Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc… hear and respond to God? You logic doesn’t play along with scripture too well. Spiritual death, a term made by man, is simply a veiled relationship where man no longer walks with God in the cool of the day in his garden, nevertheless, man still walks with God and has a relationship with him from Genesis to Revelation. Until sin was paid for man was restricted to this veiled relationship but now we can in boldness enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh (Heb 10:19-20).



The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, except the Father who sent Me draws him."

This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just 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 to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."

Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."

Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity." you’re just repeating yourself and I have addressed all this already.




Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. Sirus, I'm not saying that is exactly what you are saying - but then are you? Absolutely. I thought I made that perfectly clear.



This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined."Stop! You think that means;
those he foreknew he elected. Is that what it says? No it is not. It say those he foreknew he predestined. There is a word for elect and another for predestine. They are different and are used different. The Holy Ghost is not a sloppy writer. Election is not predestination. Learn that and everything else you wrote below that is eliminated.



The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. This is very easy to answer and in fact I already have. Scripture is very clear on this. You think it cannot be answered because what you think is not biblical to its core.



Sirus, from your own words I take it that you understand all this and really no need to say more; ...but because there are others not yet on that plane we continue: We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice. Thank God I don’t and never have understood election as you do and am on another plane.



With thanks to my friend John MacArthur and a few words of mine I have spoken of what I believe my elect salvation means to me. This in no way was an attack at you/others but my answer to my original post as to "knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God" John MacArther? I’ll resist commenting...........


In closing might I say to me you appear to believe most of this or have I read you wrong? As you can see, you have read me completely wrong.

Sirus
Dec 20th 2008, 09:48 PM
Thanks for being open to this line of thinking in respect to the vessels of destruction. To supplement what I have already written, here are some texts demonstrating the Old Testament precedent of the potter metaphor. All of them are about the nation of Israel.

The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.

14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?" 16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?

This is about the Jews - the nation of Israel.

This next text is from Isaiah 30. The NIV translators gave the title "Woe to the Obstinate Nation" to this chapter. Again, this is about Israel:

Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly

Note that in the above text from Isaiah 30, the connection to Romans 9 is even tighter. Not only do we note Isaiah’s identification of the pot with Israel, we can appeal to the more refined point that this pot has broken or shattered. This coheres perfectly well with the argument in chapter 9 where Paul not only invokes the potter / pot metaphor, he makes the further point that some pots are “fitted for destruction”. Therefore, seeing the pots “fitted for destruction” as Israel maps cleanly to Isaiah 30 both in regard to the identity of the pot and in regard to what happens to it.

And this one from Jeremiah is particularly clear:

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Here we have another example of a correlation to Romans 9 that works at multiple levels. First, we have the pot clearly identified as Israel. But beyond this, we have the potter marring the pot in order to make another pot. Note how, in Romans 9, Paul is making the very same point about the pots – the vessels of destruction are “fitted for destruction” precisely for the benefit of the vessels of mercy:

if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for gloryI do see how you have come to your conclusion however in the context of Romans 9 we also see Esau and Pharaoh. There are many other ‘vessels’, for example Cyrus (restoration) and Nebuchadnezzar (judgment) that were used by God. In any house there are vessels to honor and vessels to dishonor. If in fact Romans 9:19-21 references Isaiah 45:9-10 Cyrus is in the context as well and he was not of Israel. He let Israel go back to their land and the result was that Christ came in the flesh through Israel according to prophecy which is in fact the context of Romans 9. In Jeremiah 18 you quoted above, if you read on, the Potter applies His principles that dictate what sort of vessel anyone will be to ALL nations, not just Israel. This is also seen in Psalm 2:9 and Rev 2:7. Every man is a vessel with the breath of life (spirit) from the Almighty. Rom 9:20 says “Nay but, O man” not just Israel. His principles of hardening those that harden their heart and having mercy on those that repent does not apply only to Israel but to ALL nations as seen in Jeremiah 18 and Romans 1. Christ is my serveant mine elect and ALL nations are in his elect body.

threebigrocks
Dec 20th 2008, 10:02 PM
If no man is good, and we lost without Christ unable to do anything about it in and of ourselves to reconcile ourselves to God, how did God plan for that to happen?

If nobody can get to the Father without going through the Son, can God choose and ursurp His very own plan since before the creation of the world?

If Christ was crucified before the foundations of the world, was that not God's plan to reconcile all men to Him through His Son?

I just can't find a thing, anywhere, where all things are not through Christ. I see no direct selection of any man in this time of grace we have by the Father. Just can't find it, no matter how hard I look. The only thing I can come up with is that Christ was predestined, not us. It is only because of His predestination, not ours, since before this world existed.

Butch5
Dec 21st 2008, 04:15 AM
Hi Butch, the article - plus!!!

Which book would I find that in?

Yukerboy
Dec 21st 2008, 04:34 AM
Stop! You think that means;
those he foreknew he elected. Is that what it says? No it is not. It say those he foreknew he predestined. There is a word for elect and another for predestine. They are different and are used different. The Holy Ghost is not a sloppy writer. Election is not predestination. Learn that and everything else you wrote below that is eliminated.

What happens to those He foreknew?

They are foreknown.
They are predestined.
They are called.
They are justified.
They are glorified.

Who is glorified? The elect.

Who is not glorified. Give you a hint.

And I will say to them, I never knew you.

threebigrocks
Dec 21st 2008, 04:58 AM
What happens to those He foreknew?

They are foreknown.
They are predestined.
They are called.
They are justified.
They are glorified.

Who is glorified? The elect.

Who is not glorified. Give you a hint.

And I will say to them, I never knew you.

Those all apply to Christ.

Can you please show me where we can gain access to anything outside of Christ? THe fact that Christ can say that "I never knew you" clearly shows that all thing are through Christ, no other way. If Christ had not been predestined, we could not have our salvation predestined through HIm. Christ first, He is the first fruits.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 06:36 AM
What happens to those He foreknew?

They are foreknown.
They are predestined.
They are called.
They are justified.
They are glorified.

Who is glorified? The elect.

Who is not glorified. Give you a hint.

And I will say to them, I never knew you.So....ur agreeing with me?

Yukerboy
Dec 21st 2008, 03:24 PM
Sirius, have we agreed on anything here yet? :)

No, I don't.

I am saying that all of those characteristics are the elect's characteristics, therefore, when he talks of foreknowledge in Romans 8, he is talking about the elect.

Everyone who is not elect, he did not foreknow, because He never knew them.

Sirus
Dec 21st 2008, 06:34 PM
Yes, then we agree! :pp

The elect are predestined.....and....and...

Brother Mark
Dec 21st 2008, 06:42 PM
What happens to those He foreknew?

They are foreknown.
They are predestined.
They are called.
They are justified.
They are glorified.

Who is glorified? The elect.

Who is not glorified. Give you a hint.

And I will say to them, I never knew you.

Just food for thought...

Why did God reject his elect? He elected/chose Israel only to later reject them. :hmm:

drew
Dec 21st 2008, 11:15 PM
Just food for thought...

Why did God reject his elect? He elected/chose Israel only to later reject them. :hmm:
I think that the answer to this question lies in a proper understanding of what Israel was actually elected for. The concept of election is more general than many think - for God to "elect" a person is simply for God to "choose" that someone. What the person is elected for is actually a further question.

I suggest that Paul argues that Israel's "election" is a terrible burden, not a blessing. Paul argues that Israel has been elected to be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated and concentrated before that sin is then passed on to her faithful Messiah and there condemned. Romans 8:3 tells us that it is sin, not Jesus who is condemned on the cross.

According to Paul, Israel is elected to be a people in whom sin becomes magnified and intensified and brought into a position of vulnerability. For Paul, sin is a force and a power, perhaps even a personal force, and God uses Israel as a "sponge" that soaks up the world's sin. And it is the Torah that God uses to "lure" sin into Israel (Romans 7).

Paul's surprising argument is that Israel has been elected to this self-sacrificial (and, in fact, Christlike) role of being the place where sin is collected before it is dealt with.

Indeed God has hardened (rejected) his elect - but He does so in service of this sprawling plan of redemption whereby the power of sin is "deceived" into taking up residence in Israel, so that it can then be focused down to a single place - Jesus - and there dealt with, once and for all.

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:42 AM
Sirius, have we agreed on anything here yet? :)

No, I don't.

I am saying that all of those characteristics are the elect's characteristics, therefore, when he talks of foreknowledge in Romans 8, he is talking about the elect.

Everyone who is not elect, he did not foreknow, because He never knew them.I may not have been clear.....
You quoted me pointing out Sam has stated
who God foreknew he predestinated,
but
those he foreknew are the elect,
so
those he foreknew, which are elect, are predestinated.

I think we agree there, no?
If that is true, election and predestination are not the same thing, are they?

reformedct
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:48 AM
I may not have been clear.....
You quoted me pointing out Sam has stated
who God foreknew he predestinated,
but
those he foreknew are the elect,
so
those he foreknew, which are elect, are predestinated.

I think we agree there, no?
If that is true, election and predestination are not the same thing, are they?


i think there is a verse that says not all who call themselves jews are really jews, or not all who were born of abraham are israel.

It is my view that the promise was for the ethnic house of Israel, but the true house of Israel are those who recieve the promise of eternal life by faith in the Messiah. Thus ethnic israel who rejected the messiah were cut off because of unbelief

so Paul, being a Jew, demonstrates how Israel is still elect. Ethnic Israel was elect to give birth to the Messiah, and many in ethnic Israel trusted in Him. however those who did not trust are not elect in the eternal sense

Sirus
Dec 22nd 2008, 03:33 AM
I didn't mention natural Israel there but....ok