PDA

View Full Version : Calling all predestination believers....



MaryFreeman
Feb 21st 2010, 08:29 PM
I was reading a thread on predestination....

And I noticed a lot of questions on the thread that were not answered....

Some were even accused of asking "emotional" questions....

Though I do not doubt the emotion in said questions.... They were based in pure old fashioned logic....

That thread is an old thread that has hundreds of posts.... And I am sorry.... But I just don't wish to wade through all of them to find one predestination believer who will answer those questions with Scripture.

So I am going to post those questions here.....

And hope that one of you will answer them....

Please make sure that your answers are accompanied by Scripture....

Because a lot of what I saw was opinion and conjecture....

Question 1:

Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?

Question 2:

If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....
How do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?

Question 3:

Does God really force people to sin?

Question 4:

What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?

Question 5:

If God predestines people....

Why is it that all of us are born in sin?

Question 6:

If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....

Why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?

Question 7:

Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?

Question 8:

If some were predestined for Glory.... And some for eternal damnation.... Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish? Does not the word predestinate express a wish that some go on to glory and some do not?

I have read the entire book of Romans before.... And I intend to do so again.... I do not believe in taking one verse.... or one chapter even.... And basing an entire theological doctrine on just that.... I read chapters 8,9, and 10 last night..... And the only predestinating I saw was those who had faith versus those who refused to have faith....

Mind you God did harden hearts.... But the way I see it.... He did that because they were already well on their way to a hardened heart....

I refuse to believe that foreknowledge means foreplanning.... God does know everything in advance.... Because He is God.... But I do not believe that means God wills people to sin.... It says in the word that God does not tempt ANYONE to sin.

God simply knows your heart and has since before the dawn of time.... And just like He planned a route to salvation.... He planned accordingly....

As soon as I have a few responses I will post what I have found last night....

All can post here....

But I would appreciate it if we can let those who believe in predestination have a chance first....

And lets please make this a peaceful thread with intellegent people coming together to reason with eachother....:hug:

Sirus
Feb 22nd 2010, 02:23 AM
I believe in predestination, but it is not what you are asking about. You are asking about election. They are different.
I also believe in election, but not from the side of the questions you have asked, so I cannot answer them as one that believes in it the way they do. So I'll just get a bag of popcorn and wait for them to respond.

RogerW
Feb 22nd 2010, 03:08 AM
Predestinate: from the Greek word proorizo - from 4253 and 3724; to limit in advance, i.e. (figuratively) predetermine:--determine before, ordain, predestinate.

In the following verses:

Ac*4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel [determined before] to be done.
Ro*8:29 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.
Ro*8:30 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.
1Co*2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God [ordained] before the world unto our glory:
Eph*1:5 [Having predestinated] us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph*1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, [being predestinated] according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Predestinate comes from a primary preposition pro - "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever. In the comparative, it retains the same significations.

A few verses where this primary preposition is found:

Mt*6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, [before] ye ask him.
Mt*8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us [before] the time?
Mt*11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger [before] thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Lu*2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel [before] he was conceived in the womb.
Lu*21:12 But [before] all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
Joh*1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, [Before] that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Joh*13:19 Now I tell you [before] it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
1Co*2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained [before] the world unto our glory:
Eph*1:4 According 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:
2Ti*1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus [before] the world began,
Tit*1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised [before] the world began;
1Pe*1:20 Who verily was foreordained [before] the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Predestinate; from the Greek word horizo - from 3725; to mark out or bound ("horizon"), i.e. (figuratively) to appoint, decree, specify:--declare, determine, limit, ordain.

Used in the following verses:

Lu*22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as [it was determined]: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
Ac*2:23 Him, being delivered [by the determinate] counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Ac*10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which [was ordained] of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Ac*17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, [and hath determined] the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Ac*17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom [he hath ordained]; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Heb*4:7 Again, [he limiteth] a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Since predestinate is a biblical term, it must be understood by how it is used in Scripture. Since the word is used in connection with "ordain" and "limit in advance" it is also necessary to find the meaning of ordain, and determine before. To fully understand how Scripture defines "predestinate" it is also necessary to seek understanding of chosen, elect/election, and foreknowledge/foreknow are also used in Scripture. If we allow the Bible to be its own interpreter, and we do not bring a preconcieved opinion into our study, we should be able to understand exactly what God means when He tells us:

Ro*8:29 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.
Ro*8:30 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.

Many Blessings,
RW

MaryFreeman
Feb 22nd 2010, 05:57 AM
I believe in predestination, but it is not what you are asking about. You are asking about election. They are different.
I also believe in election, but not from the side of the questions you have asked, so I cannot answer them as one that believes in it the way they do. So I'll just get a bag of popcorn and wait for them to respond.:rofl::kiss: Can I have some?

MaryFreeman
Feb 22nd 2010, 06:05 AM
Thank you all for your responses.... Hopefully a few more will see this thread and post their views too....
And then I will post what I have found as promised....

Vhayes
Feb 22nd 2010, 06:08 AM
Hi Mary - pleased to meet you.

I think God knew who would become His child from the foundation of the world. i don't think He forces anything - but that doesn't mean He doesn't know the end from the beginning and all that falls in between.

Not what you were looking for I know but that's what I have gleaned from my studies.
V

HisLeast
Feb 22nd 2010, 06:21 AM
Carl Jung's study of people made him realize that across almost all people in almost every culture, the longer one is alive, the more one "makes relative one's ego". That is to say, the older you get, the more you tend to attribute everything in your life to circumstance rather than personal will.
Perhaps time makes each of us a believer in predestination.

MaryFreeman
Feb 22nd 2010, 08:22 AM
Carl Jung's study of people made him realize that across almost all people in almost every culture, the longer one is alive, the more one "makes relative one's ego". That is to say, the older you get, the more you tend to attribute everything in your life to circumstance rather than personal will.
Perhaps time makes each of us a believer in predestination.

Err.... Ok? But what I asked for was answers to the 8 questions listed above.... With Scripture refrences to bolster those answers.... This is an opinion....

Bible2
Feb 22nd 2010, 09:12 AM
MaryFreeman:
Calling all predestination believers....


All believers should be predestination believers because the Bible teaches predestination (Ephesians 1:4-11).



Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?


God planned the evil that goes on only in the sense that he created this timeline of events knowing beforehand all the evil it would include (Acts 2:23).



How do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?


People can know they are not damned if they believe in Jesus Christ (1 John 5:13).



Does God really force people to sin?


God not only never forces anyone to sin, he never even tempts anyone to sin (James 1:13-15).



What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?


There is no criteria prerequisite to becoming chosen (elected) by God, insofar as people are chosen by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), before they have done anything at all (Romans 9:11).



Why is it that all of us are born in sin?


All of us are born in sin (Romans 5:19) so that God can show his mercy to all of his elect (Romans 11:32) and his wrath to all the unelect (Romans 9:21-24).



Why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?


Christians must preach the gospel to everyone who is not a believer (Mark 16:15-16) because Christians do not know which unbelievers are elect (Acts 13:48) and which are unelect (John 8:47).



Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?


No one who has given their life to God and served him faithfully was preordained to go to hell in the sense that from the foundation of the world God wanted them to go to hell. But even those who have given their life to God and served him faithfully in part of their lives can still subsequently be sent to hell if they do not repent from their sins (1 Corinthians 9:27).



Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish?


2 Peter 3:9 means that God does not want any of his elect to perish; the "any" refers back to the "us" (or "you"), which refers back to the elect (2 Peter 1:10).

Butch5
Feb 22nd 2010, 05:01 PM
Thank you all for your responses.... Hopefully a few more will see this thread and post their views too....
And then I will post what I have found as promised....

Hi Mary,

I am basically in the same position as Sirus, I agree with predestination and election just not in the sense that is indicated in your post

notuptome
Feb 23rd 2010, 12:38 AM
Thank you all for your responses.... Hopefully a few more will see this thread and post their views too....
And then I will post what I have found as promised....
Predestination is not predetermination. Because God knows the end from the begining does not require Him to structure all things to happen in a specific fashion.

God has decreed from before the begining of the world certian things would be. He would provide a way of salvation for the world through His Son. Those who trust in Christ will partake of a heavenly inheritance.

God has called all men to come to repentace but those that love darkness rather than the Light will perish.

Because God is soverign He can allow men to choose to believe.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

MaryFreeman
Feb 23rd 2010, 07:29 AM
:pp

I have seen several responses here that couple predestination with free will....

Which is what I have been led to believe after reading Romans....

I read post after post in which I had witnessed predestination believers stating catigorically that we do not have the free will to choose....

This makes no sense in light of John 3:16....

Joh 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. [AMP]


G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.


Above is the Greek word Kosmos.... Which can have the literal meaning.... that is world as in inhabitants.... or the figurative meaning.... as in morally....


So God loved everyone in this world so much He [premeditated/preplanned] a route to salvation by sending Jesus to die on the cross for all of us.... That those of us [who believed in Jesus] should not perish but have life eternal....


I said that because I once had a discussion with someone who does not believe in free will.... That person wished me to believe that the word world did not mean all of earths inhabitants.... When it quite clearly does....


I too believe that God foreknew who would believe in His Son.... And who would not....


G4267
προγινώσκω
proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).


This is the Greek word proginosko.... Meaning to know before hand.... or foresee.... It is used here:

For God knew His people in advance, and He chose them to become like His Son, so that His Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, He called them to come to Him. And having called them, He gave them right standing with Himself. And having given them right standing, He gave them His glory. Romans 8:29-30 NLT

I too believe that God predestinated [those of us who choose to believe]....

G4309
προορίζω
proorizō
pro-or-id'-zo
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine: - determine before, ordain, predestinate.


This is the Greek word proorizo.... It means to limit in advance.... I do believe God limited in advance the final destination to [those of us who choose to believe in him]....


I too believe in the elect.... I believe that I am of said elect.... Now why do I believe that?


G1588
ἐκλεκτός
eklektos
ek-lek-tos'
From G1586; select; by implication favorite: - chosen, elect.


This is the Greek word eklektos.... It is used here:

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.[KJV]


The words select and chosen are in the translation of the word eklektos.... To limit in advance is to choose in advance in the sense that God chose those whom He knew in advance would choose to believe....


What I don't believe.... Is that progenosko + proorizo = premeditated planning.... The only planning I see is a route to salvation through Jesus Christ for those who choose to believe....


So I do NOT believe that God specifically creates human beings with the express intent of sending them to hell. The only planned hardening of hearts and stopping of ears happened with the Jews:

Rom 10:19 But I ask, did the people of Israel really understand? Yes, they did, for even in the time of Moses, God said, "I will rouse your jealousy through people who are not even a nation. I will provoke your anger through the foolish Gentiles." [NLT]

Rom 11:7 So this is the situation: Most of the people of Israel have not found the favor of God they are looking for so earnestly. A few have—the ones God has chosen—but the hearts of the rest were hardened.


Rom 11:8 As the Scriptures say, "God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day He has shut their eyes so they do not see, and closed their ears so they do not hear."




Will it stay like this? Will the Jews hearts be hardened to our Lord and Savior forever? I don't believe that for one second.... I do know why God did it though:

Rom 11:11 Did God's people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not! They were disobedient, so God made salvation available to the Gentiles:pp. But He wanted His own people to become jealous and claim it for themselves.

Rom 11:12 Now if the Gentiles were enriched because the people of Israel turned down God's offer of salvation, think how much greater a blessing the world will share when they finally accept it.:pp

Rom 11:25 I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ.


Wow! I personally cannot wait until the Jews finally accept it!! Can you?

To conclude.... I do believe in predestination, foreknowledge, election.... I do NOT believe God planned in advance for those who won't believe to not believe.... I believe God is simply God.... He knew the hearts of Jacob and Esau.... He knew Jeremiah before he was formed [Jer. 1:5].... In fact He [preordained] Jeremiah a "prophet to the nations".... He knows each and every heart that beats on this earth before said heart even had a chance to beat.... I do not believe this means that He planned what was in their heart.... Nor do I believe that He put it there.... I believe that He knew it would be there.... He simply knew the end result before it happened....

To put it another way....

PEPSI OR COKE?

God knew before the foundation of the earth that those of you who chose pepsi would do so....

You still chose pepsi on your own....
Through your own free will....
Not His....

And God knew before "let there be light" that those of you who chose coke would do so....
This does not mean He planned for you to choose coke....
You did that all by yourself....

I said all that to say this:

God did indeed know in advance who would choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths....

And He did indeed predestinate them to His glory as scripture says....

But He did not set in motion a premeditated plan based on His choice....

He set in motion a premeditated plan based on your choice....

In other words.... He chose you because He knew you would choose Him long before you ever did.... It was still your choice.... His choice entirely based on your choice.... Ain't that neat?

He is not going to sit around waiting on people to choose Him....

Why would He do that when He foreknew who would and would not?

But as previously stated.... Premeditated planning is not the same thing as foreknowledge.... He made His selection in advance because He knew in advance.... He knew your choice in advance.... Not because He planned your choice.... Because He knew it....

Now.... And this time I really am going to conclude....

I have seen people using the "clay questioning the potter" verse to IMO skip over the issue of whether or not God deliberately creates people for the express purpose of destroying them.... Or sending them to hell if you would rather....

Poppycock! I am not questioning the Potter.... I am questioning the clay.... I am wondering why the clay would choose to believe that some of us are destined for heaven and some for hell regardless of what we do and do not choose.... If God does not cause people to sin.... Nor does He tempt them ( now don't go thinking I believe otherwise.... I'm not that stupid lol!).... Then the logical conclusion is that He does not create them so He can send them to hell.... Because those of us who choose to believe in Jesus Christ.... Who confess with our mouths.... Who believe in our hearts that He is Lord.... That He died for us.... And that He rose again.... Are forgiven of sin.... And are saved.... We see that here:


Rom 10:8 In fact, it says, "The message is very close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart." And that message is the very message about faith that we preach:

Rom 10:9 [If] you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.


He also is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [if] we do what John tells us is necessary:

1Jn 1:9 But [if] we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.


The word [if] signifies a choice.... And Gods response to that choice....:pp "If you do this.... I will do this...."


God does not create people so He could throw them in hell (as if it was something He does to pass the time).... That would require preplanning.... Which would cancel free will.... Which IMO is not going to happen....

And I am rambling AGAIN....

Ok so there it is....

THE END THIS TIME FOR REAL....

Bible2
Feb 23rd 2010, 10:59 AM
MaryFreeman:
I read post after post in which I had witnessed predestination believers stating catigorically that we do not have the free will to choose....

This makes no sense in light of John 3:16....


John 3:16 doesn't require that anyone can choose to believe in Jesus; it only requires that anyone who does believe in Jesus is saved. In other verses Jesus makes clear that not everyone can choose to believe in him (John 6:65, John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27).



God loved everyone in this world so much He [premeditated/preplanned] a route to salvation by sending Jesus to die on the cross for all of us....


John 3:16 doesn't require that God loves everyone in the world, just as saying that someone loves TV doesn't require that he loves every show on TV. God hates the unelect (Romans 9:11-24).



I do NOT believe that God specifically creates human beings with the express intent of sending them to hell. The only planned hardening of hearts and stopping of ears happened with the Jews


Pharaoh wasn't a Jew (Exodus 14:4). Just as God has mercy on both Gentile and Jewish elect people (Romans 9:23-24), so he hardens both Gentile and Jewish unelect people (Romans 9:17-22).



You still chose pepsi on your own....
Through your own free will....
Not His....


People are saved not by their will, but by the will of God (Romans 9:15-16, John 1:13). People are saved only by God choosing to miraculously grant them the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Acts 13:48).



He did not set in motion a premeditated plan based on His choice....


God did set in motion a premeditated plan based on his choice (Acts 2:23). That's how the unelect were of old ordained to condemnation (Jude 1:4), were appointed to disobedience (1 Peter 2:8), even though God never makes them choose to sin (James 1:13-15). God chose to create this timeline of events in which everyone would choose to sin but he would not save everyone.



If God does not cause people to sin.... Nor does He tempt them ( now don't go thinking I believe otherwise.... I'm not that stupid lol!).... Then the logical conclusion is that He does not create them so He can send them to hell.... Because those of us who choose to believe in Jesus Christ.... Who confess with our mouths.... Who believe in our hearts that He is Lord.... That He died for us.... And that He rose again.... Are forgiven of sin.... And are saved....


God not causing any person to sin (James 1:13-15) doesn't logically require that he did not create some people to go to hell for their sin and created other people to be forgiven for their sin and to be saved (Romans 9:21-24).



God does not create people so He could throw them in hell (as if it was something He does to pass the time).... That would require preplanning.... Which would cancel free will....


God creating some people so he can eventually throw them into hell for their sins is not done to pass the time, but to give him the opportunity to show his wrath and make his power known (Romans 9:21-22), just as God creating some people so he can sometime during their lifetime forgive their sins and save them is not done to pass the time, but to give him the opportunity to show his mercy, glory, and wisdom (Romans 9:23, Ephesians 3:10).

Also, neither of these things cancels free will, because people will be cast into hell for the sins they committed by their free will (James 1:13-15), and even saved people can still wrongly employ their free will, subsequent to their salvation, to return back to their old sins without repentance, or to commit apostasy, or to become utterly lazy without repentance, resulting in the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30).

blessedmommyuv3
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:54 AM
I am very confused as to the purpose of this thread.
There is a 20+ page thread going on right now on this subject.
To say I would like everyone who believes in this (which you CLEARLY do not--) to answer my questions, and then I will show you why you are wrong... well, it seems pointless; and a rather false and misleading premise.
You do realize that 90% of the board believes as you do already, right?

enjoy your popcorn..............

Jen

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 12:56 PM
:pp

I have seen several responses here that couple predestination with free will....

Which is what I have been led to believe after reading Romans....

I read post after post in which I had witnessed predestination believers stating catigorically that we do not have the free will to choose....

This makes no sense in light of John 3:16....

Joh 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. [AMP]


G2889
κόσμος
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.


Above is the Greek word Kosmos.... Which can have the literal meaning.... that is world as in inhabitants.... or the figurative meaning.... as in morally....


So God loved everyone in this world so much He [premeditated/preplanned] a route to salvation by sending Jesus to die on the cross for all of us.... That those of us [who believed in Jesus] should not perish but have life eternal....


I said that because I once had a discussion with someone who does not believe in free will.... That person wished me to believe that the word world did not mean all of earths inhabitants.... When it quite clearly does....


I too believe that God foreknew who would believe in His Son.... And who would not....


G4267
προγινώσκω
proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).


This is the Greek word proginosko.... Meaning to know before hand.... or foresee.... It is used here:

For God knew His people in advance, and He chose them to become like His Son, so that His Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, He called them to come to Him. And having called them, He gave them right standing with Himself. And having given them right standing, He gave them His glory. Romans 8:29-30 NLT

I too believe that God predestinated [those of us who choose to believe]....

G4309
προορίζω
proorizō
pro-or-id'-zo
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine: - determine before, ordain, predestinate.


This is the Greek word proorizo.... It means to limit in advance.... I do believe God limited in advance the final destination to [those of us who choose to believe in him]....


I too believe in the elect.... I believe that I am of said elect.... Now why do I believe that?


G1588
ἐκλεκτός
eklektos
ek-lek-tos'
From G1586; select; by implication favorite: - chosen, elect.


This is the Greek word eklektos.... It is used here:

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.[KJV]


The words select and chosen are in the translation of the word eklektos.... To limit in advance is to choose in advance in the sense that God chose those whom He knew in advance would choose to believe....


What I don't believe.... Is that progenosko + proorizo = premeditated planning.... The only planning I see is a route to salvation through Jesus Christ for those who choose to believe....


So I do NOT believe that God specifically creates human beings with the express intent of sending them to hell. The only planned hardening of hearts and stopping of ears happened with the Jews:

Rom 10:19 But I ask, did the people of Israel really understand? Yes, they did, for even in the time of Moses, God said, "I will rouse your jealousy through people who are not even a nation. I will provoke your anger through the foolish Gentiles." [NLT]

Rom 11:7 So this is the situation: Most of the people of Israel have not found the favor of God they are looking for so earnestly. A few have—the ones God has chosen—but the hearts of the rest were hardened.


Rom 11:8 As the Scriptures say, "God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day He has shut their eyes so they do not see, and closed their ears so they do not hear."




Will it stay like this? Will the Jews hearts be hardened to our Lord and Savior forever? I don't believe that for one second.... I do know why God did it though:

Rom 11:11 Did God's people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not! They were disobedient, so God made salvation available to the Gentiles:pp. But He wanted His own people to become jealous and claim it for themselves.

Rom 11:12 Now if the Gentiles were enriched because the people of Israel turned down God's offer of salvation, think how much greater a blessing the world will share when they finally accept it.:pp

Rom 11:25 I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ.


Wow! I personally cannot wait until the Jews finally accept it!! Can you?

To conclude.... I do believe in predestination, foreknowledge, election.... I do NOT believe God planned in advance for those who won't believe to not believe.... I believe God is simply God.... He knew the hearts of Jacob and Esau.... He knew Jeremiah before he was formed [Jer. 1:5].... In fact He [preordained] Jeremiah a "prophet to the nations".... He knows each and every heart that beats on this earth before said heart even had a chance to beat.... I do not believe this means that He planned what was in their heart.... Nor do I believe that He put it there.... I believe that He knew it would be there.... He simply knew the end result before it happened....

To put it another way....

PEPSI OR COKE?

God knew before the foundation of the earth that those of you who chose pepsi would do so....

You still chose pepsi on your own....
Through your own free will....
Not His....

And God knew before "let there be light" that those of you who chose coke would do so....
This does not mean He planned for you to choose coke....
You did that all by yourself....

I said all that to say this:

God did indeed know in advance who would choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths....

And He did indeed predestinate them to His glory as scripture says....

But He did not set in motion a premeditated plan based on His choice....

He set in motion a premeditated plan based on your choice....

In other words.... He chose you because He knew you would choose Him long before you ever did.... It was still your choice.... His choice entirely based on your choice.... Ain't that neat?

He is not going to sit around waiting on people to choose Him....

Why would He do that when He foreknew who would and would not?

But as previously stated.... Premeditated planning is not the same thing as foreknowledge.... He made His selection in advance because He knew in advance.... He knew your choice in advance.... Not because He planned your choice.... Because He knew it....

Now.... And this time I really am going to conclude....

I have seen people using the "clay questioning the potter" verse to IMO skip over the issue of whether or not God deliberately creates people for the express purpose of destroying them.... Or sending them to hell if you would rather....

Poppycock! I am not questioning the Potter.... I am questioning the clay.... I am wondering why the clay would choose to believe that some of us are destined for heaven and some for hell regardless of what we do and do not choose.... If God does not cause people to sin.... Nor does He tempt them ( now don't go thinking I believe otherwise.... I'm not that stupid lol!).... Then the logical conclusion is that He does not create them so He can send them to hell.... Because those of us who choose to believe in Jesus Christ.... Who confess with our mouths.... Who believe in our hearts that He is Lord.... That He died for us.... And that He rose again.... Are forgiven of sin.... And are saved.... We see that here:


Rom 10:8 In fact, it says, "The message is very close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart." And that message is the very message about faith that we preach:

Rom 10:9 [If] you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.


He also is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [if] we do what John tells us is necessary:

1Jn 1:9 But [if] we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness.


The word [if] signifies a choice.... And Gods response to that choice....:pp "If you do this.... I will do this...."


God does not create people so He could throw them in hell (as if it was something He does to pass the time).... That would require preplanning.... Which would cancel free will.... Which IMO is not going to happen....

And I am rambling AGAIN....

Ok so there it is....

THE END THIS TIME FOR REAL....


Well put Mary, the only difference I have is that the potter and the clay is a reference to Israel which many people overlook.

RogerW
Feb 23rd 2010, 05:32 PM
:pp

I have seen several responses here that couple predestination with free will....

Which is what I have been led to believe after reading Romans....

I read post after post in which I had witnessed predestination believers stating catigorically that we do not have the free will to choose....

This makes no sense in light of John 3:16....

Joh 3:16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life. [AMP]



Greetings Mary,

I'm not convinced that you really want to understand how especially Reformed Christians believe that God is Sovereign in ALL the affairs of man. As such we do indeed affirm the doctrine of predestination as taught in Holy Scripture. I think your purpose for the questions is an attempt to set us straight??? What do I mean, when I say God is Sovereign? God chose in eternity a people for Himself, those whom God has chosen He alone will give eternal life. They and they alone among the sons/daughters of the first Adam will be saved.

John 3:16 is from the Word of God, and therefore is absolutely true! "...whosoever[any man/woman/child believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." But can you show us who will believe, and how they will believe? Of course now we will be forced to search the Scriptures to discover whether or not any human in their fallen nature has the ability to choose Christ while spiritually dead? You will have to discover (what sayeth the Word of God) whether mankind, apart from Christ, is "dead in trespasses and sins" or merely sick and in need of a little help from God to freely choose to put his/her faith (which none possess) in Christ for salvation.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Feb 23rd 2010, 06:03 PM
"God did indeed know in advance who would choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths...."

This is a true statement! So when God looks from heaven at the hearts of mankind what does He find? Did He see some, who would freely choose to believe with their hearts and freely choose to confess with their mouths....while "dead in trespasses and sins"? Here is the condition of every human being before regeneration (re-birth/born again), and what God saw when He looked at the hearts of mankind:

Ge*6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Ge*8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Job*15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Ps*14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Ps*14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Ps*14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.a
Ps*14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

Ps*53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Ps*53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Ps*53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.

Ec*9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Eph*2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph*2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph*2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

When God looks at the hearts of fallen mankind, does He really see some who will freely choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths while being among the children of disobedience?

NO! God knows that no human being would freely choose Him while still in bondage to Satan and death and dead in trespasses and sins....therefore if God did not choose some to receive eternal life in Christ , not one man of his/her own free will would be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 07:30 PM
"God did indeed know in advance who would choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths...."

This is a true statement! So when God looks from heaven at the hearts of mankind what does He find? Did He see some, who would freely choose to believe with their hearts and freely choose to confess with their mouths....while "dead in trespasses and sins"? Here is the condition of every human being before regeneration (re-birth/born again), and what God saw when He looked at the hearts of mankind:

Ge*6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Ge*8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Job*15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Ps*14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Ps*14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Ps*14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.a
Ps*14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

Ps*53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Ps*53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Ps*53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.

Ec*9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Eph*2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph*2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph*2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

When God looks at the hearts of fallen mankind, does He really see some who will freely choose to believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths while being among the children of disobedience?

NO! God knows that no human being would freely choose Him while still in bondage to Satan and death and dead in trespasses and sins....therefore if God did not choose some to receive eternal life in Christ , not one man of his/her own free will would be saved.

Many Blessings,
RW

You've not proven your point. Even evil men can do good. Can an evil man who is a murderer and a rapist run into a burning building and save a child? sure he can.

Roger, let me ask you question. You say God is Sovereign, and you say that man is incapable of turning to God. Why do you suppose that God spent thousands of years calling the Israelites to turn to Him if they were incapable? Do you realize how that makes God look? What you claim if it were true would not make God look to wise. I mean after all, to spend thousands of years calling someone you know cannot hear you is not a very wise decision. Yet this is what Reformed thinking makes God look like.

RogerW
Feb 23rd 2010, 09:28 PM
You've not proven your point. Even evil men can do good. Can an evil man who is a murderer and a rapist run into a burning building and save a child? sure he can.

Ah yes....but, will his good deed save him? Evil men can physically save others, but they cannot spiritually save others or themselves.



Roger, let me ask you question. You say God is Sovereign, and you say that man is incapable of turning to God. Why do you suppose that God spent thousands of years calling the Israelites to turn to Him if they were incapable? Do you realize how that makes God look? What you claim if it were true would not make God look to wise. I mean after all, to spend thousands of years calling someone you know cannot hear you is not a very wise decision. Yet this is what Reformed thinking makes God look like.

Yes, God spent all those years sending prophet after prophet, showing them His power...why? To show them their need for a Savior!!! Yet, left to themselves, what do we find? The vast majority of the nation died in unbelief without turning to God for life. But still we find that God never abandoned His elect remnant, for "there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (Ro 11:5).

Ro*11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Ro*11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 10:16 PM
Roger,

you didn't answer either issue.



RogerW---Ah yes....but, will his good deed save him? Evil men can physically save others, but they cannot spiritually save others or themselves.

It's not about man saving himself. You said he was incapable of doing good




RogerW---Yes, God spent all those years sending prophet after prophet, showing them His power...why? To show them their need for a Savior!!! Yet, left to themselves, what do we find? The vast majority of the nation died in unbelief without turning to God for life. But still we find that God never abandoned His elect remnant, for "there is a remnant according to the election of grace" (Ro 11:5).

Ro*11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Ro*11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

It's not about what the majority did. This issue is, why did God spend thousands of years calling people that you claim cannot hear Him? Roger, if I stood calling a man that everyone knew was deaf don't you think people would begin to look at me rather strangely? After a while don't you think they would think I was an idiot? What is your position saying about God? You claim He is sovereign yet you also claim that He spends thousands of years calling those who cannot hear Him.

RogerW
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:01 PM
It's not about what the majority did. This issue is, why did God spend thousands of years calling people that you claim cannot hear Him? Roger, if I stood calling a man that everyone knew was deaf don't you think people would begin to look at me rather strangely? After a while don't you think they would think I was an idiot? What is your position saying about God? You claim He is sovereign yet you also claim that He spends thousands of years calling those who cannot hear Him.

No Butch, I am not saying God spends thousands of years calling people that cannot hear Him. This is what YOU SAY I am saying. But read my reply again, for clearly I said "a remnant" saved by election of grace were saved. God wanted the nation to understand their need for a Savior, and this is why is was long-suffering and patient with them...but what happened to them? The same thing that happens to every human being who dies in unbelief! Was God the reason they refused to believe? Or was there a problem with their hearts? God will have mercy and compassion on whosoever He wills. You forget that every man is born of the same fallen nature as their first father, Adam. God did not make them fall, but if He had not predestined and elect people in eternity, He certainly knew He would have no human being to call His own, and to give Him all glory, honor and praise.

Many Blessings,
RW

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:10 PM
Jane grows up and chooses to marry Bob.

Jane and Bob have two children, Paul and Joy.

God knew from the foundation of the world that Jane would marry Bob. He knew they would bring Paul and Joy into the world.

God ALSO knew what would happen in Jane turned Bob down and married Fred instead. And how that would have impacted all the people their lives touched.

It is a difficult concept to wrap your head around but that's the only way I can explain God's omniscience. God knows. Something so simple yet almost impossible for my finite mind to grasp.

Butch5
Feb 23rd 2010, 11:45 PM
No Butch, I am not saying God spends thousands of years calling people that cannot hear Him. This is what YOU SAY I am saying. But read my reply again, for clearly I said "a remnant" saved by election of grace were saved. God wanted the nation to understand their need for a Savior, and this is why is was long-suffering and patient with them...but what happened to them? The same thing that happens to every human being who dies in unbelief! Was God the reason they refused to believe? Or was there a problem with their hearts? God will have mercy and compassion on whosoever He wills. You forget that every man is born of the same fallen nature as their first father, Adam. God did not make them fall, but if He had not predestined and elect people in eternity, He certainly knew He would have no human being to call His own, and to give Him all glory, honor and praise.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

You still have not deal with the issue. According to Reformed thinking man is unable to turn to God, yet we have God calling to Israel for thousands of years. You agreed that most of them were lost therefore they were not of the elect, Why then was God calling to them for thousands of years? You said to let them know of their need for a savior, but according to Reformed thinking they didn't need a savior because they were not of the elect and thus couldn't be saved. I cannot understand why God with all wisdom would call for thousands of years people who you claim were unable to turn to Him.

RogerW
Feb 24th 2010, 12:41 AM
Roger,

You still have not deal with the issue. According to Reformed thinking man is unable to turn to God, yet we have God calling to Israel for thousands of years. You agreed that most of them were lost therefore they were not of the elect, Why then was God calling to them for thousands of years? You said to let them know of their need for a savior, but according to Reformed thinking they didn't need a savior because they were not of the elect and thus couldn't be saved. I cannot understand why God with all wisdom would call for thousands of years people who you claim were unable to turn to Him.

Butch,

Are not the remnant according to the election of grace (Ro 11:5) among the unbelieving nation? Just as the gospel call goes unto all the people of the world, and through the call God saves all who believe...so too God calls all the people among the nation, all the time knowing that only an elect remnant will "hear" and be saved. Even Abraham heard the gospel and was justified through faith he received when he heard.

Ga*3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

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

Many Blessings,
RW

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 24th 2010, 03:07 AM
John 3:16 doesn't require that anyone can choose to believe in Jesus; it only requires that anyone who does believe in Jesus is saved. In other verses Jesus makes clear that not everyone can choose to believe in him (John 6:65, John 8:42-47, John 10:26-27).

John 6:65 And He said "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to Him by my Father"

So, then, the question remains, who does the Father grant to come to Christ? You've got to deal with a question like this if you are going to use this verse to defend your position. Who, then, does the Father grant to come to Christ?

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

Jesus says right here that anyone who comes to Him He will not turn away.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, and they shall be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

So, anyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus, and Jesus will not turn anyone away. It appears to me that those who have heard and learned from the Father, those are the peoplw whom the Father grants to come to Christ.

John 17:6,8 I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word…..For I have given them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You….


Jesus testifies of the Father, and those who receive His testimony, and believe, the Father gives to Jesus

The way I see it, the process goes something like this:

(A) A person believes in the testimony of Jesus
(B) The Father draws that person unto Himself
(C) The Father gives that person to Jesus, that he may believe in Him and receive His salvation

It's not a matter of God sticking His hand into a hat and randomly choosing who He will draw unto Himself and whom He won't --- it's about believing in the testimony of His Son, then based on that belief, the Father draws that person to Himself.

MaryFreeman
Feb 24th 2010, 05:17 AM
Greetings Mary,

I'm not convinced that you really want to understand how especially Reformed Christians believe that God is Sovereign in ALL the affairs of man. As such we do indeed affirm the doctrine of predestination as taught in Holy Scripture. I think your purpose for the questions is an attempt to set us straight??? I stated in my OP what my purpose was....

To get one predestination believer who also does NOT believe in free will to answer to the best of his or her ability the questions I have seen others asking....

I am a writer dear one.... I speak and write what I am thinking when I think it.... And lol sometimes that gets me in trouble.... But there are no hidden meanings or purposes.... I simply wanted a few people to do their best to actually answer those questions and post Scripture they got their views from....

And then.... As I promised.... Because turn about is fair play....

I posted what I believe and the Scripture I got my views from....

Your mind is your own to make up or change if you see the need to do so....

But you love Jesus....

And I love Jesus....

And I love you....

And to me that is all that really matters between you and me....

Bible2
Feb 24th 2010, 08:17 AM
Butch5:
...the potter and the clay is a reference to Israel


In Romans 9:21, the potter is God and the clay is all of humanity, both Jews and Gentiles: Just as the human vessels of mercy which God has created include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the human vessels of wrath which God has created (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Bible2
Feb 24th 2010, 08:18 AM
Welder4Christ:
John 6:65 And He said "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted to Him by my Father"

So, then, the question remains, who does the Father grant to come to Christ?


The Father grants only the elect, only Christ's sheep, to come to Christ (John 10:26-27).



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

Jesus says right here that anyone who comes to Him He will not turn away.


In the first part of John 6:37, Jesus says "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me". So the second part of John 6:37 is referring to not just anyone coming to Jesus, but only to anyone who is one of the elect, one of those whom the Father has given to Jesus.



John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, and they shall be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

So, anyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus


The unelect cannot possibly come to Jesus because they cannot possibly hear and learn from the Father (John 8:42-47).



John 17:6,8 I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word…..For I have given them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You….

Jesus testifies of the Father, and those who receive His testimony, and believe, the Father gives to Jesus


It's the other way around: only the elect, only those whom the Father has given to Jesus, can receive his testimony (John 10:26-27). The unelect have no ability to receive Jesus' testimony (John 8:42-47).

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 24th 2010, 11:46 AM
In Romans 9:21, the potter is God and the clay is all of humanity, both Jews and Gentiles: Just as the human vessels of mercy which God has created include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the human vessels of wrath which God has created (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Exactly !

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 24th 2010, 02:53 PM
The Father grants only the elect, only Christ's sheep, to come to Christ (John 10:26-27).



In the first part of John 6:37, Jesus says "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me". So the second part of John 6:37 is referring to not just anyone coming to Jesus, but only to anyone who is one of the elect, one of those whom the Father has given to Jesus.



The unelect cannot possibly come to Jesus because they cannot possibly hear and learn from the Father (John 8:42-47).



It's the other way around: only the elect, only those whom the Father has given to Jesus, can receive his testimony (John 10:26-27). The unelect have no ability to receive Jesus' testimony (John 8:42-47).


excellent post!

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 24th 2010, 03:05 PM
Because God knows the end from the begining does not require Him to structure all things to happen in a specific fashion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Roger but He has ! already!.... Its all laid out in His Word..... exactly the way it will Happen... Fashioned according to His Will...

He does know the beginning from the end.. and He has laid it all out according to how it will Happen... in a specific fashion.. its all laid out there in the Word... and the Revelation or Unveiling of Jesus Christ... is a clear picture of that....

to say that He doesnt or wont.. or doesnt have to.. leaves a God in Heaven.. who really isnt sure of Himself... scratching His Head.... dependant on 'man' to make sure What He's laid out in His Word will come to pass...allowing man to 'fashion' it for Him... but thats not the Case..

There is a God who is In Heaven who has laid it out all out.. and it will happen according to how He has fashioned it.. and His Word tells us that...

These 'mysteries' that have been hid from all the ages.. but are now revealed thru the Eternal Spirit... to His Own...

these hid since the foundation of the World... but now are made manifest thru His Servants.. starting with Christ Himself.. the Chief Sheperd.... whom by all things whether in heaven, on the earth, or under the earth were Created.. that in the fullness of Time... He would reconcile all things back to the Father... and put away the last enemy of God.. that is death itself.. this made possible by Christ's Sufficient Work on that Tree.. His Physcial Death and subsequent Resurrection from the Dead..

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 24th 2010, 03:43 PM
Butch5:
...the potter and the clay is a reference to Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'clay' does not reference the Gentiles?

so what are the Gentiles? sand? muck? a cheaper version of 'clay'?

Butch5.. do you realize Gentiles can be Saved under the Completed Work of Christ on the Tree..

I don't want to sound obtuse or arrogant..

but reading your post.. I'd thought I'd be listening to a 1st Century Pharisee.. who hadn't come to the Revelation that the Gentiles are able to Inherit the Promises.. like the Jews...

the 'clay' references both Jews and Gentiles Butch....

not only the Jews... as the 'clay'... and God the Master Potter

this was the who jist of Pauls Mission.. to reveal Christ in Him and that the Gentile Clay Vessels could Inherit the Promises of God...

the Phairsees of Jesus Day and Paul's Day resisted that and came against Paul's teaching... but to no avail.. as the Promise fell upon the Gentiles .. this recorded in the Book of Acts. as the Holy Ghost fell upon Gentiles as they were Saved thru the Preaching of the Disciples...

I don't know where your getting your theology...mmmm

Firstfruits
Feb 24th 2010, 04:47 PM
With regards to the following, would you agree that before we came to Jesus we were not his sheep? How then did we come to God? Are sinners his elect?

The Father grants only the elect, only Christ's sheep, to come to Christ (John 10:26-27).

Firstfruits

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 05:44 PM
Butch,

Are not the remnant according to the election of grace (Ro 11:5) among the unbelieving nation? Just as the gospel call goes unto all the people of the world, and through the call God saves all who believe...so too God calls all the people among the nation, all the time knowing that only an elect remnant will "hear" and be saved. Even Abraham heard the gospel and was justified through faith he received when he heard.

Ga*3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

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

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost. since God knows who they are it seems He would just let them know, like He did with His prophets. We don't see God putting out a call for a prophet, He simply says Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. He chose them and He let them know that he chose them. So, it seems odd that if chose who would be saved, He would call those you claim cannot hear him, rather than simply letting the elect know that they were chosen.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 05:45 PM
In Romans 9:21, the potter is God and the clay is all of humanity, both Jews and Gentiles: Just as the human vessels of mercy which God has created include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the human vessels of wrath which God has created (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Read it in context.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 06:14 PM
Eph 1:3 KJV - Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
Eph 1:4 KJV - According 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:
Eph 1:5 KJV - Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

We can't do anything to be chosen. We were chosen BEFORE the foundations of the world. What could we have done to meit salvation at that time?Could God not have known what we would do to merit salvation at that time (repent and believe in Christ)? Yes, we are predestinated "according to the good pleasure of His will". What is His will?

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

To answer my own question, His will is to give everlasting life to everyone who believes in Christ. Could not His choosing before the foundation of the world be based on His foreknowledge of who would believe and who wouldn't? If not, what does it mean to be elect according to God's foreknowledge? What was it that He would have known before the foundation of the world that He would use in determining who to elect?


Its not an invitation. It's a calling to every human being. There's a difference. Invitation constitutes a choice. The choice was already made before the foudations of the world. The word "invite" is never used the way you imply. Sure, it is. It's used that way here:

Matt 22
1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14For many are called, but few are chosen.

This parable is all about the offer of salvation through the preaching of the gospel. It speaks of the preaching of the gospel in terms of an invitation to be married to Christ. An invitation to salvation and eternal life. It is an offer and this parable makes that very clear. The gospel was first preached to the Jews. They were the first to be invited to the wedding and most of them "would not come". They were not willing. So, they were not saved because they were not willing and not because God was not willing to save them. Many are offered salvation but few are chosen because few accept the invitation.


2Pe 3:8 KJV - But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1st of all, who is he speaking to? The beloved as verse 8 says. Those are the elect of God. He's not willing that any should perish. Who's "any"? Those are the elect of God also. It's not saying everyone on the planet. Same with the word "all". God isn't willing that any of His elect should perish but all of His elect will come to repentance. If God wasn't willing that anyone should perish then noone would perish. God can do all things. He's only speaking of His elect as He does in similar verses throughout the bible.You should have used other scripture to help you understand that passage better. Other scripture suggests that God does indeed want all people to repent.

Acts 17
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

This makes it very clear that God commands all people everywhere to repent. Would He command that if He did not desire all people to repent? Of course not. Why does He want all people to repent? Because He wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6). He doesn't want anyone to be cast into the lake of fire on that future day of judgment that He has appointed.

Then there's this:

Ezekiel 33
10Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?
11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

This right here proves that it is not God's will for the wicked to continue in their wickedness even until death. Instead, He wills "that the wicked turn from his way and live". So, it isn't the case that the wicked die in their wickedness because God chose that for them rather than choosing to give them salvation. The wicked die in their wickedness and will eventually be cast into the lake of fire because of their own free will choice to reject God's offer of salvation. There is no other reasonable explanation for why people will be held accountable and punished on judgment day.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 24th 2010, 07:37 PM
Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost.

I need to ask, where did you get this idea that reform theology doesn't preach the Gospel and doesn't need faith? This is not what reformed theology states at all.



since God knows who they are it seems He would just let them know, like He did with His prophets. We don't see God putting out a call for a prophet, He simply says Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. He chose them and He let them know that he chose them. So, it seems odd that if chose who would be saved, He would call those you claim cannot hear him, rather than simply letting the elect know that they were chosen.

I think you misunderstand and thus misrepresent what reformed theology is saying... The elect don't know that they are of the elect until faith and repentance 1st comes and then study and walk reveals who they are in Christ.

Your doctrines didn't bring you to salvation; your doctrines comes after your salvation.

BroRog
Feb 24th 2010, 07:40 PM
Question 1: Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?

Foreknowledge is not the same concept as predestination; sometimes the two concepts are mistaken for each other.

To "know" something, in the Biblical sense, is to become intimately familiar with it and in some contexts the term strongly implies covenant relations and even sexual intimacy.



Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the Lord.

When the Bible uses the term "foreknow" with respect to God, the word has the connotation of having a prior intimate relation with a person. In Romans 11:2, for instance, Paul talks about his kinsmen the Jews as people whom God "foreknew."



God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
In this instance, he speaks about his family line and the rest of Jacob's offspring as people whom God foreknew, which was a circumstance he created at Mt. Sinai when he developed a covenant relationship with them as a group.

Another use of the term "foreknew" with respect to God refers to God's election of individual people to be conformed to the image of his son. In Romans 8:29 we read,



Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Here Paul equates the saints with those who love God, those who are called, and those whom he foreknew. All those who truly love God, whether they are Jews or Gentiles are "saints" (sanctified ones) and foreknown of God.

So the term "foreknow" in these cases refers to the relationship between God and the saints. The term "predestine" denotes those whom God determined their destiny ahead of time. Paul declares that God fixed the destiny of the sanctified ones at some prior time, presumably at the foundation of the world, according to his plans for them.

To "ordain" is to make a decree that such-and-such should take place by order of the king. To "preordain" is to make such a decree before time. Predestination is when God establishes the destiny of those whom he foreknew. He appoints them to a certain destiny, in this case, to be conformed to the image of his son.

Question 2: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell, how do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?

God doesn't make people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Paul argues that God makes some people for the express purpose to demonstrate his wrath. The difference is critical and significant.

If God were to make a man for the sole purpose of torturing him in hell, then his ultimate destiny would be damnation no matter what he did. Whether the man lived a good life or a bad life, whether he lived wisely or foolishly, whether he loved God or hated God, he would end up in hell no matter what he did. The end of the man could not be anticipated by his actions, his motivations, or his spiritual state.

But God's judgment is based on what we do according to Romans 2,



. . . to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.According to Paul, we can anticipate a man's ultimate destiny according to what a man does. If a man is seeking glory, honor and immortality through his actions, then we can anticipate that eternal life will be that man's ultimate destiny. But if the man is selfishly ambitious and does not obey the truth, then we can anticipate that wrath and indignation will be that man's ultimate destiny.

Therefore, since a man's actions anticipate his ultimate future, and since God predestines this future in advance, we know that God has also set the course of this man's entire life. God is not arbitrarily placing a man into hell. A man's place in hell is deserved and according to his actions we can anticipate that he will be in hell.

When we read Paul's statement, we fear that we might find some man in hell who loved God and wanted to be in heaven. But this will not be the case. Those who are destined for wrath, deserve his wrath.

As for knowing who are destined for his wrath, Paul gives us a couple of ways to know whether we are one of God's elect. In Romans 5, he talks about the testing of our faith and the fact that those who persevere under a trial of faith know their faith to be genuine and certified such that their hope will not be disappointed. In Romans 8, Paul talks about how the Spirit of God witnesses to our spirit that we are his children.

Question 3: Does God really force people to sin?

God does not force anyone to sin, and neither does God tempt anyone to sin.



Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. James 1:13
Question 4:What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?

According to Romans 9, the basis for God's mercy is in him, not in the elect.



So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:16Since we use the term "election" to speak about men and women we choose to be our leaders, it is natural to think that God is using a set of criteria on which to base his choice and that by the process of inspection, he picks the elect from among human kind.

According to Romans 9, however, God is not choosing us in that way. The basis of his choice is not in the man, but in his own purposes. He is not "choosing" us, he is creating us. The potter analogy is meant to convey the idea that God is making us for his purposes, not choosing us based on a set of inherent criteria found in us. Unlike those who buy pots according to their needs based on a set of criteria, a potter makes pots according to his or her needs, based on plans and purposes. God isn't using a set of criteria to "choose" us. He is creating us as needed.

Question 5: If God predestines people, why is it that all of us are born in sin?

According to Paul, we can't really know the answer to this question for sure since God's plans and purposes are unfathomable and unsearchable. Paul drops us a hint in Romans 11, saying



For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Romans 11:30-32We get some sense from this passage that God has destined that Jews and Gentiles were disobedient in their own way, so that God might show mercy to both groups.

Question 6: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell, why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?

Jesus pictures the call of God as a wide net being thrown into the sea. The fishermen drag the net to the shore and sort out the fish into two piles, those they will keep and those they will throw away. The fact that some of the fish were going to be thrown away, did not stop the fishermen from casting a wide net.

Question 7: Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?

No, as explained above, our ultimate destiny can be anticipated from our choices, actions, and intents of the heart. Those who are destined for wrath deserve wrath, and their choices and actions anticipate this wrath. Those who serve God faithfully will not end up in hell.

Question 8:If some were predestined for Glory.... And some for eternal damnation.... Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish? Does not the word predestinate express a wish that some go on to glory and some do not?


Issues of foreknowledge and predestination speak to God's plans and purposes. To say that God does not desire that any should perish speaks to God's heart.

Freek
Feb 24th 2010, 07:47 PM
Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost. since God knows who they are it seems He would just let them know, like He did with His prophets. We don't see God putting out a call for a prophet, He simply says Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. He chose them and He let them know that he chose them. So, it seems odd that if chose who would be saved, He would call those you claim cannot hear him, rather than simply letting the elect know that they were chosen.

I grew up in the Dutch Reformed Church and this is true. But, think about this, the Israelites were very pd off with Moses in the wilderness and longed to go back to Egypt. What if some of them wanted to? Could they have? Sure they could, but it would have been one heck off a journey. First they would have to cross the Red Sea - maybe by raft or canoe or something. They would not have been provided with water from the rock or manna and those birds to eat. And what would the Egyptians have done to those who returned??

You see, thinking along these lines, bring other insights to an age old dispute. :D

Edit. Maybe not totally relevant to the issue under discussion, but interesting nevertheless.

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 07:48 PM
It's not about what the majority did. This issue is, why did God spend thousands of years calling people that you claim cannot hear Him? Roger, if I stood calling a man that everyone knew was deaf don't you think people would begin to look at me rather strangely? After a while don't you think they would think I was an idiot? What is your position saying about God? You claim He is sovereign yet you also claim that He spends thousands of years calling those who cannot hear Him.This is exactly right. It makes no sense for Him to call people who supposedly are not able to hear Him.

Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Did He reach out unto the disobedient and gainsaying Israelites while knowing that at the same time He did not give them the ability to respond with repentance and faith? How would that make any sense. It seems clear He was reaching out to them in the desire that they would respond with repentance and faith. But He's not interested in forcing anyone to respond the way He wants them to. He wants them to respond willingly.

BroRog
Feb 24th 2010, 08:06 PM
This is exactly right. It makes no sense for Him to call people who supposedly are not able to hear Him.Why not? If the town has a deaf person, doesn't it still make sense to ring the church bell? Sure it does. :)

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 08:23 PM
Why not? If the town has a deaf person, doesn't it still make sense to ring the church bell? Sure it does. :)Congratulations on completely missing the point. ;)

People are called to salvation individually. Many individuals are called, but few individuals are chosen (Matt 22:14). That's what I was referring to. So, what I was saying was that it makes no sense for God to call individuals who are supposedly not able to hear Him. But in your view that is exactly what God does.

Matt 22
1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

In your view these who were invited to the wedding were not able to accept the invitation. But the text itself says they were unwilling to accept it and does not say they were not able to accept it.

BroRog
Feb 24th 2010, 09:27 PM
Congratulations on completely missing the point. ;)

People are called to salvation individually. Many individuals are called, but few individuals are chosen (Matt 22:14). That's what I was referring to. So, what I was saying was that it makes no sense for God to call individuals who are supposedly not able to hear Him.I got the point. We simply disagree that Matthew 22:14 speaks about an individual call, rather than a general call. Jesus' statement comes at the end of a very long parable which describes a king's invitation to attend a wedding feast for his son. Those who were first invited were unwilling to come. So then he sent his servants out to give a general invitation to all that they found in the streets.


In your view these who were invited to the wedding were not able to accept the invitation.Where did I say that? I was responding to your assertion that it wasn't logical for God to call those who could not hear him. I proved that it was logical. The act of calling doesn't logically necessitate an ability to hear. A mother cries out to her lost child regardless of whether the child can hear her or not.

The logic of a call is the desire to be heard, regardless of whether the caller has an expectation of being heard. The mother hopes she can be heard, but she doesn't know the child can hear her. She doesn't investigate to see whether the child can hear her before she cries out.

A ship at sea calls "mayday" when the ship is in distress, even knowing that the call may not be heard. The call of "mayday" goes out regardless. Logic doesn't demand that one know in advance whether anyone can hear the call of "mayday". The call is made because those who call want to be heard, and they call not knowing for sure.

So yes, it makes logical sense for God to send out a general call, even if no one can hear the call.

God sent his prophets out to speak to Israel even knowing that they were incapable of responding. In Isaiah 48, for instance, God declares that he prophesied to them well in advance, even while they refused to listen, so that they might know that when his prophecies came to pass they wouldn't be able to claim that it was their idols that did it.



Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are named Israel And who came forth from the loins of Judah, Who swear by the name of the Lord And invoke the God of Israel, But not in truth nor in righteousness. For they call themselves after the holy city And lean on the God of Israel; The Lord of hosts is His name. I declared the former things long ago And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them. Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, And your neck is an iron sinew And your forehead bronze, Therefore I declared them to you long ago, Before they took place I proclaimed them to you, So that you would not say, "My idol has done them, And my graven image and my molten image have commanded them." Isaiah 48:1-5

Jesus reminds his disciples of Isaiah's word concerning Israel, that God spoke to her even though he had blinded her eyes and hardened their heart.



This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them." John 12:38-40Not only did Isaiah prophecy at a time when Israel was incapable of believing him, but Isaiah clearly says that it was God who blinded them and hardened their heart.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 09:45 PM
I grew up in the Dutch Reformed Church and this is true. But, think about this, the Israelites were very pd off with Moses in the wilderness and longed to go back to Egypt. What if some of them wanted to? Could they have? Sure they could, but it would have been one heck off a journey. First they would have to cross the Red Sea - maybe by raft or canoe or something. They would not have been provided with water from the rock or manna and those birds to eat. And what would the Egyptians have done to those who returned??

You see, thinking along these lines, bring other insights to an age old dispute. :D

Edit. Maybe not totally relevant to the issue under discussion, but interesting nevertheless.

I'm not following you.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 09:47 PM
This is exactly right. It makes no sense for Him to call people who supposedly are not able to hear Him.

Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Did He reach out unto the disobedient and gainsaying Israelites while knowing that at the same time He did not give them the ability to respond with repentance and faith? How would that make any sense. It seems clear He was reaching out to them in the desire that they would respond with repentance and faith. But He's not interested in forcing anyone to respond the way He wants them to. He wants them to respond willingly.

True, but that doesn't fit reformed doctrine.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 09:53 PM
Butch5:
...the potter and the clay is a reference to Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'clay' does not reference the Gentiles?

so what are the Gentiles? sand? muck? a cheaper version of 'clay'?

Butch5.. do you realize Gentiles can be Saved under the Completed Work of Christ on the Tree..

I don't want to sound obtuse or arrogant..

but reading your post.. I'd thought I'd be listening to a 1st Century Pharisee.. who hadn't come to the Revelation that the Gentiles are able to Inherit the Promises.. like the Jews...

the 'clay' references both Jews and Gentiles Butch....

not only the Jews... as the 'clay'... and God the Master Potter

this was the who jist of Pauls Mission.. to reveal Christ in Him and that the Gentile Clay Vessels could Inherit the Promises of God...

the Phairsees of Jesus Day and Paul's Day resisted that and came against Paul's teaching... but to no avail.. as the Promise fell upon the Gentiles .. this recorded in the Book of Acts. as the Holy Ghost fell upon Gentiles as they were Saved thru the Preaching of the Disciples...

I don't know where your getting your theology...mmmm

If you read Romans 9 in context it is quite clear that Paul is referring to the Jews.

Romans 9:1-5 ( KJV )
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Who 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;
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Why do Christans not worry about context?

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 10:00 PM
Redeemed by Grace---I need to ask, where did you get this idea that reform theology doesn't preach the Gospel and doesn't need faith? This is not what reformed theology states at all.

I didn't say that is what Reformed Theology teaches. That is where you end up when you follow the doctrines to their logical conclusion.



Redeemed by Grace---I think you misunderstand and thus misrepresent what reformed theology is saying... The elect don't know that they are of the elect until faith and repentance 1st comes and then study and walk reveals who they are in Christ.
I don't misunderstand Reformed Theology, I sat under it, learned it, was reformed. It was a study of the Scriptures that lead me out of Reformed Theology. You see I cannot accept contradiction. If God's word is inerrant, then there can be no contradiction, Reformed Theology has and must accept contradiction.

Butch5
Feb 24th 2010, 10:32 PM
Question 1: Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?

Foreknowledge is not the same concept as predestination; sometimes the two concepts are mistaken for each other.

To "know" something, in the Biblical sense, is to become intimately familiar with it and in some contexts the term strongly implies covenant relations and even sexual intimacy.



Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the Lord.

When the Bible uses the term "foreknow" with respect to God, the word has the connotation of having a prior intimate relation with a person. In Romans 11:2, for instance, Paul talks about his kinsmen the Jews as people whom God "foreknew."



God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
In this instance, he speaks about his family line and the rest of Jacob's offspring as people whom God foreknew, which was a circumstance he created at Mt. Sinai when he developed a covenant relationship with them as a group.

Another use of the term "foreknew" with respect to God refers to God's election of individual people to be conformed to the image of his son. In Romans 8:29 we read,



Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Here Paul equates the saints with those who love God, those who are called, and those whom he foreknew. All those who truly love God, whether they are Jews or Gentiles are "saints" (sanctified ones) and foreknown of God.

So the term "foreknow" in these cases refers to the relationship between God and the saints. The term "predestine" denotes those whom God determined their destiny ahead of time. Paul declares that God fixed the destiny of the sanctified ones at some prior time, presumably at the foundation of the world, according to his plans for them.

To "ordain" is to make a decree that such-and-such should take place by order of the king. To "preordain" is to make such a decree before time. Predestination is when God establishes the destiny of those whom he foreknew. He appoints them to a certain destiny, in this case, to be conformed to the image of his son.

Question 2: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell, how do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?

God doesn't make people for the express purpose of sending them to hell. Paul argues that God makes some people for the express purpose to demonstrate his wrath. The difference is critical and significant.

If God were to make a man for the sole purpose of torturing him in hell, then his ultimate destiny would be damnation no matter what he did. Whether the man lived a good life or a bad life, whether he lived wisely or foolishly, whether he loved God or hated God, he would end up in hell no matter what he did. The end of the man could not be anticipated by his actions, his motivations, or his spiritual state.

But God's judgment is based on what we do according to Romans 2,



. . . to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.According to Paul, we can anticipate a man's ultimate destiny according to what a man does. If a man is seeking glory, honor and immortality through his actions, then we can anticipate that eternal life will be that man's ultimate destiny. But if the man is selfishly ambitious and does not obey the truth, then we can anticipate that wrath and indignation will be that man's ultimate destiny.

Therefore, since a man's actions anticipate his ultimate future, and since God predestines this future in advance, we know that God has also set the course of this man's entire life. God is not arbitrarily placing a man into hell. A man's place in hell is deserved and according to his actions we can anticipate that he will be in hell.

When we read Paul's statement, we fear that we might find some man in hell who loved God and wanted to be in heaven. But this will not be the case. Those who are destined for wrath, deserve his wrath.

As for knowing who are destined for his wrath, Paul gives us a couple of ways to know whether we are one of God's elect. In Romans 5, he talks about the testing of our faith and the fact that those who persevere under a trial of faith know their faith to be genuine and certified such that their hope will not be disappointed. In Romans 8, Paul talks about how the Spirit of God witnesses to our spirit that we are his children.

Question 3: Does God really force people to sin?

God does not force anyone to sin, and neither does God tempt anyone to sin.



Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. James 1:13
Question 4:What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?

According to Romans 9, the basis for God's mercy is in him, not in the elect.



So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans 9:16Since we use the term "election" to speak about men and women we choose to be our leaders, it is natural to think that God is using a set of criteria on which to base his choice and that by the process of inspection, he picks the elect from among human kind.

According to Romans 9, however, God is not choosing us in that way. The basis of his choice is not in the man, but in his own purposes. He is not "choosing" us, he is creating us. The potter analogy is meant to convey the idea that God is making us for his purposes, not choosing us based on a set of inherent criteria found in us. Unlike those who buy pots according to their needs based on a set of criteria, a potter makes pots according to his or her needs, based on plans and purposes. God isn't using a set of criteria to "choose" us. He is creating us as needed.

Question 5: If God predestines people, why is it that all of us are born in sin?

According to Paul, we can't really know the answer to this question for sure since God's plans and purposes are unfathomable and unsearchable. Paul drops us a hint in Romans 11, saying



For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Romans 11:30-32We get some sense from this passage that God has destined that Jews and Gentiles were disobedient in their own way, so that God might show mercy to both groups.

Question 6: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell, why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?

Jesus pictures the call of God as a wide net being thrown into the sea. The fishermen drag the net to the shore and sort out the fish into two piles, those they will keep and those they will throw away. The fact that some of the fish were going to be thrown away, did not stop the fishermen from casting a wide net.

Question 7: Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?

No, as explained above, our ultimate destiny can be anticipated from our choices, actions, and intents of the heart. Those who are destined for wrath deserve wrath, and their choices and actions anticipate this wrath. Those who serve God faithfully will not end up in hell.

Question 8:If some were predestined for Glory.... And some for eternal damnation.... Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish? Does not the word predestinate express a wish that some go on to glory and some do not?


Issues of foreknowledge and predestination speak to God's plans and purposes. To say that God does not desire that any should perish speaks to God's heart.

You see BroRog, this is the exact reason why I can't buy this Theology.

So the term "foreknow" in these cases refers to the relationship between God and the saints. The term "predestine" denotes those whom God determined their destiny ahead of time. Paul declares that God fixed the destiny of the sanctified ones at some prior time, presumably at the foundation of the world, according to his plans for them.


BroRog---

Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Here Paul equates the saints with those who love God, those who are called, and those whom he foreknew. All those who truly love God, whether they are Jews or Gentiles are "saints" (sanctified ones) and foreknown of God.

No, He is speaking about Jews here not Gentiles.

Another use of the term "foreknew" with respect to God refers to God's election of individual people to be conformed to the image of his son. In Romans 8:29 we read,


BroRog---

Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Here Paul equates the saints with those who love God, those who are called, and those whom he foreknew. All those who truly love God, whether they are Jews or Gentiles are "saints" (sanctified ones) and foreknown of God.

You gave a definition for foreknow as having an intimate relationship with God, such as He had with the Jews. Now you say it speaks of God's election. Please explain how this passage speaks of God electing someone before or from the foundation of the world. Why is it any different than the you previous meaning?



BroRog---According to Romans 9, however, God is not choosing us in that way. The basis of his choice is not in the man, but in his own purposes. He is not "choosing" us, he is creating us. The potter analogy is meant to convey the idea that God is making us for his purposes, not choosing us based on a set of inherent criteria found in us. Unlike those who buy pots according to their needs based on a set of criteria, a potter makes pots according to his or her needs, based on plans and purposes. God isn't using a set of criteria to "choose" us. He is creating us as needed.

The passage is speaking of Israel and not of choosing individuals for salvation.


BroRog-- -INDENT]
. . . to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.[/INDENT]According to Paul, we can anticipate a man's ultimate destiny according to what a man does. If a man is seeking glory, honor and immortality through his actions, then we can anticipate that eternal life will be that man's ultimate destiny. But if the man is selfishly ambitious and does not obey the truth, then we can anticipate that wrath and indignation will be that man's ultimate destiny.

Therefore, since a man's actions anticipate his ultimate future, and since God predestines this future in advance, we know that God has also set the course of this man's entire life. God is not arbitrarily placing a man into hell. A man's place in hell is deserved and according to his actions we can anticipate that he will be in hell.

Which one is it?

John146
Feb 24th 2010, 10:33 PM
I got the point. We simply disagree that Matthew 22:14 speaks about an individual call, rather than a general call. Jesus' statement comes at the end of a very long parable which describes a king's invitation to attend a wedding feast for his son. Those who were first invited were unwilling to come. So then he sent his servants out to give a general invitation to all that they found in the streets.Is it not speaking of an invitation to become married to Christ? To become part of His bride? Does the parable speak of groups of people establishing relationships with Christ all at once or does that happen on an individual basis?


Where did I say that? I was responding to your assertion that it wasn't logical for God to call those who could not hear him. I proved that it was logical.Only if the calling wasn't individual, but we don't agree on that, so I suppose as long as that's the case we don't have much more to say to each other on the matter because we'd only be speaking from two completely different viewpoints regarding the calling.


The act of calling doesn't logically necessitate an ability to hear. A mother cries out to her lost child regardless of whether the child can hear her or not.Are you saying a mother would audibly call out to a lost child who was deaf? If so, you can't be serious. If not, please explain what your point is here and how it relates to God calling people.


The logic of a call is the desire to be heard, regardless of whether the caller has an expectation of being heard. The mother hopes she can be heard, but she doesn't know the child can hear her.In the case of God doing the calling how would He not know if someone could hear or not?


A ship at sea calls "mayday" when the ship is in distress, even knowing that the call may not be heard. The call of "mayday" goes out regardless. Logic doesn't demand that one know in advance whether anyone can hear the call of "mayday". The call is made because those who call want to be heard, and they call not knowing for sure. Sure, but back to the parable. Where does it say those who did not accept the invitation (the call) were not able to hear? It doesn't say that at all. Instead, it says they were not willing to accept it. If they could not hear it then why doesn't it say they were not able to accept it instead of saying they were not willing to accept it?


So yes, it makes logical sense for God to send out a general call, even if no one can hear the call.No, it doesn't. Not in the least. That would only be the case if God did not know who could hear or not, but that is not the case. The invitation goes out to everyone because everyone has the capability of choosing to accept it (or not).


God sent his prophets out to speak to Israel even knowing that they were incapable of responding. In Isaiah 48, for instance, God declares that he prophesied to them well in advance, even while they refused to listen, so that they might know that when his prophecies came to pass they wouldn't be able to claim that it was their idols that did it.

Jesus reminds his disciples of Isaiah's word concerning Israel, that God spoke to her even though he had blinded her eyes and hardened their heart.

This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them." John 12:38-40Not only did Isaiah prophecy at a time when Israel was incapable of believing him, but Isaiah clearly says that it was God who blinded them and hardened their heart.Their eyes were blinded and hearts were hardened because they did not believe. Before He blinded them they had blinded themselves.

Matt 13
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

You act as if God just arbitrarily blinded them and hardened their hearts. That is not the case. He only did that to those who had already closed their own eyes (see Matt 13:15) to the truth and hardened their own hearts.

Not Authorized
Feb 25th 2010, 12:27 AM
Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost. since God knows who they are it seems He would just let them know, like He did with His prophets. We don't see God putting out a call for a prophet, He simply says Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. He chose them and He let them know that he chose them. So, it seems odd that if chose who would be saved, He would call those you claim cannot hear him, rather than simply letting the elect know that they were chosen.

Butch, a good series of questions. I promise that the following will absolutely confuse you. If I don't confuse you, then you didn't read everything I wrote.

I want to state expressly that I am not of reformed theology, nor do I subscribe to Calvin's interpretation of predestination.

What I am about to say relies on the nature of our universe and what scripture says. I also apologize for the lengthy post that most would consider a book, but this is VERY difficult to explain, and I hope I do a good job and articulate it correctly.

The problem is that most people only think in terms of a 4 dimensional framework. Space-time is not a new or modern concept. Paul was aware that we live in a 4 dimensional universe. When i see "breadth" in Eph 3:18, I see the time line which is the 4th dimension, then length, width, and height (3D).

There are two different dimensional frameworks we are dealing with. We as humans tend to think in terms of Space-Time which we are familiar with as our brain is hardwired with understanding our 4D space, and not Eternity.

Hence the childlike question of skeptics asking "Who Created God?", thinking in a 4D only perspective, putting God into a time line -- which by demand must have an origin.

So lets get some basics down.

To us Humans, time flows in a linear fashion, from point a to z. Can you remember tomorrow? (if you can, time to get your head checked out or had way to much substances in the 60s/70s :lol:).

God's dwelling place IS Eternity (Isa 57:15), not our time line and universe. He does remember what you would consider tomorrow.

So what is eternity?

The Bible tries to give concepts of what Eternity is, in terms we could understand and relate to. God sees the end from the beginning. He declares the end from the beginning. He is everlasting to everlasting. He knows the end from the beginning. He, being outside time can view the past, present, and future all at the same time much as we can viewing an "entire" two dimensional image at once. He is the Alpha and Omega. The First, and the Last. The one who was, who is, and is to come, and the one which is, which was and is to come.

With that in view, now for a statement that will boggle your mind.

If he knows you chose him in the "future" in a 4D space, he can choose you and predestine you in Eternity which is outside time.

Crazy no?

Remember, God has preeminence in all things. (Col chapter 1). That includes our salvation.

So where does this leave a personal choice and free will?

To us humans, we are the ones that choose Him at a given time point, when we ask Christ for forgiveness. That is under our rigid time-line and what our very nature and universe requires.

We still need to hear the Gospel to make our own choice. But to God, we already made that choice before you even heard the Gospel. You could choose Christ today, next week from Tuesday, or 100 years from now, and he already knew when, how, and if you would do so.

As he already knew what you would do with your choice, he CAN predestine you and not violate your free will.

Calvin as such focused far to much on the Predestination aspect, in which he did not understand space-time and eternity as separate, and as such he was unable to reconcile Free Will and predestination harmoniously to what the scriptures say.

It is a Paradox not easily understood, but we can at least get a grasp of it. As to the nature of God, He the ultimate Paradox and that given ∞ of years to understand, we could not even scratch the surface of comprehension.

Essentially, the unsaved are damned already, and the sheep are already saved. Both determined by choices you made or will make in our 4D space, and God reflecting your choice throughout Eternity.

If that doesn't give you a headache and utterly confuse you, then I don't know what will.

Another example of this Eternity/Space-Time difference is that the Fathers Son was slain from the foundation of the world. Yet in our time line, that happened ~ 30AD. The world wasn't certainly formed in 30AD, and that gives us great incite as to how God views time.

This same perspective can be said of Salvation. You/I/Any of us could be saved and chose Christ on March 1st, 2010, but to God that choice and action was done from the foundation of the world.

Even our godless science understands this. The very fact you can only have pseudo randomness in this universe, and not true randomness means everything was preordained before time began. Those that work with random number generators of any flavor know this. The very fact it a number was generated, means it was not random. Chaos theory states this as well, as everything else after the creation of the universe is deterministic of the initial event (ie, butterfly effect), and thus preordained from the start.

BTW, this by default obliterates the theory of Evolution which depends on absolute randomness.

I hope I articulated my thoughts and understanding of this correctly. Basically I look as Free Will and Predestination as complementary to each other.. as we are dealing with two separate spaces. One not created, and one created, ie Eternity, and Space-Time.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 25th 2010, 12:33 AM
I didn't say that is what Reformed Theology teaches. That is where you end up when you follow the doctrines to their logical conclusion.

Come on now Butch, you can spin it any way you want, you still are saying the same thing. I'm not arguing the point, just pointing out the point that you are misrepresenting Reformed Theology then, for no where within it's tenants does it declare that not proclaiming the Gospel and not having faith are within it's tenants, or is its logical conclusion.






I don't misunderstand Reformed Theology, I sat under it, learned it, was reformed. It was a study of the Scriptures that lead me out of Reformed Theology. You see I cannot accept contradiction. If God's word is inerrant, then there can be no contradiction, Reformed Theology has and must accept contradiction.

OK, so please sight some contradictions that you say reformed theology holds? For if you say that one is the lack of sharing the gospel and that another is the lack of having faith, then I say that you are misunderstanding what Reformed Theology really is, logical conclusions aside.

Seriously, this may be why you don't 'sit under' RT today because you misunderstand what it is and what it isn't.

Blessings,

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 01:29 AM
Butch, a good series of questions. I promise that the following will absolutely confuse you. If I don't confuse you, then you didn't read everything I wrote.

I want to state expressly that I am not of reformed theology, nor do I subscribe to Calvin's interpretation of predestination.

What I am about to say relies on the nature of our universe and what scripture says. I also apologize for the lengthy post that most would consider a book, but this is VERY difficult to explain, and I hope I do a good job and articulate it correctly.

The problem is that most people only think in terms of a 4 dimensional framework. Space-time is not a new or modern concept. Paul was aware that we live in a 4 dimensional universe. When i see "breadth" in Eph 3:18, I see the time line which is the 4th dimension, then length, width, and height (3D).

There are two different dimensional frameworks we are dealing with. We as humans tend to think in terms of Space-Time which we are familiar with as our brain is hardwired with understanding our 4D space, and not Eternity.

Hence the childlike question of skeptics asking "Who Created God?", thinking in a 4D only perspective, putting God into a time line -- which by demand must have an origin.

So lets get some basics down.

To us Humans, time flows in a linear fashion, from point a to z. Can you remember tomorrow? (if you can, time to get your head checked out or had way to much substances in the 60s/70s :lol:).

God's dwelling place IS Eternity (Isa 57:15), not our time line and universe. He does remember what you would consider tomorrow.

So what is eternity?

The Bible tries to give concepts of what Eternity is, in terms we could understand and relate to. God sees the end from the beginning. He declares the end from the beginning. He is everlasting to everlasting. He knows the end from the beginning. He, being outside time can view the past, present, and future all at the same time much as we can viewing an "entire" two dimensional image at once. He is the Alpha and Omega. The First, and the Last. The one who was, who is, and is to come, and the one which is, which was and is to come.

With that in view, now for a statement that will boggle your mind.

If he knows you chose him in the "future" in a 4D space, he can choose you and predestine you in Eternity which is outside time.

Crazy no?

Remember, God has preeminence in all things. (Col chapter 1). That includes our salvation.

So where does this leave a personal choice and free will?

To us humans, we are the ones that choose Him at a given time point, when we ask Christ for forgiveness. That is under our rigid time-line and what our very nature and universe requires.

We still need to hear the Gospel to make our own choice. But to God, we already made that choice before you even heard the Gospel. You could choose Christ today, next week from Tuesday, or 100 years from now, and he already knew when, how, and if you would do so.

As he already knew what you would do with your choice, he CAN predestine you and not violate your free will.

Calvin as such focused far to much on the Predestination aspect, in which he did not understand space-time and eternity as separate, and as such he was unable to reconcile Free Will and predestination harmoniously to what the scriptures say.

It is a Paradox not easily understood, but we can at least get a grasp of it. As to the nature of God, He the ultimate Paradox and that given ∞ of years to understand, we could not even scratch the surface of comprehension.

Essentially, the unsaved are damned already, and the sheep are already saved. Both determined by choices you made or will make in our 4D space, and God reflecting your choice throughout Eternity.

If that doesn't give you a headache and utterly confuse you, then I don't know what will.

Another example of this Eternity/Space-Time difference is that the Fathers Son was slain from the foundation of the world. Yet in our time line, that happened ~ 30AD. The world wasn't certainly formed in 30AD, and that gives us great incite as to how God views time.

This same perspective can be said of Salvation. You/I/Any of us could be saved and chose Christ on March 1st, 2010, but to God that choice and action was done from the foundation of the world.

Even our godless science understands this. The very fact you can only have pseudo randomness in this universe, and not true randomness means everything was preordained before time began. Those that work with random number generators of any flavor know this. The very fact it a number was generated, means it was not random. Chaos theory states this as well, as everything else after the creation of the universe is deterministic of the initial event (ie, butterfly effect), and thus preordained from the start.

BTW, this by default obliterates the theory of Evolution which depends on absolute randomness.

I hope I articulated my thoughts and understanding of this correctly. Basically I look as Free Will and Predestination as complementary to each other.. as we are dealing with two separate spaces. One not created, and one created, ie Eternity, and Space-Time.

Hi Not Authorized,

I understand what you have stated. However, that brings up a question, how would Paul's readers have known this?



Not Authorized---Another example of this Eternity/Space-Time difference is that the Fathers Son was slain from the foundation of the world. Yet in our time line, that happened ~ 30AD. The world wasn't certainly formed in 30AD, and that gives us great incite as to how God views time.

Or it could just be a metaphor.

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 02:13 AM
Come on now Butch, you can spin it any way you want, you still are saying the same thing. I'm not arguing the point, just pointing out the point that you are misrepresenting Reformed Theology then, for no where within it's tenants does it declare that not proclaiming the Gospel and not having faith are within it's tenants, or is its logical conclusion.

My friend, I didn't say that the teaching Reformed Theology negated the necessity of faith. What I said was when you take it to it's logical conclusion that is where you end up. Reformed Theology says that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world, it says that He chose them unconditionally, It says that they will come to Christ (absolutely, without fail), its says that they cannot be lost (at all, impossible), correct? Joe Smith is elected by God before he foundation of the world, he comes to faith in Christ, he is baptized, he worships God in Spirit and in truth, this is Joe Smith's life for twenty years. Then one day Joe Smith gets a new secretary, he become rather close to this new secretary. One day while they are working they cross that line, Joe Smith decides he really likes this secretary so Joe Smith divorces his wife and runs off with this secretary. He lives in an adulterous affair with this secretary and eventually turns away from God. Now Reformed theology has a problem here. How does reformed thinking reconcile Joe Smith?

1. Joe Smith was never saved,
2. Joe Smith was saved and fell away,
3. Joe Smith can live in sin and not be lost.

Obviously you cannot accept options 2 or 3, so Reformed Theology is force to claim option 1, Joe Smith was never saved. So all of the time Joe Smith thought he was worshipping the Lord he was just kidding himself??? If he was then how do you know that you aren't.

The other problem and actually the main problem with Reformed Theology claiming option 1 is that it contradicts what Jesus said.


Mark 16:15-16 ( KJV )
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Redeemed by Grace---OK, so please sight some contradictions that you say reformed theology holds? For if you say that one is the lack of sharing the gospel and that another is the lack of having faith, then I say that you are misunderstanding what Reformed Theology really is, logical conclusions aside.

Seriously, this may be why you don't 'sit under' RT today because you misunderstand what it is and what it isn't.

Reformed Theology---The elect cannot possibly be lost

Scripture---
Matthew 5:1-2 ( KJV )
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,


Matthew 5:27-30 ( KJV )
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Jesus said this to Peter and John and the rest. He is warning them to be careful that they don't end up in Gehenna. Why would He do that if they cannot be lost???

Reformed theology----Christ died only for the elect.

Scripture---

Romans 5:18 ( KJV )
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

It even contradicts itself.

The Westminster Confession with Shorter and Larger Catechisms
3:1 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (Jam 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Prov 16:33; Matt 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28).

God decreed everything including sin but is not the author of sin?????? Really? I guess Ted Bundy who killed those women didn't kill those women.

God ordained everything that man would do but man has free will????? Really?

These guys amaze me, they contradict their own statements and then expect people to buy it.

Here's one most Reformed Thinkers don't want to touch,

The Westminster Confession with Shorter and Larger Catechisms
3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Matt 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22, 23; Eph 1:5, 6).

The Westminster Confession with Shorter and Larger Catechisms
3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19).

They cannot be lost???? That's not what Jesus said.

The Westminster Confession with Shorter and Larger Catechisms
3:5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory (Rom 8:30; Eph 1:4, 9, 11; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Tim 1:9), out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto (Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph 1:6, 12).

Scripture---
Romans 2:5-7 ( KJV )
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 honour and immortality, eternal life:

I could go on and on but you get the point.

Sirus
Feb 25th 2010, 02:22 AM
My friend, I didn't say that the teaching Reformed Theology negated the necessity of faith.....and how could you? Today they proclaim it and did so in Luther's day. Luther taught the just shall live by faith long before the 95 theses. He was strong in it but they could not say anything because he was right and they 'professed' it. Their actions, dogmas, and other doctrines said otherwise but they could not attack the just shall live by faith. So it is today. We all say it. However we can say one thing and believe and do another. We can say it while living under law.....and most do.

Equipped_4_Love
Feb 25th 2010, 05:29 AM
The Father grants only the elect, only Christ's sheep, to come to Christ (John 10:26-27).

We don't become Christ's sheep until we come to Christ. What you are saying makes no sense, because it would imply that the Father only grants those who have already come to Christ, to come to Him.


In the first part of John 6:37, Jesus says "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me". So the second part of John 6:37 is referring to not just anyone coming to Jesus, but only to anyone who is one of the elect, one of those whom the Father has given to Jesus.

Again, you are talking about election on an individual basis, whereas the Bible teaches corporate election. The church is the elect body of Christ -- God has chosen the church to carry out His purposes on earth, just as He chose israel in the O.T.

The verse that I pointed out states that the Father gives to Jesus those who believe on Him. If that is the case, then the election comes after the belief -- not vice-versa. We become PART of the elect body upon salvation....election is not a determinant of salvation.


The unelect cannot possibly come to Jesus because they cannot possibly hear and learn from the Father (John 8:42-47).

Again, you are talking about individual election apart from free-will choice. This is not taught in Scripture.


It's the other way around: only the elect, only those whom the Father has given to Jesus, can receive his testimony (John 10:26-27). The unelect have no ability to receive Jesus' testimony (John 8:42-47).

Could you please explain how John 8:42-47 is referring to election? As far as the John 10 verse goes, Jesus is merely saying that those who believe Him are of His sheep. This is not implying that the Father chooses some to hear, and others to not hear. The rest of the Bible indicates that hearing and believing are choices, not fate.

Bible2
Feb 25th 2010, 09:31 AM
Firstfruits:
With regards to the following, would you agree that before we came to Jesus we were not his sheep? . . .



The Father grants only the elect, only Christ's sheep, to come to Christ (John 10:26-27).



John 10:26-27 means that before the elect come to Jesus they are his sheep, and the unelect do not come to Jesus because they are not his sheep.



How then did we come to God?


The elect come to Jesus by the Father drawing them to Jesus (John 6:44).



Are sinners his elect?


The elect were elected before they committed any sin (Romans 9:11), and they remain the elect even after they commit sin and before they get saved (Romans 11:28).

Bible2
Feb 25th 2010, 09:32 AM
John146:
Acts 17 [:30-31] . . .

This makes it very clear that God commands all people everywhere to repent. Would He command that if He did not desire all people to repent?


God can command things so that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful (Romans 7:13). God hardens the unelect in their sin because he created them to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:18-22). God miraculously grants the elect repentance (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18) because he created them to be vessels of his mercy (Romans 9:23-24).



He wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6).


1 Timothy 2:4 means that God will have all manner of people saved (Revelation 5:9), not all people (Matthew 22:14). In 1 Timothy 2:4, the original Greek word translated as "all" can mean "all manner of" (Acts 10:12).



Ezekiel 33 [:10-11]

This right here proves that it is not God's will for the wicked to continue in their wickedness even until death.


Ezekiel 33:10-11 is addressed only to "the house of Israel", meaning the elect (Romans 9:6-24). It is not God's will for the elect to continue in their wickedness even until death. It is God's will for the unelect to continue in their wickedness even until death, because they were created to be vessels of God's wrath (Romans 9:21-22).



There is no other reasonable explanation for why people will be held accountable and punished on judgment day.


All people will be held accountable on judgment day (Romans 2:6-8) because neither election nor unelection takes away the will of people (James 1:13-15, Hebrews 10:26-29).

Bible2
Feb 25th 2010, 09:33 AM
Butch5:
If you read Romans 9 in context it is quite clear that Paul is referring to the Jews.

Romans 9:1-5 ...


While Paul is referring to Jews in Romans 9:1-5, he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Bible2
Feb 25th 2010, 09:34 AM
Welder4Christ:
We don't become Christ's sheep until we come to Christ.


It's the other way around: the elect come to Christ because they are his sheep (John 10:27), just as the unelect do not come to Christ because they are not his sheep (John 10:26).



What you are saying makes no sense, because it would imply that the Father only grants those who have already come to Christ, to come to Him.


Election doesn't imply that the Father only grants those who have already come to Christ, to come to him. Instead, election means that the Father only grants those who have already been chosen by the Father to come to Christ, to come to him.



Again, you are talking about election on an individual basis, whereas the Bible teaches corporate election. The church is the elect body of Christ -- God has chosen the church to carry out His purposes on earth, just as He chose israel in the O.T.


Election is on an individual basis because there are elect individuals who are not yet part of the church (Romans 11:28). People eventually become part of the church only because they were already elect (Acts 13:48).



The verse that I pointed out states that the Father gives to Jesus those who believe on Him. If that is the case, then the election comes after the belief -- not vice-versa.


John 6:37 doesn't mean that the Father gives to Jesus those who believe only after they believe. Instead, John 6:37 means that the Father gives to Jesus those who will believe even before they believe. Election precedes belief (Acts 13:48).



...election is not a determinant of salvation.


Election is a determinate of salvation, but only of initial salvation. Election does not assure once-saved-always-saved, because ultimate salvation will depend on obedience subsequent to initial salvation (Romans 2:6-8).



Again, you are talking about individual election apart from free-will choice. This is not taught in Scripture.


Individual election apart from free-will choice is taught in scripture, because individual election takes place before any free-will choice is made (Romans 9:11).



Could you please explain how John 8:42-47 is referring to election?


John 8:42-47 isn't referring to election, but to unelection; it's referring to the unelect's inability to become saved.



As far as the John 10 verse goes, Jesus is merely saying that those who believe Him are of His sheep. This is not implying that the Father chooses some to hear, and others to not hear.


In John 10:26-28, Jesus is saying that those who are his sheep will hear and believe in him, while those who are not his sheep cannot possibly hear and believe in him (John 8:42-47).



The rest of the Bible indicates that hearing and believing are choices, not fate.


Only the elect can hear and believe; faith is a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Acts 13:48). The elect believe and are saved by God's choice, not their choice (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, John 15:16). But the ultimate salvation of the elect will depend on their choices subsequent to their initial salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30).

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 25th 2010, 01:18 PM
My friend, I didn't say that the teaching Reformed Theology negated the necessity of faith. What I said was when you take it to it's logical conclusion that is where you end up. Reformed Theology says that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world, it says that He chose them unconditionally, It says that they will come to Christ (absolutely, without fail), its says that they cannot be lost (at all, impossible), correct? Joe Smith is elected by God before he foundation of the world, he comes to faith in Christ, he is baptized, he worships God in Spirit and in truth, this is Joe Smith's life for twenty years. Then one day Joe Smith gets a new secretary, he become rather close to this new secretary. One day while they are working they cross that line, Joe Smith decides he really likes this secretary so Joe Smith divorces his wife and runs off with this secretary. He lives in an adulterous affair with this secretary and eventually turns away from God. Now Reformed theology has a problem here. How does reformed thinking reconcile Joe Smith?

1. Joe Smith was never saved,
2. Joe Smith was saved and fell away,
3. Joe Smith can live in sin and not be lost.

Here is where your logic is miss assuming quite a few things in your understandings of scripture, IMO. Good works are an outcome of faith given in salvation [Ephesians 2:9], but works are not, repeat not, efforts that merit one’s salvation. Your Joe smith example is your example that can be towards any sin really, could be anger, could be covetousness, lying, stealing, drunkenness -- could be anything.

The value statement within one’s salvation is this, do His sheep --- know that they are His sheep, and if they do, what makes them His sheep? And the answer is that ‘My sheep know my voice’, and that there was nothing the sheep did to become His sheep.

Obedience is an outcome of the shepherd’s teaching, but the doctrine of grace states that there is nothing a person does that ‘merits’ being elected, so once the shackles of sin are removed from the eyes of the sheep, and he then responds in faith and repentance to the wisdom of the Gospel’s calling, then obedience of good works is realized and the personal relationship with His Spirit builds not just a belief, but a new life.

So to your extreme example, your logic left out many more permutations. So Joe Smith sins. What does the bible say about sinning? That we are not to. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness. The Bible also states that if we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves. But… if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us of our sins, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So Joe Smith, ya did a bad thing here buddy, if you are saved, you need to confess your sin and repent. So here are more permutations ya missed. Joe, being confronted of his sin by a fellow Christian - Joe can either 1) agree that he sinned, understood the severity of his actions, and repents – for is he counted as a) a brother, or b) someone who got away with something? Or 2). Joe told him to a) mind his own business, or b) that he did nothing that God wouldn’t eventually honor, or c). Some other excuses.

So now to the responses.. If Joe took path 1a… then the bible states that Joe is following the pattern of the walk in faith… Joe should have never let this sin take him so far, yet Joe came to his senses, confessed and repented to go and sin no more. [And this is not just for adultery; this is for any and all sin one is caught up in].

If Joe takes any other path, then again by the biblical example, we would question his fruit, and his truly knowing the Lord and Savior. For in the worst case -he believing only with his self-knowledge of whom Jesus really is - would be as the man described with the one talent, hiding it within the ground, for he judged his master as being harsh. He knows the Lord with only his head, but not also with his heart. [a regenerated heart]



Obviously you cannot accept options 2 or 3, so Reformed Theology is force to claim option 1, Joe Smith was never saved. So all of the time Joe Smith thought he was worshipping the Lord he was just kidding himself??? If he was then how do you know that you aren't.

Equally back to you as well butch, for are you not judging that Joe is saved? So you are saying that you know what Joe Smith thought, and thus being your story, are putting your thoughts as Joe’s thoughts, but in real life butch, you don’t know the heart of Joe Smith… But if we love Joe Smith and we see him sinning, we are to go to him in love and show him his sin so that his fellowship is restored. If he repents, then we win a brother. If he does not, then we question his salvation and we witness to him the gospel of Christ as though he were a non-believer.




The other problem and actually the main problem with Reformed Theology claiming option 1 is that it contradicts what Jesus said.


Mark 16:15-16 ( KJV )
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Well, ya didn’t describe the problem you have, just one verse left naked without a why it offends you with reformed theology. So I’m forced to make an assumption that it is about preaching the gospel, based on your previous posts. Reformed theology boldly believes in openly preaching the gospel, for the gospel message is wide open for all to respond to. For how will they [the all who will believe, the saved, the elect] know unless the gospel be preached and they hear and then respond?

I gotta head to the airport area so I need to scoot, so I can't respond to your other points, but I can see that you are very attached to what you think RT means, so I have little confidence that anything more I write would help clarify your misunderstand what RT is. But that's OK, I guess.

So have a great day as the Lord directs...

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 05:56 PM
While Paul is referring to Jews in Romans 9:1-5, he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Read it in context.

Butch5
Feb 25th 2010, 06:52 PM
Redeemed by Grace ---Here is where your logic is miss assuming quite a few things in your understandings of scripture, IMO. Good works are an outcome of faith given in salvation [Ephesians 2:9], but works are not, repeat not, efforts that merit one’s salvation. Your Joe smith example is your example that can be towards any sin really, could be anger, could be covetousness, lying, stealing, drunkenness -- could be anything.

You are correct that one cannot earn salvation, however, good works are far more than simply the outcome of faith. They are a part of faith. James said,

James 2:22 ( KJV )
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
He said that faith was made complete by works.


Redeemed by Grace--- The value statement within one’s salvation is this, do His sheep --- know that they are His sheep, and if they do, what makes them His sheep? And the answer is that ‘My sheep know my voice’, and that there was nothing the sheep did to become His sheep.

You ‘re last statement is an assumption, unless you can show it from Scripture.


Redeemed by Grace ---Obedience is an outcome of the shepherd’s teaching, but the doctrine of grace states that there is nothing a person does that ‘merits’ being elected,

Nice wording. No, nothing a person does “merits” election, however, what a person does “determines” their election.


Redeemed by Grace --- so once the shackles of sin are removed from the eyes of the sheep, and he then responds in faith and repentance to the wisdom of the Gospel’s calling, then obedience of good works is realized and the personal relationship with His Spirit builds not just a belief, but a new life.

So to your extreme example,

Extreme example? Stuff like that happens a lot.


Redeemed by Grace ---your logic left out many more permutations. So Joe Smith sins. What does the bible say about sinning? That we are not to. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness. The Bible also states that if we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves. But… if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us of our sins, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So Joe Smith, ya did a bad thing here buddy, if you are saved, you need to confess your sin and repent. So here are more permutations ya missed. Joe, being confronted of his sin by a fellow Christian - Joe can either 1) agree that he sinned, understood the severity of his actions, and repents – for is he counted as a) a brother, or b) someone who got away with something? Or 2). Joe told him to a) mind his own business, or b) that he did nothing that God wouldn’t eventually honor, or c). Some other excuses.

So now to the responses.. If Joe took path 1a… then the bible states that Joe is following the pattern of the walk in faith… Joe should have never let this sin take him so far, yet Joe came to his senses, confessed and repented to go and sin no more. [And this is not just for adultery; this is for any and all sin one is caught up in].

If Joe takes any other path, then again by the biblical example, we would question his fruit, and his truly knowing the Lord and Savior. For in the worst case -he believing only with his self-knowledge of whom Jesus really is - would be as the man described with the one talent, hiding it within the ground, for he judged his master as being harsh. He knows the Lord with only his head, but not also with his heart. [a regenerated heart]

So, you answered just like I said. There was no reason to go through the options you listed. I said that Joe turned from the Lord. And as predicted you implied that Joe was never saved. So all of those years when Joe thought he was faithfully serving God, according to you he was not saved. So, I ask my question again, how then do you know you are? Any Christian could experience Joe’s situation, if they do and do not repent, according to your doctrine they are “NOT” saved right now, but are living in a fantasy, correct? However, as I pointed out that contradicts Jesus’ own words. Here’s the problem, unless one can read the future one cannot guarantee that what happened to Joe will not happen to them,. Your theology says that if it does they were never saved in the first place. Since it could happen to anyone then according to your theology no one can know for certain that they are saved right now. And this contradicts the Apostle John,

1 John 5:13 ( KJV )
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.




Redeemed by Grace ---Equally back to you as well butch, for are you not judging that Joe is saved? So you are saying that you know what Joe Smith thought, and thus being your story, are putting your thoughts as Joe’s thoughts, but in real life butch, you don’t know the heart of Joe Smith… But if we love Joe Smith and we see him sinning, we are to go to him in love and show him his sin so that his fellowship is restored. If he repents, then we win a brother. If he does not, then we question his salvation and we witness to him the gospel of Christ as though he were a non-believer.

Joe Smith was saved, he believed and was baptized, thus he was saved. But according to your doctrine he couldn’t have because he was lost in the end. Again, in contradiction to Christ’s words



Redeemed by Grace ---Well, ya didn’t describe the problem you have, just one verse left naked without a why it offends you with reformed theology. So I’m forced to make an assumption that it is about preaching the gospel, based on your previous posts. Reformed theology boldly believes in openly preaching the gospel, for the gospel message is wide open for all to respond to. For how will they [the all who will believe, the saved, the elect] know unless the gospel be preached and they hear and then respond?

I gotta head to the airport area so I need to scoot, so I can't respond to your other points, but I can see that you are very attached to what you think RT means, so I have little confidence that anything more I write would help clarify your misunderstand what RT is. But that's OK, I guess.

So have a great day as the Lord directs...

There is no need to continue to insist that I don’t understand Reformed theology. I’ve seen this agrument before, and I had it leveled at me before. I used to go to board that was primarily Calvinist and they tried to use the same argument, that I didn’t understand Reformed Theology. What they were trying to do was to give others on the forum the impression that I didn’t understand their position in an attempt to weaken my argument. When in reality they were faced with evidence that ran contradictory to their theology, rather than address the issue they tried divert attention away from it. I don’t know if that is your position, however, I do understand Reformed theology.

Sorry friend, I cannot accept a theology where the founders and leaders not only contradict their own words, but also the words of Scripture.

Bible2
Feb 26th 2010, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by Bible2

While Paul is referring to Jews in Romans 9:1-5, he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22).

Butch5:
Read it in context.


How has it been proven that it has not been read in context?



...what a person does “determines” their election


People are elected before they have done anything at all (Romans 9:11).

Butch5
Feb 26th 2010, 12:58 PM
Bible2---How has it been proven that it has not been read in context?

Because you have applied it to the Gentiles.




Bible2---People are elected before they have done anything at all (Romans 9:11).

Romans 9 is not Speaking of electing individuals it is speaking of the election of Israel. If one reads the entire book of Romans one will find that in Romans 2 Paul begins to address the Jews.

Romans 2:17 ( KJV )
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

He continues this train of thought through 11:13.


Romans 11:13 ( KJV )
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

And While speaking to the Gentile branch of the Church in Rome Paul says,


Romans 11:25-29 ( KJV )
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
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:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Paul clearly says, as touching the election, the election he has been speaking of since Romans 9 and he makes it clear that he is speaking of Israel.

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 26th 2010, 02:47 PM
There is no need to continue to insist that I don’t understand Reformed theology. I’ve seen this agrument before, and I had it leveled at me before. I used to go to board that was primarily Calvinist and they tried to use the same argument, that I didn’t understand Reformed Theology. What they were trying to do was to give others on the forum the impression that I didn’t understand their position in an attempt to weaken my argument. When in reality they were faced with evidence that ran contradictory to their theology, rather than address the issue they tried divert attention away from it. I don’t know if that is your position, however, I do understand Reformed theology.

Hi Butch... I see what you are saying but the coin has two sides. You may say that you understand what reformed theology is all about and reject it, but when you characterize reformed theology as doctrine that professes that you don’t need to preach the gospel, or that you don’t need to have faith, then you falsely ascribe your misrepresentations to what RF is and thus can’t hear my and a few other’s rebuttals. It’s ok to reject what we are saying, but reject it because you don’t agree or understand the position, but not because of what you assume that is real about RT.

Seeing within the Bible that RT does a good job in clarifying, I see the bible declaring that God is sovereign in all things; that He has all things within His precise order and control; that all things -- good and bad work together for good; that man plans his ways, but God directs his path; that salvation is driven for God, by God, of God, in God, through God, because of God least any man should boast; and that the Gospel is openly declared, yet no one correctly understands unless they have been regenerated by God to hear, see and respond in the measure of faith they have been given expressly by God.

There is no plan B with God, there is not any action that man can or will do that takes God by surprise; God has ordained time to walk through, in heaven, earth and hell; He has positioned within His revealed word events before they happen that come to pass; He has shown a time of salvation, a time of judgment; all things are predetermined from the eye of God, yet again man says man controls his destiny, for man’s thinking blinds him.

So as someone who studies the word of God in the Bible, and I see good commentary within the statement of faith of reformed theologies that helps clarify many study points, I profess to this post the gospel openly to all to hear and respond to... that everyone and all who read this their need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, to repent from your sins, and walk in the newness of the faith in Jesus Christ.

So there it is -- the Gospel in simple format from a reformed position, and those for who read this AND who are searching for something that’s being tugging on your heart and/or may still be in doubt, turn to Christ, turn from sin and believe on the Son of God. For today is the day of salvation.

So some may hear and correctly respond, others may hear, live for a season as though they are saved, then fall away when tested... Those who respond correctly are the sheep, the wheat... and are the ones who live out God’s plan of predestination unto the elect, right before their own eyes, and say praise God.

The Gospel is an open call, hear ye, hear ye, all repent and believe upon the Gospel of Christ; yet no one comes on their own because of the blindness of sin. That’s why salvation is closed to only those who will believe, which in turn are the ones God destined before the foundation of the world. The Gospel call is wide open; salvation is closed through whom God has elected. So the question becomes: know what ya believe and why ya believe it and know if you are among the elect.

John146
Feb 26th 2010, 09:24 PM
John 10:26-27 means that before the elect come to Jesus they are his sheep, and the unelect do not come to Jesus because they are not his sheep.Please show me scripture that says the elect are His sheep even before they are saved. In that passage Jesus says that His sheep follow Him. Did you follow Him before you were saved? No, you did not. Earlier in John 10, Jesus teaches that the way that one becomes one of His sheep is to enter through the door. He is the door of the sheep.

John 10
7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

It is only after one enters the door of salvation by putting their faith in Christ that they become His sheep and "find pasture" in Him.

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

His sheep belong to Him. We didn't not belong to Him before we were saved. God might have known beforehand that we would belong to Christ, but the fact is that in the realm of time and space we did not yet belong to Him and therefore were not yet His sheep.

John146
Feb 26th 2010, 09:36 PM
God can command things so that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful (Romans 7:13). God hardens the unelect in their sin because he created them to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:18-22). God miraculously grants the elect repentance (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18) because he created them to be vessels of his mercy (Romans 9:23-24). Tell me this. Why is it that man is without excuse when he is not thankful to God and does not glorify God?

Romans 1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

If it was God's will for them to be vessels of wrath then wouldn't that be their excuse for acting like vessels of wrath? Again, why is it that they are without excuse?


1 Timothy 2:4 means that God will have all manner of people saved (Revelation 5:9), not all people (Matthew 22:14). In 1 Timothy 2:4, the original Greek word translated as "all" can mean "all manner of" (Acts 10:12). You cited Matthew 22:14 which is the last verse of the parable of the wedding invitation. Here is the beginning of that parable:

Matt 22
1And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

This shows that the reason not everyone who is called is also chosen is that some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation. It isn't that they are not able to accept it, it is that they are not willing. That means it is their choice to not accept it and not a case of God not choosing for them to accept it.


Ezekiel 33:10-11 is addressed only to "the house of Israel", meaning the elect (Romans 9:6-24). It is not God's will for the elect to continue in their wickedness even until death. It is God's will for the unelect to continue in their wickedness even until death, because they were created to be vessels of God's wrath (Romans 9:21-22). Not all of the house of Israel was saved. If it was then it would not make any sense for God to tell them to repent of their wicked ways so that they would not die in their wickedness and be condemned as a result. But not all of them did repent. Therefore, He wanted them all to repent rather than die in their wickedness and that is true not just for Israel at that time but for the whole world.


All people will be held accountable on judgment day (Romans 2:6-8) because neither election nor unelection takes away the will of people (James 1:13-15, Hebrews 10:26-29).What does that mean?

Butch5
Feb 26th 2010, 11:31 PM
Redeemed by Grace---Hi Butch... I see what you are saying but the coin has two sides. You may say that you understand what reformed theology is all about and reject it, but when you characterize reformed theology as doctrine that professes that you don’t need to preach the gospel, or that you don’t need to have faith, then you falsely ascribe your misrepresentations to what RF is and thus can’t hear my and a few other’s rebuttals. It’s ok to reject what we are saying, but reject it because you don’t agree or understand the position, but not because of what you assume that is real about RT.

RBG, Are you reading my words? I have said this over and again, I did "NOT" say that Reformed Theology claims that faith isn't necessary. What I said was this. When you take the "Doctrines of Grace" and carry them to their logical conclusion faith is not necessary for salvation. The "Doctrines of Grace" say that those unconditionally chosen by God absolutely without fail will come, there is no way possible that they could ever be lost. Therefore what gives one salvation is not faith but being uncondionally chosen.

Have I made that clear (stated in a soft tone)? If not please let me know. I did not say anything about what Reformed Theology teaches, I know it teaches the necessity of faith. However, what it teaches and what the logical conclusions are from it's doctrines are two different things.


Redeemed by Grace---Seeing within the Bible that RT does a good job in clarifying, I see the bible declaring that God is sovereign in all things; that He has all things within His precise order and control; that all things -- good and bad work together for good; that man plans his ways, but God directs his path; that salvation is driven for God, by God, of God, in God, through God, because of God least any man should boast; and that the Gospel is openly declared, yet no one correctly understands unless they have been regenerated by God to hear, see and respond in the measure of faith they have been given expressly by God.

You think it does a good job I'm clarifying? Even in light of the Scriptural contradictions? The men who devised this system have been show to contradict their own statements let alone Scripture.


Redeemed by Grace---There is no plan B with God, there is not any action that man can or will do that takes God by surprise; God has ordained time to walk through, in heaven, earth and hell; He has positioned within His revealed word events before they happen that come to pass; He has shown a time of salvation, a time of judgment; all things are predetermined from the eye of God, yet again man says man controls his destiny, for man’s thinking blinds him.

This is the standard Reformed jargon and as is usually the case unaccompanied by Scripture. Where does Scripture say all things are predetermined?

The issue is not about God's sovereignty, that is the smokescreen used to distract the discussion from the real issue which is that the doctrines contradict the Scriptures. As I said, I have been in discussions with Reformed thinkers for years and I have learned how they route the conversation around the weak points in their theology, just as you are doing here. Making an appeal to God's sovereignty as authority for you statements. The error is in your definition of Sovereignty. You see, in the discussion the Reformed thinker must make sure that he is the one who defines "God's Sovereignty". However, I do not buy the reformed definition of "God's Sovereignty." There is "Nothing" in the definition of sovereignty that precludes God from giving man choices to make.


Redeemed by Grace---So as someone who studies the word of God in the Bible, and I see good commentary within the statement of faith of reformed theologies that helps clarify many study points, I profess to this post the gospel openly to all to hear and respond to... that everyone and all who read this their need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, to repent from your sins, and walk in the newness of the faith in Jesus Christ.

You may see good commentary, but i cannot accept the contradiction. If God's word is inerrant then I cannot accept contradiction.


Redeemed by Grace---So there it is -- the Gospel in simple format from a reformed position, and those for who read this AND who are searching for something that’s being tugging on your heart and/or may still be in doubt, turn to Christ, turn from sin and believe on the Son of God. For today is the day of salvation.

So some may hear and correctly respond, others may hear, live for a season as though they are saved, then fall away when tested... Those who respond correctly are the sheep, the wheat... and are the ones who live out God’s plan of predestination unto the elect, right before their own eyes, and say praise God.

I've highlight the above. "As though they were saved", so they cannot know for certain that they are saved correct?

"the ones who live out God's plan" So they cannot know until they have lived out God's plan? I guess that is when they die? So they can know when they die, if they were ever saved at all, correct?

Is this what Scripture teaches???

1 John 5:13 ( KJV )
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.




Redeemed by Grace---The Gospel is an open call, hear ye, hear ye, all repent and believe upon the Gospel of Christ; yet no one comes on their own because of the blindness of sin. That’s why salvation is closed to only those who will believe, which in turn are the ones God destined before the foundation of the world. The Gospel call is wide open; salvation is closed through whom God has elected. So the question becomes: know what ya believe and why ya believe it and know if you are among the elect.

So, one is saved by theology?

So, salvation really isn't available to all men? Do you see what I mean, right here your doctrine is contradicting Scripture. Is this the good job in clarifying that RT gives? Don't the contradictions bother you?

RogerW
Feb 27th 2010, 12:21 AM
RBG, Are you reading my words? I have said this over and again, I did "NOT" say that Reformed Theology claims that faith isn't necessary. What I said was this. When you take the "Doctrines of Grace" and carry them to their logical conclusion faith is not necessary for salvation. The "Doctrines of Grace" say that those unconditionally chosen by God absolutely without fail will come, there is no way possible that they could ever be lost. Therefore what gives one salvation is not faith but being uncondionally chosen.


Butch, forgive me for interjecting a thought into your conversation with Rbg, but....did you learn this through your own study of RT, or were you taught this? If faith is not necessary according to the doctrines of grace, why do Reformed Christians constantly hammer home the FACT that we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH; and that not of ourselves: the gift of God? Why hammer this point endlessly if faith is not necessary for salvation?

(I too am speaking softly to you)...try to understand, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is not the means of salvation (GRACE IS), but since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE! Do you understand the difference?

Many Blessings,
RW

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 27th 2010, 12:38 AM
but since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

exactly.... and this 'faith' is a Gift from God.. not something we drum up on our own.. those who are Geuninely Born Again from Above, this By Grace (God's Favor Unmerited) thru FAITH.. will exhibit that 'faith'.. and testify to it that it doesn't come from 'them'.. Its His Gift... this is God centered- Salvation...

man centered.. says..... i can drum it up and I will drum it up on my own.. the source is 'me'...
its by 'my faith' that I'm saved.. not the case.

that is so evident today.. and one does not have to go very far to see that.

MaryFreeman
Feb 27th 2010, 01:33 AM
Butch5:
...the potter and the clay is a reference to Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'clay' does not reference the Gentiles? In context with the rest of the passage.... No it is not....

One needs only back up a few verses to find this out.... Below is Scripture taken from the New Living translation (Mind you it is only one verse.... Because I believe all here are intellegent enough to get the point without thousands of scripture tossed at them):

Rom 9:6 Well then, has God failed to fulfill His promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God's people!

From a writer's perspective.... This is the verse that sets the subject of the verses that follow it.... I could post more....

But why?

Please note that it is not a sin to consider ones self clay anyways....

so what are the Gentiles? sand? muck? a cheaper version of 'clay'?Gravel.... LOL!




but reading your post.. I'd thought I'd be listening to a 1st Century Pharisee.. who hadn't come to the Revelation that the Gentiles are able to Inherit the Promises.. like the Jews...


In plain.... Unadorned.... Sugar free American:

This is neither obtuse (because you know what you are saying).....

Nor arrogant (I do not wish to insult) ....

It is offensive.

It is unnecessary to insinuate another brother or sister is a pharisee.... Or that they have not come to the Revelation of Christ....

Because they disagree with you on secondary beliefs that do not affect either your salvation.... Or theirs....

1Ti 5:1 Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father. Talk to younger men as you would to your own brothers.(NLT)

I count it all joy that you have come to Christ and that you have something to believe in that works for you....

It does not make you right any more than it makes Butch5 wrong....

In future please remember this:

ONLY GOD knows the hearts of men.... Whether they have come to the revelation or not.... And ONLY God knew they did before the earth was founded....

Getting sidetracked on who exactly is the clay is not productive....

And I did ask in my OP that we make this a peaceful thread where we could reason together with one another....

Not one in which we could call names without looking like we are calling names....

I don't know where your getting your theology...mmmm

As Butch5 has posted Scripture that led him to believe the way he does (Just as I asked) I find it odd that you cannot....

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 01:55 AM
Butch, forgive me for interjecting a thought into your conversation with Rbg, but....did you learn this through your own study of RT, or were you taught this? If faith is not necessary according to the doctrines of grace, why do Reformed Christians constantly hammer home the FACT that we are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH; and that not of ourselves: the gift of God? Why hammer this point endlessly if faith is not necessary for salvation?

(I too am speaking softly to you)...try to understand, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is not the means of salvation (GRACE IS), but since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE! Do you understand the difference?

Many Blessings,
RW

Hi Roger,

I'll say it again, yes, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is necessary. But when you look at the "Doctrines of Grace" take them to their logical conclusion where do you end up?

Do you see why I cannot accept Reformed Theology? In your above statement you have contradicted Scripture.

Roger---(I too am speaking softly to you)...try to understand, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is not the means of salvation (GRACE IS), but since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE! Do you understand the difference?

You said, it undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE.

According to this statement one receives Grace and from this grace faith will be produced, correct?

However, look at what Paul said.


Romans 5:1-2 ( KJV )
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

According to Paul it is by faith that we access grace not that grace comes first and produces faith.

MaryFreeman
Feb 27th 2010, 01:57 AM
I was wondering how this would fit in with anyone's thoughts on faith?

(Rom 10:1) BRETHREN, [with all] my heart's desire and goodwill for [Israel], I long and pray to God that they may be saved.

(Rom 10:2) I bear them witness that they have a [certain] zeal and enthusiasm for God, but it is not enlightened and according to [correct and vital] knowledge.

(Rom 10:3) For being ignorant of the righteousness that God ascribes [which makes one acceptable to Him in word, thought, and deed] and seeking to establish a righteousness (a means of salvation) of their own, they did not obey or submit themselves to God's righteousness.

(Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the Law [the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him] as the means of righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him.

(Rom 10:5) For Moses writes that the man who [can] practice the righteousness (perfect conformity to God's will) which is based on the Law [with all its intricate demands] shall live by it. [Lev. 18:5.]

(Rom 10:6) But the righteousness based on faith [imputed by God and bringing right relationship with Him] says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into Heaven? that is, to bring Christ down;

(Rom 10:7) Or who will descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead [as if we could be saved by our own efforts]. [Deut. 30:12, 13.]

(Rom 10:8) But what does it say? The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach, [Deut. 30:14.]

(Rom 10:9) Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.

(Rom 10:11) The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him [who adheres to, relies on, and trusts in Him] will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed. [Ps. 34:22; Isa. 28:16; 49:23; Jer. 17:7.]

(Rom 10:12) [No one] for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. The same Lord is Lord over all [of us] and He generously bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him [in faith].

(Rom 10:13) For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [invoking Him as Lord] will be saved. [Joel 2:32.]

(Rom 10:14) But how are people to call upon Him Whom they have not believed [in Whom they have no faith, on Whom they have no reliance]? And how are they to believe in Him [adhere to, trust in, and rely upon Him] of Whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?

(Rom 10:15) And how can men [be expected to] preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings! [How welcome is the coming of those who preach the good news of His good things!] [Isa. 52:7.]

(Rom 10:16) But they have not all heeded the Gospel; for Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed (had faith in) what he has heard from us? [Isa. 53:1.]

(Rom 10:17) So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself).

(Rom 10:18) But I ask, Have they not heard? Indeed they have; [for the Scripture says] Their voice [that of nature bearing God's message] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the far bounds of the world. [Ps. 19:4.]

(Rom 10:19) Again I ask, Did Israel not understand? [Did the Jews have no warning that the Gospel was to go forth to the Gentiles, to all the earth?] First, there is Moses who says, I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry. [Deut. 32:21.]

(Rom 10:20) Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, I have been found by those who did not seek Me; I have shown (revealed) Myself to those who did not [consciously] ask for Me. [Isa. 65:1.]

(Rom 10:21) But of Israel he says, All day long I have stretched out My hands to a people unyielding and disobedient and self-willed [to a faultfinding, contrary, and contradicting people]. [Isa. 65:2.]


Just curious....

RogerW
Feb 27th 2010, 02:53 AM
Hi Roger,

I'll say it again, yes, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is necessary. But when you look at the "Doctrines of Grace" take them to their logical conclusion where do you end up?

Do you see why I cannot accept Reformed Theology? In your above statement you have contradicted Scripture.

Roger---(I too am speaking softly to you)...try to understand, Reformed Theology teaches that faith is not the means of salvation (GRACE IS), but since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE! Do you understand the difference?

You said, it undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE.

According to this statement one receives Grace and from this grace faith will be produced, correct?

However, look at what Paul said.

Romans 5:1-2 ( KJV )
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

According to Paul it is by faith that we access grace not that grace comes first and produces faith.

Butch do you see any difference between being justified and being saved? Why doesn't Paul say 'Therefore being saved by faith'...? Does not Scripture also tell us "the just shall live by faith"? (Ro 1:17) It is through Jesus Christ that we access grace by faith, but it would not be possible to access (live by) grace by faith apart from Christ living in us. You seem to be confusing being justified (declared righteous) through faith with being saved (regenerated) by GRACE through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Feb 27th 2010, 02:55 AM
I was wondering how this would fit in with anyone's thoughts on faith?

(Rom 10:1) BRETHREN, [with all] my heart's desire and goodwill for [Israel], I long and pray to God that they may be saved.

(Rom 10:2) I bear them witness that they have a [certain] zeal and enthusiasm for God, but it is not enlightened and according to [correct and vital] knowledge.

(Rom 10:3) For being ignorant of the righteousness that God ascribes [which makes one acceptable to Him in word, thought, and deed] and seeking to establish a righteousness (a means of salvation) of their own, they did not obey or submit themselves to God's righteousness.

(Rom 10:4) For Christ is the end of the Law [the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him] as the means of righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him.

(Rom 10:5) For Moses writes that the man who [can] practice the righteousness (perfect conformity to God's will) which is based on the Law [with all its intricate demands] shall live by it. [Lev. 18:5.]

(Rom 10:6) But the righteousness based on faith [imputed by God and bringing right relationship with Him] says, Do not say in your heart, Who will ascend into Heaven? that is, to bring Christ down;

(Rom 10:7) Or who will descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead [as if we could be saved by our own efforts]. [Deut. 30:12, 13.]

(Rom 10:8) But what does it say? The Word (God's message in Christ) is near you, on your lips and in your heart; that is, the Word (the message, the basis and object) of faith which we preach, [Deut. 30:14.]

(Rom 10:9) Because if you acknowledge and confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and in your heart believe (adhere to, trust in, and rely on the truth) that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart a person believes (adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Christ) and so is justified (declared righteous, acceptable to God), and with the mouth he confesses (declares openly and speaks out freely his faith) and confirms [his] salvation.

(Rom 10:11) The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him [who adheres to, relies on, and trusts in Him] will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed. [Ps. 34:22; Isa. 28:16; 49:23; Jer. 17:7.]

(Rom 10:12) [No one] for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. The same Lord is Lord over all [of us] and He generously bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him [in faith].

(Rom 10:13) For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [invoking Him as Lord] will be saved. [Joel 2:32.]

(Rom 10:14) But how are people to call upon Him Whom they have not believed [in Whom they have no faith, on Whom they have no reliance]? And how are they to believe in Him [adhere to, trust in, and rely upon Him] of Whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?

(Rom 10:15) And how can men [be expected to] preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings! [How welcome is the coming of those who preach the good news of His good things!] [Isa. 52:7.]

(Rom 10:16) But they have not all heeded the Gospel; for Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed (had faith in) what he has heard from us? [Isa. 53:1.]

(Rom 10:17) So faith comes by hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the preaching [of the message that came from the lips] of Christ (the Messiah Himself).

(Rom 10:18) But I ask, Have they not heard? Indeed they have; [for the Scripture says] Their voice [that of nature bearing God's message] has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the far bounds of the world. [Ps. 19:4.]

(Rom 10:19) Again I ask, Did Israel not understand? [Did the Jews have no warning that the Gospel was to go forth to the Gentiles, to all the earth?] First, there is Moses who says, I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry. [Deut. 32:21.]

(Rom 10:20) Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, I have been found by those who did not seek Me; I have shown (revealed) Myself to those who did not [consciously] ask for Me. [Isa. 65:1.]

(Rom 10:21) But of Israel he says, All day long I have stretched out My hands to a people unyielding and disobedient and self-willed [to a faultfinding, contrary, and contradicting people]. [Isa. 65:2.]


Just curious....

Greetings Mary,

I would be curious to know how this passage fits your thoughts on faith?

Many Blessings,
RW

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 03:50 AM
Butch do you see any difference between being justified and being saved? Why doesn't Paul say 'Therefore being saved by faith'...? Does not Scripture also tell us "the just shall live by faith"? (Ro 1:17) It is through Jesus Christ that we access grace by faith, but it would not be possible to access (live by) grace by faith apart from Christ living in us. You seem to be confusing being justified (declared righteous) through faith with being saved (regenerated) by GRACE through faith that is not our own, but the gift of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

I have not confused anything. I know the difference. But you didn't address the contradiction. You said regenerated by grace, You said a person has to be regenerated before they can come to Christ correct? Where does Scripture teach this? Scripture only mentions Regeneration twice. Jesus spoke of it once in regard to the resurrection and Paul used it once in regard to baptism. So where does Scripture teach that one is regenerated prior to coming to Christ?

MaryFreeman
Feb 27th 2010, 04:06 AM
Greetings Mary,

I would be curious to know how this passage fits your thoughts on faith?

Many Blessings,
RWI asked first...:lol:

Sirus
Feb 27th 2010, 04:26 AM
In context with the rest of the passage.... No it is not....

One needs only back up a few verses to find this out.... Below is Scripture taken from the New Living translation (Mind you it is only one verse.... Because I believe all here are intellegent enough to get the point without thousands of scripture tossed at them):

Rom 9:6 Well then, has God failed to fulfill His promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God's people!

From a writer's perspective.... This is the verse that sets the subject of the verses that follow it.... I could post more....No. You didn't back up enough. Verse 5 along with v6 sets the context.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The promised seed is Christ -Gal 3:16. He didn't say seeds, He said seed. The children OF the promise believe and therefore are in Christ -The seed. COUNTED for the seed.

The context is that the purpose of God was that Christ would come in the flesh through Israel. In order to make this happen God used heathen kings, i.e. Pharaoh (v17) and Cyrus (v20). Gentiles.

Rom 9:17 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.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay 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?

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
...........
.....
Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Cyrus conquered Babylon and let Israel return to their land to build a house to the Lord.

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
Because of this, remaining prophecies concerning Messiah could be fulfilled. First and foremost would be His coming in the flesh, of course. He came to be the light to the Gentiles. Israel first.

Continuing to explain the potter over the clay he states vessels of wrath and mercy are both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
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,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
There is no difference.

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

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 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Just look up every instance of potter in scripture. Sometimes it's Israel, sometimes it's the heathen. Here in the NT it's also both. Which only makes sense since God is just and righteous. God is consistent. There's no way to conclude clay is Israel only.

RogerW
Feb 27th 2010, 05:04 AM
Roger,
I have not confused anything. I know the difference. But you didn't address the contradiction. You said regenerated by grace, You said a person has to be regenerated before they can come to Christ correct?

Butch,

This is what I said: "...since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE!"

I'm not sure what you mean by "coming to Christ"? But regeneration means to be born again (spiritual re-birth). Since Christ tells us we must come to Him for life, it is impossible to separate regeneration (re-birth) from coming to Christ.



Where does Scripture teach this? Scripture only mentions Regeneration twice. Jesus spoke of it once in regard to the resurrection and Paul used it once in regard to baptism. So where does Scripture teach that one is regenerated prior to coming to Christ?

Would you agree that we are saved (delivered; protected; preserved) when we are regenerated (born again) by grace through faith; and that not of ourselves: the gift of God? Would you also agree that after having been delivered through re-birth we are justified (declared righteous) by grace accessed through faith (reliance upon Christ)?

Regarding Ro 5:1-2 do you believe it is possible to be justified (declared righteous) without having been regenerated (born again) by grace? I ask because Paul is speaking to those who have been justified (declared righteous). Having been justified we have peace with God through Christ, by Whom we now have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.

You see we are saved, regenerated, justified and glorified by grace through faith we received as a gift of God, now we rejoice in hope the glory of God, and we glory in tribulation also...knowing this is only possible because we have access by faith into this grace we stand firm in.

Many Blessings,
RW

Bible2
Feb 27th 2010, 12:14 PM
Bible2---How has it been proven that it has not been read in context?

Because you have applied it to the Gentiles.


How has it been proven that applying Romans 9:21 to both Jews and Gentiles is reading Romans 9:21 out of context? Romans 9:24 is part of the context, as is Romans 9:17-18.



Romans 9 is not Speaking of electing individuals it is speaking of the election of Israel.


Romans 9 is speaking of electing individuals (Romans 9:11), both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24).



If one reads the entire book of Romans one will find that in Romans 2 Paul begins to address the Jews.


Before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13). That's why the "us" in Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles.



Paul clearly says, as touching the election, the election he has been speaking of since Romans 9 and he makes it clear that he is speaking of Israel.


Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4).



According to Paul it is by faith that we access grace not that grace comes first and produces faith.


It's both, for the elect are miraculously given the gift of faith (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5) solely by God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), and it is by their subsequently continuing in the faith (Colossians 1:23) that they have access to God's continuing grace (Romans 5:2).

Bible2
Feb 27th 2010, 12:15 PM
John146:
Please show me scripture that says the elect are His sheep even before they are saved.


John 10:26-28 means that the elect are Jesus' sheep even before they are saved by hearing and following him, and that the unelect cannot possibly hear and follow him (John 8:42-47) because they are not his sheep.



Earlier in John 10, Jesus teaches that the way that one becomes one of His sheep is to enter through the door.


John 10:7-9 doesn't say that the way that one becomes one of Jesus' sheep is to enter through the door, because the elect are Jesus' sheep even before they enter his fold (John 10:16), which is the church (Ephesians 4:4-5). Elect people are elect even before they get saved (Romans 11:28). They get saved because they are the elect (Acts 13:48).



We didn't not belong to Him before we were saved.


The elect do belong to Jesus before they get saved; they come to Jesus and get saved only because they had previously been given to Jesus by the Father (John 6:37).



Why is it that man is without excuse when he is not thankful to God and does not glorify God?


Even the unelect are without excuse when they are not thankful to God and do not glorify God, because simply believing in the existence of God takes no miraculous gift of faith, but is arrived at simply by logic by seeing everything that exists (Romans 1:20). Belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior, on the other hand, does require a miraculous gift of faith from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9).



If it was God's will for them to be vessels of wrath then wouldn't that be their excuse for acting like vessels of wrath?


While God did create the unelect to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:21-22), this is no excuse for them acting like vessels of wrath, in the sense of committing sin, because God never forces the unelect, or anyone else, to commit sin (James 1:13-15). The unelect will be damned for their own sinful works (Romans 2:6-9), just as even the elect will be damned ultimately if they return to committing sin without repentance subsequent to their initial salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30).



This shows that the reason not everyone who is called is also chosen is that some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation.


Matthew 22:3 doesn't show that the reason not everyone who is called is also chosen (Matthew 22:14) is that some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation. It's the other way around: some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation because they are not chosen; only those who are chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) can become willing to accept the offer of salvation (Acts 13:48). Those not chosen cannot possibly become willing to accept it (John 8:42-47).



He wanted them all to repent rather than die in their wickedness and that is true not just for Israel at that time but for the whole world.


Ezekiel 33:10-11 is addressed only to the true, spiritual Israel (Romans 9:6-8), the elect (Romans 9:11), whom God has created to be vessels of his mercy (Romans 9:23), and to whom God mercifully gives the ability to repent (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). On the other hand, God has created the unelect to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:21-22); he hardens them in their sinfulness (Romans 9:18).





Bible2:
All people will be held accountable on judgment day (Romans 2:6-8) because neither election nor unelection takes away the will of people (James 1:13-15, Hebrews 10:26-29).

What does that mean?


The only way anyone could not be held accountable for a sin is if they could show that God forced them to do it. But God never forces anyone to commit sin (James 1:13-15).

Bible2
Feb 27th 2010, 12:18 PM
MaryFreeman:
Rom 9:6 Well then, has God failed to fulfill His promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God's people!

From a writer's perspective.... This is the verse that sets the subject of the verses that follow it....


Romans 9:6 does set up the subject of the verses that follow it, which subject is not the Jews only, as in the verses preceding it (Romans 9:1-5), but both Jews and Gentiles. For Romans 9:6-8 sets up the distinction between natural Israel, the natural seed of Abraham, which consists of Jews only, and spiritual Israel, the spiritual seed of Abraham, which consists of both some Jews and some Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Ephesians 2:12,19, Romans 11:17,24). The verses which follow Romans 9:6-8 show that both some Jews and some Gentiles are the elect (Romans 9:11) vessels of mercy (Romans 9:23-24), the clay vessels of honor fashioned by God the potter (Romans 9:21), and that both some Jews and some Gentiles are the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:17-22), the clay vessels of dishonor fashioned by God the potter (Romans 9:21).



I was wondering how this would fit in with anyone's thoughts on faith?
. . .
(Rom 10:14)


God has set things up so that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). But only the elect will believe when they hear the Word of God (Acts 13:48). The unelect cannot possibly hear the Word of God and believe (John 8:42-47).

Redeemed by Grace
Feb 27th 2010, 02:41 PM
RBG, Are you reading my words? I have said this over and again, I did "NOT" say that Reformed Theology claims that faith isn't necessary. What I said was this. When you take the "Doctrines of Grace" and carry them to their logical conclusion faith is not necessary for salvation. The "Doctrines of Grace" say that those unconditionally chosen by God absolutely without fail will come, there is no way possible that they could ever be lost. Therefore what gives one salvation is not faith but being uncondionally chosen.

Have I made that clear (stated in a soft tone)? If not please let me know. I did not say anything about what Reformed Theology teaches, I know it teaches the necessity of faith. However, what it teaches and what the logical conclusions are from it's doctrines are two different things.

Spoken softly back at ya... Your words are loud and clear.


Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost....

It’s right there Butch, “...they have no need of faith....” you stated it pretty clearly, spin it now as you may.

Faith is a gift from God, and is a discerner between true Christians and those who are not... Anyone born of God in salvation is given faith and good works to walk in, and no logical conclusion saying faith is not necessary to be saved, au contraire, mon ami. Faith, true faith, separates the wheat from the chaff and is the earmarks for the genuineness of one’s’ security in knowing one is truly saved.

2 Peter 1:5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 27th 2010, 02:51 PM
Faith is a gift from God, and is a discerner between true Christians and those who are not... Anyone born of God in salvation is given faith and good works to walk in, and no logical conclusion saying faith is not necessary to be saved, au contraire, mon ami. Faith, true faith, separates the wheat from the chaff and is the earmarks for the genuineness of one’s’ security in knowing one is truly saved.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh how so Very True! exellent point! I agree 100%

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 03:24 PM
RogerW---Butch,

This is what I said: "...since faith is the gift of God it is absolutely undeniable that faith will be produced in those who have been regenerated by GRACE!"

I know what you said, you said that faith will be produced in one who has been regenerated by Grace. My point is that you have it backwards according to Scripture. You are saying that faith is produced through grace, yet Paul says that in order to get Grace one must first have faith. Faith is the means of accessing grace. How can one receieve grace without the faith that Paul says is the means of obtaining grace?

I'm not sure what you mean by "coming to Christ"? But regeneration means to be born again (spiritual re-birth). Since Christ tells us we must come to Him for life, it is impossible to separate regeneration (re-birth) from coming to Christ.

I've highlighted and bolded the above section. My question is, does it? Does being "Born Again" mean regeneration? I have consutled several sources For the Greek words translated "Born and Agian" and the only mention I could find of regeneration was a figurative use given by the Strong's dictionary and a reference in Complete word study Bible. The reference in the Strong' dictionary says that this use is figurative, so that leaves us with one reference. The complete Word study dictionary does use it in reference to the new birth but my question is, do we form doctrine on a "single" entry, which could very well be an injected opinion? The overwhelming evidence does not suggest regenrateion as a definiton for born or agin but rather "Born from above". Actually the Greek word translated "regeneration" appears three times in the NT not twice as I had previously stated. Two instances are from Jesus and refer to the resurrrection and the other is from Paul and is referring to baptsim.

Born
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
G1080. γεννάω gennaō; contracted gennō, fut. gennēsō, from genos (G1085), generation, kind, offspring. To beget as spoken of men; to bear as spoken of women; pass., to be begotten or be born. (I) In the act. sense: (A) Spoken of men, to beget (Matt. 1:2-16; Acts 7:8, 29; Sept.: Gen. 5:3ff.). Metaphorically, to generate, to occasion, e.g., strifes (2 Tim. 2:23). (B) Spoken in the Jewish manner of the relation between a teacher and his disciples, to beget in a spiritual sense, to be the spiritual father of someone, that is, the instrument of his conversion to a new spiritual life (1 Cor. 4:15; Phile. 1:10). (C) Spoken of God begetting in a spiritual sense which consists in regenerating, sanctifying, quickening anew, and ennobling the powers of the natural man by imparting to him a new life and a new spirit in Christ (1 John 5:1). Hence, Christians are said to be born of God and to be the sons of God (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26; 4:6). Spoken of the relationship between God and the Messiah, called His Son. The designation of this relationship by words with a temporal notion has troubled theologians, who have proffered various explanations. Origen understood this as referring to the Son’s relationship within the Trinity and was the first to propose the concept of eternal generation. The Son is said to be eternally begotten by the Father. Others have viewed the language more figuratively and connected it with Christ’s role as Messiah. Upon Christ’s exaltation to the Father’s right hand, God is said to have appointed, declared or officially installed Christ as a king (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Sept.: Ps. 2:6-8 [cf. huios (G5207), son]). (D) Spoken of women, to bear, bring forth (Luke 1:13, 57; 23:29; John 16:21; figuratively Gal. 4:24; Sept.: Gen. 46:15; Ex. 6:20; Ezra 10:44).

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged
gennaō G1080 [to bear, beget] AND: gennēma G1081 gennētos G1084 artigennētos G738 [newborn] anagennaō G313 [to be born again] Details gennao . A. "Begetting" as an Image of the Relationship of Master and Disciple. In the LXX and NT, as well as Greek in general, gennao means "to beget" (father) or "to bear" (mother). Already in the OT teacher and disciple are depicted as father and son (2Kings 2:12). The rabbis adopt this usage to express the supremacy of the teacher and the respect of the pupil, but with no thought of actual begetting (cf. Mt 23:8ff.). Paul actually uses the term gennan for the relation in Ga 4:19, but since he begets through the word (1Co 4:15; cf. Php 10), he is obviously not thinking in mystical terms but simply expressing more forcefully the common rabbinic concept. [F. BUCHSEL] B. The Idea of New Birth by Conversion to the True Religion in Later Judaism. This idea is common in the rabbis. Bringing people to Judaism is like creating them, and proselytes are like newborn children. Winning converts fulfils the command to be fruitful and multiply. This is, of course, only a comparison. Proselytes come from mere existence to true life by conversion. They do so by coming into the holy people; the terms "new" and "holy" are parallel. Regeneration, then, has a forensic rather than a mystical character. Old relations are dissolved; a new relationship begins. Here is the context of Paul's statement in 2Co 5:17. As there is a strong connection between rabbinic and NT holiness, so rabbinic ideas of new birth influence the gennethenai of Christians (Ga 4:19; 1Co 4:15; Php 10). If there is a difference, it is not because of intrusion from the mysteries but because Christ replaces the law, his perfect sanctification subsumes our imperfect strivings, and relation to him supersedes the more forensic element. Living by the gospel (1Co 4:15) is a new being in grateful response to the divine action in Christ. [K. H. RENGSTORF] C. Generation by the Deity. 1. Generation from God in the OT and Judaism. God is rarely said to "beget" in the OT, but the instances are significant. He begets the king in Ps 2; 110; wisdom in Pr. 8:25. Generation of the king is perhaps a stereotyped formula for institution as heir, though rabbinic exegesis sees in it either affection or new creation out of troubles. What Proverbs says of wisdom is transferred to the law in Sir. 24:6. Philo calls creation a begetting but he does not think of the righteous, or of Israel, as begotten by God. 2. Generation or Adoption in the Mysteries. Sexual images are important in the mysteries but adoption rather then generation applies to initiates (in spite of attempts to prove the contrary) . 3. Ps 2:7 in the NT. This verse is much used in the NT. Its "today" is referred to the resurrection of Jesus in Ac 13:33. On one reading of Lk 3:22 it applies to his baptism. No point of time is given in Heb 1:5; 5:5. The birth stories do not quote it (though cf. Lk 1:35), but on the basis of the resurrection and impartation of the Spirit Jesus is for the church more than a superior human being. The new aeon comes with him. In him we see true generation from God. In faith in him believers are assured of the resurrection and have the pledge of the Spirit. Hence they also see themselves as born of God. 4. gennethenai in John. John always gives the point of origin of gennethenai : God in 1 Jn 2:29; Jn 1:13, the Spirit in Jn 3:5, water in Jn 3:5, the flesh in Jn 3:6, the will in Jn 1:13. The seed of 1Jn 3:9 is the Spirit rather than the word. Birth from God or the Spirit is a reality but also a mystery. Statements about it are not based on experience but are made in faith and are true in virtue of the believer's fellowship with God (1Jn 1:3, 6ff.; 3:9). This birth results in doing righteousness (1Jn 2:29), in not sinning (3:7ff.), in love (4:7), in overcoming the world (5:4), in faith in Jesus as the Christ (5:1). Birth from above belongs first to Jesus himself (5:18) and then to believers who, as members of the new aeon, have a share in the Spirit and are thus united to Christ, passing from death to life (3:14; 5:24). This concept of divine gennan has little in common with what may be found in the mysteries; the view of piety is totally different.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
G1080 γεννάω gennaō ghen-nah'-o From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); [B]figuratively to regenerate:—bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
γεννάω γεννάω, f. ήσω, (γέννα) Causal of γίγνομαι (cf. γείνομαι II), of the father, to beget, engender, Aeschylus, Sophocles; rarely of the mother, to bring forth, Aeschylus; οἱ γεννήσαντες the parents, Xenophon; τὸ γεννώμενον the child, Herodotus:—like φύω I. 2, as κἂν σῶμα γεννήσῃ μέγα even if he grow, get a large body, i.e. if he be of giant frame, Sophocles 2. metaphorically to produce, Plato. Hence the word γέννημα
Again

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
G509. ἄνωθεν anōthen; adv. from anō (G507), above, and the suffix –then denoting from. From above. (I) Of place: from above, from a higher place (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; John 19:23). Used in substitution of ouranothen (G3771), from heaven, or ek tou ouranou (ek (G1537), from; tou ouranou [G3772], the heaven), from the heaven, from God since God dwells in heaven. In John 3:3, 7, 31; 19:11; James 1:17, the meaning is from God, implied in the “from above.” The wisdom from above in James 3:17 is the heavenly or divine wisdom (cf. James 3:15; Sept.: Ex. 28:27; Job 3:4). (II) Of time: (A) From the first, from the beginning (Luke 1:3; Acts 26:5, knowing me from the first [anōthen], from the earliest age; Gal. 4:9, again, from the very beginning, as if you had never been a Christian). (B) Again, another time as in John 3:3, 7, “be born again.” This could also be translated “to be born from above.” Both meanings are correct since this is a birth from God and it is a new birth. In John 3:4, Nicodemus clearly takes it to mean to be born a second time (deuteron (G1208)). Syn.: dis (G1364), twice; palin (G3825), again; proteron (G4386), before, first; prōtos (G4413), first; prōton (G4412), firstly, of time; en archē (en (G1722), in; archē (G746), beginning) from the beginning; apʼ archēs (apo (G575), from, archēs [n.f.], beginning), from the beginning.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G509 ἄνωθεν anōthen Thayer Definition: 1) from above, from a higher place 1a) of things which come from heaven or God 2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first 3) anew, over again Part of Speech: adverb

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged
anō G507 [above] AND: anoteron [above] anōthen G509 [from above] Details 1. As an adverb of place ano means "above" (or "earlier") and is used of land, mountains, atmosphere, and heaven, heaven in the NT usually in either a material (Jn 11:41) or a religious sense (cf. ta ano in Jn 8:23; Php 3:14). The above–below distinction was important in the rabbis, with a measure of parallelism between what happens above and what happens below. 2. In Philo the distinction between God and the world is linked with the cosmological distinction between an upper and a lower world, God being at the head and matter at the foot (cf. Gnosticism). Judaism and the NT do not divide the cosmos in this way, since God is its Creator and Lord, and God is thus above and the whole world as his creation is below. Thus the ano klesis in Php 3:14 is God's call in Christ, the to ano of Col. 3:1-2 refers to where Christ is at God's right hand, and the Father, not "that world," is the opposite of "this world" in Jn 8:23; 13:1. Similarly, the Jerusalem that is above in Ga 4:26 is described in religious terms, with "the present Jerusalem," not that which is below, as its counterpart. The NT does offer descriptions of the world to come in Revelation, making use of the idea of a world above and a world below for this purpose, but its basic distinction is not between two worlds but between God as holy and eternal on the one side and the world as sinful and transitory on the other. anothen. Both outside and in the NT anothen is an adverb a. of place "from above" (Mt 27:51) and b. of time "from an earlier period" (Ac 26:5). Further senses are then c. "from the first" (Lk 1:3) and d. "anew" (Ga 4:9). In Jn 3:3, 7 the original usage inclines in favor of "from above," which alone links with Job 3:4 and Jms 1:17 to suggest "of God." John uses anothen elsewhere in sense a. (3:31; 19:11, 23) and always describes birth in terms of origin (1:13; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:18; Jn 3:5-6). Sense d. helps to make the obtuseness of Nicodemus a little more intelligible and is considered by Origen and Chrysostom, though they both lean heavily toward a. The versions vacillate between a. and d. The suggestion that both a. and d. are meant cannot be proved. [F. BUCHSEL]

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
G509 ἄνωθεν anōthen an'-o-then From G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew:—from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top.

Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
ἄνωθεν ἄνωθεν, -θε, (ἄνω) Adv. of Place, from above, from on high, Herodotus, Trag., etc.; ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου, i.e. rain, Thucydides: from the upper country, from inland, Id. 2. = ἄνω, above, on high, Trag.; οἱ ἄν. the living, opposed to οἱ κάτω, Aeschylus:—c. gen., Herodotus. II. of Time, from the beginning, Plato, Demosthenes:—by descent, Theocr.; τὰ ἄν. first principles, Plato. 2. over again, anew, N.T.


Notice, however, that the Greek word translated "Again" carries the idea of from the begining. Every definition has ths idea in it. The idea carries a point of begining, where as regeneration carries the idea of being created again, not starting from the begining.


RogerW---Would you agree that we are saved (delivered; protected; preserved) when we are regenerated (born again) by grace through faith; and that not of ourselves: the gift of God? Would you also agree that after having been delivered through re-birth we are justified (declared righteous) by grace accessed through faith (reliance upon Christ)?

You're throwing a lot of terms around here. You have accepted that regeneration and born again are synonomous, I haven't.

Roger, Let me suggest an idea to consider. The words “Born again” only appear three times in the New Testament Scriptures in that form and once in a slightly different form, Here they are .

John 3:3 ( KJV )
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, [B]Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


John 3:7 ( KJV )
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Peter 1:23 ( KJV )
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

And in the other form.

1 Peter 1:3 ( KJV )
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

To my knowledge, these are the only occurrences of this phrase in the NT. What do all of these verse have in common?

They were spoken to Jews. I have not found a single instance where the term “Born Again” is used in reference to the Gentiles, not one. If you know of any please point them out. So why would this term only be used of the Jews?

[DISCLAIMER: I am “NOT,” repeat “NOT,” repeat “NOT” saying that "ONLY" the Jews are born from above. “ALL” believers must be born of water and the Spirit.]

Why would this term only be used of the Jews? Consider this.

Exodus 4:22-23 ( KJV )
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

The nation of Israel had already been born of God. Not in the sense of being saved as in the NT, but in the sense that God had created them through the promises that He made to Abraham. Having said that look at the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus from this stand point. Nicodemus is a Jew, he believes the promises to Abraham are his because of his birth from Abraham. However, Christ tells him, No Nicodemus, you must be “Born Again.” Unless you are born from above you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Your physical birth through Abraham is not enough you must be born of water and the Spirit.


RogerW---Regarding Ro 5:1-2 do you believe it is possible to be justified (declared righteous) without having been regenerated (born again) by grace? I ask because Paul is speaking to those who have been justified (declared righteous). Having been justified we have peace with God through Christ, by Whom we now have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.

In relation to having peace with God no.


RogerW---You see we are saved, regenerated, justified and glorified by grace through faith we received as a gift of God, now we rejoice in hope the glory of God, and we glory in tribulation also...knowing this is only possible because we have access by faith into this grace we stand firm in.

Here you said grace through faith, yet before you said faith comes through grace, we need to figure out which is which.

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 03:39 PM
Originally Posted by Butch5: Post 35
Roger, Your sidestepping your theology. Reformation thinking states that the elect chosen by God before the foundation of the world will come and cannot be lost. Therefore there is not need to preach the Gospel to them, they have no need of faith because they cannot be lost....



It’s right there Butch, “...they have no need of faith....” you stated it pretty clearly, spin it now as you may.

Spin it as I may???? Thank you for finding the statement. Now please show me "ANYWHERE" in that statement where I said "Reformation Theology Teaches". I didn't What i did was draw a conclusion from what Reformation theology does teach, and it does "TEACH," that is that the elect chosen before he foundation of the world cannot be lost. From that teaching I drew a conclusion. If they cannot be lost no matter what, then faith is not necessary. I "DID NOT" say that RT teaches this, I simply drew a conclusion based on what IT does teach.

That is the reason I asked if you were reading what I said. I don't think you were reading very carefully. "NOWHERE" have I said, Reformation Theology teaches that faith isn't necessary. As I said above that is a conclusion drawn from what RT does teach.




RBG---Faith is a gift from God, and is a discerner between true Christians and those who are not... Anyone born of God in salvation is given faith and good works to walk in, and no logical conclusion saying faith is not necessary to be saved, au contraire, mon ami. Faith, true faith, separates the wheat from the chaff and is the earmarks for the genuineness of one’s’ security in knowing one is truly saved.

2 Peter 1:5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

I realize this is what the Scriptures teach, and this may be what RT teaches, however, it doesn't Jive with the doctrines that they espouse.

Butch5
Feb 27th 2010, 03:42 PM
How has it been proven that applying Romans 9:21 to both Jews and Gentiles is reading Romans 9:21 out of context? Romans 9:24 is part of the context, as is Romans 9:17-18.



Romans 9 is speaking of electing individuals (Romans 9:11), both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24).



Before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13). That's why the "us" in Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles.



Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4).



It's both, for the elect are miraculously given the gift of faith (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5) solely by God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), and it is by their subsequently continuing in the faith (Colossians 1:23) that they have access to God's continuing grace (Romans 5:2).


I gave you the evidence and you are doing the same thing you did in the tongues thread. Just saying no it means this. If you are going to just ignore the evidence there is no point in my posting it.

BroRog
Feb 27th 2010, 06:40 PM
I know what you said, you said that faith will be produced in one who has been regenerated by Grace. My point is that you have it backwards according to Scripture. You are saying that faith is produced through grace, yet Paul says that in order to get Grace one must first have faith. Faith is the means of accessing grace. How can one receieve grace without the faith that Paul says is the means of obtaining grace?What is your assessment of the following verse from Isaiah, which gets repeated in Matthew, by Jesus and in Acts by Paul?

10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."

It seems to me that a prerequisite to faith is "sight" in the spiritual sense. According to God through Isaiah, and Jesus and Paul agree, the prerequisite for "understanding with the heart" is a prior capacity of "eyes to see and ears to hear." The reformers recognized that all human beings are initially "blind" and "deaf" and that God needed to first open the eyes and ears in order to understand and return to be healed. The previent grace of God is to first heal the blind and the deaf so that they might understand with the heart.

MaryFreeman
Feb 27th 2010, 07:24 PM
No. You didn't back up enough. Verse 5 along with v6 sets the context.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The promised seed is Christ -Gal 3:16. He didn't say seeds, He said seed. The children OF the promise believe and therefore are in Christ -The seed. COUNTED for the seed.

The context is that the purpose of God was that Christ would come in the flesh through Israel. In order to make this happen God used heathen kings, i.e. Pharaoh (v17) and Cyrus (v20). Gentiles.

Rom 9:17 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.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay 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?

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
...........
.....
Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Cyrus conquered Babylon and let Israel return to their land to build a house to the Lord.

Ezr 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
Because of this, remaining prophecies concerning Messiah could be fulfilled. First and foremost would be His coming in the flesh, of course. He came to be the light to the Gentiles. Israel first.

Continuing to explain the potter over the clay he states vessels of wrath and mercy are both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
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,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
There is no difference.

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

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 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Just look up every instance of potter in scripture. Sometimes it's Israel, sometimes it's the heathen. Here in the NT it's also both. Which only makes sense since God is just and righteous. God is consistent. There's no way to conclude clay is Israel only.

Thank you!

I would reiterate what I said before though....

It is no sin to consider ones self clay....

Or dirt....

Or sand....

Gravel....

As long as one submits ones self to the Potter....

You can consider yourself primordial ooze....

MaryFreeman
Feb 27th 2010, 07:28 PM
What is your assessment of the following verse from Isaiah, which gets repeated in Matthew, by Jesus and in Acts by Paul?

10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."

It seems to me that a prerequisite to faith is "sight" in the spiritual sense. According to God through Isaiah, and Jesus and Paul agree, the prerequisite for "understanding with the heart" is a prior capacity of "eyes to see and ears to hear." The reformers recognized that all human beings are initially "blind" and "deaf" and that God needed to first open the eyes and ears in order to understand and return to be healed. The previent grace of God is to first heal the blind and the deaf so that they might understand with the heart.

Not trying to interject sir.... But I thought I would share what the passage you provided means to me....

A Gentile....

IF Israel was able to hear and see.... If she was able to return and be healed....

I couldn't have come to my Lord....

Because the good news would have reached those it was originally intended for....

Yet I determine in my heart to pray daily that her ears will be opened.... That her eyesight will be restored....

And that she will return and be healed....

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 12:32 AM
What is your assessment of the following verse from Isaiah, which gets repeated in Matthew, by Jesus and in Acts by Paul?

10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."

It seems to me that a prerequisite to faith is "sight" in the spiritual sense. According to God through Isaiah, and Jesus and Paul agree, the prerequisite for "understanding with the heart" is a prior capacity of "eyes to see and ears to hear." The reformers recognized that all human beings are initially "blind" and "deaf" and that God needed to first open the eyes and ears in order to understand and return to be healed. The previent grace of God is to first heal the blind and the deaf so that they might understand with the heart.

The passage in Isaiah, that Jesus and Paul quote speaks of Israel and both Jesus and Paul apply it to Israel. So, what bearing would that have on Chrsitians today?

Sirus
Feb 28th 2010, 02:43 AM
Yes, in fact it was fulfilled prophecy, if I remember right.

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 02:59 AM
What is your assessment of the following verse from Isaiah, which gets repeated in Matthew, by Jesus and in Acts by Paul?

10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."

It seems to me that a prerequisite to faith is "sight" in the spiritual sense. According to God through Isaiah, and Jesus and Paul agree, the prerequisite for "understanding with the heart" is a prior capacity of "eyes to see and ears to hear." The reformers recognized that all human beings are initially "blind" and "deaf" and that God needed to first open the eyes and ears in order to understand and return to be healed. The previent grace of God is to first heal the blind and the deaf so that they might understand with the heart.

Another thing to mention about this passage is that God said make their eyes and ears dull, so apparently these dead in sin Israelites were able to see and hear, other wise there would be no reason to dull the eyes and ears.

Sirus
Feb 28th 2010, 04:16 AM
Yes, that's why He spoke in parables. So that would not see and hear.

Bible2
Feb 28th 2010, 09:11 AM
Butch5:
You are saying that faith is produced through grace, yet Paul says that in order to get Grace one must first have faith.


Paul says both: people are given faith solely by God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Acts 13:48), and it is by believers subsequently continuing in the faith (Colossians 1:23) that they continue to have access to and stand in God's grace (Romans 5:2).



How can one receieve grace without the faith


The grace people without the faith receive by which they are given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5) is the grace of election (Ephesians 1:4-12, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:11-24).



I gave you the evidence and you are doing the same thing you did in the tongues thread. Just saying no it means this.


When was "No, it means this" said without scriptural references to support the stated meaning? And what stated meaning has been proven wrong?



If you are going to just ignore the evidence there is no point in my posting it.


What evidence has been ignored in either thread?

MaryFreeman
Feb 28th 2010, 05:34 PM
stop! Stop stop stop stop stop! Stop fighting! You are brothers! If we cannot come together peacefully and answer the original 8 questions i will ask that this thread be locked!

BroRog
Feb 28th 2010, 05:35 PM
Another thing to mention about this passage is that God said make their eyes and ears dull, so apparently these dead in sin Israelites were able to see and hear, other wise there would be no reason to dull the eyes and ears.I don't believe God meant it that way. To "make" in this instance is to "identify" rather than "cause."

MaryFreeman
Feb 28th 2010, 05:52 PM
Folks let me say this:

It does NO GOOD for any of us FAMILY MEMBERS to argue with each other.... To try to force each other to see that we are "wrong".... To sling accusations of "not looking at it right".... Blah blah blah blah.....

The ONLY thing I asked is for ONE hardy soul who DOES believe in predestination but NOT free will to try their best to answer the original 8 questions.... I did state that others could post too....

BUT I ALSO ASKED THAT WE MAKE THIS A PEACEFUL THREAD WHERE WE COULD COME TOGETHER AND REASON WITH EACH OTHER....

Irregardless of whether or not ANY OF US change our minds on the subject....

And it bothers me greatly that A) My wish for a peaceful thread have been disregarded.... And B) This thread has been severely derailed....

Come together.... Share your thoughts.... If you do NOT believe in free will.... Try your best to answer the 8 questions based on what you believe.... And post the Scripture that lead you to believe it....

If you DO believe in free will.... Share your thoughts regarding the Scripture posted....

DO NOT tell another person REGARDLESS of what they believe that they are wrong....

ALL MINDS BELONG TO GOD ALONE....

If anyone here DOES NOT fit that bill....

It is not that person's right to even attempt to change another persons mind....

God does NOT need.... Want.... Or have to have our help....

HE IS GOD ALMIGHTY and He can do that all by Himself....

I hope you all understand why I am so upset and please try to honor my requests....

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 06:46 PM
Folks let me say this:

It does NO GOOD for any of us FAMILY MEMBERS to argue with each other.... To try to force each other to see that we are "wrong".... To sling accusations of "not looking at it right".... Blah blah blah blah.....

The ONLY thing I asked is for ONE hardy soul who DOES believe in predestination but NOT free will to try their best to answer the original 8 questions.... I did state that others could post too....

BUT I ALSO ASKED THAT WE MAKE THIS A PEACEFUL THREAD WHERE WE COULD COME TOGETHER AND REASON WITH EACH OTHER....

Irregardless of whether or not ANY OF US change our minds on the subject....

And it bothers me greatly that A) My wish for a peaceful thread have been disregarded.... And B) This thread has been severely derailed....

Come together.... Share your thoughts.... If you do NOT believe in free will.... Try your best to answer the 8 questions based on what you believe.... And post the Scripture that lead you to believe it....

If you DO believe in free will.... Share your thoughts regarding the Scripture posted....

DO NOT tell another person REGARDLESS of what they believe that they are wrong....

ALL MINDS BELONG TO GOD ALONE....

If anyone here DOES NOT fit that bill....

It is not that person's right to even attempt to change another persons mind....

God does NOT need.... Want.... Or have to have our help....

HE IS GOD ALMIGHTY and He can do that all by Himself....

I hope you all understand why I am so upset and please try to honor my requests....

Mary,

Who is arguing and not being peaceful?

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 07:11 PM
Paul says both: people are given faith solely by God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Acts 13:48), and it is by believers subsequently continuing in the faith (Colossians 1:23) that they continue to have access to and stand in God's grace (Romans 5:2).



The grace people without the faith receive by which they are given faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5) is the grace of election (Ephesians 1:4-12, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:11-24).



When was "No, it means this" said without scriptural references to support the stated meaning? And what stated meaning has been proven wrong?



What evidence has been ignored in either thread?

I made a statement to The Beloved Disciple to which you replied Paul was referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans9:6-24. You gave no support for your claim. To simply post a verse reference without any explanation does nothing to support you statement, simply because that passage could easily be understood out of context as you have done above about the “spiritual seed of Abraham.” If you want to use Scripture to support your statement then you must show how that Scripture supports what you have stated.

I gave you this evidence,


Butch5---Romans 9 is not Speaking of electing individuals it is speaking of the election of Israel. If one reads the entire book of Romans one will find that in Romans 2 Paul begins to address the Jews.

Romans 2:17 ( KJV )
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

He continues this train of thought through 11:13.

Romans 11:13 ( KJV )
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

And While speaking to the Gentile branch of the Church in Rome Paul says,

Romans 11:25-29 ( KJV )
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
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:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Paul clearly says, as touching the election, the election he has been speaking of since Romans 9 and he makes it clear that he is speaking of Israel.


Nowhere in your above respond did you attempt to show where Paul changes his focus. Instead you simply said, before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jew and Gentile. I went and posted the passages that I was speaking of I showed where Paul begins addressing the Jewish branch of the Church at Rome and I showed where he turns his attention from the Jewish branch to the Gentile branch. You simply said, before and after Romans 9 Paul addresses both Jew and Gentile. It is like I never posted the evidence.
You made the statement that Romans 9 is speaking of individual election and used that very passage for support. You can’t used the passage in question to prove your interpretation of the passage in question. I Gave the passage of Scripture where Paul speaking of the Israelites says “as touching the election they are beloved for the Father’s sake”. Yet you say Paul is speaking of election of both Jew and Gentile. So basically you just ignored the evidence. You made no attempt to say yes Paul is speaking of the Israelites there but here is where he turned his attention to the Gentiles. All you said was, Paul is speaking of both Jew and Gentile.

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 07:51 PM
I don't believe God meant it that way. To "make" in this instance is to "identify" rather than "cause."

I believe the passage is rather clear.

Septuagint,

10 For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I
should heal them.

Septuagint,

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/6.html

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged
pachynō G3975 [to make fat, insensitive]

AND:

pōroō G4456 [to harden],

(peroo [todisable]),

pōrōsis G4457 [insensibility],

(perosis [hardness]),

sklēros G4642 [hard],

sklērotēs G4643 [hardness],

sklērotrachēlos G4644 [stiff-necked],

sklērynō G4645 [to harden]

Details

This group from different stems signifies the "hardening" of unbelievers, of Israel's enemies, of Israel, of Jews against Christians, and finally of Christians. The term "to harden" may have a literal sense but is most commonly used in Scripture in a transferred sense. Luther's practice of bringing the various terms under a common equivalent, which is not followed by other translations, is justified to the extent that the material reference is the same. The LXX tends at times to soften the Hebrew by throwing greater emphasis on human responsibility, but this sharpens the measure of human guilt and misery. Interconnected in the whole complex are the thoughts of hardening and judgment by God on the one side and self-hardening and self-judgment on the other. The hardening is always specific within the history of the elect people, which may also be a history of rejection but is always a history of the divine faithfulness. If the fear of saying either too much or too little produces a kaleidoscope of harsher and softer colors, the basic color is the beautiful one of the divine glory.

pachyno .

1. Deriving from pachys ("thick"), this word means "to thicken" (medically "to swell").

2. Figuratively it means "to make impervious," "insensitive," as in Mt 13:15 and Ac 28:27 (both quoting Isa 6:10).

3. In Isa 6:10 the prophet is told to make the people's heart "fat," but the LXX softens this by simply describing the "fattening" or "hardening" as a fact.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament
G3975. παχύνω pachunō; fut. pachunō, from pachus (n.f.), thick, gross. To make fat. In the NT, metaphorically and only in the pass. meaning to become gross, dull, callous as if from fat (Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27 quoted from Isa. 6:10 [cf. Deut. 32:15]).

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G3975 παχύνω pachunō Thayer Definition: 1) to make thick, to make fat, fatten 2) metaphorically to make stupid (to render the soul dull or callous)

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
G3975 παχύνω pachunō pakh-oo'-no From a derivative of G4078 (meaning thick); to thicken, that is, (by implication) to fatten (figuratively stupefy or render callous):—wax gross.

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon
παχύνω παχύνω, f. υνῶ: pf. pass. πεπάχυσμαι: (παχύς):—to thicken, fatten, Plato, Xenophon:—Pass. to grow fat, Aristophanes: to become thick, of the skull, Herodotus. 2. metaphorically to increase:—Pass., ὄλβος ἄγαν παχυνθείς Aeschylus. 3. metaphorically also to make gross or stupid:—Pass., N.T.

I don't see anything in the definition anywhere that would indicate the idea of "identity." Also notice that The Complete Word Study Dictionary and the Intermediate Lexicon both indicate a passive usage. If the word meant to identify then it would need to be in the active voice as the one doing the identifying is active.

However we see it it still is only applied to Israel.

BroRog
Feb 28th 2010, 08:13 PM
I believe the passage is rather clear.If you think the passage is clear, then why the full page of lexical references? :)
However we see it it still is only applied to Israel.You missed the point entirely. Isaiah says that in order for Israel to find healing, they must have the prerequisite heart condition. This helps us establish the order of salvation. Before someone will turn to God in search of healing, he must first have the heart condition that is not dull, callous, fat, or whatever word you want to use. :)

Butch5
Feb 28th 2010, 08:28 PM
If you think the passage is clear, then why the full page of lexical references? :)


To show the meaning of the word. I could have said no, it means this. What would that have shown?

You missed the point entirely. Isaiah says that in order for Israel to find healing, they must have the prerequisite heart condition. This helps us establish the order of salvation. Before someone will turn to God in search of healing, he must first have the heart condition that is not dull, callous, fat, or whatever word you want to use. :)

No, I didn't miss the point entirely, Isaiah was not giving the order of salvation. He was telling of the "purposeful" blinding of this people. We already see the heart of this people,


Isaiah 6:10 ( KJV )
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

If they weren't blinded they would have been healed. That is why Jesus spoke in parables, so they wouldn't understand.

BroRog
Feb 28th 2010, 10:47 PM
If they weren't blinded they would have been healed.Precisely. But the term "blindness" is simply a metaphor for their heart condition, which is unwilling to turn to the Lord for healing. In Acts, Paul quotes this passage in reference to the fact that his Jewish kinsmen were unwilling to affirm the truth of the gospel, and the reason why he decides to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Again, a certain prior condition of the heart is a necessary prerequisite to belief. No one with a hard heart is going to respond to the Gospel in faith.

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 02:39 AM
Precisely. But the term "blindness" is simply a metaphor for their heart condition, which is unwilling to turn to the Lord for healing. In Acts, Paul quotes this passage in reference to the fact that his Jewish kinsmen were unwilling to affirm the truth of the gospel, and the reason why he decides to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Again, a certain prior condition of the heart is a necessary prerequisite to belief. No one with a hard heart is going to respond to the Gospel in faith.

While that may be true, it's clear that the blinding was purposeful. Paul makes that point clear in Romans 11. Again, if their hearts were wrong to begin with what need is there to blind them? What need is there for Christ to teach in parables?

Bible2
Mar 1st 2010, 09:24 AM
MaryFreeman:
Stop fighting! You are brothers! If we cannot come together peacefully and answer the original 8 questions i will ask that this thread be locked!


Please don't see our rigorous discussion of the scriptures as fighting, or as inapplicable to the original 8 questions. Please see what we are doing as peacefully (although rigorously) comparing each other's interpretations of the scriptures related to predestination/election, to see whether or not predestination/election refers to something God does apart from human free will, and to see if predestination/election applies only to Jews, or to both Jews and Gentiles.

We have no hatred or ill will toward each other, but remain brothers who are simply reasoning with each other out of the desire to arrive at the truth regarding what the scriptures themselves teach, to see if our interpretations of the scriptures can bear up to rigorous scrutiny or not. This should be the desire of all believers: to know for certain that they are interpreting the scriptures correctly, and not simply out of old habit or personal preference.

Only God can change any believer's mind regarding how to interpret a scripture. But one way he can do this is through forums such as this one, in which believers are allowed to rigorously compare their interpretations to see which one best fits the whole of scripture, and not just one or two verses here or there which can be interpreted in different ways.

Bible2
Mar 1st 2010, 09:25 AM
Butch5:
I made a statement to The Beloved Disciple to which you replied Paul was referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans9:6-24. You gave no support for your claim.


The reply that Paul is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24 was scripturally supported by the rest of the reply: "he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22)" (post #59 in this thread).



To simply post a verse reference without any explanation does nothing to support you statement, simply because that passage could easily be understood out of context as you have done above about the “spiritual seed of Abraham.” If you want to use Scripture to support your statement then you must show how that Scripture supports what you have stated.


How has it been proven from the scriptures themselves that Romans 9:6-24 has been understood out of context, or that the referenced scriptures in the reply above do not support the statements? Romans 9:6-8 makes the distinction between merely-physical Israel, the merely-physical seed of Abraham, and the true Israel, the seed of promise of Abraham, which must be spiritual instead of physical because Galatians 3:29 shows that every Christian is the seed of Abraham, including Gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29), who are not physically descended from Abraham. Besides Galatians 3:29 supporting this, the other references of Romans 11:17,24 and Ephesians 2:12,19 further support this by showing that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. The reply above then returned to Romans 9 to point out that in Romans 9:23-24 it says that the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17-22 shows that the unelect vessels of wrath include both Jews and Gentiles.



Nowhere in your above respond did you attempt to show where Paul changes his focus. Instead you simply said, before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jew and Gentile. I went and posted the passages that I was speaking of I showed where Paul begins addressing the Jewish branch of the Church at Rome and I showed where he turns his attention from the Jewish branch to the Gentile branch. You simply said, before and after Romans 9 Paul addresses both Jew and Gentile. It is like I never posted the evidence.


The evidence was replied to insofar as after saying "Before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13)", the rest of the reply said: "That's why the 'us' in Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles"; "Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4)" (post #81 in this thread).

Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews. For some examples, Romans 2:29 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Colossians 2:11, Philippians 3:3), and the "all" in Romans 3:22-30 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the whole point of Romans 4:9-8:38 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the whole point of Romans 8:29-9:33 is that predestination (Romans 8:29-30) and election (Romans 8:33, Romans 9:11) applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and the whole point of Romans 10:9-21 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles.



You made the statement that Romans 9 is speaking of individual election and used that very passage for support. You can’t used the passage in question to prove your interpretation of the passage in question.


The best way to prove one's interpretation of a passage in question is to first refer to what the passage itself shows: Romans 9:11 shows that when two individual babies are in one womb, one baby can have been elected while the other baby can have not been elected. And Romans 9:24 shows that elect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17 shows that unelect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles. And other passages support that elect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles, for nothing in Romans 8:33-39, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12, or Mark 13:20,27 (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1) says or requires that those passages are referring only to Jews.



I Gave the passage of Scripture where Paul speaking of the Israelites says “as touching the election they are beloved for the Father’s sake”. Yet you say Paul is speaking of election of both Jew and Gentile. So basically you just ignored the evidence. You made no attempt to say yes Paul is speaking of the Israelites there but here is where he turned his attention to the Gentiles. All you said was, Paul is speaking of both Jew and Gentile.


The claim regarding Romans 11:28 wasn't ignored, but was replied to, and in the reply it wasn't said that Paul was speaking of both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 11:28, but that "Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4)" (post #81 in this thread).

So Romans 11:28 in no way means that only Jews are elect; it is simply pointing out that even unbelieving elect Jews are beloved by God. Nowhere does Paul ever say that only Jews are elect.

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 01:58 PM
Bible2--- The reply that Paul is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24 was scripturally supported by the rest of the reply: "he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22)" (post #59 in this thread).

Again, you’ve done the same thing. Just posting a verse does not prove your point. You could understand that verse incorrectly. Therefore it is necessary for you to explain how you understand that verse and how it is applicable to your point.


Bible2--- How has it been proven from the scriptures themselves that Romans 9:6-24 has been understood out of context, or that the referenced scriptures in the reply above do not support the statements? Romans 9:6-8 makes the distinction between merely-physical Israel, the merely-physical seed of Abraham, and the true Israel, the seed of promise of Abraham, which must be spiritual instead of physical because Galatians 3:29 shows that every Christian is the seed of Abraham, including Gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29), who are not physically descended from Abraham. Besides Galatians 3:29 supporting this, the other references of Romans 11:17,24 and Ephesians 2:12,19 further support this by showing that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. The reply above then returned to Romans 9 to point out that in Romans 9:23-24 it says that the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17-22 shows that the unelect vessels of wrath include both Jews and Gentiles.

Again, you continue to repeat the same statement over and over.


Bible2--- How has it been proven from the scriptures themselves that Romans 9:6-24 has been understood out of context, or that the referenced scriptures in the reply above do not support the statements?

I have explained this twice and you pose the question again? How can it be that you are addressing the evidence when you continue to ask the same question?


Bible2---Romans 9:6-8 makes the distinction between merely-physical Israel, the merely-physical seed of Abraham, and the true Israel, the seed of promise of Abraham, which must be spiritual instead of physical because Galatians 3:29 shows that every Christian is the seed of Abraham, including Gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29), who are not physically descended from Abraham. Besides Galatians 3:29 supporting this, the other references of Romans 11:17,24 and Ephesians 2:12,19 further support this by showing that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.

The bolded part is where you have made your error. Paul tells us exactly who the seed of promise is.

Romans 9:8-13 ( KJV )
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (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; )
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Paul clearly tells us what the promise was and who the seed were. The promise that made to Abraham, God having promised him a son.



Bible2--- The evidence was replied to insofar as after saying "Before and after Romans 9, Paul addresses both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13)", the rest of the reply said: "That's why the 'us' in Romans 9:24 includes both Jews and Gentiles"; "Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4)" (post #81 in this thread).

As I said, you have not shown where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles and here again you have made no attempt to show where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles. You simply repeated you post again.

So again, Paul begins to address the Jewish Christians at Rome in 2:17,

Romans 2:17 ( KJV )
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Please show me where Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles prior to 11:13.

Romans 11:13 ( KJV )
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


Bible2---Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews. For some examples, Romans 2:29 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Colossians 2:11, Philippians 3:3), and the "all" in Romans 3:22-30 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the whole point of Romans 4:9-8:38 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the whole point of Romans 8:29-9:33 is that predestination (Romans 8:29-30) and election (Romans 8:33, Romans 9:11) applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and the whole point of Romans 10:9-21 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles.

Here is the error.


Bible2---Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews.

You have confused application with addressing. I said Paul was addressing the Jewish Christians at Rome. I did not say his words only apply to the Jewish Christians at Rome. There is huge difference.
If I said to you, we are Christians and God loves us, we have salvation, and protection from Him. I have just made that statement to you, I was speaking “TO” (addressing) you. You and I were the context of that statement. Now, the truths in that statement are applicable to all Christians. That however does not mean I was talking about all Christens, I wasn’t I was talking to (Addressing) you. So Just because Paul’s statements are applicable to all Christians does necessitate that he is addressing all Christians. He clearly says, “Thou art called a Jew.” If Paul made this same statement to Peter, we are Christians and God loves us, we have salvation, and protection from Him. He is speaking to (addressing) Peter, even though what he said is true of all Christians, Paul is not talking about all Christians he is talking about him and Peter.


Bible2--- The best way to prove one's interpretation of a passage in question is to first refer to what the passage itself shows:[QUOTE]

You cannot use your premise to prove your premise. I doesn’t work that way.

[QUOTE]Bible2--- Romans 9:11 shows that when two individual babies are in one womb, one baby can have been elected while the other baby can have not been elected. And Romans 9:24 shows that elect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17 shows that unelect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles. And other passages support that elect individuals include both Jews and Gentiles, for nothing in Romans 8:33-39, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12, or Mark 13:20,27 (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1) says or requires that those passages are referring only to Jews.

If you look at “the word of promise” that Paul bases his statement on then you would see that his is not the individual babies but the nations represented by them.


Bible2---The claim regarding Romans 11:28 wasn't ignored, but was replied to, and in the reply it wasn't said that Paul was speaking of both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 11:28, but that "Romans 9:24 makes clear that the elect (Romans 9:11) includes both Jews and Gentiles, just as in his other letters Paul in no way excludes all Gentiles from the elect (1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12), also called the chosen (Ephesians 1:4)" (post #81 in this thread).

So Romans 11:28 in no way means that only Jews are elect; it is simply pointing out that even unbelieving elect Jews are beloved by God. Nowhere does Paul ever say that only Jews are elect.

You miss that point. Paul says, ‘as concerning the election they are beloved for the Father’s sake.’ The point is that the election that he has been discussing through these chapters is the election of Israel.

BroRog
Mar 1st 2010, 03:22 PM
While that may be true, it's clear that the blinding was purposeful. Paul makes that point clear in Romans 11. Again, if their hearts were wrong to begin with what need is there to blind them? What need is there for Christ to teach in parables?Okay then. If they are blind and hard hearted, then they do not have a free will choice to believe do they? If God wants to save them he has to soften their hearts and give them sight doesn't he?

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 04:37 PM
Okay then. If they are blind and hard hearted, then they do not have a free will choice to believe do they? If God wants to save them he has to soften their hearts and give them sight doesn't he?

Yes, but let's not take this out of context. It was a spoken of a specific people about a specific time.

BroRog
Mar 1st 2010, 08:46 PM
Yes, but let's not take this out of context. It was a spoken of a specific people about a specific time.It's a case that proves the rule.

newinchrist4now
Mar 1st 2010, 10:02 PM
Let me see how much I remember :)


Question 1:

Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?

No, foreknowledge means what it implies. God knows everything that is going to happen and uses it in His Sovereign plan




Question 2:

If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....
How do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?

God does not send anyone to Hell, that is a myth that gets to much mileage. How do we know we are not damned? Because we are saved we have a heart that desires to serve God, those that aren't are still part of the condemned


Question 3:

Does God really force people to sin?

No, Sinners are stuck in their sin and have nothing else that they desire. When God calls us then we are made free in Christ


Question 4:

What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?

It's called the Elect, which is a Biblical term. The prerequisite? To be born. The criteria? Known only to God, He chooses by His own terms who gets into His home. It's assumed that God must allow any in who wants in but that is not Biblical because as Scripture says no one seeks God. God calls us, we respond by that response we will go into His House or not.


Question 5:

If God predestines people....

Why is it that all of us are born in sin?

Predestination has nothing to do with how we are born. We are born in sin because of Adam and those so chosen by God are born again in righteousness because of Christ


Question 6:

If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....

Why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?
Notice it's not, we are instructed to Spread the Gospel and God does the rest.


Question 7:

Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?

With due respect this is a nonsensical question. No one who serves God s going to Hell, by the very definition of serving God they are saved. No one seeks God by themseleves


Question 8:

If some were predestined for Glory.... And some for eternal damnation.... Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish? Does not the word predestinate express a wish that some go on to glory and some do not?

That does not mean all will be saved, if God wanted everyone saved than that would be universalism and would not be Biblical. It says God is not willing any should perish, correct? That's is not the same as none shall parish, wanting something does not mean it will happen.

I am willing that none should use Windows, but that doesn't mean they won't. Dr. MacArthur has a good pamphlet on this:


Question

In the passage 2 Peter 3, “God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance.” The problem that I have is that Ephesians 1:4 talks about the fact that we are chosen before the foundation of the world; Matthew 7:12-14 also talks about the fact that many will enter that place and a few ones will be with Jesus. The question is that was brought to me was, “What kind of a God is a God that chooses people before the foundation of the world, and at the same time wishes that no should perish and only brings a few with Him?” It is confusing.

Answer

Right, that’s a good question. It’s very confusing. That to see God no matter how you want to define Him it’s confusing. Do you understand that? Because we have this little tiny brain and God is so much more vast.

Now the best way that I can explain this, and it isn’t very good but it is the best that I can explain. You’ve got to understand the character of God. You’re in the same boat that Habakkuk was in. In Habakkuk's prophesy, he cries out to God, he says, “Oh God, oh God bring a revival, God bring a renewal, God bring a revival, revive Your people, save Your people” and all this stuff and God says, “I’m going to come to My people, only I’m not going to save them I’m going to wipe them out”. And his reaction is, "What kind of a God does that? This is the people of Your covenant," and then He says, "Not only that I’m going to use the Caldeans," who were worst than the people. So now he’s not only wondering why God doesn’t bring a revival; two, why is God going to punish people of His love; and three, why is He going to use a worse people to be the executioner. And there is no answer.

So finally he just steps back off the quicksand of his dilemma on to the rock of the confidence of God’s character and he says, “God thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon iniquity.” In other words God you are too Holy to make mistakes; you have to react against sin. Then he calls Him the covenant keeping God, he calls Him the mighty God, in other words you’re bigger than history, you’re bigger than any other event, You never break your promises and he goes through this huge recitation of the nature of God and the sum of it is: “The just shall live by what?” "Faith," there’s no answer to that except to trust God. You just trust God, that God is a God of love, and God is a God of justice, and God is a God of grace, and God is a God of kindness and mercy, and God is not willing that any should perish. The Old Testament says, God said, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” God didn’t even create Hell for men; Hell was created for the Devil and his angels.

Now the question comes down then to this same old question of predestination and human choice. Don’t call it "freewill" because man doesn’t have freewill, freewill is bound by sin. And you can only understand that if you understand this, and I’ll put it as simply as I can. It is a paradox and it is irreconcilable--it is not reconcilable. For example, and I use this illustration: Who wrote Romans? Who wrote Romans? Paul? It’s a human book written by Paul, his opinions on things, right? Who wrote Romans? God? And they alternate verses? Who wrote Romans? Is it all God’s Word? Is it all Paul? How could it be? You have the same problem don’t you? Let me ask you another question, who lives your Christian life? Who lives it? The Lord? do you just sit back and say, “Go Lord.” Who lives it? Do you beat your body to bring it into subjection? Do you obey? Are you responsible for your obedience? "And yet nevertheless I live…" what’s the rest of the verse? "Yet not I, Christ lives in me," same paradox. Who is Jesus Christ, God or man? Yes, He’s 100% God, and 100% man you can’t be 200% of something but He is, it’s a paradox. Every major doctrine in Holy Scripture has that same apparent paradox because you can not reduce the inconceivable realities of the mind of God and push them into the human brain. It’s impossible.

So when the Bible says we’re chosen in Him before the foundation of the world: elect to be saved, I believe it with all my heart. And when the Bible says you will not come unto me that you might have life, whomsoever will may come and if you don’t come it’s your fault," I believe that with all my heart as well, and the fact that I can’t resolve them proves that I’m not God and that’s comforting. And that’s all it proves, it doesn’t prove anything about God, it only proves something about me, do you understand that? It doesn’t impugn the character of God at all, it only shows that I am limited in my understanding of His character.

So rather than try to figure out what I do not have the capacity to figure out I step back on what I do know and what I do know is the Bible does say that “God is not willing that any should parish.” The same question could be asked if you ask it this way, "If the people who are going to go to Heaven are elect why go and evangelize?" Have you ever wondered that? What’s the answer? Cause He told you to, your job is not to figure out the mind of God, your job is to do what He says. So you only resolve these things in the character of God.
Source (http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-S-13.htm)

Hopefully this helps and I remember correctly :)

MaryFreeman
Mar 1st 2010, 10:09 PM
Please don't see our rigorous discussion of the scriptures as fighting, or as inapplicable to the original 8 questions. Please see what we are doing as peacefully (although rigorously) comparing each other's interpretations of the scriptures related to predestination/election, to see whether or not predestination/election refers to something God does apart from human free will, and to see if predestination/election applies only to Jews, or to both Jews and Gentiles.

We have no hatred or ill will toward each other, but remain brothers who are simply reasoning with each other out of the desire to arrive at the truth regarding what the scriptures themselves teach, to see if our interpretations of the scriptures can bear up to rigorous scrutiny or not. This should be the desire of all believers: to know for certain that they are interpreting the scriptures correctly, and not simply out of old habit or personal preference.

Only God can change any believer's mind regarding how to interpret a scripture. But one way he can do this is through forums such as this one, in which believers are allowed to rigorously compare their interpretations to see which one best fits the whole of scripture, and not just one or two verses here or there which can be interpreted in different ways.

Oh. Then I do beg your pardon sirs.....

LOL

Please continue....

John146
Mar 1st 2010, 10:36 PM
The elect do belong to Jesus before they get saved; they come to Jesus and get saved only because they had previously been given to Jesus by the Father (John 6:37). If the elect belong to Jesus before they get saved then why do the elect need to be saved? You're making the act of becoming saved a pointless and meaningless exercise.

Scripture says that one becomes a child of God by having faith in Christ, not before having faith in Christ.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Becoming a child of God is the result of someone putting their faith in Christ. If they are already a child of God before that than having faith in Christ would not be necessary.


Even the unelect are without excuse when they are not thankful to God and do not glorify God, because simply believing in the existence of God takes no miraculous gift of faith, but is arrived at simply by logic by seeing everything that exists (Romans 1:20).So, why don't some believe in God and why are they not thankful to Him and glorify Him? Isn't that their choice?


Belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior, on the other hand, does require a miraculous gift of faith from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9).Why? What Christ has done has been made known through the preaching of the gospel just as God's power is known through what He has made. What excuse does anyone have for not having faith in Christ?


While God did create the unelect to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:21-22), this is no excuse for them acting like vessels of wrathHuh? There's no excuse for them to act the way God supposedly made them to act? How do you figure? If God made them to be vessels of wrath from birth with them having no choice in the matter then would there be any possibility of them not being vessels of wrath in that case?


, in the sense of committing sin, because God never forces the unelect, or anyone else, to commit sin (James 1:13-15). The unelect will be damned for their own sinful works (Romans 2:6-9), just as even the elect will be damned ultimately if they return to committing sin without repentance subsequent to their initial salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30). I can see now that you have a rather unique view because this is not something a Calvinist would normally say. Doesn't it make sense that one would be damned only if they used their free will to choose to reject Christ and not repent of their sins? How else would they truly be accountable for what they've done?


Matthew 22:3 doesn't show that the reason not everyone who is called is also chosen (Matthew 22:14) is that some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation. It's the other way around: some are not willing to accept the offer of salvation because they are not chosenThat's not what it says. It says they were not willing. It doesn't say they were not able to accept the invitation.


Ezekiel 33:10-11 is addressed only to the true, spiritual Israel (Romans 9:6-8), the elect (Romans 9:11), whom God has created to be vessels of his mercy (Romans 9:23), and to whom God mercifully gives the ability to repent (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). On the other hand, God has created the unelect to be vessels of his wrath (Romans 9:21-22); he hardens them in their sinfulness (Romans 9:18).That is not true. It is addressed to all of the nation of Israel and indicates that the house of Israel consisted of both the righteous and the wicked.

Ezekiel 33
18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
19But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
20Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.


The only way anyone could not be held accountable for a sin is if they could show that God forced them to do it. But God never forces anyone to commit sin (James 1:13-15).Exactly. So, if He doesn't force anyone to commit sin that means one chooses to commit sin. If someone rejects Christ, that is entirely that person's choice and they will be held accountable for it. They would not be held accountable if they were not able to choose to accept Him and repent of their sins instead. If someone was not able to repent and accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, how could they be held accountable for not doing so, right?

Butch5
Mar 1st 2010, 10:37 PM
It's a case that proves the rule.

There is no rule to prove. It had it's purpose, it no longer does.

MaryFreeman
Mar 1st 2010, 11:53 PM
Cause He told you to, your job is not to figure out the mind of God, your job is to do what He says. Translation:

"There are just some things we are not meant to know"....

:hmm:

MaryFreeman
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:21 AM
Let me see how much I remember :) Oh thank you!




No, foreknowledge means what it implies. God knows everything that is going to happen and uses it in His Sovereign plan
Would you agree that His Sovereign plan is Salvation? I think the answer is yes :)





God does not send anyone to Hell, that is a myth that gets to much mileage. How do we know we are not damned? Because we are saved we have a heart that desires to serve God, those that aren't are still part of the condemnedAgree....




No, Sinners are stuck in their sin and have nothing else that they desire. When God calls us then we are made free in Christ:pp:




It's called the Elect, which is a Biblical term. The prerequisite? To be born. The criteria? Known only to God, He chooses by His own terms who gets into His home. It's assumed that God must allow any in who wants in but that is not Biblical because as Scripture says no one seeks God. God calls us, we respond by that response we will go into His House or not.
Do you feel that because no one seeks God.... That means we are incapeable of seeking God? In addition, do you feel like there are those incapeable of hearing His call? And if they do they are incapeable of responding? Also.... Who assumes that God must allow any in who want in? I in particular do not believe this....

There is the parable of the wedding feast in particular that refutes this:

Mat 22:10 So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests.
Mat 22:11 "But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn't wearing the proper clothes for a wedding.
Mat 22:12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?' But the man had no reply.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to his aides, 'Bind his hands and feet and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

I thought those who came into salvation were the elect?:hmm:

I would think that by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior....

We become the elect?

So how could the criteria be known only to God?:hmm:



Predestination has nothing to do with how we are born. We are born in sin because of Adam and those so chosen by God are born again in righteousness because of Christ Agreed....



Notice it's not, we are instructed to Spread the Gospel and God does the rest.
Ok....



With due respect this is a nonsensical question. No one who serves God s going to Hell, by the very definition of serving God they are saved. No one seeks God by themseleves No.... The belief that spawned the question is nonsensical.... Notice how another brother said that regardless of our choice to serve God we are either vessels of glory or vessels of distruction.... And then don't forget the response about the hypothetical pastor....




That does not mean all will be saved, if God wanted everyone saved than that would be universalism and would not be Biblical. It says God is not willing any should perish, correct? That's is not the same as none shall parish, wanting something does not mean it will happen.
No.... Stating that everyone is saved in spite of Jesus Himself saying some will not choose the light and love darkness more.... is universalism.... NOT God WANTING everyone saved.... I never said none shall perish.... I said that He is not WILLING that any should perish.... But we know because Jesus says so that some will anyways....


I am willing that none should use Windows, but that doesn't mean they won't. Exactly.

Thank you for taking time to try to help my brother !:spin::D:saint:

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:45 AM
It's assumed that God must allow any in who wants in but that is not Biblical because as Scripture says no one seeks God.This is wrong. It says none seek-eth God -Rom 3:11. The Greek is no one continually seeks. The point is that all have gone astray, sinned, and come short of glory, which is the context -Rom 3:9, 23. Not that no one can or does seek.

newinchrist4now
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:48 AM
Oh thank you!


Would you agree that His Sovereign plan is Salvation? I think the answer is yes :)

Yes :)



Do you feel that because no one seeks God.... That means we are incapable of seeking God?

Yes


In addition, do you feel like there are those incapable of hearing His call? And if they do they are incapable of responding?

No, I believe that He enables us to hear His call. I believe that once He calls we will not want to respond




Also.... Who assumes that God must allow any in who want in? I in particular do not believe this....

Some do assume anyone can, I ran into this when I was a Reformed Christian (although I am not sure how much of one I am not now :) )


There is the parable of the wedding feast in particular that refutes this:

Mat 22:10 So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests.
Mat 22:11 "But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn't wearing the proper clothes for a wedding.
Mat 22:12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?' But the man had no reply.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to his aides, 'Bind his hands and feet and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

I disagree, I believe this shows that some will be there that were not called. But that's me :)


I thought those who came into salvation were the elect?:hmm:

I would think that by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior....

We become the elect?

So how could the criteria be known only to God?:hmm:

The Elect are the saved, but it is God who decides the ones that are. Since we can't be saved without God's Calling we are among the Elect when He calls


No.... The belief that spawned the question is nonsensical.... Notice how another brother said that regardless of our choice to serve God we are either vessels of glory or vessels of destruction.... And then don't forget the response about the hypothetical pastor....

Okay :)



No.... Stating that everyone is saved in spite of Jesus Himself saying some will not choose the light and love darkness more.... is universalism.... NOT God WANTING everyone saved.... I never said none shall perish.... I said that He is not WILLING that any should perish.... But we know because Jesus says so that some will anyways....

Okay, I understand now. :)



Thank you for taking time to try to help my brother !:spin::D:saint:

I am glad to, it made me think again and remember. :)

MaryFreeman
Mar 2nd 2010, 02:53 AM
I am confused about just a thing or two.....

You say that you believe that because people don't seek God.... This means they are incapeable of seeking God....

I wondered why? And do you have scripture?

Also.... Why would God need to enable us to hear His call? If we were able to hear it?

Do you think everyone will not want to respond?

Just curious.... And a bit confused.... lol.... I thinnk I may be a bit tired....

newinchrist4now
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:22 AM
I am confused about just a thing or two.....

You say that you believe that because people don't seek God.... This means they are incapeable of seeking God....

I wondered why? And do you have scripture?

10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.

Romans 3:10-11


Also.... Why would God need to enable us to hear His call? If we were able to hear it?

Because we are in our sinful state, as sinners we are (or were) dead completely to sin. God has to enable us to hear because we are not able to because spiritually we are dead. So God has to regenerate us :)


Do you think everyone will not want to respond?

Everyone God calls will respond


Just curious.... And a bit confused.... lol.... I thinnk I may be a bit tired....

Sometimes I may not do a good job explaining things :)

MaryFreeman
Mar 2nd 2010, 04:37 AM
10as it is written:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.

Romans 3:10-11

I see this brother.... Jesus states it is because they love darkness that they don't seek the Light....

Romans 3:10-11 in the New Living Translation:

Rom 3:10 As the Scriptures say, "No one is righteous—not even one.
Rom 3:11 No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God.

No one is truely wise and no one is seeking God because:

Joh 3:19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God's light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.

God's light came into this world.... But there were those who loved darkness and wanted to stay there.... Their actions were evil and they liked it that way.... They weren't looking for God not because they couldn't.... Because they didn't want to.... Just like Jesus said.... They are making a stupid (unwise) decision based on their love of darkness....






Because we are in our sinful state, as sinners we are (or were) dead completely to sin. God has to enable us to hear because we are not able to because spiritually we are dead. So God has to regenerate us :) I think I read your previous post wrong.... Like I said.... I think I am tired....

Bible2
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:02 PM
Butch5:
Again, you’ve done the same thing. Just posting a verse does not prove your point. You could understand that verse incorrectly. Therefore it is necessary for you to explain how you understand that verse and how it is applicable to your point.


The reply did show that the referenced verses were understood as meaning that election includes both Jews and Gentiles, the fact that election includes both Jews and Gentiles being itself the point of the reply: "he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22)" (post #108 in this thread).



Again, you continue to repeat the same statement over and over.


While it's okay to repeat true statements (Philippians 3:1), even when people cannot endure them (2 Timothy 4:2-4) or answer them, the paragraph one is referring to in this instance was actually not a repeated paragraph, but a new paragraph all the details and references of which have not yet been answered, just as all the details and references of the previous reply the paragraph is referring to have not yet been answered: "How has it been proven from the scriptures themselves that Romans 9:6-24 has been understood out of context, or that the referenced scriptures in the reply above do not support the statements? Romans 9:6-8 makes the distinction between merely-physical Israel, the merely-physical seed of Abraham, and the true Israel, the seed of promise of Abraham, which must be spiritual instead of physical because Galatians 3:29 shows that every Christian is the seed of Abraham, including Gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29), who are not physically descended from Abraham. Besides Galatians 3:29 supporting this, the other references of Romans 11:17,24 and Ephesians 2:12,19 further support this by showing that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. The reply above then returned to Romans 9 to point out that in Romans 9:23-24 it says that the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17-22 shows that the unelect vessels of wrath include both Jews and Gentiles" (post #108 in this thread).



I have explained this twice and you pose the question again? How can it be that you are addressing the evidence when you continue to ask the same question?


What claimed evidence has not been addressed? The same question is being asked with regard to claimed evidence which has not yet been proven to actually be evidence instead of simply an unproven claim.



Paul clearly tells us what the promise was and who the seed were. The promise that made to Abraham, God having promised him a son.


When Romans 9:8 says "the children of the promise are counted for the seed", it is referring to both some Jews and some Gentiles, because both some Jews and some Gentiles are the seed of promise (Galatians 3:29) just as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28). So Paul is employing Isaac in Romans 9:9-10 as a type for all of the elect, just as Paul is using Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11-13 as types for all of the elect and all of the unelect. Paul goes on to show even in Romans 9 itself that the elect include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), just as he goes on to show that the unelect include Gentiles besides Esau (Romans 9:17). And there are other passages which refer to the elect without requiring that only Jews are being referred to (Romans 8:29-39, Ephesians 1:4-11, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12).



As I said, you have not shown where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles and here again you have made no attempt to show where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles. You simply repeated you post again.

So again, Paul begins to address the Jewish Christians at Rome in 2:17,

Romans 2:17 ( KJV )
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Please show me where Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles prior to 11:13.

Romans 11:13 ( KJV )
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


It was shown, and in a fresh paragraph, not a repeated paragraph, where Paul changes his focus to include both Jews and Gentiles: "Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews. For some examples, Romans 2:29 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Colossians 2:11, Philippians 3:3), and the 'all' in Romans 3:22-30 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the whole point of Romans 4:9-8:38 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the whole point of Romans 8:29-9:33 is that predestination (Romans 8:29-30) and election (Romans 8:33, Romans 9:11) applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and the whole point of Romans 10:9-21 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles" (post #108 in this thread).



Here is the error.


Bible2---Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews.

You have confused application with addressing. I said Paul was addressing the Jewish Christians at Rome. I did not say his words only apply to the Jewish Christians at Rome. There is huge difference.
If I said to you, we are Christians and God loves us, we have salvation, and protection from Him. I have just made that statement to you, I was speaking “TO” (addressing) you. You and I were the context of that statement. Now, the truths in that statement are applicable to all Christians. That however does not mean I was talking about all Christens, I wasn’t I was talking to (Addressing) you. So Just because Paul’s statements are applicable to all Christians does necessitate that he is addressing all Christians. He clearly says, “Thou art called a Jew.” If Paul made this same statement to Peter, we are Christians and God loves us, we have salvation, and protection from Him. He is speaking to (addressing) Peter, even though what he said is true of all Christians, Paul is not talking about all Christians he is talking about him and Peter.


What was the point of claiming that Paul is addressing only Jews from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, if one didn't mean that Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application only to Jews? Also, the fact that many of Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles means that he is not necessarily addressing only Jews between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13, because when Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles, then the "you" in those cases can be addressing both Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Romans 6:3, Romans 6:11-22, Romans 8:9-15).



You cannot use your premise to prove your premise. I doesn’t work that way.


It wasn't said that a premise can be used to prove a premise; what was said was: "The best way to prove one's interpretation of a passage in question is to first refer to what the passage itself shows", meaning that the details of the passage itself should be used first to prove one's interpretation.



If you look at “the word of promise” that Paul bases his statement on then you would see that his is not the individual babies but the nations represented by them.


It's both: just as the individual babies in Romans 9:11 were elected and unelected, so all of the elect and unelect individuals they represent are elected and unelected as individuals, because Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:13) do not represent the physical nations of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau), but all of the individuals elected from all nations (Romans 9:6-13, Galatians 3:29, Galatians 4:28), both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and all of the unelect individuals from all nations, both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17).



You miss that point. Paul says, ‘as concerning the election they are beloved for the Father’s sake.’ The point is that the election that he has been discussing through these chapters is the election of Israel.


Romans 11:28 is only pointing out that even unbelieving elect Jews are beloved by God; Romans 11:28 in no way says or requires that the election that Paul had been discussing back in Romans 8:29-39 and Romans 9:6-24 applies only to Jews, because the election in Romans 8:29-39 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the election in Romans 9:6-24 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24). Also, nothing requires that the election Paul refers to in other letters refers only to Jews: 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and Colossians 3:12 can refer to both Jews and Gentiles. Also, nothing requires that the election Jesus refers to in the Gospels refers only to Jews: Matthew 24:31 (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1) can refer to both Jews and Gentiles.

Bible2
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:07 PM
newinchrist4now:
God does not send anyone to Hell


When they die, God does send unsaved people to the temporary hell of Hades, where they are tormented by flame (Luke 16:22-24). And God will ultimately send unsaved people to the eternal hell of Gehenna (Luke 12:5, Mark 9:45-46), the everlasting fire and punishment (Matthew 25:41,46) of the eternal torment of the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10,15, 14:10-11).

Bible2
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:08 PM
John146:
If the elect belong to Jesus before they get saved then why do the elect need to be saved?


The elect, who do belong to Jesus before they get saved (John 10:27-28), need to be saved because before they get saved they are unsaved.



You're making the act of becoming saved a pointless and meaningless exercise.


Election doesn't make the act of becoming saved a pointless and meaningless exercise, because election is different than salvation: the elect are the elect even before they get saved (Romans 11:28, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:11).



Scripture says that one becomes a child of God by having faith in Christ, not before having faith in Christ.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Becoming a child of God is the result of someone putting their faith in Christ. If they are already a child of God before that than having faith in Christ would not be necessary.


Being a child of God by faith (Galatians 3:26) can be distinguished from being elect, because the elect are the elect even before they have faith (Romans 9:11, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 11:28). They come into faith because they are elect (Acts 13:48).



So, why don't some believe in God and why are they not thankful to Him and glorify Him? Isn't that their choice?


Some people not believing in God or not being thankful to him and glorifying him is their choice, because everyone should know simply by seeing the universe that God must exist (Romans 1:20). But with regard to believing in Jesus Christ as Savior, that takes a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8), which God gives only to the elect (Acts 13:48). The unelect cannot possibly believe in Jesus Christ as Savior (John 8:42-47, John 10:26).



Why? What Christ has done has been made known through the preaching of the gospel just as God's power is known through what He has made. What excuse does anyone have for not having faith in Christ?


While the existence of the universe is self-evident, God has purposely set things up so that there is no way to scientifically prove to an unbeliever that the gospel is true (1 Corinthians 1:18-22). It takes a miraculous impartation of some measure of God's Holy Spirit for someone to be able to believe the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:10-14).



Huh? There's no excuse for them to act the way God supposedly made them to act? How do you figure? If God made them to be vessels of wrath from birth with them having no choice in the matter then would there be any possibility of them not being vessels of wrath in that case?


There's no excuse for the vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) to act in a sinful way, because God does not make anyone to act in a sinful way (James 1:13-15). The vessels of wrath are not the sock-puppets of God, but simply those whom God created knowing that they would become sinners, and knowing that he would never have mercy on them (Romans 9:15-18).



I can see now that you have a rather unique view because this is not something a Calvinist would normally say.


No one should be called or call himself a Calvinist (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13), but simply a Christian (1 Peter 4:16). Calvinism's doctrine of once-saved-always-saved is wrong, because the Bible teaches that salvation can be lost (Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 6:4-8, Matthew 25:26,30, Revelation 3:5).



Doesn't it make sense that one would be damned only if they used their free will to choose to reject Christ and not repent of their sins?


It doesn't make sense that people would be damned only if they used their free will to choose to reject Christ and not repent of their sins, because then that would mean that God couldn't damn anyone for their sins without first sending Christ, and nothing requires that God had to send Christ. God could have chosen to never send Christ and let every sinner be damned.



How else would they truly be accountable for what they've done?


People are truly accountable for the sins they've done because God doesn't make anyone to commit sin (James 1:13-15).



That's not what it says. It says they were not willing. It doesn't say they were not able to accept the invitation.


Matthew 22:3 doesn't say that they were able to accept the invitation: they chose to reject it because they were not elect (Matthew 22:14), and so were unable to accept the invitation (John 8:42-47).



That is not true. It is addressed to all of the nation of Israel and indicates that the house of Israel consisted of both the righteous and the wicked.

Ezekiel 33 [:18-20]


Ezekiel 33:18-20 doesn't require that Ezekiel 33:10-11 isn't addressed only to the elect, the true Israel (Romans 9:6-11), because the elect include those who are wicked because they are not yet saved (Romans 11:28) or because they have returned to wickedness subsequent to their salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29).



Exactly. So, if He doesn't force anyone to commit sin that means one chooses to commit sin. If someone rejects Christ, that is entirely that person's choice and they will be held accountable for it. They would not be held accountable if they were not able to choose to accept Him and repent of their sins instead. If someone was not able to repent and accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, how could they be held accountable for not doing so, right?


This is the same idea addressed in the fourth paragraph above.

Bible2
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:12 PM
MaryFreeman:
I thought those who came into salvation were the elect?


The elect are the elect even before they come into salvation (Romans 11:28, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:11, Acts 13:48).



...God WANTING everyone saved


In 1 Timothy 2:4, the original Greek word translated as "all" can mean "all manner of" (cf. Acts 10:12). God wants all manner of people saved (Revelation 5:9), not all people (Matthew 22:14).



He is not WILLING that any should perish


2 Peter 3:9 means that God is not willing that any of the elect should perish: the "any" refers back to the "us", which refers back to the elect (2 Peter 1:10). God is willing that the unelect perish (Romans 9:21-22).



They weren't looking for God not because they couldn't.... Because they didn't want to....


The unelect not only don't want to believe in Jesus, they cannot possibly believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47, John 10:26-29). Faith in Jesus comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48), and only through a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8).

Butch5
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:46 PM
The reply did show that the referenced verses were understood as meaning that election includes both Jews and Gentiles, the fact that election includes both Jews and Gentiles being itself the point of the reply: "he is referring to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 9:6-24, where the spiritual seed of Abraham, the true Israel, consists of both elect Jews and elect Gentiles (Galatians 3:29, Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19). Just as the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24), so the unelect vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17-22)" (post #108 in this thread).



While it's okay to repeat true statements (Philippians 3:1), even when people cannot endure them (2 Timothy 4:2-4) or answer them, the paragraph one is referring to in this instance was actually not a repeated paragraph, but a new paragraph all the details and references of which have not yet been answered, just as all the details and references of the previous reply the paragraph is referring to have not yet been answered: "How has it been proven from the scriptures themselves that Romans 9:6-24 has been understood out of context, or that the referenced scriptures in the reply above do not support the statements? Romans 9:6-8 makes the distinction between merely-physical Israel, the merely-physical seed of Abraham, and the true Israel, the seed of promise of Abraham, which must be spiritual instead of physical because Galatians 3:29 shows that every Christian is the seed of Abraham, including Gentiles (Galatians 3:28-29), who are not physically descended from Abraham. Besides Galatians 3:29 supporting this, the other references of Romans 11:17,24 and Ephesians 2:12,19 further support this by showing that Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. The reply above then returned to Romans 9 to point out that in Romans 9:23-24 it says that the elect vessels of mercy include both Jews and Gentiles, just as Romans 9:17-22 shows that the unelect vessels of wrath include both Jews and Gentiles" (post #108 in this thread).



What claimed evidence has not been addressed? The same question is being asked with regard to claimed evidence which has not yet been proven to actually be evidence instead of simply an unproven claim.



When Romans 9:8 says "the children of the promise are counted for the seed", it is referring to both some Jews and some Gentiles, because both some Jews and some Gentiles are the seed of promise (Galatians 3:29) just as Isaac was (Galatians 4:28). So Paul is employing Isaac in Romans 9:9-10 as a type for all of the elect, just as Paul is using Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11-13 as types for all of the elect and all of the unelect. Paul goes on to show even in Romans 9 itself that the elect include both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), just as he goes on to show that the unelect include Gentiles besides Esau (Romans 9:17). And there are other passages which refer to the elect without requiring that only Jews are being referred to (Romans 8:29-39, Ephesians 1:4-11, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, Colossians 3:12).



It was shown, and in a fresh paragraph, not a repeated paragraph, where Paul changes his focus to include both Jews and Gentiles: "Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews. For some examples, Romans 2:29 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Colossians 2:11, Philippians 3:3), and the 'all' in Romans 3:22-30 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the whole point of Romans 4:9-8:38 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the whole point of Romans 8:29-9:33 is that predestination (Romans 8:29-30) and election (Romans 8:33, Romans 9:11) applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and the whole point of Romans 10:9-21 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles" (post #108 in this thread).



What was the point of claiming that Paul is addressing only Jews from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, if one didn't mean that Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application only to Jews? Also, the fact that many of Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles means that he is not necessarily addressing only Jews between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13, because when Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles, then the "you" in those cases can be addressing both Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Romans 6:3, Romans 6:11-22, Romans 8:9-15).



It wasn't said that a premise can be used to prove a premise; what was said was: "The best way to prove one's interpretation of a passage in question is to first refer to what the passage itself shows", meaning that the details of the passage itself should be used first to prove one's interpretation.



It's both: just as the individual babies in Romans 9:11 were elected and unelected, so all of the elect and unelect individuals they represent are elected and unelected as individuals, because Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:13) do not represent the physical nations of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau), but all of the individuals elected from all nations (Romans 9:6-13, Galatians 3:29, Galatians 4:28), both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and all of the unelect individuals from all nations, both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:17).



Romans 11:28 is only pointing out that even unbelieving elect Jews are beloved by God; Romans 11:28 in no way says or requires that the election that Paul had been discussing back in Romans 8:29-39 and Romans 9:6-24 applies only to Jews, because the election in Romans 8:29-39 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the election in Romans 9:6-24 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24). Also, nothing requires that the election Paul refers to in other letters refers only to Jews: 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and Colossians 3:12 can refer to both Jews and Gentiles. Also, nothing requires that the election Jesus refers to in the Gospels refers only to Jews: Matthew 24:31 (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1) can refer to both Jews and Gentiles.


Do you really not understand what I am saying???



Butch5---As I said, you have not shown where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles and here again you have made no attempt to show where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles. You simply repeated you post again.

So again, Paul begins to address the Jewish Christians at Rome in 2:17,

Romans 2:17 ( KJV )
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Please show me where Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles prior to 11:13.

Romans 11:13 ( KJV )
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:


Bible2---It was shown, and in a fresh paragraph, not a repeated paragraph, where Paul changes his focus to include both Jews and Gentiles: "Paul isn't addressing only Jews all the way from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, because not everything that Paul says from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13 applies only to Jews. For some examples, Romans 2:29 applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Colossians 2:11, Philippians 3:3), and the 'all' in Romans 3:22-30 applies to both Jews and Gentiles, and the whole point of Romans 4:9-8:38 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles, just as the whole point of Romans 8:29-9:33 is that predestination (Romans 8:29-30) and election (Romans 8:33, Romans 9:11) applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24), and the whole point of Romans 10:9-21 is that salvation by faith applies to both Jews and Gentiles" (post #108 in this thread).

Chapter and verse number please.


Bible2---What was the point of claiming that Paul is addressing only Jews from Romans 2:17 to Romans 11:13, if one didn't mean that Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application only to Jews? Also, the fact that many of Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles means that he is not necessarily addressing only Jews between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13, because when Paul's words between Romans 2:17 and Romans 11:13 have application to both Jews and Gentiles, then the "you" in those cases can be addressing both Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Romans 6:3, Romans 6:11-22, Romans 8:9-15).

The point is so one can understand the letter in context and "NOT" come away with a wrong interpretation such as Paul here is speaking of elect Gentiles. There is a"BIG" difference between who Paul is speaking "TO" and who Paul is speaking "ABOUT," if you fail to see that then you will fail to understand what he is saying.

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:32 PM
There is no rule to prove. It had it's purpose, it no longer does.Well, we seem to have made progress. You seem to be admiting that God had a purpose for hardening the kinsmen of Isaiah. Let us not forget, however, that the partial hardening of Israel is still in effect until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.

At the same time, however, I don't see the sense in suggesting that it is no longer the case that a hardened heart will not believe. This is always the case as Jesus implies in his parable about the four soils. The hardened soil will never believe the word of God.

Butch5
Mar 2nd 2010, 05:49 PM
Well, we seem to have made progress. You seem to be admiting that God had a purpose for hardening the kinsmen of Isaiah. Let us not forget, however, that the partial hardening of Israel is still in effect until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in.

At the same time, however, I don't see the sense in suggesting that it is no longer the case that a hardened heart will not believe. This is always the case as Jesus implies in his parable about the four soils. The hardened soil will never believe the word of God.

What do yo mean progress? I has been my argument all along that this hardening was intentional. My whole point was that this instance cannot be used to argue that God hardens some hearts so they can't repent and not others. This particular instance was done for a purpose. Mostly likely many of these same Jews later believed when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost.

What is "The fullness ofthe Gentiles"?

MaryFreeman
Mar 2nd 2010, 09:18 PM
What do yo mean progress? I has been my argument all along that this hardening was intentional. My whole point was that this instance cannot be used to argue that God hardens some hearts so they can't repent and not others. This particular instance was done for a purpose. Mostly likely many of these same Jews later believed when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost.

What is "The fullness ofthe Gentiles"?

Rom 11:25 I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ.

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 10:42 PM
What do yo mean progress? I has been my argument all along that this hardening was intentional. My whole point was that this instance cannot be used to argue that God hardens some hearts so they can't repent and not others. This particular instance was done for a purpose. Mostly likely many of these same Jews later believed when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost.

What is "The fullness ofthe Gentiles"?But Butch, God is the one doing the hardening.

MaryFreeman
Mar 2nd 2010, 11:51 PM
But Butch, God is the one doing the hardening.

The happy part is the Jews hearts won't be hard forever :pp

Bible2
Mar 3rd 2010, 07:58 AM
Butch5:
Do you really not understand what I am saying???


Why do you think that what you are saying has not been understood?



Chapter and verse number please.


What statement was not supported by scripture?



The point is so one can understand the letter in context and "NOT" come away with a wrong interpretation such as Paul here is speaking of elect Gentiles.


Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: "We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Galatians 4:28). So the "Isaac" election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24).



There is a"BIG" difference between who Paul is speaking "TO" and who Paul is speaking "ABOUT," if you fail to see that then you will fail to understand what he is saying.


It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to "us" as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" still do today.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 10:28 AM
But Butch, God is the one doing the hardening.

Yes He is, He hardened this specific group of people at this specific time for a specific purpose. How do you take this instance of hardening for a specific purpose and then turn it around and say that God hardens individuals randomly so that they cannot believe?

God also allowed Peter to walk on water at a specific time for a specific purpose, do we now suppose that God randomly picks people to walk on water?

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 10:33 AM
What statement was not supported by scripture?


Chapter and verse please.




Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: "We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Galatians 4:28). So the "Isaac" election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24).

It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to "us" as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" still do today.

Since you have been unable to give the necessary evidence I must conclude that this is simply your opinion.

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 02:08 PM
Reposted from another thread....

One I did not get an answer to....

We are supposed to preach the good news to all men....

The good news we preach is found in John 3:16....

I have been told I took it out of context.... But here it is:

Joh 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 God sent His Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him.

I know some are going to ask so here goes..... Jesus came and took the sins of the world away.... YET some do not want to come out of darkness.... So though He provided a way out of darkness.... They chose to stay.... So no some don't get saved.... But that does not mean they can't.... If they couldn't then Jesus died for nothing.
QUESTION....

If this passage is not for all mankind....

If it does not mean what I always thought it meant....

How can we tell which people we are lying to?

Should we just tell everyone and then hope God forgives us for lying to the ones it wasn't meant for?

IF this passage does not mean what I thought it meant....

I will never again quote it to another living soul....

Because God said "Thou shalt not lie. "

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 02:28 PM
Reposted from another thread....

One I did not get an answer to....

We are supposed to preach the good news to all men....

The good news we preach is found in John 3:16....

I have been told I took it out of context.... But here it is:

Joh 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 God sent His Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him.

I know some are going to ask so here goes..... Jesus came and took the sins of the world away.... YET some do not want to come out of darkness.... So though He provided a way out of darkness.... They chose to stay.... So no some don't get saved.... But that does not mean they can't.... If they couldn't then Jesus died for nothing.
QUESTION....

If this passage is not for all mankind....

If it does not mean what I always thought it meant....

How can we tell which people we are lying to?

Should we just tell everyone and then hope God forgives us for lying to the ones it wasn't meant for?

IF this passage does not mean what I thought it meant....

I will never again quote it to another living soul....

Because God said "Thou shalt not lie. "


Excellent point Mary. According to reformed thinking we are to preach to all because we do not know who the elect are. Yet as you pointed out if we tell those who are not elect that they can be saved we would be lying to them. This is just another error in the doctrines of men.

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 02:57 PM
The elect, who do belong to Jesus before they get saved (John 10:27-28), need to be saved because before they get saved they are unsaved.If they already belong to Him before they are saved then why do they need to be saved?


Election doesn't make the act of becoming saved a pointless and meaningless exercise, because election is different than salvation: the elect are the elect even before they get saved (Romans 11:28, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:11). From God's perspective that might be true because He knows everything beforehand, but I'm speaking in terms of the realm of time and space. We become Christ's in this realm upon believing in Him.


Being a child of God by faith (Galatians 3:26) can be distinguished from being elect, because the elect are the elect even before they have faith (Romans 9:11, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 11:28). They come into faith because they are elect (Acts 13:48).Scripture does not teach this. You're acting as if Acts 13:48 says "those who were appointed to believe believed". No, it says those appointed to eternal life believed. It doesn't say they were appointed to believe as if God chose for them to believe and made them believe as if they were puppets or robots. They were appointed to eternal life because God, in His foreknowledge, knew they would believe.


Matthew 22:3 doesn't say that they were able to accept the invitation: they chose to reject it because they were not elect (Matthew 22:14), and so were unable to accept the invitation (John 8:42-47).If they were unable to accept the invitation then why does it say they were not willing to accept it rather than saying they were unable to accept it?


Ezekiel 33:18-20 doesn't require that Ezekiel 33:10-11 isn't addressed only to the elect, the true Israel (Romans 9:6-11), because the elect include those who are wicked because they are not yet saved (Romans 11:28) or because they have returned to wickedness subsequent to their salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29).Nowhere does Ezekiel 33 say that all of the house of Israel was guaranteed to be saved. Why would Ezekiel 33:18 say "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby" if it wasn't possible for some in the house of Israel to do so? The text is speaking of the nation of Israel, not the true Israel.

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:10 PM
Reposted from another thread....

One I did not get an answer to....

We are supposed to preach the good news to all men....

The good news we preach is found in John 3:16....

I have been told I took it out of context.... But here it is:

Joh 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 God sent His Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him.

I know some are going to ask so here goes..... Jesus came and took the sins of the world away.... YET some do not want to come out of darkness.... So though He provided a way out of darkness.... They chose to stay.... So no some don't get saved.... But that does not mean they can't.... If they couldn't then Jesus died for nothing.
QUESTION....

If this passage is not for all mankind....

If it does not mean what I always thought it meant....

How can we tell which people we are lying to?

Should we just tell everyone and then hope God forgives us for lying to the ones it wasn't meant for?

IF this passage does not mean what I thought it meant....

I will never again quote it to another living soul....

Because God said "Thou shalt not lie. "It does mean what you think it means. It says "God so loved the world", not "God so loved the elect". It says "whosoever believes in Him", not "whosoever is elect and believes in Him".

Look at this passage:

Acts 16
27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Now, did Paul and Silas know whether or not the prison keeper was of the elect? No. So, if it was the case that some are able to believe in Christ and some are not able to do so (rather than it being a matter of choice) then how could they tell him that in order to be saved he should "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? If salvation has nothing to do with people making a choice then how could they have known whether or not the man was even able to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved? In that case if he was not of the elect then they would have been lying to him.

But since, without knowing whether he was elect or not, they still told him that he could be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ then it must be the case that everyone is capable of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. If only some had the ability to believe and be saved then Paul and Silas would have answered his question by saying something like this: "There is nothing you can do to be saved because God already determined who would be saved and who wouldn't before the foundation of the world and what man does has nothing to do with it. All you can do is just wait and see whether or not you are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and given faith.". But they didn't say that. Instead, Paul and Silas obviously implied that they believed everyone was able to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation, which means everyone is able to choose to believe in Him or not.

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:13 PM
Thank you John146!

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 03:38 PM
Yes He is, He hardened this specific group of people at this specific time for a specific purpose. How do you take this instance of hardening for a specific purpose and then turn it around and say that God hardens individuals randomly so that they cannot believe?

God also allowed Peter to walk on water at a specific time for a specific purpose, do we now suppose that God randomly picks people to walk on water?

I didn't say anything about randomness. If God hardens the hearts of people, he has a purpose. Just because YOU don't know the purpose doesn't mean he doesn't.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:09 PM
I didn't say anything about randomness. If God hardens the hearts of people, he has a purpose. Just because YOU don't know the purpose doesn't mean he doesn't.

OK, so what does this have to do with the original issue?

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:29 PM
Simple question to those who are posting within this thread...

Do you consider yourself among the elect?

I'm not asking as to a judgement of me over you, or for you to judge me and my salvation, I'm simply asking, do you see yourself as being of the elect?

I'd think this should be a yes or no answer, IMO.

Now as to why you do or don't, well then, there will be a plethora of logic thrown back and forth :spin:....

But when all said and done, do you count yourself among the elect?

theBelovedDisciple
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:39 PM
Simple question to those who are posting within this thread...

Do you consider yourself among the elect?

I'm not asking as to a judgement of me over you, or for you to judge me and my salvation, I'm simply asking, do you see yourself as being of the elect?

I'd think this should be a yes or no answer, IMO.

Now as to why you do or don't, well then, there will be a plethora of logic thrown back and forth :spin:....

But when all said and done, do you count yourself among the elect?

YES.... I know He has chosen me and Elected me...

I did not choose Him... He chose me...

I know this irritates many and infuriates some.. but I 'know' My Election..

for He has revealed it to me...

I count myself among the Elect, and 'know it'....

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:42 PM
Simple question to those who are posting within this thread...

Do you consider yourself among the elect?

I'm not asking as to a judgement of me over you, or for you to judge me and my salvation, I'm simply asking, do you see yourself as being of the elect?

I'd think this should be a yes or no answer, IMO.

Now as to why you do or don't, well then, there will be a plethora of logic thrown back and forth :spin:....

But when all said and done, do you count yourself among the elect?

As my definition of elect is [chosen]....

And I believe that in God's foreknowledge and foresight He saw that I would believe in His Son before He ever created the world....

I believe that based on that.... On the fact that He saw my choice before I ever made one....

I was chosen.... Predestined for HIS glory....

And I didn't even deserve a choice!

HALELUJA!!!!!:pp

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 04:45 PM
I know some are going to ask so here goes..... Jesus came and took the sins of the world away.... YET some do not want to come out of darkness.... So though He provided a way out of darkness.... They chose to stay.... So no some don't get saved.... But that does not mean they can't.... If they couldn't then Jesus died for nothing.
Your answer is included in your question, and I highlighted it for you.

You must understand that my opponents and I share a completely different picture of the state of human kind. We don't share the same presuppositions, which are as follows. In their view, human kind is neutral with regard to both our ability to choose salvation and our preference for it. My opponent supposes that human beings not only have the ability to choose, but human beings are indifferent to the choice until it is presented to them. And even if they express a preference one way or the other, they remain ambivalent for a long time. Some will suggest that only time and a constant rejection of the gospel will eventually lead to a hardened opposition to it, and after that no redemption is possible.

By contrast, I believe that human kind comes hardwired with a strong bias against the Gospel. People aren't naturally indifferent or ambivalent with respect to the Gospel. Rather, without divine help, no human being wants to be saved if it means being saved according to God's terms. The Bible paints a grim picture in many contexts and passages of scripture, which suggest that human kind does not ever seek for God unless God first softens the heart.

You asked about a passage from John's gospel and so I will restrict my references to his Gospel. In the following verse we learn that being "born" is not anyone's idea except God's.


He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13 This is a recurring theme in John's Gospel, suggesting that unless God turned a man or woman from the inside, he or she would never come to him. We aren't talking about ability here. It isn't that a man can't make a choice; it's that he doesn't want to choose God. We learn from the Bible and our own experience that belief is a matter of the will and that human kind isn't neutral on the issue. Jesus points out to Nicodemus that unless a man is born "from above", or "born again" he can't see the kingdom of God.



Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

In his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus contrasts the difference between a man's natural birth and his spiritual birth. He says that a man cannot see the kingdom of God in his natural state. All human beings are resistant to the gospel by nature. We understand from this that human beings are not neutral with respect to belief. A natural born man is not willing to believe the gospel. God must take a person through a second birth experience before he will come to see, let alone believe the Gospel. In chapter 6, we get another piece of the picture,



All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

According to my opponents, who cares what the Father does, right? It isn't up to the Father, who will come to Jesus, is it? But Jesus acknowledges that the choice of who comes to him is in the Father's hands. Belief is a matter of volition; and human beings are not neutrally indifferent, but naturally biased against the gospel. Only the Father can cause a person to see the kingdom of God through a birth from above, and those who come to Jesus are those whom the Father has given him. Again, in chapter 6 Jesus is emphatic about the source of his followers; he wouldn't have followers at all unless the Father caused some of us to change our minds about him.



"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (And again) "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." Jesus offers this as his explanation for why the crowds continually leave him and do not follow him. It isn't as if the crowds gave Jesus an unbiased hearing, basing their decision to follow him or not on a critical examination of the facts. They came to see Jesus biased against the Gospel because the naturally born man is unwilling to believe it. As we saw earlier, only those whom God has birth from above can believe it, and only those whom God has given to his son will believe it. A person just won't come to Jesus unless it has been granted from the Father.

The fact that God gives out a general call doesn't negate the fact that it's his choice who will believe. As Jesus says in Matthew, "many are called but few are chosen."

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 3rd 2010, 05:20 PM
As my definition of elect is [chosen]....

And I believe that in God's foreknowledge and foresight He saw that I would believe in His Son before He ever created the world....

I believe that based on that.... On the fact that He saw my choice before I ever made one....

I was chosen.... Predestined for HIS glory....

And I didn't even deserve a choice!

HALELUJA!!!!!:pp

Then let's declare this thread solved and the cake is baked and call it done!:hug::lol::saint:

theBelovedDisciple
Mar 3rd 2010, 05:28 PM
As my definition of elect is [chosen]....

And I believe that in God's foreknowledge and foresight He saw that I would believe in His Son before He ever created the world....

I believe that based on that.... On the fact that He saw my choice before I ever made one....

I was chosen.... Predestined for HIS glory....

And I didn't even deserve a choice!

HALELUJA!!!!!:pp


Mary let me try to understand your definition.....

So if I understand this... way back before the World was Created.. He saw you 'choosing Him'? So His Will and Foreknowledge is based on 'you choosing Him'.. and He seeing that... He dependant on 'you' to choose Him... even before it comes to pass?

God dependant on the will of man and at His beckoning call...... man, which is in a fallen state, dead in trespasses and sins. to choose Him.. this way before the Foundation of the World...

If this is what your Saying.. then i'll have to disagree...

here you have man 'choosing' God.. with the ablility to come to Him.. dead in trespasses and sins... having the power and faith to believe , dead in trespasses and sins.. and God dependant on man for His Will to be achieved......... God dependant on man even way before the Foundation of the Word........ in his ablitiy to 'choose' Him or not.... Is this what the Bible teaches us?

God is not at the beckoning call of man.. to fulfill His Will.. He is not sitting in Heaven.. biting His fingernails... nervous and apprehensive as to whether those 'Elect' will choose Him 3 years down the road.

Gods Will will be done.. and He is not at the beckoning call of man.. or dependant on the will of man to get His things Accomplished...... and especially starting with the Issues of Salvation..

for the issues and merits of Salvation belong to Him..

starting with Predestination, Election and Salvation..

Jesus told His Disciples.. that they did not 'choose' Him... but that He chose them...

I understand that today and believe it... I didn't choose Jesus....

and Way Back before the Foundation of the World.. He 'knew' He'd Save.. me.... He'd chosen..Me already......... but He wasn't dependant on whether I would 'choose' Him at that Time.. in 1994.... It was Him who began the Process in Heaven in 1994.. drawing me into Himself.. and Revealing Himself to me... He wasnt in Heaven worried and apprehensive as to whether I would 'choose' Him.. I didn't ...He Chose Me..because It was according to His Will and Foreknowledge He Revealed Himself to me.. and His Unmerited Favor in my life.. the Holy Ghost was working on me and in my life.. as the Operation of God.. and when He revealed HImself to me... and HIs Goodness.. this is what caused me to Repent.. of my stupidity and foolishness in the past.. the condemnation and guilt He took and my trespasses and sins.. He took and tossed them away.. never to remember them again.. Had He been dependant on me to believe on Him.. I would of never done it.. because I would of run from Him.. and the Light.. the condemnation and guilit still ruling my life... His Will is that I was to be Saved in 1994.. and He brought it to Pass... not because of me or the ability for me to 'choose' Him.. but because of Him.. His Will and Foreknowledge.. Grounded in Jesus Christ.. Given to Jesus Christ by the Father...drawn by the Father.. so that Jesus would reveal Himself to Me... and when He did.. I couldnt resist His Love and Mercy that He showed me.. I didint.. and repented and asked HIm to take control of my life.. and He did..

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 05:30 PM
BroRog

Avoidance of the question serves only to make the question beg an answer all the more, sir.

We are to tell EVERYONE that GOD loves them.... That God sent His Son FOR THEM.... That they can be saved if they want it....

Who then, sir, are we lying to?

Or put this way.....

How do we know which folks we are lying to and which ones we are not lying to?

Because when it all boils down to it, sir, we are lying to someone.

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 05:55 PM
Mary let me try to understand your definition.....

So if I understand this... way back before the World was Created.. He saw you 'choosing Him'? So His Will and Foreknowledge is based on 'you choosing Him'.. and He seeing that... He dependant on 'you' to choose Him... even before it comes to pass? Why do you say you try to understand me? Speak plainly brother..... You wish to show me how "silly" my belief is.... Brother please don't waste your keystrokes?


God dependant on the will of man and at His beckoning call...... man, which is in a fallen state, dead in trespasses and sins. to choose Him.. this way before the Foundation of the World...

If this is what your Saying.. then i'll have to disagree... I am saying that a Gracious Omnipotent Sovereign God knew I was coming.... Knew I would want Him instead of darkness.... KNEW Adam and Eve were GOING to eat the fruit though He told them not to.... Knew that would cause a rift between Him and me.... So HE BRIDGED THE GAP.... And made a way for me to climb out of that hole.... THAT is what I am saying.... Please don't make my words of praise and rejoicing something they are not?

Deu 30:19 "Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!


God said "Behold I set before you this day LIFE and DEATH,

Deu 30:20 You can make this choice by loving the LORD your God, obeying Him, and committing yourself firmly to Him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the LORD, you will live long in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

And even tells us how to make that choice!

Jesus says this:

Joh 3:20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed.

He also says this:

Mat 7:13 "You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.
Mat 7:14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.

Sir you wish for me to believe that I can choose death.... But I cannot choose life....

You wish me to believe that I can choose the wide gate.... But I cannot choose the narrow gate....

That I can choose to die in sin and be damned forever.... But I cannot choose to take the path a gracious sovereign God provided for me.... And even told me to choose....

I do not particularly care what makes the word choose, or choice, or chose, offensive to you sir....

And I don't believe you particularly care what is making me cry about your debasement of my praise and thanksgiving to my Lord for actually providing (in His Sovereignty) a choice I did not even deserve....

So lets just be done....

:hug:

roaring tiger
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:18 PM
Hi!!!Sister Mary,

Just a reminder of what I had quote to you before, Matt.7:6 give not which is holy unto the dogs,neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they

trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

in love of Christ./RT.

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:20 PM
The way I see it, the process goes something like this:

(A) A person believes in the testimony of Jesus
(B) The Father draws that person unto Himself
(C) The Father gives that person to Jesus, that he may believe in Him and receive His salvation

It's not a matter of God sticking His hand into a hat and randomly choosing who He will draw unto Himself and whom He won't --- it's about believing in the testimony of His Son, then based on that belief, the Father draws that person to Himself.

But doesn't the person's faith show that they have already been drawn to Christ?

MaryFreeman
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:21 PM
Hi!!!Sister Mary,

Just a reminder of what I had quote to you before, Matt.7:6 give not which is holy unto the dogs,neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they

trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

in love of Christ./RT.
RT you are always a joy to read :hug:

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:26 PM
Roger,

I have not confused anything. I know the difference. But you didn't address the contradiction. You said regenerated by grace, You said a person has to be regenerated before they can come to Christ correct? Where does Scripture teach this?

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

Since they are born strictly of God and not of their own will, it could not have been their act of faith that led to their regeneration.

Consider also Romans 8:7: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,..."

If the mind set on the flesh--which Christians certainly had prior to being born again--makes us unable to submit to the law of God, how could we, in that same mind, be able to believe in Christ? That fleshly mind is hostile to God through and through and resists him to the bitter end. That is what hostility entails. Such an individual, therefore, would never follow Christ unless God brought him to that point.

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:53 PM
Hello, Mary. I have a question for you based on the following comments you made:


I am saying that a Gracious Omnipotent Sovereign God knew I was coming.... Knew I would want Him instead of darkness....

My question is this: Do you have any unbelieving family or friends or coworkers? If so, why did you want God while they continue rejecting him? Are you better than they? Note I'm not trying to pick on you, but I just think it's a very valid question for anyone who thinks they are able to come to Christ apart from grace and regeneration. Now if you are not one of those, please forgive me for misreading your words.


Deu 30:19 "Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. Now I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!


God said "Behold I set before you this day LIFE and DEATH,

Deu 30:20 You can make this choice by loving the LORD your God, obeying Him, and committing yourself firmly to Him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the LORD, you will live long in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

God commanded them to make the choice. However, a command is not the same as a declaration of fact. A command simply says what we ought to do, not what we can do. That's why trying to use passages like this one don't really prove your point, even though they seem to.

God does, in fact, sometimes tell people to do things they cannot do. He expects mankind, for example, to live 100% righteous lives, even though he knows we cannot do so. He does not lower his standards or expectations to accommodate sinful people. Also, Christ commanded the man with the withered hand to stretch it forth even though he knew the man was unable in himself to obey that command.


Sir you wish for me to believe that I can choose death.... But I cannot choose life....

That is correct. Our nature is to choose sin. It is not in our nature to choose God. We cannot rise above our own nature, so we need a new nature. We need to be born again to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2010, 06:59 PM
BroRog

Avoidance of the question serves only to make the question beg an answer all the more, sir.

We are to tell EVERYONE that GOD loves them.... That God sent His Son FOR THEM.... That they can be saved if they want it....

Who then, sir, are we lying to?

Or put this way.....

How do we know which folks we are lying to and which ones we are not lying to?

Because when it all boils down to it, sir, we are lying to someone.Mary, I didn't avoid the question. You avoided the answer. :) It is not a lie to tell a man that God will save him if he wants it, even if he doesn't want it. And your objection assumes, incorrectly, that everyone is neutral. The Bible teaches us that everyone is biased against the gospel and that no man would believe it if God didn't change the man from the inside first.

A general call is just that, it's general. The call of salvation goes out to all of humanity as a conditional offer, "You can have salvation if you want it." Those who call have no idea who wants it or who doesn't want it. To make the offer to someone who doesn't want it is not a lie. The person decides for themselves if they want it or not. From the point of view of the one offering, it is a genuine offer. Whether God softens a man's heart is between the man and God and does not concern those who make the offer.

newinchrist4now
Mar 3rd 2010, 07:58 PM
Sir you wish for me to believe that I can choose death.... But I cannot choose life....

No one is truly wise;
no one is seeking God.

Romans 3:11

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 08:59 PM
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13, NASB)

Since they are born strictly of God and not of their own will, it could not have been their act of faith that led to their regeneration.

There are two issues here, one this passage may be corrupted and two John Specifically says that those who were born were those who received Christ. The receiving was prior to their being born.



Consider also Romans 8:7: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,..."

If the mind set on the flesh--which Christians certainly had prior to being born again--makes us unable to submit to the law of God, how could we, in that same mind, be able to believe in Christ? That fleshly mind is hostile to God through and through and resists him to the bitter end. That is what hostility entails. Such an individual, therefore, would never follow Christ unless God brought him to that point.


Notice your use of words "makes us unable to submit to the law of God". That is not what he passage said. You said,


Consider also Romans 8:7: "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,..."

The verse you quoted says that mind set on the flesh "Does not" not "cannot" subject itself to the law of God.

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:06 PM
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13, NASB)

Since they are born strictly of God and not of their own will, it could not have been their act of faith that led to their regeneration.

There are two issues here, one this passage may be corrupted and two John Specifically says that those who were born were those who received Christ. The receiving was prior to their being born.

Yes, those who were born received Christ. That says nothing, though, about the order in which the events occurred. It just says that the two events occurred. Verse 13 rules out the idea that faith leads to regeneration, since it explicitly says that they were not born of their own will. This completely prevents any notion that one can will himself to be born again. And if one cannot will oneself to be born again, how could one possibly will to believe in Christ apart from being born again? One cannot even see the kingdom of God without being regenerated (John 3:3). The human will produces neither faith nor the new birth. God is the initiator in salvation, not man.


The verse you quoted says that mind set on the flesh "Does not" not "cannot" subject itself to the law of God.

It says both. Let's look at the text again:

"because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,..."

The phrase "is not able to" means "cannot." So the passage says two things: The mind set on the flesh does not subject itself to the law of God, and the same mind cannot subject itself to the law of God.

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:23 PM
My question is this: Do you have any unbelieving family or friends or coworkers? If so, why did you want God while they continue rejecting him? Are you better than they? Note I'm not trying to pick on you, but I just think it's a very valid question for anyone who thinks they are able to come to Christ apart from grace and regeneration. Now if you are not one of those, please forgive me for misreading your words.This line of reasoning is faulty. You are asking the wrong questions. Choosing to repent and put one's faith in Christ has nothing to do with being better than anyone, it has to do with acknowledging that we're not better than anyone and are sinners like everyone else and are in need of forgiveness and in need of Christ being our Lord and Savior. Everyone is capable of making the choice to acknowledge that they are a sinner and wish to turn away from their sins and accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. People like yourself are so concerned that having salvation partly dependent on the choice of man would be cause for man to boast of his salvation, but that is not the case. Salvation occurs after as a result of someone humbling themselves, not as a result of someone exalting themselves (read Luke 18:9-14).


That is correct. Our nature is to choose sin. It is not in our nature to choose God. We cannot rise above our own nature, so we need a new nature. We need to be born again to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).Scripture never teaches that we first have to be born again before we can repent and put our faith in Christ. We are born again after repenting and putting our faith in Christ (Eph 1:12-13).

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:32 PM
This line of reasoning is faulty. You are asking the wrong questions. Choosing to repent and put one's faith in Christ has nothing to do with being better than anyone, it has to do with acknowledging that we're not better than anyone and are sinners like everyone else and are in need of forgiveness and in need of Christ being our Lord and Savior.

But believing and repenting are acts of the will. They are, moreover, moral acts because they involve submitting oneself to God in obedience, resolving to cease rejecting him. Therefore, I think my line of reasoning was spot on. Believing and repenting are the results of a right disposition toward God. If, then, we believe and repent on our own, then it must follow that we had some hidden righteousness deep within us that we were able to draw upon--which our unsaved friends, family members, and coworkers lack.


Everyone is capable of making the choice to acknowledge that they are a sinner and wish to turn away from their sins and accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. People like yourself are so concerned that having salvation partly dependent on the choice of man would be cause for man to boast of his salvation, but that is not the case.

That's not my chief concern. My main concern is the erecting of a man-centered theology that attacks the sovereignty of God.


Scripture never teaches that we first have to be born again before we can repent and put our faith in Christ. We are born again after repenting and putting our faith in Christ (Eph 1:12-13).

Here is that passage:

"to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

This text says nothing about regeneration. It mentions being sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure that refers to being born again. But this text clearly speaks of the new birth:

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

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:49 PM
Yes, those who were born received Christ. That says nothing, though, about the order in which the events occurred. It just says that the two events occurred. Verse 13 rules out the idea that faith leads to regeneration, since it explicitly says that they were not born of their own will. This completely prevents any notion that one can will himself to be born again. And if one cannot will oneself to be born again, how could one possibly will to believe in Christ apart from being born again? One cannot even see the kingdom of God without being regenerated (John 3:3). The human will produces neither faith nor the new birth. God is the initiator in salvation, not man.I believe you are misinterpreting John 1:13. That verse is speaking of the actual act of being born again of the Spirit. When that event occurs it's the Spirit's doing. He regenerates us. We can't regenerate ourselves. He is not speaking of what occurs before the actual regeneration takes place.

If you read the verse in context you should see that receiving (believing in) Christ is a prerequisite for being spiritually born into the family of God.

John 1
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage says that receiving Christ and believing on His name occur before becoming a child of God, which occurs upon being born of God. So, you have things out of order. You believe someone is born of God and then they believe in Christ. This says otherwise, as do passages like Ephesians 1:12-13.

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,

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 09:57 PM
But believing and repenting are acts of the will. They are, moreover, moral acts because they involve submitting oneself to God in obedience, resolving to cease rejecting him. Therefore, I think my line of reasoning was spot on. Believing and repenting are the results of a right disposition toward God. If, then, we believe and repent on our own, then it must follow that we had some hidden righteousness deep within us that we were able to draw upon--which our unsaved friends, family members, and coworkers lack.To acknowledge that one is a sinner in need of forgiveness and salvation would be the result of hidden righteousness? Why is that? How can the act of acknowledging that one is not righteous be an act of self-righteousness? That does not make any sense.


That's not my chief concern. My main concern is the erecting of a man-centered theology that attacks the sovereignty of God.I believe that salvation is offered to all people and that all people are required to choose whether to repent or not and I don't believe this view attacks the sovereignty of God at all. I believe God sovereignly chose to make salvation available to man and to make man responsible. If man is not responsible for his choices then why will there be a judgment day?


Here is that passage:

"to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

This text says nothing about regeneration. It mentions being sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure that refers to being born again.Why should we think that we would not be sealed at the same time we are regenerated? We become children of God upon regeneration so what would be the reason why we would not be sealed in Him at that time?


But this text clearly speaks of the new birth:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)See my comments in my other post regarding this.

Butch5
Mar 3rd 2010, 10:38 PM
Yes, those who were born received Christ. That says nothing, though, about the order in which the events occurred. It just says that the two events occurred. Verse 13 rules out the idea that faith leads to regeneration, since it explicitly says that they were not born of their own will. This completely prevents any notion that one can will himself to be born again. And if one cannot will oneself to be born again, how could one possibly will to believe in Christ apart from being born again? One cannot even see the kingdom of God without being regenerated (John 3:3). The human will produces neither faith nor the new birth. God is the initiator in salvation, not man.


Your logic here does not follow. The passage is clear, as many a received Him He gave the right to become children of God. The passage doesn't say as many as received Him became children of God. So the receiving came prior to the being born.


since it explicitly says that they were not born of their own will. This completely prevents any notion that one can will himself to be born again.

Were these born of blood, the will of man, the will of the flesh?



It says both. Let's look at the text again:

"because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,..."

The phrase "is not able to" means "cannot." So the passage says two things: The mind set on the flesh does not subject itself to the law of God, and the same mind cannot subject itself to the law of God.


If you look at that passage in context you will see why that mind cannot submit to God. Paul is not speaking of salvation he is speaking of the wisdom of God.

Mathetes
Mar 3rd 2010, 11:53 PM
Your logic here does not follow. The passage is clear, as many a received Him He gave the right to become children of God. The passage doesn't say as many as received Him became children of God. So the receiving came prior to the being born.

Yes, but giving the right is not the same as regenerating them. We're talking about regeneration. The text plainly says that being regenerated does not come from our own will, but from God's. It is illogical to say both that we cannot will to be born again and that we can will to believe. Spiritual "sight" is impossible to those who are not born again. No, my friend, I'm not being illogical at all about this. You are attributing an ability to man that this passage explicitly denies.


If you look at that passage in context you will see why that mind cannot submit to God. Paul is not speaking of salvation he is speaking of the wisdom of God.

Please expound on the context in such a way that shows that Paul's intention was to focus on the wisdom of God, because, quite frankly, I see Paul talking about salvation in vv. 1-4 and then about the contrast between those controlled by the sinful nature and those controlled by the Spirit in vv. 5-6.

Mathetes
Mar 4th 2010, 12:10 AM
I believe you are misinterpreting John 1:13. That verse is speaking of the actual act of being born again of the Spirit. When that event occurs it's the Spirit's doing. He regenerates us. We can't regenerate ourselves. He is not speaking of what occurs before the actual regeneration takes place.

In that case it cannot be said that this passage teaches that faith precedes regeneration.


John 1
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage says that receiving Christ and believing on His name occur before becoming a child of God, which occurs upon being born of God.

That order cannot be true since they are not born again of their own will. As I said in my other post, we cannot logically say that the natural man is unable to regenerate himself but that he is able to believe before being born again. John 3:3 states that without being born again we cannot even see the kingdom of God. So, the broad context militates against your view.


So, you have things out of order. You believe someone is born of God and then they believe in Christ. This says otherwise, as do passages like Ephesians 1:12-13.

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,

I would agree with you if Paul had regeneration in view here. But note that he uses no words like "born" or "born of God" or "made alive" as other passages do. He says they were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Are you sure that is speaking of being born again? If so, what makes you so sure--just because Paul is speaking of their conversion?

Mathetes
Mar 4th 2010, 12:28 AM
To acknowledge that one is a sinner in need of forgiveness and salvation would be the result of hidden righteousness? Why is that? How can the act of acknowledging that one is not righteous be an act of self-righteousness? That does not make any sense.

I didn't say it was an act of self-righteousness. I said it was a moral act of the will, an act of obedience to God, an act of submission to God. To put it another way, they are right choices. This requires a right disposition toward God, a righteousness within, a feeling of devotion toward him and a willingness to be obedient. How could that not be called inner righteousness? Adam had that kind of disposition before he committed sin. We, however, do not now apart from regeneration, being dead in our trespasses and sins. The mind that is set on the flesh, being hostile toward God, utterly lacks this disposition and thus would never submit itself to God--and cannot do so. To say that man is able to believe and repent in and of himself is to speak of man in a way that is foreign to holy writ.


I believe that salvation is offered to all people and that all people are required to choose whether to repent or not and I don't believe this view attacks the sovereignty of God at all. I believe God sovereignly chose to make salvation available to man and to make man responsible. If man is not responsible for his choices then why will there be a judgment day?

God's sovereignty extends to more than just "making salvation available." That is why the Arminian view most assuredly is an attack on the sovereignty of God. It posits the unbiblical notion that man is the ultimate deciding factor in salvation, that God leaves the decision in man's hands, sitting back passively and wringing his hands, just hoping that man will give Jesus a chance. Thus, in such a view man is made sovereign, while God is relegated to the role that man, in reality, has. The roles of creature and Creator are thus perverted and reversed, making God out to be a nonsovereign creature and man to be a sovereign deity of sorts. Now if you don't believe those things, fair enough, but I don't see how the view you just presented could not lead to such a blasphemous, twisted view of God.

The Scriptures bear abundant testimony to the fact that man is so depraved that he cannot submit to God or please him, nor can he believe to the saving of his soul. Man cannot even see the kingdom of God apart from regeneration, and yet I am to believe that somehow man can believe in Christ prior to regeneration? You give man far, far more credit than the Bible allows.


Why should we think that we would not be sealed at the same time we are regenerated?

You really need to start reading carefully what I'm writing instead of making knee-jerk reactions. I am not going to keep on correcting your misreading of my words. I never said we weren't sealed at the same time we are regenerated. I said that Paul did not have regeneration in view when he mentioned being sealed with the Spirit.

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 01:30 AM
Yes, but giving the right is not the same as regenerating them. We're talking about regeneration. The text plainly says that being regenerated does not come from our own will, but from God's. It is illogical to say both that we cannot will to be born again and that we can will to believe. Spiritual "sight" is impossible to those who are not born again. No, my friend, I'm not being illogical at all about this. You are attributing an ability to man that this passage explicitly denies.

We have a few issues here, one, you have not yet shown me when one is regenerated? The word regeneration only appears twice in Scripture, Jesus speaks of regeneration in reference to the resurrection and Paul uses it is reference to Baptism. Both of these take place after one believes. Can you show me where Scripture teaches that one is regenerated prior to belief?

The other is that this verse has controversy tied to it. The oldest texts that we have with this verse are from around 400 A.D. The early church accused the Gnostics of tampering with this verse, changing was to were. If the verse says "was" as the early church claimed then it applies to Christ and not to "as many as received Him"

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Chap. XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, but by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?” (John 1:13) I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed,’ which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition200II into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh204II-11-204 without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one. Bookmark Name Bookmark Date Bookmark Text Edit commentary text here

Since this passage from Tertullian is approximately 200 year before the manuscript copies that we have it seems very possible that we are look at a corruption. It may be that Tertullian is correct and the verse should be in the singular as pertaining to Christ.


Please expound on the context in such a way that shows that Paul's intention was to focus on the wisdom of God, because, quite frankly, I see Paul talking about salvation in vv. 1-4 and then about the contrast between those controlled by the sinful nature and those controlled by the Spirit in vv. 5-6.


1 Corinthians 2:6 ( KJV )
Howbeit 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:

He is talking about speaking the wisdom of Gd among those who are mature. So, no, the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God that a mature Christian can.


1 Corinthians 2:7-9 ( KJV )
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.
But 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.

These are the deep things of God. They are revealed Spiritually. This doesn't mean that a person cannot hear and understand the Gospel. Christ give everyone enough light to understand the Gospel.


John 1:6-9 ( KJV )
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, ]that all men through him might believe[/U].
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Bible2
Mar 4th 2010, 02:57 PM
Butch5:
Chapter and verse please.


What statement do you want chapter and verse for?



Since you have been unable to give the necessary evidence I must conclude that this is simply your opinion.


What statement has not been supported by the necessary evidence?



Since this passage from Tertullian is approximately 200 year before the manuscript copies that we have it seems very possible that we are look at a corruption.


It is very dangerous to say that John 1:13, as we have it, is a possible Gnostic corruption, because this undermines the validity of scripture as we have it, leaving the door open to people wrongly rejecting whatever verses of scripture they personally don't like as possibly being corruptions. John 1:13, as we have it, is confirmed by Romans 9:16. There is no scriptural reason to doubt the validity in John 1:13 of the Greek-plural "which" and the Greek-plural "were born" in the ancient Greek manuscripts as we have them.

Also, if Tertullian converted about 197–198, and wrote the quoted passage about 200, this would not necessarily be approximately 200 years before the manuscript copies that we have, because Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are dated as early as 325 AD.

Also, Tertullian was fallible: "Some of Tertullian's innovation was not acceptable to the Church", and about 207 he became a Montanist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian ).

Also, if the church after 325 AD had agreed with Tertullian's claim regarding John 1:13, the church would not have continued to copy and pass down to us only Gnostic-corrupted manuscripts, and not bother to correct them before passing them down to us. It's very unlikely that the church would not have bothered, or would not have been able, to pass down to us even one correct manuscript, but only thousands and thousands of corrupted and uncorrected manuscripts.

Also, when Tertullian asks regarding John 1:13, as we have it: "But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man...?", he is missing the point that John 1:13 in its context of John 1:12-13 can be referring not to the first, fleshly birth of believers, but to their spiritually being born again (John 3:6-7) by their faith in Jesus Christ (John 1:12-13).



This doesn't mean that a person cannot hear and understand the Gospel.


Other verses show that the unelect cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel (John 8:42-47, John 10:26). Faith in Jesus comes only as a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8), which he gives only to the elect (Acts 13:48) as they hear the gospel (Romans 10:17).



Christ give everyone enough light to understand the Gospel.

John 1:6-9


The original Greek word translated as "all" in John 1:7 and "every" in John 1:9 can mean "all manner of" (cf. Acts 10:12); it doesn't require that absolutely all people can believe in Jesus or that absolutely all people have had their understanding Spiritually illuminated, because there are those who cannot understand the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14). Only those who have received some measure of God's own Spirit can understand it (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).

Bible2
Mar 4th 2010, 03:00 PM
John146:
If they already belong to Him before they are saved then why do they need to be saved?


Because before people are saved they are unsaved.



From God's perspective that might be true because He knows everything beforehand, but I'm speaking in terms of the realm of time and space. We become Christ's in this realm upon believing in Him.


The elect belong to Jesus in this realm before they are saved (John 10:27-28).



Scripture does not teach this. You're acting as if Acts 13:48 says "those who were appointed to believe believed". No, it says those appointed to eternal life believed.


Eternal life comes only by belief (John 3:36). So those ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48) must be ordained to believe.



It doesn't say they were appointed to believe as if God chose for them to believe and made them believe as if they were puppets or robots.


God does choose for the elect to believe by granting them his miraculous gift of faith (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8, Acts 13:48). But this does not turn them into puppets or robots, because subsequent to their initial salvation, the elect can choose to depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), thereby ultimately losing their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8).



They were appointed to eternal life because God, in His foreknowledge, knew they would believe.


The elect were appointed to eternal life because God, in his foreknowledge, knew he would have mercy on them (Romans 9:16,23).



If they were unable to accept the invitation then why does it say they were not willing to accept it rather than saying they were unable to accept it?


It's both: the unelect are unwilling to accept the invitation (Matthew 22:3), but they are unwilling because they are the unelect (Matthew 22:14), and so are also unable to accept the invitation (John 8:42-47, John 10:26).



Nowhere does Ezekiel 33 say that all of the house of Israel was guaranteed to be saved.


In Ezekiel 33's original, typical application to Old Covenant Israel, the "life" guaranteed to those who were righteous according to the statutes of the Mosaic law (Ezekiel 33:15-16) is not the eternal life of Christian salvation (John 3:16-17), but simply a long and prosperous temporal life (Deuteronomy 30:16).

But in Ezekiel 33's antitypical application to New Covenant Israel, it is addressing only the elect (Romans 9:6-24), who other passages show are guaranteed to be initially saved at some point during their lifetime (Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-11). But not even the elect are guaranteed ultimate salvation; that will depend on their works subsequent to their coming into faith (Romans 2:6-8).



Why would Ezekiel 33:18 say "When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby" if it wasn't possible for some in the house of Israel to do so?


Who said it wasn't possible for some in the house of Israel to turn from their righteousness and die?

Even those in the true house of Israel, the elect (Romans 9:6-24), can ultimately lose their salvation if they return back to unrepentant sin subsequent to their initial salvation (Hebrews 10:26-29).



The text is speaking of the nation of Israel, not the true Israel.


In its original, typical application, Ezekiel 33 is speaking of the Old Covenant nation of Israel.

But in its antitypical application, Ezekiel 33:18 is addressing only the true Israel, the elect (Romans 9:6-24), because only the elect can become righteous in the New Covenant sense, because only the elect can believe in Jesus (Acts 13:48) and so become righteous in the New Covenant sense (Romans 3:22).



If salvation has nothing to do with people making a choice then how could they have known whether or not the man was even able to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved? In that case if he was not of the elect then they would have been lying to him.


Even if the person addressed in Acts 16:31 had been unelect, Acts 16:31 would not have been a lie, because it's true that if he believed in Jesus he would be saved, but this doesn't require that he had the ability to believe in Jesus



We are born again after repenting and putting our faith in Christ (Eph 1:12-13).


While people are born again after repenting and putting their faith in Christ (John 1:12-13), both repentance and faith in Christ can only come as miraculous gifts from God (2 Timothy 2:25, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8), and he gives them only to the elect (Acts 13:48, Romans 9:18) chosen by him from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11), before they have willed or done anything at all (Romans 9:11). It's in this sense that believers are born again not by their own will, but by the will of God (John 1:12-13, Romans 9:16).



I believe that salvation is offered to all people


While the gospel of salvation is preached to all people (Mark 16:15), unelect people cannot possibly be saved, because they cannot possibly believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47, John 10:26).



If man is not responsible for his choices then why will there be a judgment day?


All people are responsible for their sinful acts, because God never makes anyone to commit sin (James 1:13-15).

Bible2
Mar 4th 2010, 03:04 PM
MaryFreeman:
We are to tell EVERYONE that GOD loves them.... That God sent His Son FOR THEM.... That they can be saved if they want it....

Who then, sir, are we lying to?


We would be lying if we told people that God loves "everyone", because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves "the world" (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV. For the same reason, we are not lying when we tell people that God sent his Son to save "the world" (John 3:17), because this doesn't require that God sent his Son to save everyone in the world.

We are not lying when we tell people that God sent his Son to die for the sins of everyone, because Jesus' sacrifice was more than sufficient to cover the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2). But this doesn't mean that everyone can believe in Jesus' sacrifice, and so partake of its benefit (Romans 3:25).

We are not lying when we tell people that they can be saved if they want it, because this doesn't require that everyone can want to be saved.

Also, we are not lying when we tell people that whoever believes in Jesus is saved (John 3:16), because this doesn't require that everyone can believe in Jesus.



Deu 30:20 You can make this choice by loving the LORD your God, obeying Him, and committing yourself firmly to Him. This is the key to your life. And if you love and obey the LORD, you will live long in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."


Deuteronomy 30:20 wasn't referring to an ability to choose whether one will believe in Jesus Christ or not, but to an ability to choose whether one would obey the commandments of the Mosaic law or not (Deuteronomy 30:16). The Mosaic law was not of faith (Galatians 3:12).



Joh 3:20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed.


That "refuse" translation of John 3:20 is misleading, insofar as the original Greek simply says that they hated and didn't come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved; there is no original Greek word in John 3:20 which means "refuse" in the sense of they were able to choose to come to Jesus but refused to. No one can come to Jesus, believe in him, apart from a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8), which he gives only to the elect (Acts 13:48). The unelect cannot possibly believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47, John 10:26).



Mat 7:14 But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.


Matthew 7:14 doesn't say that anyone can find the way to life, because only the few elect can find it (Matthew 22:14), not because they deserve it, for they are no better than anyone else (Romans 3:9-10), but because they were elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11), before they did anything at all (Romans 9:11).

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 04:05 PM
What statement do you want chapter and verse for?

The place where Paul turns his attention from the Jewish Christians at Rome to the Gentile Christians at Rome.




What statement has not been supported by the necessary evidence?

No evidence of Paul changing focus.

John146
Mar 4th 2010, 09:00 PM
Yes, but giving the right is not the same as regenerating them. We're talking about regeneration. The text plainly says that being regenerated does not come from our own will, but from God's. It is illogical to say both that we cannot will to be born again and that we can will to believe. Spiritual "sight" is impossible to those who are not born again. No, my friend, I'm not being illogical at all about this. You are attributing an ability to man that this passage explicitly denies.You are avoiding the point that was made by both Butch and myself. John 1:12 clearly says that receiving Christ comes before becoming a child of God. Don't we become children of God upon being born of the Spirit? Yes, we do. So, that shows that being born of the Spirit follows the act of receiving (believing in) Christ.

John146
Mar 4th 2010, 09:09 PM
That order cannot be true since they are not born again of their own will.I believe you are misinterpreting what it means to not be born of our will. It does not mean we are not born of God as a result of a willful choice we've made. Instead, it means we can't regenerate our own hearts and spirits. How would we do that? No, that is something that the Spirit does within us. But the question is, who does the Spirit regenerate? Does He arbitrarily regenerate people's hearts or does He regenerate the hearts of those who have put their faith in Christ? I believe it is the latter and that is what is indicated in John 1:12. You can't try to interpret John 1:13 without taking the surrounding verses into account.


As I said in my other post, we cannot logically say that the natural man is unable to regenerate himself but that he is able to believe before being born again.Sure, we can. Matter of fact, I will say it right now. The natural man is unable to regenerate himself but is able to believe before being born again.


John 3:3 states that without being born again we cannot even see the kingdom of God. So, the broad context militates against your view.Where does scripture say that you have to see the kingdom of God before you can repent and believe?


I would agree with you if Paul had regeneration in view here. But note that he uses no words like "born" or "born of God" or "made alive" as other passages do. He says they were sealed with the Holy Spirit. Are you sure that is speaking of being born again? If so, what makes you so sure--just because Paul is speaking of their conversion?When we're born of the Holy Spirit that is the moment when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, is it not? If so, then why would the Holy Spirit wait until a later time to seal us? I don't believe that makes any sense.

Mathetes
Mar 4th 2010, 09:14 PM
You are avoiding the point that was made by both Butch and myself. John 1:12 clearly says that receiving Christ comes before becoming a child of God.

You are not paying careful attention to the wording of the text: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (NIV). How does the phrase "gave the right to become children of God" indicate being born again?

But I am not going to keep discussing this in a proof-texting manner. This question we are discussing needs to be examined in a systematic way, taking into account all that God says about man's nature. God's thoughts in the Bible are an organic whole, and so to think God's thoughts after him on a given subject, we need to take into account all that God says about that subject. I am in the process of writing such an examination, but it will take some time. I plan to post it once I finish it, or at least when I have finished most of it.

John146
Mar 4th 2010, 09:21 PM
You are not paying careful attention to the wording of the text: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (NIV). How does the phrase "gave the right to become children of God" indicate being born again?You're missing the point. Is it not saying that receiving Christ, believing in His name, precedes becoming a child of God? I believe it is. Do we not become children of God as a result of being born again? I believe so. Therefore, receiving (believing in) Christ precedes being born again.


But I am not going to keep discussing this in a proof-texting manner. This question we are discussing needs to be examined in a systematic way, taking into account all that God says about man's nature. God's thoughts in the Bible are an organic whole, and so to think God's thoughts after him on a given subject, we need to take into account all that God says about that subject.Of course.


I am in the process of writing such an examination, but it will take some time. I plan to post it once I finish it, or at least when I have finished most of it.I look forward to it.

Mathetes
Mar 4th 2010, 09:28 PM
I believe you are misinterpreting what it means to not be born of our will. It does not mean we are not born of God as a result of a willful choice we've been made. Instead, it means we can't regenerate our own hearts and spirits. How would we do that? No, that is something that the Spirit does within us. But the question is, who does the Spirit regenerate? Does He arbitrarily regenerate people's hearts or does He regenerate the hearts of those who have put their faith in Christ? I believe it is the latter and that is what is indicated in John 1:12. You can't try to interpret John 1:13 without taking the surrounding verses into account.

I agree. That's why I emphasized 1:13, so that 1:12 would be interpreted rightly.

But I'm afraid you're still missing my point. V. 12 does not actually say that believers in Christ are born again after they believe, and because of that belief. It says that to those who received him he gave the right to become children of God. I'm afraid you are equating "gave the right" with "gave them the new birth." The new birth is not mentioned until the next verse. In v. 12 he is talking about "the right to become children of God," not the actual granting of the new birth.


Sure, we can. Matter of fact, I will say it right now. The natural man is unable to regenerate himself but is able to believe before being born again.I don't think you realize the conundrum you put yourself in when you say things like that. If the natural man is unable to regenerate himself--give himself new life--then it must be that he is spiritually dead. Yet you say that this spiritually dead person is capable of believing in Christ and repenting, which are clearly acts that indicate spiritual life. Those who are spiritually dead do not and cannot perform such acts. Otherwise they would be alive!


Where does scripture say that you have to see the kingdom of God before you can repent and believe?The point is that seeing the kingdom of God refers to spiritual illumination. Jesus said that this "seeing" requires the new birth to take place. It makes no sense to say that someone who cannot see the kingdom of God would repent and believe.


When we're born of the Holy Spirit that is the moment when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, is it not? If so, then why would the Holy Spirit wait until a later time to seal us? I don't believe that makes any sense.I notice you didn't answer the question. I had asked whether you were sure that being sealed with the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in this verse, means the same as being born again. Your response was to say that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us at the time that we're born again, but that doesn't really answer the question. You cannot use this verse to prove your point if Paul did not have regeneration in view at all. I don't think he necessarily did.

Mathetes
Mar 4th 2010, 09:33 PM
1 Corinthians 2:6 ( KJV )
Howbeit 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:

He is talking about speaking the wisdom of Gd among those who are mature. So, no, the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God that a mature Christian can.


1 Corinthians 2:7-9 ( KJV )
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.
But 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.

These are the deep things of God. They are revealed Spiritually. This doesn't mean that a person cannot hear and understand the Gospel. Christ give everyone enough light to understand the Gospel.


John 1:6-9 ( KJV )
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, ]that all men through him might believe[/U].
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Butch, you had said regarding Romans 8, "If you look at that passage in context you will see why that mind cannot submit to God. Paul is not speaking of salvation he is speaking of the wisdom of God."

I then asked you to expound on the Rom. 8 text to show that Paul had the wisdom of God in view, but you didn't do that.

MaryFreeman
Mar 4th 2010, 09:34 PM
We would be lying if we told people that God loves "everyone", because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves "the world" (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV. For the same reason, we are not lying when we tell people that God sent his Son to save "the world" (John 3:17), because this doesn't require that God sent his Son to save everyone in the world.

We are not lying when we tell people that God sent his Son to die for the sins of everyone, because Jesus' sacrifice was more than sufficient to cover the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2). But this doesn't mean that everyone can believe in Jesus' sacrifice, and so partake of its benefit (Romans 3:25).

We are not lying when we tell people that they can be saved if they want it, because this doesn't require that everyone can want to be saved.

Also, we are not lying when we tell people that whoever believes in Jesus is saved (John 3:16), because this doesn't require that everyone can believe in Jesus.



Deuteronomy 30:20 wasn't referring to an ability to choose whether one will believe in Jesus Christ or not, but to an ability to choose whether one would obey the commandments of the Mosaic law or not (Deuteronomy 30:16). The Mosaic law was not of faith (Galatians 3:12).



That "refuse" translation of John 3:20 is misleading, insofar as the original Greek simply says that they hated and didn't come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved; there is no original Greek word in John 3:20 which means "refuse" in the sense of they were able to choose to come to Jesus but refused to. No one can come to Jesus, believe in him, apart from a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8), which he gives only to the elect (Acts 13:48). The unelect cannot possibly believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47, John 10:26).



Matthew 7:14 doesn't say that anyone can find the way to life, because only the few elect can find it (Matthew 22:14), not because they deserve it, for they are no better than anyone else (Romans 3:9-10), but because they were elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11), before they did anything at all (Romans 9:11).

Sigh....

Sir beating around the bush does not change the fact that if we told "the world" that God loves "the world" and He actually does NOT love "the world" we would be lying to those in "the world" who God "does not" love! You know as well as I that "the world" which hears that can no more distinguish who in "the world" God does love and who in "the world" God "does not" love any more than you or I!!!

How do you keep all your bushes straight?

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 09:41 PM
Sigh....

Sir beating around the bush does not change the fact that if we told "the world" that God loves "the world" and He actually does NOT love "the world" we would be lying to those in "the world" who God "does not" love! You know as well as I that "the world" which hears that can no more distinguish who in "the world" God does love and who in "the world" God "does not" love any more than you or I!!!

How do you keep all your bushes straight?


The way to keep the bushes straight is to use Scriptural Gymnastics.

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 09:43 PM
Butch, you had said regarding Romans 8, "If you look at that passage in context you will see why that mind cannot submit to God. Paul is not speaking of salvation he is speaking of the wisdom of God."

I then asked you to expound on the Rom. 8 text to show that Paul had the wisdom of God in view, but you didn't do that.

I did not reference Romans 8, I was referring to 1 Cor. 2. What would like me to expound on in Romans 8?

John146
Mar 4th 2010, 09:56 PM
I don't think you realize the conundrum you put yourself in when you say things like that.Nah. There's no conundrum here. I can safely say things like that because of my understanding of scripture as a whole and what it teaches about God's character and His dealings with man.


If the natural man is unable to regenerate himself--give himself new life--then it must be that he is spiritually dead. Yet you say that this spiritually dead person is capable of believing in Christ and repenting, which are clearly acts that indicate spiritual life.Just show me scripture that says an unregenerated person can't repent and believe and we'll be done with this conversation. So far, you haven't done that. I have to assume that your claim that an unregenrate person is unable to repent and believe is based only on speculation since you're not giving any scripture to back up that claim.


Those who are spiritually dead do not and cannot perform such acts. Otherwise they would be alive!Where does scripture teach that? Jesus said He came to call spiritually dead sinners to repentance. Apparently, He believed spiritually dead sinners were able to respond to His command and repent or else He wouldn't have come to call them to repentance.


The point is that seeing the kingdom of God refers to spiritual illumination. Jesus said that this "seeing" requires the new birth to take place. It makes no sense to say that someone who cannot see the kingdom of God would repent and believe.Maybe it makes no sense to you, but I'm not nearly as interested in your words as I am in the words of scripture, so show me the scripture that backs up your claims.


I notice you didn't answer the question. I had asked whether you were sure that being sealed with the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in this verse, means the same as being born again. Your response was to say that the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us at the time that we're born again, but that doesn't really answer the question. You cannot use this verse to prove your point if Paul did not have regeneration in view at all. I don't think he necessarily did.I did answer the question, but just not to your satisfaction, apparently. So, I'll try to clarify. I believe the sealing of the Spirit happens in conjunction with being born of the Spirit and baptized with the Spirit. I wouldn't say the sealing, being regenerated and being baptized are all exactly the same thing, but I do believe it all happens at the same time. I don't know why it wouldn't. Once the Spirit comes to dwell in us why would He wait to seal us and baptize us, right? Actually, the receiving of the Spirit can be shown to be in conjunction with being baptized with the Spirit from Acts 2 and Acts 10, so that leaves the question of whether or not the sealing occurs at the same time, and I can't think of any reason why not.

MaryFreeman
Mar 4th 2010, 10:04 PM
The way to keep the bushes straight is to use Scriptural Gymnastics.
:rofl: O goodness! I'm in trouble!

I have no talent for gymnastics OR beating around the bush!!!

Butch5
Mar 4th 2010, 10:16 PM
:rofl: O goodness! I'm in trouble!

I have no talent for gymnastics OR beating around the bush!!!

LOL, we'll have to get a coach!

MaryFreeman
Mar 4th 2010, 10:25 PM
LOL, we'll have to get a coach!
That my brother would be a waste of time and money! Not to mention energy! LOL!!

Mathetes
Mar 5th 2010, 01:28 PM
I did not reference Romans 8, I was referring to 1 Cor. 2. What would like me to expound on in Romans 8?

I said it in the very text you quoted!

Mathetes
Mar 5th 2010, 01:50 PM
Nah. There's no conundrum here. I can safely say things like that because of my understanding of scripture as a whole and what it teaches about God's character and His dealings with man.

Just show me scripture that says an unregenerated person can't repent and believe and we'll be done with this conversation. So far, you haven't done that.

Haven't I brought up Rom. 8:7 and explained why and how that shows that the unregenerate person cannot subject himself to God? Maybe you missed that post. At any rate, like I said before, I am currently working on a lengthy explanation of the biblical support for the truths I've been referring to. I generally don't like proof-texting because it fails to take into account all of God's thoughts on a subject.


Where does scripture teach that? Jesus said He came to call spiritually dead sinners to repentance. Apparently, He believed spiritually dead sinners were able to respond to His command and repent or else He wouldn't have come to call them to repentance.

As long as you rely on this kind of thinking you are not going to understand the truth pertaining to this subject. Your thinking here is really the same fallacy that Arminians so often bring out: The issuing of a command or a call necessarily indicates an ability in those to whom the command or call is directed. This is really human reasoning contradicting Scripture. If anything shows that this is not true, it is God's law and his expectations of people regarding that law. God never says, "Here is my law, but I know you can't keep it perfectly, so I won't expect you to." No, quite to the contrary, he demands perfect obedience even though he knows perfectly that man is not capable of keeping the law and, more than that, he knows that the law actually arouses sinful passions. So, God does not always issue a command to those who are able to keep it.


Maybe it makes no sense to you, but I'm not nearly as interested in your words as I am in the words of scripture, so show me the scripture that backs up your claims.

Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me. It is, in fact, very "sensible" from a human standpoint to be Arminian in one's theology.


I did answer the question, but just not to your satisfaction, apparently. So, I'll try to clarify. I believe the sealing of the Spirit happens in conjunction with being born of the Spirit and baptized with the Spirit. I wouldn't say the sealing, being regenerated and being baptized are all exactly the same thing, but I do believe it all happens at the same time.

And that still does not answer the question--not because I don't like the answer, but because it does not logically answer it. I asked you to show how being sealed with the Spirit is the same as being born again, since you had brought out the Eph. 1 text in the attempt to prove that belief precedes regeneration. The only way that text can prove that view is if being sealed with the Holy Spirit refers specifically to regeneration, if it is the same as regeneration. Instead of grappling with that particular question, you chose to answer another question entirely: whether the sealing happens at the same time as the regeneration. But that accomplishes nothing for the purpose of our discussion because we are talking about regeneration, not the sealing with the Holy Spirit. Just because the two might happen at the same time does not in any way whatsoever show that Paul had regeneration in view in the Eph. 1 passage.

Now if you cannot show that being sealed with the Spirit is the same as regeneration, then it stands to reason that you cannot use the Eph. 1 passage to prove your faith-precedes-regeneration view. That's not a matter of whether I find it satisfactory; it's simply rational. If the author of Eph. 1 did not have regeneration in view at all, then he was talking about something else. I for one regard God's word very highly and refuse to do eisegesis, nor do I accept eisegesis as a valid answer to my question. I'm not saying this to insult you, but I am just trying to explain to you that I have legitimate reasons for not accepting your answer, reasons that go beyond mere dissatisfaction.

All that aside, I don't plan to continue this back-and-forth nonsense. It is much better to write and post a thorough explanation and defense of the doctrine in question, doing so systematically by taking into account all that God says about it, than to quote individual verses back and forth to each other. IME, that is one of the big reasons that discussions on these boards so often degenerate into pointless bickering.

Butch5
Mar 5th 2010, 02:21 PM
I said it in the very text you quoted!

I went back and was unable to find any reference to Romans 8. I suspect someone else made this reference. I am assuming you are referring to Paul's statements of the mind set on the flesh and the Spirit. It seems rather clear to me. The mind set on the flesh is at enmity with God and the mind set on the Spirit is at peace with God. Paul says that the carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God. Is there something in particular you are looking for.

I also have some unanswered questions.

Can you please show me where Scripture teaches that regeneration precedes faith?

You also did not address that passages that I post.

Bible2
Mar 5th 2010, 03:48 PM
Butch5:
The place where Paul turns his attention from the Jewish Christians at Rome to the Gentile Christians at Rome.




No evidence of Paul changing focus.


That was already addressed with reference to the evidence of scripture, back in post #134:

"It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today."

. . .

"Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)."

Bible2
Mar 5th 2010, 03:48 PM
MaryFreeman:
Sir beating around the bush does not change the fact that if we told "the world" that God loves "the world" and He actually does NOT love "the world" we would be lying to those in "the world" who God "does not" love!


How do you feel that it was beating around the bush to say simply and directly that: "We would be lying if we told people that God loves'everyone', because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves 'the world' (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV" (post #172)?



You know as well as I that "the world" which hears that can no more distinguish who in "the world" God does love and who in "the world" God "does not" love any more than you or I!!!


That's exactly right, and the whole reason why the true, scriptural doctrine of predestination/election (Romans 8:30-39, Romans 9:11-24) need have no effect at all on the preaching or the reception of the gospel: because neither the preacher nor his hearers have any idea who is elect and who is not. The preacher can think to himself: "It doesn't matter if God doesn't love everybody, for all I know he loves all these hearers", and each of his hearers can think: "It doesn't matter if God doesn't love everybody, for all I know he loves me". And when the elect hearers subsequently believe (Acts 13:48) and Jesus comes to dwell in their hearts, then they come to know for certain, without any doubt whatsoever, that God loves them (Ephesians 3:17-21).

MaryFreeman
Mar 5th 2010, 04:55 PM
How do you feel that it was beating around the bush to say simply and directly that: "We would be lying if we told people that God loves'everyone', because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves 'the world' (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV" (post #172)?
I have no idea how you could ask this question.

I simply do not....

I am a simple writer....

A woman who types what she is thinking as she thinks it.... No hidden agendas here.... No nothing but plain.... Unadorned.... Sugarfree American....

I already told you what caused me to say it is beating around the bush....

Therefore I am not going to waste the keystrokes needed to RE-explain....

If you tell everyone in the world God loves them.... They are not going to wonder what "the world" means {btw.... it means all the earths inhabitants.... Greek [kosmos].... Which is used in John 3:16}.... They are going to believe it means them....

I dare you to tell them it only MIGHT mean them:D

If you don't.... YER LYIN' TA SUMONE!

Col 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.

John146
Mar 5th 2010, 06:26 PM
Haven't I brought up Rom. 8:7 and explained why and how that shows that the unregenerate person cannot subject himself to God? Maybe you missed that post.No, I didn't miss it. I disagree with your interpretation of the verse. You read a lot into it. It says absolutely nothing about one's ability to recognize that they are a sinner and confess that to God and one's ability to recognize that they need Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.


At any rate, like I said before, I am currently working on a lengthy explanation of the biblical support for the truths I've been referring to. I generally don't like proof-texting because it fails to take into account all of God's thoughts on a subject.Oh, so your explanation is going to basically be a book covering all of God's thoughts on the subject. I see. And you are expecting to get any response to that? People don't generally respond to posts that are excessively long, just to warn you ahead of time.


As long as you rely on this kind of thinking you are not going to understand the truth pertaining to this subject.No, that's not true. It would be much better for you to have said that as long as I rely on that kind of thinking I am not going to agree with your opinion on this subject.


Your thinking here is really the same fallacy that Arminians so often bring out: The issuing of a command or a call necessarily indicates an ability in those to whom the command or call is directed.That is not a fallacy.


This is really human reasoning contradicting Scripture.Your human reasoning contradicts scripture repeatedly. Scripture says God wants all people to repent and be saved (Eze 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:3-6, John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2). Your human reasoning says that is not the case. Scripture says that God is not partial, that He is not a respecter of persons. Your human reasoning says that He is. And on and on it goes.


Scripture If anything shows that this is not true, it is God's law and his expectations of people regarding that law. God never says, "Here is my law, but I know you can't keep it perfectly, so I won't expect you to." No, quite to the contrary, he demands perfect obedience even though he knows perfectly that man is not capable of keeping the law and, more than that, he knows that the law actually arouses sinful passions. So, God does not always issue a command to those who are able to keep it. That is true regarding the law. However, the command for all people everywhere to repent is not the law. Nowhere in scripture does it say that some people are not capable of obeying that command. Nowhere.


Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me. It is, in fact, very "sensible" from a human standpoint to be Arminian in one's theology.This was your response to my request for you to show me scripture that backed up your claims. And, once again, you supplied no scripture.


And that still does not answer the question--not because I don't like the answer, but because it does not logically answer it. I asked you to show how being sealed with the Spirit is the same as being born again, since you had brought out the Eph. 1 text in the attempt to prove that belief precedes regeneration. The only way that text can prove that view is if being sealed with the Holy Spirit refers specifically to regeneration, if it is the same as regeneration. Instead of grappling with that particular question, you chose to answer another question entirely: whether the sealing happens at the same time as the regeneration. But that accomplishes nothing for the purpose of our discussion because we are talking about regeneration, not the sealing with the Holy Spirit.But since I believe they happen at the same time then I am indeed speaking of regeneration in terms of it occurring after one has put their faith and trust in Christ. It doesn't surprise me that you would want to try to brush this issue aside because you don't really want to talk about whether or not the sealing happens at the same time as regeneration, do you? Because you know what that would mean for your doctrine if they do happen at the same time.


All that aside, I don't plan to continue this back-and-forth nonsense.You call discussing scripture nonsense? I guess I'm done with you then.


It is much better to write and post a thorough explanation and defense of the doctrine in question, doing so systematically by taking into account all that God says about it, than to quote individual verses back and forth to each other. IME, that is one of the big reasons that discussions on these boards so often degenerate into pointless bickering.It's not pointless bickering. We're not here to read books, friend. If your main goal is to only give your overall view of the doctrine, including every single passage that leads you to believe what you do then you might as well just write a book. This is apparently not the place for you.

John146
Mar 5th 2010, 06:42 PM
How do you feel that it was beating around the bush to say simply and directly that: "We would be lying if we told people that God loves'everyone', because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves 'the world' (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV" (post #172)? In the following passage, what if the prison keeper was not one of the elect?

Acts 16
27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The prison keeper was asking what he specifically had to do to be saved. If it was true that only some are able to believe in Christ and the rest are not able to do so then would Paul and Silas really have been honest with that person? He asked what he had to do to be saved and they responded that what he had to do was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. But if he was one of those who supposedly was not able to believe in Christ then they would have been lying to him by telling him there was something he could do to be saved.

If it was the case that only some are able to believe and the rest are not able to do so wouldn't it have been honest for them to tell him that they didn't know if there was anything he could do to be saved since they didn't know if he was one of the elect or not? I believe so. It seems to me that if your view was correct they would have answered him more like this: "If you are one of the elect then you will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. If you are not one of the elect then there is nothing you can do to be saved.".

But instead of saying that, and without knowing if he was elect or not, they told him that he could be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows that Paul and Silas believed that everyone had the ability to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and that anyone can be saved.

Butch5
Mar 5th 2010, 07:24 PM
That was already addressed with reference to the evidence of scripture, back in post #134:

"It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today."

. . .

"Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)."

I'm not asking for you opinion, I'm asking you to show me where Paul turns his attention from the Jewish Christians to the Gentile Christians. I makes a big difference who he is speaking to.

BroRog
Mar 5th 2010, 07:27 PM
I have no idea how you could ask this question.

I simply do not....

I am a simple writer....

A woman who types what she is thinking as she thinks it.... No hidden agendas here.... No nothing but plain.... Unadorned.... Sugarfree American....

I already told you what caused me to say it is beating around the bush....

Therefore I am not going to waste the keystrokes needed to RE-explain....

If you tell everyone in the world God loves them.... They are not going to wonder what "the world" means {btw.... it means all the earths inhabitants.... Greek [kosmos].... Which is used in John 3:16}.... They are going to believe it means them....

I dare you to tell them it only MIGHT mean them:D

If you don't.... YER LYIN' TA SUMONE!

Col 2:8 Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.

Hi Mary,

Your objection paints a picture based on an interpretation of a passage from John. If we discover together that your picture isn't a fair interpretation of John 3:16, then this should answer your objection. Your picture has us saying to people, "God loves the world." But John 3:16 doesn't suggest that WE go out and tell people that God loves the world. It simply makes a declaration that God so loved the world. But immediately it also begins to divide the world up into two categories, those who hate the light and those who practice the truth.



For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

So here we have the world, which consists of two types of people: those who believe in Jesus and practice the truth; and those who do not believe in Jesus and love the darkness. And so, though God demonstrated his love for the world through the death of his son, salvation comes exclusively to whoever believes in his son. God's love of the world is not unconditional; it only goes so far as to provide a propitiatory offering by which humanity can find reconciliation with him. But salvation itself is predicated on belief in his son Jesus. John isn't suggesting that God's love went so far as to save everyone, regardless of whether a person hates the light or comes to the light. Only those who come to the light and believe in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life.

We can't announce to the world "God loves you no matter what." We need to repeat what John said, "God loved the world, but only those who come to the light and believe will not perish but have eternal life." If we actually repeat what John said, then our statement is not a lie.

Evangelists often present John 3:16 in the context of an offer of salvation, but John doesn't present it as an offer. He isn't making an offer; he is making an observation. When he looks out over the world, he observes that those who believe in Jesus are those who came to the light because they were practicing the truth; and those who didn't believe in Jesus were those who hated the light and weren't willing to come out of the darkness.

MaryFreeman
Mar 5th 2010, 07:36 PM
Hi Mary,

Your objection paints a picture based on an interpretation of a passage from John. If we discover together that your picture isn't a fair interpretation of John 3:16, then this should answer your objection. Your picture has us saying to people, "God loves the world." But John 3:16 doesn't suggest that WE go out and tell people that God loves the world. It simply makes a declaration that God so loved the world. But immediately it also begins to divide the world up into two categories, those who hate the light and those who practice the truth.



For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

So here we have the world, which consists of two types of people: those who believe in Jesus and practice the truth; and those who do not believe in Jesus and love the darkness. And so, though God demonstrated his love for the world through the death of his son, salvation comes exclusively to whoever believes in his son. God's love of the world is not unconditional; it only goes so far as to provide a propitiatory offering by which humanity can find reconciliation with him. But salvation itself is predicated on belief in his son Jesus. John isn't suggesting that God's love went so far as to save everyone, regardless of whether a person hates the light or comes to the light. Only those who come to the light and believe in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life.

We can't announce to the world "God loves you no matter what." We need to repeat what John said, "God loved the world, but only those who come to the light and believe will not perish but have eternal life." If we actually repeat what John said, then our statement is not a lie.

Evangelists often present John 3:16 in the context of an offer of salvation, but John doesn't present it as an offer. He isn't making an offer; he is making an observation. When he looks out over the world, he observes that those who believe in Jesus are those who came to the light because they were practicing the truth; and those who didn't believe in Jesus were those who hated the light and weren't willing to come out of the darkness.

Nice try :hug: :hug:

Bible2
Mar 6th 2010, 11:00 AM
Butch5:
The way to keep the bushes straight is to use Scriptural Gymnastics.


Can you give an example of scriptural gymnastics and how it has been proven false?



I'm not asking for you opinion, I'm asking you to show me where Paul turns his attention from the Jewish Christians to the Gentile Christians. I makes a big difference who he is speaking to.


It has already been shown from the scriptures that: "It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today" (post #134).

And it has already been shown from the scriptures that: "Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)" (post #134).

Bible2
Mar 6th 2010, 11:01 AM
MaryFreeman:
I already told you what caused me to say it is beating around the bush....


How do you define "beating around the bush"?

The dictionary defines "beat around the bush" as "to fail or refuse to come to the point in discourse" (Webster's). It was by this definition that the question was asked: "How do you feel that it was beating around the bush to say simply and directly that: 'We would be lying if we told people that God loves "everyone", because he doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13). Instead, we should tell people that God loves "the world" (John 3:16), for this doesn't require that he loves everyone in the world, just as if we were to say that a person loves TV, it wouldn't require that that person loves every show on TV'".



If you tell everyone in the world God loves them.... They are not going to wonder what "the world" means {btw.... it means all the earths inhabitants.... Greek [kosmos].... Which is used in John 3:16}.... They are going to believe it means them....

I dare you to tell them it only MIGHT mean them

If you don't.... YER LYIN' TA SUMONE!


If we tell everyone in the world that God loves them, we would be lying to some of them, because God doesn't love everyone (Romans 9:13).

Regarding the original Greek word "kosmos", translated as "world" in John 3:16, it doesn't always have to mean all the earth's inhabitants. If it did, then, for example, John 15:18 would have to mean: "If [all the earth's inhabitants] hate you, ye know that [all the earth's inhabitants] hated me before [all the earth's inhabitants] hated you.". Here the "you" is believers, who are inhabitants of the earth, but Jesus is not saying that all the earth's inhabitants, including believers, hate believers, because believers love believers (John 13:35). So here the "kosmos" doesn't include believers, just as it doesn't include believers in, for example, John 16:8-9 and John 16:20.

So "kosmos" can be used in a way that doesn't include all the earth's inhabitants. In the case of John 3:16, "kosmos" is used in a way that doesn't include the unelect, because God doesn't love the unelect (Romans 9:11-13). In the case of John 18:20, "kosmos" is used in a way that doesn't include the vast majority of the earth's inhabitants at that time who did not hear Jesus speak to them during his preaching before his arrest.

Also, if "kosmos" always had to mean all the earth's inhabitants, then 1 John 2:15 would have to men: "Love not [all the earth's inhabitants], neither the things that are in [all the earth's inhabitants]. If any man love [all the earth's inhabitants], the love of the Father is not in him". Of course, 1 John 2:15 cannot mean this, because Christians are to love all the earth's inhabitants, even their enemies (Luke 6:27). So here "kosmos" is used in a way that isn't referring to any of the earth's inhabitants, but only to the wicked world-system.

"Kosmos" can also be used in a more morally-neutral way to simply refer to the world system (1 Corinthians 7:31,33,34).

"Kosmos" can also be used in the physical sense of the created earth itself (Ephesians 1:4) as God created it, and as distinct from anything that God created on it (Acts 17:24).

"Kosmos" can also be used in the physical sense of the entire universe, everything that God has created (Romans 1:20).

"Kosmos" can also be used in the sense of the Roman Empire at the time of Paul (Colossians 1:6).

"Kosmos" can also be used in the sense of "adorning" (1 Peter 3:3).



Col 2:8


Colossians 2:8 would apply to the man-made doctrine that God loves everyone.

Bible2
Mar 6th 2010, 11:02 AM
John146:
If it was the case that only some are able to believe and the rest are not able to do so wouldn't it have been honest for them to tell him that they didn't know if there was anything he could do to be saved since they didn't know if he was one of the elect or not?


The unelect are unable to believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47).

Regarding Acts 16:31, Paul and Silas would only have been dishonest if the jailer had been unelect and they had known he was unelect.



This shows that Paul and Silas believed that everyone had the ability to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and that anyone can be saved.


Nothing about Acts 16:31 requires that, because Paul elsewhere expressly shows that God chooses to have mercy only on the elect (Romans 9:11-24), who were elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11) without regard to any of their actions (Romans 9:11,16). And Paul shows that it is God who gives people faith (Romans 12:3, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Ephesians 2:8, cf. John 6:65, Acts 13:48).

Butch5
Mar 6th 2010, 12:42 PM
Can you give an example of scriptural gymnastics and how it has been proven false?



It has already been shown from the scriptures that: "It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today" (post #134).

And it has already been shown from the scriptures that: "Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)" (post #134).

As I said I'm not asking for your opinion. What you have posted above is opinion. It is unsupported by Scripture because you cannot show where Paul changes his attention from the Jewish Christians to the Gentiles Christians. Unless you can show where Paul changed his attention from the Jewish Christians to the Gentile Christians we have to understand that what He said was said to the Jewish Christians. You can claim otherwise but that does not make it so. I have shown where Paul starts and ends addressing the Jewish Christians, you have been unable to give any change in this address, therefore your claim has no support but is just an opinion.

Mathetes
Mar 7th 2010, 02:22 AM
No, I didn't miss it. I disagree with your interpretation of the verse. You read a lot into it. It says absolutely nothing about one's ability to recognize that they are a sinner and confess that to God and one's ability to recognize that they need Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

John146, this response of yours is actually proof of what I said before about pointless back-and-forth bickering. In my experience on forums like this, this is often what conversations like this one degenerate into: a carnal, fleshly argument with each person trying to one-up the other with either Bible verses or points. And I have been guilty of taking part in it myself, so I'm not just pointing the finger at you.


Oh, so your explanation is going to basically be a book covering all of God's thoughts on the subject.I didn't say it will be a book. See what you're doing here? You're posting responses that generate more heat than light. That's why I said these discussions become pointless bickering. Certainly discussing Scripture in a way that is profitable, with civility and respect, is worthwhile. But if the discussion is dominated by the kind of knee-jerk response that you made above (saying I would write a book when I made no such statement) it's just carnal fighting and is counterproductive.


I see. And you are expecting to get any response to that? People don't generally respond to posts that are excessively long, just to warn you ahead of time.Thank you for the warning, but I had already thought of that. I will probably post it a bit at a time, not all at once. And besides, it won't be a book. It's safer to say it will be a long paper. By the way, I suggest you do the same: Write a paper about all the passages in Scripture that speak of man's nature (since that's what we've been discussing). Since God's thoughts in Scripture are an organic whole, with no contradiction among them, in order to think God's thoughts after him on a particular subject we must consult all of what God says about that subject. To refuse to do so is to knowingly overlook passages that could give us a fuller view of the doctrine in question. This is why you are actually right in a sense when you said that this is not the place for me. I'm finding more and more that boards like this actually encourage the irresponsible handling of Scripture by focusing on short posts and proof-texting rather than on the comprehensive examination of all of God's thoughts in the Bible relating to a given topic.


That is not a fallacy.John146, there's no way it cannot be a fallacy. It's a conclusion that does not follow. An imperative statement is not the same as an indicative one. An imperative statement says what someone ought to do, not what they can do. There is a difference between

Repent and believe

and

You can repent and believe.

As I pointed out in this thread or another one, it is undeniable that God does, in fact, sometimes command people to do things that he knows they cannot do. He demands perfect obedience to his commandments, yet he knows that we cannot keep that command. Christ commanded crippled and lame people to do things physically that they absolutely could not do without divine enabling.

Bible2
Mar 7th 2010, 05:18 AM
Butch5:
As I said I'm not asking for your opinion. What you have posted above is opinion.


What was posted was supported by scripture.



I have shown where Paul starts and ends addressing the Jewish Christians, you have been unable to give any change in this address, therefore your claim has no support but is just an opinion.


It has only been claimed, not proven, that Paul is addressing only genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, just as it has only been claimed, not proven, that even if Paul were addressing only genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 that it would make any difference at all as to who the elect are in those passages. As has been pointed out, with scriptural support:

"It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today" (post #134).

"Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)" (post #134).

Butch5
Mar 7th 2010, 06:31 PM
What was posted was supported by scripture.

What was posted was your interpretation of those Scriptures.You claim,


"It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles.


It does matter. You said those passages also apply to the Gentiles, yet after repeated requests for some evidence you have yet to show where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles before 11:13. If you cannot show evidence of the a change then what you have stated is mere conjecture. You have no support. If you feel you can show where this change has taken place I am all ears.




It has only been claimed, not proven, that Paul is addressing only genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, just as it has only been claimed, not proven, that even if Paul were addressing only genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 that it would make any difference at all as to who the elect are in those passages. As has been pointed out, with scriptural support:

"It wouldn't make any difference if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because those passages are still about both genetic Jews and Gentiles. And nothing even requires that Paul is speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because in Romans 9:24 he refers to 'us' as being both Jews and Gentiles. Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing not only any genetic Jews who happened to be in the church at Rome, but also any Gentiles in the church at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were 'called' Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte 'Jews' still do today" (post #134).

"Nothing in the context of the letter of Romans requires that Paul is speaking of only elect Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, because Paul expressly shows in Romans 9:24 that the elect he is speaking of in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles. And Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8 that being part of the promised seed, the elect he refers to in Romans 9:11, is not based on genetics. And Paul expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed (Galatians 3:28-29), just as Isaac was: 'We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise' (Galatians 4:28). So the 'Isaac' election in Romans 9:7-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24)" (post #134).

It hasn't been proven, are you serious, anyone can look at the Scriptures and see the verses iin question. Your claim is ridiculous. There is no point in continuing this conversation as you reject the words of Scripture themselves.

Kudo Shinichi
Mar 7th 2010, 09:38 PM
I was reading a thread on predestination....

Question 1: Does foreknowledge mean that God planned the evil that goes on?
Question 2: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....
How do we know one of us is or is not "the damned"?
Question 3: Does God really force people to sin?
Question 4: What is the criteria prerequisite to becoming "The Chosen"?
Question 5: If God predestines people....
Why is it that all of us are born in sin?
Question 6: If God makes people for the express intent of sending them to hell....
Why is the Salvation invitation extended to the entire human race?
Question 7: Would God send someone to hell who has given their life to Him and served Him faithfully.... Just because they were preordained for hell?
Question 8: If some were predestined for Glory.... And some for eternal damnation.... Why does it say specifically that God DOES NOT WANT anyone to perish? Does not the word predestinate express a wish that some go on to glory and some do not?


Question 1:
GOD is omniscient, he of course knows everything.
Ezekiel 28:11
11Then this further message came to me from the Lord: 12“Son of man, sing this funeral song for the king of Tyre. Give him this message from the Sovereign Lord:
“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and exquisite in beauty.

13You were in Eden,
the garden of God.
Your clothing was adorned with every precious stoneb—
red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone,
blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper,
blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald—
all beautifully crafted for you
and set in the finest gold.
They were given to you
on the day you were created.
14I ordained and anointed you
as the mighty angelic guardian.c
You had access to the holy mountain of God
and walked among the stones of fire.
15“You were blameless in all you did
from the day you were created
until the day evil was found in you.
16Your rich commerce led you to violence,
and you sinned.
So I banished you in disgrace
from the mountain of God.
I expelled you, O mighty guardian,
from your place among the stones of fire.

17Your heart was filled with pride
because of all your beauty.
Your wisdom was corrupted
by your love of splendor.
So I threw you to the ground
and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings.
18You defiled your sanctuaries
with your many sins and your dishonest trade.
So I brought fire out from within you,
and it consumed you.
I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19All who knew you are appalled at your fate.
You have come to a terrible end,
and you will exist no more.”

Question 2:
GOD didn't want everyone to go to hell but HE did give free will for us to choose whether to except him or not.
http://www.gotquestions.org/free-will-sovereign.html
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/open-theism/if-god-knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will

Question 3:
Nope, HE just want to see whether we want to follow HIM or continue to live on sinning for the rest of our lives.

Question 4:
By praying the sinner's prayer after you repent from your sins and turn away from the old habits being a sinner. Being baptize and eat LORD'S supper. Baptism with water allows you to announce to the public that you are being one of GOD'S children. Read Acts and other letters to the churches written by Apostle Paul.

Matthew 28:18-20
The Great Commission
18Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,b baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Question 5:
Is written in the 66 books of Bible that GOD is continuing to carry out the plan of redemption for our sinful nature...which only can be done by allowing LORD Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sin the perfect lamb of GOD to carry the weight of the sin of this world. Why don't you do a bible study of the whole Bible in one year to understand the doctrine of GOD chosen us from the beginning. Genesis is the source where the first human beings decided to disobey GOD'S simple command not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowlege Good or Evil. Then, later in Moses time GOD did give the 10 commandments to the children of Israel (Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:7-21)...but they too decided to grumble about it and disobey GOD. GOD became annoyed at their attitude thus decided to allow them to wander around the desert area for 40 days; preventing them from entering into promise land. Then, later when they had the land, the generations did continue to disobey GOD'S commandment especially Thou shall have no other gods before me. Until LORD Jesus Christ came the generation mindset didn't change but they did respect Moses but someone greater than Moses was there, they wouldn't even listen to him.

Ephesians 1:3-11
Spiritual Blessings
3All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son.b 7He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding.

9God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God,c for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan.

Question 6:
It's not that GOD planned it to happen like that...actually in Revelations and other books in the bible. Hell is made to keep fallen angels there forever and every not for human beings. But if those human beings decided that they will reject the offer...what to do. Exception for those who didn't know about the salvation...only GOD know how to deal with that issue.
http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

Question 7:
Nope, I guess you got confused with this question. Those who accept GOD'S gift of salvation being redeemed as one of HIS children and has baptize. They won't be preordained for Hell, but they will be with GOD in new Heaven and new Earth created. Only for those false prophets who claim they knew GOD but GOD says I don't know you...they will end up in Hell.

Question 8:
Well, predestined for Glory or for eternal damnation you got to read more on Revelations and other letter written by Apostles chosen by LORD Jesus Christ.
http://www.christianforums.com/t104977/

Bible2
Mar 8th 2010, 04:57 AM
Butch5:
What was posted was your interpretation of those Scriptures.


What interpretation has been proven incorrect?



It does matter.


Why would it matter even if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, when in those passages he is speaking about both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24) being the elect?



You said those passages also apply to the Gentiles ...


It is scripture itself which shows that the elect in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles, because in Romans 9:24 Paul refers to "us" as being both Jews and Gentiles. Also, Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8-11 that being part of the elect, the promised seed, is not based on genetics, and he expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed just as Isaac was (Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 4:28), just as Paul elsewhere refers to the elect without ever restricting it to genetic Jews (Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1).



... yet after repeated requests for some evidence you have yet to show where Paul changes his focus to the Gentiles before 11:13.


What has been repeatedly shown is that there need be no change in focus in Romans: Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing Gentiles at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" still do today. And nothing in Romans 11:13 says or requires that Paul means "Now I'm changing focus and will start to speak to you Gentiles" instead of meaning "I'm addressing this letter to you Gentiles, because that's whom I'm supposed to be ministering to".



It hasn't been proven, are you serious, anyone can look at the Scriptures and see the verses iin question.


What hasn't been proven? What referenced scriptures don't support the statements preceding them?



Your claim is ridiculous.


What claim is ridiculous, and based on what scriptures?



There is no point in continuing this conversation as you reject the words of Scripture themselves.


What words of scripture have been rejected?

Butch5
Mar 8th 2010, 05:55 PM
What interpretation has been proven incorrect?



Why would it matter even if Paul were speaking only to genetic Jews in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24, when in those passages he is speaking about both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9:24) being the elect?



It is scripture itself which shows that the elect in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles, because in Romans 9:24 Paul refers to "us" as being both Jews and Gentiles. Also, Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8-11 that being part of the elect, the promised seed, is not based on genetics, and he expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed just as Isaac was (Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 4:28), just as Paul elsewhere refers to the elect without ever restricting it to genetic Jews (Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1).



What has been repeatedly shown is that there need be no change in focus in Romans: Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing Gentiles at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" still do today. And nothing in Romans 11:13 says or requires that Paul means "Now I'm changing focus and will start to speak to you Gentiles" instead of meaning "I'm addressing this letter to you Gentiles, because that's whom I'm supposed to be ministering to".



What hasn't been proven? What referenced scriptures don't support the statements preceding them?



What claim is ridiculous, and based on what scriptures?



What words of scripture have been rejected?

There is no point in persuing the conversation this statemenet says it all


What has been repeatedly shown is that there need be no change in focus in Romans: Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans,

Anyone with eyes can look at Romans 2:17 and 11:13 and see a change of focus.

John146
Mar 8th 2010, 07:53 PM
The unelect are unable to believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). That's not what it says in John 8:42-47. Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees could not believe Him and understand Him because they were instead following after their father the devil. As long as they were doing that they would not be able to believe. It doesn't say that they were not capable of ever repenting of their ways. Some did, including Saul (later renamed Paul).


Regarding Acts 16:31, Paul and Silas would only have been dishonest if the jailer had been unelect and they had known he was unelect.I disagree. Since they didn't know if he was elect or not they knew he could be unelect, yet still told him that he could be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. If it was the case that it was not his free will choice to believe or not then to be truly honest with him they would have said "There's nothing you can do to be saved if you are not one of the elect. If you are one of the elect you will believe and be saved at a time that God has appointed for you to do so". But that isn't what they said.

John146
Mar 8th 2010, 08:03 PM
John146, this response of yours is actually proof of what I said before about pointless back-and-forth bickering. In my experience on forums like this, this is often what conversations like this one degenerate into: a carnal, fleshly argument with each person trying to one-up the other with either Bible verses or points. And I have been guilty of taking part in it myself, so I'm not just pointing the finger at you.

I didn't say it will be a book. See what you're doing here? You're posting responses that generate more heat than light. That's why I said these discussions become pointless bickering. Certainly discussing Scripture in a way that is profitable, with civility and respect, is worthwhile. But if the discussion is dominated by the kind of knee-jerk response that you made above (saying I would write a book when I made no such statement) it's just carnal fighting and is counterproductive.

Thank you for the warning, but I had already thought of that. I will probably post it a bit at a time, not all at once. And besides, it won't be a book. It's safer to say it will be a long paper. By the way, I suggest you do the same: Write a paper about all the passages in Scripture that speak of man's nature (since that's what we've been discussing). Since God's thoughts in Scripture are an organic whole, with no contradiction among them, in order to think God's thoughts after him on a particular subject we must consult all of what God says about that subject. To refuse to do so is to knowingly overlook passages that could give us a fuller view of the doctrine in question. This is why you are actually right in a sense when you said that this is not the place for me. I'm finding more and more that boards like this actually encourage the irresponsible handling of Scripture by focusing on short posts and proof-texting rather than on the comprehensive examination of all of God's thoughts in the Bible relating to a given topic.

John146, there's no way it cannot be a fallacy. It's a conclusion that does not follow. An imperative statement is not the same as an indicative one. An imperative statement says what someone ought to do, not what they can do. There is a difference between

Repent and believe

and

You can repent and believe.

As I pointed out in this thread or another one, it is undeniable that God does, in fact, sometimes command people to do things that he knows they cannot do. He demands perfect obedience to his commandments, yet he knows that we cannot keep that command. Christ commanded crippled and lame people to do things physically that they absolutely could not do without divine enabling.You have misunderstood something here. You said you will write a long paper regarding your views on this issue but you will "post it a bit at a time". How is that different that what normally happens on this forum? You are apparently assuming that you are the only one here who has taken the time to see what scripture has to say about this issue as a whole, but you're wrong about that. Many of us have studied this issue at length and we discuss it on here "a bit at a time". So, there's nothing wrong with the discussion we have on this forum.

Disagreements do not have to be seen as carnal fighting, but that's how you have chosen to see our discussions. Sure, I strongly disagree with some of your conclusions and don't hide that fact, but I haven't called you names or anything like that. I don't believe I have been uncivil with you.

Mathetes
Mar 8th 2010, 08:30 PM
You have misunderstood something here. You said you will write a long paper regarding your views on this issue but you will "post it a bit at a time".

I said that was one possibility considering the length (hence my use of the word "probably").


How is that different that what normally happens on this forum?That's a fair question. It's different because it will take into account more than just a verse or two, and it will also be different in that I probably won't debate it. That, of course, is another big reason for doing it: to avoid the ridiculous back-and-forth bickering that is so common on these boards.


You are apparently assuming that you are the only one here who has taken the time to see what scripture has to say about this issue as a whole, but you're wrong about that. Do you just want to argue for argument's sake? You keep seizing what I write and twisting it into things I never said. I thought no such thing as you imply here. I've already explained why I want to post a long examination of this topic.


Many of us have studied this issue at length and we discuss it on here "a bit at a time".Yes, and that's the problem. When you post responses in bits and pieces, others tend to see only a fragment of your thinking on the matter, so it's much easier to misunderstand you. Even worse, slinging Scripture verses back and forth at each other tends to amount to a one-up contest and rivalry in which you constantly try to outdo the other person. That's why I said these discussions often degenerate into carnal arguments. But the worst part of it is that, more often than not, it's just proof-texting: taking verses out of their context instead of gathering a multitude of Scriptures that speak on the topic, thereby doing a more thorough treatment of the subject.

Certainly these boards are meant for discussion, so posting bits at a time will happen here. That is the reality. But it's also the reality that it carries with it some negative side effects.

Bible2
Mar 9th 2010, 07:18 AM
Butch5:
Anyone with eyes can look at Romans 2:17 and 11:13 and see a change of focus.


Nothing about either Romans 2:17 or Romans 11:13 requires any change in focus; as has been pointed out: Paul can be speaking to Gentiles throughout Romans, because he saw the church in Rome as a Gentile church (Romans 1:13-15). Romans 2:17 can be addressing Gentiles at Rome who were Jewish proselytes, who were "called" Jews (in the religious sense, not the genetic sense) because they had become circumcised and were keeping other rituals of the Mosaic law, just as some Gentile-proselyte "Jews" still do today. And nothing in Romans 11:13 says or requires that Paul means "Now I'm changing focus and will start to speak to you Gentiles" instead of meaning "I'm addressing this letter to you Gentiles, because that's whom I'm supposed to be ministering to".

The elect in Romans 8:30-39 and Romans 9:11-24 includes both Jews and Gentiles, because in Romans 9:24 Paul refers to "us" as being both Jews and Gentiles. Also, Paul expressly says in Romans 9:8-11 that being part of the elect, the promised seed, is not based on genetics, and he expressly shows in the letter of Galatians that both Jews and Gentiles are the promised seed just as Isaac was (Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 4:28), just as Paul elsewhere refers to the elect without ever restricting it to genetic Jews (Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1).

Bible2
Mar 9th 2010, 07:19 AM
John146:
As long as they were doing that they would not be able to believe.


John 8:42-47 doesn't say "as long as you are doing that you will not be able to believe", but says that they cannot possibly believe in Jesus because they are not of God, meaning not his elect. For only the elect can believe (Acts 13:48).



It doesn't say that they were not capable of ever repenting of their ways. Some did, including Saul (later renamed Paul).


Repentance can only come as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25), just as faith can only come as a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65). Saul/Paul eventually repented and believed because he was elected before he was even born (Galatians 1:15, cf. Romans 9:11,15,16).



Since they didn't know if he was elect or not they knew he could be unelect, yet still told him that he could be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.


Acts 16:31 is what believers should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16); they should never assume that anyone is unelect. Also, even when Acts 16:31 is unknowingly preached to someone who is unelect, it isn't a lie, because it's not saying: "You as an individual definitely have the ability to believe", but is simply saying: "If you as an individual do believe you will be saved". Even in answer to the jailer's question, if he had been unelect, Acts 16:31 wouldn't have been a lie, because his question was not "What am I as an individual able to do to be saved?", but "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). That's a big difference. It's like if a man on a ship fell overboard into icy water and cried out to people on deck: "What must I do to be saved?", and the people threw him a rope and answered "Grab onto this rope and you will be saved". What they didn't know what that the man's hands were so icy cold that he had lost all use of them, and so he could not possibly grab onto the rope and be saved.

John146
Mar 9th 2010, 10:30 PM
John 8:42-47 doesn't say "as long as you are doing that you will not be able to believe", but says that they cannot possibly believe in Jesus because they are not of God, meaning not his elect. For only the elect can believe (Acts 13:48).But Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in John 8:42-47 and even Paul was a Pharisee and I'm sure you wouldn't try to say that he was not able to believe.


Acts 16:31 is what believers should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16); they should never assume that anyone is unelect. Also, even when Acts 16:31 is unknowingly preached to someone who is unelect, it isn't a lie, because it's not saying: "You as an individual definitely have the ability to believe", but is simply saying: "If you as an individual do believe you will be saved". Even in answer to the jailer's question, if he had been unelect, Acts 16:31 wouldn't have been a lie, because his question was not "What am I as an individual able to do to be saved?", but "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). That's a big difference.What is the difference? That individual person was asking what he needed to do to be saved. I doubt he was asking the question as if he thought what he had to do to be saved would be any different than anyone else, but he was still asking what he had to do to be saved. And they told him if he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ he himself would be saved. So, they implied that they believed that he was able to believe and be saved even without knowing whether or not he was elect. If they didn't believe that then they would have told him that he couldn't be saved if he was not elect and would have told him how he could be saved if he was elect. But they didn't do that.


It's like if a man on a ship fell overboard into icy water and cried out to people on deck: "What must I do to be saved?", and the people threw him a rope and answered "Grab onto this rope and you will be saved". What they didn't know what that the man's hands were so icy cold that he had lost all use of them, and so he could not possibly grab onto the rope and be saved.This is not a valid analogy. In your analogy the people who threw him a rope were not aware of the possibility that he might not even be able to grab the rope. But in Paul and Silas's case, they would have been aware that only some had the ability to believe and some didn't (if that was the case, which it is not). Since they would have been aware of that there's no reason why they would not have shared that with the man, but they didn't because that is not the case. God desires all people to repent, believe and be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6, Ezekiel 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2) because He knows all people are able to repent, believe and be saved.

Kudo Shinichi
Mar 9th 2010, 11:21 PM
1 Peter 1:15-23
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Bible2
Mar 10th 2010, 06:37 AM
John146:
But Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in John 8:42-47 and even Paul was a Pharisee and I'm sure you wouldn't try to say that he was not able to believe.


Nothing requires that Jesus was speaking to all the Pharisees in John 8:42-47, just as nothing requires that he was speaking to all the Jewish people (John 8:2, John 8:22) in John 8:42-47. John 8:42-47 was simply addressed to some particular unbelieving "Jews" (John 8:22-23), whether Pharisees or not, who happened to be in the treasury of the temple at that moment (John 8:20) and who wanted to kill Jesus (John 8:37). John 8:42-47 says that they could not possibly believe in Jesus because they were not of God, meaning they were not his elect. For only the elect can believe (Acts 13:48). Faith can come only as a miraculous gift from God (John 6:65), just as repentance can come only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25). Saul/Paul eventually repented and believed because he was elected before he was even born (Galatians 1:15, cf. Romans 9:11,15,16).



What is the difference?


The difference between asking "What am I as an individual able to do to be saved?" and "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30) is that one as an individual may not be able to do what one must do to be saved.



So, they implied that they believed that he was able to believe and be saved even without knowing whether or not he was elect.


Acts 16:31 is what believers should preach to everyone (Mark 16:15-16); they should never assume that anyone is unelect, and so unable to believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Also, even when Acts 16:31 is unknowingly preached to someone who is unelect, it isn't a lie, because it's not saying: "You as an individual definitely have the ability to believe", but is simply saying: "If you as an individual do believe you will be saved". It's like if a man on a ship fell overboard into icy water and cried out to people on deck: "What must I do to be saved?", and the people threw him a rope and answered "Grab onto this rope and you will be saved". What they didn't know what that the man's hands were so icy-cold that he had lost all use of them, and so he could not possibly grab onto the rope and be saved.



This is not a valid analogy. In your analogy the people who threw him a rope were not aware of the possibility that he might not even be able to grab the rope. But in Paul and Silas's case, they would have been aware that only some had the ability to believe and some didn't (if that was the case, which it is not). Since they would have been aware of that there's no reason why they would not have shared that with the man, but they didn't because that is not the case.


It is a valid analogy, because the people who threw the man the rope could have been aware of the possibility that he might not be able to grab the rope, just as in Paul and Silas' case, they would have been aware that some people cannot possibly believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Even though Paul and Silas were aware of that, there's no reason why they would have shared that with the jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved, just as in the analogy, even though the people who threw the man the rope could have been aware of the possibility that he might not be able to grab the rope, there's no reason why they would have shared that with the man when he asked what he must do to be saved: the man would have found that out right away on his own when he tried to grab the rope and found that he had lost all use of his icy-cold hands, just as if the jailer had been unelect he would have found out right away on his own that he had no capacity to believe.



God desires all people to repent, believe and be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6, Ezekiel 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2)


In 1 Timothy 2:4, the original Greek word translated as "all" can mean "all manner of" (cf. Acts 10:12): God desires that all manner of people be saved (Revelation 5:9), not all people (Romans 9:11-24).

Regarding Ezekiel 33:11, in its original, typical application it was referring to Old Covenant repentance and obedience to the Old Covenant law (Ezekiel 33:15-16), not to New Covenant repentance and belief in Jesus Christ. And in its antitypical, New Covenant application, Ezekiel 33:11 is referring only to the elect, the true Israel (Romans 9:6-24).

In 2 Peter 3:9, the "any" refers back to the "us", which refers back to the elect (2 Peter 1:10): God doesn't want any of the elect to perish. But God does want the unelect to perish, for he purposely created them to perish (Romans 9:21-22).

John 3:16 doesn't say that God desires all people to repent, believe, and be saved; it only says that whoever does believe is saved.

1 John 2:2 doesn't say that God desires all people to repent, believe, and be saved; it only says that Jesus' sacrifice was suffiicient to cover the sins of all people. People as individuals still have to believe in Jesus' sacrifice if they are to partake of its benefit (Romans 3:25).