PDA

View Full Version : Harden his heart



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Nurse Grace
Nov 16th 2016, 09:16 PM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

CadyandZoe
Nov 17th 2016, 01:06 AM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

The meaning is just as it sounds. When the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it means that God caused Pharaoh to stubbornly resist Moses' request to let the people go.

Nurse Grace
Nov 17th 2016, 01:23 AM
ok, then how can that be explained. if we are free to chose God, y in the world would he harden someones heart to not do the will of God!

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 17th 2016, 01:24 AM
The Hebrew is a tough idiom.

It can also mean "God allowed Pharoah to exercise his hard heart and did not call him to repent."

I can't remember the source, but there are a number of scholarly article that specifically address the use of that idiom.

It is not a clear in the English as we might imagine.

Nurse Grace
Nov 17th 2016, 01:40 AM
hmmm ill try to find some articles at my library... Thanks

Tony P
Nov 17th 2016, 03:30 AM
ok, then how can that be explained. if we are free to chose God, y in the world would he harden someones heart to not do the will of God!

Where did God harden Pharaoh's heart to reject God's will? Just the opposite. God hardened his heart so that His will would be done. God willed that all 10 plagues come upon Egypt to establish Himself to Israel, among other reasons. One of these other reasons is to set up the Passover appointed time for the future time and date of Jesus' death. God clearly willed Egypt to receive all 10 plagues. Therefore, Pharaoh's heart was hardened for a reason.

jayne
Nov 17th 2016, 03:35 AM
Nurse Grace, I teach a community Bible study and we are in Exodus right now.

Here are some things to know about God hardening Pharoah’s heart.

Pharaoh’s heart was already hardened by his own sinful pride before the plagues even started. In Exodus 5:1-4 – when Moses firsts asks Pharaoh if they could take a 3-day journey to worship God, Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey his voice?” It wasn’t a genuine question, but a slur against God. They had been in bondage for a very long time and what did 3 days matter? Pharaoh accused them of laziness and increased their workload. He heart was already hard. God is not hardening Pharaoh’s heart against Pharaoh’s will as some will take Romans 9 and claim. It’s not like Pharaoh had a softened heart and had any compassion on these slaves or any respect for God. God is just revealing what’s already there and turning him over to his own sinful will. Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart initially and then God kept it hardened. Plague 1 – Blood: it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but not if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God did. Plague 2 – Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his own heart. Plague 3 – Lice: Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard” Plague 4 – Flies: Pharaoh hardens his own heart Plague 5 – Dead Livestock: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard” Plague 6 – Boils: For the first time it say, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart Plague 7 – Hail: Pharaoh hardens his own heart Plague 8 – Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Plague 9 – Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Plague 10 – Death of Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.

If you read carefully from Exodus 5 through 14, you will see time and time again, God showed mercy and gave Pharaoh many opportunities for repentance. God did not force Pharaoh to sin or to be cruel, sadistic, arrogant, or proud beyond belief. Pharaoh already considered himself to be a god before his own encounter with Moses and the true God.

He wouldn’t relent nor change nor submit. And eventually God took over the reins of his heart and kept it hardened. Pharaoh was never going to change and his own free will took him to that point.

CadyandZoe
Nov 17th 2016, 12:53 PM
ok, then how can that be explained. if we are free to chose God, y in the world would he harden someones heart to not do the will of God!

God has abilities we can't explain. Consider the miracle of Cana, for instance. We all know how to turn water into wine. The way we turn water into wine is we first plow a field, plant some grape vines, give them nutrients and water and let them grow for a few years. Then we harvest the grapes; mash them, and "cook" them, and ferment them until the grape juice ferments leaving wine as the byproduct.

How did Jesus turn water into wine? Who knows. The water became wine without going through a natural process. But God is not limited to natural processes.

Freedom of the will is a natural aspect of being human. Being stubborn is a natural aspect of being human. But how God makes someone, like Pharaoh supernaturally stubborn, can't be explained. As the Bible says, his ways are beyond our ways. He has ways and means beyond our comprehension and when God brings things into existence according to his unique power and ability, it is beyond our comprehension.

Why would God harden Pharaoh's heart?

Exodus 7:3
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

God decided to manifest himself to Israel and the rest of the world through the Exodus event and the plagues of Egypt. Yahweh demonstrated his power and his dominance over the so-called gods of Egypt through plagues designed to illustrate this idea. All powers and forces we experience as human beings are under his control, and nothing happens in this world apart from his decision or approval.

That's the message of Exodus, I think.

dan
Nov 19th 2016, 06:02 PM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

How about not allowing one's heart to see the truth of something that seems magical (God's Miracle) over a logical (and coincidental) occurrence.

For an unrighteous man MUST remain unrighteous, unless, and, until, he accepts God's Omnipotence.

God's Involvement.

God's Power.

God's Love.

Trivalee
Nov 19th 2016, 06:21 PM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

Read what transpired between Moses and Pharaoh and you'll have a full understanding of what hardening of heart means. Have you seen an insect caught in spiders web? That's what means! Being influenced and controlled by power and forces beyond you. For e.g. we see Pharaoh change his mind on several occasions and wanted the children of Israel to leave, but God hardened his heart further and he changed his mind again and again.

Trivalee
Nov 19th 2016, 06:25 PM
ok, then how can that be explained. if we are free to chose God, y in the world would he harden someones heart to not do the will of God!

The answer to your question is in:

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?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I hope the above helps?

Trivalee
Nov 19th 2016, 07:05 PM
Nurse Grace, I teach a community Bible study and we are in Exodus right now.

Here are some things to know about God hardening Pharoah’s heart.

Pharaoh’s heart was already hardened by his own sinful pride before the plagues even started. In Exodus 5:1-4 – when Moses firsts asks Pharaoh if they could take a 3-day journey to worship God, Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey his voice?” It wasn’t a genuine question, but a slur against God. They had been in bondage for a very long time and what did 3 days matter? Pharaoh accused them of laziness and increased their workload. He heart was already hard. God is not hardening Pharaoh’s heart against Pharaoh’s will as some will take Romans 9 and claim. It’s not like Pharaoh had a softened heart and had any compassion on these slaves or any respect for God. God is just revealing what’s already there and turning him over to his own sinful will. Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart initially and then God kept it hardened. Plague 1 – Blood: it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but not if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God did. Plague 2 – Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his own heart. Plague 3 – Lice: Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard” Plague 4 – Flies: Pharaoh hardens his own heart Plague 5 – Dead Livestock: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard” Plague 6 – Boils: For the first time it say, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart Plague 7 – Hail: Pharaoh hardens his own heart Plague 8 – Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Plague 9 – Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Plague 10 – Death of Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.

If you read carefully from Exodus 5 through 14, you will see time and time again, God showed mercy and gave Pharaoh many opportunities for repentance. God did not force Pharaoh to sin or to be cruel, sadistic, arrogant, or proud beyond belief. Pharaoh already considered himself to be a god before his own encounter with Moses and the true God.

He wouldn’t relent nor change nor submit. And eventually God took over the reins of his heart and kept it hardened. Pharaoh was never going to change and his own free will took him to that point.

As a Bible teacher, you should pay close attention to scripture: remember that what you teach shapes the spiritual view of your students.

Paul explained what happened in Rom 9, but according to you that is NOT really the case. His account is unrelated to actual facts in the early history of Israel. I am glad you listed Plagues 6,8,9 and 10 as the number of times God hardened Pharaoh's heart - at least you covertly agreed with Paul. But whether Pharaoh repented and asked the Israelites to leave because he feared God or simply because he and his people Egypt could no longer bear the pain and suffering brought on by the plagues, the fact remains that he wanted Israel to leave at some point!

Paul told us why God continued to harden his heart:

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.

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Paul reveals a contrast in God's character; what happens to those in his good standing and the consequences of standing against him. Just as both Isaiah and other prophets asked whether a vessel can question the potter that made it, we see in Rom 9:17 above that Pharoah never had a chance. It wasn't his will but the will of God that had to be done! He was specifically created for this PURPOSE, so to teach otherwise is ignoring scripture.

jayne
Nov 19th 2016, 07:51 PM
I don't feel that anything I said is in contradiction to Romans 9. We studied Romans 9 when looking at early Exodus. In fact, Romans 9:17 is a quote from Exodus that we studied twice in Exodus and in Romans 9.

God raised up a hardened man for His own purposes and kept him hardened. God did not put sin in the heart of Pharaoh. It was already there. God moved Pharaoh's heart to remain hardened.

Trivalee
Nov 19th 2016, 08:25 PM
I don't feel that anything I said is in contraction to Romans 9. We studied Romans 9 when looking at early Exodus. In fact, Romans 9:17 is a quote from Exodus that we studied twice in Exodus and in Romans 9.

God raised up a hardened man for His own purposes and kept him hardened. God did not put sin in the heart of Pharaoh. It was already there. God moved Pharaoh's heart to remain hardened.



God is not hardening Pharaoh’s heart against Pharaoh’s will as some will take Romans 9 and claim.

I was responding to your remark above. And I have shown that for God's will to be done, he hardened Pharaoh's heart even when Pharaoh has had enough and wanted the Israelites to leave his kingdom. I don't think there's any other way to interpret it without losing sight of what actually transpired.

jayne
Nov 19th 2016, 08:36 PM
But Pharaoh wasn't letting them go out of compassion or a softening of his heart.

In Exodus 14, after the Hebrews fled, it says both Pharaoh and his servants began asking themselves "What have we done in letting these people go?" Could they think of at least 10 good reasons that they let them go? They hearts are already hard and God said that he would hardened Pharaoh's heart to the point that he would chase after them.

First, their minds were changed and their old and true nature comes forth. That happened a lot after the plagues. They would get scared, but when the disaster was over, they got mad again.

THEN, after that conversation between Pharaoh and his servants, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he gathered his armies together and drove after them.

They were reprobates to begin with and God kept Pharaoh's heart hardened. Pharaoh never one desired to show compassion on those people.

ProDeo
Nov 20th 2016, 09:19 AM
I guess a sublte part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

EarlyCall
Nov 20th 2016, 11:06 AM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

I personally think it simply means that God, who knew all there was to know about Pharaoh, pushed the right buttons if you will knowing full well how Pharaoh would respond.

How many parents know their children so well, that they know if they do or say a certain thing to their child, that child will react in a certain way?

It is my opinion it was the same thing then and nothing more. Does God soften a person's heart? Sure. Does He do that by force and without the person having any choice in the matter? It seems safe to say no, therefore, why do we think the opposite would be any different? I don't believe it is or was then.

God raised up Pharaoh. An easy thing for God to do to put someone in power. We know God does this, not always, but He does when He chooses to do so. God put Pharaoh in power. God knew the person Pharaoh was and how he would respond. As God displayed His might and power, Pharaoh responded just as God knew he would.

if someone thinks God hardened Pharaoh's heart through some unseen force, then I'd like that person to tell me how that works. I'd like them to explain to me why God needed some unseen force to harden Pharaoh's heart when I clearly see his heart hardened by the things God did for everyone to see in plain sight.

Perhaps I am wrong, but to me the story tells how it was done.

Trivalee
Nov 20th 2016, 03:29 PM
But Pharaoh wasn't letting them go out of compassion or a softening of his heart.

In Exodus 14, after the Hebrews fled, it says both Pharaoh and his servants began asking themselves "What have we done in letting these people go?" Could they think of at least 10 good reasons that they let them go? They hearts are already hard and God said that he would hardened Pharaoh's heart to the point that he would chase after them.

First, their minds were changed and their old and true nature comes forth. That happened a lot after the plagues. They would get scared, but when the disaster was over, they got mad again.

THEN, after that conversation between Pharaoh and his servants, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he gathered his armies together and drove after them.

They were reprobates to begin with and God kept Pharaoh's heart hardened. Pharaoh never one desired to show compassion on those people.

You seem to have a habit of making contradictory statements making it difficult to know where you stand. Of course, Pharaoh's change of mind when he asked the Israelites to go was never because he finally got converted or compassionate. Far from it, he only acquiesced because of the difficulties and suffering brought on by the plagues. In life today, between individuals, corporate organisations and nations, people often reluctantly give in to demands not of love or compassion but invariably because of the hold the other party has over them. The bottom line is, whether willingly or forced, they did give in - this is the case with Pharaoh.

All that Moses wanted was that Pharaoh allows the Hebrews to leave and serve their God. If God didn't have a bigger plan in the scheme of things, when Pharaoh wanted them to leave they would have left and that would have been the end of the story, but God wanted to use Pharaoh to fulfil his ultimate plan. If the Hebrews had left earlier when Pharaoh wanted them to, there would not have been recourse to the Passover feast and the blood of the lamb on their door lintels. Today, we know their significance; the Passover continues to be celebrated by Israelites till today, the blood of the lamb signifies the Blood of Jesus (the Lamb that was slain). Looking at the complete picture today, we understand (what at the time was unknown to man) what the plan of God was.

As Paul revealed in 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.

Pharaoh was no more than a puppet in the hand of God, raised specifically for that purpose. At the risk of repetition, when evil and wicked people are pressurised or threatened into doing what they are loath to do that's the end of the matter, but that wasn't the case with Pharaoh. The fact he and his princes were evil and reprobates is not in contention. God did not let it be when out of pain and suffering he asked the Hebrews to leave for the reasons I mentioned above.

In conclusion, did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Yes, he did.

Trivalee
Nov 20th 2016, 03:46 PM
I guess a sublte part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

Not really.

Rom 9:22 is a general application that is unrelated to Pharaoh. If you believe that Pharaoh ultimately perished because of his refusal to let Israel leave, then you will have to explain away the number of time when out of pain and suffering brought on by the plagues he asked the Hebrews to leave. Pharaoh's case is different, Paul told us in v-17 that he was specifically raised for that purpose.

ProDeo
Nov 20th 2016, 04:00 PM
Not really.

Rom 9:22 is a general application that is unrelated to Pharaoh.
It's a rule of thumb throughout the whole Scripture. Before judgement actually takes place there are multiple warnings, God's enduring patience. It's not different with Pharaoh before God gave him over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient; the hardening, see Rom 1:28-32.

Trivalee
Nov 20th 2016, 08:58 PM
It's a rule of thumb throughout the whole Scripture. Before judgement actually takes place there are multiple warnings, God's enduring patience. It's not different with Pharaoh before God gave him over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient; the hardening, see Rom 1:28-32.

One of the common pitfalls among Christians is the misapplication of scripture. Unfortunately, Rom 1:28-32 does not apply to Pharaoh. The texts you quoted refers to those that have heard the word of God and yet reject him. Pharoah never heard that. Moses didn't preach the God of heaven to Pharaoh, only that he should allow the Hebrews to leave his kingdom. Rom 10:17 said, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". In support of my argument that 28-32 refers to those that has already heard the word but reject, Paul said earlier:

Rom 1:17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Whether Jew or Gentile you are right that God's patience endures.

CadyandZoe
Nov 20th 2016, 09:23 PM
One of the common pitfalls among Christians is the misapplication of scripture. Unfortunately, Rom 1:28-32 does not apply to Pharaoh. The texts you quoted refers to those that have heard the word of God and yet reject him. Pharoah never heard that. Moses didn't preach the God of heaven to Pharaoh, only that he should allow the Hebrews to leave his kingdom. Rom 10:17 said, "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". In support of my argument that 28-32 refers to those that has already heard the word but reject, Paul said earlier:

Rom 1:17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Whether Jew or Gentile you are right that God's patience endures.

I beg to differ. Paul position is that God's wrath will directed to those who were given the natural order as evidence of his existence, not hearing the message of a prophet or an apostle.

Trivalee
Nov 20th 2016, 09:48 PM
I beg to differ. Paul position is that God's wrath will directed to those who were given the natural order as evidence of his existence, not hearing the message of a prophet or an apostle.

To the pagan, what might these natural order be? For we see that only after God's punishment is meted out to e.g. Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar did they through inspiration acknowledge the God of heaven.

CadyandZoe
Nov 20th 2016, 10:56 PM
To the pagan, what might these natural order be? For we see that only after God's punishment is meted out to e.g. Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar did they through inspiration acknowledge the God of heaven.

Of course. :) But I think Paul would say that although Pharaoh knew about God because God made himself evident to him, Pharaoh willfully suppressed his knowledge of God, choosing to worship idols etc.

Reynolds357
Nov 21st 2016, 05:20 PM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

Do you want the Calvinistic or Arminian explanation?

CadyandZoe
Nov 21st 2016, 08:34 PM
Do you want the Calvinistic or Arminian explanation?

There is only one truth.

Reynolds357
Nov 21st 2016, 08:46 PM
There is only one truth.

There is only one truth, but there is much debate as to exactly what it is.

ChangedByHim
Nov 21st 2016, 08:53 PM
I don't feel that anything I said is in contradiction to Romans 9.
No you didn't. Excellent post you made Jayne.

Pbminimum
Nov 21st 2016, 11:10 PM
No you didn't. Excellent post you made Jayne.

Yes. It was a great biblical explanation of a hardened heart.

ProDeo
Nov 22nd 2016, 09:22 AM
No you didn't. Excellent post you made Jayne.

Yes. It was a great biblical explanation of a hardened heart.
Indeed.

Nevertheless the hardening subject starts with Exo 4:21, not with chapter 5.

I don't think it matters, reading with comprehension is important but some will make Exo 4:21 an impregnable stronghold.

CadyandZoe
Nov 22nd 2016, 02:31 PM
There is only one truth, but there is much debate as to exactly what it is.

Granted. Nonetheless, the idea that Calvinism or Arminianism are the only alternatives is a mistake. Both of them are wrong. Both of them make the same fatal error. (in my humble opinion.)

TheDivineWatermark
Nov 22nd 2016, 02:59 PM
Granted. Nonetheless, the idea that Calvinism or Arminianism are the only alternatives is a mistake. Both of them are wrong.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

jayne
Nov 22nd 2016, 03:36 PM
Granted. Nonetheless, the idea that Calvinism or Arminianism are the only alternatives is a mistake. Both of them are wrong. Both of them make the same fatal error. (in my humble opinion.)

I try to stay humble about that topic, too. By humble, I mean that I don't get into the C/A arguments on the two boards that I frequent. I am in complete agreement with you here. I have to reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. The former has tenets about the elect that I cannot find Biblical evidence for and the latter has tenets about the Christian fumbling and losing his own salvation that I cannot find Biblical evidence for.

I have long since held that these are not the only two views of Christianity.

Pbminimum
Nov 22nd 2016, 05:58 PM
I would have repped you again Jayne, but it wouldn't ley me. :D

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 22nd 2016, 07:00 PM
I try to stay humble about that topic, too. By humble, I mean that I don't get into the C/A arguments on the two boards that I frequent. I am in complete agreement with you here. I have to reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. The former has tenets about the elect that I cannot find Biblical evidence for and the latter has tenets about the Christian fumbling and losing his own salvation that I cannot find Biblical evidence for.

I have long since held that these are not the only two views of Christianity.

Arminianism does not teach that one can fumble and lose ones salvation. Arminianism teaches that one can intentionally reject Christ and his salvation after being truly born again. Just to be clear. And that evidence is in Hebrews 6, among other places.

jayne
Nov 22nd 2016, 07:09 PM
I don't see the difference in what you said and what I said, but as I said earlier - I don't like to get into those argument. No one ever changes their mind. I've seen the debates for 14 years and I've never seen anyone "cross over".

Pbminimum
Nov 22nd 2016, 08:38 PM
I don't see the difference in what you said and what I said, but as I said earlier - I don't like to get into those argument. No one ever changes their mind. I've seen the debates for 14 years and I've never seen anyone "cross over".

We had one cross over about 6 month ago. First time I've witnessed it.

Reynolds357
Nov 23rd 2016, 01:58 AM
Granted. Nonetheless, the idea that Calvinism or Arminianism are the only alternatives is a mistake. Both of them are wrong. Both of them make the same fatal error. (in my humble opinion.)

They are the extremes. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Noeb
Nov 23rd 2016, 04:37 AM
Not really.

Rom 9:22 is a general application that is unrelated to Pharaoh.Well, this is after Paul goes into Isa 45; echoed in Isa 29 and Jer 18 -how God deals with and uses nations for his will (mercy on all -Rom 11). Though, make no mistake, Paul is continuing the same argument he had already started. Here, a ruler of a dishonorable nation (vessel) named Cyrus is used to free Israel to return to her land and show salvation and mercy toward all nations in Christ -the purpose of God according to election. Pharaoh also represented a nation (vessel) of dishonorable use. In Isa 29, 45 and Jer 18 the potter is creating salvation for all and Israel is the nation (vessel) of honorable use. BTW, all Israel being saved (Rom 11 -Paul argument does not change) is Isa 45:17, 25. God alone had the power to raise up and bring down a nation (Jer 18) for the purpose of God according to election. As the potter, he created Israel from the fathers (v5) -Abraham (v7), Isaac (7), Jacob (v11-13). The potter decided who's seed the Messiah would come through. Not Esau's but Jacob's (Israel).

ProDeo
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:06 AM
Well, this is after Paul goes into Isa 45; echoed in Isa 29 and Jer 18 -how God deals with and uses nations for his will (mercy on all -Rom 11). Though, make no mistake, Paul is continuing the same argument he had already started. Here, a ruler of a dishonorable nation (vessel) named Cyrus is used to free Israel to return to her land and show salvation and mercy toward all nations in Christ -the purpose of God according to election. Pharaoh also represented a nation (vessel) of dishonorable use. In Isa 29, 45 and Jer 18 the potter is creating salvation for all and Israel is the nation (vessel) of honorable use. BTW, all Israel being saved (Rom 11 -Paul argument does not change) is Isa 45:17, 25. God alone had the power to raise up and bring down a nation (Jer 18) for the purpose of God according to election. As the potter, he created Israel from the fathers (v5) -Abraham (v7), Isaac (7), Jacob (v11-13). The potter decided who's seed the Messiah would come through. Not Esau's but Jacob's (Israel).
And God also used the Roman empire to destroy a corrupt religious system. 1500 years of disobedience, killing God's prophets, 1500 years of God's enduring patience (Rom 9:22). After Christ Israel per Rom 9:22 God gave Israel another 40 years waiting for repentance. Pharaoh, Cyrus, the Roman Empire --> God's useful idiots to execute his will on Earth.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:38 AM
Nurse Grace, I teach a community Bible study and we are in Exodus right now.

Here are some things to know about God hardening Pharoah’s heart.


Pharaoh’s heart was already hardened by his own sinful pride before the plagues even started. In Exodus 5:1-4 – when Moses firsts asks Pharaoh if they could take a 3-day journey to worship God, Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD that I should obey his voice?” It wasn’t a genuine question, but a slur against God. They had been in bondage for a very long time and what did 3 days matter? Pharaoh accused them of laziness and increased their workload. He heart was already hard.
God is not hardening Pharaoh’s heart against Pharaoh’s will as some will take Romans 9 and claim. It’s not like Pharaoh had a softened heart and had any compassion on these slaves or any respect for God. God is just revealing what’s already there and turning him over to his own sinful will.
Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart initially and then God kept it hardened.
Plague 1 – Blood: it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but not if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God did.
Plague 2 – Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his own heart.
Plague 3 – Lice: Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard”
Plague 4 – Flies: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 5 – Dead Livestock: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard”
Plague 6 – Boils: For the first time it say, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart
Plague 7 – Hail: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 8 – Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 9 – Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 10 – Death of Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.


If you read carefully from Exodus 5 through 14, you will see time and time again, God showed mercy and gave Pharaoh many opportunities for repentance. God did not force Pharaoh to sin or to be cruel, sadistic, arrogant, or proud beyond belief. Pharaoh already considered himself to be a god before his own encounter with Moses and the true God.

He wouldn’t relent nor change nor submit. And eventually God took over the reins of his heart and kept it hardened. Pharaoh was never going to change and his own free will took him to that point.
Not once did God command Moses to tell Pharaoh to 'worship the God of Israel', nay rather, He said to 'let My ppl go so that they may worship Me.' God never sent Moses to witness to Pharaoh and Egypt, but as one who was forewarning God's judgment for their idolatry and enslaving His ppl.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:42 AM
But Pharaoh wasn't letting them go out of compassion or a softening of his heart.

In Exodus 14, after the Hebrews fled, it says both Pharaoh and his servants began asking themselves "What have we done in letting these people go?" Could they think of at least 10 good reasons that they let them go? They hearts are already hard and God said that he would hardened Pharaoh's heart to the point that he would chase after them.

First, their minds were changed and their old and true nature comes forth. That happened a lot after the plagues. They would get scared, but when the disaster was over, they got mad again.

THEN, after that conversation between Pharaoh and his servants, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he gathered his armies together and drove after them.

They were reprobates to begin with and God kept Pharaoh's heart hardened. Pharaoh never one desired to show compassion on those people.

Dr. James White does one of the best expositions of Romans 9 I've ever heard. As he stated it, Pharaoh would have relented to save his own self, but God was hardening his heart so that he would not let them go, so that He would destroy Egypt for all their idolatry and enslavement of His ppl. God used Pharaoh to destroy the Egyptians.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:50 AM
I guess a sublte part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

Show me one time Moses told Pharaoh and Egypt to worship God. It's just not there Brother.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 10:03 AM
Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the wilderness.’”[Exodus 5:1]

Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword.”[Exodus 5:3]

Pharaoh then tells the Egyptians to go get their own straw to make bricks.

But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.[Exodus 7:3,4]

Then say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to say to you: Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness. But until now you have not listened. [Exodus 7:16 plague of blood]

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.[Exodus 8:1 plague of frogs]

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and confront Pharaoh as he goes to the river and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.[Exodus 8:20 plague of flies]

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, says: “Let my people go, so that they may worship me.”[Exodus 9:1 plague of the livestock]

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.[Exodus 9:13 plague of hail]

So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, “This is what the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, says: ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will bring locusts into your country tomorrow.[Exodus 10:3,4 plague of locusts]

EarlyCall
Nov 23rd 2016, 10:29 AM
God said He would bless those that blessed the Jews and curse those that cursed them.

Point is, God blessed Egypt in the beginning and cursed them in the end. In the beginning, Egypt blessed the Jews and in the end, they had turned to cursing them.

I don't think this should be overlooked because God was making good His word.

Athanasius
Nov 23rd 2016, 10:36 AM
Show me one time Moses told Pharaoh and Egypt to worship God. It's just not there Brother.

That would have changed the entire narrative, so of course it's not there ;)

ProDeo
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:17 AM
Show me one time Moses told Pharaoh and Egypt to worship God. It's just not there Brother.
You must have read something in my post I never said, nor implied.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 12:12 PM
God said He would bless those that blessed the Jews and curse those that cursed them.

Point is, God blessed Egypt in the beginning and cursed them in the end. In the beginning, Egypt blessed the Jews and in the end, they had turned to cursing them.

I don't think this should be overlooked because God was making good His word.

Agreed. Look at Potiphar and the Pharoah during Joseph's time in Egypt. God used Joseph in a way that during the famine, His ppl would have plenty during the drought. God always provides for His ppl.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 12:14 PM
You must have read something in my post I never said, nor implied.

You posted this in post #16...


I guess a sublte part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

God never gave Pharaoh plenty of time to repent and believe, but to let His ppl go.

Athanasius
Nov 23rd 2016, 12:20 PM
God never gave Pharaoh plenty of time to repent and believe, but to let His ppl go.

Well, only between 200 - 400 years, give or take.

jayne
Nov 23rd 2016, 01:54 PM
Not once did God command Moses to tell Pharaoh to 'worship the God of Israel', nay rather, He said to 'let My ppl go so that they may worship Me.' God never sent Moses to witness to Pharaoh and Egypt, but as one who was forewarning God's judgment for their idolatry and enslaving His ppl.

Hold your horses, brother. Don't be so hasty to argue.

I never said that Moses told Pharaoh to worship God. I said that Moses asked if "they" could take a 3-day journey. "They" implying [as told literally in the story] that God wanted the people to go on a 3-day journey. Not Pharaoh. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

goldenboy
Nov 23rd 2016, 03:21 PM
In a related item, I suppose that I need to ask this question. Why did Jesus call Judas "the Son of perdition"? Apoleia is the word translated as perdition that is also translated as destruction. Is perdition a place or a state of mind or both? Did Judas come from a place called perdition? Was he headed for this place called perdition? Or was it just his mindset, with or without the influence of God, that brought about the betrayal of our Lord? He called Judas by that title, BECAUSE he was the one that should (as in the future) betray Jesus.
Blessings to all who keepeth the sayings and the prophecy of HIS book!
GB

P.S. I would add this. In alluding to Pharaoh, Romans 9:22 says that he was a vessel fitted TO destruction/apoleia/destruction. To me that word "fitted" conveys the idea of matching together behavior/thoughts and actions/deeds.
Blessings

Noeb
Nov 23rd 2016, 04:52 PM
Show me one time Moses told Pharaoh and Egypt to worship God. It's just not there Brother.
Exactly! It's not there, and no one said it was, so now show us where Romans 9 is talking about individuals being saved or damned, because that claim is made.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 23rd 2016, 05:00 PM
Here's an excellent article on this subject, which we would all do well to consider. Of course, it is quasi-scholarly, so for some, that will mean "liberal" and untrustworthy...

Please peruse pursuant to your personal perspectives and pleasures.... or I'll bite your head off... :)

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

Noeb
Nov 23rd 2016, 06:28 PM
And God also used the Roman empire to destroy a corrupt religious system. 1500 years of disobedience, killing God's prophets, 1500 years of God's enduring patience (Rom 9:22). After Christ Israel per Rom 9:22 God gave Israel another 40 years waiting for repentance. Pharaoh, Cyrus, the Roman Empire --> God's useful idiots to execute his will on Earth.We can add Nebuchadnezzar to the list. I'm reminded of

Romans 13:1-4 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

ProDeo
Nov 23rd 2016, 07:19 PM
You posted this in post #16...
I know what I posted ;)


God never gave Pharaoh plenty of time to repent and believe, but to let His ppl go.
Again, I never said that, nor implied so.

Hint, how many plagues were there?

ProDeo
Nov 23rd 2016, 07:25 PM
Well, only between 200 - 400 years, give or take.
I heard of that before, can you tell a bit?

Athanasius
Nov 23rd 2016, 07:27 PM
I heard of that before, can you tell a bit?

The amount of time between Joseph's family's move to Goshen, and God telling Moses to free the Hebrews.

Trivalee
Nov 23rd 2016, 08:04 PM
Of course. :) But I think Paul would say that although Pharaoh knew about God because God made himself evident to him, Pharaoh willfully suppressed his knowledge of God, choosing to worship idols etc.

Until the plagues rained down on his kingdom, there is nothing in scripture to indicate that God revealed himself (power) to the pagan Pharaoh and his people. Apart from Moses who had the privilege of first-hand knowledge of God in the burning bush, most of the Hebrews born in Egypt didn't really know their God hitherto. Prior to the burning bush, God had only revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Unless you are arguing that Pharaoh must have "intuitively" known there is a big GOD out there? But this argument is academic because until God revealed himself in the way that leaves no doubt to his Sovereignty, how can a pagan believe that the unseen, unknown God is any different from his idols?

Paul told us specifically that God used Pharoah *to show his power and declare his name throughout the earth* (Rom 9:17). This is evidenced by the fear that gripped the kings and nations that Israel traversed their land on their way from exile. Why were they afraid? Because by then, they have heard what the "God of Israel" had done to the mighty Pharaoh! I don't see any scriptural support that Pharaoh "had knowledge" of the existence of God of heaven beforehand. Another example is Nebuchadnezzar: even though rumours or knowledge of this awesome God of the Hebrews must have been around since the exodus from Egypt only after God revealed his power did he acknowledge him as GOD of HEAVEN.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 08:50 PM
Well, only between 200 - 400 years, give or take.

That Pharaoh was given that long to repent?

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 08:52 PM
I know what I posted ;)


Again, I never said that, nor implied so.

Hint, how many plagues were there?

There were 10 plagues. But God never told Pharaoh to repent and worship Him through Moses' instruction. God raised that Pharaoh up to destroy Egypt because of the paganism. He was not going to save them, but crush them because of their idolatry.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 08:55 PM
Hold your horses, brother. Don't be so hasty to argue.

I never said that Moses told Pharaoh to worship God. I said that Moses asked if "they" could take a 3-day journey. "They" implying [as told literally in the story] that God wanted the people to go on a 3-day journey. Not Pharaoh. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

My apologies. Plus, I call it a debate. But thsee can become very spirited.

Trivalee
Nov 23rd 2016, 08:57 PM
Well, this is after Paul goes into Isa 45; echoed in Isa 29 and Jer 18 -how God deals with and uses nations for his will (mercy on all -Rom 11). Though, make no mistake, Paul is continuing the same argument he had already started. Here, a ruler of a dishonorable nation (vessel) named Cyrus is used to free Israel to return to her land and show salvation and mercy toward all nations in Christ -the purpose of God according to election. Pharaoh also represented a nation (vessel) of dishonorable use. In Isa 29, 45 and Jer 18 the potter is creating salvation for all and Israel is the nation (vessel) of honorable use. BTW, all Israel being saved (Rom 11 -Paul argument does not change) is Isa 45:17, 25. God alone had the power to raise up and bring down a nation (Jer 18) for the purpose of God according to election. As the potter, he created Israel from the fathers (v5) -Abraham (v7), Isaac (7), Jacob (v11-13). The potter decided who's seed the Messiah would come through. Not Esau's but Jacob's (Israel).

It's impossible to fault your argument. But if you read through my posts, you will find I never questioned why God punished Pharaoh. However, some on this post argue that God did not harden Pharoah's heart. I say he did. Another poster believes that Pharoah knew about the God of Israel beforehand, I say there's no evidence. It was only after God unleashed his power through the plagues, did Pharoah realise he was up against the God Almighty of the Hebrews. Back to your analogy, we are all vessels in God's hand to use as he pleases. Pharaoh and Cyrus are examples of vessels at opposites ends of the spectrum.

Reynolds357
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:06 PM
There were 10 plagues. But God never told Pharaoh to repent and worship Him through Moses' instruction. God raised that Pharaoh up to destroy Egypt because of the paganism. He was not going to save them, but crush them because of their idolatry.

If that was his purpose, he did a poor job of it.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 09:32 PM
If that was his purpose, he did a poor job of it.

:huh: :o :huh: :o

ProDeo
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:14 PM
There were 10 plagues. But God never told Pharaoh to repent and worship Him through Moses' instruction.
Please stop putting words into my mouth I never said, that's annoying.


God raised that Pharaoh up to destroy Egypt because of the paganism. He was not going to save them, but crush them because of their idolatry.
Shall we return to the OP?


Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

So that's the topic, the hardening of Pharaoh.

Plague-1 --> warning-1 --> (7:22) So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Plague-2 --> warning-2 --> (8:15) But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

etc.

What I said in post #16 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/269514-Harden-his-heart/page2)

I guess a subtle part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

Yes?

CadyandZoe
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:18 PM
Until the plagues rained down on his kingdom, there is nothing in scripture to indicate that God revealed himself (power) to the pagan Pharaoh and his people. Apart from Moses who had the privilege of first-hand knowledge of God in the burning bush, most of the Hebrews born in Egypt didn't really know their God hitherto. Prior to the burning bush, God had only revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Unless you are arguing that Pharaoh must have "intuitively" known there is a big GOD out there? But this argument is academic because until God revealed himself in the way that leaves no doubt to his Sovereignty, how can a pagan believe that the unseen, unknown God is any different from his idols?

Paul told us specifically that God used Pharoah *to show his power and declare his name throughout the earth* (Rom 9:17). This is evidenced by the fear that gripped the kings and nations that Israel traversed their land on their way from exile. Why were they afraid? Because by then, they have heard what the "God of Israel" had done to the mighty Pharaoh! I don't see any scriptural support that Pharaoh "had knowledge" of the existence of God of heaven beforehand. Another example is Nebuchadnezzar: even though rumours or knowledge of this awesome God of the Hebrews must have been around since the exodus from Egypt only after God revealed his power did he acknowledge him as GOD of HEAVEN.

I am taking my lead from the book of Romans where Paul argues that all human beings are guilty of unjustly suppressing the truth about God's existence. None of us has any excuse for not coming to know the God of Moses given that he has revealed himself through his creation. Pharaoh knew God existed, he simply chose to ignore that fact. Pharaoh may not have known his name, but according to Paul, God already made himself evident to Pharaoh through his creation. Let me quote the passage and make a few comments.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Paul has not eliminated pagans here. Even pagans ought to know about the real God, since God has made himself evident through what has been made. Had Pharaoh thought about it with a clear head, he would have already known the power of God from his creation. Anyone, including Pharaoh can learn about God from what he created and so, even before Moses came to Pharaoh, he already knew or should have known about the living God. According to Paul, Pharaoh DID know about God, but rather than face the truth about his existence, chose to suppress the truth instead.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here Paul asserts that idolatry, and paganism isn't the result of ignorance and foolishness. Rather ignorance and foolishness is the result of suppressing knowledge about God. Once a person suppresses knowledge about the God who made himself evident from his creation, that person turns to speculation, their foolish heart is darkened and they worship an image of their own making.

People don't start off as Pagans; they start off as believers in God, suppress that knowledge, and then become pagans after that. As a citizen of the United States, I am watching this process take place right before my eyes, and it saddens me. As soon as our country decided that God was dead or irrelevant my own countrymen began to suffer from foolish speculation and now stupidity is has increased to almost intolerable levels. All because they chose not to acknowledge God or give him thanks.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:39 PM
Please stop putting words into my mouth I never said, that's annoying.


Shall we return to the OP?



So that's the topic, the hardening of Pharaoh.

Plague-1 --> warning-1 --> (7:22) So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Plague-2 --> warning-2 --> (8:15) But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

etc.

What I said in post #16 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/269514-Harden-his-heart/page2)

I guess a subtle part in 9:22 is easily overlooked: has endured with much patience

Pharaoh was given a lot of time.

Yes?

From man's perspective, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. From God's perspective, it was He who really hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Sorry for misunderstanding your post.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:43 PM
I am taking my lead from the book of Romans where Paul argues that all human beings are guilty of unjustly suppressing the truth about God's existence. None of us has any excuse for not coming to know the God of Moses given that he has revealed himself through his creation. Pharaoh knew God existed, he simply chose to ignore that fact. Pharaoh may not have known his name, but according to Paul, God already made himself evident to Pharaoh through his creation. Let me quote the passage and make a few comments.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Paul has not eliminated pagans here. Even pagans ought to know about the real God, since God has made himself evident through what has been made. Had Pharaoh thought about it with a clear head, he would have already known the power of God from his creation. Anyone, including Pharaoh can learn about God from what he created and so, even before Moses came to Pharaoh, he already knew or should have known about the living God. According to Paul, Pharaoh DID know about God, but rather than face the truth about his existence, chose to suppress the truth instead.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here Paul asserts that idolatry, and paganism isn't the result of ignorance and foolishness. Rather ignorance and foolishness is the result of suppressing knowledge about God. Once a person suppresses knowledge about the God who made himself evident from his creation, that person turns to speculation, their foolish heart is darkened and they worship an image of their own making.

People don't start off as Pagans; they start off as believers in God, suppress that knowledge, and then become pagans after that. As a citizen of the United States, I am watching this process take place right before my eyes, and it saddens me. As soon as our country decided that God was dead or irrelevant my own countrymen began to suffer from foolish speculation and now stupidity is has increased to almost intolerable levels. All because they chose not to acknowledge God or give him thanks.

Ppl know there's a 'god', but to know God is to know the Son. Ppl knowing there is a 'god' is evidenced by the bazillion 'gods' they worship. Molech, Remphan, Buddha, Allah, et al, are examples they know that there is a 'god' out there, but they know not the Christ, the only Way[John 14:6] to truly know God.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:45 PM
Guess no one is interested in the perspective in the article that was posted.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 23rd 2016, 11:45 PM
I am taking my lead from the book of Romans where Paul argues that all human beings are guilty of unjustly suppressing the truth about God's existence. None of us has any excuse for not coming to know the God of Moses given that he has revealed himself through his creation. Pharaoh knew God existed, he simply chose to ignore that fact. Pharaoh may not have known his name, but according to Paul, God already made himself evident to Pharaoh through his creation. Let me quote the passage and make a few comments.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Paul has not eliminated pagans here. Even pagans ought to know about the real God, since God has made himself evident through what has been made. Had Pharaoh thought about it with a clear head, he would have already known the power of God from his creation. Anyone, including Pharaoh can learn about God from what he created and so, even before Moses came to Pharaoh, he already knew or should have known about the living God. According to Paul, Pharaoh DID know about God, but rather than face the truth about his existence, chose to suppress the truth instead.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here Paul asserts that idolatry, and paganism isn't the result of ignorance and foolishness. Rather ignorance and foolishness is the result of suppressing knowledge about God. Once a person suppresses knowledge about the God who made himself evident from his creation, that person turns to speculation, their foolish heart is darkened and they worship an image of their own making.

People don't start off as Pagans; they start off as believers in God, suppress that knowledge, and then become pagans after that. As a citizen of the United States, I am watching this process take place right before my eyes, and it saddens me. As soon as our country decided that God was dead or irrelevant my own countrymen began to suffer from foolish speculation and now stupidity is has increased to almost intolerable levels. All because they chose not to acknowledge God or give him thanks.

Acts 17 is a good example of ppl knowing there is a 'god', but they know not the Christ, ergo, they know not God.

Athanasius
Nov 24th 2016, 12:05 AM
Guess no one is interested in the perspective in the article that was posted.

Nah, what do academics matter.


Acts 17 is a good example of ppl knowing there is a 'god', but they know not the Christ, ergo, they know not God.

So is the entire OT; oh, wait...

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 12:34 AM
Ppl know there's a 'god', but to know God is to know the Son.I don't think this is necessarily true. Not every equality is commutative. While it is true that if one knows Jesus, he knows God; it's not necessarily true that if one knows God, they also know Jesus. Moses knew God, for instance, but he didn't know Jesus.

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 12:37 AM
From man's perspective, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. From God's perspective, it was He who really hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Assuming that the topic now is about mankind's ability to choose before or against God, then --

Pharaoh, a man who called himself a god while knowing he isn't, put the Hebrews into slavery, killing babies, according to Rom 1:18-20 is having no excuse and is used by God as a reprobate mind: God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Rom 1:28). Yes, at times God does that.

The confrontation between a self declared human god and the creator of the universe for the purpose His name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17) is not a great example to exclude the rest of mankind from the ability to make a choice before or against God.


Sorry for misunderstanding your post.
No problem.

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 12:38 AM
Assuming that the topic now is about mankind's ability to choose before or against God, then --

Pharaoh, a man who called himself a god while knowing he isn't, put the Hebrews into slavery, killing babies, according to Rom 1:18-20 is having no excuse and is used by God as a reprobate mind: God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Rom 1:28). Yes, at times God does that.

The confrontation between a self declared human god and the creator of the universe for the purpose His name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17) is not a great example to exclude the rest of mankind from the ability to make a choice before or against God.


No problem.

Yes, a model of the beast that is to come.

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 12:43 AM
Guess no one is interested in the perspective in the article that was posted.
Too many words, too much room for making objections and then get lost in the details with our beloved C/RT brothers and sisters.

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 03:03 AM
It's impossible to fault your argument. But if you read through my posts, you will find I never questioned why God punished Pharaoh.I didn't say you did.



However, some on this post argue that God did not harden Pharoah's heart.He didn't. If God allows sin, is He the cause of sin? Nope.



Back to your analogy, we are all vessels in God's hand to use as he pleases.I don't buy into the Reformed model. God doesn't just run around using people however he chooses. The examples in scripture are
1) to bring Christ (Romans 9) -the purpose of God (election) --not just any purpose
2) not against their will (Pharaoh and Cyrus etc did what they were doing already and wanted to do)

In the case of Pharaoh, if anything could be said to be against Pharaoh's will it was not because of a manipulation or changing of the heart by God directly, as the Reformed wrongly use the passage for the elect, but because of the plagues.

"You are the potter we (Israel) are the clay." Not individualistic. Vessels are individuals in a few places, but we aren't discussing those, neither do they say anything about God using them as he pleases. In fact, they leave what type of individual the vessel is, up to the individual.



Pharaoh and Cyrus are examples of vessels at opposites ends of the spectrum.Not sure why you think they were at opposite ends.

Reynolds357
Nov 24th 2016, 03:09 AM
:huh: :o :huh: :o

Egypt suffered no major demise at that time period.

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 03:11 AM
Guess no one is interested in the perspective in the article that was posted.
I read it and liked it. Thanks for posting it.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 03:19 AM
I don't think this is necessarily true. Not every equality is commutative. While it is true that if one knows Jesus, he knows God; it's not necessarily true that if one knows God, they also know Jesus. Moses knew God, for instance, but he didn't know Jesus.

He knew of the promised Messiah that was coming.

Another thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that ppl such as Moses, Aaron, Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Saul of Tarsus/Apostle Paul, et al, spoke directly to God. None of us can make that claim.

God then used them who spoke to Him directly, those in OT times, to convey His word to them. Just like now. God used them to speak and write His word to us so that we can know Him.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 03:31 AM
Here's an excellent article on this subject, which we would all do well to consider. Of course, it is quasi-scholarly, so for some, that will mean "liberal" and untrustworthy...

Please peruse pursuant to your personal perspectives and pleasures.... or I'll bite your head off... :)

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1205

We, there are two misnomers in that essay, at least two, that Pharaoh had a free will and that we are free moral agents. The lost are not free in their will, but rather, their will bound by their nature. The only freedom we have is in Christ, and even then, were are Christos Dolous.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 03:43 AM
Assuming that the topic now is about mankind's ability to choose before or against God, then --

Pharaoh, a man who called himself a god while knowing he isn't, put the Hebrews into slavery, killing babies, according to Rom 1:18-20 is having no excuse and is used by God as a reprobate mind: God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Rom 1:28). Yes, at times God does that.

The confrontation between a self declared human god and the creator of the universe for the purpose His name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17) is not a great example to exclude the rest of mankind from the ability to make a choice before or against God.


No problem.

There is nothing restraining man from coming to God, as there is nothing that is physically holding them back. The gates of heaven are opened wide for all who come, The only problem is their wicked, God-hating hearts, preclude them from coming. No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God. It is God who always seeks them and finds them.

Moses hid in the desert 40 years before God came to him in the burning bush.

David was tending to the sheep when God sent Samuel to anoint him.

Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus to persecute those who called upon the name of the Christ when God shined the Light around him.

The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them.

Abram was a Pagan, living in a pagan land, when God came to him.

God sought Adam out after he hid himself from his nakedness after he ate of the TOK.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 03:46 AM
Egypt suffered no major demise at that time period.

Potiphar and the Pharaoh of Joseph's time were blessed by Joseph's presence. A.W. Pink wrote about how God blesses others for the sake of another. He used Joseph as a type of the Christ, and how we are blessed for the sake of Another, the Christ, now.

But this Pharaoh enslaved God's ppl, the Pharaoh of Joseph's time was kind to God's ppl.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 03:50 AM
Nah, what do academics matter.



So is the entire OT; oh, wait...

Those God spoke to directly conveyed God's word to them. Those who were God's ppl obeyed it, those who did not, killed many of the Prophets. Today, we have God's word conveyed to us through their words in written form, the bible.

That's the narrative of the whole bible. Those who were, and are, His ppl, will hear it, understand it, and obey it to the best of their ability.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 24th 2016, 04:20 AM
We, there are two misnomers in that essay, at least two, that Pharaoh had a free will and that we are free moral agents. The lost are not free in their will, but rather, their will bound by their nature. The only freedom we have is in Christ, and even then, were are Christos Dolous.

I could have anticipated your response.


I read it and liked it. Thanks for posting it.

Thanks......".........

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 05:02 AM
I could have anticipated your response.

Yes sir. Because it is biblical. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?[Romans 6:13-16]

We are either a slave to Satan or the Christ. To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.[John 8:31-36] There is no freedom outside of Christ, not even in our wills.

It's like offering a cow some meat or hay. They will choose the hay because eating meat is contrary to its nature. God first comes in and changes our natures, for when we were still fallen, so was our nature and it was inclined to sin and self. Once God changes our natures, then so is our will changed. Pharaoh's will was to sin and self, and would not let God's ppl go.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 05:05 AM
I could have anticipated your response.



Thanks......".........

Yes. Thanks for posting that essay. I will give it a much deeper reread. Maybe I have missed something. Thanks again, Brother.

And PLEASE, do not take my debates personally. I do not mean to be snarky and if my posts come across that way, I do not mean them to be.

May He richly bless you with a bountiful Thanksgiving feast.

Happy Thanksgiving Brother.

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 08:06 AM
There is nothing restraining man from coming to God, as there is nothing that is physically holding them back. The gates of heaven are opened wide for all who come, The only problem is their wicked, God-hating hearts, preclude them from coming. No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God. It is God who always seeks them and finds them.

Moses hid in the desert 40 years before God came to him in the burning bush.

David was tending to the sheep when God sent Samuel to anoint him.

Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus to persecute those who called upon the name of the Christ when God shined the Light around him.

The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them.

Abram was a Pagan, living in a pagan land, when God came to him.

God sought Adam out after he hid himself from his nakedness after he ate of the TOK.I guess you don't have a clear picture of what was gong on. Israel knew it was time for Messiah to appear. They were indeed seeking him and John was preparing the way.

Joh 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

How can you say Nathanael did not seek God?
Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
1Pe 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

There's others. Lydia a proselyte speaks on behalf of the proselyte against your claim. "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God".
Then of course there's.....
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein,.............
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men..............
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Now, I do realize you said, "left to themselves" but there's your problem. Man is His Image so it is impossible to be entirely left to himself. To you left to themselves means something entirely different than it means to others. Man is a living soul, having a spirit from God, heart, conscience etc.



God first comes in and changes our natures, for when we were still fallen, so was our nature and it was inclined to sin and self. Once God changes our natures, then so is our will changed.Not a verse of scripture can back this up.

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 08:42 AM
There is nothing restraining man from coming to God, as there is nothing that is physically holding them back. The gates of heaven are opened wide for all who come, The only problem is their wicked, God-hating hearts, preclude them from coming. No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God. It is God who always seeks them and finds them.
Sure, because (per Rom 1:18-20) God put the knowledge inside us; So they are without excuse. If mankind is not equipped with the ability to make a choice before or against God, then mankind HAS an excuse.



Moses hid in the desert 40 years before God came to him in the burning bush.

David was tending to the sheep when God sent Samuel to anoint him.

Saul of Tarsus was on his way to Damascus to persecute those who called upon the name of the Christ when God shined the Light around him.

The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them.

Abram was a Pagan, living in a pagan land, when God came to him.

God sought Adam out after he hid himself from his nakedness after he ate of the TOK.
And none of them (to use your words) had wicked, God-hating hearts.

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 09:20 AM
Yes sir. Because it is biblical. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?[Romans 6:13-16]

We are either a slave to Satan or the Christ. To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.[John 8:31-36] There is no freedom outside of Christ, not even in our wills.
In both examples it's about overcoming sin addressed to believers, people who already made a choice.


It's like offering a cow some meat or hay. They will choose the hay because eating meat is contrary to its nature. God first comes in and changes our natures, for when we were still fallen, so was our nature and it was inclined to sin and self. Once God changes our natures, then so is our will changed.
Exactly.

The work of the Holy Spirit, per Rom 8:13.


Pharaoh's will was to sin and self, and would not let God's ppl go.
Yep.

A reprobate mind.

Ready to be used by God as an useful idiot to execute His will on Earth.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 09:52 AM
I guess you don't have a clear picture of what was gong on. Israel knew it was time for Messiah to appear. They were indeed seeking him and John was preparing the way.

I think they knew He was coming, but none knew the time of His appearing. Moses proclaimed that Jesus was coming when he said The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”[Exodus 18:14-20]



Joh 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

How can you say Nathanael did not seek God?
Jesus first came to John to confirm the Messiah had indeed came. John then witnesses and Andrew tells Peter. Here's the thing, many, when Christ came, refused to believe He was the Messiah. Yet, the Apostles, and many other did. Why was that? Jesus said it best when He said He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.[Matthew 13:11]


Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
1Pe 3:10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Nathanael was part of those who were baptized by John, correct?(this is purely speculation from me, as I see how Philip, Andrew and Peter were all three from Bethsaida) Then Peter went and told Nathanael about the Christ, who then went and spoke with Jesus and this is where Jesus said he(Nathanael) had no deceit(guile). But, it appears that these four(Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael) had been with John the Baptist. And John the Baptist preached about the coming Christ.


There's others. Lydia a proselyte speaks on behalf of the proselyte against your claim.
God opened Lydia's heart via Paul's preaching.[Acts 16:14]


"Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God".
I am not backpeddaling by saying this, okay? One has to be very careful when handling Acts. It was a time of transition and things that happened during that time don't happen today. Eutychus falling three stories to his death, to be raised to life again by Paul.[Acts 20] Lydia being raised from the dead by Peter.[Acts 16] Paul laying hands on ppl and them receiving the Spirit.[Acts 19] Paul healing ppl with cloths he touched.[Acts 19] And so on, and so on, and so on...Even Cornelius had a vision from an angel that none of us have today. But it says he was God-fearing, and throughout the balance of scripture, those who truly feared God, God had already wrought the work of grace in their hearts.


Then of course there's.....
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein,.............
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men..............
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.Paul was speaking to a bunch of pagans who were worshipping a bunch of pagan idols. You are espousing things I am not unfamiliar with, as your side of the debate uses them. But ppl do not seek the Lord. Show me one person who sought the Lord outside His drawing them.

Now, I do realize you said, "left to themselves" but there's your problem. Man is His Image so it is impossible to be entirely left to himself. To you left to themselves means something entirely different than it means to others. Man is a living soul, having a spirit from God, heart, conscience etc.

Pharaoh was left to himself and he was cruel to the Israelites. Many died never hearing about the Christ, and Romans 10:14-17 shows that there is no salvation outside of truly knowing the Christ.



Not a verse of scripture can back this up.

Sure there is. Look at Saul of Tarsus. He was doing what he thought was God's will, but was not even remotely close to doing it. When God shined the Light about him, he was a changed man. Then in Mark 5, the man with a legion of demons.

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 09:53 AM
Well, only between 200 - 400 years, give or take.
I heard of that before, can you tell a bit?
The amount of time between Joseph's family's move to Goshen, and God telling Moses to free the Hebrews.
Ah, yes, the Joseph story. The ruling Pharaoh in Joseph's time (per Gen 45:16-20) was friendly towards Jacob and his offspring, welcomed them. He listened to the dream God gave him after Joseph explained it to him. Made Joseph viceroy of Egypt because of that. The scenario painted is that parts of Egypt (at least this Pharaoh) was well aware of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 09:58 AM
Sure, because (per Rom 1:18-20) God put the knowledge inside us; So they are without excuse. If mankind is not equipped with the ability to make a choice before or against God, then mankind HAS an excuse.

They know God exists(which is shown in all the idols ppl all over the world worship), but they do not know, through natural revelation(which is what Romans 1:18-20 espouses) that the Christ came in the flesh, hung, bled and died on the cross to save sinners. YUGE difference.




And none of them (to use your words) had wicked, God-hating hearts.

Ppl are not neutral in regards to God, they either love Him or hate Him. There is no middle ground, no indifference here. Now, they might not hate Him by saying they hate Him, but in their deeds they do.

If you love me, keep my commands.[John 14:15]

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 10:24 AM
Sure, because (per Rom 1:18-20) God put the knowledge inside us; So they are without excuse. If mankind is not equipped with the ability to make a choice before or against God, then mankind HAS an excuse.
They know God exists(which is shown in all the idols ppl all over the world worship), but they do not know, through natural revelation(which is what Romans 1:18-20 espouses) that the Christ came in the flesh, hung, bled and died on the cross to save sinners. YUGE difference.
Huge difference, yes.

But before going further let's agree first that's a whole different subject that has nothing to with the ability of mankind to make a choice before or against Christ.

shepherdsword
Nov 24th 2016, 10:43 AM
The Hebrew is a tough idiom.

It can also mean "God allowed Pharoah to exercise his hard heart and did not call him to repent."

I can't remember the source, but there are a number of scholarly article that specifically address the use of that idiom.

It is not a clear in the English as we might imagine.

Adam Clark says something similar:


Exodus 4:21
Non obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam, Epist. 194, ad Sixtum, "God does not harden men by infusing malice into them, but by not imparting mercy to them." And this other will be as readily credited: Non operatur Deus in homine ipsam duritiam cordis, sed indurare eum dicitur quem mollire noluerit, sic etiam excaecare quem illuminare noluerit, et repellere eum quem noluerit vocare. "God does not work this hardness of heart in man; but he may be said to harden him whom he refuses to soften, to blind him whom he refuses to enlighten, and to repel him whom he refuses to call."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Athanasius
Nov 24th 2016, 11:52 AM
Ah, yes, the Joseph story. The ruling Pharaoh in Joseph's time (per Gen 45:16-20) was friendly towards Jacob and his offspring, welcomed them. He listened to the dream God gave him after Joseph explained it to him. Made Joseph viceroy of Egypt because of that. The scenario painted is that parts of Egypt (at least this Pharaoh) was well aware of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You would think so; at least, that the Hebrews didn't keep their mouths shut for centuries.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 24th 2016, 12:33 PM
Huge difference, yes.

But before going further let's agree first that's a whole different subject that has nothing to with the ability of mankind to make a choice before or against Christ.

The gates of heaven are open wide and welcome all that come. Ppl, in their fallen state, don't want to come. God's not placing His hands upon ppl keeping them from coming to Him, they don't want to come to Him.

I agree ppl choose Him. But unless God draws them, they will not come. Jesus said "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."[John 6:37]

And Jesus said this is how they come to Him; “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[John 6:44] Those who come to Him must be drawn. The word 'drawn' means to literally drag. The same word is used when they drew Jason out in Acts 17. The NASB uses 'dragged'. Now, He doesn't drag us literally kicking and screaming, but the context means He effectually draws, such as when Peter drew the sword to cut the servant's ear off.

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 01:54 PM
He knew of the promised Messiah that was coming.Sure. He didn't know it was Jesus though. And let's not confuse knowing "about" someone and actually knowing them.


Another thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that ppl such as Moses, Aaron, Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Saul of Tarsus/Apostle Paul, et al, spoke directly to God. None of us can make that claim.

God then used them who spoke to Him directly, those in OT times, to convey His word to them. Just like now. God used them to speak and write His word to us so that we can know Him.Okay. How does this fact add to the conversation?

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 02:21 PM
Adam Clark says something similar:Adam Clarke apparently finds the hardening of the heart to be immoral and therefore seeks to absolve God of his apparent immorality by postulating an alternative perspective that places the blame on Pharaoh, holding Pharaoh responsible for his own hardening. While admirable, his alternate explanation lacks perspective.

Consider the case of Uzzah. (2Samuel 6) Here we have a case where God kills a man when he reaches out to steady the cart that carried the Ark of the Covenant. One could argue that Uzzah deserved the death sentence because he touched the Ark. If this were the case, then why didn't God punish more people, seeing that it takes more than one person to place the ark on the cart in the first place? Some might argue that God murdered Uzzah, seeing that he did nothing at all deserving of a death sentence. The very God who declared that murder is wrong and who also established a court system which required at least two witnesses against the accused, is the same God who brought summary justice on a man trying to help.

But who are you O' man to judge God, the creator? Does the creator have a right over his own creation to create a man for a particular purpose? If it served God's purpose to create an Uzzah to strike down after touching the Ark, might it also serve his purpose to create a Pharaoh that would resist him all through the Exodus event?

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 03:29 PM
Adam Clarke apparently finds the hardening of the heart to be immoral and therefore seeks to absolve God of his apparent immorality by postulating an alternative perspective that places the blame on Pharaoh, holding Pharaoh responsible for his own hardening. While admirable, his alternate explanation lacks perspective.

Consider the case of Uzzah. (2Samuel 6) Here we have a case where God kills a man when he reaches out to steady the cart that carried the Ark of the Covenant. One could argue that Uzzah deserved the death sentence because he touched the Ark. If this were the case, then why didn't God punish more people, seeing that it takes more than one person to place the ark on the cart in the first place? Some might argue that God murdered Uzzah, seeing that he did nothing at all deserving of a death sentence. The very God who declared that murder is wrong and who also established a court system which required at least two witnesses against the accused, is the same God who brought summary justice on a man trying to help.

But who are you O' man to judge God, the creator? Does the creator have a right over his own creation to create a man for a particular purpose? If it served God's purpose to create an Uzzah to strike down after touching the Ark, might it also serve his purpose to create a Pharaoh that would resist him all through the Exodus event?I've argued similar in the past, only to point out that this arbitrary behavior is not seen in scripture for eternal salvation/damnation but for special cases.

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 03:39 PM
I've argued similar in the past, only to point out that this arbitrary behavior is not seen in scripture for eternal salvation/damnation but for special cases.

Well, even in Romans 9, Paul isn't using the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to suggest that Pharaoh didn't eventually find salvation. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. In Romans 11, however, answering the question of why all of Israel wasn't saved at that time, he argues that a partial hardening has come to Israel "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Bottom line, according to Paul, God hardened the hearts of some in Israel in accordance with his purpose for her. And THIS is definitely a salvation issue.

Trivalee
Nov 24th 2016, 04:22 PM
I am taking my lead from the book of Romans where Paul argues that all human beings are guilty of unjustly suppressing the truth about God's existence. None of us has any excuse for not coming to know the God of Moses given that he has revealed himself through his creation. Pharaoh knew God existed, he simply chose to ignore that fact. Pharaoh may not have known his name, but according to Paul, God already made himself evident to Pharaoh through his creation. Let me quote the passage and make a few comments.

Romans 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Paul has not eliminated pagans here. Even pagans ought to know about the real God, since God has made himself evident through what has been made. Had Pharaoh thought about it with a clear head, he would have already known the power of God from his creation. Anyone, including Pharaoh can learn about God from what he created and so, even before Moses came to Pharaoh, he already knew or should have known about the living God. According to Paul, Pharaoh DID know about God, but rather than face the truth about his existence, chose to suppress the truth instead.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Here Paul asserts that idolatry, and paganism isn't the result of ignorance and foolishness. Rather ignorance and foolishness is the result of suppressing knowledge about God. Once a person suppresses knowledge about the God who made himself evident from his creation, that person turns to speculation, their foolish heart is darkened and they worship an image of their own making.

People don't start off as Pagans; they start off as believers in God, suppress that knowledge, and then become pagans after that. As a citizen of the United States, I am watching this process take place right before my eyes, and it saddens me. As soon as our country decided that God was dead or irrelevant my own countrymen began to suffer from foolish speculation and now stupidity is has increased to almost intolerable levels. All because they chose not to acknowledge God or give him thanks.

Paul argued that all the ancient pagan civilisations; from the Greeks, Romans, the Aztecs, Africans etc. which never heard of a monotheistic God before the apostles and later Spanish and English missionaries brought the Gospel to them already knew about the God of heaven. I believe Paul and that the word of God is inerrant, so thank you for reminding me of this scripture.

:agree:

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 04:23 PM
Galatians 2:21, to your "there is none righteous" doctrine......
Luk 1:6* And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.*


I think they knew He was coming, but none knew the time of His appearing.Well, you didn't say no one knew when he would actually appear, you said, "No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God............
The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them."



Jesus first came to John to confirm the Messiah had indeed came. John then witnesses and Andrew tells Peter.Again, you are missing the point. You didn't say no one knew when he would actually appear, you said, "No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God............
The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them."



Here's the thing, many, when Christ came, refused to believe He was the Messiah. Yet, the Apostles, and many other did. Why was that?There's always just been a remnant. There's always different soils from bad to good. The way is narrow and few, not many, find it.



Jesus said it best when He said He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.[Matthew 13:11]You are pulling a verse out and ignoring others to support your doctrine. How was it given? For the most part, Jesus had already been rejected as Messiah -they would not see and hear. He began preaching in parables so that only those to whom he explained the parables to would see and hear. It's right there in the text.

Mat 13:10* And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?*
Mat 13:11* He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.*
Mat 13:12* For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.*
Mat 13:13* Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.*
Mat 13:14* And 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:*
Mat 13:15* For 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.*

Mat 13:18* Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Mat 13:24* Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:*

Mat 13:31* Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:*

Mat 13:34* All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:*

Mat 13:35* That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.*

Mat 13:36* Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.*
..........Jesus explains the parables to the disciples
.....
Mat 13:51* Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.*
Mat 13:52* Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.*



Nathanael was part of those who were baptized by John, correct?(this is purely speculation from me, as I see how Philip, Andrew and Peter were all three from Bethsaida) Then Peter went and told Nathanael about the Christ, who then went and spoke with Jesus and this is where Jesus said he(Nathanael) had no deceit(guile). But, it appears that these four(Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael) had been with John the Baptist. And John the Baptist preached about the coming Christ.Again, you're missing the point. Why were they there if they were not seeking God? Jesus said, those that have heard and learned of the Father will come to him. So if none of them had ever heard and learned of the Father none of them would have come to Jesus. Yet they did. Why? Because they did seek God and had heard and learned of the Father.



God opened Lydia's heart via Paul's preaching.[Acts 16:14]You missed it again. Lydia was already a worshiper of God and a proselyte before Paul came along. She was God seeker.



I am not backpeddaling by saying this, okay? One has to be very careful when handling Acts. It was a time of transition and things that happened during that time don't happen today. Eutychus falling three stories to his death, to be raised to life again by Paul.[Acts 20] Lydia being raised from the dead by Peter.[Acts 16]I think you mean Tabitha -Acts 9.

Paul laying hands on ppl and them receiving the Spirit.[Acts 19] Paul healing ppl with cloths he touched.[Acts 19] And so on, and so on, and so on...Even Cornelius had a vision from an angel that none of us have today. But it says he was God-fearing, and throughout the balance of scripture, those who truly feared God, God had already wrought the work of grace in their hearts. This is where I was leading you. This is how this discussion always ends, yet, there's no scripture to back it up. You have to assume this because your false doctrines of original sin/sin nature won't allow man made in the image of God to be what God created man to be. I don't base my theology on assumption.



Paul was speaking to a bunch of pagans who were worshipping a bunch of pagan idols. You are espousing things I am not unfamiliar with, as your side of the debate uses them. But ppl do not seek the Lord. Show me one person who sought the Lord outside His drawing them.I've given you several and not a one says God drew them as your doctrine prescribes. I believe God draws. As I said, "Jesus said, those that have heard and learned of the Father will come to him. So if no one ever heard and learned of the Father none of these would have come to him. Yet they did. Why, because they did seek God and had heard and learned of the Father." However, I don't believe or see anything in scripture that suggests a change of nature. God uses the nature all men are born with, the one he gave us. Total inability is false doctrine. Act 17 says very plainly, regardless of who Paul was speaking to, that God made man to seek him and we are his image. Did God fail? Did Adam have the power to alter the nature of man? What scripture suggests such things? Scripture says man is his image after the fall but your theology, in direct contradiction, says he's not.



Pharaoh was left to himself and he was cruel to the Israelites. Many died never hearing about the Christ, and Romans 10:14-17 shows that there is no salvation outside of truly knowing the Christ.All those poor people before Christ. Damned. :o



Sure there is. Look at Saul of Tarsus. He was doing what he thought was God's will, but was not even remotely close to doing it. When God shined the Light about him, he was a changed man. Then in Mark 5, the man with a legion of demons.Saul's nature was not changed, well, he was made blind, but that's not what you mean. Few people have an experience remotely close to what Saul had, and that goes for the man in Mark 5 as well. Not sure how you are equating the casting out of a legion of demon from a man with people generally being born again.

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 04:25 PM
Ppl are not neutral in regards to God, they either love Him or hate Him. There is no middle ground, no indifference here. Now, they might not hate Him by saying they hate Him, but in their deeds they do.
So when God blessed Israel it's because they hated him? :confused

Exo 20:6* And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.*

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 04:29 PM
Well, even in Romans 9, Paul isn't using the hardening of Pharaoh's heart to suggest that Pharaoh didn't eventually find salvation. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. In Romans 11, however, answering the question of why all of Israel wasn't saved at that time, he argues that a partial hardening has come to Israel "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Bottom line, according to Paul, God hardened the hearts of some in Israel in accordance with his purpose for her. And THIS is definitely a salvation issue.Yes, but again, in the big picture sense. Most Reformed break this thing down to the point there is no big picture in Paul's argument. Every single little thing is in the puppet masters control, including who is not shown mercy. They do not understand Rom 9:15,16, and 18.

Trivalee
Nov 24th 2016, 05:02 PM
He didn't. If God allows sin, is He the cause of sin? Nope.

So you also believe that God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart too?

Plague 1 – Blood: it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but not if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God did.
Plague 2 – Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his own heart.
Plague 3 – Lice: Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard”
Plague 4 – Flies: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 5 – Dead Livestock: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard”
Plague 6 – Boils: For the first time it say, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart
Plague 7 – Hail: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 8 – Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 9 – Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 10 – Death of Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.

I copied the above from Jayne, so all thanks to her. It is exasperating that some people will read God's unambiguous words and yet close their minds to what is actually said. God hardened Pharoah's mind on 4 different occasions in other to express his power to pagan kingdoms, yet you deny it. So by implication you're saying the bible lied by saying God hardened Pharaoh's heart?


I don't buy into the Reformed model. God doesn't just run around using people however he chooses. The examples in scripture are
1) to bring Christ (Romans 9) -the purpose of God (election) --not just any purpose
2) not against their will (Pharaoh and Cyrus etc did what they were doing already and wanted to do)

In the case of Pharaoh, if anything could be said to be against Pharaoh's will it was not because of a manipulation or changing of the heart by God directly, as the Reformed wrongly use the passage for the elect, but because of the plagues.

"You are the potter we (Israel) are the clay." Not individualistic. Vessels are individuals in a few places, but we aren't discussing those, neither do they say anything about God using them as he pleases. In fact, they leave what type of individual the vessel is, up to the individual.

At a glance, your level of understanding of scripture is discernible. So God doesn't "use people as he pleases"? What do you understand by the concept of a potter moulding his vessels as he pleases; some to honour, some to dishonour? You claim that Pharaoh and Cyrus were "doing what they were already doing and wanted to". I wonder how you figured this, particularly what Cyrus was *doing* given he was not yet BORN when the prophet Isaiah gave the prophecy concerning Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1? Check the year Isaiah lived and when the captivity eventually took place with Israel spending over 70 years before Cyrus effected their return. The fact God predestined Cyrus to do what he did long before he was born not only conforms to the predestination theory but also further supports the concept of the Potter's choice to mould as he wished. It is the same way that God predestined Pharaoh as a vessel of dishonour according to his will.

The truth is that both Pharaoh and Cyrus could no more have acted differently to what God had willed than a snake would walk on four legs.


Not sure why you think they were at opposite ends.

They were opposites alright. For while Pharoah depicts a dishonourable vessel fitted for destruction, Cyrus was a vessel unto honour to do God's will and good pleasure.

CadyandZoe
Nov 24th 2016, 06:03 PM
Yes, but again, in the big picture sense. Most Reformed break this thing down to the point there is no big picture in Paul's argument. Every single little thing is in the puppet masters control, including who is not shown mercy. They do not understand Rom 9:15,16, and 18.

I wouldn't call God a puppet master, but I believe the doctrine of God's election is Paul's position, made explicit in God's word to Israel through Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 06:18 PM
I wouldn't call God a puppet master, but I believe the doctrine of God's election is Paul's position, made explicit in God's word to Israel through Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."and whom does God's word to Israel through Moses say he has mercy on (Exo 20:6) and who does Romans 11 say mercy is for? :idea:

What do you think the doctrine of election is BTW? Most have this wrong as well.

Noeb
Nov 24th 2016, 06:33 PM
So you also believe that God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart too?
Absolutely.



Plague 1 – Blood: it says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, but not if Pharaoh hardened his own heart or if God did.
Plague 2 – Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his own heart.
Plague 3 – Lice: Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard”
Plague 4 – Flies: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 5 – Dead Livestock: Pharaoh’s heart “became hard”
Plague 6 – Boils: For the first time it say, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart
Plague 7 – Hail: Pharaoh hardens his own heart
Plague 8 – Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 9 – Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Plague 10 – Death of Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Did God close the Jews eyes or did they close their eyes? People say God blinded them and use scripture to do it, but what does scripture actually say?



I copied the above from Jayne, so all thanks to her. It is exasperating that some people will read God's unambiguous words and yet close their minds to what is actually said. God hardened Pharoah's mind on 4 different occasions in other to express his power to pagan kingdoms, yet you deny it. So by implication you're saying the bible lied by saying God hardened Pharaoh's heart?You do the same in reverse.



At a glance, your level of understanding of scripture is discernible. So God doesn't "use people as he pleases"? What do you understand by the concept of a potter moulding his vessels as he pleases; some to honour, some to dishonour? You claim that Pharaoh and Cyrus were "doing what they were already doing and wanted to".
Post #39 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=3350171#post3350171)
Post #77 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/269514-Harden-his-heart?p=3350391#post3350391)
You ask then quote it?



I wonder how you figured this, particularly what Cyrus was *doing* given he was not yet BORN when the prophet Isaiah gave the prophecy concerning Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1? Check the year Isaiah lived and when the captivity eventually took place with Israel spending over 70 years before Cyrus effected their return. The fact God predestined Cyrus to do what he did long before he was born not only conforms to the predestination theory but also further supports the concept of the Potter's choice to mould as he wished. It is the same way that God predestined Pharaoh as a vessel of dishonour according to his will.

The truth is that both Pharaoh and Cyrus could no more have acted differently to what God had willed than a snake would walk on four legs.Where's the scripture that says these men were acting against their will? There is none. Zero! Also, I didn't say God has not and does not use people as he pleases, and you know it, or at least you should, IF you actually read and comprehended what I said.



They were opposites alright. For while Pharoah depicts a dishonourable vessel fitted for destruction, Cyrus was a vessel unto honour to do God's will and good pleasure.You need to read that again. The clay is Israel, not Cyrus. Nations not individuals. God was making Israel (clay) for an honorable use -salvation. Cyrus was just one of many tools used by the potter to make the vessel of honor (Israel).

ProDeo
Nov 24th 2016, 10:21 PM
The gates of heaven are open wide and welcome all that come. Ppl, in their fallen state, don't want to come. God's not placing His hands upon ppl keeping them from coming to Him, they don't want to come to Him.

I agree ppl choose Him. But unless God draws them, they will not come. Jesus said "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."[John 6:37]

And Jesus said this is how they come to Him; “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."[John 6:44] Those who come to Him must be drawn. The word 'drawn' means to literally drag. The same word is used when they drew Jason out in Acts 17. The NASB uses 'dragged'. Now, He doesn't drag us literally kicking and screaming, but the context means He effectually draws, such as when Peter drew the sword to cut the servant's ear off.
I realize it makes sense to draw the C/RT conclusion from the (isolated) passages you point to. But it would mean that the Father is selective in His choices (you are drawn or not) by a for the human mind incomprehensible logic, not mentioned in Scripture. It would also mean your first sentence is not true, allow me to correct, that "The gates of heaven are open wide and welcome elected that come". It strikes as odd as I have to blot out so many other parts of Scripture, I also don't understand how that fits with God's perfect love and perfect justice, can you?

If you read Jesus speech (I Am the Bread of Life) all the way to the end of chapter 6 there seems to be a reason for the harsh speech, the separation it caused, disciples (not the twelve) that followed Him left. verse 65:

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

There seems to be a connection, don't you think?

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 01:26 AM
I wonder how you figured this, particularly what Cyrus was *doing* given he was not yet BORN when the prophet Isaiah gave the prophecy concerning Cyrus, Isaiah 45:1? Check the year Isaiah lived and when the captivity eventually took place with Israel spending over 70 years before Cyrus effected their return. The fact God predestined Cyrus to do what he did long before he was born not only conforms to the predestination theory but also further supports the concept of the Potter's choice to mould as he wished. It is the same way that God predestined Pharaoh as a vessel of dishonour according to his will.BTW, the predestination theory you espouse isn't biblical. Lets take a look....


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

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:


Those that love God, those who believe, were predestined to receive an inheritance and be born again. Predestination is not about God arbitrarily deciding who does and does not receive mercy without precondition. Someone objects and says it is God that decides whether or not he shows mercy, which is true, but what does he base that decision on? Exodus 20:6 says he shows mercy to those that love him and obey his commandments and this principle is seen all throughout scripture so that no one can cry "Law!" Does that sound like Pharaoh and Cyrus? Did they love him and obey his commandments? How does this conform to the predestination theory unless you mean double predestination? We could say God knew all along he would use them as he did, just as he knew all along Israel would come through Jacob so he chose Jacob over Esau for that purpose (bring Christ), but unfortunately people take it much further than that. You could also say, as scripture does, that God raised these men and their nations up (I raise up and pluck down nations -Jer 18), but we are still left with no scripture indicating God does this with salvation and damnation, especially not for all. So no, nothing in the bible supports a Reformed model of Predestination.

What about election and foreknowledge? God chooses those that love him over those that hate him. Again, a basic principle seen all throughout scripture and we just went over that. He 'knew before' he would choose those that believe in his Son over those that do not just as he 'knew before' he would send his Son for the sins of the world. No scripture says he knew who would choose his Son and no scripture says he would decide who would choose his Son. So, nothing in the bible supports a Reformed or Arminian model of Election or foreknowledge.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 05:05 AM
Galatians 2:21, to your "there is none righteous" doctrine......
Luk 1:6* And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.*

Right. I do not disagree. Now, reconcile that with this I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[Galatians 2:21 :) :D]

How could Zechariah and Elizabeth both be righteous before God while under the Law? Go back to Abraham; he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.[Gen. 15:6 & Rom. 4:3] Even before the Law, God declared Abraham righteous by faith. Now, who's righteousness was this? It was not Abraham's, but Christ's righteousness that was imputed to him. So, if Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous before God, they were justified by faith, and declared righteous before God. Our righteousness is All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.[Isa. 64:6] So, yes, both were righteous before God, but it was the imputed righteousness of Christ that made them righteous.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 05:14 AM
So when God blessed Israel it's because they hated him? :confused

Exo 20:6* And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.*

Look at who God's mercy is directed at. It is directed towards THOUSANDS of them that love Him. Now, who are those who love Him? First off, those who love Him have been born of Him.[1 John 4:7] Secondly, those who love Him keep His commands.[John 14:15]

God blessed Israel en toto on behalf of the remnant. Just like God blessed Potiphar and Pharaoh during the days of Joseph living in Egypt. He is patient with the objects of wrath on behalf of the objects of His mercy. Not all of Israel is Israel, but the children of the promise make up Israel.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 05:32 AM
Well, you didn't say no one knew when he would actually appear, you said, "No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God............
The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them."

Again, you are missing the point. You didn't say no one knew when he would actually appear, you said, "No one, left to themselves, will ever seek God............
The 12 Apostles were not looking for them when He came to them."

John the Baptist came to prepare a ppl for the coming Messiah. In John 1, Andrew is with John the Baptist(which shows he was a prepared person for the coming Messiah), when he said “Look, the Lamb of God!”[John 1:36b] Andrew then goes and tells Peter, his brother, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ)[vs 41b] Now, I will give you this, I don't know if Peter was baptized of John, but in another place he was mending his nets when Jesus told him to follow Him. So, if that's the case, then Peter wasn't looking for the Christ when He called him. Jesus the following day finds Philip and tells him to follow Him. Philip then goes to Nathanael and says “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” So, they knew there was a time coming when the Messiah was to appear, but they did not know the exact time. Also remember, there was a deceiver who led many astray as witnessed by Gamaliel when he said “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. Now, I don't know who this Theudas is, or what he claimed to be. What I have gathered was he was a false messiah/prophet who led these ppl astray. So these ppl who followed the Christ knew He was who He said He was. Those who knew Him had their eyes opened to see Him for who He really was. As Jesus said “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—[John 10:14] & "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."[John 10:27]

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 06:17 AM
You are pulling a verse out and ignoring others to support your doctrine. How was it given? For the most part, Jesus had already been rejected as Messiah -they would not see and hear. He began preaching in parables so that only those to whom he explained the parables to would see and hear. It's right there in the text.
Precisely!! Now you're getting it!! Hallelujah!! :D


Mat 13:10* And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?*
Mat 13:11* He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.*
Mat 13:12* For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.*
Mat 13:13* Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.*
Mat 13:14* And 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:*
Mat 13:15* For 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.*

Mat 13:18* Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Mat 13:24* Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:*

Mat 13:31* Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:*

Mat 13:34* All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:*

Mat 13:35* That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.*

Mat 13:36* Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.*
..........Jesus explains the parables to the disciples
.....
Mat 13:51* Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.*
Mat 13:52* Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.*

This event was foretold when by Isaiah Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”[Isa. 9:9,10] These Jews had not had a voice from heaven for 400+ years, iirc. Read in Malachi of what they did as they corrupted God's altar with polluted bread. This is why Jesus spoke in parables to the populace, but He explained it to the others of His chosen ones.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 06:37 AM
Right. I do not disagree. Now, reconcile that with this I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[Galatians 2:21 :) :D]

How could Zechariah and Elizabeth both be righteous before God while under the Law? Go back to Abraham; he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.[Gen. 15:6 & Rom. 4:3] Even before the Law, God declared Abraham righteous by faith. Now, who's righteousness was this? It was not Abraham's, but Christ's righteousness that was imputed to him. So, if Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous before God, they were justified by faith, and declared righteous before God. Our righteousness is All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.[Isa. 64:6] So, yes, both were righteous before God, but it was the imputed righteousness of Christ that made them righteous.Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Christ's righteousness is not imputed and you are not using Isaiah 64 properly. I've explained all this for you before. (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/269413-Inherited-sin?p=3349382#post3349382)

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 06:45 AM
Look at who God's mercy is directed at. It is directed towards THOUSANDS of them that love Him.Why are you repeating me as if you agree?



Now, who are those who love Him? First off, those who love Him have been born of Him.[1 John 4:7]No. No one was born of him until after the resurrection.



God blessed Israel en toto on behalf of the remnant. Just like God blessed Potiphar and Pharaoh during the days of Joseph living in Egypt. He is patient with the objects of wrath on behalf of the objects of His mercy. Not all of Israel is Israel, but the children of the promise make up Israel.So how did some love God and do his commandments yet none sought him, understood, did good, or were righteous? You'll claim a work of grace of the Reformed flavor without any scripture. Assumption. So when it says none sought him, understood, did good, or were righteous, what God really meant to say was none did it without a special work of grace changing their nature. Yet, this is a direct contradiction of scripture. Explain. Use scripture.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 06:51 AM
Again, you're missing the point. Why were they there if they were not seeking God? Jesus said, those that have heard and learned of the Father will come to him. So if none of them had ever heard and learned of the Father none of them would have come to Jesus. Yet they did. Why? Because they did seek God and had heard and learned of the Father.

Yes, those who have heard and learned will come. I agree. But man does not seek God in a vacuum. The one's in remote places who have yet to hear about the Christ don't believe in the Christ they never heard about. That's the thrust of Paul's argument How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.[Rom. 10:14-17 The thrust of Paul's argument is that ppl are saved solely by the gospel.[Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:21, & Eph. 1:13] Knowledge of the Christ comes solely through His word.[John 5:39] So, that is why I am a Missionary Baptist, and why I want my $ to help fund missions; to get the gospel to those who have not heard the gospel of the risen Messiah.

Now, let's go back to John 6 for a minute...[I]All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”[John 6:37-40] We see those the Father gave the Christ WILL come, and WHOEVER(yes, I believe in those 'whoevers', too)comes to Him, He will NEVER drive away. He came to do His Father's will and in that will includes 'He shall not lose one of them'. And of those 'whoevers' who looks to Him and believes, He will raise them up the last day. So, I see the 'whoevers' as being God's ppl.

The Jews grumbled about Him saying 'He was the bread that came down from heaven', because they had been blinded by God. Which goes back to Isaiah 6 and Matthew 13. Then Jesus said No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.[John 6:44] See how this links together. No one CAN COME to Him unless they are first drawn. Those drawn are the very same ones He will raise up at the last day. So it shows that those who are truly seeking Him, are doing so through the drawing of God.

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.[John 6:45] Here we see those who come to God have been taught by God and hear and learn from Him. Now, how do ppl learn, hear and are taught by God? By reading and studying His word, by hearing the word preached, by reading other's who are gifted teachers to pick their brains about a certain biblical subject, &c.

Now one will seek Him unless He has first sought Him.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 06:53 AM
John the Baptist came to prepare a ppl for the coming Messiah. In John 1, Andrew is with John the Baptist(which shows he was a prepared person for the coming Messiah), when he said “Look, the Lamb of God!”[John 1:36b] Andrew then goes and tells Peter, his brother, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ)[vs 41b] Now, I will give you this, I don't know if Peter was baptized of John, but in another place he was mending his nets when Jesus told him to follow Him. So, if that's the case, then Peter wasn't looking for the Christ when He called him.Really? But Jesus said no one could come to him unless they had heard and learned of the Father. Just because Peter was working at the moment doesn't mean he wasn't a seeker. Are you confused about what seeking means? Does seeking mean, don't work and provide for your family?



Jesus the following day finds Philip and tells him to follow Him. Philip then goes to Nathanael and says “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” So, they knew there was a time coming when the Messiah was to appear, but they did not know the exact time.Again, what does any of this have to do with whether or not some were seeking God?



Also remember, there was a deceiver who led many astray as witnessed by Gamaliel when he said “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. Now, I don't know who this Theudas is, or what he claimed to be. What I have gathered was he was a false messiah/prophet who led these ppl astray. So these ppl who followed the Christ knew He was who He said He was. Those who knew Him had their eyes opened to see Him for who He really was. As Jesus said “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—[John 10:14] & "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."[John 10:27]Yes, because Israel knew it was time for Messiah to appear, false Messiah's surfaced. So? All you are doing is agreeing some in Israel sought God even though you echo Reformed mantra "none seek God".

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 06:54 AM
Really? But Jesus said no one could come to him unless they had heard and learned of the Father. Just because Peter was working at the moment doesn't mean he wasn't a seeker. Are you confused about what seeking means? Does seeking mean, don't go to work and provide for your family?


Again, what does any of this have to do with whether or not someone is seeking God?


Yes, because Israel knew it was time for Messiah to appear, false Messiah's surfaced. So? All you are doing is agreeing some in Israel sought God even though you echo Reformed mantra "none seek God".

You and I are done. Killfire for you. You can't even reasonably debate me.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 06:56 AM
Precisely!! Now you're getting it!! Hallelujah!! :D



This event was foretold when by Isaiah Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”[Isa. 9:9,10] These Jews had not had a voice from heaven for 400+ years, iirc. Read in Malachi of what they did as they corrupted God's altar with polluted bread. This is why Jesus spoke in parables to the populace, but He explained it to the others of His chosen ones.Jesus did not start out speaking in parables.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 07:16 AM
Yes, those who have heard and learned will come. I agree. But man does not seek God in a vacuum. The one's in remote places who have yet to hear about the Christ don't believe in the Christ they never heard about. That's the thrust of Paul's argument How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.[Rom. 10:14-17 The thrust of Paul's argument is that ppl are saved solely by the gospel.[Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:21, & Eph. 1:13] Knowledge of the Christ comes solely through His word.[John 5:39] So, that is why I am a Missionary Baptist, and why I want my $ to help fund missions; to get the gospel to those who have not heard the gospel of the risen Messiah.

Now, let's go back to John 6 for a minute...[I]All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”[John 6:37-40] We see those the Father gave the Christ WILL come, and WHOEVER(yes, I believe in those 'whoevers', too)comes to Him, He will NEVER drive away. He came to do His Father's will and in that will includes 'He shall not lose one of them'. And of those 'whoevers' who looks to Him and believes, He will raise them up the last day. So, I see the 'whoevers' as being God's ppl.

The Jews grumbled about Him saying 'He was the bread that came down from heaven', because they had been blinded by God. Which goes back to Isaiah 6 and Matthew 13. Then Jesus said No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.[John 6:44] See how this links together. No one CAN COME to Him unless they are first drawn. Those drawn are the very same ones He will raise up at the last day. So it shows that those who are truly seeking Him, are doing so through the drawing of God.

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.[John 6:45] Here we see those who come to God have been taught by God and hear and learn from Him. Now, how do ppl learn, hear and are taught by God? By reading and studying His word, by hearing the word preached, by reading other's who are gifted teachers to pick their brains about a certain biblical subject, &c.

Now one will seek Him unless He has first sought Him.Not sure how "Now one will seek Him unless He has first sought Him." makes any sense but you are real close here. Man does not have to have heard of Christ to have heard and learned of the Father. Heard and learned of the Father can be likened to the knowledge of God in Romans 1 and not rejecting it. His word is not the only way to have heard and learned of him. Not everyone becomes a reprobate. Not everyone rejects the knowledge of God and gets turned over to themselves, rejects God and gets turned over to themselves, rejects God and gets turned over to themselves. Some accept this grace. Those that do will receive more and will come to Christ when they hear the gospel. They are good soil. It's not some special work of grace that only these special chosen individuals have received. Everyone starts at the same starting line. Those that do not reject this grace receive more, but yes, it all starts with God and his awesome creation of man in his image. Grace comes in many ways and natural law is just one. If God had not made man to seek him he would not, but he does because he was created to, so man cannot take credit. He did not create himself and "canst not make one hair white or black." on his head -Mat 5:36, and cannot "add one cubit unto his stature" -Mat 6:27.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 07:56 AM
His word is not the only way to have heard and learned of him.

And that is an assault on His word. I was not aware you are anti-sola scriptura. See you. I had to view this one post of yours. You are on my ignore list.

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 07:58 AM
See how this links together. No one CAN COME to Him unless they are first drawn. Those drawn are the very same ones He will raise up at the last day. So it shows that those who are truly seeking Him, are doing so through the drawing of God.
Rom 2:11 - For God shows no partiality.

How do you reconcile?

The God you describe shows partiality.

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 08:06 AM
You and I are done. Killfire for you. You can't even reasonably debate me.
As a non native English speaker, care to explain what that expression means?

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 08:18 AM
His word is not the only way to have heard and learned of him.
And that is an assault on His word.
No, it isn't.

What Noeb for instance can hint at are the manifistations of the Holy Spirit on the Planet whenever it pleases Him to do so. Examples:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/254978-Revival-Hits-Muslim-N-Africa
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/258479-Jesus-appears-to-a-Muslim

But let him speak for himself.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 08:21 AM
Rom 2:11 - For God shows no partiality.

How do you reconcile?

The God you describe shows partiality.

God shows no partiality/favoritism in regards to judgment.

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.For God does not show favoritism.[Romans 2:5-11]

Paul has expressed that in regards to judgment, those who are found guilty will find no favoritism in regards to those others who are guilty. IOW, in hell, there will be no 'hot spots' for those who were more evil than themselves. Just like Hitler will have the same punishment as the one who died lost and was not that bad, in the way we see them as being not that bad. Conversely, those who are saved will be in the same place, with those who worked harder not being around the Throne and those who did little keeping the gates of heaven. That is what Paul is ascribing here.


Then Peter does the same thing in Acts 10...Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritismbut accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.[Acts 10:30-35] Now, who are those who do right? But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.[John 3:21]

Then look at Romans 9:11. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob and not Esau. His election is not based upon anything we do, but according to His own will and purpose. God does not show favoritism in regards to what we are, but with regards to who He is.

And 'killfire' is another name for ignore.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 08:38 AM
No, it isn't.

What Noeb for instance can hint at are the manifistations of the Holy Spirit on the Planet whenever it pleases Him to do so. Examples:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/254978-Revival-Hits-Muslim-N-Africa
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/258479-Jesus-appears-to-a-Muslim

But let him speak for himself.

I thank you for those to read, but they are nothing but mysticism. Ppl seeing visions of God? Srsly? I am a member of another site where a poster said there were reports of a revival of a remote African village where Jesus, Himself, showed up. These reports do not fit in with God's holy writ, Brother.

If that's the case, I can take my $ and invest in other things not missions related. I can lay back and let God do the saving while I watch American football on sunday. Things like this really disappoint me, as they make the Great Commission unnecessary. :(

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 08:47 AM
No, it isn't.

What Noeb for instance can hint at are the manifistations of the Holy Spirit on the Planet whenever it pleases Him to do so. Examples:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/254978-Revival-Hits-Muslim-N-Africa
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/258479-Jesus-appears-to-a-Muslim

But let him speak for himself.

FYI...you are espousing hyper-Calvinist doctrine that states God will save His ppl whether they hear the gospel or not.

When the debate gets to this point, it ALWAYS goes the mystic route. Ppl know that not everyone will hear the gospel, so they go the extra-biblical route and turn mystic. I am a member of many Christian message boards, and it is the same on every board.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:11 AM
Rom 2:11 - For God shows no partiality.

How do you reconcile?

The God you describe shows partiality.

If God has, indeed, shown Himself to those in those links you provided, then God showed them partiality, no?

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 09:21 AM
God shows no partiality/favoritism in regards to judgment.
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

More in separate post, else this one becomes too long.


Then Peter does the same thing in Acts 10...Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritismbut accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.[Acts 10:30-35] Now, who are those who do right? But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.[John 3:21]
Peter is always interesting, from the OT he could have known there is no favoritism. Jesus Himself told him to go out and preach the Gospel to all nations and yet he needed a reminder.


Then look at Romans 9:11. Before Jacob or Esau had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob and not Esau. His election is not based upon anything we do, but according to His own will and purpose.
Why is it so hard to understand the foreknowledge of God while Scripture is full of (good and bad news) examples? A&E would fall (bad news), the Lamb slain before the creation of the world (good news), the calling of Jeremiah before he was born (good news), Jacob or Esau, Judas (bad news), satan thrown in the LOF, etc. etc. God already lived our future, He knows the end and told us fragments of His foreknowledge. I might assume you won't go as far that Judas was elected | predestined to betray the Lord, or does that observation come with C/RT as well?


God does not show favoritism in regards to what we are, but with regards to who He is.
And that (the bold) I find so saddening, how C/RT theology portraits God. Someone who draws not all, He can, but chooses not to.

Kalahari
Nov 25th 2016, 09:44 AM
Why is it so hard to understand the foreknowledge of God while Scripture is full of (good and bad news) examples? A&E would fall (bad news), the Lamb slain before the creation of the world (good news), the calling of Jeremiah before he was born (good news), Jacob or Esau, Judas (bad news), satan thrown in the LOF, etc. etc. God already lived our future, He knows the end and told us fragments of His foreknowledge. I might assume you won't go as far that Judas was elected | predestined to betray the Lord, or does that observation come with C/RT as well?

It is hard because it negates the control of God. It put man in control of his destiny and not God and God's grace. According to your understanding of foreknowledge God is a great voyeur. According to RT foreknowledge is in God's predestination, that what He had decided will happen. There are a big difference between the two. In one God is in control being God and in the other man is in control and God the bystander or enabler/servant of man and his decisions.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:48 AM
It is hard because it negates the control of God. It put man in control of his destiny and not God and God's grace. According to your understanding of foreknowledge God is a great voyeur. According to RT foreknowledge is in God's predestination, that what He had decided will happen. There are a big difference between the two. In one God is in control being God and in the other man is in control and God the bystander or enabler/servant of man and his decisions.

Bingo!! Wonderful post.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:53 AM
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

More in separate post, else this one becomes too long.

Zactly.



Peter is always interesting, from the OT he could have known there is no favoritism. Jesus Himself told him to go out and preach the Gospel to all nations and yet he needed a reminder.

Yes. When he said one thing and did another in his witnessing to the Gentiles, Paul rightly called him out onto the carpet for his inconsistency.



Why is it so hard to understand the foreknowledge of God while Scripture is full of (good and bad news) examples? A&E would fall (bad news), the Lamb slain before the creation of the world (good news), the calling of Jeremiah before he was born (good news), Jacob or Esau, Judas (bad news), satan thrown in the LOF, etc. etc. God already lived our future, He knows the end and told us fragments of His foreknowledge. I might assume you won't go as far that Judas was elected | predestined to betray the Lord, or does that observation come with C/RT as well?

God's foreknowledge is not just Him knowing beforehand all that will transpire, but has decreed it to be so. Nothing catches Him off guard. If He looked down through time and found out who would believe, then He gained knowledge. Buh-bye omniscience.



And that (the bold) I find so saddening, how C/RT theology portraits God. Someone who draws not all, He can, but chooses not to.

Nay, rather, this shows how merciful He is. Why should He even draw one sinner? What is within ourselves that it should even cause Him to take a second look at us?

Ppl think too highly of themselves.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 10:09 AM
I might assume you won't go as far that Judas was elected/predestined betray the Lord, or does that observation come with C/RT as well?

I won't, but the bible does proclaim this very thing. Jesus prayed in Gethsamane and said While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.[John 17:12] It was prophesied that Judas would be the one to betray Him. And we can read of his place amongst the 12 was given to Matthias when Peter said In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’[Acts 1:15-20] And this was foretold in Psalms May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.[Psa. 109:8] The bible clearly shows God chose Judas(whose was a fallen creature) to be the one to betray Jesus.

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 10:25 AM
God shows no partiality/favoritism in regards to judgment.
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

Ask, and It Will Be Given [ESV]
Matt 7:7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I don't see partiality/favoritism, it's for all.

How do you reconcile?

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 10:56 AM
I thank you for those to read, but they are nothing but mysticism. Ppl seeing visions of God? Srsly? I am a member of another site where a poster said there were reports of a revival of a remote African village where Jesus, Himself, showed up. These reports do not fit in with God's holy writ, Brother.
Meaning, you reject those reports at of first hand?

What if those ex-muslims (now Christians) show the fruits of the Spirit?


If that's the case, I can take my $ and invest in other things not missions related. I can lay back and let God do the saving while I watch American football on sunday. Things like this really disappoint me, as they make the Great Commission unnecessary. :(
Why limit God?

As you believe it's God who draws and when He does you object?

I can tell you about my own conversion, there was nobody to tell me about Jesus, there was God and me alone in a room. And I was confused and did not know what to do after that. I decided to go to the Church of my fiance, a reformed Church ;) and from one thing came another, meaning Jesus. Drawn, saved, baptized.

See you later, time is up.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 12:05 PM
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

Ask, and It Will Be Given [ESV]
Matt 7:7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I don't see partiality/favoritism, it's for all.

How do you reconcile?

The context is God giving to those who ask Him. If they truly ask Him anything, He will give it to them. But here is where the heart of man comes into play. After all the signs/plagues, Pharaoh never sought God, but rather turned the deafened ear to Him. The atheist will never ask God for anything. The Buddhist, Muslim, or any other idol worshipper will never ask God for anything. Those spiritually dead have a sin-deadened heart. That is why must first give them a new heart and a new Spirit.[Ezek. 11:19 & 36:26]

Pbminimum
Nov 25th 2016, 01:23 PM
The context is God giving to those who ask Him. If they truly ask Him anything, He will give it to them. But here is where the heart of man comes into play. After all the signs/plagues, Pharaoh never sought God, but rather turned the deafened ear to Him. The atheist will never ask God for anything. The Buddhist, Muslim, or any other idol worshipper will never ask God for anything. Those spiritually dead have a sin-deadened heart. That is why must first give them a new heart and a new Spirit.[Ezek. 11:19 & 36:26]

To that I would respond ... " And how can someone have a new heart and Spirit ( salvation ) without first exercising the faith in God it takes to obtain said salvation ?". And we begin the circular debate again.

CadyandZoe
Nov 25th 2016, 01:50 PM
and whom does God's word to Israel through Moses say he has mercy on (Exo 20:6) and who does Romans 11 say mercy is for? :idea:It says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." In other words, God has mercy on whom every he wants. This is NOT a categorical mercy; this is an individual mercy, He wouldn't say, for instance, "I give my mercy to all red heads." That would be a categorical mercy. Rather, he would say, "I give my mercy to Jane, Mary, Susan, and Martha." That would be an individual mercy.


What do you think the doctrine of election is BTW? Most have this wrong as well.Formerly I would have said that the "Elect" of God are those people whom God chooses to save, and he elected them "before the foundation of the earth." I have changed my mind about that.

Is it true that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won't be saved? Yes. This is true. And is it true that God decided whom to save before the foundation of the world? Yes, this is also true. Both of these things are true, and both of these things are true of the elect, and not true of the non-elect.

What has changed in my thinking is that while it is true that the elect represent all those whom God has decided to save, making that decision from before the foundation of the world, this is NOT what "elect" means. Rather, the term "elect" or "election" indicates a person or persons whom God has singled out to have a special relationship with him. The connotation of the term"elect" is very similar to the concept of marriage, or covenant relationship. Let me give you some examples.

Speaking of a future time some would call the Millennial Period Isaiah says this:

Isaiah 14:1-2
When the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. 2 The peoples will take them along and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them as an inheritance in the land of the Lord as male servants and female servants; and they will take their captors captive and will rule over their oppressors.


What does he mean by "again choose Israel?" He means to say, "There will come a time when God will once again decide to have a relationship with the nation of Israel." At one time Israel was the "Elect", and once again in our future, God will choose her again. They will once again be his "elect" -- his "chosen".

The next verse will help define the term "elect" for us in terms of God's special relationship with a person or a people.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9
6 For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;


We see here that Moses closely associates being a chosen people with an oath that God made with the fathers and a covenant he made with the children. And the idea of being chosen connotes a unique and special relationship between God and the chosen people. Just as a man chooses a woman to be his wife out of all the other women in the world, God chose the sons of Jacob to be his covenant people "out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

Not only does God choose a people to be his covenant people, he also chooses individuals to be in covenant relation with him. I think the following passage will illustrate this.

Colossians 3:11-13New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.


In this instance, Paul insists that God's choice is not based on any particular aspect or category of being human. God's salvation is not categorical; it's individual.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 03:24 PM
And that is an assault on His word. I was not aware you are anti-sola scriptura. See you. I had to view this one post of yours.Hah, I'm not, scripture is clear we know God by nature. It's an assault on his word to say nature is sinful, which makes you anti-sola scriptura because that is a concept of man.



You are on my ignore list.That's a shame. Easy out.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 03:29 PM
No, it isn't.

What Noeb for instance can hint at are the manifistations of the Holy Spirit on the Planet whenever it pleases Him to do so. Examples:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/254978-Revival-Hits-Muslim-N-Africa
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/258479-Jesus-appears-to-a-Muslim

But let him speak for himself.
Jesus is the one that said some were good soil, not me. Scripture also says he created man to seek him. How were men without scripture supposed to do that throughout the ages without his word? I also said, "Grace comes in many ways and natural law is just one."

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 03:33 PM
It is hard because it negates the control of God.You are really in control when you don't have to control everything. If you have to control everything, you're not really in control.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 03:53 PM
It says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy."Yes it does....

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

He decides who loves him and keeps his commandments and who hates him.



In other words, God has mercy on whom every he wants.God does not show mercy to those that hate him.



Formerly I would have said that the "Elect" of God are those people whom God chooses to save, and he elected them "before the foundation of the earth." I have changed my mind about that.

Is it true that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won't be saved? Yes. This is true. And is it true that God decided whom to save before the foundation of the world? Yes, this is also true. Both of these things are true, and both of these things are true of the elect, and not true of the non-elect.

What has changed in my thinking is that while it is true that the elect represent all those whom God has decided to save, making that decision from before the foundation of the world, this is NOT what "elect" means. Rather, the term "elect" or "election" indicates a person or persons whom God has singled out to have a special relationship with him.Same thing. "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God" is God 'knew before' he would choose those that choose his Son

1Pe 1:3-4 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 an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

He 'knew before' he would send his son.



Formerly I would have said that the "Elect" of God are those people whom God chooses to save, and he elected them "before the foundation of the earth." I have changed my mind about that.

Is it true that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won't be saved? Yes. This is true. And is it true that God decided whom to save before the foundation of the world? Yes, this is also true. Both of these things are true, and both of these things are true of the elect, and not true of the non-elect.

What has changed in my thinking is that while it is true that the elect represent all those whom God has decided to save, making that decision from before the foundation of the world, this is NOT what "elect" means. Rather, the term "elect" or "election" indicates a person or persons whom God has singled out to have a special relationship with him. The connotation of the term"elect" is very similar to the concept of marriage, or covenant relationship. Let me give you some examples.

Speaking of a future time some would call the Millennial Period Isaiah says this:

Isaiah 14:1-2
When the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. 2 The peoples will take them along and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them as an inheritance in the land of the Lord as male servants and female servants; and they will take their captors captive and will rule over their oppressors.


What does he mean by "again choose Israel?" He means to say, "There will come a time when God will once again decide to have a relationship with the nation of Israel." At one time Israel was the "Elect", and once again in our future, God will choose her again. They will once again be his "elect" -- his "chosen".

The next verse will help define the term "elect" for us in terms of God's special relationship with a person or a people.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9
6 For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;


We see here that Moses closely associates being a chosen people with an oath that God made with the fathers and a covenant he made with the children. And the idea of being chosen connotes a unique and special relationship between God and the chosen people. Just as a man chooses a woman to be his wife out of all the other women in the world, God chose the sons of Jacob to be his covenant people "out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."

Not only does God choose a people to be his covenant people, he also chooses individuals to be in covenant relation with him. I think the following passage will illustrate this.

Colossians 3:11-13New American Standard Bible (NASB)

11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.


In this instance, Paul insists that God's choice is not based on any particular aspect or category of being human. God's salvation is not categorical; it's individual.Thanks for sharing but I disagree. Two categories;
1) those that love him
2) those that hate him

Which does God choose?
I've posted this already.....

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 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.
Rom 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.
Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

When God chooses he always has a reason for the choice. We have a reason we choose one candidate over another. He chose Israel over others because they were tiny and could show his power. He chooses to show mercy to those that love him, not those that hate him. He predestined those that love him would receive an inheritance and be born again. "It is God that justifieth." based on faith in him and faith in action. You'd have to be some kind of strange ultra calvinist or something to think God chooses someone that hates him and continues in sin (I'm not saying you think that).

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 04:56 PM
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

Ask, and It Will Be Given [ESV]
Matt 7:7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I don't see partiality/favoritism, it's for all.

How do you reconcile?
The context is God giving to those who ask Him. If they truly ask Him anything, He will give it to them.
Of course, anything else would be ridiculous, the heart should be in the state as (for instance) described in Jer 29:12-13, seek God with all your heart, the condition. I think so far we are in agreement. Point of disagreement would be if mankind has the ability to humble himself that way that he can ask for God with all his heart. Per Rom 1:18-20 (the no excuse in v20 specifically) I would say the answer is yes. Enough examples from Scripture, the first occasion already found in Gen 4:26 - At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.


But here is where the heart of man comes into play.
Sure, the heart per Jer 17:9-10 specifically and the Lord testing it.

But in all cases the Lord refers to the rational mind to repent, Jer 29:12-13, Matt 7:7-11, in Luke 14 to calculate the costs before you build a tower, the prodigal son who remembers his father and makes a rational decision to return home.

Trivalee
Nov 25th 2016, 05:29 PM
Did God close the Jews eyes or did they close their eyes? People say God blinded them and use scripture to do it, but what does scripture actually say?

I don't like to digress and remove the focus from Pharaoh. I've given you clear scriptures that say God hardened his heart until you provide scripture to prove otherwise, I will regard your views as mere conjecture.


Post #39 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=3350171#post3350171)
Post #77 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/269514-Harden-his-heart?p=3350391#post3350391)
You ask then quote it.

Where's the scripture that says these men were acting against their will? There is none. Zero! Also, I didn't say God has not and does not use people as he pleases, and you know it, or at least you should, IF you actually read and comprehended what I said.

You need to read that again. The clay is Israel, not Cyrus. Nations not individuals. God was making Israel (clay) for an honorable use -salvation. Cyrus was just one of many tools used by the potter to make the vessel of honor (Israel).

For a start, your interpretation of "vessel" that the Potter (God) moulds is incorrect as most of your theories.


Well, this is after Paul goes into Isa 45; echoed in Isa 29 and Jer 18 -how God deals with and uses nations for his will (mercy on all -Rom 11). Though, make no mistake, Paul is continuing the same argument he had already started. Here, a ruler of a dishonorable nation (vessel) named Cyrus is used to free Israel to return to her land and show salvation and mercy toward all nations in Christ -the purpose of God according to election. Pharaoh also represented a nation (vessel) of dishonorable use. In Isa 29, 45 and Jer 18 the potter is creating salvation for all and Israel is the nation (vessel) of honorable use. BTW, all Israel being saved (Rom 11 -Paul argument does not change) is Isa 45:17, 25. God alone had the power to raise up and bring down a nation (Jer 18) for the purpose of God according to election. As the potter, he created Israel from the fathers (v5) -Abraham (v7), Isaac (7), Jacob (v11-13). The potter decided who's seed the Messiah would come through. Not Esau's but Jacob's (Israel).

I see you now deny saying that God doesn't use people as he pleased according to "neither do they say anything about God using them as he pleases".

You have maintained all through this discourse that the clay or vessel is "nations" not individuals. Contextually, a vessel is not limited to a nation. Isaiah's prophecy concerning Cyrus is very clear and it referred to him as an individual, not a nation.

Isa 45:1Thus 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;

13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

The text clearly shows that God meant Cyrus as an individual.

ProDeo
Nov 25th 2016, 05:45 PM
Why is it so hard to understand the foreknowledge of God while Scripture is full of (good and bad news) examples? A&E would fall (bad news), the Lamb slain before the creation of the world (good news), the calling of Jeremiah before he was born (good news), Jacob or Esau, Judas (bad news), satan thrown in the LOF, etc. etc. God already lived our future, He knows the end and told us fragments of His foreknowledge. I might assume you won't go as far that Judas was elected | predestined to betray the Lord, or does that observation come with C/RT as well?
It is hard because it negates the control of God. It put man in control of his destiny and not God and God's grace. According to your understanding of foreknowledge God is a great voyeur. According to RT foreknowledge is in God's predestination, that what He had decided will happen. There are a big difference between the two. In one God is in control being God and in the other man is in control and God the bystander or enabler/servant of man and his decisions.
In your view God decides who to draw or not to draw, election by partiality | favoritism [John 6:44]. At the same He expect us to show no partiality | favoritism to each other. I don't get that.

Kalahari
Nov 25th 2016, 06:22 PM
In your view God decides who to draw or not to draw, election by partiality | favoritism [John 6:44]. At the same He expect us to show no partiality | favoritism to each other. I don't get that.

God's election is God's grace. Doing something good to those who do not deserve any good. We must do good to each other, because through our obedience we glorify God. Through our obedience God may use us to spread His kingdom. We do not have the knowledge to know whom are elected or not, so therefore do we treat all the same.

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 06:24 PM
I don't like to digress and remove the focus from Pharaoh. I've given you clear scriptures that say God hardened his heart until you provide scripture to prove otherwise, I will regard your views as mere conjecture.We wouldn't want to look and other examples would we? It would be crazy to consider the use of language when interpreting wouldn't it? :giveup:



For a start, your interpretation of "vessel" that the Potter (God) moulds is incorrect as most of your theories.Not mine it's scripture and a view many scholars agree with. You can disagree as other scholars do but it's just an opinion. However, the text is very clear, having only one meaning in the text in view. Clay is made a vessel and are nations in Isa 29, 45, and Jer 18, and thereby Rom 9 as well. Paul didn't quote it to turn around and use it differently. I don't like to digress and remove the focus scripture is making. OT quotes are there for our learning (make sure we are using scripture correctly), not for us to willie_nillie do whatever we want.



I see you now deny saying that God doesn't use people as he pleased according to "neither do they say anything about God using them as he pleases".Try and comprehend what people say. There I said the verses that do use vessels as individuals do not say anything about God using them as he pleases but in fact show that the vessel decides what kind of vessel they are. Yes I did! :D



You have maintained all through this discourse that the clay or vessel is "nations" not individuals. Contextually, a vessel is not limited to a nation.That's what I said. Yes I did! :D



Isaiah's prophecy concerning Cyrus is very clear and it referred to him as an individual, not a nation.Correct, and I said the clay is Israel and that's undeniable.
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?
Isa 45:10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

So now why do people get over to Romans 9 where this is quoted and think "individuals" when the context is also clearly "Israel"......
Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 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;
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 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Rom 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:25 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.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

.....and nations?
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:25 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.

Especially
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Hmmmm, two individuals representing nations.



Isa 45:1Thus 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;

13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

The text clearly shows that God meant Cyrus as an individual.Of course he did, he was just a tool used to form the clay. They represent nations (vessels) that the Lord raised up (Jer 18) for a purpose. These men were not just used alone as individuals and are never said to be clay themselves.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 08:58 PM
To that I would respond ... " And how can someone have a new heart and Spirit ( salvation ) without first exercising the faith in God it takes to obtain said salvation ?". And we begin the circular debate again.

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, per Galatians 5:22. Without faith, it is impossible to please Him, per Hebrews 11:6. God gives them a new heart and a new Spirit and then they exercise God-gifted faith.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:09 PM
Of course, anything else would be ridiculous, the heart should be in the state as (for instance) described in Jer 29:12-13, seek God with all your heart, the condition. I think so far we are in agreement. Point of disagreement would be if mankind has the ability to humble himself that way that he can ask for God with all his heart. Per Rom 1:18-20 (the no excuse in v20 specifically) I would say the answer is yes. Enough examples from Scripture, the first occasion already found in Gen 4:26 - At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Ppl are without an excuse regardless. If they have never heard about the Christ or heard a bazillion sermons, those who are not saved are in the same boat, condemned. You are thinking knowledge of God is what condemns. If that's the case, ppl need to take their new born babies and move to a deserted island and shoot the first missionary that approaches. In that scenario, as long as their kids never hear the gospel, they will never hear about the Christ, have an excuse, God accepts that excuse, and ushers them into heaven. You are the one advocating a God of partiality, not I. All stand condemned, and unless God first act upon them, will remained condemned.



Sure, the heart per Jer 17:9-10 specifically and the Lord testing it.

Yes, the heart is totally wicked. No one can know it.


But in all cases the Lord refers to the rational mind to repent, Jer 29:12-13, Matt 7:7-11, in Luke 14 to calculate the costs before you build a tower, the prodigal son who remembers his father and makes a rational decision to return home.

But ppl can't repent with their rational minds, Brother. Repentance is first wrought within the heart. With the mind man believes? No, it is with the heart man believes.[Romans 10:10] It is from the abundance of heart the mouth speaks. So whatever is in the heart is what goes to the mind. God first tills the soil of the heart and this produces repentance. A God-changed heart brings a God-changed mind.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:16 PM
In your view God decides who to draw or not to draw,
Zactly. He's the Potter and we the clay.


election by partiality | favoritism [John 6:44]. At the same He expect us to show no partiality | favoritism to each other. I don't get that.

God is impartial. Those He chose were just as condemned as those He did not choose. Those He chose were not nicer, prettier, their hearts less wicked, were just as faithless, as those He decided not to save. He was not partial to those He will save in the least.

I was just deserving of hell as the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad Dracula, Stalin, Judas Iscariot, but God chose to save me. Me?!?!? Little ole me?!?! That is amazing grace.

Pbminimum
Nov 25th 2016, 09:52 PM
To which I will respond..." so you can be born again without faith ? "

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:52 PM
Brother ProDeo,

I want to thank you for the civility you have shown me. We both are wrong on things we hold as truth, seeing we have finite minds. God will show us this on the other side of glory.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:54 PM
To which I will respond..." so you can be born again without faith ? "

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, per Galatians 5:22. I don't know how much easier that can be stated. To have faith is to have the Spirit.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 09:58 PM
To which I will respond..." so you can be born again without faith ? "

Jesus said to Nicodemus, "if you can not understand the natural, how can you understand the Spiritual?" He laid out "ye must be born again/born from above." Now, what say or lot did you have in your natural birth? None. What say or lot did you have in your Spiritual birth? None.

It is once you have been born in the Spirit, you are given faith, exercise it, and are saved.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 25th 2016, 10:22 PM
Ppl are without an excuse regardless. If they have never heard about the Christ or heard a bazillion sermons, those who are not saved are in the same boat, condemned. You are thinking knowledge of God is what condemns. If that's the case, ppl need to take their new born babies and move to a deserted island and shoot the first missionary that approaches. In that scenario, as long as their kids never hear the gospel, they will never hear about the Christ, have an excuse, God accepts that excuse, and ushers them into heaven. You are the one advocating a God of partiality, not I. All stand condemned, and unless God first act upon them, will remained condemned.




Yes, the heart is totally wicked. No one can know it.



But ppl can't repent with their rational minds, Brother. Repentance is first wrought within the heart. With the mind man believes? No, it is with the heart man believes.[Romans 10:10] It is from the abundance of heart the mouth speaks. So whatever is in the heart is what goes to the mind. God first tills the soil of the heart and this produces repentance. A God-changed heart brings a God-changed mind.

The heart and the mind are synonymous in this regard.

Both are representative of the incorporeal part of the human being.


Zactly. He's the Potter and we the clay.



God is impartial. Those He chose were just as condemned as those He did not choose. Those He chose were not nicer, prettier, their hearts less wicked, were just as faithless, as those He decided not to save. He was not partial to those He will save in the least.

I was just deserving of hell as the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Vlad Dracula, Stalin, Judas Iscariot, but God chose to save me. Me?!?!? Little ole me?!?! That is amazing grace.

God wanted to save them, too, but they rejected His grace.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 25th 2016, 10:23 PM
Jesus said to Nicodemus, "if you can not understand the natural, how can you understand the Spiritual?" He laid out "ye must be born again/born from above." Now, what say or lot did you have in your natural birth? None. What say or lot did you have in your Spiritual birth? None.

It is once you have been born in the Spirit, you are given faith, exercise it, and are saved.

You have to have faith in order to be born again.

Not the other way around

Pbminimum
Nov 25th 2016, 10:30 PM
Jesus said to Nicodemus, "if you can not understand the natural, how can you understand the Spiritual?" He laid out "ye must be born again/born from above." Now, what say or lot did you have in your natural birth? None. What say or lot did you have in your Spiritual birth? None.

It is once you have been born in the Spirit, you are given faith, exercise it, and are saved.

If you have been given the Spirit, you are already saved.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 10:31 PM
You have to have faith in order to be born again.

Not the other way around

You are putting the cart in front of the cart. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, per Galatians. No one with a fruit of the Spirit is NOT born again. Not the other way around it.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 10:33 PM
If you have been given the Spirit, you are already saved.

Bingo! By jove, now he's got it. :D

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 25th 2016, 10:34 PM
:B
You are putting the cart in front of the cart. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, per Galatians. No one with a fruit of the Spirit is NOT born again. Not the other way around it.

Heavy sigh...

Galatians 2:21
Nov 25th 2016, 10:35 PM
The heart and the mind are synonymous in this regard.

Both are representative of the incorporeal part of the human being.
Wicked heart, wicked mind. Righteous heart, righteous mind.

Pbminimum
Nov 25th 2016, 10:36 PM
Bingo! By jove, now he's got it. :D

I've had it all along. Faith births salvation. Salvation doesn't birth faith.

Pbminimum
Nov 25th 2016, 10:38 PM
If someone has been born again they have placed their faith in Christ and received the Holy Spirit. Man has a choice. For man not to have a choice means you hang sin itself on God. Is that what you are saying ?

Noeb
Nov 25th 2016, 10:59 PM
Here I thought I read somewhere something about faith by hearing, not faith by Spirit. Hmmmm :hmm:

CadyandZoe
Nov 25th 2016, 11:09 PM
Yes it does....

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

He decides who loves him and keeps his commandments and who hates him.God is not deciding anything in the scripture above. No decision is being made. A decision is a choice between two alternatives. The passage above has only one alternative. It isn't as if God would ever visit iniquity on those who love him, and show mercy on those who hate him. There's no real choice there.


Same thing. "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God" is God 'knew before' he would choose those that choose his SonAgain, what you describe is not a real choice, which is a choice between two alternatives. It isn't as if God could or would establish a covenant relationship with those who hate Christ, and damn to hell those who love Christ. Not an option.


When God chooses he always has a reason for the choice.The idea that God "chooses" is an anthropomorphism, which is a helpful construct for understanding God, but in reality God doesn't choose the way we choose. For man, choosing is an act in which we seek something of value and evaluate all the available alternatives according to a set of criteria, a standard, or a specification. We take the alternative that meets our criteria. God, however, doesn't ever make a choice, since he always brings into existence through his creative act anything he needs. God doesn't examine items of a similar kind and then decide on the one that best meets his needs; rather God calls into existence an item that is perfectly suitable for his purpose. We are a chooser; God is a creator.

The same goes for the concept of foreknowledge. It isn't as if God needs to stand on a tall mountain to see what lies ahead. All he needs to do is create what takes place in real time.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 12:57 AM
I've had it all along. Faith births salvation. Salvation doesn't birth faith.

That's what I have been saying all along. Faith, a fruit of the Spirit, saves.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:01 AM
If someone has been born again they have placed their faith in Christ and received the Holy Spirit. Man has a choice. For man not to have a choice means you hang sin itself on God. Is that what you are saying ?

You guys are sure hung up on this choice thingy. Man chooses that which is most pleasing to him. Pharaoh chose what was most pleasing to him, disobey God's command.

It all stems from the heart. The unregenerate will not choose God because he can not choose God. Why? His heart is dead and does not love God. Unregenerate man has to be born of God, born of love[1 John 4:7], and then they will choose Him.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:03 AM
:B

Heavy sigh...

Is faith a fruit of the Spirit?

Can anyone be saved w/o faith?

Do the unregenerate possess a fruit of the Spirit?

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 01:13 AM
Is faith a fruit of the Spirit?

Can anyone be saved w/o faith?

Do the unregenerate possess a fruit of the Spirit?

Jesus talked about those who had faith as a mustard seed before the Holy Spirit was sent to enable believers to bear fruit.

Jesus talk about those whose faith had made them whole before the crucifixion and before the gift of the Holy Spirit was given.

Yes, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, but that is not the faith that leads to,salvation.

Context, please, not eisegesis.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:26 AM
Jesus talked about those who had faith as a mustard seed before the Holy Spirit was sent to enable believers to bear fruit.

Jesus talk about those whose faith had made them whole before the crucifixion and before the gift of the Holy Spirit was given.

Yes, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, but that is not the faith that leads to,salvation.

Context, please, not eisegesis.
You're the one that is doing the eisegesis, not I, my Brother. Abraham had faith, and it was credited to him for righteousness.[Gen. 15:6 & Romans 4:3]

You're saying that ppl had not the Spirit pre-cross, yet were pleasing in the sight of God. Paul said men in the flesh(context here means the lost {Rom. 5:5-9}) can not please God.[Rom. 8:8]

Then it was said Abraham was God's friend.[James 2:23] Those who have not the Spirit of God are His enemies and not friends.

The faith that Abraham had pre-cross is the same faith we have. This faith is God-given and saves.

So please stop accusing me of that which you are doing.

Faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Those who possess this fruit of the Spirit are not unregenerate, but regenerate. They exercise this faith when they are saved.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:35 AM
Here, I will break this down for you Brothers...

Made Alive in Christ--NIV
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.[Eph. 2:1-10]

Even while we were dead, God quickened us(made us alive). We had no lot or say in the matter. God quickens whoever He pleases to quicken.

For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.[John 5:21] If God is pleased to give it to someone who is dead, He does not need their permission, nor does He ask for it, nor wait for them to make a choice. They're dead. What choice does a dead corpse have?

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 01:37 AM
Where does it say that God gave Abraham faith?

Abraham did not have the Holy Spirit, so was not born again for,exercising the fruit of the Spirit.

You just proved my point

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:42 AM
Where does it say that God gave Abraham faith?

Abraham did not have the Holy Spirit, so was not born again for,exercising the fruit of the Spirit.

You just proved my point

James says Abraham was God's friend[2:23]. The unregenerate are His enemies, not friends. Men in the flesh can not please Him. If Abraham had not the Spirit, he was an unregenerate friend if God. That is what you guys are espousing here.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 01:53 AM
James says Abraham was God's friend[2:23]. The unregenerate are His enemies, not friends. Men in the flesh can not please Him. If Abraham had not the Spirit, he was an unregenerate friend if God. That is what you guys are espousing here.

No one in the Old Testament had the i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The word says "Abraham had faith." You are bringing your Calvinism to the text when you say that God gave it to Him.

God called; Abraham answered. It is not a difficult concept.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:54 AM
Where does it say that God gave Abraham faith?

Abraham did not have the Holy Spirit, so was not born again for,exercising the fruit of the Spirit.

You just proved my point

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.[Heb. 12:1,2 NASB]

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and [e]acceptable and perfect.For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.[Rom. 12:1-3]

God is the Author and Perfector(Finisher) of our faith. Now, God is not impartial, so what He did for us by gifting us our faith, He has done to all who have believed. This includes Abraham. Abraham received the same God-gifted faith you and I have? Why? For God does not show favoritism.[Acts 10:34 & Rom. 2:11]

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 01:56 AM
No one in the Old Testament had the i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The word says "Abraham had faith." You are bringing your Calvinism to the text when you say that God gave it to Him.

God called; Abraham answered. It is not a difficult concept.

Sadly it is to some. :(

So, ppl were unregenerate believers? :o

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 02:07 AM
No one in the Old Testament had the i dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The word says "Abraham had faith." You are bringing your Calvinism to the text when you say that God gave it to Him.

God called; Abraham answered. It is not a difficult concept.

Was Abraham saved during his walk with God?

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 02:12 AM
Was Abraham saved during his walk with God?

No, Abraham was not saved as his sin was not yet forgiven because the price for his sin had not been satisfied.

Abraham believed God, and his faith was counted...held for his benefit... As righteousness.

And Romans 12 is clearly talking about gifts of the Spirit, just like 1 Corinthians.

Every time you see the word faith in the NT it isn't talking about the same thing.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 02:14 AM
1 Cor 12 clearly teaches that God chooses who gets what gifts... One of which is specifically called faith.

so either the word contradicts itself... Which we know is not true... Or your understanding for faith in varying contexts is flawed.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 02:17 AM
No, Abraham was not saved as his sin was not yet forgiven because the price for his sin had not been satisfied.

No wonder our churches are in the mess they are today. Abraham was credited with righteousness, but was a lost man who was God's friend, but was an enemy because he was in the flesh, and men in the flesh can not please God, but Abraham was God's friend.

And you accused me of eisegesis?

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 02:22 AM
1 Cor 12 clearly teaches that God chooses who gets what gifts... One of which is specifically called faith.

so either the word contradicts itself... Which we know is not true... Or your understanding for faith in varying contexts is flawed.

These gifts, such as faith, were apostolic gits. Remember, Paul touched some ppl and they received the Spirit. This gift was mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. But these gifts ceased when the last apostle(Paul ?) died. They had gifts that when (was it Peter ?) passed by, the sick were healed. Paul's rags healed ppl, too. But God-given faith is not this faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. That was an apolostolic gift they could give. That ceased when they died.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 02:29 AM
These gifts, such as faith, were apostolic gits. Remember, Paul touched some ppl and they received the Spirit. This gift was mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. But these gifts ceased when the last apostle(Paul ?) died. They had gifts that when (was it Peter ?) passed by, the sick were healed. Paul's rags healed ppl, too. But God-given faith is not this faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 12. That was an apolostolic gift they could give. That ceased when they died.

Nonsense.

No scriptural support for that at all.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 02:30 AM
Nonsense.

No scriptural support for that at all.

Nonsense? Srsly?

Then explain how Abraham was not saved but was God's friend?

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 02:32 AM
Nonsense.

No scriptural support for that at all.

The Apostles raised the dead, healed the sick(Peter healed ppl with just his shadow), gave ppl the Spirit, spoke directly to God(Peter and Paul did at least). Is this still ongoing today? Do ppl still have these abilities?

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 26th 2016, 02:42 AM
The Apostles raised the dead, healed the sick(Peter healed ppl with just his shadow), gave ppl the Spirit, spoke directly to God(Peter and Paul did at least). Is this still ongoing today? Do ppl still have these abilities?

What does your experience have to do with the truth and doctrine revealed in Scripture? People,were raised from the dead long before the apostles. People are healed today. Not aware that Peter ever spoke to God after the ascension.

But again, please explain where in Scripture we are told... Where it is even suggested. Mehta the gifts of the Holy Spirit were just for the apostles or that such gifts disappeared when the last apostle died... Probably John or,Thomas

Slug1
Nov 26th 2016, 03:02 AM
What does your experience have to do with the truth and doctrine revealed in Scripture? People,were raised from the dead long before the apostles. People are healed today. Not aware that Peter ever spoke to God after the ascension.

But again, please explain where in Scripture we are told... Where it is even suggested. Mehta the gifts of the Holy Spirit were just for the apostles or that such gifts disappeared when the last apostle died... Probably John or,ThomasYou make a great point as to the "character" of God. No... the Apostles were not the reason for or only people who manifested God's power. God's power if for those who are OF faith, both OT and NT. This hasn't ended when the Bible began to be massed produced.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 05:40 AM
What does your experience have to do with the truth and doctrine revealed in Scripture? People,were raised from the dead long before the apostles. People are healed today. Not aware that Peter ever spoke to God after the ascension.

When's the last time you saw someone raised from the dead? An angel of the Lord did come to him when he was in prison and loosed him. Have you seen any angels freeing ppl lately? And yes, ppl are healed today. But how many have been healed by someone's shadow? The usage of prayer cloths is an atrocity as they take what Paul did and do it themselves, expecting a little ole limp rag to heal the sick. Please.


But again, please explain where in Scripture we are told... Where it is even suggested. Mehta the gifts of the Holy Spirit were just for the apostles or that such gifts disappeared when the last apostle died... Probably John or,Thomas

I think 1 Cor. 13:8 alludes to this.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 05:52 AM
No, Abraham was not saved as his sin was not yet forgiven because the price for his sin had not been satisfied.

Abraham believed God, and his faith was counted...held for his benefit... As righteousness.

And Romans 12 is clearly talking about gifts of the Spirit, just like 1 Corinthians.

Every time you see the word faith in the NT it isn't talking about the same thing.

So, Abraham was lost the whole time he was obeying God, even was His friend, all because his sin had yet been forgiven and the price had not been paid? What about Enoch? The Hebrews writer wrote this about him; By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.[Heb. 11:5] Now, again, men in the flesh(the unregenerate, those devoid of the Spirit) can not please God. Those w/o faith can not please God.[Heb. 11:6] So, we can deduce from the bible that 1) Enoch had faith, and 2) he had the Spirit of God within him, because men in the flesh can not please God. If this is not the case, then he was in the same state Abraham was, living in a pre-cross world, so God took him to be with Him, while he was lost.

Now, let's go to another OT saint. Let's look at Elijah. He was one who was doing God's will, raised the widow's son to life in 1 Kings 17, and then this happened to him; As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.[2 Kings 2:11] So, then here we have another one, another OT saint who died pre-cross who went to heaven. Now, how could Enoch and Elijah go to heaven as men in the flesh, devoid of the Spirit of God?

Also, Elisha wanted this; “Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit,”[2 Kings 2:9b] so we know that Elijah's spirit(soul) went to heaven, so this has to mean the Spirit that Elijah had. It was a double portion of God's Spirit that Elisha wanted, and we can see he did many works afterwards.

You're on an unsustainable path here, Brother Stew.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 07:47 AM
True.

And it should be an eye-opener, God is a consistent God, not only in judgement.

Ask, and It Will Be Given [ESV]
Matt 7:7 - “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

I don't see partiality/favoritism, it's for all.

How do you reconcile?

I will take you to another place to show that in election, God is not playing favorites.

In Genesis 12, God calls Abram and says “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”[Gen. 12:1-3] Now, according to history, Abram's whole family were pagans, as the land of Ur was a pagan land. As was written in Joshua Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. [24:2] Now, why did God choose Abram? Was it because he was less of an idol-worshipper? Was his heart not as hard? Was he smarter than his dad, brother, and nephew? The answer to all these questions is a resounding 'no'. Abram was just as much fallen as Terah, his brother Nahor, and his nephew Lot. It was God choosing Abram, not basing His choosing upon anything good, or less evil than the others, but upon Himself.

God does not show favoritism.

Noeb
Nov 26th 2016, 09:38 AM
God is not deciding anything in the scripture above.I don't recall saying he was.



The passage above has only one alternative.To what? How God chooses who to punish and who to show mercy? Do you have another alternative from scripture?



It isn't as if God would ever visit iniquity on those who love him, and show mercy on those who hate him. There's no real choice there.There's not? He doesn't decide who loves and hates him? How then how does he decide who to punish and who to show mercy?



Again, what you describe is not a real choiceReally? Well, since God doesn't decide who, and since he doesn't, as you say, "stand on a tall mountain to see what lies ahead" (I agree) What else could chosen according to foreknowledge mean?



which is a choice between two alternatives.
1) those who choose his son
2) those who do not
isn't two alternatives? No options here?



The idea that God "chooses" is an anthropomorphism, which is a helpful construct for understanding God, but in reality God doesn't choose the way we choose.So far you have described how we choose and suggest God does the same. Now you say he doesn't?



For man, choosing is an act in which we seek something of value and evaluate all the available alternatives according to a set of criteria, a standard, or a specification. We take the alternative that meets our criteria. God, however, doesn't ever make a choice, since he always brings into existence through his creative act anything he needs.Calvinistic mumbo jumbo. He lets people decided whether they will love him or hate him and uses that to make his decision. He doesn't create his desired result. Double predestination.



God doesn't examine items of a similar kind and then decide on the one that best meets his needs; rather God calls into existence an item that is perfectly suitable for his purpose. We are a chooser; God is a creator.Yet God chooses "between two alternatives" and makes "real choices" according to scripture.



The same goes for the concept of foreknowledge. It isn't as if God needs to stand on a tall mountain to see what lies ahead. All he needs to do is create what takes place in real time.So since God 'knew before' the lamb would be slain from the foundation of the world, he brought "into existence through his creative act anything he needed"? Sin? We're not talking about prophecy here concerning vessels of destruction for the purposed of God to bring Christ, we're talking about "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God". So as you said, "Is it true that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won't be saved? Yes. This is true. And is it true that God decided whom to save before the foundation of the world? Yes, this is also true." "he brings into existence through his creative act anything he needs." Calvinism. I don't buy it.

ProDeo
Nov 26th 2016, 10:54 AM
I will take you to another place to show that in election, God is not playing favorites.

In Genesis 12, God calls Abram and says “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”[Gen. 12:1-3] Now, according to history, Abram's whole family were pagans, as the land of Ur was a pagan land. As was written in Joshua Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. [24:2] Now, why did God choose Abram? Was it because he was less of an idol-worshipper? Was his heart not as hard? Was he smarter than his dad, brother, and nephew? The answer to all these questions is a resounding 'no'. Abram was just as much fallen as Terah, his brother Nahor, and his nephew Lot. It was God choosing Abram, not basing His choosing upon anything good, or less evil than the others, but upon Himself.

God does not show favoritism.
Very good!

There is no partiality, no favoritism with God throughout the whole Scripture so why introduce it when it comes down to salvation?

It's what C/RT teaches when it points to [John 6:44], God draws, but not all. That's favoritism. I don't see how you can reason your way out of this, I seriously can't. It's a consequence of what you believe.

ProDeo
Nov 26th 2016, 10:57 AM
Brother ProDeo,

I want to thank you for the civility you have shown me. We both are wrong on things we hold as truth, seeing we have finite minds. God will show us this on the other side of glory.
That's agreed flunky one ;)

ProDeo
Nov 26th 2016, 12:31 PM
God's foreknowledge is not just Him knowing beforehand all that will transpire, but has decreed it to be so. Nothing catches Him off guard. If He looked down through time and found out who would believe, then He gained knowledge. Buh-bye omniscience.
I look at that differently. In a nutshell, A&E fell because of disobedience. We are here to learn obdience by experiencing the consequences of disobedience, death, sickness, this mad secular world with all its crazy wars and bloodshed till we get it. When we are with the Lord -- thanks to Jesus who reconciled the world with God by his obedience -- we (those that are His) are a learned people ready to live eternal with Him without being disobedient again, even with our God given free will given to us to love Him genuine.

As for the deree, I believe God basically said, okay Adam, you want to do this your way instead of My way, go ahead and experience it but I withdraw and see how you will do fully according to your own wish, be that god the snake promised you will learn he is a liar. And God will let it run for x thousands of years until He decides that enough is enough. Of course He is in full control, He knows how it ends for each one of us, He already has lived the future, in the end time is just one of His other great inventions, which He masters for the goal it was created.

Excuses for the light-hearted language use else my take on this would be too longwinded.


Nay, rather, this shows how merciful He is. Why should He even draw one sinner? What is within ourselves that it should even cause Him to take a second look at us?
Apparently He loves us ?


Ppl think too highly of themselves.
The "old man", absolutely.

But what does Scripture say about the new creation in Christ?

It's there I find my self esteem.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 26th 2016, 12:34 PM
Very good!
Thank you my Brother.



There is no partiality, no favoritism with God throughout the whole Scripture so why introduce it when it comes down to salvation?

God quickens whosoever He wills. God saves ppl, not based on who they are, but who He is. God was under no obligation to save anyone, yet in His mercy, He chose a # that no one can # to redeem through His Son. When Adam and Eve stood before Him condemned, He did not have to save them, but He did. He would have been just to cast them into hell. He made them a coat of skins, a blood sacrifice(Heb. 9:22), and spared them. Everyone of us who are saved were no different than those who die lost, pre-salvation(Eph. 2:3). That is why He doesn't show favoritism. He chose us because He chose to extend us grace, not because He saw us less vile than the reprobate, but solely because He loves us. Instead of wondering why He didn't chose to save some ppl is the wrong way to see this. Why did He choose us is the amazing question. Why He saved us is the better question.


It's what C/RT teaches when it points to [John 6:44], God draws, but not all. That's favoritism. I don't see how you can reason your way out of this, I seriously can't. It's a consequence of what you believe.

If God drew everyone, then all would be saved. Drew in the Greek means to literally drag off. When the throng of ppl drew(NASB used dragged) Jason out in Acts 17, shows it to be effectual.

CadyandZoe
Nov 26th 2016, 02:27 PM
I don't recall saying he was.Your argument depends on that interpretation.



To what? How God chooses who to punish and who to show mercy?Again, a choice requires at least two alternatives.


There's not? He doesn't decide who loves and hates him?Our discussion is impeded by the fact that, in English, "choosing" and "deciding" are used interchangeably. But this is a discussion where fine distinction between concepts is crucial. I have already established, in a previous post, that "choosing" requires at least two distinct alternatives. In your statement here, the term "decide" doesn't mean "choose" it means "draw a conclusion upon examination."


How then how does he decide who to punish and who to show mercy?What actually has been "decided"? Based on the strength and righteousness of his character, God will reward the good and punish the evil. This process has no alternative. The process is characteristic of a good and righteous God, who would never do otherwise. The process you describe is NOT God making a choice; the process you describe is an evaluation of each man or woman to treat them accordingly. He is not choosing anyone or electing anyone in this process.


What else could chosen according to foreknowledge mean?The concept of "foreknowledge" arises from the verb "to know" with the connotation of "to know personally, or intimately." In Genesis it reports that Adam "knew" his wife, indicating that they had sexual relations. They were intimate. In the gospels Jesus will declare to some folks "I never knew you" indicating the fact that he and they were not closely associated.

My contention is that the Bible uses the term "chosen" or "elect" to indicate God's covenant relationship with his people. By the time we get to the New Testament, we learn that God has established a covenant relationship with all those who are humble, contrite, fear God, and follow Jesus Christ, regardless of whether that person is male or female; slave or free; Jew or Gentile. To be among the "elect" is to be one of those whom God has brought into the covenant in history according to a purpose he established before history.

To say that God foreknew the elect is to say that with God there is no randomness; being among the elect was not a matter of happenstance. If a man is among the elect, not only did God form him in his mother's womb, not only did God orchestrate his personal history such that he eventually came to saving faith in Jesus Christ, being foreknown means that God "knew" the man before history.


1) those who choose his son
2) those who do not
isn't two alternatives? No options here?What you describe is not a "choice", but an evaluation of two people set against a set of criteria established ahead of time. In our everyday language we call this a choice, but in reality the choice has already been made prior to the evaluation. It gets complicated, but let me give you an example.

Suppose a mother goes to the store and she brings along her young child. And although mother's primary purpose is to purchase food for the family, as good mothers do, she uses the occasion as a teaching moment for her child. Mother needs fruit and so when she enters the produce section she asks her child to choose a fruit. There are bananas, apples, pears, oranges, strawberries and other fruits. Across the aisle are vegetables such as tomatoes, cucumbers, and carrots. Some of these items are viable alternatives and some are not. Since the task it to choose a fruit, only the bananas, apples, pears, oranges, and strawberries are viable alternatives. The child is to choose from among them. The tomatoes, cucumbers, and carrots are NOT viable alternatives because they are vegetables, not fruit. The child is allowed to choose a fruit from among all the fruits, but not allowed to choose a vegetable, based on mother's pre-established criteria.

Your example above describes the case in which the criteria has been established prior to the evaluation. The idea that God would reward the good and punish the evil was not decided by him; it arises from his very character, and because of his character he would NEVER do otherwise. He would never decide to do otherwise. So then, based on his own character and a disposition arising from his character, God evaluates each individual against that criteria and based on that evaluation, gives the appropriate response.

If I were to tweak your example so that it actually illustrates a choice, then God would have before him a large group of those who choose his son and from among this group, he chooses to give eternal life to some of them and not others. Just as mother and her child examine the bananas, apples, pears, oranges, and strawberries, which are all viable alternatives, God will choose from among all those who choose his son, which of them he will grant eternal life. Every person who chooses his son is a viable candidate for eternal life, and if God is to make a choice, he would choose from among these. He would never choose from among those who do not love his son. These are like the vegetables, which are not fruits and therefore are not viable alternatives.

But this example is merely hypothetical because God is not actually making a choice. In my example of mother and her child, mother had already made a choice to have the child pick a fruit. In her case, fruit or vegetables are viable choices; in the case of the child, however, his or her choice is limited to the fruits. The only viable alternatives for the child are found among the fruits exclusively. However, according to God's character, the fact that God will reward the good and punish the evil comes prior to his evaluation of each individual and based on that criteria, treat them appropriately. There is no choice, there are no viable alternatives.


So far you have described how we choose and suggest God does the same. Now you say he doesn't?The fact is no body knows what it's like to be God because no body is God except God. The Bible asserts that God is unknowable except in those rare cases where God has revealed himself to human beings through his prophets or directly through his son Jesus Christ. But in every case our understanding of God is limited by the degree of our common points of reference. In our experience of God, he relates to us as if he is another human being, even though we know that he is alien to us in many ways. As such, the word we use to indicate moments when God relates to us as a human being is the word "anthropomorphic". When God appears to act humanly, he attempts to communicate something true about himself by analogy to human experience.

So then, when we say that God "chooses" we understand that what we are claiming about God is nothing more but nothing less than an analogy between human beings and God. God doesn't actually "choose" anything. He brings things out of thin air. A child is given the task to pick one particular fruit from among all the fruits. The child has been given an opportunity to make a choice, which takes place when he or she picks one from among all the viable alternatives. Mother needs a fruit, and through her child she gets one. But when God needs a fruit he say, "let there be an apple" and there is an apple, which is very much analogous to how human beings choose. However, God is also able to say, "Let there be an 'X' in which 'X' is a fruit never seen in our reality. God doesn't actually "choose" a fruit the way a child "chooses" a fruit. God isn't limited to all the available alternatives. If Strawberries are out of season, this is no problem for him. He simply says, "let there be strawberries" and there it is.

Bottom line, God doesn't need to wait to find out which one among us will act as believers in Christ Jesus in order to "pick" us. He simply says, "let there be a child of God who believes in Jesus Christ" and there it is.


Calvinistic mumbo jumbo. He lets people decided whether they will love him or hate him and uses that to make his decision. He doesn't create his desired result. Double predestination.The person you describe is not God, since God is the one who says, "Let there be light" and there is light. Whenever it pleases him or suits his purpose he says, "Let there be a person who loves me" and there it is. Let's not pretend that whenever the Bible speaks about God as if he were a limited creature like a human being, that he actually is limited.


Yet God chooses "between two alternatives" and makes "real choices" according to scripture.Yes, of course. But remember, we can only know God by analogy. What God does is kinda like what a man does, but different. He relates to us in human terms that we can understand, but his analogy can only capture part of who he is.


So since God 'knew before' the lamb would be slain from the foundation of the world, he brought "into existence through his creative act anything he needed"? Sin?Yes, even sin. But we will get tripped up if we think of sin as one of God's motives. As he says, he is not a man that he should lie.


We're not talking about prophecy here concerning vessels of destruction for the purposed of God to bring Christ, we're talking about "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God". So as you said, "Is it true that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won't be saved? Yes. This is true. And is it true that God decided whom to save before the foundation of the world? Yes, this is also true." "he brings into existence through his creative act anything he needs." Calvinism. I don't buy it.By labeling what I have said as "Calvinism" I fear that you have given yourself permission to ignore what I have said, without an examination of the merits of what I said. This, of course, is your choice.

What we are doing is trying to make the best sense of a God that we can only know by analogy. It's not surprising therefore that we have difficulty understanding those aspects of God that are more God-like than human-like. I don't blame you for being skeptical, but you must have realized by now what thousands of posts in hundreds of threads has revealed. The nature of God is something that challenges the most honest and humble of human beings and the most salient question we face is this. "If God is like THAT, then what does that make me?"

Noeb
Nov 26th 2016, 06:31 PM
Your argument depends on that interpretation.Exodus 20:5-6 doesn't have God choosing individuals but telling us the consequence of our choice and what God has chosen to do as a result.



Again, a choice requires at least two alternatives.Love him or hate him. Choice is yours. He'll choose accordingly.



Our discussion is impeded by the fact that, in English, "choosing" and "deciding" are used interchangeably.Yeah, that's the point but that's also for Hebrew and Greek. He said himself he did not choose Israel because they were big but because they were small. Two alternatives. He chose.



But this is a discussion where fine distinction between concepts is crucial. I have already established, in a previous post, that "choosing" requires at least two distinct alternatives. In your statement here, the term "decide" doesn't mean "choose" it means "draw a conclusion upon examination."Just as the above. That's correct. You cannot choose without drawing a conclusion upon examination.



What actually has been "decided"? Based on the strength and righteousness of his character, God will reward the good and punish the evil.And in Romans 8 those that love God, his elect, are rewarded.



This process has no alternative. The process is characteristic of a good and righteous God, who would never do otherwise. The process you describe is NOT God making a choice;So he didn't choose to do good to those that love him and choose to punish those that hate him?



the process you describe is an evaluation of each man or woman to treat them accordingly. He is not choosing anyone or electing anyone in this process.His chosen are those he has relationship with. Those that love him are in a relationship with him, not those that hate him.



The concept of "foreknowledge" arises from the verb "to know" with the connotation of "to know personally, or intimately." In Genesis it reports that Adam "knew" his wife, indicating that they had sexual relations. They were intimate. In the gospels Jesus will declare to some folks "I never knew you" indicating the fact that he and they were not closely associated.We agree he has a relationship with those that love him, yes. Hard to do that with someone that hates you.



My contention is that the Bible uses the term "chosen" or "elect" to indicate God's covenant relationship with his people.And no one disagrees, at least I hope not.



To say that God foreknew the elect is to say that with God there is no randomness; being among the elect was not a matter of happenstance. If a man is among the elect, not only did God form him in his mother's womb, not only did God orchestrate his personal history such that he eventually came to saving faith in Jesus Christ, being foreknown means that God "knew" the man before history.You cannot know someone before they exist. Those he foreknew is a descriptive (to have relationship) decision made before the foundation of the world that shows a desired result. God does not decide which individuals are and are not elect, at any time, much less before anyone exists, and scripture does not indicate he does. He decided before the foundation of the world he would have relationship with those that love him and chose his son.



What you describe is not a "choice", but an evaluation of two people set against a set of criteria established ahead of time. In our everyday language we call this a choice, but in reality the choice has already been made prior to the evaluation.Correct, "the choice has already been made". He decided before the foundation of the world he would have relationship with those that love him and chose his son.



The idea that God would reward the good and punish the evil was not decided by him; it arises from his very characterand you see a difference? Choices are made because of character all the time.



and because of his character he would NEVER do otherwise. He would never decide to do otherwise. So then, based on his own character and a disposition arising from his character, God evaluates each individual against that criteria and based on that evaluation, gives the appropriate response.Had chosen to do xyz with those that love him, yes.



Bottom line, God doesn't need to wait to find out which one among us will act as believers in Christ Jesus in order to "pick" us.He didn't need to wait around to find out man was going to sin to know he would send his son either. He knows before because he is the creator and his wisdom, not because he looks through time and waits to see what's going to happen. I think we pretty much agree there, so that's something, at least.



He simply says, "let there be a child of God who believes in Jesus Christ" and there it is.Double Predestination.



The person you describe is not God, since God is the one who says, "Let there be light" and there is light.He is also the one that rested when he was finished.



Whenever it pleases him or suits his purpose he says, "Let there be a person who loves me" and there it is. Let's not pretend that whenever the Bible speaks about God as if he were a limited creature like a human being, that he actually is limited.Lets not pretend he arbitrarily decides who is and who is not his child -double predestination. If he chooses to limit himself to our decision who are we to say he cannot?



Yes, of course. ButThere is no but here.



By labeling what I have said as "Calvinism"tIs it not?



What we are doing is trying to make the best sense of a God that we can only know by analogy. It's not surprising therefore that we have difficulty understanding those aspects of God that are more God-like than human-like. I don't blame you for being skeptical, but you must have realized by now what thousands of posts in hundreds of threads has revealed. The nature of God is something that challenges the most honest and humble of human beings and the most salient question we face is this. "If God is like THAT, then what does that make me?"His Image? All men. Not some he spoke into existence.

Trivalee
Nov 26th 2016, 06:53 PM
BTW, the predestination theory you espouse isn't biblical. Lets take a look....
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Rom 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.

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:


Those that love God, those who believe, were predestined to receive an inheritance and be born again. Predestination is not about God arbitrarily deciding who does and does not receive mercy without precondition. Someone objects and says it is God that decides whether or not he shows mercy, which is true, but what does he base that decision on? Exodus 20:6 says he shows mercy to those that love him and obey his commandments and this principle is seen all throughout scripture so that no one can cry "Law!" Does that sound like Pharaoh and Cyrus? Did they love him and obey his commandments? How does this conform to the predestination theory unless you mean double predestination? We could say God knew all along he would use them as he did, just as he knew all along Israel would come through Jacob so he chose Jacob over Esau for that purpose (bring Christ), but unfortunately people take it much further than that. You could also say, as scripture does, that God raised these men and their nations up (I raise up and pluck down nations -Jer 18), but we are still left with no scripture indicating God does this with salvation and damnation, especially not for all. So no, nothing in the bible supports a Reformed model of Predestination.

What about election and foreknowledge? God chooses those that love him over those that hate him. Again, a basic principle seen all throughout scripture and we just went over that. He 'knew before' he would choose those that believe in his Son over those that do not just as he 'knew before' he would send his Son for the sins of the world. No scripture says he knew who would choose his Son and no scripture says he would decide who would choose his Son. So, nothing in the bible supports a Reformed or Arminian model of Election or foreknowledge.

With all respect, your argument is inconsistent and contradictory that it's difficult for me to ascertain where you stand. You appear to disagree with me yet, unwittingly concur in places with my views which I have backed with scripture. Let me start by saying that I don't buy into the so-called Reformed or Armenian models. I simply forge my own thoughts from info discerned from scripture. So take me for what I say and not lump me with any pre-existing theories out there. If my views share similarities with any other model, then it's pure coincidence.

You are prone to making erratic statements that have no foundation in one place and quickly distancing yourself from the same in another. For e.g. you declared that predestination is not about God arbitrarily deciding who does and does not receive mercy without "precondition". It will be interesting to hear what you suppose this precondition is? Your statement suggests that those who receive God's mercy ought to have done something as a precondition to earn that mercy. And this is a disturbing lack of understanding of God's character and negates the statement "I'll have mercy on whom I'll have mercy..." Perhaps you can provide a plausible meaning to your proposed "precondition" if you believe I misunderstood you? You went further to ask "what does God base his decision on"? Although you were kind enough to tell us that God only extends mercy to those who love and obey his commandments. Given this understanding, you didn't believe that Cyrus, a pagan king who never received the law of Moses, could have by nature obeyed God's law and commandments? But this is what Paul said about OT Gentiles who neither had Mosaic law nor heard the prophets:

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

So the fact that Cyrus fulfilled what God predestined him to do shows he obeyed God's law and commandments according to the texts from Romans above.

From your understanding of predestination given the scriptures you quoted, you apparently assume that predestination started or only effective in the NT, which is incorrect. As I said earlier, your comments on predestination are pretty contradictory, so am leaving your comments on the Reformed model of predestination well alone.

Noeb
Nov 26th 2016, 07:44 PM
With all respect, your argument is inconsistent and contradictory that it's difficult for me to ascertain where you stand.Difficulty to ascertain doesn't equal contradiction. Paul was accused of the same but we know he was not contradictory.



You are prone to making erratic statements that have no foundation in one place and quickly distancing yourself from the same in another. For e.g. you declared that predestination is not about God arbitrarily deciding who does and does not receive mercy without "precondition".How is it erratic, and how do you say there's no foundation in the precondition "to them that love God"? Explain.



Your statement suggests that those who receive God's mercy ought to have done something as a precondition to earn that mercy.Exodus 20:5-6, Romans 8 and others are as clear as a bell. Obedience reaps reward - Bible 101. You reap what you sow.



And this is a disturbing lack of understanding of God's character and negates the statement "I'll have mercy on whom I'll have mercy..."Or maybe you just think predestination and election are the same thing and ignore how God said he determines who receives mercy?



You went further to ask "what does God base his decision on"? Although you were kind enough to tell us that God only extends mercy to those who love and obey his commandments.So why are you asking me to clarify the precondition? I said it, quoted God saying it, what's the problem? Isn't it your view that contradicts God's here?



Given this understanding, you didn't believe that Cyrus, a pagan king who never received the law of MosesNot sure what the law of Moses has to do with it.



could have by nature obeyed God's law and commandments?Natural law is the same as the Mosaic. All men have it and so all are guilty.



So the fact that Cyrus fulfilled what God predestinedThis is an improper use of predestination, which is about what the elect receive, not God determining which individuals receive, and definitely not prophecy.



From your understanding of predestination given the scriptures you quoted, you apparently assume that predestination started or only effective in the NT, which is incorrect.I agree with you and wonder what I said to make you think this. He clearly predestined those that love him would receive inheritance from the foundation of the world.



As I said earlier, your comments on predestination are pretty contradictoryWhich is something you have not established and cannot. Your lack of comprehension doesn't mean my view is lacking.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 05:01 AM
Very good!

There is no partiality, no favoritism with God throughout the whole Scripture so why introduce it when it comes down to salvation?

It's what C/RT teaches when it points to [John 6:44], God draws, but not all. That's favoritism. I don't see how you can reason your way out of this, I seriously can't. It's a consequence of what you believe.

Here's the Greek word used for 'draw' from John 6:44...
helkō--to draw, drag off metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

The same word was used in John 12:32, so if Jesus draws everyone w/o exception, then everyone is saved.

Here's a link that should help. Ppl think God draws, but that ppl can choose to come if they choose to. That's not what the were 'draw' means. In every instance it means to be dragged off, not that it means He drags us kicking and screaming, but drawing in an effectual manner.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=draw&t=KJV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_2

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 05:14 AM
Very good!

There is no partiality, no favoritism with God throughout the whole Scripture so why introduce it when it comes down to salvation?

It's what C/RT teaches when it points to [John 6:44], God draws, but not all. That's favoritism. I don't see how you can reason your way out of this, I seriously can't. It's a consequence of what you believe.

The NIV, ESV, NASB, WEB, NET, in Acts 17:6 use 'dragged' when the ppl dragged Jason out of his house. The NASB uses 'began dragging'. So the context is not that they 'drew' Jason(as the KJV & YLT) use, and he could choose to come or choose to not come, but the literally dragged him out. What they did was effectual, in that they dragged him and he came. When Jesus draws ppl, they will come.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 27th 2016, 05:43 AM
The NIV, ESV, NASB, WEB, NET, in Acts 17:6 use 'dragged' when the ppl dragged Jason out of his house. The NASB uses 'began dragging'. So the context is not that they 'drew' Jason(as the KJV & YLT) use, and he could choose to come or choose to not come, but the literally dragged him out. What they did was effectual, in that they dragged him and he came. When Jesus draws ppl, they will come.

John 12:32. Parallel Verses
King James Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Really?... Doesn't seem all that effectual to me using your definition.....

Unless Jesus was proclaiming universalism

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 06:32 AM
John 12:32. Parallel Verses
King James Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Really?... Doesn't seem all that effectual to me using your definition.....

Unless Jesus was proclaiming universalism

The context is not that He draws everyone indiscriminantly, but those who are drawn via the word of God.

No one...can come...to me...EXCEPT...My Father which sent Me...draws(helko)...them. Helko means to literally drag off. So, those who He draws(helko), encompass the whole earth. That is what is meant by drawing all men.

ProDeo
Nov 27th 2016, 11:11 AM
John 12:32. Parallel Verses
King James Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
The lifting up is referring to the cross hanging 3-4 meters above the ground, the draw all men likely in context with v19. No dragging, just drawing as stated.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 01:24 PM
The lifting up is referring to the cross hanging 3-4 meters above the ground, the draw all men likely in context with v19. No dragging, just drawing as stated.

I agree that God drags no one, as if He is dragging them kicking and screaming against their will. But realize the usage of helko, though it means to literally drag off, means that God's drawing ppl is effectual in essence. I have heard it many times that God draws and ppl can choose to come or not. That is not the usage of that Greek word.


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

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

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

John 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

John 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

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

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

James 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats

All these verses use helko. So, if the meaning of will draw all men, will helko all men, then all men will be saved. Now, that shows me that the saying 'I will draw all men unto Me' has a context.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 01:38 PM
With all respect, your argument is inconsistent and contradictory that it's difficult for me to ascertain where you stand. You appear to disagree with me yet, unwittingly concur in places with my views which I have backed with scripture. Let me start by saying that I don't buy into the so-called Reformed or Armenian models. I simply forge my own thoughts from info discerned from scripture. So take me for what I say and not lump me with any pre-existing theories out there. If my views share similarities with any other model, then it's pure coincidence.

vfYou are prone to making erratic statements that have no foundation in one place and quickly distancing yourself from the same in another. For e.g. you declared that predestination is not about God arbitrarily deciding who does and does not receive mercy without "precondition". It will be interesting to hear what you suppose this precondition is? Your statement suggests that those who receive God's mercy ought to have done something as a precondition to earn that mercy. And this is a disturbing lack of understanding of God's character and negates the statement "I'll have mercy on whom I'll have mercy..." Perhaps you can provide a plausible meaning to your proposed "precondition" if you believe I misunderstood you? You went further to ask "what does God base his decision on"? Although you were kind enough to tell us that God only extends mercy to those who love and obey his commandments. Given this understanding, you didn't believe that Cyrus, a pagan king who never received the law of Moses, could have by nature obeyed God's law and commandments? But this is what Paul said about OT Gentiles who neither had Mosaic law nor heard the prophets:

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

So the fact that Cyrus fulfilled what God predestined him to do shows he obeyed God's law and commandments according to the texts from Romans above.

From your understanding of predestination given the scriptures you quoted, you apparently assume that predestination started or only effective in the NT, which is incorrect. As I said earlier, your comments on predestination are pretty contradictory, so am leaving your comments on the Reformed model of predestination well alone.

First off, wonderful post my Brother. I have Noeb on ignore, but when someone quotes him, I can read his post. His side of the debate emphatically states that God does NOT play favorites, show favoritism. Look at what he posted in the post he posted...


God chooses those that love him over those that hate him.

This is the epitome of God showing favoritism. Noeb has God showing favor to those He knows will love over those who will hate Him. Also, that's a gross picture of God's foreknowledge(from Noeb's post). He knows the end from the beginning, not because He looked down through the portal of time and saw how it would unfold(that impugns His omniscience), but because He ordained it.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 27th 2016, 02:25 PM
I agree that God drags no one, as if He is dragging them kicking and screaming against their will. But realize the usage of helko, though it means to literally drag off, means that God's drawing ppl is effectual in essence. I have heard it many times that God draws and ppl can choose to come or not. That is not the usage of that Greek word.


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

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

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

John 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

John 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

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

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

James 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats

All these verses use helko. So, if the meaning of will draw all men, will helko all men, then all men will be saved. Now, that shows me that the saying 'I will draw all men unto Me' has a context.

You need to decide if you believe in universalism, free will, or Calvinism. Your position is grossly inconsistent.

ProDeo
Nov 27th 2016, 04:34 PM
The NIV, ESV, NASB, WEB, NET, in Acts 17:6 use 'dragged' when the ppl dragged Jason out of his house. The NASB uses 'began dragging'. So the context is not that they 'drew' Jason(as the KJV & YLT) use, and he could choose to come or choose to not come, but the literally dragged him out. What they did was effectual, in that they dragged him and he came. When Jesus draws ppl, they will come.
Same Acts, same chapter 17 - 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

It's an order.

An order can be obeyed.

Or not.

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:19 PM
John 12:32. Parallel Verses
King James Version
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Really?... Doesn't seem all that effectual to me using your definition.....Context
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Could it have been more effectual? Was the cross a failure? Is he not judge of all? Will all not stand before him because of the cross?

Trivalee
Nov 27th 2016, 05:26 PM
How is it erratic, and how do you say there's no foundation in the precondition "to them that love God"? Explain.

Until you realise that you don't have a full understanding of predestination, no one can help you. As I pointed out previously, you have a limited view of predestination that does not extend to the OT. See below:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Just like Cyrus whose prophecy came before he was born, Prophet Jeremiah was another example predestined and sanctified right in the womb. Since you insist there must be a precondition such as "love of God" prior to being predestined, kindly explain Jeremiah's case since he was already chosen and sanctified before birth and therefore, could not have loved God in the belly?

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:37 PM
First off, wonderful post my Brother. I have Noeb on ignore, but when someone quotes him, I can read his post. His side of the debateUrm....my side? Either be fair and take me off ignore so that I can answer you, or do not speak of me.

/someone please quote this post so Galatians 2:21 can see it.



emphatically states that God does NOT play favorites, show favoritism. Look at what he posted in the post he posted...Right, so why do you liken me to others? Without faith it is impossible to please him, right? God prefers some over others. He did not predestine those that hate him to receive xyz (predestination). He does not choose those that hate him to be the ones that have a relationship with him (elect) either.

Chosen implies bias.
Not a bad thing.
Only a fool isn't bias.
God is not a fool.



This is the epitome of God showing favoritism.Of course. Israel is God chosen. But "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" right? Exodus 20:5-6 and Rom 8:28-39 show it is those that love him that get the preferred treatment.



Noeb has God showing favor to those He knows will love over those who will hate Him.Wrong, Noeb has God showing favor to those who love him over those who hate Him. How is this inaccurate?



Also, that's a gross picture of God's foreknowledge(from Noeb's post). He knows the end from the beginning, not because He looked down through the portal of time and saw how it would unfold(that impugns His omniscience), but because He ordained it.Just your opinion, but I have said it's not "because He looked down through the portal of time and saw how it would unfold" and it's not because he ordained certain people over others either. Through his foreknowledge he set forth a plan of salvation in his Son whereby those that love him would receive inheritance.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 05:40 PM
You need to decide if you believe in universalism, free will, or Calvinism. Your position is grossly inconsistent.

I have the biblical view. Not my fault you can't keep up. Toodles.

Trivalee
Nov 27th 2016, 05:45 PM
Exodus 20:5-6, Romans 8 and others are as clear as a bell. Obedience reaps reward - Bible 101. You reap what you sow.

Predestination and election of grace have no *precondition* as you claim. It's God's free gift to whom he will. Ex 20:5-6 and Romans 8 doesn't support your case. See below and tell me where the precondition is. Paul was arguing the current fate of Israel:

Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

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 it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Paul argued that the election (predestined unto glory or to do God's will) were appointed completely according to God's grace, not because of what they have done i.e. works!

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:46 PM
Until you realise that you don't have a full understanding of predestination, no one can help you. As I pointed out previously, you have a limited view of predestination that does not extend to the OT. See below:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Just like Cyrus whose prophecy came before he was born, Prophet Jeremiah was another example predestined and sanctified right in the womb. Since you insist there must be a precondition such as "love of God" prior to being predestined, kindly explain Jeremiah's case since he was already chosen and sanctified before birth and therefore, could not have loved God in the belly?Until you realize prophecy is not the same as predestination no one can help you. You expand predestination far beyond what scripture does. This is necessary for you to have any scripture to back up your view, but it is totally inaccurate, because they are not the same. Jer 1:5 does not say, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations, and to obtain an inheritance and be born again.

Rom 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.

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:

While you say my view is limited, it holds to scripture. If that's limited in your mind, GREAT!

Also, the elect were told of their inheritance in the OT as well so you can drop that silly accusation too. I would imagine Jeremiah was an elect. Do you think the wick Jews he spoke against were?

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:49 PM
Predestination and election of grace have no *precondition* as you claim. It's God's free gift to whom he will. Ex 20:5-6 and Romans 8 doesn't support your case. See below and tell me where the precondition is. Paul was arguing the current fate of Israel:

Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

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 it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Paul argued that the election (predestined unto glory or to do God's will) were appointed completely according to God's grace, not because of what they have done i.e. works!Faith is not a work and the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men as he does not want any to perish but all to come to repentance. Paul argued those that love him were predestined to glory.

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Paul argued you can't earn it, but that doesn't mean you can hate God. Grace is for all, but men resist. No where in scripture is grace limited to only some.



Paul argued that the election (predestined unto glory or to do God's will)Again, not the same thing. Elect is chosen and predestination has to do with what the chosen receive.

How much plainer can it get than, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate"????
Or Eph 1:4 saying chosen, then in verse 5 he predestined the chosen unto adoption of children, then v11 the chosen have obtained a predestined inheritance?

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 05:49 PM
Same Acts, same chapter 17 - 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

It's an order.

An order can be obeyed.

Or not.

Yes, God commands everyone to repent. However, repentance is a God-given gift. Romans 2:4 & 2 Corinthians 7:10. Not every is given these gifts.

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:56 PM
You need to decide if you believe in universalism, free will, or Calvinism. Your position is grossly inconsistent.
Galatians 2:21 has many wholes in many areas, but is spot on in saying the word implies effectual. All those that came to Jesus (which ended up just being the twelve at the end of the chapter) were seeking God, loved righteousness, doing good etc except Judas. Eleven dragged by the goodness of God, one dragged as ProDeo says, as a useful idiot.

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 05:58 PM
Yes, God commands everyone to repent. However, repentance is a God-given gift. Romans 2:4 & 2 Corinthians 7:10. Not every is given these gifts.Another statement without scripture to back it up. :B

Galatians 2:21
Nov 27th 2016, 06:00 PM
Until you realise that you don't have a full understanding of predestination, no one can help you.

Sentence of the year. Kudos!

Noeb
Nov 27th 2016, 08:57 PM
When Jesus draws ppl, they will come.The context of ProDeo's post is John 6 where the Father draws, not Jesus. ALL those drawn of the Father come to Jesus here. Jesus is not the drawer.

ProDeo
Nov 27th 2016, 09:38 PM
Same Acts, same chapter 17 - 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

It's an order.

An order can be obeyed.

Or not.
Yes, God commands everyone to repent. However, repentance is a God-given gift. Romans 2:4 & 2 Corinthians 7:10. Not every is given these gifts.
First of all I see no "however", it's not there.

But since you insist on a however consider the logic that comes with your reasoning:

God gives a command (no strings attached) to all and yet He doesn't give the ability to all while He will condemn those without the ability to hell?

Doesn't add up to me.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 12:49 AM
Yes, God commands everyone to repent. However, repentance is a God-given gift. Romans 2:4 Verse 5 gives us a more proper context... it's not about God giving repentance as a gift. Even moving onto v6 shows us that God judged man by the deeds that man does. So, if what you say is true, God makes a person fail to repent due to not providing to said man... God can't judge according to the man's deeds. God would have to judge the man based on God's deed of not giving the man provision to repent. Which is what your statement means.




2 Corinthians 7:10. Not every is given these gifts.The context of this use of the term repentance deals with Christians who have fallen away from proper relationship with God. This repentance that Paul is raising isn't about non-believers repenting for the first time as they accept Christ.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:25 AM
First of all I see no "however", it's not there.

But since you insist on a however consider the logic that comes with your reasoning:

God gives a command (no strings attached) to all and yet He doesn't give the ability to all while He will condemn those without the ability to hell?

Doesn't add up to me.

God gave those who came out from Egypt, from Pharaoh's heavy hand, the Law they had to keep. God knew very well they could not keep it, but those who broke it, were killed.

We are commanded to be holy, even as He is holy.

In both cases above, God commands us to do that which He knows we, of our ownselves, can not do.

These point us to Him, to seek His help to do that which we can not do.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:27 AM
Verse 5 gives us a more proper context... it's not about God giving repentance as a gift. Even moving onto v6 shows us that God judged man by the deeds that man does. So, if what you say is true, God makes a person fail to repent due to not providing to said man... God can't judge according to the man's deeds. God would have to judge the man based on God's deed of not giving the man provision to repent. Which is what your statement means.



The context of this use of the term repentance deals with Christians who have fallen away from proper relationship with God. This repentance that Paul is raising isn't about non-believers repenting for the first time as they accept Christ.

Nekros can not repent. Nekros can not hear. Nekros can not see. Nekros can not love. Until God gives the nekros...those dead in transgressions and sins...life, they can not do that which God commands all to do.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 04:36 AM
Nekros can not repent. Nekros can not hear. Nekros can not see. Nekros can not love. Until God gives the nekros...those dead in transgressions and sins...life, they can not do that which God commands all to do.Which verse are you referring?

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 05:26 AM
Which verse are you referring?

Ephesians 2:1-5. Those dead(nekros is the greek word which means dead, literally a corpse) He made alive through no exertion of the will.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 05:34 AM
Which verse are you referring?

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.[Eph. 2:1-5]

When we were dead in sins, we were a spiritual corpse. As a spiritual corpse, we could not respond to gospel unless God first quickens(makes alive) us. It is in this divine quickening we are given faith and repentance.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 05:44 AM
From 'Bible Study Tools'...
properly--one that has breathed his last, lifeless, deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell, destitute of life, without life, inanimate metaph..spiritually dead, destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins, inactive as respects doing right, destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

In no way can someone who is nekros in transgressions and sins able to repent unless God first gives him life to exercise faith and repentance.

No one had a say or lot in their natural birth. Whether born in a king's palace or to a homeless family, they could not help it, or say anything about it. Just like divine quickening. It is solely God's perogative whom He quickens.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 05:52 AM
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.[Eph. 2:1-5]

When we were dead in sins, we were a spiritual corpse. As a spiritual corpse, we could not respond to gospel unless God first quickens(makes alive) us. It is in this divine quickening we are given faith and repentance.OK... but the exegesis you raised earlier used Romans 2 and 2 Cor 11... both of which didn't say what you said they mean.

In these verses, Paul is comparing a person's spiritual state before making a choice to believe compared to the spiritual state of a person after choosing to believe. A person is regenerated (their spirit resurrected or made alive) AFTER they choose to believe, they are not regenerated before they have made a choice.

If a person's spirit is made alive, having no need to choose to believe, then there is no need for the Great Commission. You are saying that God regenerates a person first... which means they don't have to make a choice to believe and no need to even hear of the Gospel.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 05:55 AM
In no way can someone who is nekros in transgressions and sins able to repent unless God first gives him life to exercise faith and repentance.
Hearing the Gospel or hearing about God births faith, which can then be exercised so a person can make a choice to believe or not.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 06:17 AM
Hearing the Gospel or hearing about God births faith, which can then be exercised so a person can make a choice to believe or not.

Nekros...a dead corpse...can NOT hear. Yes, the gospel is of utmost importance. God, through the proclamation of the gospel, quickens them. When someone is nekros, they are physically alive, but spiritually nekros. They can hear the gospel with their physical ears, but the inner man is stone deaf, being nekros. God quickens them via the gospel and the inner man is no longer nekros and is able to respond.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 06:19 AM
OK... but the exegesis you raised earlier used Romans 2 and 2 Cor 11... both of which didn't say what you said they mean.

In these verses, Paul is comparing a person's spiritual state before making a choice to believe compared to the spiritual state of a person after choosing to believe. A person is regenerated (their spirit resurrected or made alive) AFTER they choose to believe, they are not regenerated before they have made a choice.

If a person's spirit is made alive, having no need to choose to believe, then there is no need for the Great Commission. You are saying that God regenerates a person first... which means they don't have to make a choice to believe and no need to even hear of the Gospel.

Go back and read my post where I used bible study tools. Nekros can not, will not, and does not mean what you are espousing.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 07:04 AM
Hearing the Gospel or hearing about God births faith, which can then be exercised so a person can make a choice to believe or not.

From 'Bible Study Tools'...
properly--one that has breathed his last, lifeless, deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell, destitute of life, without life, inanimate metaph..spiritually dead, destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins, inactive as respects doing right, destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

The nekros here is the spirit within man. That which is nekros is destitute of life, spiritually dead, destitute of force or power(will), and a life that is destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God. God must first overcome these obstacles in those who nekros. He does this via divine quickening, so that they can exercise faith and repentance.

What you are espousing is the dead wills themselves to believe and then they are made alive. Nekros can not believe unless first brought to life.

ProDeo
Nov 28th 2016, 09:10 AM
God gave those who came out from Egypt, from Pharaoh's heavy hand, the Law they had to keep. God knew very well they could not keep it, but those who broke it, were killed.

We are commanded to be holy, even as He is holy.

In both cases above, God commands us to do that which He knows we, of our ownselves, can not do.

These point us to Him, to seek His help to do that which we can not do.
Absolutely, God gave Israel the Law and (so to say) let it run for 1500 years and of the million of Jews there was none able to keep it, not one. It's the whole point of the Law, pointing to the ONE who can and that nobody can earn his way into heaven, all have sinned by breaking the Law, sinners in need for a (the) Saviour. That's the base, the admission (acknowledgement) we are sinners and in need for redemption, redemption freely offered by God through the blameless Lamb.

While I see the inability of mankind to be sinless you can not automatically jump to the conclusion that millions of Jews throughout those 1500 years never had the ability to serve God, because many did. The purpose of the Law was to lead us to Christ, not to add a restriction that nobody actually can. That wasn't the case during the Law and also not after.

CadyandZoe
Nov 28th 2016, 12:41 PM
This is an improper use of predestination, which is about what the elect receive, not God determining which individuals receive, and definitely not prophecy.I'm sorry, but you are talking about predetermination, not predestination. Lane Craig got it wrong.

CadyandZoe
Nov 28th 2016, 12:51 PM
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.[Eph. 2:1-5]

When we were dead in sins, we were a spiritual corpse. As a spiritual corpse, we could not respond to gospel unless God first quickens(makes alive) us. It is in this divine quickening we are given faith and repentance.

This is not what Paul meant. "Dead" in your sins doesn't indicate a quality or characteristic of man; it indicates the sentence due to man for his sins. There is no such thing as a spiritual corpse or a spiritually dead person. This concept is antithetical to the Bible's point of view. To be made "alive" in Christ is to have your sins pardoned and given hope of eternal life.

Contrary to popular belief, this passage does not support the notion that man is by nature incapable of belief or unable to respond to God. Unbelief is not a privation of the mind or spirituality of a person; unbelief is the willful suppression of the truth. We all are fully capable of coming to saving faith; we simply don't want to do that.

Pbminimum
Nov 28th 2016, 01:37 PM
This is not what Paul meant. "Dead" in your sins doesn't indicate a quality or characteristic of man; it indicates the sentence due to man for his sins. There is no such thing as a spiritual corpse or a spiritually dead person. This concept is antithetical to the Bible's point of view. To be made "alive" in Christ is to have your sins pardoned and given hope of eternal life.

Exactly, it is about our future condemnation that has already been put to our account because of sin. It's like someone on death row. They aren't dead, but the are "dead men walking".


Contrary to popular belief, this passage does not support the notion that man is by nature incapable of belief or unable to respond to God. Unbelief is not a privation of the mind or spirituality of a person; unbelief is the willful suppression of the truth. We all are fully capable of coming to saving faith; we simply don't want to do that.

Spot on again. It's in our nature to do what we do. Only through the Gospel and God "drawing" our heart can we be saved. Drawing doesn't equate into forcing.

Noeb
Nov 28th 2016, 02:25 PM
I'm sorry, but you are talking about predetermination, not predestination. Lane Craig got it wrong.Who?

Elect is chosen and predestination is what the chosen receive.

How much plainer can it get than, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son"????
Or Eph 1:4 saying chosen, then in verse 5 he predestined the chosen unto adoption of children, then v11 the chosen have obtained a predestined inheritance?

Rom 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.

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:

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 02:48 PM
What you are espousing is the dead wills themselves to believe and then they are made alive. The verses teach us that Whosoever believes... not, who I want believes.


Nekros can not believe unless first brought to life.What scriptures (in context) teach us that God first redeems a person, seals them with the Holy Spirit which restores them to life (born-again) and then... they can make the choice to believe?

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 02:52 PM
Go back and read my post where I used bible study tools. Nekros can not, will not, and does not mean what you are espousing.G, Adam was still able to choose to come out of hiding when God came into his presence. Adam was the first Nekros you are talking about and yet... he made a choice, WHILE nekros... to face God. If Adam could not, or would not,and ultimately did not... make the choice to show himself before God, then you'd be aligned with the context of scriptures.

Adam is the example in scripture that refutes all you are saying.

EndTimes0
Nov 28th 2016, 03:33 PM
Ok. Now i have another question!
What does it mean he hardened his heart.... like before i even think it means he cant choose, what exactly does hardening heart mean. Like make him think more of his losses, let his ego overindulge a bit by enticing..... or something else.

Love comes from the heart. Not the physical of course. A hardened heart means there is less love or a closed heart.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:03 PM
This is not what Paul meant. "Dead" in your sins doesn't indicate a quality or characteristic of man; it indicates the sentence due to man for his sins. There is no such thing as a spiritual corpse or a spiritually dead person. This concept is antithetical to the Bible's point of view. To be made "alive" in Christ is to have your sins pardoned and given hope of eternal life.

Contrary to popular belief, this passage does not support the notion that man is by nature incapable of belief or unable to respond to God. Unbelief is not a privation of the mind or spirituality of a person; unbelief is the willful suppression of the truth. We all are fully capable of coming to saving faith; we simply don't want to do that.

The only Source of life the spirit within man has is God. When Adam and Eve died spiritually, they were cutoff from God and thrusted out of the Garden. They became a spiritual corpse. That is what nekros means. Sorry Brothers, you don't get to rewrite the bible to make it mean otherwise. Satan is as spiritually dead as they come, yet he is still seeking whom he may devour.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:08 PM
The verses teach us that Whosoever believes... not, who I want believes.

Dead corpses can't believe. God quickens and they respond.


What scriptures (in context) teach us that God first redeems a person, seals them with the Holy Spirit which restores them to life (born-again) and then... they can make the choice to believe?

Look at Ezekiel 37, 1 Kings 17, Luke 7, Mark 5(12 y/o girl who was dead), John 11(Lazarus). These were physical examples of how God gives life to the dead. How He gives life to those who are unable to hear, see, are deaf, have a deadened heart, &c.

You guys don't have the unregenerate nekros in transgressions and sins, just a snotty nose.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:12 PM
G, Adam was still able to choose to come out of hiding when God came into his presence. Adam was the first Nekros you are talking about and yet... he made a choice, WHILE nekros... to face God. If Adam could not, or would not,and ultimately did not... make the choice to show himself before God, then you'd be aligned with the context of scriptures.

Adam is the example in scripture that refutes all you are saying.

Adam knew he had did wrong, and willingly fled and hid. Pre-fall, they had communion. Sin slayed Adam, inwardly, that very instant, and the sentence of physical death was also placed upon him. Adam did not want to face God, knowing He had sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Sin changed his heart's condition.

Adam actually props up EVERYTHING I am saying.

You just have ppl as being the walking wounded.

Stew Ward's Hip
Nov 28th 2016, 04:21 PM
Looks to me like dead Adam was still able to have communication and respond to God when God called him.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:24 PM
We all are fully capable of coming to saving faith; we simply don't want to do that.

Yep, thought so. You guys think man can will himself saved if they really, reaaaalllly want to. But the bible easily refutes this notion.

He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.[John 1:11-13] Who are the ones who received the Christ? It was those who were born of God. It was not their wills that opened their eyes, unplugged their deafened ears, opened their sin crusted hearts. Yes, ppl receive the Christ willingly. But God must first change their wills.

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.[Romans 9:16] Again, those who are saved are saved solely by God's mercy. As Paul said in the same chapter therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.[Romans 9:18]

I get it though...man does not like to be told what to do. He wants to be his own man and make his own decisions. Man wants to retain his own freedom to choose. But the bible says differently.

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 04:25 PM
Adam knew he had did wrong, and willingly fled and hid. Pre-fall, they had communion. Sin slayed Adam, inwardly, that very instant, and the sentence of physical death was also placed upon him. Adam did not want to face God, knowing He had sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Sin changed his heart's condition.

Adam actually props up EVERYTHING I am saying.

Negative... when Adams spirit became DEAD, he is the first example of nekros that you are using to make your point. Now, you just changed the meaning of nekros concenring Adam, so you can continue to make your point. Are you riding a surf board on various waves now, to stand by what you believe :lol:

So a straight up question... was Adam "nekros" as you are stating and could not, would not... choose to face God again?

Slug1
Nov 28th 2016, 04:30 PM
Yep, thought so. You guys think man can will himself saved if they really, reaaaalllly want to. NO, you are twisting what is being said. Grace ALLOWS mankind to respond (Adam is an example of being allowed to choose to come back into God's presence) and once hearing about God then faith empowers a person to choose.

Grace, is of God. Faith, is of God. Salvation, is of God. None of this is of man... which is what you keep trying to twist into.

Not gonna work. Man can respond to ALL the work God has done and how do we know man is allowed to respond... grace. When a man does respond (chose to believe), then all that work that God did, takes effect into the life of that man. Man only believes, that is the only thing man can possibly "choose" to do concerning redemption.

Galatians 2:21
Nov 28th 2016, 04:34 PM
Negative... when Adams spirit became DEAD, he is the first example of nekros that you are using to make your point. Now, you just changed the meaning of nekros concenring Adam, so you can continue to make your point. Are you riding a surf board on various waves now, to stand by what you believe :lol:

So a straight up question... was Adam "nekros" as you are stating and could not, would not... choose to face God again?

Look, when Adam heard God's voice, he and Eve fled. Never was he like that before the fall. Something changed in him. Sin drove a wedge betwixt him and his Creator. His spirit was dead within him and did not want anything to do with Him. It was only after God called Him out(He knew the very spot they were hiding but called them to Him). We hid ourselves from God, but He knew exactly where we were and He called us out to Him. If God would have passed by Adam and not called out to him, I don't think Adam goes looking for Him. The only reason why Adam chose to face Him was God called Him out to Him.