PDA

View Full Version : Is the gospel offer as presented in Calvinism a genuine offer to all?"



Pages : [1] 2

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 12:47 PM
This was a good idea proposed by Christinme from another thread.

Go!!!

mailmandan
Mar 6th 2017, 01:01 PM
This was a good idea proposed by Christinme from another thread.

Go!!! Can you call fatalistic determination an offer? ;)

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 01:29 PM
No.

I have to put extra characters in to be able to post.

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2017, 01:44 PM
If God elects a predetermined set to salvation, then the offer is only genuinely offered to that set. Said another way: if 'the world' of John 3.16 means 'the elect', for example, then it makes no sense for the offer to be for 'all', since 'for God so loved' a limited set to begin with. This seems to me consistent with Calvin's thought, and should be rather uncontroversial for those who subscribe to his line of thinking.

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 02:06 PM
Depends on how someone who believes in election presents it. As it is often presented on this board, there is no real offer of salvation to the non-elect. By definition, limited atonement means no route for salvation was even provided for the non-elect. Without a legitimate route for salvation, how can the offer be genuine? If Christ didn't die for the non-elect, there's nothing to offer them.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 03:33 PM
Can you call fatalistic determination an offer? ;)

No.....but we are not speaking of Islam. Explain if you could how you suggest God setting His love on a multitude of rebel sinners and granting them repentance and faith is in your mind fatalistic?

The offer is a real offer to all who hear it. Not all get a verbal offer.....whatever God has decreed will come to pass, and that is not dependant on sinful mankind.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 03:46 PM
No.....but we are not speaking of Islam. Explain if you could how you suggest God setting His love on a multitude of rebel sinners and granting them repentance and faith is in your mind fatalistic?

The offer is a real offer to all who hear it. Not all get a verbal offer.....whatever God has decreed will come to pass, and that is not dependant on sinful mankind.

How can an offer be real to ALL who here it, if God chooses from among those who here it ?

Kalahari
Mar 6th 2017, 03:46 PM
I do not see the Gospel as something offered, but something given. The elect received it and the unelect discard it.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 04:04 PM
The unelect can't discard something that is not available to them.

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 04:19 PM
The offer is a real offer to all who hear it. Not all get a verbal offer.....whatever God has decreed will come to pass, and that is not dependant on sinful mankind.

This i think is an honest answer from a Calvinist view point. The offer to salvation is not really made to all men but only to the elect. There can be no offer to a man whom Christ did not die for. For if the atonement is limited, then only those that are included in the atonement are genuinely offered salvation.

Said another way, if the atonement doesn't cover the non-elect, then there can be no offer for atonement saving grace because they are not and never were intended to be, nor ever will be included in the atonement. Thus, salvation cannot be offered to them. (...If limited atonement is true...)

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 05:47 PM
How can an offer be real to ALL who here it, if God chooses from among those who here it ?

PB.....An offer.....is an offer........if it gets accepted or rejected is not the fault of the offer....
A thousand people gather in a building where the Gospel is proclaimed.....they are told that everyone believing the message will be saved from their sins ........that is the offer.....the end of the story....it was offered to all, end of the story.

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 05:51 PM
PB.....An offer.....is an offer........if it gets accepted or rejected is not the fault of the offer....
A thousand people gather in a building where the Gospel is proclaimed.....they are told that everyone believing the message will be saved from their sins ........that is the offer.....the end of the story....it was offered to all, end of the story.

No it wasn't. There was no provision made for a pre-selected group of people (i.e. being selected to believe means others were selected to allow to continue in unbelief. The selection of one, by default means the others were selected for the other purpose).

If there's no provision made for a particular individual, there can be no offer of provision made to that individual. Now, the equation can be explained "if you believe, you will be saved" but that is not the same as an offer of provision.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 05:52 PM
PB.....An offer.....is an offer........if it gets accepted or rejected is not the fault of the offer....
A thousand people gather in a building where the Gospel is proclaimed.....they are told that everyone believing the message will be saved from their sins ........that is the offer.....the end of the story....it was offered to all, end of the story.

No, it's hardly over. This is illogical according to your own doctrine.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 05:53 PM
This i think is an honest answer from a Calvinist view point. The offer to salvation is not really made to all men but only to the elect. There can be no offer to a man whom Christ did not die for. For if the atonement is limited, then only those that are included in the atonement are genuinely offered salvation.

Said another way, if the atonement doesn't cover the non-elect, then there can be no offer for atonement saving grace because they are not and never were intended to be, nor ever will be included in the atonement. Thus, salvation cannot be offered to them. (...If limited atonement is true...)

MARK........the offer is made to all men.....it is a true offer......everyone believing will be saved.

That fact that Jesus died a Covenant death does not affect the offer.
The fact that God has elected a multitude does not affect the offer
The fact that God works effectually in the elect foes not affect the offer.

Why is that? You can find nowhere in scripture a person who wants to believe in Jesus and trust the blood of the cross, who is told, no you are not elect:no:

Obfuscate
Mar 6th 2017, 05:54 PM
Honestly, why care and argue since Paul says it's beyond our understanding. Trying to use our reason to make sense of it makes no sense. Preach the Gospel to every creature let God handle the rest.

Romans 11:33-36

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 05:55 PM
No, it's hardly over. This is illogical according to your own doctrine.

PB....you suggest it is illogical, then you need to attempt to show how that is so, correct?

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 05:58 PM
MARK........the offer is made to all men.....it is a true offer......everyone believing will be saved.

That's not an offer. That is an equation. "Do this and that will happen". In order for it to be an offer, provision must have been made. It is not an offer if I tell someone to come and eat at my house, but I have no food for them to eat. It is a mask, a pretend, a fallacy, a show, a hypocrisy.

If there is no provision of salvation made for someone, I cannot offer them salvation. Where there is no provision, there can be no genuine offer. I can defraud them or lie to them by saying I made provision for them. But it would be a lie, without provision.


That fact that Jesus died a Covenant death does not affect the offer.
The fact that God has elected a multitude does not affect the offer
The fact that God works effectually in the elect foes not affect the offer.

Why is that? You can find nowhere in scripture a person who wants to believe in Jesus and trust the blood of the cross, who is told, no you are not elect:no:

The offer can only be made to the elect, for they are the only ones that provision has been made for. The others, they cannot be honestly offered for nothing was prepared for them.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:03 PM
No it wasn't. There was no provision made for a pre-selected group of people (i.e. being selected to believe means others were selected to allow to continue in unbelief. The selection of one, by default means the others were selected for the other purpose).

If there's no provision made for a particular individual, there can be no offer of provision made to that individual. Now, the equation can be explained "if you believe, you will be saved" but that is not the same as an offer of provision.

The Preterition of the non elect...[passing them by]....does not mean their is no offer.
God has never intended to apply the blood to all persons.
The blood of the passover was not applied to every door, was it?
There was to be no atonement made for the house of Eli forever. 1 Samuel 3:11-14

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 06:07 PM
PB....you suggest it is illogical, then you need to attempt to show how that is so, correct?

It's so easy to show that what you're saying is illogical a 3 year old could figure it out bro.

Suppose there are 2 people in the room. I already know I am going to walk into the room and give one of them a hundred dollar bill and NOT give the other one anything. So I walk into the room and offer both of them a hundred dollar bill. BUT...I only give the one the bill that I already decided that I was going to give the bill to before I walked into the room.

Well, the dude who didn't get the money that I offered to him says " where's my hundred dollar bill ?".... And I say " Well I offered it to you.".. Then he say's " THEN GIVE IT TO ME !! " and I so " NO !!".... And he promptly calls me a liar. Which I would absolutely be because I offered something that I never intended to give.

Explain to me logically how something is offered when it was never intended to be backed up by the possibility of giving what was offered ?

This shoots single predestination down brother. It has no logical or scriptural basis. If your in for a penny with sovereign predestined election, your in for a pound bro. Buy into it wholeheartedly like Kalahari does. It's the only way it makes sense.

Any attempt to explain the above scenario logically ends in the proverbial Calvinist tail chase. Don't try it, as it only makes you look irrational. Do one of 2 things.

1. Admit it's illogical
2. Buy into double predestination.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:08 PM
That's not an offer. That is an equation. "Do this and that will happen". In order for it to be an offer, provision must have been made. It is not an offer if I tell someone to come and eat at my house, but I have no food for them to eat. It is a mask, a pretend, a fallacy, a show, a hypocrisy.

If there is no provision of salvation made for someone, I cannot offer them salvation. Where there is no provision, there can be no genuine offer. I can defraud them or lie to them by saying I made provision for them. But it would be a lie, without provision.



The offer can only be made to the elect, for they are the only ones that provision has been made for. The others, they cannot be honestly offered for nothing was prepared for them.

No one on earth knows who the elect are. Therefore God has ordained the gospel to be proclaimed to all men.
The offer is true.....it has no consequences that depend on the extent of the provision. Salvation is of God...He knows those who are His.....they will all be saved.....there is no scriptural evidence of people wanting to be saved but being told no.it is not for you.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 06:10 PM
The Preterition of the non elect...[passing them by]....does not mean their is no offer

Yes it does. It's not a genuine offer. You know this. Preterition can only be logical in double predestination. A genuine offer is just that, genuine. That means that the person offering fully intends on backing up the offer. The Preterition knee jerk , solve all answer is bogus, and it just doesn't do to logically answer the question of what a genuine offer is. Not to me.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 06:10 PM
There's no scriptural evidence of people not wanting to be saved but being told, yes, you have to, either.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:12 PM
I might have no food in the house, and offer someone to come for a meal, if they agree then I will provide the food, or I would not have made the offer.
Scripture is clear that God has the exact amount of "food" to make the offer.heb7:25

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 06:12 PM
The Preterition of the non elect...[passing them by]....does not mean their is no offer.
God has never intended to apply the blood to all persons.

I cannot offer someone a coke if I do not have a coke.

God cannot offer someone provision for whom He has not made provision.


The blood of the passover was not applied to every door, was it?
There was to be no atonement made for the house of Eli forever. 1 Samuel 3:11-14

And God would never offer them provision from that day forward. They had no offer after the judgment was made. That's this whole thing about an offer being genuine is just baloney.

If I don't have a coke, I cannot offer anyone a coke. If God did not make provision for someone, He cannot offer them provision for He cannot lie. The doctrine of limited atonement of necessity, means there can be no offer of provision/salvation for anyone other than the elect.

What God refuses to provide cannot be offered as provision.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 06:15 PM
I might have no food in the house, and offer someone to come for a meal, if they agree then I will provide the food, or I would not have made the offer.
Scripture is clear that God has the exact amount of "food" to make the offer.heb7:25

Come on man. Really ?

This sounds like an Armenian offer. lol

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:15 PM
There's no scriptural evidence of people not wanting to be saved but being told, yes, you have to, either.

Correct.....we have much evidence of those who were opposing God, being convinced to do otherwise....
Pharoah, Jonah, Nebuchadnezzar, Saul

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 06:18 PM
I might have no food in the house, and offer someone to come for a meal, if they agree then I will provide the food, or I would not have made the offer.

That's a very arminian statement. Are you saying that God is making his provision dependent on whether someone agrees to come, based on His foreknowledge of who will accept?


Scripture is clear that God has the exact amount of "food" to make the offer.heb7:25

That's not what Heb. 7:25 states. Going back to a reference you made earlier about the passover Lamb. As we read that story, something becomes clear... there is never too little Lamb, but there can be more than enough and they were to share with others that excess.

Bottom line, provision cannot be offered by God if He is unwilling to provide. And if the only people who get to heaven are a select few that God is willing to save, then by default, He is unwilling to save others, thus He chose not to provide for them. Therefore, He cannot and will not offer them provision that He does not have. God is not a liar. It is impossible for Him to lie about His offer or His provision.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:19 PM
Come on man. Really ?

This sounds like an Armenian offer. lol

Pb....if you want to ride down to Birmingham...I will buy you a cup of coffee,which I do not have with me right now...but If I offer and you agree....It will be there....are you in on this or not?
If you say no.....do not say I did not offer it to you.:no:

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 06:28 PM
Pb....if you want to ride down to Birmingham...I will buy you a cup of coffee,which I do not have with me right now...but If I offer and you agree....It will be there....are you in on this or not?
If you say no.....do not say I did not offer it to you.:no:

That is Arminianism, Patrick.

Calvinism teaches that your wouldn't invite unless you had the coffee and had predertermined that he would come to Birmingham for the coffee.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 06:30 PM
First. God doesn't lack grace. He doesn't "not have it to offer". That's not logical. God's economy and pantry are infinite. There is no amount to great that he runs out of what He offers , no matter what it is. You are putting attributes on God that are not relevant to His character. He has never , not been able to provide due to lack of resource.

Now concerning your cup of coffee , I wouldn't drive to Birmingham for one. But I appreciate the offer.

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 06:31 PM
Pb....if you want to ride down to Birmingham...I will buy you a cup of coffee,which I do not have with me right now...but If I offer and you agree....It will be there....are you in on this or not?

But you have provision for the coffee. That's the point. Limited atonement says "No provision has been made except for the elect". You are just converting the provision into coffee.


If you say no.....do not say I did not offer it to you.:no:

Also, you fully intend to make good on the offer, and have provided a way for it to be accepted. The Calvinist view is that God has not provided, has willed himself to make not provision, will not provide, yet, turns and them makes an offer of provision. Its a logical fallacy at best, and a lie at worst.

What is more accurate description in my opinion, is what Spurgeon said... "God has chosen some to believe and be saved. Why won't you be one of them?" Or to say "If you believe, God has made provision for your salvation. If you have not believed, God has not made provision for you." That also is an accurate and truthful statement from a Calvinist perspective.

But what cannot be said is "I offer you salvation, but there is no way or provision made for you to accept it." That is not an offer at all. What some Calvinist state is more a formula... "All who believe will be saved" that is not an offer. It is truth no matter if we are calvinist or arminian. But it is not an offer. We could also say "Believe and God will save you!" But that too is not an offer unless provision for their belief and salvation has been procured.


First. God doesn't lack grace. He doesn't "not have it to offer". That's not logical. God's economy and pantry are infinite. There is no amount to great that he runs out of what He offers , no matter what it is. You are putting attributes on God that are not relevant to His character. He has never , not been able to provide due to lack of resource.

Exactly! Unless one believes in "limited" atonement.

Slug1
Mar 6th 2017, 06:33 PM
This was a good idea proposed by Christinme from another thread.

Go!!!I bet you will be surprised by my answer but YES. Calvinists speak the core Gospel message pretty much as all do in the Body. The presentation (method varies I'm sure however) is the same so what is presented to all people, is genuine.

It's the indoctrination into Calvinism once a person believes in God, where the problems occur :)

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:35 PM
It's so easy to show that what you're saying is illogical a 3 year old could figure it out bro.

Suppose there are 2 people in the room. I already know I am going to walk into the room and give one of them a hundred dollar bill and NOT give the other one anything. So I walk into the room and offer both of them a hundred dollar bill. BUT...I only give the one the bill that I already decided that I was going to give the bill to before I walked into the room.

Well, the dude who didn't get the money that I offered to him says " where's my hundred dollar bill ?".... And I say " Well I offered it to you.".. Then he say's " THEN GIVE IT TO ME !! " and I so " NO !!".... And he promptly calls me a liar. Which I would absolutely be because I offered something that I never intended to give.

Explain to me logically how something is offered when it was never intended to be backed up by the possibility of giving what was offered ?

This shoots single predestination down brother. It has no logical or scriptural basis. If your in for a penny with sovereign predestined election, your in for a pound bro. Buy into it wholeheartedly like Kalahari does. It's the only way it makes sense.

Any attempt to explain the above scenario logically ends in the proverbial Calvinist tail chase. Don't try it, as it only makes you look irrational. Do one of 2 things.

1. Admit it's illogical
2. Buy into double predestination.

Your flawed scenario is this......no one seeks God ,no not one.....psalm14:1-3....so you are offering an invalid scenario, that does not fit the biblical model....this is therefore rejected.

Furthermore......predestination is spoken of the called be conformed to the Image of the Son.....this happens to all those God has intended it for......the others are just past by. Preterition.....

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:38 PM
But you have provision for the coffee. That's the point. Limited atonement says "No provision has been made except for the elect". You are just converting the provision into coffee.



Also, you fully intend to make good on the offer, and have provided a way for it to be accepted. The Calvinist view is that God has not provided, has willed himself to make not provision, will not provide, yet, turns and them makes an offer of provision. Its a logical fallacy at best, and a lie at worst.

What is more accurate description in my opinion, is what Spurgeon said... "God has chosen some to believe and be saved. Why won't you be one of them?" Or to say "If you believe, God has made provision for your salvation. If you have not believed, God has not made provision for you." That also is an accurate and truthful statement from a Calvinist perspective.

But what cannot be said is "I offer you salvation, but there is no way or provision made for you to accept it." That is not an offer at all. What some Calvinist state is more a formula... "All who believe will be saved" that is not an offer. It is truth no matter if we are calvinist or arminian. But it is not an offer. We could also say "Believe and God will save you!" But that too is not an offer unless provision for their belief and salvation has been procured.



Exactly! Unless one believes in "limited" atonement.

In Matthew 15 we read......every plant that the Father has not planted shall be rooted up.

Slug1
Mar 6th 2017, 06:39 PM
Your flawed scenario is this......no one seeks God ,no not one.....psalm14:1-3....so you are offering an invalid scenario, that does not fit the biblical model....this is therefore rejected.

Furthermore......predestination is spoken of the called be conformed to the Image of the Son.....this happens to all those God has intended it for......the others are just past by. Preterition.....Icon... in Revelation 3, we have an image of Christ standing outside a door knocking to come in. Based on your position, the image should be Jesus in the door, not needing to knock for entrance...

But the image is what it is... are those who Jesus is knocking on the non-elects?

If they are the elects, why an image of knocking?

If they are the non-elects, why an image of knocking?

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 06:41 PM
In Matthew 15 we read......every plant that the Father has not planted shall be rooted up.

Got nothing to do with if the offer is genuine or not. Bottom line, if God has not made provision for someone's salvation, He cannot lie and offer them that for which He has no provision. Salvation can only be offered to those for whom God has provision for. Anything else, would constitute a lie or a non-offer.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:43 PM
First. God doesn't lack grace. He doesn't "not have it to offer". That's not logical. God's economy and pantry are infinite. There is no amount to great that he runs out of what He offers , no matter what it is. You are putting attributes on God that are not relevant to His character. He has never , not been able to provide due to lack of resource.

Now concerning your cup of coffee , I wouldn't drive to Birmingham for one. But I appreciate the offer.

Correct, the value of the blood is infinite, so this is not an issue.
You have reasons not to drive to Birmingham.....sinners have reasons to make excuse not to welcome the gospel....
That does not mean it was.not offered.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 06:44 PM
Your flawed scenario is this......no one seeks God ,no not one.....psalm14:1-3....so you are offering an invalid scenario, that does not fit the biblical model....this is therefore rejected.

Furthermore......predestination is spoken of the called be conformed to the Image of the Son.....this happens to all those God has intended it for......the others are just past by. Preterition.....

If no one seeks God, then why did Paul say that God established the nations and their time and borders so that they would seek Him? Acts 17?

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 06:45 PM
I'm going to Birmingham near the end of April.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:45 PM
Got nothing to do with if the offer is genuine or not. Bottom line, if God has not made provision for someone's salvation, He cannot lie and offer them that for which He has no provision. Salvation can only be offered to those for whom God has provision for. Anything else, would constitute a lie or a non-offer.

God has made the offer and it is true.God is going to save everyone believing.
No one will.perish for lack of provision.
They perish because the love sin, and hate God.

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 06:48 PM
I'm going to Birmingham near the end of April.

Let me know....a lot of times I am here on.Monday, tues,...we can fellowship God willing:thumbsup:I will buy you lunch it comes with the coffee,lol

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 06:48 PM
God has made the offer and it is true.God is going to save everyone believing.
No one will.perish for lack of provision.
They perish because the love sin, and hate God.

If no one seeks God, then why did Paul say that God established the nations and their time and borders so that they would seek Him? Acts 17?

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 06:53 PM
God has made the offer and it is true.God is going to save everyone believing.
No one will.perish for lack of provision.

That's a dodge. Of course God made the offer. And of course He is willing to save all. And of course He made provision for everyone. But that's not what you are saying. You are being illogical in your argument.

God cannot and will not say "I have made provision for your salvation through my Son. If you believe in that provision, I will save you!" if He has not made provision. He cannot say "Believe in my provision for you" if He has made no provision for them. For Him to do so would be a lie and God cannot lie.


They perish because the love sin, and hate God.

Yep. But your doctrine is God never intended to save them, never wanted to save them, never made provision for their salvation, but then turns and says "Jesus died as a provision for your sin. Why not believe!" That is an offer of salvation that God cannot make for it would be a lie unless He had indeed made provision for their belief and their sin.

Pbminimum
Mar 6th 2017, 07:06 PM
Your flawed scenario is this......no one seeks God ,no not one.....psalm14:1-3....so you are offering an invalid scenario, that does not fit the biblical model....this is therefore rejected.

Furthermore......predestination is spoken of the called be conformed to the Image of the Son.....this happens to all those God has intended it for......the others are just past by. Preterition.....

The scenario isn't flawed. It's a scenario you are describing, and is illogical.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 07:18 PM
Icon... in Revelation 3, we have an image of Christ standing outside a door knocking to come in. Based on your position, the image should be Jesus in the door, not needing to knock for entrance...

But the image is what it is... are those who Jesus is knocking on the non-elects?

If they are the elects, why an image of knocking?

If they are the non-elects, why an image of knocking?

Um, Revelation 3 is to the church, not to unbelievers. THe sad commentary of Rev 3 is that Jesus wants fellowship with his people...

Slug1
Mar 6th 2017, 07:27 PM
Um, Revelation 3 is to the church, not to unbelievers. THe sad commentary of Rev 3 is that Jesus wants fellowship with his people...Hooah, always a reasonable way to discuss the image given through that scripture.

Seems that what Calvinism teaches however, this image is impossible for the elect who CAN'T, "NOT" not have fellowship with God as we see in the image of scripture.

So... is that church the elect or a bunch of non-elects and thus WHY we see a lacking in fellowship with God?

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 07:35 PM
Let me know....a lot of times I am here on.Monday, tues,...we can fellowship God willing:thumbsup:I will buy you lunch it comes with the coffee,lol

I'll be there Friday/Saturday April 21-22.

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 07:39 PM
The scenario isn't flawed. It's a scenario you are describing, and is illogical.

Pb, illogical has a specific meaning. In what way is it illogical?

Is it violating that law of identity?
Violating the law of non-contradiction?
Violating the law of excluded middle?
Violating laws of valid inference?

Committing a formal fallacy? Which one?
Committing an informal fallacy? Which one?

Help me out because I haven't see him violate any laws of logic.

ICONBUSTERS
Mar 6th 2017, 08:08 PM
Our sovereign God has the right to require of men that which they will not.

He commands all men in our day and age to repent and believe the Gospel.

The fault of unbelief lies in the hearts of men, not with God.

The fault lies not in the extent of the atonement.

The fault lies in hearts of men not willing to believe.

The Lord knows His own.

He knew them from the beginning.

They are those for whom He died, for whom He makes intercession.

Not one drop of Christ’s blood was shed in vain.

His blood is efficacious for all chosen of the Father, who were given to Him.

Why is this Scriptural truth so disturbing to many sincere, sober and serious Christians?

Moreover, God has the right to harden the hearts of the wicked so they will never repent.

This truth is evidenced in Exodus 7: 1-4:

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Moses and Aaron were commanded to preach ‘Let my people go.’

Yet God declared he would harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the people go.

Moses and Aaron faithfully carried out the command without complaining of the futility of their preaching, or the wisdom of God commanding that which He secretly wills non-compliance.

In like manner, we Christians are to preach the command of God to every creature.

Many will refuse to heed the command.

Many will have had their hearts hardened by God, as did Pharaoh.

Yet the command given us to preach is still valid, meaningful, righteous and necessary.

shepherdsword
Mar 6th 2017, 08:17 PM
No.

I have to put extra characters in to be able to post.

Agreed.................Calvinism is one of the most errant doctrines of our time still within the bounds of accepted Christianity. I think those that subscribe to it lack any understanding of the nature of God or His purpose in giving sentient beings, such as angels and men, free will.
According to the errant position of Calvin Christ only died for the elect. A clear contradiction of scripture.

Feel free to quote me or report this post. I will stand my ground on how grievous this errant doctrine is.

BCsenior
Mar 6th 2017, 08:19 PM
I do not see the Gospel as something offered, but something given.
The elect received it and the unelect discard it.
First, God does wish that all men could/would be saved. But ...

God has seen everything from beginning to end of earth time ... so He saw man's choices before they were made.
IMO, He has chosen those whom He desired to choose ... from this incredible foreknowledge of His.

Perhaps this helps us understand whom He chooses ...
Several OT verses says He desires to live with those having humble and contrite hearts.

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 08:24 PM
Agreed.................Calvinism is one of the most errant doctrines of our time still within the bounds of accepted Christianity. I think those that subscribe to it lack any understanding of the nature of God or His purpose in giving sentient beings, such as angels and men, free will.
According to the errant position of Calvin Christ only died for the elect. A clear contradiction of scripture.

Feel free to quote me or report this post. I will stand my ground on how grievous this errant doctrine is.

I won't report it, but question it.

Those who subscribe lack any understanding of the nature of God?

MacArthur? Any understanding?
Sproul?
Piper?
Michael Horton?
Wayne Grudem?
Al Mohler?
Greg Koukl?
Ken Samples?
Charles Spurgeon?
Jonathan Edwards?
Me? I lack any any understanding of the nature of God? I know that you are well aware of how I conduct myself at the forums.

I'm not offended. I'm just saying aren't you being a bit hyperbolic?

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 08:35 PM
Agreed.................Calvinism is one of the most errant doctrines of our time still within the bounds of accepted Christianity. I think those that subscribe to it lack any understanding of the nature of God or His purpose in giving sentient beings, such as angels and men, free will.
According to the errant position of Calvin Christ only died for the elect. A clear contradiction of scripture.

Feel free to quote me or report this post. I will stand my ground on how grievous this errant doctrine is.

I know a man, whether in the flesh or out of the flesh, I cannot say, who would hypothetically agree with you if he were wanting to do so.

I won't be reporting this post.

Goodness knows that some people, whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot say, have been coffee'd for less!

:D

Iconoclast85
Mar 6th 2017, 08:40 PM
If no one seeks God, then why did Paul say that God established the nations and their time and borders so that they would seek Him? Acts 17?

Paul says that in the context of telling them that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent so he's preaching the gospel he's letting them know it's not a matter of time or distance God is everywhere present and if they repent and believe the gospel they too can be saved

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2017, 08:48 PM
Pb, illogical has a specific meaning. In what way is it illogical?

Is it violating that law of identity?
Violating the law of non-contradiction?
Violating the law of excluded middle?
Violating laws of valid inference?

Committing a formal fallacy? Which one?
Committing an informal fallacy? Which one?

Help me out because I haven't see him violate any laws of logic.

I understand him to mean that the view logically doesn't follow. That is, it's absurd to describe the Gospel as an 'offer' to those who are incapable of accepting it due to some natural factor outside their control, since the concept of an offer - at least, a genuine one - assumes that the person being offered to is genuinely able to accept, or decline. For example, suppose I freely offered you $1,000,000, and all you had to do to accept it was publicly affirm same-sex relationships as God-blessed, would you consider the offer genuine? I know that you would never do that, so I don't think we would consider the offer to be genuine. Now, how much more is that the case if instead of a person's view of the truth, we were talking about the fundamental constitution of a person? Suppose it was your nature to always say 'no' to offers of $1,000,000, and knowing this, no one ever offered you a sum of money other than $1,000,000. Would we consider those offers to be genuine? No.

So what is illogical - or absurd - here is the tension between the idea that (1) salvation is freely offered to those who (2) are unable to accept it due to their corruption, and (3) can only accept it if they are first regenerated.

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 08:49 PM
Violating the law of non-contradiction?

If God has not provided provision for the non-elect, they cannot be offered provision. Its like saying "Joe, I offer you a million dollars if you will sprout wings from your back and fly". We both know it is impossible for you to do so, so my offer is null and void an really not an offer at all. The dictionary defines offer in this way:

Myriam webster dictionary defines offer this way:

1
a : to present as an act of worship or devotion : sacrifice
to a Catholic church where she would offer a candle or so to his recovery — F. M. Ford
b : to utter (as a prayer) in devotion offered up prayers of thanksgiving
2
a : to present for acceptance or rejection : tender was offered a job
b : to present in order to satisfy a requirement candidates for degrees may offer French as one of their foreign languages
3
a : propose, suggest offer a solution to a problem
b : to declare one's readiness or willingness offered to help me
4
a : to try or begin to exert : put up offered stubborn resistance
b : threaten offered to strike him with his cane
5
: to make available : afford The summit offers a panoramic view.; especially : to place (merchandise) on sale offers a range of cameras at reasonable prices
6
: to present in performance or exhibition offered a new comedy
7
: to propose as payment : bid offered me $100 for the recliner

In this case, since we are speaking about payment or propitiation, then definition 7 is the one that fits best with the offer of salvation. Since payment has already been made, then the offer for payment can only be made to those that propitiation has been paid.

IMO, this is about what an offer actually means. By definition either God must lie to offer salvation to the non-elect, or He simply doesn't make an offer to them and instead, the offer of payment (already paid) is only made to those that are elected.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 08:49 PM
Paul says that in the context of telling them that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent so he's preaching the gospel he's letting them know it's not a matter of time or distance God is everywhere present and if they repent and believe the gospel they too can be saved

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa. Thanks for playing, please try again.

Did God establish the nations and their time and borders so that they would seek Him, or was Paul lying to them?

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 09:01 PM
I understand him to mean that the view logically doesn't follow. That is, it's absurd to describe the Gospel as an 'offer' to those who are incapable of accepting it due to some natural factor outside their control, since the concept of an offer - at least, a genuine one - assumes that the person being offered to is genuinely able to accept, or decline. For example, suppose I freely offered you $1,000,000, and all you had to do to accept it was publicly affirm same-sex relationships as God-blessed, would you consider the offer genuine? I know that you would never do that, so I don't think we would consider the offer to be genuine. Now, how much more is that the case if instead of a person's view of the truth, we were talking about the fundamental constitution of a person? Suppose it was your nature to always say 'no' to offers of $1,000,000, and knowing this, no one ever offered you a sum of money other than $1,000,000. Would we consider those offers to be genuine? No.

So what is illogical - or absurd - here is the tension between the idea that (1) salvation is freely offered to those who (2) are unable to accept it due to their corruption, and (3) can only accept it if they are first regenerated.


If God has not provided provision for the non-elect, they cannot be offered provision. Its like saying "Joe, I offer you a million dollars if you will sprout wings from your back and fly". We both know it is impossible for you to do so, so my offer is null and void an really not an offer at all. The dictionary defines offer in this way:

Myriam webster dictionary defines offer this way:

1
a : to present as an act of worship or devotion : sacrifice
to a Catholic church where she would offer a candle or so to his recovery — F. M. Ford
b : to utter (as a prayer) in devotion offered up prayers of thanksgiving
2
a : to present for acceptance or rejection : tender was offered a job
b : to present in order to satisfy a requirement candidates for degrees may offer French as one of their foreign languages
3
a : propose, suggest offer a solution to a problem
b : to declare one's readiness or willingness offered to help me
4
a : to try or begin to exert : put up offered stubborn resistance
b : threaten offered to strike him with his cane
5
: to make available : afford The summit offers a panoramic view.; especially : to place (merchandise) on sale offers a range of cameras at reasonable prices
6
: to present in performance or exhibition offered a new comedy
7
: to propose as payment : bid offered me $100 for the recliner

In this case, since we are speaking about payment or propitiation, then definition 7 is the one that fits best with the offer of salvation. Since payment has already been made, then the offer for payment can only be made to those that propitiation has been paid.

IMO, this is about what an offer actually means. By definition either God must lie to offer salvation to the non-elect, or He simply doesn't make an offer to them and instead, the offer of payment (already paid) is only made to those that are elected.

I'm not at a place or time where I can develope ideas too much. I titled the thread according to the wording Christinme suggested in the thread about the regenerate despising truth. I personally think describing the presentation of the Gospel as an "offer" is not an accurate way to describe it.

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2017, 09:03 PM
I'm not at a place or time where I can develope ideas too much. I titled the thread according to the wording Christinme suggested in the thread about the regenerate despising truth. I personally think describing the presentation of the Gospel as an "offer" is not an accurate way to describe it.

I shall await a more timely time to develop ideas ;)

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 09:05 PM
I shall await a more timely time to develop ideas ;)

I wish I got paid to post. Then there'd be no issue.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 6th 2017, 09:06 PM
I wish I got paid to post. Then there'd be no issue.

Wait...

We're not getting paid!!!!!!!!!!! But I thought.....

Rats.

:o

Brother Mark
Mar 6th 2017, 09:10 PM
I personally think describing the presentation of the Gospel as an "offer" is not an accurate way to describe it.

I think that is a better approach. If I were a full blown Calvinist, I wouldn't call it an offer either.

chad
Mar 6th 2017, 09:17 PM
So if someone is 'not elected' for salvation, and the offer of salvation is not really extended to them because they were not chosen [elected] before hand by God - then could they not argue the same argument as Paul writes in Rom 3:7?

If salvation was never intended for me, and I was not elected to receive salvation and have no chance for salvation, then why am I condemned as a sinner?


(Rom 3:7 NIV) Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"



(Rom 3:8 NIV) Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--" Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

(Rom 3:9 NIV) What shall we conclude then? Are we any better ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

(Rom 3:10 NIV) As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

(Rom 3:11 NIV) there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

(Rom 3:12 NIV) All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

(Rom 3:13 NIV) "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."

(Rom 3:14 NIV) "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."

(Rom 3:15 NIV) "Their feet are swift to shed blood;

(Rom 3:16 NIV) ruin and misery mark their ways,

(Rom 3:17 NIV) and the way of peace they do not know."

(Rom 3:18 NIV) "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

(Rom 3:19 NIV) Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

(Rom 3:20 NIV) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

(Rom 3:21 NIV) But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

(Rom 3:22 NIV) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

(Rom 3:23 NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Rom 3:24 NIV) and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

(Rom 3:25 NIV) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

(Rom 3:26 NIV) he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

(Rom 3:27 NIV) Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

(Rom 3:28 NIV) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

(Rom 3:29 NIV) Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

(Rom 3:30 NIV) since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

(Rom 3:31 NIV) Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Athanasius
Mar 6th 2017, 09:28 PM
I wish I got paid to post. Then there'd be no issue.

Hm, paid to write... That would be nice. Then I'd start putting in some effort!

chad
Mar 6th 2017, 09:42 PM
Web page Article: Why God Did Not Elect Calvinists: The Biblical Concept of Election Never Means Predestined to Salvation and Commonly is a Reference to Israel

http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-did-not-elect-calvinists-the-biblical-concept-of-election-never-means-predestined-to-salvation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/


The biblical usage of “election” has absolutely nothing to do with salvation contrary to the teaching of Calvinism. Calvin summarizes this foundational doctrine in his book Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3 chapter 21): “Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction.” He qualifies his summary by stating:


The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny…By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (Calvin Institutes 3:21:5: 06 all emphasis in this article is mine)


Calvinist James White reiterates Calvin’s words demonstrating that Calvin meant what he said. White states: “God elects a specific people unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This means the basis of God’s choice of the elect is solely within Himself. His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man’s actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that “draws” God’s choice. God’s election is unconditional and final.“ (James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, p. 39) This is also echoed by Loraine Boettner, in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination


“The Doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms ‘elect’ and ‘election’ imply the terms ‘non-elect’ and ‘reprobation’. When some are chosen out others are left not chosen. The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared with the latter…Those who hold the doctrine of Election but deny that of Reprobation can lay but little claim to consistency. To affirm the former while denying the latter makes the decree of predestination an illogical and lop-sided decree. The creed which states the former but denies the latter will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with but one wing.” (Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination 1932 from 2000 bible study centre™ DIGITAL LIBRARY p. 104-5)


The good news, however, is that “election, elect, chosen” (and the derivatives) are terms that have nothing to do with one’s eternal destiny. Scripture does speak at length of “the elect” and “the chosen” but these terms are devoid of the Calvinistic sense of someone who has been chosen to receive eternal life.

The term elect and its derivatives therefore are not salvific in meaning but simply refer to persons or things that are chosen for a particular purpose and the purpose has nothing to do with eternal life. Once the definition of the word is established biblically, the foundation of Calvinism will be undermined and will collapse and arguing the tenants of TULIP will become inapplicable.

The word elect (Greek verb: eklegomai ἐκλέγομαι; Hebrew verb: bakharבָּחַר) means to choose, select. The elect or chosen (as nouns or adjectives) are those people or things that have been elected, selected, or chosen for a particular purpose by someone. Scripture bears witness that elect and its derivatives have nothing to do with someone being chosen specifically to eternal life.

::

Conclusion

We thus come to the end of our study having seen that elect and election have nothing to do with salvation, predestined to eternal life or death, nor any Calvinistic definition whatsoever.

God elected priests, kings, disciples, Messiah, angels, and Jerusalem – all of which had nothing to do with being predestined to salvation. We also saw that elected/chosen was used of foolish things and of false gods (on man’s part) – again, the term had nothing to do with being predestined to salvation.

We then came to the election of Israel and saw that in no less than eight verses in the Old Testament God declared Israel to be His elect! Thus, when we turned to the New Testament we could see that elect/election/chosen never was there as a reference to being predestined to salvation; in fact, nearly every reference of the elect was to Israel. We looked at the elect in the tribulation and saw that it was speaking of the Jews.

We looked at the epistles of Peter and found the mention there of elect was to the Jews. We looked at the book of Romans and again, the Jews were the elect. We examined the remaining verses that spoke of election or God’s choosing and found that they more than likely refer to Israel as the elect.

Finally, we considered the term foreknowledge/foreknow and found that it is not a salvific term but simply God or even man, knowing something in advance. With all that we have seen we must therefore conclude that elect is not salvation.

The definition that Calvin gave “Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation and others to destruction,” is completely lacking in Scripture. Election has nothing to do with salvation or damnation. It is simply God or man making a choice. However, the term “the elect” is more often than not, a reference to Israel/Jews who are of course God’s chosen people.

The New Testament references of the elect are never speaking one’s eternal destiny but of God having chosen someone for a particular purpose. In almost all of the New Testament references, the elect are in fact the Jews!

It turns out that the New Testament is more Jewish-centered than most of us ever imagined! The epistles of Paul, James, Peter, Hebrews and John are written to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. Personally, I am quite satisfied that God’s plans center around Israel; we Gentile believers have been grafted in which is good enough for me.

jeffcraig
Mar 6th 2017, 09:46 PM
Everyone is paid for what they are doing, whether good or bad.

See the references in the WORD of YHWH, NEW TESTAMENT:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=CJB&quicksearch=paid&begin=47&end=73&limit=250

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 10:24 PM
Web page Article: Why God Did Not Elect Calvinists: The Biblical Concept of Election Never Means Predestined to Salvation and Commonly is a Reference to Israel

http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-did-not-elect-calvinists-the-biblical-concept-of-election-never-means-predestined-to-salvation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/


The biblical usage of “election” has absolutely nothing to do with salvation contrary to the teaching of Calvinism. Calvin summarizes this foundational doctrine in his book Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3 chapter 21): “Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction.” He qualifies his summary by stating:


The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny…By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (Calvin Institutes 3:21:5: 06 all emphasis in this article is mine)


Calvinist James White reiterates Calvin’s words demonstrating that Calvin meant what he said. White states: “God elects a specific people unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This means the basis of God’s choice of the elect is solely within Himself. His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man’s actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that “draws” God’s choice. God’s election is unconditional and final.“ (James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, p. 39) This is also echoed by Loraine Boettner, in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination


“The Doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms ‘elect’ and ‘election’ imply the terms ‘non-elect’ and ‘reprobation’. When some are chosen out others are left not chosen. The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared with the latter…Those who hold the doctrine of Election but deny that of Reprobation can lay but little claim to consistency. To affirm the former while denying the latter makes the decree of predestination an illogical and lop-sided decree. The creed which states the former but denies the latter will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with but one wing.” (Loraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination 1932 from 2000 bible study centre™ DIGITAL LIBRARY p. 104-5)


The good news, however, is that “election, elect, chosen” (and the derivatives) are terms that have nothing to do with one’s eternal destiny. Scripture does speak at length of “the elect” and “the chosen” but these terms are devoid of the Calvinistic sense of someone who has been chosen to receive eternal life.

The term elect and its derivatives therefore are not salvific in meaning but simply refer to persons or things that are chosen for a particular purpose and the purpose has nothing to do with eternal life. Once the definition of the word is established biblically, the foundation of Calvinism will be undermined and will collapse and arguing the tenants of TULIP will become inapplicable.

The word elect (Greek verb: eklegomai ἐκλέγομαι; Hebrew verb: bakharבָּחַר) means to choose, select. The elect or chosen (as nouns or adjectives) are those people or things that have been elected, selected, or chosen for a particular purpose by someone. Scripture bears witness that elect and its derivatives have nothing to do with someone being chosen specifically to eternal life.

::

Conclusion

We thus come to the end of our study having seen that elect and election have nothing to do with salvation, predestined to eternal life or death, nor any Calvinistic definition whatsoever.

God elected priests, kings, disciples, Messiah, angels, and Jerusalem – all of which had nothing to do with being predestined to salvation. We also saw that elected/chosen was used of foolish things and of false gods (on man’s part) – again, the term had nothing to do with being predestined to salvation.

We then came to the election of Israel and saw that in no less than eight verses in the Old Testament God declared Israel to be His elect! Thus, when we turned to the New Testament we could see that elect/election/chosen never was there as a reference to being predestined to salvation; in fact, nearly every reference of the elect was to Israel. We looked at the elect in the tribulation and saw that it was speaking of the Jews.

We looked at the epistles of Peter and found the mention there of elect was to the Jews. We looked at the book of Romans and again, the Jews were the elect. We examined the remaining verses that spoke of election or God’s choosing and found that they more than likely refer to Israel as the elect.

Finally, we considered the term foreknowledge/foreknow and found that it is not a salvific term but simply God or even man, knowing something in advance. With all that we have seen we must therefore conclude that elect is not salvation.

The definition that Calvin gave “Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation and others to destruction,” is completely lacking in Scripture. Election has nothing to do with salvation or damnation. It is simply God or man making a choice. However, the term “the elect” is more often than not, a reference to Israel/Jews who are of course God’s chosen people.

The New Testament references of the elect are never speaking one’s eternal destiny but of God having chosen someone for a particular purpose. In almost all of the New Testament references, the elect are in fact the Jews!

It turns out that the New Testament is more Jewish-centered than most of us ever imagined! The epistles of Paul, James, Peter, Hebrews and John are written to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. Personally, I am quite satisfied that God’s plans center around Israel; we Gentile believers have been grafted in which is good enough for me.

I think the author of your article is counting on people not looking up the references and just trusting his words.

ChangedByHim
Mar 6th 2017, 10:39 PM
Is the gospel offer as presented in Calvinism a genuine offer to all?"
No .

chad
Mar 6th 2017, 10:52 PM
If you click on the link to the full article, the author from Douglas Hamp Ministries, does give scripture to support what they have written.


http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-did-not-elect-calvinists-the-biblical-concept-of-election-never-means-predestined-to-salvation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/


I think the author of your article is counting on people not looking up the references and just trusting his words.

TrustGzus
Mar 6th 2017, 11:16 PM
If you click on the link to the full article, the author from Douglas Hamp Ministries, does give scripture to support what they have written.


http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-did-not-elect-calvinists-the-biblical-concept-of-election-never-means-predestined-to-salvation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/

Chad, all I have to do is look at every use of ἐκλέγομαι and related words directly myself. I looked at several uses of the term. I don't think his analysis is adequate.

chad
Mar 7th 2017, 03:51 AM
Can you explain more about what parts of the article you disagree with and think are not adequate and your reasons why?



Chad, all I have to do is look at every use of ἐκλέγομαι and related words directly myself. I looked at several uses of the term. I don't think his analysis is adequate.

bluesky22
Mar 7th 2017, 04:46 AM
Honestly, why care and argue since Paul says it's beyond our understanding. Trying to use our reason to make sense of it makes no sense. Preach the Gospel to every creature let God handle the rest.

Romans 11:33-36

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.



There is much wisdom in this.

Is there perhaps some elements of this discussion that we just can't grasp/know ?

Job ran into the same type of issues.

Video.... 4:19 ...on Jobs questioning of Gods ways.


https://youtu.be/64ewGNCSjPw

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 05:09 AM
Pbminimum;


Yes it does. It's not a genuine offer.
Let me show you why it is....Before the world was God elects all he is going to save out of fallen mankind;
9*Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10*But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11*Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
This is very clear and positive....grace given to believers before the world began....what a wonderful truth.

Now as people come into your local church and hear about the cross some will be drawn to Jesus....others will cling to their sin....
The ones drawn savingly by the Spirit were the ones given grace before the world began, but now in time the Spirit quickens them to life, repentance and faith.
Others are left to their own self will and sins...Your pastor begs and pleads, invites them to walk the aisle, come up front, raise their hand with every eye closed......they cannot welcome the message...because they love sin.
They do not try and dive into the baptistry and your pastor stops them.....no angels are dispatched to prevent them from confessing Christ.


You know this.

No...I know the word of God is true on election and predestination.



Preterition can only be logical in double predestination.

It is not based on logic....it is based on scripture;
here is how the 1689 confession speaks of it-

Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )


A genuine offer is just that, genuine.

I can tell sinners that everyone believing will be saved.


That means that the person offering fully intends on backing up the offer.
Any sinner who believes by God's grace will be saved....



The Preterition knee jerk , solve all answer is bogus,

God elects to save who He will.... he has already done it. He ordained that we preach to all men and He will work through those means to call His people. It does not matter if you, or Shepherd sword, or anyone else calls names, calls it false, dangerous or anything else....He is accomplishing all His good pleasure as we speak.

and it just doesn't do to logically answer the question of what a genuine offer is. Not to me.



nevertheless...it is scripture not logic or human reason that determines truth.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 05:35 AM
I won't report it, but question it.

Those who subscribe lack any understanding of the nature of God?

MacArthur? Any understanding?
Sproul?
Piper?
Michael Horton?
Wayne Grudem?
Al Mohler?
Greg Koukl?
Ken Samples?
Charles Spurgeon?
Jonathan Edwards?
Me? I lack any any understanding of the nature of God? I know that you are well aware of how I conduct myself at the forums.

I'm not offended. I'm just saying aren't you being a bit hyperbolic?

John Owen, Matthew Henry, William Hendricksen, Abraham Kuyper, A.W. Pink, J.L.Dagg,,J.P.Boyce ...John Gill, John Bunyan...are now supposed to lack and understanding of the nature of God.....yeah right:rolleyes: Not one of these detractors can begin to offer a scriptural case for their foolish postings...

Those who try and defend the false philosophical carnal reasoning of the myth of free will post total nonsense...notice the lack of anything remotely scriptural.....

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 05:43 AM
If you click on the link to the full article, the author from Douglas Hamp Ministries, does give scripture to support what they have written.


http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-did-not-elect-calvinists-the-biblical-concept-of-election-never-means-predestined-to-salvation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/

When time permits I will expose this nonsense offered by this site...several really bad errors which are quite obvious...

IMINXTC
Mar 7th 2017, 05:51 AM
Those who try and defend the false philosophical carnal reasoning of the myth of free will post total nonsense...notice the lack of anything remotely scriptural.....

Highminded statements like this, and there have been many, cause me to genuinely fear Calvinism, though I greatly respect many who subscribe to it.

Is this that same spirit that caused individuals to be burnt at the stake in certain times past?

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 06:18 AM
Highminded statements like this, and there have been many, cause me to genuinely fear Calvinism, though I greatly respect many who subscribe to it.

Is this that same spirit that caused individuals to be burnt at the stake in certain times past?

I'm assuming he's written a bit of hyperbole to match shepardsword's; but, there's quite a difference between the claim that one has an inadequate understanding of the nature of God, and the claim that one is defending totally nonsensical, worldly - carnal - philosophical concepts. The first claim can quite easily be softened, while the second can't.

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 10:40 AM
I'm not at a place or time where I can develope ideas too much. I titled the thread according to the wording Christinme suggested in the thread about the regenerate despising truth. I personally think describing the presentation of the Gospel as an "offer" is not an accurate way to describe it.Lol ... yea just throw me under the bus there ... :)

Let's look at this ...

2 Corinthians 5:18-21

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Is this offer of God given by the ambassadors for Christ a genuine offer to all people? Seems to me Calvinism says no ... yes sure the Calvinist presents the offer genuinely to all ... that's not the point ... the point is is God WILLING to reconcile all to Him ... seems to me to be saying that God has done what He will do "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" and it's up to man now to "be ye reconciled to God." At the same time though I do believe that it is the Father that reveals to a person that Jesus is the Christ ... and all that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son ...

Matthew 16:16-17

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


A bit of a paradox there ... seems to me ... and Spurgeon addressed such paradoxes in Scripture when he wrote:

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/22/spurgeons-theology-embracing-biblical-paradox/

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God."

As I've said before many times it seems to me that many on each side of the Calvinist/Arminian issue try to be internally consistent ... but at what cost?

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 10:50 AM
I bet you will be surprised by my answer but YES. Calvinists speak the core Gospel message pretty much as all do in the Body. The presentation (method varies I'm sure however) is the same so what is presented to all people, is genuine.

It's the indoctrination into Calvinism once a person believes in God, where the problems occur :)I agree when presenting the gospel the people are making a genuine offer to all ... and seems the title was a bit misleading ... my fault ... the question though as was being discussed in the other thread which started here with this post below and carried on for about 5 pages was with the doctrine understanding of Calvinism is God making a genuine offer to all ...

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/270565-Do-the-regenerated-despise-the-truth?p=3371371#post3371371

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 12:41 PM
Highminded statements like this, and there have been many, cause me to genuinely fear Calvinism, though I greatly respect many who subscribe to it.

Is this that same spirit that caused individuals to be burnt at the stake in certain times past?

Google Michael Servetus and Calvin. Still, even most Arminians don't believe in "free will". For instance, most will say that unless God draws a man, that man cannot come to God. If that is true, (and I believe it to be true), then there's a problem with the concept of free will.

Slug1
Mar 7th 2017, 12:50 PM
I agree when presenting the gospel the people are making a genuine offer to all ... and seems the title was a bit misleading ... my fault ... the question though as was being discussed in the other thread which started here with this post below and carried on for about 5 pages was with the doctrine understanding of Calvinism is God making a genuine offer to all ...

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/270565-Do-the-regenerated-despise-the-truth?p=3371371#post3371371Ah... from that perspective, as with any Gospel message... if led by doctrine, or denomination, or even a religion then NO, what is offered is not "the" Gospel. All that is then offered is one's rendition of the Gospel limited by the boundaries of one's doctrine, denomination, or religion.

Specific to Calvinism, since the doctrine ultimately teaches that the Gospel is ONLY for some, teach a Gospel that Christ died for only some, that Christ's forgiveness is only for some, that grace is not for the whosoever in the world... then NO, such a Gospel message, in such a teaching that remains TRUE to Calvinism... is NOT genuine.

Slug1
Mar 7th 2017, 12:52 PM
John Owen, Matthew Henry, William Hendricksen, Abraham Kuyper, A.W. Pink, J.L.Dagg,,J.P.Boyce ...John Gill, John Bunyan...are now supposed to lack and understanding of the nature of God.....yeah right:rolleyes: Not one of these detractors can begin to offer a scriptural case for their foolish postings...

Those who try and defend the false philosophical carnal reasoning of the myth of free will post total nonsense...notice the lack of anything remotely scriptural.....Icon, ya need to look in the mirror because the same can be said of your posts concerning what you believe foreknowledge is and the lack of understanding of the verses you post.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 01:21 PM
Highminded statements like this, and there have been many, cause me to genuinely fear Calvinism, though I greatly respect many who subscribe to it.

Is this that same spirit that caused individuals to be burnt at the stake in certain times past?

Spurgeon preaching a sermon call Free Will a slave you can look it up on I'll post it later when I get to a keyboard Martin Luther on bondage of the will Jonathan Edwards wrote against the false idea of free will.
you cannot show free will in the Bible the only time that the term even appears is when it's speaking about voluntary offerings that was not under the judicial law.
It is fallen man's carnal philosophy inserted as if I
it exists.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 01:28 PM
Spurgeon preaching a sermon call Free Will a slave you can look it up on I'll post it later when I get to a keyboard Martin Luther on bondage of the will Jonathan Edwards wrote against the false idea of free will.
you cannot show free will in the Bible the only time that the term even appears is when it's speaking about voluntary offerings that was not under the judicial law.
It is fallen man's carnal philosophy inserted as if I
it exists.

Do you have the requisite theological, or philosophical training, to understand what Christians like myself mean when we talk about 'free will'? Spurgeon, Luther, and Edwards seem to have let you down: the first examples of free will in Scripture are found in Genesis 1 - 3, and follow throughout. 'Carnal philosophy' -- according to the unqualified.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 01:29 PM
Icon, ya need to look in the mirror because the same can be said of your posts concerning what you believe foreknowledge is and the lack of understanding of the verses you post.

Scriptural basis was offered about the Biblical term fore knowledge you did not respond scripturally to anything that was offered at any time so you really are not in good position to make any kind of a judgement on what was already posted unless you going to step up and respond to the scriptures you were asked to respond to.
otherwise you just making an empty assertion as your friend has here and neither one of you have offered any kind of biblical defense or responded in kind to the post that was on the topic.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 01:41 PM
The Bible is not a book of magic words. It is not "carnal philosophy" to explain biblical concepts using non-biblical words and phrases. Every sermon preached in every Calvinist pulpit uses philosophy and human reasoning, as do your posts.

So there is no moral high horse in either Calvinism or Arminianism, and to claim that ARminianism doesn't use the Bible but instead relies on carnal philosophy is an infantile argument.

There is more support for the idea of free will than there is of the hypostatic union, but I don't see anyone railing against Christ being incarnate and what that means.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 01:42 PM
Do you have the requisite theological, or philosophical training, to understand what Christians like myself mean when we talk about 'free will'? Spurgeon, Luther, and Edwards seem to have let you down: the first examples of free will in Scripture are found in Genesis 1 - 3, and follow throughout. 'Carnal philosophy' -- according to the unqualified.

You can also Google the myth of free will by Walter Chantry...it is online for free....
In Spurgeon sermon one of his headings was free will simply ridiculous

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 01:44 PM
And all these folks put their underwear on one leg at a time like everyone else.

Thankfully, we do not serve an elite clergy like the Roman Catholics church holds, but each of us is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and each is a priest before God and each is required to study on his or her own.

Appeals to the intelligencia are meaningless.

Hey, if Calvin is wrong, then so are those in his train.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 01:48 PM
The Bible is not a book of magic words. It is not "carnal philosophy" to explain biblical concepts using non-biblical words and phrases. Every sermon preached in every Calvinist pulpit uses philosophy and human reasoning, as do your posts.

So there is no moral high horse in either Calvinism or Arminianism, and to claim that ARminianism doesn't use the Bible but instead relies on carnal philosophy is an infantile argument.

There is more support for the idea of free will than there is of the hypostatic union, but I don't see anyone railing against Christ being incarnate and what that means.

The false claims of arminianism are indefensible. Jesus in John 8 told those people they were bound and needed to be set free
no one and no portion of scripture is going to change that. Men make choices but theIr will is not free. In heaven there will be no free will.

Overste
Mar 7th 2017, 01:50 PM
This was a good idea proposed by Christinme from another thread.

Go!!!

Yes, it is. That the non-elect will not receive it is a problem with their sin, not with God.

Pbminimum
Mar 7th 2017, 01:52 PM
Pbminimum;

Let me show you why it is....Before the world was God elects all he is going to save out of fallen mankind;
9*Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10*But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
11*Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
This is very clear and positive....grace given to believers before the world began....what a wonderful truth.

Now as people come into your local church and hear about the cross some will be drawn to Jesus....others will cling to their sin....
The ones drawn savingly by the Spirit were the ones given grace before the world began, but now in time the Spirit quickens them to life, repentance and faith.
Others are left to their own self will and sins...Your pastor begs and pleads, invites them to walk the aisle, come up front, raise their hand with every eye closed......they cannot welcome the message...because they love sin.
They do not try and dive into the baptistry and your pastor stops them.....no angels are dispatched to prevent them from confessing Christ.

The first paragraph I can read and not be offended because it's what you subscribe to , and you explain it reasonably.

The second paragraph is misguided and I can't help but think it's another personal jab at the invitation, the call to repentance, and anything non-Calvinistic.
.


No...I know the word of God is true on election and predestination.

And the word of GOd is not illogical. What you explain however....

.

It is not based on logic....it is based on scripture;
here is how the 1689 confession speaks of it-

Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )

The scirptures are true and logical. Your interpretation of them concerning preterition is not.



I can tell sinners that everyone believing will be saved.

.
Any sinner who believes by God's grace will be saved....

But not every sinner has the ability to. Therefore the offer is not made to all. Completely logical when one subscribes to double predestined election. Or election through foreknowledge with grace being offered and not being irresistible.





God elects to save who He will.... he has already done it. He ordained that we preach to all men and He will work through those means to call His people. It does not matter if you, or Shepherd sword, or anyone else calls names, calls it false, dangerous or anything else....He is accomplishing all His good pleasure as we speak.


nevertheless...it is scripture not logic or human reason that determines truth.

Brother. I have no angst toward you and have dialed it down a ton. But honestly , you are the pot calling the kettle black here.. I want to make something clear. I UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE OF CALVINISM. I UNDERSTAND CALVIN'S VERSION OF ELECTION. I DON'T FIND IT SCRIPTURAL. I don't completely disagree that God chose. But that choosing is based on foreknowledge of who would or wouldn't repent and believe. God knows the heart, and the future and we don't.

Scripture is logical and cohesive. It agrees throughout the bible. Is God's election there ? Absolutely. Is God's permissive will there, allowing mankind to make spiritual choices ? Absolutely. This is logical and scriptural. Your version of single predestined election is not logical or scriptural. That's why I say every good Calvinist is a hyper - Calvinist.

No hard feelings. I just disagree.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 01:55 PM
The false claims of arminianism are indefensible. Jesus in John 8 told those people they were bound and needed to be set free
no one and no portion of scripture is going to change that. Men make choices but theIr will is not free. In heaven there will be no free will.

So says your philosophy. Pot, meet kettle.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that there is no free will in heaven. You are making that up of your own imagination.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 01:57 PM
And all these folks put their underwear on one leg at a time like everyone else.

Thankfully, we do not serve an elite clergy like the Roman Catholics church holds, but each of us is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and each is a priest before God and each is required to study on his or her own.

Appeals to the intelligencia are meaningless.

Hey, if Calvin is wrong, then so are those in his train.


While these men are saved Sinners Like Us they have a degree of gift that's given them from God.
For you and others to despise these men and what they wrote to just cast off what they said because frankly you cannot answer any one of them is it is also not acceptable.
If you going to try to show where you believe they are in error,do it scripturally don't just make assumptions and accusations without any biblical proof.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 02:00 PM
So says your philosophy. Pot, meet kettle.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that there is no free will in heaven. You are making that up of your own imagination.
Yeah that's a good reason it doesn't say that in scripture because there's no such thing as free will it begin with:yes::monkeyd:

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 02:01 PM
You can also Google the myth of free will by Walter Chantry...it is online for free....

This Walter Chantry?


how many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a millionaire, but God's providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send you to the hospital instead.

This is a sophomoric confusion of will, and act.


In Spurgeon sermon one of his headings was free will simply ridiculous

This Spurgeon?


Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved.

This is a straw man, and ruins the sermon that follows from it.

I hate to break it to you, but these people aren't untouchable. They are human, like you, and I, and their arguments are compromised accordingly. What do you find compelling about what either Chantry, or Spurgeon have to say? I'd be happy to examine that in more detail, and show you the shortcomings of their philosophical positions on this matter.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 02:14 PM
The first paragraph I can read and not be offended because it's what you subscribe to , and you explain it reasonably.

The second paragraph is misguided and I can't help but think it's another personal jab at the invitation, the call to repentance, and anything non-Calvinistic.
.


The scirptures are true and logical. Your interpretation of them concerning preterition is not.



But not every sinner has the ability to. Therefore the offer is not made to all. Completely logical when one subscribes to double predestined election. Or election through foreknowledge with grace being offered and not being irresistible.





Brother. I have no angst toward you and have dialed it down a ton. But honestly , you are the pot calling the kettle black here.. I want to make something clear. I UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE OF CALVINISM. I UNDERSTAND CALVIN'S VERSION OF ELECTION. I DON'T FIND IT SCRIPTURAL. I don't completely disagree that God chose. But that choosing is based on foreknowledge of who would or wouldn't repent and believe. God knows the heart, and we don't.

Scripture is logical and cohesive. It agrees throughout the bible. Is God's election there ? Absolutely. Is God's permissive will there, allowing mankind to make spiritual choices ? Absolutely. This is logical and scriptural. Your version of single predestined election is not logical or scriptural. That's why I say every good Calvinist is a hyper - Calvinist.

No hard feelings. I just disagree.

Good.post PB
I I'm glad we could find some points of agreement and your articulating what you understand and believe well. And I think we could make progress by dialoguing a more along this line
you're showing why you agree and where you disagree and that's all we could ask of each other right? I will get back and add to this post when I get to a keyboard

IMINXTC
Mar 7th 2017, 02:19 PM
Google Michael Servetus and Calvin. Still, even most Arminians don't believe in "free will". For instance, most will say that unless God draws a man, that man cannot come to God. If that is true, (and I believe it to be true), then there's a problem with the concept of free will.

In my lost condition I was blind to the realities of the existence of God and His kingdom, and continued along a sinful path of self-determination. My will was subject to darkness. Upon hearing the Gospel, which I believed, my blindness was lifted. My friend in darkness heard the same Gospel, which he rejected, and thus, continues on a path of blind, self-determination.

The drawing was in the invitation of the Gospel.

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Jn 1:9

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 02:19 PM
While these men are saved Sinners Like Us they have a degree of gift that's given them from God.
For you and others to despise these men and what they wrote to just cast off what they said because frankly you cannot answer any one of them is it is also not acceptable.
If you going to try to show where you believe they are in error,do it scripturally don't just make assumptions and accusations without any biblical proof.

Great men can be wrong. They are not infallible or inerrant.

There are just as many on the other side of the aisle that are just as godly and just as gifted. So please stop with the strawman arguments and appeals to higher authority that is imaginary.

ProDeo
Mar 7th 2017, 03:20 PM
The false claims of arminianism are indefensible. Jesus in John 8 told those people they were bound and needed to be set free no one and no portion of scripture is going to change that. Men make choices but theIr will is not free. In heaven there will be no free will.
Interesting.....

Where?

1 Icon 2:3 ?

:smiley_simmons:

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 03:36 PM
Interesting.....

Where?

1 Icon 2:3 ?

:smiley_simmons:

Well, this is coming from the guy who doesn't believe in 'free will' (whatever he means by that), yet thinks arguing with us about our apparently indefensible views will make a difference (not that we, apparently, exercised our will in coming to these views). Reducing belief to some necessary outworking of the particular way in which a particular individual is compromised... Interesting strategy. I wonder what the implications of this would be, or is it in the name ('Reformed')?

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 03:41 PM
Goodness knows that some people, whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot say, have been coffee'd for less!

:DYes ... and I find that a bit sad ... :(

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 03:49 PM
Well, this is coming from the guy who doesn't believe in 'free will' (whatever he means by that), yet thinks arguing with us about our apparently indefensible views will make a difference (not that we, apparently, exercised our will in coming to these views). Reducing belief to some necessary outworking of the particular way in which a particular individual is compromised... Interesting strategy. I wonder what the implications of this would be, or is it in the name ('Reformed')?

Some Calvinist believe that saved people have free will returned to them after salvation. That said, free will is a funny thing. For instance, if I start a breeding program for dogs, so that eventually, I obtain a beagle breed. And I do this, because I would like to have a dog that is good at running rabbits. Well, most beagles willingly run rabbits and love to do so. It is in them to do it. Is that beagle's will really free? Or was its will manipulated by me to "create" a dog with a desire to run rabbits?

ProDeo
Mar 7th 2017, 03:53 PM
Well, this is coming from the guy who doesn't believe in 'free will' (whatever he means by that), yet thinks arguing with us about our apparently indefensible views will make a difference (not that we, apparently, exercised our will in coming to these views). Reducing belief to some necessary outworking of the particular way in which a particular individual is compromised... Interesting strategy. I wonder what the implications of this would be, or is it in the name ('Reformed')?
Maybe the reason why God made the Universe so big, one galaxy for Arminians and another galaxy for Calvinists at one million light years to ensure the end of the bickering.

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 04:06 PM
I think I am more leaning towards that we are never exactly "free" we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness ...

Romans 6:17-18

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 04:16 PM
I think I am more leaning towards that we are never exactly "free" we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness ...

Romans 6:17-18

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I would lean that way too. However, I would submit that a saved man has some limited ability to choose which master he serves while a lost man cannot.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 04:31 PM
Some Calvinist believe that saved people have free will returned to them after salvation. That said, free will is a funny thing. For instance, if I start a breeding program for dogs, so that eventually, I obtain a beagle breed. And I do this, because I would like to have a dog that is good at running rabbits. Well, most beagles willingly run rabbits and love to do so. It is in them to do it. Is that beagle's will really free? Or was its will manipulated by me to "create" a dog with a desire to run rabbits?

That is the animal's nature: it doesn't have free will. Let's say that I follow Paul, and like him I desire to do 'X', but end up doing 'Y'. If I had no 'free will', I would have never desired to do 'X', but would have gone with 'Y' without a second thought. The question really concerns the way in which I exercise my agency: if I am free to choose to do 'X', but compelled to do 'Y' - perhaps by desire - then I think we end up with a more complex interaction between the will, and other human faculties, that doesn't automatically descend into 'people don't have free will!'

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 04:33 PM
I exercise my agencyWinner of the chicken dinner today (although I would maybe prefer a pork rib dinner) ... not free will but free agency ... we choose who we will be servants of ... :)

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 04:37 PM
That is the animal's nature: it doesn't have free will.

That's the point Calvinist make about sinners... they are only doing whats in their nature and cannot do otherwise without intervention from the Lord. Thus, no "free will". On this, I think they are right. Free agency is a better word. My will is limited.


Let's say that I follow Paul, and like him I desire to do 'X', but end up doing 'Y'. If I had no 'free will', I would have never desired to do 'X', but would have gone with 'Y' without a second thought. The question really concerns the way in which I exercise my agency: if I am free to choose to do 'X', but compelled to do 'Y' - perhaps by desire - then I think we end up with a more complex interaction between the will, and other human faculties, that doesn't automatically descend into 'people don't have free will!'

I agree with this. I just think "free will" is too broad a term. My will is limited. And for the most part, I do what I please and that is the problem. Perhaps, it is more accurate to say that my will controls me rather than the other way around.... at least until the Lord enters the picture.

For me, this is a fascinating topic both religiously and philosophically.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 04:45 PM
That's the point Calvinist make about sinners... they are only doing whats in their nature and cannot do otherwise without intervention from the Lord. Thus, no "free will". On this, I think they are right. Free agency is a better word. My will is limited.

Yes, one of the supposed noetic effects of sin. Unless they appeal to compatibilism, this gives rise to a host of issues.


I agree with this. I just think "free will" is too broad a term. My will is limited. And for the most part, I do what I please and that is the problem. Perhaps, it is more accurate to say that my will controls me rather than the other way around.... at least until the Lord enters the picture.

For me, this is a fascinating topic both religiously and philosophically.

Ah, but were you free to find it fascinating, or was that determined for you (and if it was determined, what did the determining)?

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 05:02 PM
Yes, one of the supposed noetic effects of sin. Unless they appeal to compatibilism, this gives rise to a host of issues.

Now you are making me get out my encylopedia set... here i come google. Edit: I think many calvinist are compatibilist. On some level, I probably am too though not completely. But again, it all comes back to the words "free will" and how one defines it.


Ah, but were you free to find it fascinating, or was that determined for you (and if it was determined, what did the determining)?

I would prefer the term "limited free will". Free will suggest freedom in all things. While no free will suggest no freedom at all. IMO, neither is adequate a descriptor. That said, I am also aware that many times we think we have freedom and we do not. Magicians use this in many of their tricks. For instance, I can lay two sets of cards in front of you and ask you to pick one. In my mind, I want you to pick card set A instead of card set B. So lets say you pick card set B. I simply pick it up and say "Excellent. I will dispose of card set B per your choice" and then pick up card set A. Now you think you actually picked card set A for me because you picked card set B to dispose of. However, if you had picked card set A, i would have said "Excellent. I will dispose of card set B since you picked A". But if I am really doing the trick, I will not likely say anything other than just picking up the set you choose and doing something with it. Through the trick, it appears as if you are making the choice, but in reality, I am making it.

I don't think that is in God's character to do that. But I do think the enemy would do such a thing. However, sometimes we are presented with a "choice" and we think "there is really no choice here, I have to do X". That was what salvation was like for me. I didn't choose. I just believed because I was drowning in sin and going to hell. God threw me a lifeline and said to me "I am greater than your heart and I can change it". That was all I believed. I didn't choose to believe. I just did. It wasn't a choice. Before I was saved, I never could choose to overcome my sin even though I wanted to. After I was saved, God began working in me and helping me overcome sin.

Christinme
Mar 7th 2017, 05:10 PM
I didn't choose. I just believed because I was drowning in sin and going to hell. God through me a lifeline and said to me "I am greater than your heart and I can change it". That was all I believed. I didn't choose to believe. I just did. It wasn't a choice. Before I was saved, I never could choose to overcome my sin even though I wanted to. After I was saved, God began working in me and helping me overcome sin.I agree when I believed I didn't choose ... I just believed ... as I've said before ... maybe even in this thread ... the Father reveals to us individually when He so chooses that Jesus is the Christ ...

Matthew 16:15-17

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 06:17 PM
I think I am more leaning towards that we are never exactly "free" we are either servants to sin or servants to righteousness ...

Romans 6:17-18

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Yes....this is correct absolutely. ..
Free from sin free to serve.......your will is bound by your nature.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 06:22 PM
Interesting.....

Where?

1 Icon 2:3 ?

:smiley_simmons:

Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 06:30 PM
Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

God cannot lie. But lies exist.

Edit to add: Saying such a thing includes men like Wesley. IOW, it is saying similar things about great men of God that someone else said about great men of God who happened to be Calvinist. I think when it comes to a subject like free will, calling such a thing carnal should be left out. Why? Because what you mean by free will and what others mean by free will are likely different. Plus, its simply hypocritical for you to call it a doctrine of demons while complaining when someone else does something similar to the great list of Christians posted earlier.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 06:34 PM
Now you are making me get out my encylopedia set... here i come google. Edit: I think many calvinist are compatibilist. On some level, I probably am too though not completely. But again, it all comes back to the words "free will" and how one defines it.

Simple example of 'free': I can exercise my will towards any end; its only 'limitation' is that it is a human will, exercised by a confused man (as opposed to a woman, or a young child). Now, what complicates the 'limitation' is that I also believe that we're only truly free 'in Christ'; that is, we were created in such a way that God grounds our being, so in a state of separation, we're missing a vital (informing?) aspect of our being, and it's that, that could exacerbate the 'limitation'. That is, in a state of separation I exercise my humanity improperly, therefore my will, though still free, is being wielded by compromised person. I probably also think that when we do enter into Christ, we once again become concerned with (1) not sinning, (2) pleasing God, (3) overcoming sin, etc. Consider this a WIP.


I would prefer the term "limited free will". Free will suggest freedom in all things. While no free will suggest no freedom at all. IMO, neither is adequate a descriptor. That said, I am also aware that many times we think we have freedom and we do not. Magicians use this in many of their tricks. For instance, I can lay two sets of cards in front of you and ask you to pick one. In my mind, I want you to pick card set A instead of card set B. So lets say you pick card set B. I simply pick it up and say "Excellent. I will dispose of card set B per your choice" and then pick up card set A. Now you think you actually picked card set A for me because you picked card set B to dispose of. However, if you had picked card set A, i would have said "Excellent. I will dispose of card set B since you picked A". But if I am really doing the trick, I will not likely say anything other than just picking up the set you choose and doing something with it. Through the trick, it appears as if you are making the choice, but in reality, I am making it.

The will is internal, though, so your response to it doesn't negate whatever choices I've made. I can 'choose' to be a millionaire, for example (nod to Chantry), but actually becoming a millionaire requires that I put my will into action; but, if I fail to become a millionaire, it doesn't therefore mean that I wasn't free to exercise my will towards that end in the first place.


I don't think that is in God's character to do that. But I do think the enemy would do such a thing. However, sometimes we are presented with a "choice" and we think "there is really no choice here, I have to do X". That was what salvation was like for me. I didn't choose. I just believed because I was drowning in sin and going to hell. God threw me a lifeline and said to me "I am greater than your heart and I can change it". That was all I believed. I didn't choose to believe. I just did. It wasn't a choice. Before I was saved, I never could choose to overcome my sin even though I wanted to. After I was saved, God began working in me and helping me overcome sin.

Sounds like a choice to me ;) You could, theoretically, choose not to believe? If so, then it's a choice, and one you make day-to-day.


Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

God can't sin because it's a moral imperfection, and God is morally perfect. It's not a restriction on His being, but a logical impossibility -- much like asking Him to create a married bachelor, or a rock so heavy He can't lift it. We'll be morally perfect in a similar way, so we also won't be able to sin, but we won't be any less free (in fact, we'll be more free there than we are here). But, be careful there asking such philosophical questions: you might end up in carnal, worldly philosophy land™.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 06:46 PM
Now you admit that the will is bound by the nature making my case for me...

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 06:47 PM
Now you admit that the will is bound by the nature making my case for me...

Where did I 'admit' that 'the will is bound by the nature' (and where did I say that 'the nature' had nothing to do with the exercise of one's will)?

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 06:54 PM
Now you admit that the will is bound by the nature making my case for me...

You're making an argument about free will that even adherents to free will make. That means you may be defining free will in a way that is different than others in this thread.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 07:25 PM
Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

Wrong presupposition leads to false conclusion.

Anything that God does is by definition holy, because God is holy.

Sin is anything that is not holy. By definition, if God does it, it is not sin, because sin is simply anything that is anti-God.

So it is circular reasoning to ask whether God is free to sin or not, as the answer is circular.

Exactly what do you suppose binds God, other than Himself?

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 07:48 PM
God cannot lie. But lies exist.

Edit to add: Saying such a thing includes men like Wesley. IOW, it is saying similar things about great men of God that someone else said about great men of God who happened to be Calvinist. I think when it comes to a subject like free will, calling such a thing carnal should be left out. Why? Because what you mean by free will and what others mean by free will are likely different. Plus, its simply hypocritical for you to call it a doctrine of demons while complaining when someone else does something similar to the great list of Christians posted earlier.

All truth is defined by God. In fact reality is revealed to us by God. He gives meaning to all things.
Men are fallen and carnal. This is not a put down....it is a God revealed fact.
God does not speak of free will.....this concept has a different origin.
It does not have a biblical root...it comes from fallen man.
Wesley who by most accounts was a Godly man....should have known better.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 07:49 PM
Wrong presupposition leads to false conclusion.

Anything that God does is by definition holy, because God is holy.

Sin is anything that is not holy. By definition, if God does it, it is not sin, because sin is simply anything that is anti-God.

So it is circular reasoning to ask whether God is free to sin or not, as the answer is circular.

Exactly what do you suppose binds God, other than Himself?

Glad to see that you now agree with me.

Pbminimum
Mar 7th 2017, 07:50 PM
Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

He can't because it's not in His nature , hence the sin on earth is due to man's choice to do so , which is in his nature. Anything less hangs sin on God Himself.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 07:50 PM
All truth is defined by God. In fact reality is revealed to us by God. He gives meaning to all things.
Men are fallen and carnal. This is not a put down....it is a God revealed fact.
God does not speak of free will.....this concept has a different origin.
It does not have a biblical root...it comes from fallen man.
Wesley who by most accounts was a Godly man....should have known better.

Any thoughts on what I said about Chantry, or Spurgeon? You're asserting a number of claims, but haven't yet bothered to engage with them when challenged.

ProDeo
Mar 7th 2017, 07:51 PM
That's the point Calvinist make about sinners... they are only doing whats in their nature and cannot do otherwise without intervention from the Lord. Thus, no "free will". On this, I think they are right. Free agency is a better word. My will is limited.

I agree with this. I just think "free will" is too broad a term. My will is limited. And for the most part, I do what I please and that is the problem. Perhaps, it is more accurate to say that my will controls me rather than the other way around.... at least until the Lord enters the picture.

For me, this is a fascinating topic both religiously and philosophically.
Hence nowadays I prefer to talk about the human will (or just will) instead of free will.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 07:54 PM
You're making an argument about free will that even adherents to free will make. That means you may be defining free will in a way that is different than others in this thread.

Mark,
All believers are Calvinists. .....they just are not aware of it yet...they are still connecting the dots,but are forced to agree overall. I will start a thread on this shortly.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 07:59 PM
Mark, All believers are Calvinists. .....they just are not aware of it yet...they are still connecting the dots,but are forced to agree overall. I will start a thread on this shortly.

How are you supporting this claim?

Pbminimum
Mar 7th 2017, 08:00 PM
Mark,
All believers are Calvinists. .....they just are not aware of it yet...they are still connecting the dots,but are forced to agree overall. I will start a thread on this shortly.

That's ridiculously huge assumption on your part.

If God doesn't have the will to CREATE things that have the ability to chose, then where did sin come from bro ? If man hasn't free agency you make God into a sinner. Plain and simple.


How are you supporting this claim?

Through his repetitive posts of the same non answer doctrine.

Slug1
Mar 7th 2017, 08:01 PM
Mark,
All believers are Calvinists. .....All believers follow a man and his doctrine?

ProDeo
Mar 7th 2017, 08:03 PM
Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels
If there are fallen angels (and we know there are) then how did they fall?

And if the answer is by their will then what about the holy angels who remained loyal and never sinned upon this day?

Conclusion (1) - so it's possible for angels to have a will of their own and remain sinless.

Conclusion (2) - maybe that was true for A&E also.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 08:06 PM
Mark,
All believers are Calvinists. .....they just are not aware of it yet...they are still connecting the dots,but are forced to agree overall. I will start a thread on this shortly.

I tell my Calvinist friends that I was predestined to be Arminian and my Arminian friends that I choose to be Calvinist.

That said, I imagine there will be a former Calvinist or two challenge you in this thread. Some have left that doctrine after being in it a long time.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 08:06 PM
Through his repetitive posts of the same non answer doctrine.

Yeah, about that lack of interaction ;\

I think my questions have been perfectly reasonable. It's not like we would take without question the claim that everyone is born Islamic, but falls away at some point before - it is hoped - they revert back to Islam. So, the same here.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 08:07 PM
That's ridiculously huge assumption on your part.

If God doesn't have the will to CREATE things that have the ability to chose, then where did sin come from bro ? If man hasn't free agency you make God into a sinner. Plain and simple.


Some (maybe most, I don't know) Calvinist teach that it was God's will for Adam to sin.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 08:09 PM
All truth is defined by God. In fact reality is revealed to us by God. He gives meaning to all things.
Men are fallen and carnal. This is not a put down....it is a God revealed fact.
God does not speak of free will.....this concept has a different origin.
It does not have a biblical root...it comes from fallen man.
Wesley who by most accounts was a Godly man....should have known better.

What does Wesley have to do with it?

He isn't the "inventor" of the doctrine.

ProDeo
Mar 7th 2017, 08:09 PM
Now you admit that the will is bound by the nature making my case for me...
The natural men is bound by his desires, works for me, check Eve.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 08:10 PM
Glad to see that you now agree with me.

I categorically do not agree with you.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 08:12 PM
Mark,
All believers are Calvinists. .....they just are not aware of it yet...they are still connecting the dots,but are forced to agree overall. I will start a thread on this shortly.

I am certainly a believer, and I am certainly NOT a Calvinist.

You seem content in building a tall ladder and leaning it up against the wrong wall.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 08:14 PM
All truth is defined by God. In fact reality is revealed to us by God. He gives meaning to all things.
Men are fallen and carnal. This is not a put down....it is a God revealed fact.
God does not speak of free will.....this concept has a different origin.

God doesn't speak of the word "trinity" either but it is still a valid doctrine. I think you should define what you mean by free will before thinking you think we are all saying the same thing you are with "free will".


It does not have a biblical root...it comes from fallen man.
Wesley who by most accounts was a Godly man....should have known better.

Depends on what you mean by free will. Man being able to choose is biblical and even commanded. A will that is free to do anything one wishes is not biblical. A will that is free to follow ones own nature is biblical. And so on. Are there limits to the freedom? Absolutely. But that is how men speak. For instance, many would argue that the US is a free country. Others would point to many prohibitions and say it is not free. Thus, freedom must be defined.

So please, give us your definition of "free will". If you mean by "free will" that I cannot will myself to sprout wings and fly, I will agree that my will is limited and cannot do such a thing.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 08:15 PM
I am certainly a believer, and I am certainly NOT a Calvinist.

You seem content in building a tall ladder and leaning it up against the wrong wall.

You will be one day when you are fully sanctified or in heaven. That's what he is getting at.

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 08:17 PM
You will be one day when you are fully sanctified or in heaven. That's what he is getting at.

Imagine his (Iconoclast's) surprise when he gets there, and I don't even mean Arminianism ;)

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 08:23 PM
He can't because it's not in His nature , hence the sin on earth is due to man's choice to do so , which is in his nature. Anything less hangs sin on God Himself.

There you go PB.....you agree with me again.....don't worry...I will not tell anyone:blushsad:

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 08:24 PM
There you go PB.....you agree with me again.....don't worry...I will not tell anyone:blushsad:

When Adam ate the fruit, was he acting out of what was in his nature?

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 08:24 PM
There you go PB.....you agree with me again.....don't worry...I will not tell anyone:blushsad:

You don't understand the difference between the will being unnaturally bound, and the will being exercised naturally, as it was intended to be exercised.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 08:25 PM
Any thoughts on what I said about Chantry, or Spurgeon? You're asserting a number of claims, but haven't yet bothered to engage with them when challenged.

Oh yes my friend....I just backed into to the truckstop and will be online shortly......I will address this in detail.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 08:28 PM
That's ridiculously huge assumption on your part.

If God doesn't have the will to CREATE things that have the ability to chose, then where did sin come from bro ? If man hasn't free agency you make God into a sinner. Plain and simple.



Through his repetitive posts of the same non answer doctrine.

You now are closer to agreement once again PB......be careful.....that Calvinism is known to be contagious.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 7th 2017, 08:55 PM
You now are closer to agreement once again PB......be careful.....that Calvinism is known to be contagious.

So is tuberculosis, but I don't want that, either.

And my free will have been innoculated, so, there you go.

chad
Mar 7th 2017, 08:56 PM
Jesus had no sin as his father in heaven had no sin. Jesus had no sin on earth as in heaven.


(2 Cor 5:21 KJV) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

::

(1 John 3:4 KJV) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

(1 John 3:5 KJV) And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.




Maybe you can answer this for us?

In heaven. ...is God free to sin?
On earth....is GOD Free To SIN?

Can God sin? If not why not?

If God does not have free will...
It does not exist except in the carnal mind of men and fallen angels

Pbminimum
Mar 7th 2017, 09:21 PM
You now are closer to agreement once again PB......be careful.....that Calvinism is known to be contagious.

Another non answer.

jeffcraig
Mar 7th 2017, 09:54 PM
Another non answer.

Well, Calvinism might be fatal to some or to a lot of faith, but
if
someone tested EVERYTHING and picked out ONLY what is not fatal,
they
"might" survive to tell about it.

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 10:37 PM
Any thoughts on what I said about Chantry, or Spurgeon? You're asserting a number of claims, but haven't yet bothered to engage with them when challenged.

You mean here right?

This Spurgeon?


Originally Posted by Charles Spurgeon
Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved.
This is a straw man, and ruins the sermon that follows from it.


LOL....yes my thoughts are you misread the sermon and are trying to dismiss it before looking at it....Spurgeon was actually laying out the false idea put forth by Arminians...you call it here a strawman...good job, now you agree with Spurgeon!

here is what Spurgeon actually said on this portion;
Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words “will,” or “will not” in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will.

It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense


. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can be*long to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in,

but free-will is simply ridiculous.

Pbminimum
Mar 7th 2017, 10:43 PM
Well, Calvinism might be fatal to some or to a lot of faith, but
if
someone tested EVERYTHING and picked out ONLY what is not fatal,
they
"might" survive to tell about it.

What ? I read it twice and aint got a clue.

Brother Mark
Mar 7th 2017, 10:47 PM
You mean here right?


LOL....yes my thoughts are you misread the sermon and are trying to dismiss it before looking at it....Spurgeon was actually laying out the false idea put forth by Arminians...you call it here a strawman...good job, now you agree with Spurgeon!

Why do you use this rude tactic of saying over and over again "Now you agree with Spurgeon" or "now you are calvinist" in a mocking way?

I agree that Spurgeon is tearing down the straw man he built. But we certainly don't agree with all that Spurgeon is saying. I don't know of anyone that advocates for "free will" that believes the will is free from influence, or even a will that is without bondage. Rather than arguing semantics, why not just speak directly?

On this site, Calvinists often argue around semantics and rather than address something in a plainspoken way. Not sure why that is....

I can build a straw man on Calvin too but it wouldn't do much good for those that are reading. For instance.... "Calvinist believe God created man without free will because he prefers puppets to children". But that too would be a straw man.

jeffcraig
Mar 7th 2017, 10:52 PM
What ? I read it twice and aint got a clue.

This is for real to get to the point most simply and clearly >>>

Did JESUS tell HIS disciples to NOT listen to the TORAH teachers when they taught/read TORAH ?

no.

Did JESUS tell HIS disciples to listen to the TORAH teachers when they taught/ read TORAH ?

yes.

Did JESUS tell HIS disciples to DISTINGUISH between what was from TORAH and what was not from TORAH ?

yes.

i.e. even from those who sought HIS DEATH/ CRUCIFIXION, those who rejected Y'SHUA MESSIAH,

the disciples were INSTRUCTED BY Y'SHUA to LISTEN to them

WHEN they taught/ read TORAH.

Also, anything NOT in line with TORAH, Y'SHUA told HIS disciples NOT to accept,

and NOT to live like those TORAH teachers did, because they were hypocrites.

See ?

ACCEPT what JESUS says to accept,

and

reject what JESUS says to reject ---

always DO what JESUS says to do --- "FOLLOW JESUS" (not men nor doctrines nor fables nor lies).

Also, in other words, JESUS says "Beware the leaven of the scribes and pharisees".

Athanasius
Mar 7th 2017, 11:07 PM
You mean here right?

LOL....yes my thoughts are you misread the sermon and are trying to dismiss it before looking at it....Spurgeon was actually laying out the false idea put forth by Arminians...you call it here a strawman...good job, now you agree with Spurgeon!

here is what Spurgeon actually said on this portion;
Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words “will,” or “will not” in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will.

It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense

. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can be*long to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in,

but free-will is simply ridiculous.

You might want to re-read what I said. Here it is again: Spurgeon's presentation of the Arminian view is a straw man (so no, I don't agree with Spurgeon).

Iconoclast85
Mar 7th 2017, 11:57 PM
Brother Mark


Why do you use this rude tactic of saying over and over again "Now you agree with Spurgeon" or "now you are calvinist" in a mocking way?

Mark.....I respond to what comes my way.....the poster inquestion was attempting to mock at the sermon and my using it. However he did not read it carefully. ironically he agreed with me, even though he is really trying to not agree at all....do you see the irony here Mark?


I agree that Spurgeon is tearing down the straw man he built. But we certainly don't agree with all that Spurgeon is saying. I don't know of anyone that advocates for "free will" that believes the will is free from influence, or even a will that is without bondage. Rather than arguing semantics, why not just speak directly?


I like how you are working through the issues and asking good questions and offering challenging thoughts, which is the value of such a forum. I am trying to show that historically most solid theologians saw this issue clearly. The modern church has lost it's doctrinal way to a large extent, however I am hopeful that it will get back on track.


On this site, Calvinists often argue around semantics and rather than address something in a plainspoken way. Not sure why that is....


I can answer you on that.....

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2017, 12:17 AM
Mark.....I respond to what comes my way.....the poster inquestion was attempting to mock at the sermon and my using it. However he did not read it carefully. ironically he agreed with me, even though he is really trying to not agree at all....do you see the irony here Mark?

If I were trying to mock you, or the sermon, everyone would know (it's not a game you want to play with me). You appealed to a sermon by Spurgeon, in which he sets up, and knocks down, a straw man; I pointed this out. To make matters worse, you misread my post; I also pointed this out. By the way, you still haven't provided your (corrected) thoughts, now that I've made more obvious to you what I was saying.

Brother Mark
Mar 8th 2017, 12:21 AM
Brother Mark

Mark.....I respond to what comes my way.....the poster inquestion was attempting to mock at the sermon and my using it. However he did not read it carefully. ironically he agreed with me, even though he is really trying to not agree at all....do you see the irony here Mark?

Fair enough. But I don't think he was agreeing with Spurgeon's argument. But rather agreeing that Spurgeon's straw man was a straw man. Or said another way, he was agreeing with the argument Spurgeon used to tear down the straw man Spurgeon built. At least that was what I got from is post. I was saying basically the same thing he was saying.


I like how you are working through the issues and asking good questions and offering challenging thoughts, which is the value of such a forum. I am trying to show that historically most solid theologians saw this issue clearly. The modern church has lost it's doctrinal way to a large extent, however I am hopeful that it will get back on track.

This is not a simple issue and I have been looking at it for years. I read "Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther long before I even knew there was a debate between "Calvinist and Arminians". I had no idea what they were at the time. But that book was a good one, IMO.

There's mystery in election Brother. I think Calvin goes too far and ends up in some ditches are are not defensible in my opinion. And I think Arminian goes to far in the other direction. My personal preference is to leave election a mystery and to not try to explain away passages that may not seem to make complete sense to me.

Iconoclast85
Mar 8th 2017, 12:31 AM
If I were trying to mock you, or the sermon, everyone would know (it's not a game you want to play with me). You appealed to a sermon by Spurgeon, in which he sets up, and knocks down, a straw man; I pointed this out. To make matters worse, you misread my post; I also pointed this out. By the way, you still haven't provided your (corrected) thoughts, now that I've made more obvious to you what I was saying.

I am not sure what you are getting at....I am not going back to weed through your semantics and thoughts which I do not find clear. you believe they are, but perhaps I am not following your train of thought. It could be that your thoughts are just too deep, for a simple person such as myself. Others might profit from them however, so do not be discouraged if I am not understanding you to well.


If I were trying to mock you, or the sermon, everyone would know (it's not a game you want to play with me).

I have no idea what you mean here...violence is not the answer friend.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 8th 2017, 12:35 AM
I am not sure what you are getting at....I am not going back to weed through your semantics and thoughts which I do not find clear. you believe they are, but perhaps I am not following your train of thought. It could be that your thoughts are just too deep, for a simple person such as myself. Others might profit from them however, so do not be discouraged if I am not understanding you to well.



I have no idea what you mean here...violence is not the answer friend.

Violence???

Where did that come from?

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2017, 12:36 AM
Violence???

Where did that come from?

Depeche Mode? 'Words like violence, break the silence...' That, or he's an SJW *shrug*


I am not sure what you are getting at....I am not going back to weed through your semantics and thoughts which I do not find clear. you believe they are, but perhaps I am not following your train of thought. It could be that your thoughts are just too deep, for a simple person such as myself. Others might profit from them however, so do not be discouraged if I am not understanding you to well.

If it helps, I can use smaller words? I'd really rather not trade snide remarks with you, as you're just going to come out the worse for it, and it's a wasted effort on top of that.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 8th 2017, 12:37 AM
Depeche Mode? 'Words like violence, break the silence...' That, or he's an SJW *shrug*

Careful.... don't trigger me.

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2017, 12:40 AM
Careful.... don't trigger me.

Free speech! Oh, my... If my will isn't free, my speech isn't either. And, if my heart is evil, then so are my words. Hate speech!

Iconoclast85
Mar 8th 2017, 02:27 AM
Our sovereign God has the right to require of men that which they will not.

He commands all men in our day and age to repent and believe the Gospel.

The fault of unbelief lies in the hearts of men, not with God.

The fault lies not in the extent of the atonement.

The fault lies in hearts of men not willing to believe.

The Lord knows His own.

He knew them from the beginning.

They are those for whom He died, for whom He makes intercession.

Not one drop of Christ’s blood was shed in vain.

His blood is efficacious for all chosen of the Father, who were given to Him.

Why is this Scriptural truth so disturbing to many sincere, sober and serious Christians?

Moreover, God has the right to harden the hearts of the wicked so they will never repent.

This truth is evidenced in Exodus 7: 1-4:

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Moses and Aaron were commanded to preach ‘Let my people go.’

Yet God declared he would harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the people go.

Moses and Aaron faithfully carried out the command without complaining of the futility of their preaching, or the wisdom of God commanding that which He secretly wills non-compliance.

In like manner, we Christians are to preach the command of God to every creature.

Many will refuse to heed the command.

Many will have had their hearts hardened by God, as did Pharaoh.

Yet the command given us to preach is still valid, meaningful, righteous and necessary.

Another fine post as you work through the areas found in scripture and gather up the teaching that is there.

Protective Angel
Mar 8th 2017, 03:56 AM
** MOD NOTE **

Rules reminder in this section


Any posts deemed to break the general board rules against personal attacks, name calling or being ungracious to other members will result in the immediate deletion of the post containing the offending statements. Discuss the subject and not each other and you run no risk of losing a post.

TrustGzus
Mar 9th 2017, 07:15 PM
I really don't think the word "offer" is a good word here. As I read Acts, it seems to me that people are commanded to believe and repent. It's not an offer. It's not an invitation. It's an order.

I've read a chaper from the book of Acts now for the last few years. So every 28 days. I start over. I've been blessed by it. This has revolutionized my thoughts and my observations of the how the church presents the Gospel.

Acts 17:30–31 (ESV)

30*The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31*because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

The word "command" there is the Greek word παραγγέλλω. It's usually translated as command, order or charge. Here's what Bill Mounce says about it in his expository dictionary with several examples of it in other passages to get a feel for the word . . .

παραγγέλλω (parangellō), GK 4133 (S 3853), 32x. parangellō means “to command, order” with authority, such that the person is obligated to obey. Demons are commanded to leave the human body (Lk 8:29; Acts 16:18), people who have seen a healing are commanded to be quiet (Lk 8:56), the apostles are commanded not to leave Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is sent (Acts 1:4), the Sanhedrin commands the apostles not to preach about Jesus (5:28), the Judaizers “insist” that believers follow the Mosaic law (15:5), God commands all people to repent (17:30), and Paul commands that Timothy stop the false teachers (1 Tim. 1:3). See NIDNTT-A, 964–65.

Mounce, W. D. (2006). Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (pp. 124–125). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Start looking through the NT . . .

John the Baptist . . .

Matthew 3:2 (ESV)
2*“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

"Repent" is an imperative.

Jesus . . .

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)

17*From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Same thing. In Greek, "repent" is an imperative.

Peter...

Acts 2:37–38 (ESV)
37*Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38*And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

He doesn't invite. He uses an imperative. "Repent"

Acts 3:18–20 (ESV)
18*But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19*Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20*that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,

I don't see the apostles making an offer. I see them declaring the Gospel and commanding people to repent. I don't ever see them telling people that Jesus died for them. Take a look at Paul in Acts 13 . . .

Acts 13:38–39 (ESV)

38*Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39*and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. Everyone who believes is freed.

I think the church has added a lot of verbiage that is not biblical. If the apostles never said "Jesus died for you" in their proclamation, should I?

In the book of Acts, the word "love" is never used. Not once. They never tell people God loves them. They point out their sin. They command them to repent. They say Jesus was killed and brought to life. They state facts and give orders.

I'd encourage anyone and everyone to read a chapter a day from this book for the rest of your life and see if it doesn't change your thoughts and outlook on the entire subject of evangelism.

So is the gospel as presented in Calvinism a genuine offer to all? No, because it's not an offer. The gospel is declared and Calvinists tell people to repent. The elect do (at some point). The non-elect do not.

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

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2017, 07:21 PM
I really don't think the word "offer" is a good word here. As I read Acts, it seems to me that people are commanded to believe and repent. It's not an offer. It's not an invitation. It's an order.

I've read a chaper from the book of Acts now for the last few years. So every 28 days. I start over. I've been blessed by it. This has revolutionized my thoughts and my observations of the how the church presents the Gospel.

Acts 17:30–31 (ESV)

30*The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31*because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

The word "command" there is the Greek word παραγγέλλω. It's usually translated as command, order or charge. Here's what Bill Mounce says about it in his expository dictionary with several examples of it in other passages to get a feel for the word . . .

παραγγέλλω (parangellō), GK 4133 (S 3853), 32x. parangellō means “to command, order” with authority, such that the person is obligated to obey. Demons are commanded to leave the human body (Lk 8:29; Acts 16:18), people who have seen a healing are commanded to be quiet (Lk 8:56), the apostles are commanded not to leave Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is sent (Acts 1:4), the Sanhedrin commands the apostles not to preach about Jesus (5:28), the Judaizers “insist” that believers follow the Mosaic law (15:5), God commands all people to repent (17:30), and Paul commands that Timothy stop the false teachers (1 Tim. 1:3). See NIDNTT-A, 964–65.

Mounce, W. D. (2006). Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (pp. 124–125). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Start looking through the NT . . .

John the Baptist . . .

Matthew 3:2 (ESV)
2*“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

"Repent" is an imperative.

Jesus . . .

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)

17*From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Same thing. In Greek, "repent" is an imperative.

Peter...

Acts 2:37–38 (ESV)
37*Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38*And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

He doesn't invite. He uses an imperative. "Repent"

Acts 3:18–20 (ESV)
18*But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19*Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20*that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus,

I don't see the apostles making an offer. I see them declaring the Gospel and commanding people to repent. I don't ever see them telling people that Jesus died for them. Take a look at Paul in Acts 13 . . .

Acts 13:38–39 (ESV)

38*Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39*and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. Everyone who believes is freed.

I think the church has added a lot of verbiage that is not biblical. If the apostles never said "Jesus died for you" in their proclamation, should I?

In the book of Acts, the word "love" is never used. Not once. They never tell people God loves them. They point out their sin. They command them to repent. They say Jesus was killed and brought to life. They state facts and give orders.

I'd encourage anyone and everyone to read a chapter a day from this book for the rest of your life and see if it doesn't change your thoughts and outlook on the entire subject of evangelism.

So is the gospel as presented in Calvinism a genuine offer to all? No, because it's not an offer. The gospel is declared and Calvinists tell people to repent. The elect do (at some point). The non-elect do not.

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

Excellent post!!!!! Man, does this bring clarity!

The first recorded word in scripture that Jesus spoke is ... "repent". Of all the words that God could have chose to write from Jesus, he chose "repent". He didn't choose, love, believe, faith, come, or any other words, he chose "repent. To me, that is significant!

Matt 4:17

17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
NASB

Christinme
Mar 9th 2017, 08:20 PM
I really don't think the word "offer" is a good word here. As I read Acts, it seems to me that people are commanded to believe and repent. It's not an offer. It's not an invitation. It's an order.Ok ... so is it an order that He gives everyone and only enables some to fulfill the order? Does He order all to do and just provide the ability for some to fulfill the order? Of course those questions address a Calvinist understanding.



Take a look at Paul in Acts 13 . . .

Acts 13:38–39 (ESV)

38*Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39*and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Forgiveness of sins is proclaimed. Everyone who believes is freed.So is everyone "able" to believe? Or must God enable one? And if God must enable one, does God enable only some?

jeffcraig
Mar 9th 2017, 08:58 PM
short:
VOICE
No, <YHWH CREATOR> has patiently tolerated this kind of ignorance in the past, but now <YHWH CREATOR> says it is time to rethink our lives and reject these unenlightened assumptions.

----------------------------------------
long:
PHILLIPS
So Paul got to his feet in the middle of their council, and began, “Gentlemen of Athens, my own eyes tell me that you are in all respects an extremely religious people. For as I made my way here and looked at your shrines I noticed one altar (one of a number in Athens) on which were inscribed the words, TO GOD THE UNKNOWN. It is this God whom you are worshipping in ignorance that I am here to proclaim to you! God who made the world and all that is in it, being Lord of both Heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, nor is he ministered to by human hands, as though he had need of anything—seeing that he is the one who gives to all men life and breath and everything else. From one forefather he has created every race of men to live over the face of the whole earth. He has determined the times of their existence and the limits of their habitation, so that they might search for God, in the hope that they might feel for him and find him—yes, even though he is not far from any one of us. Indeed, it is in him that we live and move and have our being. Some of your own poets have endorsed this in the words, ‘For we are indeed his children’. If then we are the children of God, we ought not to imagine God in terms of gold or silver or stone, contrived by human art or imagination.

Now while it is true that God has overlooked the days of ignorance he now commands all men everywhere to repent (because of the gift of his son Jesus).

For he has fixed a day on which he will judge the whole world in justice by the standard of a man whom he has appointed. That this is so he has guaranteed to all men by raising this man from the dead.”

TrustGzus
Mar 9th 2017, 09:18 PM
Ok ... so is it an order that He gives everyone and only enables some to fulfill the order? Does He order all to do and just provide the ability for some to fulfill the order? Of course those questions address a Calvinist understanding.


So is everyone "able" to believe? Or must God enable one? And if God must enable one, does God enable only some?

It seems to me the Scripture teaches:

Yes to your first two questions which sounded like they were the same question.

No one is able.

God must enable.

He only enables some.

Slug1
Mar 9th 2017, 09:22 PM
It seems to me the Scripture teaches:

Yes to your first two questions which sounded like they were the same question.

No one is able.

God must enable.

He only enables some.
So at the end of the day, the proper Gospel message that we are to speak is: Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later... for only some sinners to repent, but not all sinners to repent.

Brother Mark
Mar 9th 2017, 09:27 PM
It seems to me the Scripture teaches:

Yes to your first two questions which sounded like they were the same question.

No one is able.

God must enable.

He only enables some.

Do you think the enabling is internal? For instance how do you handle what Jesus said about Sodom if is only an internal enabling? And what about the apostle Paul?

TrustGzus
Mar 9th 2017, 09:29 PM
So at the end of the day, the proper Gospel message that we are to speak is: Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later... for only some sinners to repent, but not all sinners to repent.

Only some will repent even if we adopt your prescient view. But you preach to anyone even though you know most won't. Same on the Reformed perspective. Only some will repent.

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2017, 09:36 PM
Only some will repent even if we adopt your prescient view. But you preach to anyone even though you know most won't. Same on the Reformed perspective. Only some will repent.

I think the question, though, is the why. On the one view people don't repent because they make a choice not to, and on the other view, that choice is further informed by God's enabling (or lack thereof). If I go out, and preach: 'Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later, repent, and confess Jesus as Lord', then in what sense is a person's repenting meaningful, if their repentance or rejection is compelled -- or, do you think that God would enable someone to repent, that ultimately doesn't?

jeffcraig
Mar 9th 2017, 09:38 PM
I think the question, though, is the why. On the one view people don't repent because they make a choice not to, and on the other view, that choice is further informed by God's enabling (or lack thereof). If I go out, and preach: 'Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later, repent, and confess Jesus as Lord', then in what sense is a person's repenting meaningful, if their repentance is compelled -- or, do you think that God would enable someone to repent, that ultimately doesn't?

CERTAINLY. No doubt.

Remember the parable of the sower.

jeffcraig
Mar 9th 2017, 09:44 PM
The proper (Godly, Righteous) message that we are to speak IS what YHWH tells us to speak, as we open our mouth trusting HIM entirely.

(my first thought was as JESUS preached "Turn to YHWH, for HIS KINGDOM IS at hand" (and this is still true today, most likely, at least for some) ....)

So at the end of the day, the proper Gospel message that we are to speak is: Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later... for only some sinners to repent, but not all sinners to repent.

Saul-to-Paul
Mar 9th 2017, 11:23 PM
I think the question, though, is the why. On the one view people don't repent because they make a choice not to, and on the other view, that choice is further informed by God's enabling (or lack thereof). If I go out, and preach: 'Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later, repent, and confess Jesus as Lord', then in what sense is a person's repenting meaningful, if their repentance or rejection is compelled -- or, do you think that God would enable someone to repent, that ultimately doesn't?

Man cannot repent meaningfully on his own because he is spiritually dead. This is why salvation is a gift of God. It's given to spiritually dead men that when given are quickened (made alive) in their souls. Will God give this gift to every man? Obviously not or there would not be a hell. Can this gift be rejected? Answer this. When Lazarus was dead for 4 days did Lazarus reject the call from Jesus to "Come forth"? So with a spiritually dead man.

Colossians 2:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he (Jesus) quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2017, 11:34 PM
Man cannot repent meaningfully on his own because he is spiritually dead. This is why salvation is a gift of God. It's given to spiritually dead men that when given are quickened (made alive) in their souls. Will God give this gift to every man? Obviously not or there would not be a hell. Can this gift be rejected? Answer this. When Lazarus was dead for 4 days did Lazarus reject the call from Jesus to "Come forth"? So with a spiritually dead man.

Colossians 2:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he (Jesus) quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

That's not quite what I'm asking, but you've said something interesting here: why doesn't God 'give this gift' to everyone, if doing so would be supremely good for everyone involved?

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 03:10 AM
The proper (Godly, Righteous) message that we are to speak IS what YHWH tells us to speak, as we open our mouth trusting HIM entirely.

(my first thought was as JESUS preached "Turn to YHWH, for HIS KINGDOM IS at hand" (and this is still true today, most likely, at least for some) ....)But if the true Gospel message is ONLY FOR those God chose... is it wrong to inform the listener of that interpretation?

Or do we say it as taught in the scriptures and inform the lost that Christ died for all in the world?

Iconoclast85
Mar 10th 2017, 03:10 AM
Man cannot repent meaningfully on his own because he is spiritually dead. This is why salvation is a gift of God. It's given to spiritually dead men that when given are quickened (made alive) in their souls. Will God give this gift to every man? Obviously not or there would not be a hell. Can this gift be rejected? Answer this. When Lazarus was dead for 4 days did Lazarus reject the call from Jesus to "Come forth"? So with a spiritually dead man.

Colossians 2:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he (Jesus) quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

yes....this is correct:thumbsup: welcome to bibleforums:wave:

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 03:13 AM
Man cannot repent meaningfully on his own because he is spiritually dead. This is why salvation is a gift of God. It's given to spiritually dead men that when given are quickened (made alive) in their souls. Will God give this gift to every man? Obviously not or there would not be a hell. Can this gift be rejected? Answer this. When Lazarus was dead for 4 days did Lazarus reject the call from Jesus to "Come forth"? So with a spiritually dead man.

Colossians 2:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he (Jesus) quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;But all a man must do is believe and then this quickening happens. Not before they believe.

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 03:16 AM
Only some will repent even if we adopt your prescient view. But you preach to anyone even though you know most won't. Same on the Reformed perspective. Only some will repent.OK... so if I preach from the Reformed perspective, I'm not wrong in saying... Christ died, was buried and resurrected 3 days later... for only some sinners to repent, but not all sinners to repent.

So this leads to a question.

Cain and Abel... for the Reformed position, can each of these men be utilized as representing the elect and the non-elect?

Iconoclast85
Mar 10th 2017, 03:40 AM
But all a man must do is believe and then this quickening happens. Not before they believe.

Not according to *jn3The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 03:58 AM
Not according to *jn3The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.If your Calvinistic interpretation of this was true, why does this happen ONLY after a person hears the Gospel? Why can't this blowing happen before a person hears the Gospel and such are redeemed before they ever hear the Gospel?

Besides, have you ever done a study of the term originally used for "thou?" It's not referring to singular as in the elect can only hear. It's about plural or ALL people can hear. Some will believe and some wont... but the verse is not about ONLY the elect can hear.

Tell me, was the jailer who came up to Paul asking what one must do to be saved... already saved before he knew that all he needed was to choose to believe?

Iconoclast85
Mar 10th 2017, 04:32 AM
If your Calvinistic interpretation of this was true, why does this happen ONLY after a person hears the Gospel? Why can't this blowing happen before a person hears the Gospel and such are redeemed before they ever hear the Gospel?

Besides, have you ever done a study of the term originally used for "thou?" It's not referring to singular as in the elect can only hear. It's about plural or ALL people can hear. Some will believe and some wont... but the verse is not about ONLY the elect can hear.

Tell me, was the jailer who came up to Paul asking what one must do to be saved... already saved before he knew that all he needed was to choose to believe?

We do not know How God works, but we know He must work. It is simple. It is true only those elected have ears to hear.
No one knows when the Spirit works on each person....that is why anecdotal stories have little value.

Stew Ward's Hip
Mar 10th 2017, 04:47 AM
Note... when all else fails, appeal to mystery.

jeffcraig
Mar 10th 2017, 04:59 AM
But if the true Gospel message is ONLY FOR those God chose... is it wrong to inform the listener of that interpretation?

Or do we say it as taught in the scriptures and inform the lost that Christ died for all in the world?

What to say, and when, is up to the FATHER in HEAVEN - HE IS ALIVE -

To those those being saved and to those being lost the same message (the same testimony of Y'SHUA MESSIAH) has different results >>>

As it is written:
2 Corinthians 2:14-16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

But thanks be to God, who in the Messiah constantly leads us in a triumphal procession and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of what it means to know him!

For to God we are the aroma of the Messiah, both among those being saved and among those being lost;

to the latter, we are the smell of death leading only to more death;

but to the former, we are the sweet smell of life leading to more life.

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 05:08 AM
What to say, and when, is up to the FATHER in HEAVEN - HE IS ALIVE -

To those those being saved and to those being lost the same message (the same testimony of Y'SHUA MESSIAH) has different results >>>

As it is written:
2 Corinthians 2:14-16Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

But thanks be to God, who in the Messiah constantly leads us in a triumphal procession and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of what it means to know him!

For to God we are the aroma of the Messiah, both among those being saved and among those being lost;

to the latter, we are the smell of death leading only to more death;

but to the former, we are the sweet smell of life leading to more life.But if Christ didn't die for all the world as Calvinists believe... shouldn't the Gospel be spoken honestly, truthful, righteous in a belief.... to the lost and inform them that Christ died for only some of the lost... per Calvinism?

Slug1
Mar 10th 2017, 05:12 AM
We do not know How God works, but we know He must work. It is simple. It is true only those elected have ears to hear. This statement of yours ^^^ is refuted with this other statement of yours:



Originally Posted by Iconoclast85 Chad the non-elect have a chance to Salvation because no one stops them from picking up a Bible or listening to the gospel and trust in the Lord they don't do it because they don't want to.

Can you see how each comment that you made counters the other?


No one knows when the Spirit works on each person....that is why anecdotal stories have little value.Each person as in who... only the elect, or all persons in the world?

jeffcraig
Mar 10th 2017, 05:24 AM
"What to say, and when, is up to the FATHER in HEAVEN - HE IS ALIVE - "

Y'SHUA MESSIAH and YHWH
and non-Calvinists (if not subject to Calvinists (i.e. not under their authority))
are not bound by anything Calvinists believe.



But if Christ didn't die for all the world as Calvinists believe... shouldn't the Gospel be spoken honestly, truthful, righteous in a belief.... to the lost and inform them that Christ died for only some of the lost... per Calvinism?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 06:11 AM
This statement of yours ^^^ is refuted with this other statement of yours:



Can you see how each comment that you made counters the other?

Each person as in who... only the elect, or all persons in the world?

I know Icon85 could have worded it better, but I do understand what he is trying to say. God does not prohibit someone from believing, but sinful man will not. Man needs God's quickening and grace to be saved and God elected the saved before creation according to His plan and nothing of man. On judgement day it will be revealed to all why everybody is damnable before God and deserved to be punished to hell. Men receiving the Gospel, but who refuse to believe it will be judged harsher, but still it will be because of their hardened and sinful hearts, not because God made them so. Man is sinful since the fall and we need God to be saved. This by His grace and mercy and nothing of man, including man's choice. Bad cannot choose good, so the flesh cannot choose the Spirit. You have to be made alive spiritually to receive and understand and follow that which the Spirit gives you. Then it is irresistible, because you are made new and wanted to do and live according to the Spirit.

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 07:31 AM
'God elected the saved before creation according to His plan and nothing of man' - Is this not limited atonement?

Who is sinful man?

(Rom 3:23 NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

When is a believer spiritually alive (Born again)? Is it after faith in Christ Jesus and repentance of sin or before?



I know Icon85 could have worded it better, but I do understand what he is trying to say. God does not prohibit someone from believing, but sinful man will not. Man needs God's quickening and grace to be saved and God elected the saved before creation according to His plan and nothing of man. On judgement day it will be revealed to all why everybody is damnable before God and deserved to be punished to hell. Men receiving the Gospel, but who refuse to believe it will be judged harsher, but still it will be because of their hardened and sinful hearts, not because God made them so. Man is sinful since the fall and we need God to be saved. This by His grace and mercy and nothing of man, including man's choice. Bad cannot choose good, so the flesh cannot choose the Spirit. You have to be made alive spiritually to receive and understand and follow that which the Spirit gives you. Then it is irresistible, because you are made new and wanted to do and live according to the Spirit.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 07:34 AM
'God elected the saved before creation according to His plan and nothing of man' - Is this not limited atonement?

Who is sinful man?

(Rom 3:23 NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It is.

Sinful man is all men until the Spirit finds you by grace.

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 07:43 AM
So is Grace for All or only for some? If for only some [the elect], then is not salvation limited to those who have been chosen by God to be given Grace to believe?


It is.

Sinful man is all men until the Spirit finds you by grace.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 07:46 AM
So is Grace for All or only for some? If for only some [the elect], then is not salvation limited to those who have been chosen by God to be given Grace to believe?

Only for some (the elect), salvation is limited to those chosen by God. I know my sheep and they know Me.

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 07:59 AM
I think that's where I disagree with the Calvinist Theology.

To me there is a big difference between God knowing all who are going to make a decision to believe in Christ and repent and by their actions of faith, believe and following after God, that their names are written in the lamb's book of life (Rev 21:27). This action is determined by Man's decision and will to understand that they have sinned and are in need of a savior and need to get themselves right before God.

Compared to the Calvinist theology that God is responsible for man's salvation and some will not be saved according to the will of God, for God has chosen [elected] some sinners for damnation. They have not the grace of God and are never given the Grace of God, that is why they will never be saved.

Why God does not think they are worthy of Grace and Forgiveness - predetermined before time - I do not really understand?

However if I were a HC, this is the gospel message I would preach. Wanna hear the good news. God saves only some people which are predetermined before the creation of the world. The rest are not given grace and are going to be facing eternal damnation. You to could be one of the saved - that God gives grace to. On the other hand you might be one of those God has decided not to give grace to - therefor you might be the one going to hell for everlasting punishment and there's not one thing you can do about it.

I know my preaching stinks, but at least it is the truth according to Calvinism - and it really doesn't matter anyways what my preaching is like - because it's all been predetermined by the will of God before creation?



Only for some (the elect), salvation is limited to those chosen by God. I know my sheep and they know Me.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 08:13 AM
I think that's where I disagree with the Calvinist Theology.

To me there is a big difference between God knowing all who are going to make a decision to believe in Christ and repent and by their actions of faith, believe and following after God, that their names are written in the lamb's book of life (Rev 21:27). This action is determined by Man's decision and will to understand that they have sinned and are in need of a savior and need to get themselves right before God.

Compared to the Calvinist theology that God is responsible for man's salvation and some will not be saved according to the will of God, for God has chosen [elected] some sinners for damnation. They have not the grace of God and are never given the Grace of God, that is why they will never be saved.

Why God does not think they are worthy of Grace and Forgiveness - predetermined before time - I do not really understand?

However if I were a HC, this is the gospel message I would preach. Wanna hear the good news. God saves only some people which are predetermined before the creation of the world. The rest are not given grace and are going to be facing eternal damnation. You to could be one of the saved - that God gives grace to. On the other hand you might be one of those God has decided not to give grace to - therefor you might be the one going to hell for everlasting punishment and there's not one thing you can do about it.

I know my preaching stinks, but at least it is the truth according to Calvinism - and it really doesn't matter anyways what my preaching is like - because it's all been predetermined by the will of God before creation?

It is your right to disagree, but the question is if it is biblical or not?

Where we see it different, is that man would choose something that is totally against his nature or will, he won't. Man needs the grace and mercy of God to be renewed, to be made alive in order to accept that which was given to him.

The Gospel is given to all (seed sowed), but only those who fell on the good soil (the elect) will grow and bear fruit. We as sowers do not know the quality of soil, so to us all soil are potentially good and therefore do we give the message that all could be saved. Who the elect are is according to God's choice and mercy and I may not question Him on His choice.

It does not matter what theology we believe in, at the end only those drawn by God will come and I believe the Calvinist theology is closer to that of the Bible than Arminian or free will.

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 08:27 AM
Well there has been presented on both sides scripture which supports both views, so the question might be which one is biblical? Are both correct or is only one correct?

Now when you say those drawn by God will come - what does that mean in Calvinism and which bible verses support that?



It is your right to disagree, but the question is if it is biblical or not?

Where we see it different, is that man would choose something that is totally against his nature or will, he won't. Man needs the grace and mercy of God to be renewed, to be made alive in order to accept that which was given to him.

The Gospel is given to all (seed sowed), but only those who fell on the good soil (the elect) will grow and bear fruit. We as sowers do not know the quality of soil, so to us all soil are potentially good and therefore do we give the message that all could be saved. Who the elect are is according to God's choice and mercy and I may not question Him on His choice.

It does not matter what theology we believe in, at the end only those drawn by God will come and I believe the Calvinist theology is closer to that of the Bible than Arminian or free will.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 08:37 AM
Well there has been presented on both sides scripture which supports both views, so the question might be which one is biblical? Are both correct or is only one correct?

Now when you say those drawn by God will come - what does that mean in Calvinism and which bible verses support that?

Joh 6:44 People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me; and I will raise them to life on the last day.

This fits with the following:

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.*

To me this is as clear and simple as what it might be. God elected sinners to be saved.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 08:46 AM
Note... when all else fails, appeal to mystery.

It's not like He's written us a book, incarnated as a human, given us His Holy Spirit, created us in His image...


I know Icon85 could have worded it better, but I do understand what he is trying to say. God does not prohibit someone from believing, but sinful man will not. Man needs God's quickening and grace to be saved and God elected the saved before creation according to His plan and nothing of man. On judgement day it will be revealed to all why everybody is damnable before God and deserved to be punished to hell. Men receiving the Gospel, but who refuse to believe it will be judged harsher, but still it will be because of their hardened and sinful hearts, not because God made them so. Man is sinful since the fall and we need God to be saved. This by His grace and mercy and nothing of man, including man's choice. Bad cannot choose good, so the flesh cannot choose the Spirit. You have to be made alive spiritually to receive and understand and follow that which the Spirit gives you. Then it is irresistible, because you are made new and wanted to do and live according to the Spirit.

'Man needs God's grace, and quickening, to be saved, and elected...You have to be made alive spiritually to receive and understand and follow [what] the Spirit gives you'
'Men receiving the gospel... refuse to believe it... because of their hardened and sinful hearts'

To which the condemned say to God, 'but you didn't quicken me, so how was I to believe when it was an impossibility, beyond me? Adam condemned me, but who was there to save me if not you, who didn't choose me?'. Do you think God is going to reply to them like He replied to Job? Or perhaps He'll bust out Romans 9, and hit them over the head with it one last time -- no wait, he can get Paul himself to yell at them? Saved because of nothing you did, and condemned because nothing to was done to save you. I find it very hard to believe that God's understanding of culpability is different from ours, that a being incapable of acting contrary to its nature would be held responsible for acting consistently with its nature, however corrupted that nature is. If God doesn't quicken all men, then there's nothing righteous in His condemnation of those who refuse to believe.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 08:53 AM
It's not like He's written us a book, incarnated as a human, given us His Holy Spirit, created us in His image...



'Man needs God's grace, and quickening, to be saved, and elected...You have to be made alive spiritually to receive and understand and follow [what] the Spirit gives you'
'Men receiving the gospel... refuse to believe it... because of their hardened and sinful hearts'

To which the condemned say to God, 'but you didn't quicken me, so how was I to believe when it was an impossibility, beyond me? Adam condemned me, but who was there to save me if not you, who didn't choose me?'. Do you think God is going to reply to them like He replied to Job? Or perhaps He'll bust out Romans 9, and hit them over the head with it one last time -- no wait, he can get Paul himself to yell at them? Saved because of nothing you did, and condemned because nothing to was done to save you. I find it very hard to believe that God's understanding of culpability is different from ours, that a being incapable of acting contrary to its nature would be held responsible for acting consistently with its nature, however corrupted that nature is. If God doesn't quicken all men, then there's nothing righteous in His condemnation of those who refuse to believe.

What made it impossible? Not God, so therefore God is entitled and righteous to judge men for their sinful and hardened hearts.

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 09:05 AM
Clarke Commentary - John 6:44

Except the Father - draw him - But how is a man drawn?

St. Augustin answers from the poet, Trahit sua quemque voluptas; a man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it: show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things: they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run, through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man: he shows him his wants - he shows the Savior whom he has provided for him: the man feels himself a lost sinner; and, through the desire which he finds to escape hell, and get to heaven, he comes unto Christ, that he may be justified by his blood. Unless God thus draw, no man will ever come to Christ; because none could, without this drawing, ever feel the need of a Savior. See August. Tract. 26, in Joan. and Calmet.

Drawing, or alluring, not dragging is here to be understood. “He,” say the rabbins, “who desires to cleave to the holy and blessed God, God lays hold of him, and will not cast him off.” Synops. Sohar. p. 87. The best Greek writers use the verb in the same sense of alluring, inciting, etc.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 09:16 AM
Clarke Commentary - John 6:44

Except the Father - draw him - But how is a man drawn?

St. Augustin answers from the poet, Trahit sua quemque voluptas; a man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it: show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things: they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run, through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man: he shows him his wants - he shows the Savior whom he has provided for him: the man feels himself a lost sinner; and, through the desire which he finds to escape hell, and get to heaven, he comes unto Christ, that he may be justified by his blood. Unless God thus draw, no man will ever come to Christ; because none could, without this drawing, ever feel the need of a Savior. See August. Tract. 26, in Joan. and Calmet.

Drawing, or alluring, not dragging is here to be understood. “He,” say the rabbins, “who desires to cleave to the holy and blessed God, God lays hold of him, and will not cast him off.” Synops. Sohar. p. 87. The best Greek writers use the verb in the same sense of alluring, inciting, etc.

Commentary by Gill.

John 6:44
No man can come to me,.... That is, by faith, as in Joh_6:35; for otherwise they could corporeally come to him, but not spiritually; because they had neither power nor will of themselves; being dead in trespasses and sins, and impotent to everything that is spiritual: and whilst men are in a state of unregeneracy, blindness, and darkness, they see no need of coming to Christ, nor anything in him worth coming for; they are prejudiced against him, and their hearts are set on other things; and besides, coming to Christ and believing in Christ being the same thing, it is certain faith is not of a man's self, it is the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; and therefore efficacious grace must be exerted to enable a soul to come to Christ; which is expressed in the following words,
except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: which is not to be understood of moral persuasion, or a being persuaded and prevailed upon to come to Christ by the consideration of the mighty works which God had done to justify that he was the true Messiah, but of the internal and powerful influence of the grace of God; for this act of drawing is something distinct from, and superior to, both doctrine and miracles. The Capernaites had heard the doctrine of Christ, which was taught with authority, and had seen his miracles, which were full proofs of his being the Messiah, and yet believed not, but murmured at his person and parentage. This gave occasion to Christ to observe to them, that something more than these was necessary to their coming to him, or savingly believing in him; even the powerful and efficacious grace of the Father in drawing: and if it be considered what men in conversion are drawn off "from" and "to", from their beloved lusts and darling righteousness; to look unto, and rely upon Christ alone for salvation; from that which was before so very agreeable, to that which, previous to this work, was so very disagreeable; to what else can this be ascribed, but to unfrustrable and insuperable grace? but though this act of drawing is an act of power, yet not of force; God in drawing of unwilling, makes willing in the day of his power: he enlightens the understanding, bends the will, gives an heart of flesh, sweetly allures by the power of his grace, and engages the soul to come to Christ, and give up itself to him; he draws with the bands of love. Drawing, though it supposes power and influence, yet not always coaction and force: music draws the ear, love the heart, and pleasure the mind. "Trahit sua quemque voluptas", says the poet. The Jews have a saying (t), that the proselytes, in the days of the Messiah, shall be all of them, גרים גרורים, "proselytes drawn": that is, such as shall freely and voluntarily become proselytes, as those who are drawn by the Father are.
And I will raise him at the last day; See Gill on Joh_6:40; compare with this verse Joh_6:40.
(t) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 3. 2. & 24. 1.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 09:19 AM
What made it impossible? Not God, so therefore God is entitled and righteous to judge men for their sinful and hardened hearts.

In your view, Adam made it impossible, and God didn't make it possible.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 09:22 AM
In your view, Adam made it impossible, and God didn't make it possible.

No.

Through Adam sin made it impossible.

Through grace God made it possible.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 09:24 AM
I do believe God chooses ... who, when and where ... I think God's choices are mainly choices for a purpose (like Jacob was chosen to be the line the Christ would come through) and not all purposes are necessarily something one would want to be chosen for (Judas for example or the Pharaoh). And this choosing although may correspond with one being saved, individual salvation isn't the primary goal of the choosing (the choosing of Jacob was primarily about which line the Christ would come through).

Also seems to me that it is the Father that reveals to a person that Jesus is the Christ and not that the person decides to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Matthew 16:15-17

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And also that all the Father reveals this to will come to the Son.

John 6:37 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


Ok so seems the question is on what basis does the Father choose ... now Calvinism says there is no basis at all or it's a complete mystery ... and they get this from Romans 9 ... but what does all of Scripture point to ... and I think it is important to also have an idea of the order of Paul's epistles so as to understand that Paul has explained certain things in certain epistles that might effect what he means in later epistles ... here is a site with an estimated time line ... https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm


Ok so 1 Corinthians is believed to have come before Romans and we have the following in 1 Corinthians ...

1 Corinthians 1:18-29

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.


So when we read Romans 9 I think we need to keep the above in mind ...

Romans 9:10-16

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So what does this mean ... well seems to me it is saying that God chose Jacob not on the basis that the world makes choices ... Esau was by far the manlier man physically ... he was first born (which it seems God is in the habit of preferring the second born) ... there wasn't something the world would consider "good" in Jacob that guided God's choice of Jacob ...

And we also have the following in Romans 9:

Romans 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.

Here we see God raised Pharaoh up (which Pharaoh participated in his fall) ...

And next ...

Romans 9:18 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

So seems to me that God has mercy on the humble, the weak, the simple and he hardens the proud, the strong, the wise ... and why does he harden the proud, the strong, the wise ... seems to me so that He can bring them to naught ... so they eventually won't have anything in themselves to glory about ...

chad
Mar 10th 2017, 09:34 AM
SBC Commentary - John 6:44

These words have often been supposed to mean that no one can become a Christian unless an irresistible influence is put forth by God for his conversion. I think, if you look at the words of the text in their connection, and in relation to the circumstances in which they were written, you will see that Jesus is not here speaking either of an eternal "going" or of an irresistible "drawing."

I. What had drawn these crowds across the lake, away from their homes and their occupations? They cared merely for the material benefits which Christ’s miracles conferred. They had eaten of the loaves and were filled. They were not following the drawing of the Father; they were merely drawn by the loaves and fishes. This was not the kind of coming Christ cared for. The crowds had come to Capernaum; they had not come to the Saviour.

II. To learn of the Father’s teaching is to yield to the Father’s drawing. So that the whole process here indicated is divisible in thought into three stages.

First, there is the beginning; the Father teacheth—draweth. But not all whom the Father teaches listen as yet to His teaching—not all whom the Father draws yield as yet to His drawing.

Hence, secondly, there is the middle point of separation: a man hears and learns of the Father; he accepts the teaching of the inward voice; he yields himself up to the inward drawing.

Then, thirdly, there is the result; the man who thus submits to the Divine teaching and drawing cometh unto Christ; he recognises in Christ one whom the Father has sent to meet the needs and longings which the Father Himself has awakened.

III. Never imagine that there may be a secret decree of God, shutting you out from salvation. "God willeth all men to be saved." Yield to the Father’s drawing. By His providence, His Holy Word, His Gospel, His Spirit, He has often appealed to you. He has made you conscious of your need. He has made you think of your future. He has given you glimpses of a higher life which it is possible for you to live. Yield, then, to His drawing, and come to Christ as your Teacher, your Exemplar, your Redeemer, and your King.

T. C. Finlayson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 280.
References: Joh_6:44.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv., No. 182. Joh_6:47.—Ibid., vol. xxviii., No. 1642. Joh_6:48.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. viii., p. 201. Joh_6:48, Joh_6:49.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 110. Joh_6:48-54.—Ibid., vol. i., p. 110; vol. ix., p. 201. Joh_6:52.—G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines of Sermons, p. 52; Phillips Brooks, The Candle of the Lord, p. 232. Joh_6:52-63.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 31; B. Jowett, Church of England Pulpit, vol. vi., p. 10.



I. When our Lord spoke of Himself as the Bread from heaven, the Jews murmured at Him, and said, "Is not this Jesus, whose father and mother we know? How is it, then, that He saith, I came down from heaven?" Then it was that Jesus spoke the words of my text.

All such murmurings and disputations would not bring them any nearer to Him or to the truth. If they would listen to the still small voice which was trying to make itself heard in their deepest nature, then the words of Jesus would attract them; but so long as they drowned the inward voice by mere disputations, these words of Jesus would be only likely to repel them.

Yielding to the drawing of the world, they might murmur and discuss and dispute, but they would only be drawn away from Him; they could not really come to Him, unless they yielded to the drawing of the Father.


II. Where, then, is there in this any hint of an exclusive election, or of an irresistible grace? On the contrary, does not Jesus here quote from the prophets a wide, inclusive word: "They shall be all taught of God"? And is He not here virtually blaming those who do not believe in Him because they are not learning of the Father?

The fact is, that we all stand between two drawings—the drawing of the flesh and the drawing of the Spirit. And what the text says is, that no man can come to Christ except as drawn by the Father. This, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter: yield to the Father’s drawing, and come to Christ as your Teacher, your Exemplar, your Redeemer, and your King.

J. C. Finlayson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 280.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 09:44 AM
No.

Through Adam sin made it impossible.

Through grace God made it possible.

That's what I just said ;)

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 09:48 AM
That's what I just said ;)

Not how I understood it. ;)

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 09:55 AM
Not how I understood it. ;)

You understood it just fine, but that doesn't mean you've answered my question. If through Adam 'it' becomes impossible, but through God 'it' becomes possible, and God does indeed make 'it' possible for at least some people, then what prevents people from coming to God isn't solely sin, for now we've introduced God's grace. If I don't come to God, then it's because of (1) sin, and (2) a lack of God's grace. If I do go to God, then it's because of (1) God's grace, in spite of (2) sin. If salvation is wholly an act of God, then so is condemnation.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 10:14 AM
You understood it just fine, but that doesn't mean you've answered my question. If through Adam 'it' becomes impossible, but through God 'it' becomes possible, and God does indeed make 'it' possible for at least some people, then what prevents people from coming to God isn't solely sin, for now we've introduced God's grace. If I don't come to God, then it's because of (1) sin, and (2) a lack of God's grace. If I do go to God, then it's because of (1) God's grace, in spite of (2) sin. If salvation is wholly an act of God, then so is condemnation.

What prevents people from coming to God is solely sin.

God's grace made it possible to come to Him. Without grace sin prevents you from coming. By grace you overcome the workings of the flesh by the Spirit. Saying to God but I haven't received your grace would not be an excuse, you have heard but did not listen. Just as Adam and Eve tried to blame it on someone else, so will it not work to try and blame it on God. God is righteous and judgement day will proof this.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 10:47 AM
What prevents people from coming to God is solely sin.

Easy question then: if God quickens a previously sinful person, with that person turn to God? If the answer is yes, then the above isn't true.


God's grace made it possible to come to Him. Without grace sin prevents you from coming. By grace you overcome the workings of the flesh by the Spirit. Saying to God but I haven't received your grace would not be an excuse, you have heard but did not listen. Just as Adam and Eve tried to blame it on someone else, so will it not work to try and blame it on God. God is righteous and judgement day will proof this.

It's not an excuse, it's a valid reason. If someone can only turn to God through God's quickening, and God doesn't quicken, then - as hard as it is for the Reformed crowd to believe - that person has a legitimate complaint. This is essentially what you're saying:

God: Your sin has condemned you
Sinner: I accept that, but why didn't you quicken me so that I could enter into relationship with you?
God: Because your sin prevented it
Sinner: Yeah, but, it prevented all these other people you elected before you elected them, so why not me?
God: Because of your sin
Sinner: But without your grace I couldn't stop sinning, and it wasn't provided to me
God: Obviously, because of your sin separated us, and we're enemies
Sinner: But that wouldn't have been the case had you quickened me
God: It is my will do as I want, and I don't owe you an explanation
Sinner: Have you ever read Kafka?

Isn't the circularity... deafening?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 10:53 AM
Easy question then: if God quickens a previously sinful person, with that person turn to God? If the answer is yes, then the above isn't true.



It's not an excuse, it's a valid reason. If someone can only turn to God through God's quickening, and God doesn't quicken, then - as hard as it is for the Reformed crowd to believe - that person has a legitimate complaint. This is essentially what you're saying:

God: Your sin has condemned you
Sinner: I accept that, but why didn't you quicken me so that I could enter into relationship with you?
God: Because your sin prevented it
Sinner: Yeah, but, it prevented all these other people you elected before you elected them, so why not me?
God: Because of your sin
Sinner: But without your grace I couldn't stop sinning, and it wasn't provided to me
God: Obviously, because of your sin separated us, and we're enemies
Sinner: But that wouldn't have been the case had you quickened me
God: It is my will do as I want, and I don't owe you an explanation
Sinner: Have you ever read Kafka?

Isn't the circularity... deafening?

It is like you having a fatal disease and there is one pill to be saved. Now if you do not get the pill, you cannot say that you died because of not getting the pill, you died because of the disease. The pill is necessary to be saved from the disease. So is grace necessary to be saved, but it is not responsible for you dying if not received.

That is why salvation is by grace and not logic. If it was logical then man could get it on its own and then it is not grace anymore.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 11:02 AM
It is like you having a fatal disease and there is one pill to be saved. Now if you do not get the pill, you cannot say that you died because of not getting the pill, you died because of the disease. The pill is necessary to be saved from the disease. So is grace necessary to be saved, but it is not responsible for you dying if not received.

That is why salvation is by grace and not logic. If it was logical then man could get it on its own and then it is not grace anymore.

If there's a pill, then I died because (1) I contracted the disease, and (2) didn't have access to the cure. It's not the best analogy, but it should be enough to show that in the presence of a cure, it's not just the disease that undoes you.

And no one is claiming that 'salvation is by logic'. What I'm claiming is that salvation is by God's grace, and God isn't a Kafkaesque monster.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 11:02 AM
It's not an excuse, it's a valid reason. If someone can only turn to God through God's quickening, and God doesn't quicken, then - as hard as it is for the Reformed crowd to believe - that person has a legitimate complaint. This is essentially what you're saying:

God: Your sin has condemned you
Sinner: I accept that, but why didn't you quicken me so that I could enter into relationship with you?
God: Because your sin prevented it
Sinner: Yeah, but, it prevented all these other people you elected before you elected them, so why not me?
God: Because of your sin
Sinner: But without your grace I couldn't stop sinning, and it wasn't provided to me
God: Obviously, because of your sin separated us, and we're enemies
Sinner: But that wouldn't have been the case had you quickened me
God: It is my will do as I want, and I don't owe you an explanation
Sinner: Have you ever read Kafka?

Isn't the circularity... deafening?

When the books will be opened we will all understand and agree with God's judgement. The reason will be you and your sin, nothing else.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 11:03 AM
When the books will be opened we will all understand and agree with God's judgement. The reason will be you and your sin, nothing else.

The imagined God of my scenario said that a few times.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 11:06 AM
If there's a pill, then I died because (1) I contracted the disease, and (2) didn't have access to the cure. It's not the best analogy, but it should be enough to show that in the presence of a cure, it's not just the disease that undoes you.

And no one is claiming that 'salvation is by logic'. What I'm claiming is that salvation is by God's grace, and God isn't a Kafkaesque monster.

I know it is not the best analogy, but it is like the price for the pill is too expensive for you to get, but then by God's mercy He give it to you undeserved. There is a cure, but you do not have access to it (it is too expensive). God's grace and mercy made it available to you.

Gen 3:24* So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.*

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 11:08 AM
The imagined God of my scenario said that a few times.

So why argue anymore? Accept it, you do not have that which would excuse you, faith in the Son.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 11:25 AM
I know it is not the best analogy, but it is like the price for the pill is too expensive for you to get, but then by God's mercy He give it to you undeserved. There is a cure, but you do not have access to it (it is too expensive). God's grace and mercy made it available to you.

Gen 3:24* So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.*

But, you can only accept it if he quickens you to accept it. This is like bringing medicine to a man in a delusional fever, then respecting his request not to take the medicine even though he is out of his mind, and will die.


So why argue anymore? Accept it, you do not have that which would excuse you, faith in the Son.

I think it's pretty obvious why:

Doctor: Your disease killed you
Patient: I know, but why didn't you give me the medicine that would have saved my life?
Doctor: Because your disease killed you
Patient: Yeah, but it would have killed all these other people you gave your medicine to, so why not me?
Doctor: Because of your disease
Patient: But without your medicine I had no hope, and it wasn't provided to me
Doctor: Obviously, I couldn't give you medicine because of your disease
Patient: But my disease wouldn't have been a problem had you given me your medicine
Doctor: I don't have to tell you why I gave those people my medicine, but not you. It's your disease that killed you, after all
Patient: Have you ever read Kafka?
Doctor: I prefer Lovecraft myself

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 11:48 AM
But, you can only accept it if he quickens you to accept it. This is like bringing medicine to a man in a delusional fever, then respecting his request not to take the medicine even though he is out of his mind, and will die.



I think it's pretty obvious why:

Doctor: Your disease killed you
Patient: I know, but why didn't you give me the medicine that would have saved my life?
Doctor: Because your disease killed you
Patient: Yeah, but it would have killed all these other people you gave your medicine to, so why not me?
Doctor: Because of your disease
Patient: But without your medicine I had no hope, and it wasn't provided to me
Doctor: Obviously, I couldn't give you medicine because of your disease
Patient: But my disease wouldn't have been a problem had you given me your medicine
Doctor: I don't have to tell you why I gave those people my medicine, but not you. It's your disease that killed you, after all
Patient: Have you ever read Kafka?
Doctor: I prefer Lovecraft myself

You cannot afford it. The fact that you could get it is only mercy and grace.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 11:57 AM
You cannot afford it. The fact that you could get it is only mercy and grace.

You've said that a couple times now, but what about what I'm saying?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:02 PM
You've said that a couple times now, but what about what I'm saying?

If you got it you could say thank you, if not you cannot complain because you did not deserve it.

Your conversation with the doctor go from the premise that you deserved it, you don't.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:02 PM
And what about post #204?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:06 PM
And what about post #204?

I think it was asked of me?

I agree with most, but I do not see God's election as only of purpose, but also of individual salvation.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 12:06 PM
If you got it you could say thank you, if not you cannot complain because you did not deserve it.

Your conversation with the doctor go from the premise that you deserved it, you don't.

My premise is that the doctor loves, and cares for people. Would it be safe to say that in your view, condemnation begins with sin, and ends at grace?

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:07 PM
I think it was asked of me?

I agree with most, but I do not see God's election as only of purpose, but also of individual salvation.I didn't say I see "God's election as only of purpose" ... did I?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:08 PM
My premise is that the doctor loves, and cares for people. Would it be safe to say that in your view, condemnation begins with sin, and ends at grace?

What can be greater love than God paying the price that you could not afford by giving His Son?

Condemnation begins with sin, but grace and faith in Christ have no condemnation.

Rom 8:1* There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.*

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:10 PM
I didn't say I see "God's election as only of purpose" ... did I?

No, but perhaps I missed your point. :hug:


I do believe God chooses ... who, when and where ... I think God's choices are mainly choices for a purpose (like Jacob was chosen to be the line the Christ would come through) and not all purposes are necessarily something one would want to be chosen for (Judas for example or the Pharaoh). And this choosing although may correspond with one being saved, individual salvation isn't the primary goal of the choosing (the choosing of Jacob was primarily about which line the Christ would come through).

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 12:12 PM
What can be greater love than God paying the price that you could not afford by giving His Son?

Condemnation begins with sin, but grace and faith in Christ have no condemnation.

Rom 8:1* There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.*

What can be greater? God electing everyone.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:13 PM
No, but perhaps I missed your point. :hug:Perhaps you may want to reread it ... :) ... all of it ...

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:17 PM
What can be greater? God electing everyone.

No.

God gave the greatest price He could to save the elect. There was nothing more or greater He could give.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 12:19 PM
No.

God gave the greatest price He could to save the elect. There was nothing more or greater He could give.

Yes, undeniably so. God redeeming all of His creation, is greater than God redeeming only some of His creation. Now, I say that God redeems only some, because He allows us the choice of entering into relationship with him. You would say that God redeems only some, because He elects only some.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:19 PM
Perhaps you may want to reread it ... :) ... all of it ...

I do not see the choice of Jacob as only the blood line through which the Christ would come. I also see that not all who is of Israel is Israel.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:24 PM
I do not see the choice of Jacob as only the blood line through which the Christ would come.And I did not say that the choice of Jacob was about "only the blood line through which the Christ would come" ... did I?



I also see that not all who is of Israel is Israel.And I didn't say that either did I?


But I did write a lot more in that post ... like ...


Also seems to me that it is the Father that reveals to a person that Jesus is the Christ and not that the person decides to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

Matthew 16:15-17

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And also that all the Father reveals this to will come to the Son.

John 6:37 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


Ok so seems the question is on what basis does the Father choose ... now Calvinism says there is no basis at all or it's a complete mystery ... and they get this from Romans 9 ... but what does all of Scripture point to ... and I think it is important to also have an idea of the order of Paul's epistles so as to understand that Paul has explained certain things in certain epistles that might effect what he means in later epistles ... here is a site with an estimated time line ... https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt02.cfm


Ok so 1 Corinthians is believed to have come before Romans and we have the following in 1 Corinthians ...

1 Corinthians 1:18-29

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.


So when we read Romans 9 I think we need to keep the above in mind ...

Romans 9:10-16

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So what does this mean ... well seems to me it is saying that God chose Jacob not on the basis that the world makes choices ... Esau was by far the manlier man physically ... he was first born (which it seems God is in the habit of preferring the second born) ... there wasn't something the world would consider "good" in Jacob that guided God's choice of Jacob ...

And we also have the following in Romans 9:

Romans 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.

Here we see God raised Pharaoh up (which Pharaoh participated in his fall) ...

And next ...

Romans 9:18 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

So seems to me that God has mercy on the humble, the weak, the simple and he hardens the proud, the strong, the wise ... and why does he harden the proud, the strong, the wise ... seems to me so that He can bring them to naught ... so they eventually won't have anything in themselves to glory about ...

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:25 PM
Yes, undeniably so. God redeeming all of His creation, is greater than God redeeming only some of His creation. Now, I say that God redeems only some, because He allows us the choice of entering into relationship with him. You would say that God redeems only some, because He elects only some.

Yes. I say that God gave His all to save the elect and all of them are saved. To me it is greater than a God who asked this of His Son and them let it be wasted by the choice of man. To me that does not make sense and is in fact belittling God for me or making Him unfair towards His Son. Not that the death of Christ was not unfair to Him. Jesus' blood was not shed in vain, not one drop, all of it was effectual for whom it was shed. The Father knew who are His and He gave them to the Son.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:27 PM
Yes, undeniably so. God redeeming all of His creation, is greater than God redeeming only some of His creation. Now, I say that God redeems only some, because He allows us the choice of entering into relationship with him. You would say that God redeems only some, because He elects only some.Yes the same old same old ...

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 12:29 PM
And I did not say that the choice of Jacob was about "only the blood line through which the Christ would come" ... did I?


And I didn't say that either did I?


But I did write a lot more in that post ... like ...

As I have said I agree with a lot of what you posted. I do not see that God's reasons for choosing/electing some and not all are revealed. Humbling them so no one can boast can be a reason, but is it the only one?

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 12:32 PM
As I have said I agree with a lot of what you posted. I do not see that God's reasons for choosing/electing some and not all are revealed. Humbling them so no one can boast can be a reason, but is it the only one?
1 Corinthians 1:26-29

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 12:44 PM
Yes. I say that God gave His all to save the elect and all of them are saved. To me it is greater than a God who asked this of His Son and them let it be wasted by the choice of man. To me that does not make sense and is in fact belittling God for me or making Him unfair towards His Son. Not that the death of Christ was not unfair to Him. Jesus' blood was not shed in vain, not one drop, all of it was effectual for whom it was shed. The Father knew who are His and He gave them to the Son.

Unfair? Interesting use of words. Is it unfair if the Son did what He did, in full knowledge of what it would mean? And is it 'in vain' if someone accepts, and another rejects? That is one of the risks of relationship, isn't it -- rejection (or is the election of a few merely some form of divine insulation)?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 01:27 PM
Unfair? Interesting use of words. Is it unfair if the Son did what He did, in full knowledge of what it would mean? And is it 'in vain' if someone accepts, and another rejects? That is one of the risks of relationship, isn't it -- rejection (or is the election of a few merely some form of divine insulation)?

The Son knew what He had to do. The unfairness is of the Father then in my opinion. Still it is not how I read and understand Scripture. The Father knew exactly who the saved/elect would be. There is no rejection as He is a good Sheppard that would find all the lost sheep. Also his sheep know His voice and follows him.

IMINXTC
Mar 10th 2017, 01:37 PM
The most unnerving aspect of (hypothetically) finding myself among the elect is the realization that I was previously lost because of a universal human fall - my sin or sinfulness was not unique; being a son af Adam, I am identified with all sinners, subject to the same condemnation. But my salvation, having been sovereignly elected to the justification and glory of a child of God, is in fact unique, and based upon a standard not available to my fallen compatriots, but for a reason known only to God, who sent his Son to die only for me and a select few.

I have purposefully asked many who hold to this notion, which can only be argued from a philosophical interpretation applied to the scriptures, what makes their fallen nature, let alone their new nature, so unique. This is and has never been answered.

While my subjective and purely human concept of fairness is not, imo, the point, the appeal of the scriptures, and of Christ while on Earth is universally fair, and the same to all men.

What frustrates and puzzles me is the perennial refusal of Calvinists to see the apparent contradiction between what scripture consistently reveals concerning the attributes of God and His plan of salvation, which involves, potentially, the entire human race, lost under a singular and universal fall.

To merely invoke the sovereignty of God is unsatisfactory and is often ingenuous.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 01:56 PM
The Son knew what He had to do. The unfairness is of the Father then in my opinion. Still it is not how I read and understand Scripture. The Father knew exactly who the saved/elect would be. There is no rejection as He is a good Sheppard that would find all the lost sheep. Also his sheep know His voice and follows him.

The ever present issue, of course, is that God chooses to save some, and not all.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 01:58 PM
The most unnerving aspect of (hypothetically) finding myself among the elect is the realization that I was previously lost because of a universal human fall - my sin or sinfulness was was not unique; being a son af Adam, I am identified with all sinners, subject to the same condemnation. But my salvation, having been sovereignly elected to the justification and glory of a child of God, is in fact unique, and based upon a standard not available to to my fallen compatriots, but for a reason known only to God, who sent his Son to die only for me and a select few.

I have purposefully asked many who hold to this notion, which can only be argued from a philosophical intetpretation applied to the scriptures, what makes their fallen nature, let alone their new nature, so unique. This is and has never been answered.

While my subjective and purely human concept of fairness is not, imo, the point, the appeal of the scriptures, and of Christ while on Earth is universally fair, and the same to all men.

What frustrates and puzzles me is the perrennial refusal of Calvinists to see the apparent contradiction between what scripture consistently reveals concerning the attributes of God and His plan of salvation, which involves, potentially, the entire human race, lost under singular and universal fall.

To merely invoke the sovereignty of God is unsatisfactory and is often ingenuous.

The underlined parts are foreign to me in Scripture. (if I understood you correctly) Care to explain more?

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 01:59 PM
The ever present issue, of course, is that God chooses to save some, and not all.

Which are according to my understanding what Scripture reveals and teaches.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 02:02 PM
The ever present issue, of course, is that God chooses to save some, and not all.I see it that God chooses to elect some but not all ... :)


1 Corinthians 1:26-29

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 02:02 PM
Which are according to my understanding what Scripture reveals and teaches.

And you've been picked, or you think you've been picked?


I see it that God chooses to elect some but not all ... :)

Anything less than 'all' is a problem, assuming God picks-and-chooses. You either end up with Universalism, or a God who doesn't pick everyone for unknown reasons, even though no good reason has ever been offered as to why this 'mystery' might be the case.

Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 02:10 PM
And you've been picked, or you think you've been picked?

Not think, knows. For I have received the Spirit testifying with me that I am a child of God.

Rom 8:16* The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:*

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 02:14 PM
Not think, knows. For I have received the Spirit testifying with me that I am a child of God.

Rom 8:16* The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:*

But I know this true, just as I know your view to be wrong, so how do you know, if we both know that we know different, contradictory things?

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 02:17 PM
I see it that God chooses to elect some but not all ... :)


1 Corinthians 1:26-29

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

UR, you say? That should be Calvinism proper :P

Kalahari
Mar 10th 2017, 02:20 PM
But I know this true, just as I know your view to be wrong, so how do you know, if we both know that we know different, contradictory things?

Then proof it by Scripture and not opinion or logic. The truth will set you free.

Christinme
Mar 10th 2017, 02:21 PM
UR, you say? That should be Calvinism proper :PYep ... I do believe God chooses the elect for a purpose ... it's not primarily about their own salvation ... although their salvation is part of it ... not that this can be addressed in full here in Bible Chat ... I do also believe in synergism ...

Athanasius
Mar 10th 2017, 02:22 PM
Then proof it by Scripture and not opinion or logic. The truth will set you free.

I'm relying 100% on Scripture, just as you are, so how do we know who is right, and who is wrong? I do enjoy a good epistemic problem.


Yep ... I do believe God chooses the elect for a purpose ... it's not primarily about their own salvation ... although their salvation is part of it ... not that this can be addressed in full here in Bible Chat ... I do also believe in synergism ...

Well aren't you a proper Pelegian to the nth degree of heresy ;) I bet you read Origen too, or maybe Marcion!