PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone be saved? Do some have no chance?



Pages : [1] 2

BSC
May 7th 2007, 08:44 PM
I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)

skc53
May 7th 2007, 08:58 PM
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Anyone can be saved as long as they realize they are a sinner, and that they believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and asked Jesus to come into their heart and life and ask him to forgive them of their sins.:pray: God gave us the choice to accept or reject him. He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, because he loves us so much. At the same time he won't force anyone to accept him or reject him, that's why he gives a person the free will, to accept or reject him. I can't imagine life without Jesus! Praise the Lord, thank you Jesus!

mikebr
May 7th 2007, 09:10 PM
If salvation is by chance then some have no chance. However it is not by chance.

th1bill
May 7th 2007, 09:52 PM
I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)
It is the perfect Will of God that none should perish;
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The only question involved is will a man answer when called, most do not.

SemperReformanda
May 7th 2007, 10:11 PM
It is the perfect Will of God that none should perish;
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The only question involved is will a man answer when called, most do not.

With respect, the context of that verse is written to the church; ie. Christians and members of the visible church.

The Bible makes it clear that it is impossible for any men to be saved.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
(Matthew 19:25-26)

However, God makes it possible for men to be saved. God does the saving. So in effect, the answer to your question is that nobody has any chance, but anybody can be saved, but it is up to God who is and who isn't, because salvation, faith and repentance are all from God.

Dolly_Dagger
May 7th 2007, 10:34 PM
it would depend if you are calvinist or arminian (not from armenia) but im not too sure on how i stand on this yet.

SemperReformanda
May 7th 2007, 10:59 PM
it would depend if you are calvinist or arminian (not from armenia) but im not too sure on how i stand on this yet.
Well, the truth is outside of whatever label people like to put on it, and neither a Calvinist or an Arminian would deny that anybody can be saved, it's just a matter of whether God does all the saving or just most of it.

BadDog
May 8th 2007, 02:19 AM
With respect, the context of that verse [2 Peter 3:9] is written to the church; ie. Christians and members of the visible church.

The Bible makes it clear that it is impossible for any men to be saved.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
(Matthew 19:25-26)

However, God makes it possible for men to be saved. God does the saving. So in effect, the answer to your question is that nobody has any chance, but anybody can be saved, but it is up to God who is and who isn't, because salvation, faith and repentance are all from God.Yes, I agree that this was written to the church. And, the context is regarding the Lord's soon return. But the explanation by Peter regarding the "delay" in the Lord's return has to do with the Lord wanting as many as possible to gain eternal life, so it is applicable to this question, IMO.

It says that the Lord is not "willing" (Gk - MH BOLOMENW - "to be willing, to intend, to desire, to plan, to want, to wish") that anyone should perish.

You are clearly Reformed, and I like how you expressed it as none has a chance, but anybody can be saved... it's up to God.

I agree. But I also believe just as firmly that it is also up to the person as well. That is not a conflict, IMO. Yes, God chooses. But man MUST respond to the gospel. He must trust in Christ. Now let's not go down the ordo salutis path (order of salvation), because that will probably just detract from the intent of this thread.

IMO unless God calls us no one will be saved. Yet it is our duty to respond to the gospel in faith, and He has enabled us to respond in faith. God must work to enable us to do so, but we do genuinely trust Christ. That is clear from all the appeals in scripture for us to do so. Why would God appeal to us to do something that we could not do? ...that He only anabled the elect to do? Makes no sense, as I see it.

So with respect to BSC's question, I believe that both are fully true. From man's perspective, he can "choose" Christ. But from God's perspective, God chooses us - first. :P

BD

BadDog
May 8th 2007, 02:27 AM
Well, the truth is outside of whatever label people like to put on it, and neither a Calvinist or an Arminian would deny that anybody can be saved, it's just a matter of whether God does all the saving or just most of it.I agree that God does ALL of the saving, yet I do not think that Arminians would disagree with that at all. But they would say that man CAN respond in faith. And I would say that this is not a work to do so at all. What one is doing when one responds in faith is acknowledging that he/she needs help - that they cannot save themselves. Faith is by nature a recognition of our helplessness. Trusting is by nature the opposite of working.

We are not saved by calling on God, or praying a prayer, but by calling on the only One who can save us to do so. It's in essence saying, "I give up. I cannot do it. Will You save me, Lord?" Revelations 3 makes that clear:

Revelations 3:17, 20 Because you say, 'I'm rich; I have become wealthy, and need nothing,' and you don't know that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked,

(True faith acknowledges our helpless condition.)

Listen! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and have dinner with him, and he with Me.

To cry out, "Save me!" is not a work. It is by its very nature the opposite of working. It is acknowledging that we cannot save ourselves, and relying completely upon Him to save us. That is faith.

BD

SemperReformanda
May 8th 2007, 02:34 AM
Yes, I agree that this was written to the church. And, the context is regarding the Lord's soon return. But the explanation by Peter regarding the "delay" in the Lord's return has to do with the Lord wanting as many as possible to gain eternal life, so it is applicable to this question, IMO.

It says that the Lord is not "willing" (Gk - MH BOLOMENW - "to be willing, to intend, to desire, to plan, to want, to wish") that anyone should perish.
OK, I don't want to argue that one, as I don't really think that it affects the OP heaps.


I agree. But I also believe just as firmly that it is also up to the person as well. That is not a conflict, IMO. Yes, God chooses. But man MUST respond to the gospel. He must trust in Christ. Now let's not go down the ordo salutis path (order of salvation), because that will probably just detract from the intent of this thread.
Absolutely. ALL MEN will be held responsible by God on the day of judgment for their reaction to the gospel, as God has commanded that all men repent and believe.


IMO unless God calls us no one will be saved. Yet it is our duty to respond to the gospel in faith, and He has enabled us to respond in faith. God must work to enable us to do so, but we do genuinely trust Christ. That is clear from all the appeals in scripture for us to do so.
Indeed. In order for a person to be saved he must repent and trust in Christ's atoning sacrifice for sins in faith. Reformed Christianity says that man is unable to do so without first the regeneration of the heart, which comes from God, and God only.


Why would God appeal to us to do something that we could not do?
While I agree with the rest of your post, this is the only part I take issue with. God throughout the Bible commands men to do things that they are unable to do. Men, due to their fallen nature, are entirely unable to keep the whole law, and yet they are commanded to by God.


So with respect to BSC's question, I believe that both are fully true. From man's perspective, he can "choose" Christ. But from God's perspective, God chooses us - first. :P
Agreed, with one small addendum. Only the ones who are saved have been chosen. Those who remain unsaved til death show they were not chosen in the first place.

SemperReformanda
May 8th 2007, 02:38 AM
I agree that God does ALL of the saving, yet I do not think that Arminians would disagree with that at all. But they would say that man CAN respond in faith. And I would say that this is not a work to do so at all. What one is doing when one responds in faith is acknowledging that he/she needs help - that they cannot save themselves. Faith is by nature a recognition of our helplessness. Trusting is by nature the opposite of working.

We are not saved by calling on God, or praying a prayer, but by calling on the only One who can save us to do so. It's in essence saying, "I give up. I cannot so it." Revelations 3 makes that clear:

Revelations 3:17, 20 Because you say, 'I'm rich; I have become wealthy, and need nothing,' and you don't know that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked,

(True faith acknowledges our helpless condition.)

Listen! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and have dinner with him, and he with Me.

To cry out, "Save me!" is not a work. It is by its very nature the opposite of working. It is acknowledging that we cannot save ourselves, and relying completely upon Him to save us. That is faith.

BD
Well, I would say that a man cannot first trust/have faith or even will to be saved without regeneration, as the natural man cannot see the kingdom (John 3), and considers it foolishness (1 Cor 1).

HalleluYAH
May 8th 2007, 01:00 PM
It is the perfect Will of God that none should perish;
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The only question involved is will a man answer when called, most do not.

This^^^ is a good scripture to keep in mind when discovering the truth of HIS creation and purpose for HIS creation... we must also keep in mind that this letter of Peter's was/is written to "that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"... while I do firmly believe that the Most High loves all of HIS creation, and certainly HIS chosen vessles, HE is in control of who is saved and who is not.


Yahshua told us that 'none comes unto the Me unless the Father draws them.' So, if someone does not come unto the 'precious faith' in Messiah, then shall we assume the Father did not draw them?

This is a revelation I have had in recent times... I save noone... I will speak to those I am called to speak, and allow circumstance and relationship to the MOST HIGH (through HIS word, prayer, revelation etc)to consecrate me unto Himself in Messiah.

While considering this most sensitive of topics, we must also consider that HIS Word is clear that some are fitted to destruction. Some will ask why? And, the answer is quite simple and found in Romans 8:22-23. I have also included a scripture from Proverbs which lends some credence to Paul's epistle to the Romans...

I would love to hear thoughts from my brothers and sisters...


"18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" ~ Romans 9

"4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." ~ Proverbs 16

humbled
May 8th 2007, 01:19 PM
It says that the Lord is not "willing" (Gk - MH BOLOMENW - "to be willing, to intend, to desire, to plan, to want, to wish") that anyone should perish. Hey, BD :)

The greek is PAS. And it is not translated "anyone". It is translated "any". And the context determines the audience. God is longsuffering toward US ... not willing that ANY (OF US) should perish, but that ALL (OF US) should come to repentance. See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5XCbupnHA) for a better, more thorough explanation of this verse.

Peter is consistently speaking to the dispersion. The JEWS who have been scattered by the persecution. The passage isn't even speaking "down through the centuries". It's not even speaking of all men without distinction, according to the context. It is most definitely not speaking of all men without exception. Don't misunderstand me here ... we can draw something out of this verse that is timeless (namely that God won't let His sheep perish), but the immediate audience is not "everybody" - or even "all Christians".


I agree. But I also believe just as firmly that it is also up to the person as well. That is not a conflict, IMO. Yes, God chooses. But man MUST respond to the gospel. He must trust in Christ. Now let's not go down the ordo salutis path (order of salvation), because that will probably just detract from the intent of this thread. EVERYONE, by nature WILL NOT respond to the gospel. They WILL NOT trust in Christ because they HATE the Light (Jn 3:19). God must give men a new heart, which is willing (and in fact, able) to obey.


IMO unless God calls us no one will be saved. Yet it is our duty to respond to the gospel in faith, and He has enabled us to respond in faith. God must work to enable us to do so, but we do genuinely trust Christ. That is clear from all the appeals in scripture for us to do so. Why would God appeal to us to do something that we could not do? ...that He only anabled the elect to do? Makes no sense, as I see it.First of all, God does not "appeal" to men. He COMMANDS ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent (Acts 17:30). And logic dictates that a command does not indicate ability. To express ability, one must use the indicative mood of a verb. And what is used in God's commands is the imperative mood. The imperative mood, by definition, is a command.

You are teaching that some men will "make the right choice" and some will not. There is just no biblical ground for such a conclusion. NONE make the "right" choice! They have ALL gone astray. EVERYONE has rejected God. Romans 1 declares that men reject Him through nature, and Romans 3 declares that men reject Him through righteousness. The only chance men have is GRACE.

(To the OP) But never question your salvation. Any who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And faith that works is solid proof of the genuineness of your call.

BSC
May 8th 2007, 03:04 PM
(To the OP) But never question your salvation. Any who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And faith that works is solid proof of the genuineness of your call.

Faith that works? What do you mean?

humbled
May 8th 2007, 03:18 PM
Faith that works? What do you mean?I mean exactly what James talks about in his letter :)

James 1:21-27
21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

James 2:14-20
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
19 You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Faith alone -- basic belief alone -- does not save us. Many people believe in many things. But it is the "right kind" of faith ... faith that works, faith that obeys God, which is PROOF of the genuineness of your salvation.

Many people "say" they believe that Jesus is Lord, but they have no real evidence to substantiate that claim. They are in name only Christians. They have no real claim to salvation because they aren't born again! True salvation is evidenced by fruit. And only those who abide in the True Vine will produce fruit. See John 15 :)

BTW, it isn't saying that you have to work to be saved. It is saying that if you really ARE saved, you will perform good works because that is what God has ordained for you.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It is an INWARD transformation, not an outward exertion.

I hope that helps.

God bless

HalleluYAH
May 8th 2007, 03:28 PM
BTW, it isn't saying that you have to work to be saved. It is saying that if you really ARE saved, you will perform good works because that is what God has ordained for you.
Agreed.

(Note: I think he was questioning your typo in the last post ;))

BSC
May 8th 2007, 03:29 PM
I mean exactly what James talks about in his letter :)

Faith alone -- basic belief alone -- does not save us. Many people believe in many things. But it is the "right kind" of faith ... faith that works, faith that obeys God, which is PROOF of the genuineness of your salvation.

Many people "say" they believe that Jesus is Lord, but they have no real evidence to substantiate that claim. They are in name only Christians. They have no real claim to salvation because they aren't born again! True salvation is evidenced by fruit. And only those who abide in the True Vine will produce fruit. See John 15 :)

BTW, it isn't saying that you have to work to be saved. It is saying that if you really ARE saved, you will perform good works because that is what God has ordained for you.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It is an INWARD transformation, not an outward exertion.

I hope that helps.

God bless


And what are "works"? Are works trying not to sin? Being good to people?

humbled
May 8th 2007, 03:43 PM
And what are "works"? Are works trying not to sin? Being good to people?Yes :)

The "work" of God is also that you believe on Him whom He has sent

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

The rest comes naturally .. because we are made into new creations. You will find that you hate your sin more and more ... and as a result, you sin less and less.

You will find a love for the brethren, and a love for God.

You will find you want to do GOOD rather than EVIL.

All in all, you will obey the Law of LOVE in that you will love God and your neighbor. Because that is the fulfillment of the Law of God.

Grace to you :)

HalleluYAH
May 8th 2007, 03:43 PM
And what are "works"? Are works trying not to sin? Being good to people?
Works that demonstrate a faith in, and are geniuinly 'borne-of' faith.

Works in and of themselves mean nothing... faith is everything... and works born of faith have eternal value.

HalleluYAH
May 8th 2007, 03:45 PM
Yes :)

The "work" of God is also that you believe on Him whom He has sent

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

The rest comes naturally .. because we are made into new creations. You will find that you hate your sin more and more ... and as a result, you sin less and less.

You will find a love for the brethren, and a love for God.

You will find you want to do GOOD rather than EVIL.

All in all, you will obey the Law of LOVE in that you will love God and your neighbor. Because that is the fulfillment of the Law of God.

Grace to you :)
Truth!

Glory halleluYAH!

BadDog
May 10th 2007, 04:27 AM
Absolutely. ALL MEN will be held responsible by God on the day of judgment for their reaction to the gospel, as God has commanded that all men repent and believe.
SR,

Don't have much time, so I'll have to be very brief (for me - :D )...

METANOEW is to "change the mind/heart/attitude" - typically with respect to sin... it does not mean to "turn from sin." The focus is on the heart and mind. As such, I see "repentance" as a recognition that I cannot save myself. It is a necessary precursor to faith. But it is not a work. You may not agree there.


Indeed. In order for a person to be saved he must repent and trust in Christ's atoning sacrifice for sins in faith. Reformed Christianity says that man is unable to do so without first the regeneration of the heart, which comes from God, and God only.
SR,

Again, as I see METANOEW/METANOIA repentance is not how we are saved, nor is it required (except in the sense that unless I biblically have a repentant heart I will not trust in Christ). John's gospel never uses the word in either verb or noun form, yet it is the only book in the Bible that specifically says it was written IOT save people. The focus of our gospel needs to be on Christ, and our response in faith.

Also, there is such confusion to repentance, that I suggest we not use it when witnessing. Obviouslty a person needs to recognize he is a sinner. But we do not want to cause confusion and a understanding (false) that they must DO something - that changing their life (turning over a new leaf) is how, or part of how, they are saved. That turns the gospel inot one focused on works - ugh.


While I agree with the rest of your post, this is the only part I take issue with. God throughout the Bible commands men to do things that they are unable to do. Men, due to their fallen nature, are entirely unable to keep the whole law, and yet they are commanded to by God.
I understand your thinking this way. However, thenature of the appeals in the NT make it clear that those appealed to are able to respond in faith. Faith is by nature not a work. It is the opposite of working.

To say that we must be regenerated before we can trust in Christ has God believing for us and trusting Christ in our behalf. I would express it as "God must draw us to Himself." I cannot have victory over sin unless I have been regenerated - granted - but that does not mean I cannot say "helpppp!" :P That is the biblical response to the gospel.


Agreed, with one small addendum. Only the ones who are saved have been chosen. Those who remain unsaved til death show they were not chosen in the first place.
SR,

Agreed. God does choose us. If He had not done so, we would not trust in Him. And His choosing of us is not based on ANYTHING about ourselves - even a foreknowledge that we would trust in His Son.

But we do choose Him as well - we respond in faith. I won't go down the path of the ordo salutis... But I refer to myself as a "moderate calvinist." I think you might see why now.

Take care (sorry about the slow response),

BD

BadDog
May 10th 2007, 04:37 AM
Hey, BD :)

The greek is PAS. And it is not translated "anyone". It is translated "any". And the context determines the audience. God is longsuffering toward US ... not willing that ANY (OF US) should perish, but that ALL (OF US) should come to repentance. See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5XCbupnHA) for a better, more thorough explanation of this verse.
It is used often to refer to "anyone" - to refer to people - I disagree. Basic Greek grammars acknowledge this.

And the context is not "any of us" but just "any."

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Clearly God is waiting so that more can respond to the gospel. The any is not referring to "any of you." The earlier (and later) context is one of referring to unbelievers who will perish when they face judgment.


Peter is consistently speaking to the dispersion. The JEWS who have been scattered by the persecution. The passage isn't even speaking "down through the centuries". It's not even speaking of all men without distinction, according to the context. It is most definitely not speaking of all men without exception. Don't misunderstand me here ... we can draw something out of this verse that is timeless (namely that God won't let His sheep perish), but the immediate audience is not "everybody" - or even "all Christians".
Again I cannot agree:

3:5-7 They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. 6 Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Now of course this is written to Christians. But Peter is explaining why Christ has not already returned for them: He is waiting for more (unsaved) to come into the kingdom.


EVERYONE, by nature WILL NOT respond to the gospel. They WILL NOT trust in Christ because they HATE the Light (Jn 3:19). God must give men a new heart, which is willing (and in fact, able) to obey.

First of all, God does not "appeal" to men. He COMMANDS ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent (Acts 17:30). And logic dictates that a command does not indicate ability. To express ability, one must use the indicative mood of a verb. And what is used in God's commands is the imperative mood. The imperative mood, by definition, is a command.

You are teaching that some men will "make the right choice" and some will not. There is just no biblical ground for such a conclusion. NONE make the "right" choice! They have ALL gone astray. EVERYONE has rejected God. Romans 1 declares that men reject Him through nature, and Romans 3 declares that men reject Him through righteousness. The only chance men have is GRACE.

(To the OP) But never question your salvation. Any who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And faith that works is solid proof of the genuineness of your call.

That new heart is given as a result of trusting in Christ.

BD

BadDog
May 10th 2007, 04:40 AM
Well, I would say that a man cannot first trust/have faith or even will to be saved without regeneration, as the natural man cannot see the kingdom (John 3), and considers it foolishness (1 Cor 1).
I recognize this Reformed position. However, can it be biblically supported? Faith is simply a cry for help. It recognizes that we cannot save ourselves.

To "see" the kingdom of God does not mean that we cannot even respond to the appeal. All of Christ's parables regarding the kingdom make this clear. It is simply a way of saying that unless someone is born again he will never enter the kingdom.

BD

SemperReformanda
May 10th 2007, 04:55 AM
That new heart is given as a result of trusting in Christ.
Chapter and verse?

SemperReformanda
May 10th 2007, 05:00 AM
I recognize this Reformed position. However, can it be biblically supported? Faith is simply a cry for help. It recognizes that we cannot save ourselves.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(Ephesians 2:8)

Faith is a gift of God. Do you want me to get into καὶ τοῦτο in the Greek? ;)

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
(2 Timothy 2:24-26)

Repentence is a gift.


To "see" the kingdom of God does not mean that we cannot even respond to the appeal. All of Christ's parables regarding the kingdom make this clear. It is simply a way of saying that unless someone is born again he will never enter the kingdom.
So, you cannot see the Kingdom until after you are a Christian?


Also, another question. I take it that you see that faith is a good thing. Are all good things gifts from God, or just everything apart from faith?

Realist1981
May 10th 2007, 07:48 AM
To the Original Poster
I think it is best to go to Forum Called "The Arena"
There are over a thousand replies to this issue right on the front page labeled Calvinism part 1,2,3,4,5

I dont think you can reply to them but they are archieved

Christian Holzman
May 10th 2007, 02:55 PM
I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)

anyone can be saved. "Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe".

humbled
May 10th 2007, 03:28 PM
anyone can be saved. "Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe".You have not properly quoted that verse, nor have you properly interpreted it.
1 Tim 4:1-10
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
6 In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
7 But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;
8 for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
9 It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.
10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Very briefly: The context is false teaching, and that is exactly what it being spoken of here. It is not a mention of eternal salvation. It is a mention of deliverance (or being saved from) false teaching.

And what it says is that all men who are saved from false teaching are saved by God. ESPECIALLY believers.

It just makes no sense to say "God saves in an eternal sense all men especially believers" ... to place the phrase "especially believers" there when that is exactly what being eternally saved entails, is just redundant, and unnecessary, and makes the passage clumsy because there is no mention of sin or the gospel or the cross.

It also does not say Jesus Christ is the savior of all men ... it says "the living God" ... and no, I am not denying the deity of Christ.

humbled
May 10th 2007, 03:44 PM
It is used often to refer to "anyone" - to refer to people - I disagree. Basic Greek grammars acknowledge this.

And the context is not "any of us" but just "any."

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Clearly God is waiting so that more can respond to the gospel. The any is not referring to "any of you." The earlier (and later) context is one of referring to unbelievers who will perish when they face judgment.The context is determined by the audience. Peter says it in the very verse!

Your way: God is patient WITH YOU, not wanting anyone in the world to perish ...???

What's the point in saying patient with you?

It is a very awkward way to see that passage, I must say. Did you happen to watch the video I linked to? It does a much better job of explaining it than I do.


Again I cannot agree:

3:5-7 They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. 6 Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Now of course this is written to Christians. But Peter is explaining why Christ has not already returned for them: He is waiting for more (unsaved) to come into the kingdom.
Where does it say that? The only reference to ungodly men here is their destruction! Not their repentance. The repentance is toward the elect of God, or those who receive a faith as the apostle had done. Since I firmly believe that regeneration precedes faith, and faith leads to repentance, and repentance leads to salvation, I believe that Peter is saying that God is patient toward all who receive faith, that they will all come to repentance .. God does not want THEM to perish. Because if He didn't want the ungodly men in v7 to perish, then what is that verse talking about? He DOESN'T want them to perish, but the heavens and earth are being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of them? So God's patience has limits, then?

No, no. God is patient toward the faithful, waiting for their repentance WHICH WILL COME.

That new heart is given as a result of trusting in Christ.

BDAs SemperReformanda requested ... chapter and verse?

RogerW
May 10th 2007, 04:41 PM
In the verses preceding 1Ti 4:9 the Apostle Paul condemns the natural tendency to seek holiness and to worship God through some outward show, services, ceremonies, or the abstaining of certain foods or certain days, and denying certain normal human needs. Paul says that outward religious forms, exercises and duties are of little profit. What matters is internal godliness, faith, love, humility, praise, and thanksgiving are profitable in all things spiritual, emotional and physical.

Paul begins vs. 9 with “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.” With a view to the truth that Christ is our righteousness, and we are only complete when we are in Him had you ever considered looking at this passage from this perspective?

True godliness does not consist in food, drink, ceremonies, days and denial of days, but in union with Christ, which produces inward spirituality and holiness; like Paul we are willing to endure labor and suffer reproach, hardship, imprisonment, hunger, nakedness and because we trust in the living God, Who is the Deliverer, Provider and Maintainer of mankind.

Providentially God gives mankind breath, food, blessings and common mercies, but He especially cares for His own! There is a general providence, which includes all mankind, and there is a special providence which relates only to the elect of God. I don’t believe the word “Savior” here is to be used for what we call its strict meaning in regard to eternal salvation, but is used for the one who delivers and protects in a general way, or an all inclusive way (“for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”). Even unbelievers are protected by God. In this sense He is Savior of humanity, not in regard to the spiritual salvation of their souls, but because He providentially oversees (orchestrates) His creatures (creation). His goodness extends even to the wicked, but especially to those who believe.

RW

humbled
May 10th 2007, 04:44 PM
In the verses preceding 1Ti 4:9 the Apostle Paul condemns the natural tendency to seek holiness and to worship God through some outward show, services, ceremonies, or the abstaining of certain foods or certain days, and denying certain normal human needs. Paul says that outward religious forms, exercises and duties are of little profit. What matters is internal godliness, faith, love, humility, praise, and thanksgiving are profitable in all things spiritual, emotional and physical.

Paul begins vs. 9 with “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.” With a view to the truth that Christ is our righteousness, and we are only complete when we are in Him had you ever considered looking at this passage from this perspective?

True godliness does not consist in food, drink, ceremonies, days and denial of days, but in union with Christ, which produces inward spirituality and holiness; like Paul we are willing to endure labor and suffer reproach, hardship, imprisonment, hunger, nakedness and because we trust in the living God, Who is the Deliverer, Provider and Maintainer of mankind.

Providentially God gives mankind breath, food, blessings and common mercies, but He especially cares for His own! There is a general providence, which includes all mankind, and there is a special providence which relates only to the elect of God. I don’t believe the word “Savior” here is to be used for what we call its strict meaning in regard to eternal salvation, but is used for the one who delivers and protects in a general way, or an all inclusive way (“for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”). Even unbelievers are protected by God. In this sense He is Savior of humanity, not in regard to the spiritual salvation of their souls, but because He providentially oversees (orchestrates) His creatures (creation). His goodness extends even to the wicked, but especially to those who believe.

RW
You explained it better than I did, brother :)

Pilgrimtozion
May 10th 2007, 04:58 PM
In the verses preceding 1Ti 4:9 the Apostle Paul condemns the natural tendency to seek holiness and to worship God through some outward show, services, ceremonies, or the abstaining of certain foods or certain days, and denying certain normal human needs. Paul says that outward religious forms, exercises and duties are of little profit. What matters is internal godliness, faith, love, humility, praise, and thanksgiving are profitable in all things spiritual, emotional and physical.

Paul begins vs. 9 with “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.” With a view to the truth that Christ is our righteousness, and we are only complete when we are in Him had you ever considered looking at this passage from this perspective?

True godliness does not consist in food, drink, ceremonies, days and denial of days, but in union with Christ, which produces inward spirituality and holiness; like Paul we are willing to endure labor and suffer reproach, hardship, imprisonment, hunger, nakedness and because we trust in the living God, Who is the Deliverer, Provider and Maintainer of mankind.

Providentially God gives mankind breath, food, blessings and common mercies, but He especially cares for His own! There is a general providence, which includes all mankind, and there is a special providence which relates only to the elect of God. I don’t believe the word “Savior” here is to be used for what we call its strict meaning in regard to eternal salvation, but is used for the one who delivers and protects in a general way, or an all inclusive way (“for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”). Even unbelievers are protected by God. In this sense He is Savior of humanity, not in regard to the spiritual salvation of their souls, but because He providentially oversees (orchestrates) His creatures (creation). His goodness extends even to the wicked, but especially to those who believe.

RW

Interesting interpretation, especially in light of the fact that the word Savior in the New Testament in the context of Christ is exclusively used to describe Jesus saving people from sin. Mentioning all the Scriptures where the word 'sotèr' is used in the NT would create too long of a list, but let it suffice to say that it is clear from those Scriptures that the word 'Savior' refers to Jesus' role with regards to saving people from sin, hell, and eternal death.

I understand the hesitation when interpreting this verse. But I do not consider it hermeneutically justified to interpret it the way you do; this is eisegesis in my opinion. I would take the Scripture to say exactly what it says: Jesus is the Savior of all mankind - and He is; they just need to receive it. Again, making this Scripture say anything else comes dangerously close to eisegesis.

humbled
May 10th 2007, 05:22 PM
Interesting interpretation, especially in light of the fact that the word Savior in the New Testament in the context of Christ is exclusively used to describe Jesus saving people from sin. Mentioning all the Scriptures where the word 'sotèr' is used in the NT would create too long of a list, but let it suffice to say that it is clear from those Scriptures that the word 'Savior' refers to Jesus' role with regards to saving people from sin, hell, and eternal death.

I understand the hesitation when interpreting this verse. But I do not consider it hermeneutically justified to interpret it the way you do; this is eisegesis in my opinion. I would take the Scripture to say exactly what it says: Jesus is the Savior of all mankind - and He is; they just need to receive it. Again, making this Scripture say anything else comes dangerously close to eisegesis.That's just the thing, PTZ, the word soter means exactly this: deliverer, savior, preserver (G4990 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=4&verse=10&strongs=4990&page=))

That's it! It doesn't mean "savior of the soul" or "eternal savior" or even "Jesus is savior". It is a common greek word that means an ordinary thing ... the context determines how the word is seen. And the context of 1 Tim 4 is not "eternal salvation". It just is not. You say that RogerW has performed eisegesis ... how so? Would you mind showing me where exactly the gospel is presented in this chapter? Would you mind explaining to me where the eternal destiny of man is shown here? Please don't attempt to use verse 8 to show this because that is not speaking of any type of salvation. It is a simple statement of fact about the life to come.

And here is an interesting fact about that greek word:


The name was given by the ancients to deities, esp. tutelary deities, to princes, kings, and in general to men who had conferred signal benefits upon their country, and in more degenerate days by the way of flattery to personages of influence


And another thing ... that verse does not say JESUS is the Savior of all men ...

It says ..."the living God, who is the savior of all men, especially believers."

And that makes a lot of difference here.

And again, I am not denying the deity of Christ.

humbled
May 10th 2007, 05:30 PM
I'm sorry, BSC ... it seems your thread has been hijacked :lol:

Has your question been answered? Or are you just more confused now? :huh:

Let's try to get :OFFT:

I'm feelin' a bit smiley this morning :P

... and a bit :crazy:

:rofl:

God bless :pray: :saint: :spin:

BadDog
May 10th 2007, 06:33 PM
That new heart is given as a result of trusting in Christ

Chapter and verse?
:D Always a good question to ask. I usually give more than the person cares to wade through, but I am extremely buzy these days.

I should say that we are regenerated as a result of trusting in Christ.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Clearly our hearts can be open to the gospel. We cna choose not to close our eyes to the message.

Matthew 13:19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

This text is Jesus' explanation of the seed sown on the path in the Parable of the Sower. It isclear that when the seed is sown i nthe heart, the person can respond, if Satan does not snatch away the message. It can germanate. This entire parable is regarding the sort of heart that people have: one that responds to the messgae, or one that hardens to it.

After the Parable of the Sower (seeds) Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Clearly some can hear and wil lrespond to the gospel... those who do not cover their ears to the message.

Luke 8:11, 12 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

AGain, Satan can snatch the word sown in a person's heart so that he does not become moved to respond in faith. I am not denying the Spirit's place in it all. I am affirming it. Unless God works, we will not believe. But our heart, though wicked, can respond and say, "Help! I admit - I am a sinner. Save me." That is not a work. It is the opposite of working. It is giving up and turning to God to save us instead. We can do this.

Acts 2:36-41 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Peter replied, "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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Clearly these unbelieving Jews were impacted by Peter's message. They "accepted his [Peter's] message."


Acts 16:13-15 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house."

And she persuaded us.

Here we see a woman, whose heart was moved by the Lord so that she believed the message preached by Paul. It does not say that God gave her a new heart. It does not say that God regenerated her and then sher believed. It says simply that she heard the message of the gospel, and believed. If you read it in a straightforward, how else can this be interpreted?


Acts 28:27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Now isn't it clear that if they did not close their eyes to the gospel truth that they might "hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn"?

Romans 10:8-11 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Choice is so clear here. They hear the "word of faith" - meaning a message that needs to be believed IOT be saved.

Ephesians 1:16-19a I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Here Paul is writing to the Christians in Ephesus, telling us what he is praying for them regarding their heart. This is sometimes misused by Calvinists to teach that God changes our heart and then we believe. But this is written to believers. The folowing text is also used to teach this, but it is also clearly written to believers...

Hebrews 10:19-24 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

We can respond to the gospel message. As a result, we are regenerated. Why would Peter appeal to the Jews in Jerusalem to "save yourselves from thsi perverse generation"?

That's how I see it. But I do want to try to keep from going down the "order of salvation" path.

BD

RogerW
May 10th 2007, 09:52 PM
:D Always a good question to ask. I usually give more than the person cares to wade through, but I am extremely buzy these days.

I should say that we are regenerated as a result of trusting in Christ.

Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Clearly our hearts can be open to the gospel. We cna choose not to close our eyes to the message.

Matthew 13:19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

This text is Jesus' explanation of the seed sown on the path in the Parable of the Sower. It isclear that when the seed is sown i nthe heart, the person can respond, if Satan does not snatch away the message. It can germanate. This entire parable is regarding the sort of heart that people have: one that responds to the messgae, or one that hardens to it.

After the Parable of the Sower (seeds) Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Clearly some can hear and wil lrespond to the gospel... those who do not cover their ears to the message.

Luke 8:11, 12 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

AGain, Satan can snatch the word sown in a person's heart so that he does not become moved to respond in faith. I am not denying the Spirit's place in it all. I am affirming it. Unless God works, we will not believe. But our heart, though wicked, can respond and say, "Help! I admit - I am a sinner. Save me." That is not a work. It is the opposite of working. It is giving up and turning to God to save us instead. We can do this.

Acts 2:36-41 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

Peter replied, "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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Clearly these unbelieving Jews were impacted by Peter's message. They "accepted his [Peter's] message."


Acts 16:13-15 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house."

And she persuaded us.

Here we see a woman, whose heart was moved by the Lord so that she believed the message preached by Paul. It does not say that God gave her a new heart. It does not say that God regenerated her and then sher believed. It says simply that she heard the message of the gospel, and believed. If you read it in a straightforward, how else can this be interpreted?


Acts 28:27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Now isn't it clear that if they did not close their eyes to the gospel truth that they might "hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn"?

Romans 10:8-11 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Choice is so clear here. They hear the "word of faith" - meaning a message that needs to be believed IOT be saved.

Ephesians 1:16-19a I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Here Paul is writing to the Christians in Ephesus, telling us what he is praying for them regarding their heart. This is sometimes misused by Calvinists to teach that God changes our heart and then we believe. But this is written to believers. The folowing text is also used to teach this, but it is also clearly written to believers...

Hebrews 10:19-24 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

We can respond to the gospel message. As a result, we are regenerated. Why would Peter appeal to the Jews in Jerusalem to "save yourselves from thsi perverse generation"?

That's how I see it. But I do want to try to keep from going down the "order of salvation" path.
BD

After the parable Jesus states who hath ears, let him hear. Then the disciples ask Jesus why He speaks to them (the crowds) in parables? Jesus tells them that it is because they have NOT been given ears to hear, and eyes to see. Christ says it is fulfillment of prophesy that the Jews will hear and see, but they will not understand, they will NOT receive, and they will NOT be converted. The reason for this is because they have no part in the ROOT, Christ Jesus. He says that unless one abides in Him, and He in them they can do nothing. The Jews failed to see the ROOT which came out of Jesse, and did not realize that they do not bear the ROOT, but the ROOT them. Who will have ears to hear?

Mt 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mt 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Mt 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Mt 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Mt 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mt 13:21 Yet hath he no root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Ro 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Ro 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

On the day of Pentecost the unbelieving Jews were pricked in the heart because they had heard the call from the Lord to repent and be saved. Unless the Lord had first opened up their ears to hear they would have remained like those Christ spoke to in parables.

… “as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

The same is true of Lydia, “which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened. Had the Lord not first opened her heart to receive the message, then she would NOT have been able to believe.
When Paul expounded the kingdom of God while imprisoned in Rome, those whose ears, and eyes were closed was not through their own choice. This was fulfillment of prophesy by Esaias the prophet. They could not respond even if they had desired to because God had closed their ears and eyes, and as a result of this hardening the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles and they will hear it.

Ac 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Ac 28:24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
Ac 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto out fathers,
Ac 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Ac 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Ac 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

In Romans 10 I don’t find a clear choice to unbelieving Israel to hear the word with faith and believe. I find Paul praying to God for Israel that they might be saved because according to Paul they have a zeal for God, but not according to true knowledge. Paul says they (Israel) is ignorant of the righteousness of God, and tries to establish their own righteousness, and refuses to submit to Christ, Who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. But they cannot, not will not, but cannot believe.

Ro 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Ro 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

According to the words of Paul Israel seeks after righteousness, and does not obtain it. They seek, but do not obtain? But the elect remnant obtains grace, and the rest are blinded that they may not see, and their backs are bowed down ALWAY. So there really isn’t a clear choice in the passage in Ro 10 unless we read the passage out of context.

Ro 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Ro 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Ro 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
Ro 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes theat they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Ro 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Ro 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

Yes, Paul is writing to believers in Ephesus. Paul shows us how we become believers. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world, and predestinated us unto the adoption by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will, and He has made us accepted in the beloved, and given us redemption through His blood, and forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace. He has made known unto us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Himself. His own have obtained this inheritance through predestination, and election according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will enabling His elect to trust in Christ. If we are not predestined to believe, chosen to be holy, and without blame then we, like the nation cannot believe.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

“Why would Peter appeal to the Jews in Jerusalem to “save yourselves from this perverse generation”?” For the same reason Christ commands all men to believe. Christ tells us, “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” But Christ also tells us there are none who can believe, “There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” We’re called to believe, and yet we cannot believe, so what is the answer to this dilemma?

RW

BadDog
May 12th 2007, 12:57 AM
After the parable Jesus states who hath ears, let him hear. Then the disciples ask Jesus why He speaks to them (the crowds) in parables? Jesus tells them that it is because they have NOT been given ears to hear, and eyes to see. Christ says it is fulfillment of prophesy that the Jews will hear and see, but they will not understand, they will NOT receive, and they will NOT be converted. The reason for this is because they have no part in the ROOT, Christ Jesus. He says that unless one abides in Him, and He in them they can do nothing. The Jews failed to see the ROOT which came out of Jesse, and did not realize that they do not bear the ROOT, but the ROOT them. Who will have ears to hear?

RogerW,

What Jesus is saying regarding these Jews is that they are closing their ears to the truth. He is not saying that they are not of the elect:

Matthew 13:14-16 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. For this people's heart has grown callous; their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn back--and I would cure them. "But your eyes are blessed because they do see, and your ears because they do hear!


“Why would Peter appeal to the Jews in Jerusalem to “save yourselves from this perverse generation”?” For the same reason Christ commands all men to believe. Christ tells us, “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.” But Christ also tells us there are none who can believe, “There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” We’re called to believe, and yet we cannot believe, so what is the answer to this dilemma?

RW
Roger,

I do not agree. We are required to believe IOT be saved, and Yes, we can indeed believe. Christ does not tell us that there are none who believe, nor does Paul in Romans 3. Paul says that none will seek Him without God's involvement, and I agree with that. Chapter-verse?

In John 15, abiding in Christ is something for believers (already saved) to do. That story has nothing to do with the gospel.

Romans 10:13-17 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him?
And how can they hear without a preacher?
And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! But all did not obey the gospel.

For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message?

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.

Faith comes through hearing the gospel. Paul said the same thing...

1 Corinthians 1:17-24 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect. For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God's power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made the world's wisdom foolish? For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom

We are saved simply by listening to the foolishness of the gospel, and responding in faith. Paul assumes that those who do not close their ears to the gospel and turn up their noses to the gospel that they may believe the gospel.

Hebrews 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.

The author of Hebrews assumes that we can draw near to God and seek Him. In the following text Paul contrasts the one who tries to reach Christ through works vs. one who approaches through faith. Faith is the opposite of works:

Romans 3:26-28 He presented Him to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, on the contrary, by a law of faith. For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Salvation is a gift. Not faith. Faith is our response - one of trusting in Christ's work in our behalf. That is contrasted with trying to be declared to be righteous (justified) by our own efforts. When someone says that faith is a gift, they demonstrate that they do not really understand what it means to believe. Because such a statement is not logical.

Salvation is a gift. Eternal life is a gift. God is at work in our lives/hearts or we would not believe - I agree there. But we CAN believe. We CAN respond to the gospel.

BD

BadDog
May 12th 2007, 01:04 AM
humbled is concerned about whether this thread is getting hijacked. Yet if we look at the original OP, we'll see that we are still on track, IMO:

BSC's OP: Can anyone be saved? Do some have no chance?

I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning.



I listed this so that we would remain on track. BSC is wondering if those who are not called (non elect) have an option to be saved. My response is that "yes," they do. But we know that they will not respond to the gospel with faith.

My response is that God does choose who will trust in Him and be saved. That cannot be denied. Yet it is also true, from man's perspective, that we have a choice. Let's not try to be God. Let's be satisfied with looking at things from man's perspective, and accept God's perspective as fact, which is difficult to understand fully from our perspective, but fact still and not contradictory to our ability and requirement of faith.

If man cannot believe the gospel until God regnerates him, then the answer to the OP is "NO," some will never have an opportunity to be saved.

Now I believe that there is much of value in the Reformed position regarding our salvation. But it has gone too far - beyond scripture (IMO) - in places. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Some who are Reformed here do not agree fully with me. But please understand: I do have much respect for the Reformed position - I just do not see it exactly the same. And BSC's question is a good one. He is essentially asking if God is being unfair, or if we need not bother in sharing the gospel. When we allow things to get a bit off-kilter, such questions are natural. But we can relax" God knows what He is doing!

BD

RogerW
May 12th 2007, 02:34 AM
RogerW,
What Jesus is saying regarding these Jews is that they are closing their ears to the truth. He is not saying that they are not of the elect:

Matthew 13:14-16 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. For this people's heart has grown callous; their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn back--and I would cure them. "But your eyes are blessed because they do see, and your ears because they do hear!


What does Christ mean when He says, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." ? How can one believe and be saved if they are not given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven?



Roger,
I do not agree. We are required to believe IOT be saved, and Yes, we can indeed believe. Christ does not tell us that there are none who believe, nor does Paul in Romans 3. Paul says that none will seek Him without God's involvement, and I agree with that. Chapter-verse?

If none will seek Him, how then can they believe?



In John 15, abiding in Christ is something for believers (already saved) to do. That story has nothing to do with the gospel.

Why were they saved? Was it something they did (believe) or were they saved because they were chosen for salvation? If they had not first been chosen, could they have believed?

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



Romans 10:13-17 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him?
And how can they hear without a preacher?
And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! But all did not obey the gospel.

For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message?

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.

Faith comes through hearing the gospel. Paul said the same thing...


So why is it that Israel did NOT receive faith to believe? They heard, but they could not believe because they had no faith, but Scripture tells us that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Why didn't they receive faith to believe when they heard the gospel?

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Ro 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Ro 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.



1 Corinthians 1:17-24 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect. For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God's power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made the world's wisdom foolish? For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom

We are saved simply by listening to the foolishness of the gospel, and responding in faith. Paul assumes that those who do not close their ears to the gospel and turn up their noses to the gospel that they may believe the gospel.

From where does this response in faith come? Why do only some hear the gospel and believe? Because they are not all His sheep, and only His sheep can hear His voice and believe. All of mankind can hear the gospel, but only His sheep are given ears to hear.

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.



Hebrews 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.

The author of Hebrews assumes that we can draw near to God and seek Him. In the following text Paul contrasts the one who tries to reach Christ through works vs. one who approaches through faith. Faith is the opposite of works:

Romans 3 tells us no one seeks Him. How can we draw near to Him and believe if we do not seek Him?



Romans 3:26-28 He presented Him to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, on the contrary, by a law of faith. For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Salvation is a gift. Not faith. Faith is our response - one of trusting in Christ's work in our behalf. That is contrasted with trying to be declared to be righteous (justified) by our own efforts. When someone says that faith is a gift, they demonstrate that they do not really understand what it means to believe. Because such a statement is not logical.

Salvation is a gift. Eternal life is a gift. God is at work in our lives/hearts or we would not believe - I agree there. But we CAN believe. We CAN respond to the gospel.
BD

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Ro 4:16 Thereforre it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

We are redeemed from death and sin to life and glory by the free grace of God. Election, redemption, calling, repentance, faith, sanctification and eternal glory are all ours by the free grace of our Lord (1Co 1:30,31). Faith of Christ is the way by which we receive salvation; and this saving faith is NOT the product of man, but the gift of God. We receive salvation by faith and give all the glory to God. Any works of righteousness done by us are not ours, but are by the grace of God. Lest by commending God's grace as the cause, source and sustaining power in salvation and excluding works as making any contribution in our sanctification, Paul adds, "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works."

RW

BadDog
May 12th 2007, 03:11 AM
Don't have much time, But gotta respond to this portion:


Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Just FYI, "it" is not, cannot be referring to, "faith."

It has sometimes been argued that the NT teaches that saving faith is a gift of God - based on Ephesians 2:8, 9. - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." It appears that this is what you are saying here.

From a cursory reading of this verse, it seems that the relative pronoun might have faith (PISTIS) as its grammatical antecedent. However as I said above that simply is impossible. It is difficult to know for sure what its antecedent is, but one thing we do know: it is NOT PISTIS (faith).

Now first of all, FYI, I do not object to the idea that God is intimately involved in our coming to believe in Him... and not even so much that the faith we have in Him we could never express unless God brought it about. But so often people speak of our new-birth faith as something that is a "gift" - like God said, "here, have some faith." :P Bu I need to make a brief comment on Ephesians 2:8, 9 regarding this issue, because that text cannot say what many think it does say, and you appear to be saying, that faith is a gift... the Greek grammar won't allow it.

Regarding Ephesians 2:8, 9... In Greek we can usually tell what a pronoun is referencing, since a pronoun has "number" (singular or plural), "case" (nominative-subject, genitive-descriptive, accusative-direct object, etc.) and "gender" (masculine, feminine and neuter). Now a pronoun agrees with its antecedent (what it's pointing to) in number and gender. It doesn't need to agree in case.

The Greek has here...
TH GAR XARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON;
Gar - postpositive - "for" - act like it's the 1st word in clause
TH XARITI - "by grace" - dative/feminine/singular
ESTE - "we are" - "are we"
SESWSMENOI - perfect passive nominative/masculine/plural participle - "having been saved" - modifies main verb - "we are"
DIA - preposition, with accusative means - "through"
PISTWES - Genitive/feminine/singular - "faith" - descriptive
TOUTO - demonstrative pronoun - key to thiswhole thing - nominative/neuter/singular
OUK - particle - "not"
EX - preposition - "out", "out from", "by means of", "as a result of"
hUMWN - pronoun - genitive/plural/2P
QEOU - genitive singular - "of God"
TO DWRON - nominitive/neuter/singular - "gift"

So this says something like,
"For by grace you are having been saved through faith and THIS not as a result of yourselves; [it is] a gift of God..."

The "it is" is supplied to give the meaning here... that is quite common in Greek and no big deal. But the demonstrative pronoun ("this/that"/etc.) absolutely must agree with its antecedent - which some say is "faith." (PISTEWS-PISTIS). And there is no exception at all to this rule. So then since TOUTO is singular, its antecedent must also be singular - no problem there. And since TOUTO is neuter, its antecedent must also be neuter... big problem there.

You see, PISTEWS is feminine. If the pronoun was intended to point to "faith" (referred to as its "antecedent") then hAUTH would have been used instead (the feminine form of "this").

So one thing we know - "this" does not refer to "faith."

Some say that it points to "grace" (TH XARITI), but that couldn't be true either, since it also is feminine.

So what does it point to? Well, we do have something here it could be pointing to, and this is how most interpret this... "the participle - "having been saved." Now the participle actually is modifying the main verb "we are." It also is not "feminine. But sometimes in Greek when a general concept is being pointed to a neuter pronoun is used... the only concept here is that of "being saved." The actual noun "salvation" was not used. So what Paul is saying here is that the "salvation" (SWTHRIA) which as never mentioned here by name is a gift of God.

If Paul meant either "grace" or "faith," he would have used a feminine pronoun. No exceptions here. By using a neuter pronoun he makes it clear that the process of being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God.

BD

RogerW
May 12th 2007, 05:11 PM
Don't have much time, But gotta respond to this portion:

Just FYI, "it" is not, cannot be referring to, "faith."

It has sometimes been argued that the NT teaches that saving faith is a gift of God - based on Ephesians 2:8, 9. - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." It appears that this is what you are saying here.

From a cursory reading of this verse, it seems that the relative pronoun might have faith (PISTIS) as its grammatical antecedent. However as I said above that simply is impossible. It is difficult to know for sure what its antecedent is, but one thing we do know: it is NOT PISTIS (faith).

Now first of all, FYI, I do not object to the idea that God is intimately involved in our coming to believe in Him... and not even so much that the faith we have in Him we could never express unless God brought it about. But so often people speak of our new-birth faith as something that is a "gift" - like God said, "here, have some faith." :P Bu I need to make a brief comment on Ephesians 2:8, 9 regarding this issue, because that text cannot say what many think it does say, and you appear to be saying, that faith is a gift... the Greek grammar won't allow it.

Regarding Ephesians 2:8, 9... In Greek we can usually tell what a pronoun is referencing, since a pronoun has "number" (singular or plural), "case" (nominative-subject, genitive-descriptive, accusative-direct object, etc.) and "gender" (masculine, feminine and neuter). Now a pronoun agrees with its antecedent (what it's pointing to) in number and gender. It doesn't need to agree in case.

The Greek has here...
TH GAR XARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON;
Gar - postpositive - "for" - act like it's the 1st word in clause
TH XARITI - "by grace" - dative/feminine/singular
ESTE - "we are" - "are we"
SESWSMENOI - perfect passive nominative/masculine/plural participle - "having been saved" - modifies main verb - "we are"
DIA - preposition, with accusative means - "through"
PISTWES - Genitive/feminine/singular - "faith" - descriptive
TOUTO - demonstrative pronoun - key to thiswhole thing - nominative/neuter/singular
OUK - particle - "not"
EX - preposition - "out", "out from", "by means of", "as a result of"
hUMWN - pronoun - genitive/plural/2P
QEOU - genitive singular - "of God"
TO DWRON - nominitive/neuter/singular - "gift"

So this says something like,
"For by grace you are having been saved through faith and THIS not as a result of yourselves; [it is] a gift of God..."

The "it is" is supplied to give the meaning here... that is quite common in Greek and no big deal. But the demonstrative pronoun ("this/that"/etc.) absolutely must agree with its antecedent - which some say is "faith." (PISTEWS-PISTIS). And there is no exception at all to this rule. So then since TOUTO is singular, its antecedent must also be singular - no problem there. And since TOUTO is neuter, its antecedent must also be neuter... big problem there.

You see, PISTEWS is feminine. If the pronoun was intended to point to "faith" (referred to as its "antecedent") then hAUTH would have been used instead (the feminine form of "this").

So one thing we know - "this" does not refer to "faith."

Some say that it points to "grace" (TH XARITI), but that couldn't be true either, since it also is feminine.

So what does it point to? Well, we do have something here it could be pointing to, and this is how most interpret this... "the participle - "having been saved." Now the participle actually is modifying the main verb "we are." It also is not "feminine. But sometimes in Greek when a general concept is being pointed to a neuter pronoun is used... the only concept here is that of "being saved." The actual noun "salvation" was not used. So what Paul is saying here is that the "salvation" (SWTHRIA) which as never mentioned here by name is a gift of God.

If Paul meant either "grace" or "faith," he would have used a feminine pronoun. No exceptions here. By using a neuter pronoun he makes it clear that the process of being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God.

BD

Perhaps, but I don't make my argument that saving faith does not originate from us, but from God based only on Eph 2. I prove this using Ro 4 and 1Co 1 also. In your last sentence you seem to be saying the same thing, "being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God." If His grace extends to us the gift of saving faith, how then could saving faith (belief; pistis) originate from us?

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The English equivalent for each Greek element in Eph 2:8-10.

to-the for grace ye-are ones-having-been-saved thru belief and this not out of-you of-God the oblation not out of-acts that no any should-be-boasting of-Him for we-are achievement being-created in anointed Jesus on acts good which before-makes-ready the God that in them we-should-be-about-treading

It’s easier to see in the English equivalent that it is indeed belief (faith) that comes from God, and not from us. We read the same thing in Ro 4:16 which is why I also posted this corresponding passage for you. This passage is clear that faith is by grace, and if this faith is by grace unto salvation it cannot proceed from us. We are not able to impart saving faith by grace.

Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith (pistis), that it might be by grace (charis; the divine influence upon the heart); to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

not-yet beside-stepping thru this out of-belief that according-to grace into the to-be confirmed the promise to-every the seed not to-the-ones out of-the law only but and to-the-ones out of-belief of-Abraham who is father of-all

One more passage to show by whom we are in Christ Jesus. This passage also tells us we are in Christ, not of our own belief (faith), but of God.

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

out of-Him yet you are in anointed Jesus who was-become wisdom to-us from God justice besides and holying and from-loosening

RW

Teke
May 12th 2007, 06:07 PM
Seems your both (BD and Roger) right and just not explaining the faith part fully.;)
We do get our faith from God in the sense of the Logos. Since we are created in His image and likeness, we all have received some measure of logos (reason) from God, which of our natural knowledge begats faith.

There is natural knowledge (from logos/reason) and spiritual knowledge (thru the nous). The first begets faith, the second is begotten of faith.

premio53
May 13th 2007, 04:45 AM
This^^^ is a good scripture to keep in mind when discovering the truth of HIS creation and purpose for HIS creation... we must also keep in mind that this letter of Peter's was/is written to "that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"... while I do firmly believe that the Most High loves all of HIS creation, and certainly HIS chosen vessles, HE is in control of who is saved and who is not.


Yahshua told us that 'none comes unto the Me unless the Father draws them.' So, if someone does not come unto the 'precious faith' in Messiah, then shall we assume the Father did not draw them?

This is a revelation I have had in recent times... I save noone... I will speak to those I am called to speak, and allow circumstance and relationship to the MOST HIGH (through HIS word, prayer, revelation etc)to consecrate me unto Himself in Messiah.

While considering this most sensitive of topics, we must also consider that HIS Word is clear that some are fitted to destruction. Some will ask why? And, the answer is quite simple and found in Romans 8:22-23. I have also included a scripture from Proverbs which lends some credence to Paul's epistle to the Romans...

I would love to hear thoughts from my brothers and sisters...


"18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" ~ Romans 9

"4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." ~ Proverbs 16
Yahshua told us that 'none comes unto the Me unless the Father draws them.' So, if someone does not come unto the 'precious faith' in Messiah, then shall we assume the Father did not draw them?

No. John 12:32, - "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Preach the word and all men will be drawn to Christ whether they are saved or not!

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

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

This is the same illustration given in Jeremiah 18:6-10. As someone has pointed out, the illustration is that of Pharaoh as a piece of clay (which did not exist "before the foundation of the world") after it is on the table, not before it is dug out of the hill!

Notice in Jeremiah 18:8-10 that if the "clay pot" repents, its destination is changed!

There isn't a man on this forum who wasn't at one time a vessel "fitted to destruction!"

Staying in the same chapter of Romans, Paul says:

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The question is, why did God hate (used in a relative sense - see Luke 14:26) Easu? The Bible very clearly gives the answer. God hated Easu because he was a "fornicator and profane person" who found no place for repentance! - Hebrews 16:16,17

God chose Jacob before Easu according to His foreknowledge!

As far as God hardening Pharaoh's heart, it has been said that "the same sun that hardens the clay softens the wax!"

This brings out another important Bible truth. Even though God in his foreknowledge knew what kind of man Esau would be (thus "electing" Jacob), God does not require a soul to go to hell for the sins of Adam!

2Ch 25:3 Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father.

2Ch 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

In Romans 5:13 it says "...sin is not imputed when there is no law." And in Romans 4:15 it plainly says "...for where no law is, there is no transgression." So the idea that God sends infants to hell is nothing more than heresy taught by some Calvinists to shore up their imperfect knowledge of the scriptures.

Children are in a state of innocence just as Adam and Eve were. In Genesis 3:5 it says:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Go on down to verse 22 and God says:

"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Notice that also without the law there is no "knowledge of sin." - Rom 3:20, 21

So until children come to the point in life where they have a "knowledge of sin" they are safe.

This brings us to the heathen that have never heard the gospel. They may not have the ten commandments but God has given them the light of creation.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

God has also given every man a conscience. The law is written in their hearts.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

Ask ANY man in ANY country if he has ever done anything wrong! Unless he is lying, he KNOWS he has!

There isn't a person on this forum that is one bit better than the heathen in the jungles of Africa! What does God say?

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

The only hope for the heathen whether he goes to Walmart in America or to a hut in some third world country is to "repent and believe the gospel." - Mark 1:15

SemperReformanda
May 14th 2007, 03:44 AM
Hi everyone, sorry I was away for the weekend so I've missed out on a lot. It looks like RogerW and Humbled are doing a good job though ;)


Seems your both (BD and Roger) right and just not explaining the faith part fully.;)
We do get our faith from God in the sense of the Logos. Since we are created in His image and likeness, we all have received some measure of logos (reason) from God, which of our natural knowledge begats faith.

There is natural knowledge (from logos/reason) and spiritual knowledge (thru the nous). The first begets faith, the second is begotten of faith.
Is there a way you can defend your Platonic thinking from the Bible without philosophizing? Because, really, I don't think that there is. My wife has just completed an assignment on the apologetic of Justin Martyr, and your philosophy sounds very much alike to his...

Teke
May 14th 2007, 03:33 PM
Hi everyone, sorry I was away for the weekend so I've missed out on a lot. It looks like RogerW and Humbled are doing a good job though ;)


Is there a way you can defend your Platonic thinking from the Bible without philosophizing? Because, really, I don't think that there is. My wife has just completed an assignment on the apologetic of Justin Martyr, and your philosophy sounds very much alike to his...

So I'm being Platonic, heh.:spin:

Since you mentioned Justin Martyr, let's clarify some facts about the man. He studied in the Alexandrian school, as many early fathers did. Not only did he study Platonic philosophy, but also Stoic. He converted to Christianity, and said the Christian philosophy was the greatest.

IMO Justin Martyr is not Platonic in his thoughts, tho he may be borrowing some concepts from his school days. Irenaues follows suit, as does many others.

I have not read this whole thread. Just this page. And I find it odd that you would address me on Platonic philosophy (tho it isn't Platonic, but Christian), when you haven't addressed anyone else.
Humbled agrees with Roger in the first post of this page of the thread (I concur) . The extreme opposite of that is Pilgrim's post following.
BD and Roger where bringing it out in the Greek.

As to my philosophy of scripture and scriptural proof, there is plenty. I gave some examples in my John 1:4 thread. Some OT verses would be, "in His image and likeness", and/or "come let us reason". It's a continuous line of thought throughout scripture.
So I don't see why it would seem odd to you, if that is how your understanding it.:hmm:

SemperReformanda
May 14th 2007, 10:25 PM
So I'm being Platonic, heh.:spin:

Since you mentioned Justin Martyr, let's clarify some facts about the man. He studied in the Alexandrian school, as many early fathers did. Not only did he study Platonic philosophy, but also Stoic. He converted to Christianity, and said the Christian philosophy was the greatest.

IMO Justin Martyr is not Platonic in his thoughts, tho he may be borrowing some concepts from his school days. Irenaues follows suit, as does many others.

I have not read this whole thread. Just this page. And I find it odd that you would address me on Platonic philosophy (tho it isn't Platonic, but Christian), when you haven't addressed anyone else.
Humbled agrees with Roger in the first post of this page of the thread (I concur) . The extreme opposite of that is Pilgrim's post following.
BD and Roger where bringing it out in the Greek.

As to my philosophy of scripture and scriptural proof, there is plenty. I gave some examples in my John 1:4 thread. Some OT verses would be, "in His image and likeness", and/or "come let us reason". It's a continuous line of thought throughout scripture.
So I don't see why it would seem odd to you, if that is how your understanding it.:hmm:
Well, the association between reason and the logos is middle Platonic. Martyr did the same thing, and assumed therefore that all reasonable men were Christian. Tread carefully...

BadDog
May 22nd 2007, 12:48 PM
BD gave some evidence that it is not possible for "gift" to be referring to "faith" in Ephesians 2:8, 9 - grammatically


Perhaps, but I don't make my argument that saving faith does not originate from us, but from God based only on Eph 2. I prove this using Ro 4 and 1Co 1 also. In your last sentence you seem to be saying the same thing, "being saved by grace through faith is a gift of God." If His grace extends to us the gift of saving faith, how then could saving faith (belief; pistis) originate from us?
Roger,

First, let me apologize for taking so long to respond to your post. I'm just so busy these days that I can't keep up.

OK - Not "perhaps" - It simply is not possible, grammatically. Since the specific antecedent for the relative pronoun, TOUTO, cannot be a feminine noun. Here's what Robertson's Word Pictures says:

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

For by grace (TH GAR XARATI). Explanatory reason. "By the grace" already mentioned in verse Romans 5 and so with the article. Through faith (DIA PISTEWS). This phrase he adds in repeating what he said in verse Romans 5 to make it plainer. "Grace" is God's part, "faith" ours. And that (KAI TOUTO). Neuter, not feminine TAUTH, and so refers not to PISTIS (feminine) or to XARITI (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (EX hUMWN, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God's gift (DWRON) and not the result of our work.
I think he points out many things about which we would agree. 1st - that our salvation does not have its source from men, but from God, and 2nd that this salvation is God's gift. I agree, BTW, with his conclusion that grace is God's part and faith is ours. THAT is Paul's whole point here. His part is to give us the gift of salvation - eternal life with Him. Our part is simply to ask for it - that is faith. The opposite of doing so is to try to earn it by our own efforts instead of relying upon what Christ did in our behalf. We do nothing - zippo. Paul is saying that we are saved by grace and not by works (contrasting these 2 sources). What is the source of this grace? Our faith. (By grace, through faith) IOW, Paul is saying that GOD saved us - we had nothing to do with it. (I can hear you saying "amen" to this. :D ) But he immediately follows that up with saying that this salvation is "through [our] faith." (DIA PISTIS). That means that the means of our salvation by grace is faith. IOW, without our response to the gospel message of faith, we would not have experienced His grace. Now again, you'll agree, though you'll see that faith itself as a gift. IMO, when you do that you take the person completely out of the picture, and God can no longer hold man responsible for his actions. You are forced to make God responsible for every atrocity committed down through history... You have then simply gone too far - you have over-spoken scripture - IMO - said something that God did not intend in the Bible texts.

So anyway, if you're going to say that our faith does not come from ourselves but from God, then you're going to have to find such biblical evidence, as you say below, from other texts. It is simply not here.

You see, here's what's happening here: When a neuter pronoun, as in this instance is used, and there is not a neuter noun nearby, then in general it is pointing to some concept. What is that concept? Salvation by grace through faith. "Salvation" only appears as a verb in this text, not as a noun. Hence if Paul wanted to refer back to it, he is required to use a neuter pronoun referrent - which is what he did. So someone could argue about what he was referring to, though few do here, but one thing they cannot say: that in any way TOUTO ("that") is referring to either "faith" or "grace." It is simply impossible. So sorry, but "perhaps" simply will not work here.


Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The English equivalent for each Greek element in Eph 2:8-10.

to-the for grace ye-are ones-having-been-saved thru belief and this not out of-you of-God the oblation not out of-acts that no any should-be-boasting of-Him for we-are achievement being-created in anointed Jesus on acts good which before-makes-ready the God that in them we-should-be-about-treading

It’s easier to see in the English equivalent that it is indeed belief (faith) that comes from God, and not from us. We read the same thing in Ro 4:16 which is why I also posted this corresponding passage for you. This passage is clear that faith is by grace, and if this faith is by grace unto salvation it cannot proceed from us. We are not able to impart saving faith by grace.
You'll have to explain the "English equivalent" above - that is not the best way to "translate," & it is not translation, FWIW. We cannot simply take root ideas.

And I disagree again. It is simply not easy to see that "faith" ("belief") above comes from God. Because that is simply NOT Paul's point in this text at all. His point is clearly that SALVATION is from God. Like I said, he is not addressing the source of faith in this text. If you believe it to be from God, then you'll have to find another text to support your position. (Which you attempt to do below.)

OK, here's the text (in English). It clearly is speaking of the source of our salvation. I'll list the text in its broad context, emphasizing the clear reference to salvation as the focus of God's gift - not upon faith as that gift:

Ephesians 2:1-13 (1-3) And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and by nature we were children under wrath, as the others were also.
We were dead spiritually - so we needed saving. We were destined for God's wrath. See anything here about God's gift of faith - even by implication? no. But we do see the need for our salvation. That is Paul's clear focus.

(4-10) But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! He also raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavens, in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might display the immeasurable riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are His making, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
God "made us alive" (spiritually) - he saved us. Why? Because he loved us greatly. He did this so that in the future He can display us as trophies of His tremendous grace. "This" salvation by grace through [our] faith does not find its source in us. IOW, it is not as a result of any good works which we have done. Titus 3:5 makes that clear as well. Again, the focus here is NOT that faith is a gift, but that our very salvation is a gift. That is so clear.

(11-13) So then, remember that at one time you were Gentiles in the flesh--called "the uncircumcised" by those called "the circumcised," done by hand in the flesh. At that time you were without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, with no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Paul begins to move on to his next theme that we Gentiles were at one time isolated from the "circumcized" (Jews) - without any rights to the OT promises. But in/though Christ we are brought near (to God) by means of the blood of Christ. Now, does Christ's blood have anything to do with "faith is a gift"? Clearly not. But it certainly does refer to our salvation, because He saved us by dying in our place.

So then, the antecedent for "this" is clearly our salvation. That is apparent in the English as well as the Greek. Let's not try to force this text to say something which it clearly does not.


Ro 4:16 Therefore it is of faith (pistis), that it might be by grace (charis; the divine influence upon the heart); to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

not-yet beside-stepping thru this out of-belief that according-to grace into the to-be confirmed the promise to-every the seed not to-the-ones out of-the law only but and to-the-ones out of-belief of-Abraham who is father of-all
Romans 4:16 This is why the promise is by faith, so that it may be according to grace, to guarantee it to all the descendants--not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of Abraham's faith. He is the father of us all

It (the promise of salvation) is BY faith so that it (salvation) might be "according to" grace. And to translate EK as "out of" simply doesn't work here - in English. Sure EK can refer "out of." But it in general is referring to the source of something. IOW, the source of our salvation is faith. When God made our salvation sourced from faith that ensured that it would not be by means of our works, but by means of His grace - IOW, it would remain a gift. And KATA here is referring to our salvation by means of our faith as "according to" grace - IOW, in alignment with grace. So for God to base our salvation upon our faith, and not our works, is in alignment with His salvation being a gift - through grace.

And incidently, Paul uses EI TO EINAI to refer to purpose. What is the purpose of salvation by faith according to grace? So that God could guarantee it as being available to all people - not just Jews. If it was sourced from our works, that would not be possible.

Now think about it: if salvation was by works, would it be our works, or someone else's (God's perhaps)? Obviously, it would be our works. Hence the faith is also ours. The contrast is of our works vs. our faith.


One more passage to show by whom we are in Christ Jesus. This passage also tells us we are in Christ, not of our own belief (faith), but of God.

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

out of-Him yet you are in anointed Jesus who was-become wisdom to-us from God justice besides and holying and from-loosening

RW
Thx, Roger. BTW, I am not really trying to demonstrate that God is not involved in our coming to believe in His Son. Unless God were at work in our lives, this would not have happened for any of us. I am in agreement there. But I simply insist that scripture clearly is referring to faith as our faith. And Ephesians 2:8, 9 simply cannot be referring to faith as a gift. That is not possible. I simply wanted to set the record straight there. Like I said, if you can support that concept from other texts - more power to you. I do not agree, but I can see from where you are coming, and respect it.

Now this last text (1 Corinthians 1:30) simply is not referring to faith at all. The concept is never made or even referred to at all there. Let's look at it, in context:

1 Corinthians 1:28-31 God has chosen the world's insignificant and despised things--the things viewed as nothing--so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence. But from Him you are in Christ Jesus, who [Christ] for us became wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, in order that, as it is written: The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.

This simply says that God chose us to save us not because we were better in any way that those He did not save, but simply so that no one could boast in His presence. Now I understand that you are thinking that if we believed that this is some sort of work, and hence we would be able to boast. But Paul says in several places that the source of boasting is works. Paul is always contrasting here, in Ephesians 2, Romans 4 and elsewhere that we are saved BY FAITH ("through faith," if you prefer) and not BY WORKS. The contarst is not between grace and works, but between faith and works. If we are saved by faith, which we are, then it (salvation) IS by grace... IOW, it's a gift.

Now, isn't that what Paul said in Ephesians 2 and Titus 3 as well?

Again, I am not arguing with you that we were chosen (elected) by God not as a result of our faith - I agree with you there. But I am saying that our faith, which is the means by which we access that grace (gift) is simply that... OUR faith.

That does not make it works in any shape or fashion. To trust in God is the opposite of trusting, relying upon, ourselves.

Now, when someone says that having faith be sourced from ourselves makes it a work, they are simply stating something that is nowhere even hinted at in scripture, and they misunderstand that whole point that Paul is making! To trust in God to save us is the opposite of trusting in ourselves.

And in a sense stating it as you have turns salvation into works - by us. because you are assuming that we must do something to earn salvation - essentially - by having faith be a gift. Aftert the gift of faith, we are able to do works that please God and allow Him to save us. Not so. God saves us simply because He loved us - it was a gift. We simpy receive it (faith). So my concern is that the party-line Reformed approach here makes our salvation by works. I know they (and you) would never state it as such nor would you agree - but that is my concenr. IMO, I have taken the higher path - one of greater grace - which exalts God more. The irony here is that Calvinism in its attempt to exalt God has backed off from that result a bit, as a result of taking God's Word beyond what it plainly and simply says.

Now you and I agree so much about how we are saved, it is very ironic that we are arguing here. This thread was started out of concern that some may not be givne the opportunity to trust in Christ. I would have thought that you would havesaid something like, "the very fact that you are concerned shows that you are of the elect,' or something like that.

Take care, gotta go. (Class is about to start. :P ) Enjoyed the interaction.

BD

Saved7
May 22nd 2007, 07:21 PM
I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)


I say that we were foreknown and predestined because God knew in advance how we would respond to the gospel, so He chose us.:dunno:

BadDog
May 23rd 2007, 02:53 AM
I say that we were foreknown and predestined because God knew in advance how we would respond to the gospel, so He chose us.:dunno:
Saved7,

That is a common reaction to the idea of "election" - that God chose us. This is popular I think because otherwise, thinking like a human being (which we all must do, of course :P ), it appears that either we choose or He chooses.

But IMO both are genuinely true. If God merely chose those whom he knew would believe in His Son (those who would choose Him), IMO that is not real choosing. But in many places in the Bible it states that God did choose us before the world even existed. One reason for stating it like that IMO is so that it becomes clear that he chose us not based on anything that may happen in history, which we may do, think or believe... anything at all.

But as I see it, God can choose us and yet we truly freely choose Him as well without contradiction.

Now, regarding His choosing us:

Ephesians 1:4 for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight.

2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14 But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here we see that God chose us from the beginning for salvation. He did this "through sanctification by the Spirit" and "through belief in the truth." So the means by which we are saved is our faith - in the gospel... and by being sanctified by the Spirit. But he did choose us to be sanctified and to believe in the gospel. He called us to salvation through the gospel. But he chose us before we ever heard or believed the gospel. Now one can say that God chose those whom he knew would believe the gospel... but where in the text above is that even implied?

Now just FYI the translation of this text could be as "...from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit by belief in the gospel." The "and through belief" is one way the Greek is translated here. ButI think I prefer this instead. Now it modifies "salvation" - not God's choosing. Hence God chose us to be saved, and that salvation is "through sanctification by the Spirit by belief in the gospel."

Revelations 13:8 All those who live on the earth will worship him (the Antichrist), everyone whose name was not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Revelations 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up from the abyss and go to destruction. Those who live on the earth whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astounded when they see the beast that was, and is not, and will be present again.

In these 2 Revelations texts we see again that God's choosing of us was before the world was even created.

One cannot avoid the fact that the Bible clearly teaches divine election, IMO. Out of all the sons of Abraham, God chose Isaac to be the heir of promise and this was before the Isaac waseven born (17:21). Isaac, not Ishmael or any of the other sons of Abraham, was chosen to be the heir of promise.

And God’s choice was not pre-determined by His knowledge of the good works that the chosen would later perform. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had very visible flaws. Their conduct was often not not any better than others, such as Abimelech(see Genesis 20). So while we are chosen for good works (Ephesians 2:10), it is NOT because of our good works that we were chosen. Jacob was chosen before his birth without regard to any future deeds, according to Romans 9:11. As I see it, God chooses people unconditionally without regard to anything about them or anything that they will do. That is pure, simple grace.

Romans 9:9-13 For this is the statement of the promise: At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son. And not only that, but also when Rebekah became pregnant by Isaac our forefather (for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to election might stand, not from works but from the One who calls) she was told: The older will serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

Now here it is so clear that God chose Jacob before Jacob andesau had even been born and hence had done anything good or bad. IMO the reason for describing it like above is because God chose Jacob (and rejected esau) no related to anything they had or would do. It's kindahard to arguewit hthe following:

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has prepared everything for His purpose - even the wicked for the day of disaster.

Romans 9:20-23 But who are you--anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" Or has the potter no right over His clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? And what if He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory...?

So again, while election to salvation is never on account of works, yet election to eternal separation from God is. The emphasis of the Word of God is not that people go to Hell because God did not choose them, but that men suffer eternally because they have not chosen God. ELection does not, IMO, remove man's responsibility and man's choosing in response to the gospel.

Saved7, this is from one who strongly holds to "whosoever will." Yet we cannot easily deny that God chooses us unconditionally.

BD

Teke
May 23rd 2007, 12:33 PM
I believe sometimes that "chosen" message gets confused on a personal level. Least when one is thinking on the individual level.

When the text says, "you are chosen", it speaks to humanity. IOW God chose humanity for salvation (not angels, or animals or anything else), and the individuals He chose from within that, ie. Issac, Jacob etc, where toward that fulfillment. IOW to accomplish His plan.

I believe it is gross error to believe that any one individual is above another in any way. As only Christ is the head of all things. But we are many of humanity.:)

BadDog
May 24th 2007, 12:47 AM
I believe sometimes that "chosen" message gets confused on a personal level. Least when one is thinking on the individual level.

When the text says, "you are chosen", it speaks to humanity. IOW God chose humanity for salvation (not angels, or animals or anything else), and the individuals He chose from within that, ie. Issac, Jacob etc, where toward that fulfillment. IOW to accomplish His plan.

I believe it is gross error to believe that any one individual is above another in any way. As only Christ is the head of all things. But we are many of humanity.:)Teke,

That is usually referred to as "corporate election." It is a possibility with some texts, but not with all of them. This idea is that Christians are chosen in Christ - that is, Christians are not elected individually, but only as a corporate entity. This is sometimes expressed as Christ being the chosen one and if a person is "in Christ," then they're chosen as well.

Romans chapters 9 through 11 deals with election in detail. But earlier, in chapters 1-8, Paul focused on many individuals. And certainly the individual’s standing before God is the center of Paul’s gospel.… Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined with Paul. So we cannot simply ignore the individual sense here if it doesn't fit our theology. And if Abraham's individual justification through faith is clearly what's referenced in Romans 3 - 5, then why shouldn't we expect the same regarding "election"?

And look in Romans 9 itself: the examples that Paul uses to show the meaning of election are individuals: Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, etc. Yet, these very individuals also represent corporate groups. If only corporate election were true, Paul could not have written Romans 9 the way he did.

Just some thoughts.

BD

Jesusinmyheart
May 24th 2007, 01:24 AM
I know i'm very late into this discussion. My simple take on this is, that God gives salvation as a free gift offered to anyone. Our free will to either seek Him, follow Him, and walk like Him, or to reject Him at any time is the determining factor. God knows who is His as he lives outside of time and knows all things.

BadDog
May 24th 2007, 11:10 AM
I know i'm very late into this discussion. My simple take on this is, that God gives salvation as a free gift offered to anyone. Our free will to either seek Him, follow Him, and walk like Him, or to reject Him at any time is the determining factor. God knows who is His as he lives outside of time and knows all things.JIMH,

Welcome, at any time.

Many agree with you. (I essentially do.) But I have a question for you: Does God choose us, or do we choose? Does God merely choose those whom He knows will trust in Him (choose Him)? And if so, is that really choosing?

Thx,

BD

Teke
May 24th 2007, 12:20 PM
Teke,

That is usually referred to as "corporate election." It is a possibility with some texts, but not with all of them. This idea is that Christians are chosen in Christ - that is, Christians are not elected individually, but only as a corporate entity. This is sometimes expressed as Christ being the chosen one and if a person is "in Christ," then they're chosen as well.

Romans chapters 9 through 11 deals with election in detail. But earlier, in chapters 1-8, Paul focused on many individuals. And certainly the individual’s standing before God is the center of Paul’s gospel.… Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined with Paul. So we cannot simply ignore the individual sense here if it doesn't fit our theology. And if Abraham's individual justification through faith is clearly what's referenced in Romans 3 - 5, then why shouldn't we expect the same regarding "election"?

And look in Romans 9 itself: the examples that Paul uses to show the meaning of election are individuals: Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, etc. Yet, these very individuals also represent corporate groups. If only corporate election were true, Paul could not have written Romans 9 the way he did.

Just some thoughts.

BD

My thoughts. :)

I wouldn't call it "corporate election". I'd agree that Romans is one of Paul's more systematic and complete address' of the faith. I wouldn't go so far as micro manage the systematic presented.

Romans 9 (9:1-10:21) is on God's faithfulness to all. A paradox is brought out, in the unbelief of Jews and belief of Gentiles. God's sovereign will and human response.

Romans (overall) is full of dichotomies and synergies. Paul's logic is proceeding largely from the use of dichotomies, in which two concepts are placed in opposition to each other; and synergies, in which two concepts work together.

There are many who see opposition between pairs of concepts where Paul intends cooperation. Some of those pairs of concepts include, law and grace, faith and works, OT and NT, nature and grace, spirit and body, reality and symbol, God's faithfulness and humanity's faithfulness, secular and sacred, and church and state.

The areas Paul sees opposition are fewer and more fundamental. Living faith vs. dead faith, living works vs. dead works, good vs evil, righteousness vs unrighteousness, natural vs unnatural, and faithfulness vs unfaithfulness.

So election is the faithful. Just as God doesn't destroy the unbelieving Jews because of the remnant of faithful Jews, as scripture states. It will likely be the same for the Gentiles in the end, after their opportunity as Israel had, to become "sons" of God (Abraham's children of promise).

Then doesn't it sound more like corporate salvation than corporate election. As the elect are the faithful, which also cause God to consider the unfaithful.;)

BadDog
May 25th 2007, 01:16 PM
Teke,

Well, you may not prefer the handle, "corporate election," but that is essentially how you appear to be dealing with it - theologically - though you refer to it as "corporate salvation." I'm not clear on the distinction. So please permit me to continue to refer to it as such - for the sake of those who do hold to a corporate election position. I do not mean to imply by this that you align with every position of those who hold to corporate election.

Let's look at some particular issues with specific texts that arise with the "corporate election" viewpoint.

Mark 13:20 "...but for the sake of the elect whom He chose He has cut short those days." If we take a corporate kind of view of election, this would mean "but for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history He has cut short those days." That makes no sense. Also, notice the specific emphasis on God's choosing: "the elect whom He chose." Why the double emphasis here unless that election is of individuals?

Now consider Jesus' choosing of His disciples. He chose 12 disciples - by name. Is there perhaps a parallel here with election in general?

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you and appointed you that you would go forth and be fruitful and that your fruit would remain..." Christ initiated the process and did the selection Himself. If He was speaking in generalities here, this doesn't make any sense.

Acts 13:48 "...And as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed." This is a group within the group that heard the gospel - sure. And it is passive pluperfect periphrastic - hSAN TETAGMENOI - which indicates both that the initiative belonged to someone else and that it had already been accomplished before they believed. The pluperfect indicates an action which had already been accomplished with results remaining into the present. The passive part means that they did not do anything, but it was done to them. What we see here is that certain individuals believed - but they were ones who had already been selected/appointed for eternal life by God. Clearly here as well we see that this is not referring to all humanity which is chosen by God, but only a few, select individuals whom God had already chosen.

And notice that their choosing to believe is not negated.

Romans 3:10ff - I'll leave you guys to look that one over... It is very strong language. And we see there that we are not able to respond to God on our own initiative alone. So then, if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. That is simply my point. I do not negate man's choosing, but I insist on God's initiating.

In Romans 8:32-33 we read, "Who will bring any charge against God’s elect?" This is hinting at the election of Christ, based on the OT text quoted there (Isaiah 50:8). This necessarily indicates that God looks on us similarly as He looks on His own Son. Since the reference to His Son is obviously of an individual nature, the same should be assumed about our own election/choosing.

Election is often spoken of in scripture in the context of predestination. And if this choosing is corporate, then the predestining is corporate as well. The entire Romans 8 text is based on God's predestining us. Also, that entire text of God's choosing us in Romans 8 is based on His sovereignly working in individual circumstances in our individual lives - starting at Romans 8:28...

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For (GAR - pointing back to vs. 28) those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, Hhe also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.

So then, does God only work for good in the lives of believers only in a corporate sense? Is there no longer any promise that He is at work in the specific circumstances that happen to each one of us? You see where a corporate sort of handling of election leads us? God's sovereignty in the lives of believers, based on how we handle Romans 8, is impacted. Following are a few points of how I view election and man's responsibility:

1 - God really chooses us - individually. Election does not mean that God merely knew those who would believe and on that basis chose them. That turns God's choosing into just empty theology. Either He chose us, or He did not. Such would not be God's choosing... it would simply be OUR choosing (to which I do not at all object) and His simply knowing about it.

2 - We would not choose God unless He first chose us.

3 - Election does not remove human responsibility. Each person is held responsible before God as to what they will do with His Son. There are unsaved people alive today who, though chosen by God before this world's existence, are at this time lost and will remain lost until they choose to believe the gospel. Just because God chose them before history even began does not mean that their faith or lack of faith does not genuinely derived from within themselves. (Most Calvinists will not agree with this last statement.)

4 - This does not make their choosing a mere formality, and not genuine choice.

#s 1 and 2 above are issues I have with the corporate election view - it essentially makes them not true, and #s 3 and 4 are a couple that those who object to individualistic election in general have with the concept. What is so wrong with the idea of God choosing us? I think the main issue with it arises because we are not capable of thinking like God. Hence thinking like humans, we simply cannot understand how it could be scriptural and yet individual choice also be valid at the same time.

The process of election, as worked out in our own lives individually, does not violate our will. IOW it does not imply some sort of divine coercion, as if we must be dragged into heaven against our will. (Remember, I do not take the Calvinist position here.) It is not as if God bullies us or forces us into submission to do His will. Rather, He compels us and woos us as a man woos a maiden to marry him. He draws us to Himself. But whether we allow ourselves to be drawn along always depends on us. (Again - not a Reformed position.)

Some question whether God is fair in choosing some but not others. But that is again looking at things not as God does. And it assumes that we as individuals have no choice in the matter if God chooses us - individually. But if God were fair, we would all go to hell. If He saves even one person, for that He should be praised.

In Romans 9 Paul makes it clear that we are all chosen. In Romans 10 we see God's plan at work in history, and the individual responsibility we all have to share the gospel and of individuals to choose His Son. In Romans 11 we see that God, as the Potter, is fair, and has the right to choose some and not others - to do with each piece of pottery as He has decided. We cannot just ignore such scriptures.

And let's think about God's sovereignty, for one's position on this issue does impinge upon it. God is ultimately and totally in charge of everything. His authority has no limits not set by Himself. All of creation is under His control. There is no limit to His power, and nothing is beyond His ability to control and sustain. We refer to this unlimited control as the sovereignty of God. Yet when we say that God is sovereign we are saying He is in complete control, and if He does not choose all things that happens, then He is not fully sovereign. Either God is in control, or only partly in control. Now I like a viewpoint of this referred to as "middle knowledge." With this position, man is fully sovereign in his choices, as is God in His choices – which are not limited in any human sense. Of course, God does choose to allow mankind to make choices and to abide by their consequences. But God is also able to cause all things to work out such that His sovereign will is still accomplished - at the same time.

If God is sovereign, then let’s not limit Him such that He can only predict the future… He also determines the future, does He not? A corporate election viewpoint does not genuinely allow for this to be true. And this concept of election is seen in the OT as well as the NT. God loved Jacob, and hated Esau. He chose Abraham to be the father of a people who would be His and whom He chose not based on a foreknowledge of their being better than other people in any way. He simply chose them so that He might be exalted through His deliverance of them.

And in Genesis 18:17ff the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him." The individualistic nature of God’s choosing here is apparent. God had already predetermined what He was going to do in Sodom. Sure, He knew what would happen. But that does not mean that He did not involve Himself in what happened. He sent 2 angels and if there had been 10 righteous people, He would not have destroyed the city. He remained in complete control.

Even the sinfulness of man cannot hinder God from accomplishing what He has purposed, promised, and pre-determined because God is sovereign. He is in control of all things. And He is fully able to work all things together so as to accomplish His purposes, to satisfy His pleasures and to fulfill His promises. History testifies, without exception, that those promises which have already been fulfilled were fulfilled precisely as God predetermined them. Corporate election limits Who God is, IMO. He is God. Let’s leave Him on His throne. :P

The issue then is if in eternity past God looked down through the corridors of time, taking note of all those who would come to Him in faith and then simply decided to choose them… That is weak, and inconsistent with actually choosing - IMO. And scripture tells us that God first chose those who would believe. He is the greater Initiator. Let me repeat: that does not mean that He does it in our place. He does not believe for us – we believe. He does not choose for us - we choose however we determine. I firmly believe both to be true simultaneously.

And the word translated as "predestine" is used 6 times in the NT. All 6 align with more than simple foreknowledge. It cannot be emptied to mean only "foreknew." The root idea of PROORIZW is that of pre-determining or for-ordaining – to "pre-arrange." Very strong words. It cannot be reduced to simple "foreknowledge."

I take a strong position on election. But notice that I do so without fear of our ability to choose being impinged upon.

Take care,

BD

humbled
May 25th 2007, 02:14 PM
Teke,

Well, you may not prefer the handle, "corporate election," but that is essentially how you appear to be dealing with it - theologically - though you refer to it as "corporate salvation." I'm not clear on the distinction. So please permit me to continue to refer to it as such - for the sake of those who do hold to a corporate election position. I do not mean to imply by this that you align with every position of those who hold to corporate election.

Let's look at some particular issues with specific texts that arise with the "corporate election" viewpoint.

Mark 13:20 "...but for the sake of the elect whom He chose He has cut short those days." If we take a corporate kind of view of election, this would mean "but for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history He has cut short those days." That makes no sense. Also, notice the specific emphasis on God's choosing: "the elect whom He chose." Why the double emphasis here unless that election is of individuals?Dude ... you write essays in every post!

I haven't read your entire article yet, but I just wanted to ask you a question here. Do you consider that EVERYONE is elect of God? That seems to be what you're saying here.

Please ... the reader digest version reply, since I'm at work and can only do quips :P

BadDog
May 25th 2007, 02:24 PM
BadDog
Teke,

Well, you may not prefer the handle, "corporate election," but that is essentially how you appear to be dealing with it - theologically - though you refer to it as "corporate salvation." I'm not clear on the distinction. So please permit me to continue to refer to it as such - for the sake of those who do hold to a corporate election position. I do not mean to imply by this that you align with every position of those who hold to corporate election.

Let's look at some particular issues with specific texts that arise with the "corporate election" viewpoint.

Mark 13:20 "...but for the sake of the elect whom He chose He has cut short those days." If we take a corporate kind of view of election, this would mean "but for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history He has cut short those days." That makes no sense. Also, notice the specific emphasis on God's choosing: "the elect whom He chose." Why the double emphasis here unless that election is of individuals?


Dude ... you write essays in every post!

I haven't read your entire article yet, but I just wanted to ask you a question here. Do you consider that EVERYONE is elect of God? That seems to be what you're saying here.

Please ... the reader digest version reply, since I'm at work and can only do quips :PSorry - I'm known for that. :D

No, I do not. That's why I said "for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history..." The point is that clearly in that text God is only interested in those believers ("elect") who are around at the time. That works against a corporate election idea.

BD

humbled
May 25th 2007, 02:50 PM
Sorry - I'm known for that. :D

No, I do not. That's why I said "for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history..." The point is that clearly in that text God is only interested in those believers ("elect") who are around at the time. That works against a corporate election idea.

BD
Oh, my bad ... I missed that word! lol

thanks for clearing that up for me, brother :)

And I agree with you. It does seem to negate corporate election.

John146
May 25th 2007, 03:51 PM
We are responsible for repenting of our sins and accepting the gift of salvation and putting our faith in Christ. God doesn't do those things for us. Christ does draw us to Himself and grants us repentance, but we are responsible for responding to His call. That means we have a choice to make: to accept God's offer and gift of salvation or to reject it.

For many are called, but few are chosen. - Matthew 22:14

So, it's possible to be called and not chosen. Doesn't Calvinism teach that all who are called are chosen? Not so. We have to respond to the call. All who are chosen are called, but not all who are called are chosen.

11But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
12Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. - Isaiah 65:11-12

We have to answer the call. The consequences of choosing not to answer the call are devastating.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:16-17

God so loved "the world". All-inclusive. Also, the word whosoever is all-inclusive. Christ died for all mankind to have a chance to be saved. But one can only be saved if they repent and respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit and the call of Christ and accept the gift of eternal life being offered to them.

humbled
May 25th 2007, 04:07 PM
We are responsible for repenting of our sins and accepting the gift of salvation and putting our faith in Christ. God doesn't do those things for us. Christ does draw us to Himself and grants us repentance, but we are responsible for responding to His call. That means we have a choice to make: to accept God's offer and gift of salvation or to reject it.

For many are called, but few are chosen. - Matthew 22:14

So, it's possible to be called and not chosen. Doesn't Calvinism teach that all who are called are chosen? Not so. We have to respond to the call. All who are chosen are called, but not all who are called are chosen.No. Calvinism teaches that there is a general call, which is the outward call of the preacher, and that there is an effectual call, which is an inward call of the Holy Spirit. Scripture supports this:

1 Thess 1:2-5
2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers;
3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,
4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

Also, it seems to me that you are seeing Matt 22:14 to say "many are called, but few choose ..."

Do you understand the distinction?

Blessings

John146
May 25th 2007, 04:24 PM
No. Calvinism teaches that there is a general call, which is the outward call of the preacher, and that there is an effectual call, which is an inward call of the Holy Spirit. Scripture supports this:

1 Thess 1:2-5
2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers;
3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,
4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

It's still one call: a call to repent and believe in the gospel. When Jesus said, "many are called, but few are chosen", what do you think He meant by that? It becomes more clear when you read Matthew 22:1-13.



Also, it seems to me that you are seeing Matt 22:14 to say "many are called, but few choose ..."

No, I wasn't saying that. It says many are called, but few are chosen. I'm not going to change Scripture. Although it's true that few choose to go through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-15, Luke 13:23-28). I was merely saying that not all who are called are chosen. And there is a responsibility on our part to answer the call. If we had no responsibility, there would be no reason for a day of judgment.

humbled
May 25th 2007, 04:33 PM
[/color]

It's still one call: a call to repent and believe in the gospel. When Jesus said, "many are called, but few are chosen", what do you think He meant by that? It becomes more clear when you read Matthew 22:1-13.Ok ... distinguish what Paul said.

for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

"in word only" - this is the spoken (or written) word. You or I tell someone to repent and believe, and this is what Paul means by in word only.

"in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" - this is the inward response, the EFFECTUAL response brought on within the hearer. If someone does not respond, then there was no power, no conviction, and no Holy Spirit. And this is the distinction which Paul is teaching here, in my opinion. Not to imply that it isn't taught elsewhere, but this is the one that I can think of right off the bat :)

And yes, many ARE called .. outwardly. But the ones who are chosen, as in the case of the Thessalonicans, are evidenced in their belief of what they hear.

Teke
May 25th 2007, 09:08 PM
Teke,

Well, you may not prefer the handle, "corporate election," but that is essentially how you appear to be dealing with it - theologically - though you refer to it as "corporate salvation." I'm not clear on the distinction. So please permit me to continue to refer to it as such - for the sake of those who do hold to a corporate election position. I do not mean to imply by this that you align with every position of those who hold to corporate election.

Let's look at some particular issues with specific texts that arise with the "corporate election" viewpoint.

Mark 13:20 "...but for the sake of the elect whom He chose He has cut short those days." If we take a corporate kind of view of election, this would mean "but for the sake of all saved humanity throughout history He has cut short those days." That makes no sense. Also, notice the specific emphasis on God's choosing: "the elect whom He chose." Why the double emphasis here unless that election is of individuals?

Now consider Jesus' choosing of His disciples. He chose 12 disciples - by name. Is there perhaps a parallel here with election in general?

John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you and appointed you that you would go forth and be fruitful and that your fruit would remain..." Christ initiated the process and did the selection Himself. If He was speaking in generalities here, this doesn't make any sense.

Acts 13:48 "...And as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed." This is a group within the group that heard the gospel - sure. And it is passive pluperfect periphrastic - hSAN TETAGMENOI - which indicates both that the initiative belonged to someone else and that it had already been accomplished before they believed. The pluperfect indicates an action which had already been accomplished with results remaining into the present. The passive part means that they did not do anything, but it was done to them. What we see here is that certain individuals believed - but they were ones who had already been selected/appointed for eternal life by God. Clearly here as well we see that this is not referring to all humanity which is chosen by God, but only a few, select individuals whom God had already chosen.

And notice that their choosing to believe is not negated.

Romans 3:10ff - I'll leave you guys to look that one over... It is very strong language. And we see there that we are not able to respond to God on our own initiative alone. So then, if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. That is simply my point. I do not negate man's choosing, but I insist on God's initiating.

In Romans 8:32-33 we read, "Who will bring any charge against God’s elect?" This is hinting at the election of Christ, based on the OT text quoted there (Isaiah 50:8). This necessarily indicates that God looks on us similarly as He looks on His own Son. Since the reference to His Son is obviously of an individual nature, the same should be assumed about our own election/choosing.

Election is often spoken of in scripture in the context of predestination. And if this choosing is corporate, then the predestining is corporate as well. The entire Romans 8 text is based on God's predestining us. Also, that entire text of God's choosing us in Romans 8 is based on His sovereignly working in individual circumstances in our individual lives - starting at Romans 8:28...

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For (GAR - pointing back to vs. 28) those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, Hhe also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.

So then, does God only work for good in the lives of believers only in a corporate sense? Is there no longer any promise that He is at work in the specific circumstances that happen to each one of us? You see where a corporate sort of handling of election leads us? God's sovereignty in the lives of believers, based on how we handle Romans 8, is impacted. Following are a few points of how I view election and man's responsibility:

1 - God really chooses us - individually. Election does not mean that God merely knew those who would believe and on that basis chose them. That turns God's choosing into just empty theology. Either He chose us, or He did not. Such would not be God's choosing... it would simply be OUR choosing (to which I do not at all object) and His simply knowing about it.

2 - We would not choose God unless He first chose us.

3 - Election does not remove human responsibility. Each person is held responsible before God as to what they will do with His Son. There are unsaved people alive today who, though chosen by God before this world's existence, are at this time lost and will remain lost until they choose to believe the gospel. Just because God chose them before history even began does not mean that their faith or lack of faith does not genuinely derived from within themselves. (Most Calvinists will not agree with this last statement.)

4 - This does not make their choosing a mere formality, and not genuine choice.

#s 1 and 2 above are issues I have with the corporate election view - it essentially makes them not true, and #s 3 and 4 are a couple that those who object to individualistic election in general have with the concept. What is so wrong with the idea of God choosing us? I think the main issue with it arises because we are not capable of thinking like God. Hence thinking like humans, we simply cannot understand how it could be scriptural and yet individual choice also be valid at the same time.

The process of election, as worked out in our own lives individually, does not violate our will. IOW it does not imply some sort of divine coercion, as if we must be dragged into heaven against our will. (Remember, I do not take the Calvinist position here.) It is not as if God bullies us or forces us into submission to do His will. Rather, He compels us and woos us as a man woos a maiden to marry him. He draws us to Himself. But whether we allow ourselves to be drawn along always depends on us. (Again - not a Reformed position.)

Some question whether God is fair in choosing some but not others. But that is again looking at things not as God does. And it assumes that we as individuals have no choice in the matter if God chooses us - individually. But if God were fair, we would all go to hell. If He saves even one person, for that He should be praised.

In Romans 9 Paul makes it clear that we are all chosen. In Romans 10 we see God's plan at work in history, and the individual responsibility we all have to share the gospel and of individuals to choose His Son. In Romans 11 we see that God, as the Potter, is fair, and has the right to choose some and not others - to do with each piece of pottery as He has decided. We cannot just ignore such scriptures.

And let's think about God's sovereignty, for one's position on this issue does impinge upon it. God is ultimately and totally in charge of everything. His authority has no limits not set by Himself. All of creation is under His control. There is no limit to His power, and nothing is beyond His ability to control and sustain. We refer to this unlimited control as the sovereignty of God. Yet when we say that God is sovereign we are saying He is in complete control, and if He does not choose all things that happens, then He is not fully sovereign. Either God is in control, or only partly in control. Now I like a viewpoint of this referred to as "middle knowledge." With this position, man is fully sovereign in his choices, as is God in His choices – which are not limited in any human sense. Of course, God does choose to allow mankind to make choices and to abide by their consequences. But God is also able to cause all things to work out such that His sovereign will is still accomplished - at the same time.

If God is sovereign, then let’s not limit Him such that He can only predict the future… He also determines the future, does He not? A corporate election viewpoint does not genuinely allow for this to be true. And this concept of election is seen in the OT as well as the NT. God loved Jacob, and hated Esau. He chose Abraham to be the father of a people who would be His and whom He chose not based on a foreknowledge of their being better than other people in any way. He simply chose them so that He might be exalted through His deliverance of them.

And in Genesis 18:17ff the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him." The individualistic nature of God’s choosing here is apparent. God had already predetermined what He was going to do in Sodom. Sure, He knew what would happen. But that does not mean that He did not involve Himself in what happened. He sent 2 angels and if there had been 10 righteous people, He would not have destroyed the city. He remained in complete control.

Even the sinfulness of man cannot hinder God from accomplishing what He has purposed, promised, and pre-determined because God is sovereign. He is in control of all things. And He is fully able to work all things together so as to accomplish His purposes, to satisfy His pleasures and to fulfill His promises. History testifies, without exception, that those promises which have already been fulfilled were fulfilled precisely as God predetermined them. Corporate election limits Who God is, IMO. He is God. Let’s leave Him on His throne. :P

The issue then is if in eternity past God looked down through the corridors of time, taking note of all those who would come to Him in faith and then simply decided to choose them… That is weak, and inconsistent with actually choosing - IMO. And scripture tells us that God first chose those who would believe. He is the greater Initiator. Let me repeat: that does not mean that He does it in our place. He does not believe for us – we believe. He does not choose for us - we choose however we determine. I firmly believe both to be true simultaneously.

And the word translated as "predestine" is used 6 times in the NT. All 6 align with more than simple foreknowledge. It cannot be emptied to mean only "foreknew." The root idea of PROORIZW is that of pre-determining or for-ordaining – to "pre-arrange." Very strong words. It cannot be reduced to simple "foreknowledge."

I take a strong position on election. But notice that I do so without fear of our ability to choose being impinged upon.

Take care,

BD


I'd have to think about what you posted some more, or reread it. But it sounds like your going back and forth.
My only point, is that it has to agree that salvation is available to all mankind. Not only to the elect.

IMHO the elect are the ones who are called and respond.

I don't see everyone as called, as I see that calling to His priesthood. And not everyone needs to be called to His priesthood to have salvation available.

Maybe that we are coming from different paradigms on this subject.;)

BadDog
May 26th 2007, 10:49 PM
I'd have to think about what you posted some more, or reread it. But it sounds like your going back and forth.
My only point, is that it has to agree that salvation is available to all mankind. Not only to the elect.

IMHO the elect are the ones who are called and respond.

I don't see everyone as called, as I see that calling to His priesthood. And not everyone needs to be called to His priesthood to have salvation available.

Maybe that we are coming from different paradigms on this subject.;)
Teke,

Understood. It does appear that I am embracing both positions at the same time... and essentially, with some distinctions, I am. Now obviously those who are called and who respond in faith are clearly the elect... does not make their choosing and faith genuine and sourced from themselves.

Romans 10:11-15 Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things!

Now clearly this order can be reversed to show what Paul is saying:

God sends a preacher.
The preacher preaches.
They hear the preaching (of the gospel).
They believe the message preached.
They call on the Lord.
They are saved.

So at least in this context all those who call upon the Lord are saved due to their faith, which is due to God sending someone to preach to them.

FWIW, this is not referring to "the called" as most refer to the elect. It's a verb. I'm not sure where you get that "calling to His priesthood," though. But KALEW is used in various manners in the NT.

But at any rate I am not vacillating or going back and forth. I have taken the same position throughout this thread. Now I agree that salvation was made available to all mankind. Each one can choose to trust in Christ. I simply also am convinced that God chooses whom will trust in His Son beforehand - He has already done so. There is no contradiction. If you're curious - you can read some threads I've started in the past on "middle knowledge." Just search the site.

Take care,

BD

Teke
May 30th 2007, 12:25 AM
Teke,

Understood. It does appear that I am embracing both positions at the same time... and essentially, with some distinctions, I am. Now obviously those who are called and who respond in faith are clearly the elect... does not make their choosing and faith genuine and sourced from themselves.

Romans 10:11-15 Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things!

Now clearly this order can be reversed to show what Paul is saying:

God sends a preacher.
The preacher preaches.
They hear the preaching (of the gospel).
They believe the message preached.
They call on the Lord.
They are saved.

So at least in this context all those who call upon the Lord are saved due to their faith, which is due to God sending someone to preach to them.

FWIW, this is not referring to "the called" as most refer to the elect. It's a verb. I'm not sure where you get that "calling to His priesthood," though. But KALEW is used in various manners in the NT.

But at any rate I am not vacillating or going back and forth. I have taken the same position throughout this thread. Now I agree that salvation was made available to all mankind. Each one can choose to trust in Christ. I simply also am convinced that God chooses whom will trust in His Son beforehand - He has already done so. There is no contradiction. If you're curious - you can read some threads I've started in the past on "middle knowledge." Just search the site.

Take care,

BD

BD, with all due respect, I don't see how your getting all of this out of Romans. I'll comment on the Roman's verses you posted.

Paul in Romans 10:11 and 13 is quoting Isaiah (v 11) emphasizing faith of the heart, and Joel, the confession of the mouth (v13). Both prophets teach that faith and confession are universal. God makes no distinction (v12) between persons. All may come freely if they will.

From 9:1-10:13 Paul has left the Jews with no excuse for rejecting the Gospel. Paul insists God fulfilled His part completely. The Jews had extraordinary opportunities to come to faith. For God sent His message through preachers (v15) and throughout all creation (v18). Israel did indeed hear (v16,18), but did not believe (v16,21). Therefore, God turned to the Gentiles, who heard and believed (v19,20).

Jews demanded a sign, but they always had a higher sign than miracles, they had God's own words, and creation itself. When they failed to heed the prophets, God gave them a sign of fulfilled prophecy, the conversion of the Gentiles.

There is no theology of predestination or election in those verses. Just Paul plainly telling it like it is and referencing the prophets.:)

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 02:33 PM
BD, with all due respect, I don't see how your getting all of this out of Romans. I'll comment on the Roman's verses you posted.

Paul in Romans 10:11 and 13 is quoting Isaiah (v 11) emphasizing faith of the heart, and Joel, the confession of the mouth (v13). Both prophets teach that faith and confession are universal. God makes no distinction (v12) between persons. All may come freely if they will.

From 9:1-10:13 Paul has left the Jews with no excuse for rejecting the Gospel. Paul insists God fulfilled His part completely. The Jews had extraordinary opportunities to come to faith. For God sent His message through preachers (v15) and throughout all creation (v18). Israel did indeed hear (v16,18), but did not believe (v16,21). Therefore, God turned to the Gentiles, who heard and believed (v19,20).

Jews demanded a sign, but they always had a higher sign than miracles, they had God's own words, and creation itself. When they failed to heed the prophets, God gave them a sign of fulfilled prophecy, the conversion of the Gentiles.

There is no theology of predestination or election in those verses. Just Paul plainly telling it like it is and referencing the prophets.:)Teke,

I think you need to read that post again. You see, I have to support both free choice and election. In that case, I was showing that free choice naturally precedes salvation - that we are saved as a direct result of faith.


Now clearly this order can be reversed to show what Paul is saying:

God sends a preacher.
The preacher preaches.
They hear the preaching (of the gospel).
They believe the message preached.
They call on the Lord.
They are saved.

So at least in this context all those who call upon the Lord are saved due to their faith, which is due to God sending someone to preach to them.

We are saved as a result of believing the gospel. Of course, God was involved in the process in that He sent the person who shared the gospel with you. We cannot ignore God's involvement.

IOW, I'm on your side on that post. I'm not saying that God gave them their faith - I do not hold to such a position.

:P

BD

RogerW
May 30th 2007, 03:18 PM
It's still one call: a call to repent and believe in the gospel. When Jesus said, "many are called, but few are chosen", what do you think He meant by that? It becomes more clear when you read Matthew 22:1-13.

No, I wasn't saying that. It says many are called, but few are chosen. I'm not going to change Scripture. Although it's true that few choose to go through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-15, Luke 13:23-28). I was merely saying that not all who are called are chosen. And there is a responsibility on our part to answer the call. If we had no responsibility, there would be no reason for a day of judgment.

Yes, the Word commands all to repent and believe! The Word also says that NONE will, in fact that NONE can. How does one who is spiritually dead obey the command to repent and believe to be saved? It seems many confuse the call, which is the gospel message going unto all the world, with salvation. The gospel, (preached Word) is offered unto all mankind, but salvation is the free gift "given" to those who have been chosen unto salvation.

Don't confuse the outward call of the gospel with the inward call that only those chosen for eternal life can hear. The only reason that those chosen for salvation hear the Word is because the Word has been supernaturally applied to their hearts, and they supernatually receive imputed faith of the Lord, thereby enabling them to respond in belief and repentance.

RW

RogerW
May 30th 2007, 03:23 PM
We are saved as a result of believing the gospel. Of course, God was involved in the process in that He sent the person who shared the gospel with you. We cannot ignore God's involvement.

IOW, I'm on your side on that post. I'm not saying that God gave them their faith - I do not hold to such a position.


When this person shared the gospel with the unbeliever, how was the unbeliever, who is spiritually DEAD able to respond in faith and repentance? Can one without spiritual life, which is necessary for hearing spiritual truth, hear, believe and respond without first having spiritual life? Wouldn't that be like saying that one who is physically dead can obey the command to "get up and walk"?

RW

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 04:45 PM
When this person shared the gospel with the unbeliever, how was the unbeliever, who is spiritually DEAD able to respond in faith and repentance? Can one without spiritual life, which is necessary for hearing spiritual truth, hear, believe and respond without first having spiritual life? Wouldn't that be like saying that one who is physically dead can obey the command to "get up and walk"?

RWIt says they are spiritually dead... doesn't say they are unable to do anything good at all... to call out for help.

I believe that God draws us to Himself, and as such we are able to hear spiritual truth, and respond. That is assumed in many of the appeals in the NT. Where does the Bible text say that we must be regenerated before we can choose? That is just an assumption, one with which I do not agree.

I think I'm going to get it from both sides on this one. :D

BD

Teke
May 30th 2007, 05:15 PM
Yes, the Word commands all to repent and believe! The Word also says that NONE will, in fact that NONE can. How does one who is spiritually dead obey the command to repent and believe to be saved? It seems many confuse the call, which is the gospel message going unto all the world, with salvation. The gospel, (preached Word) is offered unto all mankind, but salvation is the free gift "given" to those who have been chosen unto salvation.

Don't confuse the outward call of the gospel with the inward call that only those chosen for eternal life can hear. The only reason that those chosen for salvation hear the Word is because the Word has been supernaturally applied to their hearts, and they supernatually receive imputed faith of the Lord, thereby enabling them to respond in belief and repentance.

RW

Roger I believe your contradicting Jesus words. He plainly told them that not "all" would be able to follow Him. When you back up from the two parables you and John are speaking of, we read what prompted the parables from Jesus, and what He told the disciples.

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.


"Many called but few chosen" holds the same meaning as "many who are first will be last, and the last first". It all means the "many". The weaker will not be able to follow Him, like the rich man. But that can all change at any time, when they are ready.

Teke
May 30th 2007, 05:24 PM
Teke,

I think you need to read that post again. You see, I have to support both free choice and election. In that case, I was showing that free choice naturally precedes salvation - that we are saved as a direct result of faith.

But being "saved" doesn't equal following Him. Following Him is what makes one "chosen" or "elect". (I explained more in my previous post to Roger).


We are saved as a result of believing the gospel. Of course, God was involved in the process in that He sent the person who shared the gospel with you. We cannot ignore God's involvement.

IOW, I'm on your side on that post. I'm not saying that God gave them their faith - I do not hold to such a position.

:P

BD

Salvation is of God, so no, we can't deny God's involvement (continuing work).
BTW, no one shared the gospel with me. I saw some pictures (cartoonish icons) which prompted me to seek more info about God. It was later I listened to some preachers, which didn't help much.:P

RogerW
May 30th 2007, 05:58 PM
It says they are spiritually dead... doesn't say they are unable to do anything good at all... to call out for help.

I believe that God draws us to Himself, and as such we are able to hear spiritual truth, and respond. That is assumed in many of the appeals in the NT. Where does the Bible text say that we must be regenerated before we can choose? That is just an assumption, one with which I do not agree.

I think I'm going to get it from both sides on this one. :D

BD

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 BUT THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.

In light of this passage of Scripture I ask you again, how does a man who is spiritually dead respond to spiritual truth, since, according to this passage without spiritual discernment, which natural (unsaved) man does not have, they cannot understand? In fact the passage tells us not only is the natural man not able to understand the things of the Spirit, but to them they are foolishness.

RW

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 08:32 PM
Don't confuse the outward call of the gospel with the inward call that only those chosen for eternal life can hear. The only reason that those chosen for salvation hear the Word is because the Word has been supernaturally applied to their hearts, and they supernatually receive imputed faith of the Lord, thereby enabling them to respond in belief and repentance.

RW
Roger,

FWIW, I've never read that anywhere in scripture, and am confident no one else has either ("inward call" and "outward call"). So I see that as someone's attempt to explain their theology.

BD

RogerW
May 30th 2007, 08:40 PM
Roger,

FWIW, I've never read that anywhere in scripture, and am confident no one else has either ("inward call" and "outward call"). So I see that as someone's attempt to explain their theology.
BD

Okay, then lets speak in terms you feel would be biblical. How would you define the message of the cross, or the gospel as it goes out to all the world? Can anyone/everyone hear this message? How would you define the one who hears, and becomes saved? Did they hear the same message that all men hear? Why were some saved, and yet a great many who hear the gospel of salvation remain in their sin? Does it have something to do with having ears to hear? If it does have something to do with having ears to hear, is this hearing selective, and where does it come from?

RW

humbled
May 30th 2007, 08:45 PM
Roger,

FWIW, I've never read that anywhere in scripture, and am confident no one else has either ("inward call" and "outward call"). So I see that as someone's attempt to explain their theology.

BD1 Thess 1:4-5
4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

Now you've read that in scripture :)

God bless

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 09:21 PM
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 BUT THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.

In light of this passage of Scripture I ask you again, how does a man who is spiritually dead respond to spiritual truth, since, according to this passage without spiritual discernment, which natural (unsaved) man does not have, they cannot understand? In fact the passage tells us not only is the natural man not able to understand the things of the Spirit, but to them they are foolishness.

RW

He cannot understand spiritual truths - granted. But the appeal of the gospel - that is clearly different. This text is saying that a person, on his own volition, will not naturally respond to spiritual truth and see it as reasonable. But if he is drawn by God, he can respond to the truth revealed to him. I never claimed that the natural man will choose without God's urging. I said that he is not so thoroughly depraved that he cannot call out for help. I take the Arminian position there.

John 6:39, 40; 44, 45; 47 "This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

"I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life."

Here we see that God has chosen some who will believe in Him. All those who do believe in Him (were all chosen before the foundation of the world) will be raised up at the last day and will have eternal life.

But it also says that no one can or will come to Him unless the Father draws him. Now it does not say, nor does it imply, that all who are drawn will come to Him, but that all who are drawn and who come to Him will be raised up at the last day.

It also says that all who listen to and learns from the Father comes to Christ. IOW, some have an attitude which is open to the gospel - and responds in faith. If they do respond in faith, obviously we can look backwards and proclaim with confidence that they were of the elect. But we cannot say that they were regenerated first so that they were able to respond. God has created us all in His image, and hence we can all respond to His wooing. That does not mean that we are the spititual man that Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3.

As AT Robertson expresses it, "The approach of the soul to God is initiated by God," or something like that. That does not mean that we cannot seek Him, that we cannot approach Him of our own volition. He initiates. We respond. And it is clear that God initiates this drawing for more than just the elect. But just the elect will respond in faith.

In John 6 earlier, Jesus spoke of those who would not respond in faith. Calvin said that His grace was irresistible, but Jesus makes it clear here that is not so:

John 6:36, 37 But as I told you, you've seen Me, and yet you do not believe. Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.

We understand this "drawing" process later in the chapter as well:

John 6:63-65 The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who don't believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.) He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

No one can come to Christ unless "granted to that person by the Father." So no one will indeed respond in faith if God is not at work, drawing and wooing him. From the perspective of the person, though, they have an opportunity to respond - they can choose to believe. The key in where we disagree is that you take the Reformed position that the person is regenerated so that he is able to believe/respond. But that is not what Christ said. I do not see that in scripture. It simply says that no one will come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. And Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they refused to come when drawn. So they could choose. There is the possibility that when drawn a person will respond in faith, or they will not.

BD

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 09:23 PM
John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me."

But that does not say that all who are called will respond in faith.

Romans 9:16-18 So then, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy ... He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

These are scriptures often listed by Calvinists. Granted that God is sovereign. But this does not say that we cannot resist His wooing. The concept of the necessary wooing of God I agree with my Reformed brothers about. The concept of not being able to resist His drawing, and being carried along against his will - I do not agree.

Many who support irresistible grace prefer to refer to it as "effectual calling." The idea is not the irresistible nature of the calling, but its effective nature. IOW, those whom God has called will come to Him. I prefer to call it "irresistible grace" because it points out better what I object to in it. (I do agree with a portion of the concept.) Those who support the I in TULIP believe that God in His grace calls certain individuals (the elect), drawing them to Himself, and that these elect are unable to resist His drawing. But I do not see that in scripture. Jesus spoke of those who resisted His calling - who refused to believe. Granted, they were probably not of the elect. Still, they were drawn and they resisted. "You refuse to come to me so that you may be healed." (John 5:39, 40 - in the larger context of John 6.)

That doesn't fully paint the picture I see in scripture. While I agree that all those whom God has chosen (elect) will come to Him, I do not see His drawing action of the Spirit as irresistible. We can resist the Spirit. The gospel message is given to the world, yet only the elect will respond. The issue has to do with whom is drawn by the Spirit to Christ. IMO many more are drawn than those who will respond in faith (the elect).

I listed the scripture previously often used to show the effectual nature of God's calling - John 6:44. But I included verse 45 so we can better understand it in context:

John 6:44, 45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drawsF90 him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me.
F90 - F90: Or brings, or leads; see the use of this Gk verb in Jn 12:32; 21:6; Ac 16:19; Jms 2:6. (Good footnote)

Reformed theology teaches that "all who are drawn will come." I say that this is stretching the intended logic of the verse. It simply does not say that. It says, "all who come have been drawn." It says that no one can come to Christ unless they are drawn by the Father. It does not say that all drawn by the Father will come. It also says that all who come He will raise up at the last day. It does not say that all He draws He will also raise up at the last day. That is an assumption just not logically there.

Luke 2:34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against."

IOW, some will respond positively, and some negatively.

John 12:32 As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself."

All people (PANTA) are drawn by the cross. So while I agree that none will respond if not drawn, I do not agree that the natural man cannot respond to Christ - in faith. (I am not trying to take this thread down the path of "irresistible grace" or "total depravity." :P But this topic will have to go by those issues at some point.)

Thx,

BD

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 09:25 PM
1 Thess 1:4-5
4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;
5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

Now you've read that in scripture :)

God blessThis does not refer to an inward vs. an outward calling. Still haven't read it in scripture.

:P

BD

BadDog
May 30th 2007, 09:28 PM
Okay, then lets speak in terms you feel would be biblical. How would you define the message of the cross, or the gospel as it goes out to all the world? Can anyone/everyone hear this message? How would you define the one who hears, and becomes saved? Did they hear the same message that all men hear? Why were some saved, and yet a great many who hear the gospel of salvation remain in their sin? Does it have something to do with having ears to hear? If it does have something to do with having ears to hear, is this hearing selective, and where does it come from?

RWRoger,

I answered this in a couple of posts on page 6. Those who are not saved resist the drawing of the Spirit. "You refuse to come to me that you may be saved..." John 5:39, 40. It may also be true for some that those who are saved also resist - for some time.

The "having ears to hear" is a good observation. It does.

BD

humbled
May 30th 2007, 09:39 PM
This does not refer to an inward vs. an outward calling. Still haven't read it in scripture.

:P

BD
hmmm ...

I read it as the "in word only" being the outward call of the preacher (or a written letter or something else physical)

And the "in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" as being the inward working, which is why there is conviction ... the Spirit is at work INSIDE the person to bring about conviction.

How do you read it?

God bless :)

RogerW
May 31st 2007, 12:51 AM
He cannot understand spiritual truths - granted. But the appeal of the gospel - that is clearly different. This text is saying that a person, on his own volition, will not naturally respond to spiritual truth and see it as reasonable. But if he is drawn by God, he can respond to the truth revealed to him. I never claimed that the natural man will choose without God's urging. I said that he is not so thoroughly depraved that he cannot call out for help. I take the Arminian position there.

John 6:39, 40; 44, 45; 47 "This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

"I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life."

Here we see that God has chosen some who will believe in Him. All those who do believe in Him (were all chosen before the foundation of the world) will be raised up at the last day and will have eternal life.

God did not choose some unto salvation based on His foreknowledge that some would believe. But it is nonetheless true that God has indeed elected some unto salvation. God declares that all who are elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and called by the Spirit will receive eternal life. Our salvation, eternal security and resurrection rest not on anything done by us, but upon the Father’s choosing and the Son’s perfect sinless life, obedience, and sacrifice.

The elect are all chosen to receive life, but they must hear the gospel, see by faith Christ as their righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, and believe Him with a sincere heart.

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Ro 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ro 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Ro 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



But it also says that no one can or will come to Him unless the Father draws him. Now it does not say, nor does it imply, that all who are drawn will come to Him, but that all who are drawn and who come to Him will be raised up at the last day.

This drawing, I think you would agree, is a supernatural drawing by the power of the Spirit through the hearing of the Word. Why would the Spirit draw some who will not come to Him? The only ones who receive this supernatural drawing are those who have been chosen to receive eternal life. This drawing is a quickening, or awakening and calling of sinners through the Spirit to the Word of God. (1Co 2:7-14). Those who are supernaturally drawn by the HS will come, and they come willingly, lovingly and obediently, being MADE willing.

Ps 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Those drawn supernaturally to Christ through the preaching of the Word receive divine revelations, teaching them of their need of Christ and the sufficiency of Christ. Every person who supernaturally drawn, hears, and will come to Christ.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Joh 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.



It also says that all who listen to and learns from the Father comes to Christ. IOW, some have an attitude which is open to the gospel - and responds in faith. If they do respond in faith, obviously we can look backwards and proclaim with confidence that they were of the elect. But we cannot say that they were regenerated first so that they were able to respond. God has created us all in His image, and hence we can all respond to His wooing. That does not mean that we are the spititual man that Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3.

You just quoted John 6:44 which says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:” Now you want to argue that all can respond to His “wooing”? Where is this “wooing” found in Scripture?



As AT Robertson expresses it, "The approach of the soul to God is initiated by God," or something like that. That does not mean that we cannot seek Him, that we cannot approach Him of our own volition. He initiates. We respond. And it is clear that God initiates this drawing for more than just the elect. But just the elect will respond in faith.

While it is true that God initiates, where does Scripture say unsaved men, who are NOT chosen to eternal life, will respond? Also where can we find Scripture that tells us “God initiates this drawing for more than just the elect”? And what would be the purpose since as you say “just the elect will respond in faith”?



In John 6 earlier, Jesus spoke of those who would not respond in faith. Calvin said that His grace was irresistible, but Jesus makes it clear here that is not so:

John 6:36, 37 But as I told you, you've seen Me, and yet you do not believe. Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.

Where in these verses do you find His grace can be resisted? This passage is teaching irresistible grace. Those who do not believe the Father had not given Him. Yet, it clearly says that those the Father gives Him, will come to Him, and never be cast out.



We understand this "drawing" process later in the chapter as well:

John 6:63-65 The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who don't believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.) He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

No one can come to Christ unless "granted to that person by the Father." So no one will indeed respond in faith if God is not at work, drawing and wooing him. From the perspective of the person, though, they have an opportunity to respond - they can choose to believe. The key in where we disagree is that you take the Reformed position that the person is regenerated so that he is able to believe/respond. But that is not what Christ said. I do not see that in scripture. It simply says that no one will come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. And Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they refused to come when drawn. So they could choose. There is the possibility that when drawn a person will respond in faith, or they will not.
BD

There is nothing in this passage that would lead us to believe that one has an opportunity to respond, that they can choose to believe. The passage tells us that no one can come to Christ unless it were given unto him of the Father. Since the passage also tells us that the flesh profits nothing, there is nothing here that would make one think they have opportunity to choose to believe. Where do you read that the Jewish leaders (Pharisee’s?) refused to come when they had been drawn? If all the Father draws come to Christ, how can you say, “There is the possibility that when drawn a person will respond in faith, or they will not”?

RW

Teke
May 31st 2007, 01:54 AM
Roger I can see the distinction being made with John 6:44, but you also have to consider John 12:32 where a distinction is not made.

I disagree that this has to do with a person having faith or not. Everyone has faith, just in different measures. Just as the Body has different members.

It is God who decides what each will become, as He works in us in fulfilling that purpose. (Phil. 2:12,13)

The only "elect" I see in scripture are those who follow Christ, giving up everything (which the rich man cannot do), even following Him to martyrdom.
But I wouldn't set this as a standard to judge. As the same person who may presently not be able to abandon all and follow Him, may do so later if they are willing. Because God will continue to work in them. IOW a synergism. As God still interacts with humanity.:)

RogerW
May 31st 2007, 02:34 AM
Roger I can see the distinction being made with John 6:44, but you also have to consider John 12:32 where a distinction is not made.

I disagree that this has to do with a person having faith or not. Everyone has faith, just in different measures. Just as the Body has different members.

It is God who decides what each will become, as He works in us in fulfilling that purpose. (Phil. 2:12,13)

The only "elect" I see in scripture are those who follow Christ, giving up everything (which the rich man cannot do), even following Him to martyrdom.
But I wouldn't set this as a standard to judge. As the same person who may presently not be able to abandon all and follow Him, may do so later if they are willing. Because God will continue to work in them. IOW a synergism. As God still interacts with humanity.:)

Teke,

For what purpose would Christ draw "all" men to Himself? If men are being drawn, and Christ says that all who are drawn will come to Him, then how could we think that "all" of mankind will be drawn to Him, since many do not come to Him, and instead die in their sins? All in this passage cannot be all without exception.

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

Here is a similar passage. If we read this as all of mankind without exception, then we would have to conclude that every man will be saved, so how do we reconcile such passages with all of Scripture, because very clearly not all of mankind are saved?

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

By means of the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and exaltation the Lord redeemed, justified and calls to Himself "all" the elect of God from every corner of the earth. The Lord is not the Savior of only the Jews, but the Savior of people throughout the world.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It is only the elect that follow the Lord. And it is not our place to try to determine who they are. We are called to proclaim the good news, and it is through the hearing of the good news that all who are chosen to eternal life will hear, and through imputed faith repent and believe. It is my prayer that every person I have ever spoken the good news of Christ to will one day be saved.

RW

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 12:08 PM
hmmm ...

I read it as the "in word only" being the outward call of the preacher (or a written letter or something else physical)

And the "in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" as being the inward working, which is why there is conviction ... the Spirit is at work INSIDE the person to bring about conviction.

How do you read it?

God bless :)humbled,

I'm not necessarily objecting to the concept - I'm just pointing out that those specific words are not used in scripture. Hence they are our attempt to describe what God is doing. I often refer to God "enabling" us to respond to the gospel, yet that particular word is not really found anywhere spercifically in scripture in that context either. I am not really objecting here - just making a point. It had been pointed out to someone that they were confusing the inward vs. the outward call - whereas those words are never used in scripture in that context. Personally, I do not distinguish between types of calls through the gospel. Calling it an effecdtual call - I can agree with that. And only the elect will experience such a call. But that is due to their response as well as the work of the Spirit.

BTW, I do love those verses - I memorized them over 20 years ago because it shows that unless God is at work - ain't nuttin gonna happen. Hence, it cautions me to pray fervently before sharing the gospel.

1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5 For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

What's also neat here, from a Reformed perspective (and I am not at all opposed to all things Reformed) is that we can look back and confidently say that based on the response to the gospel we receive that we know that someone was chosen by God. Hey, kinda difficult to be confident of much else - we simply don't think like God.

Here we see that the gospel came:

in power
in the Holy Spirit (He convinced them of the truth as well as convicted them of their sin.)
with full conviction

Unless the Spirit convicts someone of their sinfulness, ain't no way they're gonna respond in faith to the gospel. Just ain't gonna happen. That's what I mean when I say that God simply has to be involved in the process - from start to finish.

BD

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 12:14 PM
As a reminder, here's the original OP:

Can anyone be saved? Do some have no chance?


I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning.

BSC is simply concerned that some will not be able to respond to the gospel, and hence are destined for hell, because they are never given an opportunity to respond to the gospel... to hear the facts.

One response (th1bill) was from 2 Peter 3:9 pointing out that God is "not willing that any should perish..."

It is the perfect Will of God that none should perish;
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The only question involved is will a man answer when called, most do not.

What do you guys think? Some refer to election as double election, in that not only are the elect chosen for salvation, but those who are not of the elect were chosen to be condemned... what do you guys think? Would God be "fair" in such a position? How about the Reformed here... do you hold to such a position on election? (I do - IOW, those condemned were chosen for such - but since I have a different position regarding the ability of people to respond to the Word as given to them, it's not the same issue for me.)

:P Just curious. I do think that is the heart of his question on this thread. How can we encourage people that God is faithful, just and loves everyone - even the non-elect while holding to election (as I do)? This is a fair question.

BD

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 12:24 PM
OK, I'm trying to take this thread down a different path - back to the OP, but I have to briefly respond here:


Teke,

For what purpose would Christ draw "all" men to Himself? If men are being drawn, and Christ says that all who are drawn will come to Him, then how could we think that "all" of mankind will be drawn to Him, since many do not come to Him, and instead die in their sins? All in this passage cannot be all without exception.

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

Simple: that is not what Christ said. Christ said that He draws all (people) to Himself. He says that all who come to Him He will raise up at the last day. (John 6:44, 45, 65) He does not say that all who are drawn will come. He simply did not say that. And this is an important distinction, which I made in earlier posts, but no one responded concerning. That simply grammatically and logically does not follow. The reason you must change "all" to "all of some group" is because such a Refomed theology does not read this text as plainly intended.

ALL are drawn to Christ through the cross (the gospel). Not all will respond in faith (come to Him), and hence not all will be raised up on the last day. No contradiction.

John 6:44, 45; 65 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

All who come were drawn
All who respond to the gospel (the Word from the Father - they learned) come
The "him" who will be raised up is the one who comes to Christ after being drawn to Him

But I really think we should get back to the OP - the post just before this one. :P

BD

RogerW
May 31st 2007, 01:09 PM
OK, I'm trying to take this thread down a different path - back to the OP, but I have to briefly respond here:
Roger,

Simple: that is not what Christ said. Christ said that He draws all (people) to Himself. He says that all who come to Him He will raise up at the last day. (John 6:44, 45, 65) He does not say that all who are drawn will come. He simply did not say that. And this is an important distinction, which I made in earlier posts, but no one responded concerning. That simply grammatically and logically does not follow. The reason you must change "all" to "all of some group" is because such a Refomed theology does not read this text as plainly intended.

ALL are drawn to Christ through the cross (the gospel). Not all will respond in faith (come to Him), and hence not all will be raised up on the last day. No contradiction.

John 6:44, 45; 65 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

All who come were drawn
All who respond to the gospel (the Word from the Father - they learned) come
The "him" who will be raised up is the one who comes to Christ after being drawn to HimBut I really think we should get back to the OP - the post just before this one. :P

BD

All who are given to Christ from the Father WILL come to Him. And NONE can come to Him unless they have been given to Him by the Father.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 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.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up the last day.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

RW

Teke
May 31st 2007, 01:27 PM
Maybe we need some criteria here, as we seem to be talking past one another somehow. Looking at scripture only, let's state how we are interpreting the passages we present. IOW some are looking at the text and interpreting it literally, meaning by what is seen or will be seen materially. While some look and see the spiritual meaning and not the material manifestation, IOW by faith.

Personally I see this by faith. And so it must apply to everyone, whether that is understood or not by everyone. For instance, a new born babe is on the same level as everyone else. Literally we could say that God is drawing them, as He drew them from the womb after they were formed. This would also be agreeable spiritually, as scripture states we are all created in His image and likeness.

Another problem I see is the western mindset to separate things in a this or that way. When all is part of the whole. This may be partly a language problem as a mindset (learned). I bring this up, because the Aramaic makes no such distinction. In the west we read Genesis and the creation story and we separate heaven and earth. Yet in the original language of Aramaic, heaven is like the "we" and earth is like the "I". "I" is part of the "we", you can't separate them.

I don't want to get overly critical with the text, as that wouldn't be edifying to many. So I'll just say that we are reading text that was written with an eastern mindset and not a western one. Imposing a western mindset on the text will not reveal it's meaning.

As Christians we could look at this with the understanding of the Trinity. We would call the Father the "elect" or "I" of the Trinity, and the Trinity itself as the "we" or "all". But you can't separate them.

I'm grasping to simplify this for edification, but I don't know if I'm succeeding in my attempt. :P

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 02:23 PM
BadDog: Simple: that is not what Christ said. Christ said that He draws all (people) to Himself. He says that all who come to Him He will raise up at the last day. (John 6:44, 45, 65) He does not say that all who are drawn will come. He simply did not say that. And this is an important distinction, which I made in earlier posts, but no one responded concerning. That simply grammatically and logically does not follow. The reason you must change "all" to "all of some group" (elect) is because such a Reformed theology does not read this text as plainly intended.
and

Roger,

(see above)

ALL are drawn to Christ through the cross (the gospel). Not all will respond in faith (come to Him), and hence not all will be raised up on the last day. No contradiction.

John 6:44, 45; 65 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

All who come were drawn
All who respond to the gospel (the Word from the Father - they learned) come
The "him" who will be raised up is the one who comes to Christ after being drawn to Him

But I really think we should get back to the OP - the post just before this one. :P

BD


All who are given to Christ from the Father WILL come to Him. And NONE can come to Him unless they have been given to Him by the Father.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 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.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up the last day.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

RWRoger,

I have no issue with what you said above (which I put in bold-red). All that the Father gave to Christ are elect, and all of the elect will come to Him and hence He will raise them up at the last day. So I have no issue with anything you said regarding that.

You just quoted some scripture, emphasizing parts of it. For all I know, you are simply agreeing with me. :cool:

I do take issue with anyone saying that all who are drawn will come. The text does not say that - either logically or grammatically.

Thx,

Hey, is anyone going to address the OP I re-posted and the question I asked?


BadDog: Just curious. I do think that is the heart of his question on this thread. How can we encourage people that God is faithful, just and loves everyone - even the non-elect while holding to election (as I do)? This is a fair question. edited-added: This needs to be addressed by those who are Reformed and have posted here. That's why this thread was started, and I do not think it was ever addressed satisfactorily. (I could post on it, but I am not an ardent Calvinist, and my approach, though similar, will not be the same.)

BD

Teke
May 31st 2007, 02:59 PM
Just to clarify, BD and Roger, are you implying that only the elect will be raised on the last day?


(Sorry BD, I'm not reformed or a Calvinist, so I can't answer in the manner you've requested to your question)

humbled
May 31st 2007, 03:11 PM
This does not refer to an inward vs. an outward calling. Still haven't read it in scripture.

:P

BD


humbled,

I'm not necessarily objecting to the concept - I'm just pointing out that those specific words are not used in scripture. Hence they are our attempt to describe what God is doing. I often refer to God "enabling" us to respond to the gospel, yet that particular word is not really found anywhere spercifically in scripture in that context either. I am not really objecting here - just making a point. It had been pointed out to someone that they were confusing the inward vs. the outward call - whereas those words are never used in scripture in that context. Personally, I do not distinguish between types of calls through the gospel. Calling it an effecdtual call - I can agree with that. And only the elect will experience such a call. But that is due to their response as well as the work of the Spirit.

BTW, I do love those verses - I memorized them over 20 years ago because it shows that unless God is at work - ain't nuttin gonna happen. Hence, it cautions me to pray fervently before sharing the gospel.

1 Thessalonians 1:4, 5 For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.

What's also neat here, from a Reformed perspective (and I am not at all opposed to all things Reformed) is that we can look back and confidently say that based on the response to the gospel we receive that we know that someone was chosen by God. Hey, kinda difficult to be confident of much else - we simply don't think like God.

Here we see that the gospel came:

in power
in the Holy Spirit (He convinced them of the truth as well as convicted them of their sin.)
with full convictionUnless the Spirit convicts someone of their sinfulness, ain't no way they're gonna respond in faith to the gospel. Just ain't gonna happen. That's what I mean when I say that God simply has to be involved in the process - from start to finish.

BDI don't understand what you mean. You DO accept the concept of two unique calls? Or you DON'T?

Are you looking for the exact words "inward call" and "outward call"?

I guess I didn't understand what you were asking for ... cuz I thought you were arguing against the concept, but here you acknowledge the truth of it ... :hmm:

I'm confused :lol:

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 03:25 PM
Just to clarify, BD and Roger, are you implying that only the elect will be raised on the last day?

(Sorry BD, I'm not reformed or a Calvinist, so I can't answer in the manner you've requested to your question)Teke,

Understood - it was directed at any Reformed here.

In answer to your question, and based on John 6:44, 45: Yes. (Assuming you are referring to a resurrection to life.)

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now by this I do not mean that the unsaved will not be raised for condemnation (judgment - at the Great White Throne Judgment - in Revelation 20). But the implication here is "raised - for eternal life."

Revelation 20:11-15 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

(Seemed appropriate to use red ink here. :rolleyes: )

Revelation above is referring to a resurrection for the 2nd death, which none who trust in Christ (the elect) will experience.

Acts 4:2 because they were provoked that they were teaching the people and proclaiming in the person of Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them.

Acts 17:18 Then also, some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers argued with him. Some said, "What is this pseudo-intellectual trying to say?" Others replied, "He seems to be a preacher of foreign deities"--because he was telling the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

Acts 24:15 And I have a hope in God, which these men themselves also accept, that there is going to be a resurrection, both of the righteous and the unrighteous.

This green text above makes it clear that both the saved and unsaved are raised... but the unsaved are raised for judgment (Revelation 20 above). The unsaved are not in accord with the following:

Romans 6:4, 5 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in a new way of life. For if we have been joined with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of His resurrection.

The following testimony by Paul could obviously only apply to those who have trusted in Christ:

Philippians 3:9-11 and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ--the righteousness from God based on faith. My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from among the dead.

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again. Some men were tortured, not accepting release, so that they might gain a better resurrection

A "better resurrection" refers to one in which we experience eternal life with God. It also assumes that all will be raised in one manner or another. That "better resurrection" is described in revelation 20, earlier than I quoted above:

Revelation 20:4-6 Then I saw thrones, and people seated on them who were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of God's word, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and who had not accepted the mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with the Messiah for 1,000 years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over these, but they will be priests of God and the Messiah, and they will reign with Him for 1,000 years.

We will reign with Him for 1000 years. (Some take this more allegorically -usually Reformed do. But I think they will agree about a resurrection of the spiritually alive and the spiritually dead - for judgment.) But you're going to want to poll RW here - he may differ with me here. But I just do not see what any of this has to do with our discussion here. :D You'll have to explain.

Thx,

Jesusinmyheart
May 31st 2007, 03:33 PM
As a reminder, here's the original OP:

Can anyone be saved? Do some have no chance?

BSC is simply concerned that some will not be able to respond to the gospel, and hence are destined for hell, because they are never given an opportunity to respond to the gospel... to hear the facts.

One response (th1bill) was from 2 Peter 3:9 pointing out that God is "not willing that any should perish..."

It is the perfect Will of God that none should perish;
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
The only question involved is will a man answer when called, most do not.

What do you guys think? Some refer to election as double election, in that not only are the elect chosen for salvation, but those who are not of the elect were chosen to be condemned... what do you guys think? Would God be "fair" in such a position? How about the Reformed here... do you hold to such a position on election? (I do - IOW, those condemned were chosen for such - but since I have a different position regarding the ability of people to respond to the Word as given to them, it's not the same issue for me.)

:P Just curious. I do think that is the heart of his question on this thread. How can we encourage people that God is faithful, just and loves everyone - even the non-elect while holding to election (as I do)? This is a fair question.

BD

Bad Dog,

let me answer the gist of this question with these verses:

It's best to read Isaiah Chapter 65 completely, but here are some excerpts

Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
Isa 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
Isa 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Isa 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Isa 65:6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Isa 65:7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

These verses to me speak of those people that learn about God, but yet do not obey His will. They will appear to be saints, when in reality they are not.

Isa 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

This verse speaks to me of a wicked slothful servant. One that serves God only half-heartedly.

Isa 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains (which is Yeshua): and mine elect shall inherit (which are those that will rule with Yeshua) it, and my servants (which are those who gave it all up to follow Him) shall dwell there.
Isa 65:10 And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. (these are just "normal" folks that sought the Lord but didn't go the whole 9 yards)

So if i'm understanding this correctly, we will see some sort of "ranking" in Heaven, which appears to be reflected in what they did on earth. (reward system)

His elect (priests)
His servants
and His people

So i believe there will be three categories of people, in heaven, at least two if i'm wrong on the servants and they are the same as the priests.

Then there are those that missed the boat:

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

These could be believers and unbelievers alike at least from what i believe.


While God desires that each and every one of us would come to repentance, and turn away from sin, and follow the Word, not all will hear, and not all even if they should hear will obey.

This is what the free will of man does.

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 03:50 PM
I don't understand what you mean. You DO accept the concept of two unique calls? Or you DON'T?

Are you looking for the exact words "inward call" and "outward call"?

I guess I didn't understand what you were asking for ... cuz I thought you were arguing against the concept, but here you acknowledge the truth of it ... :hmm:

I'm confused :lol:humbled,

To be honest, never saw it like that, or even thought much about it, since I see no such distinction in scripture to that effect. KALEW ("to call") is used in many ways in scriptures. God calls out to all of us to trust in Christ. But the "called" refers to only those who are the elect - who have trusted in Christ.

I guess what I am saying is that KALEW (hO KLETOS - "the called") is used in various manners in the NT. In Romans 1:6 it refers to the elect, clearly. In Romans 8:29, 30 it clearly refers to those whom God called through the gospel. IMO that involves just the elect as well. Paul refers to himself as called to be an apostle - that is clearly much more restrictive.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that God has called us to "peace" - to live peacably with others. There it is simply used in a different manner. In Galatians 1:6 the called there are clearly believers (saved), as does Ephesians 4 and 2 Thessalonians 2. 1 Timothy 6 and 2 Timothy 1 refers to being called to follow Christ. Hebrews 9 and 11 similarly refer to a holy calling. Peter, in both is letters, uses it only to refer to the elect, as does Jude.

I guess what I'm saying is that I do not have a big problem with this. Only I see nowhere in scripture any reference to an inward call and an outward call. I recognize that Calvinism uses this to describe a general call to all people through the gospel (cross of Christ - John 12:32), as opposed to an effectual call to those who will respond to the gospel in faith.

I do not have an issue here since "the called" in the NT most often refers to saved individuals - hence, the elect. But the very use of "call" when referring to unbelievers makes it clear that there is an appeal to them to believe the gospel. But it is not referred to as a "call" in the NT - that I am aware - when referring to such an appeal to unbelievers (non-elect). Perhaps someone else can point out where it is specifically used as such. But no problemo either way.

I do not think we disagree here, though we describe it differently. But I see this expression to refer to those whom God called (elect) as well as those whom have "called on His name." Both refer to the elect, but the latter makes it clear that a response is required.

I prefer to focus on where we agree here.

BD

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 03:57 PM
Bad Dog,

let me answer the gist of this question with these verses:
JIMH,

Thx for responding.


It's best to read Isaiah Chapter 65 completely, but here are some excerpts

Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
Isa 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
Isa 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Isa 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Isa 65:6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,
Isa 65:7 Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

These verses to me speak of those people that learn about God, but yet do not obey His will. They will appear to be saints, when in reality they are not.

Isa 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

This verse speaks to me of a wicked slothful servant. One that serves God only half-heartedly.

Isa 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains (which is Yeshua): and mine elect shall inherit (which are those that will rule with Yeshua) it, and my servants (which are those who gave it all up to follow Him) shall dwell there.
Isa 65:10 And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. (these are just "normal" folks that sought the Lord but didn't go the whole 9 yards)

So if i'm understanding this correctly, we will see some sort of "ranking" in Heaven, which appears to be reflected in what they did on earth. (reward system)

His elect (priests)
His servants
and His people

So i believe there will be three categories of people, in heaven, at least two if i'm wrong on the servants and they are the same as the priests.

Then there are those that missed the boat:

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

These could be believers and unbelievers alike at least from what i believe.


While God desires that each and every one of us would come to repentance, and turn away from sin, and follow the Word, not all will hear, and not all even if they should hear will obey.

This is what the free will of man does.

I agree that there are rewards for those who are faithful, but we are ALL priests (2 Peter 2). The rewards are for faithful service and results in greater opportunities to serve in the kingdom, greater responsibilities, and opportunities to be closer to Christ.

Those who are punished with eternal fire are only the unbelieving.

BD

humbled
May 31st 2007, 03:58 PM
I do not think we disagree here, though we describe it differently. But I see this expression to refer to those whom God called (elect) as well as those whom have "called on His name." Both refer to the elect, but the latter makes it clear that a response is required.

I prefer to focus on where we agree here.

BDAmen brother :)

I think I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to be sure.

Teke
May 31st 2007, 04:05 PM
Well, BD, I figured some eschatology was influencing the different views presented. But you answered your question to me a few posts back on the priesthood with those Revelation verses.:D

I won't get into this subject any further, so as not to take the thread off course. I'll just say it is my opinion and belief that the first resurrection occurred with Christ's resurrection and the second one occurs at His second coming.
And I still see no distinction, except time wise with resurrections, as Alpha and Omega also said "first will be last, and last first" and I already gave my opinion on that (no difference, just like the early worker and late workers).;)

BTW, my OT ref. would be Isaiah 61:6, as the priesthood participates in the regeneration/renewal

Jesusinmyheart
May 31st 2007, 04:09 PM
Those who are punished with eternal fire are only the unbelieving.

I disagree Bad dog, and here's why:

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

In this verse there are actually two scenarios: Those God called and they didn't answer (unbelievers), and then those that God spoke to, and they did not hear ("believers"). These are two groups of people. and both are going under the sword.

Faith without works is dead.....so how is a person who has such faith that has no works which is considered dead then be alive ?

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 04:17 PM
Just want to keep it in focus:


Just curious. I do think that is the heart of his question on this thread. How can we encourage people that God is faithful, just and loves everyone - even the non-elect - while holding to individual election (as I do)?

This is a fair question, and I believe can be very edifiying to the body.

BD

BadDog
May 31st 2007, 04:32 PM
I disagree Bad dog, and here's why:

Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

In this verse there are actually two scenarios: Those God called and they didn't answer (unbelievers), and then those that God spoke to, and they did not hear ("believers"). These are two groups of people. and both are going under the sword.

Faith without works is dead.....so how is a person who has such faith that has no works which is considered dead then be alive ?

John 5:24 Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, the one who hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has crossed over (already) out of death into life."

Don't try to find NT theology in the OT. No one who has trusted in Christ will be judged such that it will result in condemnation.

And "faith without works is dead" means simply that works energizes our faith - that faith without works is useless... doesn't mean such faith was never alive. BTW, that text in James is a specific reference to believing Jewish Christians who needed to live out their faith in such a manner that was a positive testimony for Christ. It was not the faith of the person needing to be "saved" that was in question. James is not talking about saving faith - about becoming a Christian - trusting in Christ for eternal life.

Now I could argue with you over the meaning of Isaiah 65, and I do not at all agree with you there - but I do not think it will be profitable since it does not apply to trusting in Christ at all. Those to whom He spoke, but they did not answer and he called but they did not hear are the same people. That is classis Hebrew poetic expression. It is not referring to two different people. And these are not Christians, because Christ had not yet come.

Look at the context - it is referring to the kingdom age... unless you know of some wolves that lie down with sheep, and lions that eat straw like oxen! :P

Isaiah 65: 22-25 My chosen ones will fully enjoy the work of their hands. They will not labor without success or bear children [destined] for disaster, for they will be a people blessed by the Lord along with their descendants. Even before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but the serpent's food will be dust!

They will not do what is evil or destroy on My entire holy mountain," says the Lord.

Now, if you want to convince me of anything, please use the NT. And please address John 5:24 if you still do not agree with me.

Thx much,

BD

Teke
May 31st 2007, 04:54 PM
Don't try to find NT theology in the OT.

Why not? Jesus and the Apostles did.:P



it is referring to the kingdom age... unless you know of some wolves that lie down with sheep, and lions that eat straw like oxen! :P


Hmm, if the kingdom is within you, then isn't the kingdom age now?

And the wolves, sheep, lions and oxen aren't necessarily literal animals. In the NT they are people. But you know about such figurative language......

humbled
May 31st 2007, 07:13 PM
Just want to keep it in focus:


Just curious. I do think that is the heart of his question on this thread. How can we encourage people that God is faithful, just and loves everyone - even the non-elect - while holding to individual election (as I do)?

This is a fair question, and I believe can be very edifiying to the body.

BDThis is a very fair question, BD

And it is one that I've mulled around for a little while now. I was recently introduced to the idea of corporate election, which actually makes a BIT of sense to me. BUT ... I would say that there is a multiple application for that concept.

I believe God loves MANKIND as a whole, HUMANS, the RACE ...

I believe God HATES the workers of iniquity individually (Psalm 5:5). I believe God RESISTS the proud. I believe God LOVES His Son and all who are IN His Son, individually -- and this is the key. He HATES all workers of iniquity, and who is a worker of iniquity?

Everyone who is not in Christ!

God hates the worker of iniquity. I was once a worker of iniquity. But God ALSO chose me (I believe this firmly) and revealed His Son to me at the proper time. However, He did this while hating me?

Well, yes. God didn't have FEELINGS of hatred for me. He hated me the same way He resists the proud. By not blessing me with His blessings and not helping me in my troubles, etc. So what did He do? He placed me in Christ in order to see me as righteous and void of iniquity so He COULD bless me and all that!!

I'm getting excited just thinking about it :) What LOVE the Father had for us that while we were yet sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us!

Love and hate are not feelings with God. They are actions. And those who are in Christ are beloved of God. Those who are not, have not yet been loved by God. Otherwise, they would be in Christ, the Beloved.

So to wrap it up, I do not believe God loves all people individually throughout all of eternity. I believe John 3:16 should be viewed corporately, as in the race of mankind but not each individual person.

And this thought is developing, but I'm more confident that this is correct than any other interpretation I've seen.

Teke
May 31st 2007, 07:47 PM
God hates the worker of iniquity. I was once a worker of iniquity. But God ALSO chose me (I believe this firmly) and revealed His Son to me at the proper time. However, He did this while hating me?

Well, yes. God didn't have FEELINGS of hatred for me. He hated me the same way He resists the proud. By not blessing me with His blessings and not helping me in my troubles, etc. So what did He do? He placed me in Christ in order to see me as righteous and void of iniquity so He COULD bless me and all that!!



I don't see God so contrary. He is love, and He loved you before you loved or knew Him. God loves all of us sinners.:spin:

Psa 40:11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

Psa 63:3 Because thy lovingkindness [is] better than life, my lips shall praise thee.

Psa 143:8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.


Hsa 2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

Hsa 2:20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.

+++++++++++++++

Love bears all things by mercy, not hate IOW.

humbled
May 31st 2007, 08:12 PM
I don't see God so contrary. He is love, and He loved you before you loved or knew Him. God loves all of us sinners.:spin:

Psa 40:11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

Psa 63:3 Because thy lovingkindness [is] better than life, my lips shall praise thee.

Psa 143:8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.


Hsa 2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

Hsa 2:20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.

+++++++++++++++

Love bears all things by mercy, not hate IOW.The verses above are spoken by believers, no?

Read Psalm 5:5

it is very clear.

I am not denying that God is love. But God also hates the WORKERS of iniquity. Not just their works.

Christian Holzman
May 31st 2007, 08:53 PM
If I be lifted up I will draw all men into myself.

Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe.

Teke
May 31st 2007, 09:12 PM
The verses above are spoken by believers, no?

Read Psalm 5:5

it is very clear.

I am not denying that God is love. But God also hates the WORKERS of iniquity. Not just their works.

Workers of iniquity refers to the works, not the person. Or they'd have used another word that specifically meant the person. ;)

Teke
May 31st 2007, 09:13 PM
If I be lifted up I will draw all men into myself.

Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe.

"I like it, simple, easy to remember." Capt. Jack Sparrow:D

Jesusinmyheart
May 31st 2007, 09:16 PM
Ok Bad dog,
I still disagree. You asked and i shall answer :P

In context with your verse :

John 5:24 Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, the one who hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has crossed over out of death into life."

Let's study the hebrew words on "Hear" "shamah" and "believe".

First Hear (shamah)

H8085
שׁמע
shâma‛
BDB Definition:
1) to hear, listen to, obey (verb)
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to hear (perceive by ear)
1a2) to hear of or concerning
1a3) to hear (have power to hear)
1a4) to hear with attention or interest, listen to
1a5) to understand (language)
1a6) to hear (of judicial cases)
1a7) to listen, give heed
1a7a) to consent, agree
1a7b) to grant request
1a8) to listen to, yield to
1a9) to obey, be obedient
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be heard (of voice or sound)
1b2) to be heard of
1b3) to be regarded, be obeyed
1c) (Piel) to cause to hear, call to hear, summon
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to cause to hear, tell, proclaim, utter a sound
1d2) to sound aloud (musical term)
1d3) to make proclamation, summon
1d4) to cause to be heard
2) sound (noun masculine)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2412, 2412a

This is the same as God saying "Listen up son" IOW When God says "hear" he means for you to hear and obey. This is in line with the scripture here:

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Again this is proven also by

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Now on to studying the word "Believe" (awman)

H539
אמן
'âman
BDB Definition:
1) to support, confirm, be faithful
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish
1a1a) foster-father (substantive)
1a1b) foster-mother, nurse
1a1c) pillars, supporters of the door
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm
1b1a) to be carried by a nurse
1b1b) made firm, sure, lasting
1b1c) confirmed, established, sure
1b1d) verified, confirmed
1b1e) reliable, faithful, trusty
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in
1c1a) stand firm
1c1b) trust, believe
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 116

This is verified by these scriptures:

Rom 3:30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

again it is verified here also:

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!
Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.


Hearing and believing is closely related in that one hears the Word of God (Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.) You will hear and obey God when you believe.

As i have stated before: Hearing and believing and having Faith in God goes beyond a mental grasp, and rather it goes inot action, that one acts on what one hears, believes, and has faith in.

Something else i noticed as i made this reply:

Look at this:

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

Rom 3:30 since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith

Here we see in both verses preceeding these statements, that God is one:

This is reflected in several places:

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Deu 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deu 6:6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
Deu 6:7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Mar 12:31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."


With that i'd like to say:


Don't try to find NT theology in the OT. No one who has trusted in Christ will be judged such that it will result in condemnation.

Can someone, who does not act upon what he/she hears, believes and has faith in be a true believer, and thus be saved ?

And for the comment:


Look at the context - it is referring to the kingdom age... unless you know of some wolves that lie down with sheep, and lions that eat straw like oxen!

The verse i quoted came before God spoke of creating a new heaven and earth. Matter of fact here in Verse:

Isa 65:7 both your iniquities and your fathers' iniquities together, says the LORD; because they made offerings on the mountains and insulted me on the hills, I will measure into their bosom payment for their former deeds."
God speaks of the people before Jesus and at the time of Jesus and after.

The next verse also shows how this is a past, present, and future scenario:

Isa 65:9 I will bring forth offspring from Jacob (Past-Jesus), and from Judah possessors of my mountains (past-present believers ); my chosen shall possess it (future), and my servants shall dwell there (future).

It's not til Verse 17 that God fully concentrates on the Future Kingdom:

Isa 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.

humbled
May 31st 2007, 09:18 PM
If I be lifted up I will draw all men into myself.

Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, especially those that believe.
Common universal verses.

compare John 6:44-65 with your above Jn 12:32. If Jesus draws every single person in the world, then what is the Father doing drawing specific people? Are they conflicting with each other? Or is it the work of the cross what the Father USES to draw men to His Son? And the greek PAS is a qualified word which makes the statement actually make sense. Jesus, through His work on the cross, draws ALL that the Father has drawn THROUGH THE CROSS.

Because most assuredly ALL MEN have not been drawn to Jesus. But ALL CHRISTIANS have been. This interpretation makes Scripture harmonize. Your interpretation does not, I'm afraid.

and 1 Tim 4:10 does NOT say "Jesus Christ" is the savior of all men, especially believers.

It says "the living God". And what does it mean to you when it says that the living God is the savior of all men, especially believers?

What is the context of that verse? Is it salvation? No. It is false teaching. And all who are saved from false teaching are saved TO the truth BY the living God ... ESPECIALLY believers in His Word.

The way you are interpeting these verses, you have Scripture contradicting itself in several places. that should concern you.

Grace to you

humbled
May 31st 2007, 09:27 PM
Workers of iniquity refers to the works, not the person. Or they'd have used another word that specifically meant the person. ;)huh?

WORKER of iniquity is not specific to the person?

What word could have been more specific? Jane Doe?

How about Esau?

No way, Teke. That verse does not generalize to say God hates the sin but loves the sinner. It says GOD HATES the WORKER of iniquity. Not the WORK of iniquity.

Other translations:

NASB
5The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.

NIV
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong.

ESV
5The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
You hate all evildoers.

HCSV
5 The boastful cannot stand in Your presence;
You hate all evildoers.

The grammar in all of these implies individuals themselves and not their works. Take a look at DSK's sig.

Blessings

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 12:21 AM
OK humbled. Let's follow that logic. What about the devil and his demons? How does He employ them when He can't stand them in His presence? Does He just tolerate them to make more workers of iniquity? IOW God produces what He hates.:hmm:

BadDog
Jun 1st 2007, 02:26 AM
Why not? Jesus and the Apostles did.:P

Hmm, if the kingdom is within you, then isn't the kingdom age now?
God used Paul to give us NT doctrine. That's where you should start. If you find your doctrine in the OT and then try to pin it up with a few other scriptures, you'll be way off base. That's not sound hermaneutics.


And the wolves, sheep, lions and oxen aren't necessarily literal animals. In the NT they are people. But you know about such figurative language......Uh, you gotta be kidding, right? :cool:

BD

BadDog
Jun 1st 2007, 03:52 AM
Ok Bad dog,
I still disagree. You asked and i shall answer :P

In context with your verse :

John 5:24 Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, the one who hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He shall not come into judgment, but has crossed over out of death into life."

Let's study the hebrew words on "Hear" "shamah" and "believe".

First Hear (shamah)
Sorry, but this just does not apply. This is Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. The Greek word used here is AKOUW. It simply means "to hear."

amhn amhn legw umin oti o ton logon mou akouwn kai pisteuwn tw pemyanti me ecei zwhn aiwnion, kai eiV krisin ouk ercetai alla metabebhken ek tou qanatou eiV thn zwhn.

There are two participles here - hearing and believing.

Just as in English, the word "hear" can be used to mean to hear the sound, and it can also be used to refer to heeding them, as you said. In this instance Jesus is referring to the person who hears what Jesus has to say and heeds those words... by believing in Him. IOW, he heeds Jesus' words by believing them. But to try to make believing something it is not - obedience - is just not what Jesus is clearly saying here.

Notice also...
"has eternal life."

This is powerful. It says that when we have trusted in Christ, that we "have" (present possession) eternal life.

It also says that we have (already) crossed over out of death and into life.
(METABAINW - to pass over from one place to another, to remove, depart)



Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
So are you now proposing that we obey the Law? Paul's purpose here is to make it clear that simply hearing and knowing the Law is not enough - they had to obey it - perfectly. They could not. Hence they needed to rely upon Christ's death in their place. You're lifting this verse out of its context:

Romans 2:12 All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

The Jews believed that just knowing the law was sufficient. It was not. Vs 17 continues... "Now if you call yourself a Jew, and rest in the law, and boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are superior, being instructed from the law..." His conclusion is in vs. 25, "For circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision."

Now you defined the Hebrew idea of "believe" as to be faithful, to support, to confirm." Well, I doubt that the Jewish idea of believing is much different than in English. But I am certain that in Greek PISTEUW simply means to believe.

Paul was pointing out that those Jews who felt that they needed only to obey the Jewish Law, and did not need to receive Christ as their Messiah, that they did not in actuality obey the Law.

I addressed James 2 in detail already here. You also said...


Can someone, who does not act upon what he/she hears, believes and has faith in be a true believer, and thus be saved ?

And for the comment:

Let me address this before we look at the rest...

Simply put: yes. Faith is faith. It is not works. Now that said, if someone genuinely believes the gospel, of course he will desire to follow Christ. But howoften are we faithful in following through with our good intents?

But I imagine you are thinking of someone who SAYS that they believe this or that. I am talking about someone who simply, but genuinely, believes the gospel. But I insist upon distinguishing the believing and the acting upon.



("BadDog" - One word)
Look at the context - it is referring to the kingdom age... unless you know of some wolves that lie down with sheep, and lions that eat straw like oxen!

The verse I quoted came before God spoke of creating a new heaven and earth. Matter of fact here in Verse:

Isa 65:7 both your iniquities and your fathers' iniquities together, says the LORD; because they made offerings on the mountains and insulted me on the hills, I will measure into their bosom payment for their former deeds."
God speaks of the people before Jesus and at the time of Jesus and after.

The next verse also shows how this is a past, present, and future scenario:

Isa 65:9 I will bring forth offspring from Jacob (Past-Jesus), and from Judah possessors of my mountains (past-present believers ); my chosen shall possess it (future), and my servants shall dwell there (future).

It's not til Verse 17 that God fully concentrates on the Future Kingdom:

Isa 65:17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
JIMH,

Yes, I know it is. That was what I was saying. This is referring to the future kingdom age.

BD

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 03:29 PM
God used Paul to give us NT doctrine. That's where you should start. If you find your doctrine in the OT and then try to pin it up with a few other scriptures, you'll be way off base. That's not sound hermaneutics.

Not to sound insulting to your method, nor to sound as tho I support JIMH's approach, but that is your personal opinion of hermaneutics. From what I've seen of yours thus far, your approach is grammatical-historical exegesis. And while that may seem safe for you, your not taking into account the Apostles hermaneutics which deal with the OT.

A hermeneutical-historical approach is also necessary to understand the biblical authors.

The Apostles hermeneutic was based on their conviction that the eschaton had come in Christ. That is what drove them to the OT scriptures understanding, by which, they proclaim in the NT.
And that is my basis of understanding as well. Whereas you are taking the grammatical-historical exegesis and imposing your own eschatological view on it.

The only eschatological view the Apostles had in their time was that Jesus was God and was raised from the dead.

I'm not going to be overly critical about your approach, but it is limited. Which is likely why evangelicals tend to impose their own personal eschatology in their doctrinal assumptions.



Uh, you gotta be kidding, right? :cool:

BD

Kidding..??, do you believe the scriptures kid you. Did Jesus really mean for the disciples to go tell a "fox" what He said in Luke 13? Are we really "sheep" that "wolves" can come and ravage?
Or who is the lion, is He the Lion of Judah (Revelation) or is He the adversary the devil? If lion is meant of the Lion of Judah, then He could certainly be said to eat straw in the sense that He was humble and that He laid down with lambs (even in a literal sense).

See how that hermeneutical-historical approach is necessary to understand the NT writers and their OT quotes.;)

As you can see, I'm not imposing modern eschatology on the text to understand doctrine. I am using the Apostles approach from the eschaton, period, nothing more.

Jesusinmyheart
Jun 1st 2007, 03:31 PM
Bad dog,

Too bad that you rely only on the greek definition of what "hear" means.
The greek unfortunately looses some of the rich meaning of the hebrew that is why i always go back to the hebrew to get a fuller understanding. IMO, the greek should always be complimented by the hebrew, just as the NT is built upon the foundation of the OT.

Shalom,
Tanja

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 03:40 PM
Bad dog,

Too bad that you rely only on the greek definition of what "hear" means.
The greek unfortunately looses some of the rich meaning of the greek that is why i always go back to the hebrew to get a fuller understanding.

Shalom,
Tanja

You likely mean a "broader" meaning for you to choose from. A fuller or truer meaning would include your checking the Hebrew with Aramaic. As Hebrew is a dialect of Aramaic, which is of Akkadian and or Chaldean origin ie. Babel/Babylonian.;)

humbled
Jun 1st 2007, 03:49 PM
OK humbled. Let's follow that logic. What about the devil and his demons? How does He employ them when He can't stand them in His presence? Does He just tolerate them to make more workers of iniquity? IOW God produces what He hates.:hmm:Do you believe that God hates the same way we hate?

Define hate.

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 05:04 PM
Do you believe that God hates the same way we hate?

Define hate.

No I don't believe God hates the way we do as the natural man. It is my overall understanding of hate in scripture, to mean "enemy". And because God is Spirit, He likely means it in a spiritual sense. Meaning one can be a spiritual enemy of God.

But God/Jesus said to love our enemies. Which thereby proves that love is more righteous than hate.

A better word to describe God's hate is "indignant". As Christians proclaim He is worthy of all glory and honor, then those who do not are indignant.

humbled
Jun 1st 2007, 05:24 PM
No I don't believe God hates the way we do as the natural man. It is my overall understanding of hate in scripture, to mean "enemy". And because God is Spirit, He likely means it in a spiritual sense. Meaning one can be a spiritual enemy of God.

But God/Jesus said to love our enemies. Which thereby proves that love is more righteous than hate.

A better word to describe God's hate is "indignant". As Christians proclaim He is worthy of all glory and honor, then those who do not are indignant.
Ok, I agree.

Going with that definition, then, could you clarify this phrase for me please?


Originally Posted by Teke http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1278674#post1278674)
OK humbled. Let's follow that logic. What about the devil and his demons? How does He employ them when He can't stand them in His presence? Does He just tolerate them to make more workers of iniquity? IOW God produces what He hates.:hmm:


It is not that God cannot stand them in His presence. The first chapter of Job shows that He can. What it is, is that God hates all who do evil. The text says so. It does not say that God hates the works of evildoers. It says God hates the evildoers themselves. And you disagree with this.

I have a serious concern with that.

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 07:18 PM
Ok, I agree.

Going with that definition, then, could you clarify this phrase for me please?



It is not that God cannot stand them in His presence. The first chapter of Job shows that He can. What it is, is that God hates all who do evil. The text says so. It does not say that God hates the works of evildoers. It says God hates the evildoers themselves. And you disagree with this.

I have a serious concern with that.

I'm a bit concerned myself, that you don't understand this. Especially in light of the fact that you used a Psalm to make your point (psalms are holy prayers).

My understanding is not based on one written word, but the many words of the faithful, which describe God. Hateful is not a word to describe God. Nor is it a good word for a Father toward His children. I'm sure if your children do something you don't like, you don't "hate" them. Your likely more indignant than hateful about what they've done against your better judgment.

So if you compare all the scriptures on "workers of iniquity", you'll find they are people acting without knowledge about God. Or those who make God their enemy. Which is what the Psalm is saying in context. It is verse 6 which indicates what they do, and that which God does not find favorable.

In that light we can see it is as God told Cain, do what is favorable and you will find favor with Me (my paraphrase). He didn't hate Cain, He instructed Him to righteous behavior. He wouldn't do that if He actually hated him.

humbled
Jun 1st 2007, 07:29 PM
I'm a bit concerned myself, that you don't understand this. Especially in light of the fact that you used a Psalm to make your point (psalms are holy prayers).

My understanding is not based on one written word, but the many words of the faithful, which describe God. Hateful is not a word to describe God. Nor is it a good word for a Father toward His children. I'm sure if your children do something you don't like, you don't "hate" them. Your likely more indignant than hateful about what they've done against your better judgment.

So if you compare all the scriptures on "workers of iniquity", you'll find they are people acting without knowledge about God. Or those who make God their enemy. Which is what the Psalm is saying in context. It is verse 6 which indicates what they do, and that which God does not find favorable.

In that light we can see it is as God told Cain, do what is favorable and you will find favor with Me (my paraphrase). He didn't hate Cain, He instructed Him to righteous behavior. He wouldn't do that if He actually hated him.
1.

Not all humans are children of God. In fact NONE are until He adopts them.

2.

Psalm 5:6 still speaks of the INDIVIDUAL and not what they do.

5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.
6 You destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.

I realize this doesn't mesh with your IDEA of who God is. But this passage is abundantly clear. CRYSTAL clear, Teke. What does it SAY?

That's the last I'll say on the subject. You have not given me any reason at all to read this text to mean "God hates the sin but loves the sinner". That's humanism and feelgoodism. It's not biblical at all.

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 09:56 PM
1.

Not all humans are children of God. In fact NONE are until He adopts them.

2.

Psalm 5:6 still speaks of the INDIVIDUAL and not what they do.

5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes;
You hate all who do iniquity.
6 You destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.

I realize this doesn't mesh with your IDEA of who God is. But this passage is abundantly clear. CRYSTAL clear, Teke. What does it SAY?

That's the last I'll say on the subject. You have not given me any reason at all to read this text to mean "God hates the sin but loves the sinner". That's humanism and feelgoodism. It's not biblical at all.

Show me a scripture that says that God only loves those adopted by Him. Cause I can't find one. The Lord God said love your neighbor, and that includes your enemy. Your view sets up a double standard. I'll take the Lord's word over yours, sorry.:P

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, Leviticus 19:18)

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the heathen do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)

If your that jealous of God's love, then imagine how the Jews felt when the Gentiles received salvation by their God. :cool:

humbled
Jun 1st 2007, 10:10 PM
Show me a scripture that says that God only loves those adopted by Him. Cause I can't find one. The Lord God said love your neighbor, and that includes your enemy. Your view sets up a double standard. I'll take the Lord's word over yours, sorry.:P

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, Leviticus 19:18)

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the heathen do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48)

If your that jealous of God's love, then imagine how the Jews felt when the Gentiles received salvation by their God. :cool:There is no jealousy (by this I believe you mean COVETING in the sinful way) in me for God's love.

I am not trying to restrict it from anyone. I simply read what that text says EXPLICITLY.

If the text said God loves dogs, and you found a passage that says God loves cats I would conclude that BOTH are true. I would not favor the fact that "my verse" says God loves dogs so He can't possibly love cats. I would conclude that in order to HARMONIZE the Scriptures, they must BOTH be true. What you've done here is said "No, God does NOT hate the worker of iniquity because we are commanded to love our neighbor".

It's a false dilemma. You are IGNORING one part of the bible in lieu of your verses.

I am afraid that I may not be able to conclude this conversation until monday ... I'm having internet connection issues at home. I HOPE they fix it tonight, but they may not ... so we'll have to wait till the weekend's over (a weekend without an internet connection?? :eek:)

Good talkin' to ya Teke.

Grace to you

Christian Holzman
Jun 1st 2007, 11:17 PM
Common universal verses.

compare John 6:44-65 with your above Jn 12:32. If Jesus draws every single person in the world, then what is the Father doing drawing specific people? Are they conflicting with each other? Or is it the work of the cross what the Father USES to draw men to His Son? And the greek PAS is a qualified word which makes the statement actually make sense. Jesus, through His work on the cross, draws ALL that the Father has drawn THROUGH THE CROSS.

Because most assuredly ALL MEN have not been drawn to Jesus. But ALL CHRISTIANS have been. This interpretation makes Scripture harmonize. Your interpretation does not, I'm afraid.

and 1 Tim 4:10 does NOT say "Jesus Christ" is the savior of all men, especially believers.

It says "the living God". And what does it mean to you when it says that the living God is the savior of all men, especially believers?

What is the context of that verse? Is it salvation? No. It is false teaching. And all who are saved from false teaching are saved TO the truth BY the living God ... ESPECIALLY believers in His Word.

The way you are interpeting these verses, you have Scripture contradicting itself in several places. that should concern you.

Grace to you

I think you are the one making those scriptures about universalism. All I simply did was put 2 scriptures that I like and that show that salvation is for everyone.

Teke
Jun 1st 2007, 11:50 PM
Well, Humbled, sorry to hear about your internet problems. But I hope you think about this some more this weekend. :D
Cause if God doesn't love sinners, then why give us salvation. :P

humbled
Jun 2nd 2007, 01:02 AM
Well, Humbled, sorry to hear about your internet problems. But I hope you think about this some more this weekend. :D
Cause if God doesn't love sinners, then why give us salvation. :P
Ah ... internet is back up :bounce:

now back to things.

I did not say God doesn't love sinners!

I said the BIBLE says God HATES ALL EVILDOERS.

YOU are the one who is saying that that does not say what it says :hmm:

I also started this conversation off by saying that God placed me in Christ when I was a worker of iniquity. I believe this is because God loves THE SON and ALL who are IN THE SON.

It is not me you are arguing against, Teke. It is Psalm 5

Blessings.

Christian Holzman
Jun 2nd 2007, 01:03 AM
God loves all mankind! He loves the drug addicts, the adulterers, the alcoholics, the prostitutes, the liars, the thieves, the murderers, the christians, the muslims, the jews, the atheists, and many more, including the overweight preachers and the preachers that rob and steal from the poor. God loves us all

humbled
Jun 2nd 2007, 01:06 AM
God loves all mankind! He loves the drug addicts, the adulterers, the alcoholics, the prostitutes, the liars, the thieves, the murderers, the christians, the muslims, the jews, the atheists, and many more, including the overweight preachers and the preachers that rob and steal from the poor. God loves us allSee ... that's the problem when someone misunderstands another person.

Someone always believes the misunderstanding over the actual spoken words.

I did not say that, CH.

But the bible did make that assertion. Do you not believe Psalm 5, either?

Christian Holzman
Jun 2nd 2007, 01:27 AM
See ... that's the problem when someone misunderstands another person.

Someone always believes the misunderstanding over the actual spoken words.

I did not say that, CH.

But the bible did make that assertion. Do you not believe Psalm 5, either?

I didnt say that is what you said, I only responded to the last quote. You should take that up withe teke, since that is where the quote came from.

As far as psalm 5 "
you destroy all who speak falsely. Murderers and deceivers the LORD abhors. 8 But I can enter your house because of your great love. I can worship in your holy temple because of my reverence for you, LORD."
Dont forget David also murdered, did God hate him? of course not, no where do you see Jesus saying that his father hates sinners, do you believe John 12:42 and 1 Timothy 4:9-11? When I posted two scriptures that I like that deal with salvation you assumed I was a universalist. Why is that? I never said you believe that God hates sinners but you quickly made an assumption about me. Please explain

RogerW
Jun 2nd 2007, 02:14 AM
In a providential way God cares for all men by giving all men breath, food, blessings and common mercy, but He especially loves and cares for His own. In a general way God providentially attends all mankind, but with a special providence directed toward His elect.

Mt 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mt 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mt 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Ps 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
Ps 37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
Ps 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Ps 37:26 He is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed.

Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

When we read, "who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." The word Saviour here is not meant in the sense of eternal salvation, but in the sense that He governs His creation, and delivers and protects. Even unbelievers are protected by God. It is in this sense that He is the Savior of all men. This is not speaking of spiritual salvation of the souls of all men, but only that He porvidentially governs all of His creation. So, the love that God has for those who are not among the elect may be likened to genuine love, in that through His providence He keeps mankind from destroying His creation. But the love that God extends to the elect is a love that surpasses understanding. He sets His special love on those He has ordained unto eternal life from the foundation of the world, and nothing will ever separate them from His love.

We see a picture of the Lord's love for the non-elect toward the rich young ruler. Though the Lord says He loved Him, yet the young man did not receive eternal life, and went away sad. Some might argue that this man came to Christ seeking from Him eternal life. But the man's question betrays his heart, for he asks "what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The man thought that he could somehow merit eternal life through his own good works.

Mr 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

Mr 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Mr 10:22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

So we can see that the Lord did show love and compassion, and this love is agapao; which is more, or a deeper love then phileo; which denotes friendship or fondness. No the Lord loves deeply all of His creation, but that does not change the fact that God's saving love is extended only to the elect. His love extended toward the elect is "great love wherewith He loved us."

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

RW

Teke
Jun 2nd 2007, 02:18 AM
Ah ... internet is back up :bounce:

now back to things.

I did not say God doesn't love sinners!

I said the BIBLE says God HATES ALL EVILDOERS.

YOU are the one who is saying that that does not say what it says :hmm:

I also started this conversation off by saying that God placed me in Christ when I was a worker of iniquity. I believe this is because God loves THE SON and ALL who are IN THE SON.

It is not me you are arguing against, Teke. It is Psalm 5

Blessings.

I'm not arguing the Psalm doesn't say what it says. I just believe you are misunderstanding. The Psalm is a prayer, not a theology about God or a doctrine.

So I don't understand the point your trying to make with the verse from
Psalm 5. :dunno:

humbled
Jun 2nd 2007, 05:51 AM
I'm not arguing the Psalm doesn't say what it says. I just believe you are misunderstanding. The Psalm is a prayer, not a theology about God or a doctrine.

So I don't understand the point your trying to make with the verse from
Psalm 5. :dunno:You can extract theology from all Scriptures, don't you think?

I mean .. what else is God trying to tell us when He inspires David to say "YOU HATE ALL EVILDOERS"? Do you suppose that if God wanted us to believe that He ONLY hates the works of evil that He would have inspired "YOU HATE THE WORKS OF EVILDOERS"?

Seems reasonable to me. And I'm sure you would agree that God is not hiding His truth from His children, right? What does Psalm 5:5-6 say, Teke? What do you suppose God is trying to teach us? And please don't go to another text. Just use that psalm.

Teke
Jun 2nd 2007, 12:42 PM
You can extract theology from all Scriptures, don't you think?

I mean .. what else is God trying to tell us when He inspires David to say "YOU HATE ALL EVILDOERS"? Do you suppose that if God wanted us to believe that He ONLY hates the works of evil that He would have inspired "YOU HATE THE WORKS OF EVILDOERS"?

Seems reasonable to me. And I'm sure you would agree that God is not hiding His truth from His children, right? What does Psalm 5:5-6 say, Teke? What do you suppose God is trying to teach us? And please don't go to another text. Just use that psalm.

I understand the Psalm Humbled, in it's context. I agree He is not hiding His truth from His children. We have a clear example from Jesus/God. And He didn't hate workers of iniquity.

So why would you believe something other than your clear example. Christ.:)

Walstib
Jun 2nd 2007, 01:59 PM
For consideration…

If nothing is impossible for God, can he not love and hate workers of iniquity at the same time?

Peace,

Joe

Son_kissed
Jun 2nd 2007, 04:28 PM
I think it may be our narrow definitions of "hate" (and love, perhaps) that cause this conundrum.

I dont know a whole lot about the original languages, but I think that in many cases the word "reject" would have been a good substitute for the word "hate."

Just as we put thieves and murderers behind bars, and in that sense society "rejects" them (keeping them apart from us), so are we able to, at the same time, love them.

Just a few more thoughts for consideration...

Teke
Jun 2nd 2007, 04:33 PM
For consideration…

If nothing is impossible for God, can he not love and hate workers of iniquity at the same time?

Peace,

Joe

I would think so. He said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do.":cry:
He told us to pray for our enemies and forgive them, to be as our heavenly Father.

What can I say against such clear teaching as this. Which is also a Christian doctrine of the whole church. Meaning it's indisputable irregardless of what I think of other scriptures in relation to that. The Psalms of prayers do not change that fact either.

Jubal
Jun 3rd 2007, 03:06 AM
I haven't read the entire thread. Anyway I believe God wants everyone to be saved...

"1" I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

"2": For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

"3": For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

"4": Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

"5": For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

"6": Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

- 1 Timothy 2:1-6

Walstib
Jun 3rd 2007, 04:13 AM
I would think so. He said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do.":cry:
He told us to pray for our enemies and forgive them, to be as our heavenly Father.

What can I say against such clear teaching as this. Which is also a Christian doctrine of the whole church. Meaning it's indisputable irregardless of what I think of other scriptures in relation to that. The Psalms of prayers do not change that fact either.
Are you agreeing?

Just a further thought, that comparing what God can do to what we are called to do is like apples and oranges.

There is no doubt in my mind we are to love everybody. As I am sure Jesus does perfectly.

Thank you Jesus.

humbled
Jun 3rd 2007, 04:26 PM
I think it may be our narrow definitions of "hate" (and love, perhaps) that cause this conundrum.

I dont know a whole lot about the original languages, but I think that in many cases the word "reject" would have been a good substitute for the word "hate."

Just as we put thieves and murderers behind bars, and in that sense society "rejects" them (keeping them apart from us), so are we able to, at the same time, love them.

Just a few more thoughts for consideration...This is exactly what I've tried to tell Teke, but she is adamant about thinking I believe God despises with emotion those who do evil.

No. As I've said time and time again, hate from God is resistance, just as God resists the proud, so He hates all workers of iniquity.

Teke insists on believing that God does NOT do this, but that He only hates the WORKS. Contrary to the plain reading of Scripture. Her reason? It's a "prayer psalm".

It's still an inspired prayer psalm.

God loves the world. He loves the human race. But He also hates and resists those who sin. It is interesting that God resists us while we all sin, yet somehow some still believe we are able to overcome God's resistance and freely choose Christ?

The more I meditate on this passage, the more it convinces me of Unconditional Election. The more it convinces me of Total Depravity. While in our sinful state, we are totally unable to come to Christ of our own free will not only because we don't want to, but because God is resisting us from even doing so because He cannot stand our sin! So what does He do? He places us IN CHRIST so that we CAN come to Him! Praise God for His grace! His mercy on those whom He has chosen!

RogerW
Jun 3rd 2007, 04:35 PM
This is exactly what I've tried to tell Teke, but she is adamant about thinking I believe God despises with emotion those who do evil.

No. As I've said time and time again, hate from God is resistance, just as God resists the proud, so He hates all workers of iniquity.

Teke insists on believing that God does NOT do this, but that He only hates the WORKS. Contrary to the plain reading of Scripture. Her reason? It's a "prayer psalm".

It's still an inspired prayer psalm.

God loves the world. He loves the human race. But He also hates and resists those who sin. It is interesting that God resists us while we all sin, yet somehow some still believe we are able to overcome God's resistance and freely choose Christ?

The more I meditate on this passage, the more it convinces me of Unconditional Election. The more it convinces me of Total Depravity. While in our sinful state, we are totally unable to come to Christ of our own free will not only because we don't want to, but because God is resisting us from even doing so because He cannot stand our sin! So what does He do? He places us IN CHRIST so that we CAN come to Him! Praise God for His grace! His mercy on those whom He has chosen!

I'm hard pressed to add anything to this but a hearty....AMEN!

RW

Teke
Jun 3rd 2007, 10:52 PM
This is exactly what I've tried to tell Teke, but she is adamant about thinking I believe God despises with emotion those who do evil.

No. As I've said time and time again, hate from God is resistance, just as God resists the proud, so He hates all workers of iniquity.

Teke insists on believing that God does NOT do this, but that He only hates the WORKS. Contrary to the plain reading of Scripture. Her reason? It's a "prayer psalm".

It's still an inspired prayer psalm.

God loves the world. He loves the human race. But He also hates and resists those who sin. It is interesting that God resists us while we all sin, yet somehow some still believe we are able to overcome God's resistance and freely choose Christ?

The more I meditate on this passage, the more it convinces me of Unconditional Election. The more it convinces me of Total Depravity. While in our sinful state, we are totally unable to come to Christ of our own free will not only because we don't want to, but because God is resisting us from even doing so because He cannot stand our sin! So what does He do? He places us IN CHRIST so that we CAN come to Him! Praise God for His grace! His mercy on those whom He has chosen!

God's resistance ! It is man's resistance toward God. Give me an example of Christ hating a person, or a name mentioned of who He hates in the NT.:cool:

humbled
Jun 4th 2007, 02:11 AM
God's resistance ! It is man's resistance toward God. Give me an example of Christ hating a person, or a name mentioned of who He hates in the NT.:cool:

God resists the proud ... James 4:6

Esau I've hated ... Romans 9:13

BadDog
Jun 4th 2007, 03:03 AM
Not to sound insulting to your method, nor to sound as tho I support JIMH's approach, but that is your personal opinion of hermaneutics. From what I've seen of yours thus far, your approach is grammatical-historical exegesis. And while that may seem safe for you, your not taking into account the Apostles hermaneutics which deal with the OT.

A hermeneutical-historical approach is also necessary to understand the biblical authors.

The Apostles hermeneutic was based on their conviction that the eschaton had come in Christ. That is what drove them to the OT scriptures understanding, by which, they proclaim in the NT.
And that is my basis of understanding as well. Whereas you are taking the grammatical-historical exegesis and imposing your own eschatological view on it.
I'm not imposing anything on it. If you accuse me of eisogesis (reading my theology into the scripture) you'll have to give specific examples, and back them up. (Them's fighting words. :P Seriously, you should never say such a thing - that's just your opinion - and it's very disrespectful to be told that you are essentially distorting scripture to fit your theology - which is what you just said... in a nice manner.)

Now Paul went into the Arabic desert for 14 years and God taught him his theology directly. So I personally look to Paul for theology first - in general - because I believe God used Paul to give us sound doctrine. And while he certainly studied the OT and used those scriptures when talking with Jews, his theology came directly from the Lord. (Galatians 1 - see below)

Galatians 1:13-24 and 2:1-10 For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I persecuted God's church to an extreme degree and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

15 But when God, who from my mother's womb set me apart and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed with him 15 days. But I didn't see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Now in what I write to you, I'm not lying. God is my witness.

21 Afterwards, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I remained personally unknown to the Judean churches in Christ; they simply kept hearing: "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me.

2:1 Then after 14 years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel I preach among the Gentiles--but privately to those recognized as leaders--so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. This issue arose because of false brothers smuggled in, who came in secretly to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.

5 But we did not yield in submission to these people for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain for you. But from those recognized as important (what they really were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism)--those recognized as important added nothing to me. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised. For He who was at work with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised was also at work with me among the Gentiles. , they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we shoWhen James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to meuld go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only that we would remember the poor, which I made every effort to do.

So the new theology aimed at Gentiles - who are joint-heirs along with Jews in Christ - comes from Jesus to Paul. Peter, James and John acknowledged that.


The only eschatological view the Apostles had in their time was that Jesus was God and was raised from the dead.

I'm not going to be overly critical about your approach, but it is limited. Which is likely why evangelicals tend to impose their own personal eschatology in their doctrinal assumptions.

BD: Thx. :D

Kidding..??, do you believe the scriptures kid you. Did Jesus really mean for the disciples to go tell a "fox" what He said in Luke 13? Are we really "sheep" that "wolves" can come and ravage?
Or who is the lion, is He the Lion of Judah (Revelation) or is He the adversary the devil? If lion is meant of the Lion of Judah, then He could certainly be said to eat straw in the sense that He was humble and that He laid down with lambs (even in a literal sense).

See how that hermeneutical-historical approach is necessary to understand the NT writers and their OT quotes.;)

As you can see, I'm not imposing modern eschatology on the text to understand doctrine. I am using the Apostles approach from the eschaton, period, nothing more.Teke,

You say that I am reading my theology into the scriptures... because I object to you taking a statement about the sheep lying down with the lion as referring to people allegorically, and not taking it literally?!

Well, in Jesus' time the Pharisees and Jesus' disciples took that literally. They believed in and anticipated a literal kingdom age in which the golden age of David would be restored through the Messiah. They expected to rule with Him literally. They expected the sheep and the lamb to lie down together literally. Sure, the Sadducees did not. But then again, they did not believe in a literal resurrection, and hence weren't saved, in general, wouldn't you say? It was all mainly politics to them. How do you feel about taking that literally?

You see, I agree with them (Jesus' disciples). Now I have no problem with somone who has an amillinnial or preterist viewpoint - though I do not agree with either. I prefer to interpret prophecy more literally - if IMO it was intended to be understand literally. I do respect their position.

Now regarding "the Fox" in Luke 13, Jesus was referring to the name given to Herod:

Luke 13:31-33 At that time some Pharisees came and told Him, "Go, get out of here! Herod wants to kill You!" And He said to them, "Go tell that fox, 'Look! I'm driving out demons and performing healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will complete My work.' Yet I must travel today, tomorrow, and the next day, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem!

So this does not apply.


So I believe in a literal Satan.

I believe in a literal hell.

I believe in a literal Antichrist.

I believe in a literal 7-year tribulation period.

I believe in a literal 1000-year reign of the Messiah.

I believe in a literal time period (kingdom age) in which the lion will lie down with the lamb.

I believe in a literal rapture.

I believe in a literal, physical resurrection.


Perhaps you should let people here know where you stand on these... which of these do you take in a literal, grammatical-historical sense? (You see, the grammatical-historical exegesis format says that we should first look at those to whom the original writings were aimed. Strive to understand what it meant to them. Start there... then see if allegorical viewpoints can add some application or elucidate the text. But start with the original intended meaning before looking elsewhere.) Now, I recently started a thread on just this, so please do not accuse me of ignoring allegorical viewpoints!

Here's the thread I recently started on this:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=88301

So please no one assume that I am ignoring other approaches to prophectic scriptures... at least until you read some of my posts in that thread. I think it will quickly become apparent that you have mis-pegged me.

Thx,

BD

walterc
Jun 4th 2007, 04:15 AM
"...If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved ; yet so by FIRE." (1Cor 3:13-15)

"For our God is a consuming FIRE". (Heb 12:29).

The lake of fire? It's not an eternal torture chamber of painfull burning. Flesh burns, not the spirit. Your evil or sinfull works in you will be burned (consumed) out of you by Gods fire.
There is no word in Greek for "eternal"- they used the word "aion" or "eon" which means "for a time". The Greek language "cannot" be translated exactly into english. Even German (dutch) cannot be translated correctly all the time to english because their words mean different things.
God created good and evil for a purpose. How would we know evil unless we knew good - how would we know good without evil? When evil has served it's purpose, it will be consumed/destroyed by God's fire. You must beleive that God can destroy and remove that which he created right? He said his will is to save the world- you must know that his will is to be done- right?
"Who will have ALL men to be SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the TRUTH". (1 Tim 2:4).
"..He shall baptize you with the holy spirit AND WITH FIRE". (Matt 3:11).
*Baptize; "to be imersed".

We have all been born of God which is good. There IS good in all things and people (may be hard to find sometimes) as everyone has love in them no matter how evil they may seem. The evil in them must be burned/consumed out of them by their own judgement upon themselves through Gods fire.

God knows your heart. Do your best in beleiving and following his word and beleive in Jesus as savior and you "will" see his Grace.

Many times it was stated that God knows the sins of the flesh are inherent and that we cannot be perfect but in "spirit", so he sent Jesus to -Not to judge, but to fullfill. He came with the new covenant to clarify and it is this new covenant that we are to abide. God said he also chooses YOU, not all men, not in all ways. He knew you before you were born. He did not create you to be sent to this place some call "hell" to be tortured for all time- there is no glory for that and no purpose and in HIM all things are perfect.

Teke
Jun 4th 2007, 01:17 PM
I'm not imposing anything on it. If you accuse me of eisogesis (reading my theology into the scripture) you'll have to give specific examples, and back them up. (Them's fighting words. :P Seriously, you should never say such a thing - that's just your opinion - and it's very disrespectful to be told that you are essentially distorting scripture to fit your theology - which is what you just said... in a nice manner.)

I didn't say you where distorting scripture to fit your theology. I said your eschatological view influences your understanding of scripture. That was brought out some posts back.



So the new theology aimed at Gentiles - who are joint-heirs along with Jews in Christ - comes from Jesus to Paul. Peter, James and John acknowledged that.

What new theology? God sent Peter to Gentiles and didn't change theology of Him.


Teke,

You say that I am reading my theology into the scriptures... because I object to you taking a statement about the sheep lying down with the lion as referring to people allegorically, and not taking it literally?!

No, it wasn't just that (lion and lamb), it was other things which refer to your eschatology. ie. two resurrections, one for righteous without judgment and the other for those condemned.


Well, in Jesus' time the Pharisees and Jesus' disciples took that literally. They believed in and anticipated a literal kingdom age in which the golden age of David would be restored through the Messiah. They expected to rule with Him literally. They expected the sheep and the lamb to lie down together literally. Sure, the Sadducees did not. But then again, they did not believe in a literal resurrection, and hence weren't saved, in general, wouldn't you say? It was all mainly politics to them. How do you feel about taking that literally?

In our age, the literalist Jew is known as a Zionist Jew. No Orthodox Jew agrees with such. Judas was a Zionist Jew, in that he believed that Jesus should destroy his enemies and set up a kingdom. Since that wasn't going to happen for him, he betrayed our Lord.


You see, I agree with them (Jesus' disciples). Now I have no problem with somone who has an amillinnial or preterist viewpoint - though I do not agree with either. I prefer to interpret prophecy more literally - if IMO it was intended to be understand literally. I do respect their position.

Well I'm neither of those. I believe Christ is the fulfillment of all prophecy. So if I'm anything, I'm a Christist. The only eschatology I agree with is that there will be a final judgment of all after the resurrection at His second coming (like the Creed says).




[LIST=1]
So I believe in a literal Satan.

No.


I believe ion a literal hell.

No.


I believe in a literal Antichrist.

No.


I believe in a literal 7-year tribulation period.

No.


I believe in a literal 1000-year reign of the Messiah.

No.


I believe in a literal time period (kingdom age) in which the lion will lie down with the lamb.

Yes, but not as the literalist or Zionist does. I believe the kingdom is now.


I believe in a literal rapture.

No.


I believe in a literal, physical resurrection.

Yes.




Perhaps you should let people here know where you stand on these... which of these do take in a literal, grammatical-historical sense?

I did.



(You see, the grammatical-historical exegesis format says that we should first look at those to whom the original writings were aimed. Strive to understand what it meant to them. Start there... then see if allegorical viewpoints can add some application or elucidate the text. But start with the original intended meaning before looking elsewhere.) Now, I recently started a thread on just this, so please do not accuse me to ignoring allegorical viewpoints!

Here's the thread I recently started on this:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=88301

So please no one assume that I am ignoring other approaches to prophectic scriptures... at least until you read some of my posts in that thread. I think it will quickly become apparent that you have mis-pegged me.

Thx,

BD

I understand, and I commented in your thread (I didn't say anything other than what I've said here). But I didn't say you were ignoring other approaches to prophetic scripture. As obviously your using a dispensationalist method with two comings, a rapture etc.
The OT has it's history, but all prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Meaning any OT prophecies which have also a future aspect, look toward their fulfillment in Christ. He is the eschaton of all prophecy. He said it is finished, and that He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets, meaning OT scriptural understanding.

As you can see from my answers, what I believe is what Christ said. That's all. :)

edited to add
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) is the Wiki on apocalyptic literature such as Revelation, and the different views. See "Eschatology" and the Protestant views. See also EO and Paschal liturgical, which is my view.

BadDog
Jun 5th 2007, 01:49 AM
"...If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved ; yet so by FIRE." (1Cor 3:13-15)

"For our God is a consuming FIRE". (Heb 12:29).

The lake of fire? It's not an eternal torture chamber of painfull burning. Flesh burns, not the spirit. Your evil or sinfull works in you will be burned (consumed) out of you by Gods fire.
There is no word in Greek for "eternal"- they used the word "aion" or "eon" which means "for a time". The Greek language "cannot" be translated exactly into english. Even German (dutch) cannot be translated correctly all the time to english because their words mean different things.
God created good and evil for a purpose. How would we know evil unless we knew good - how would we know good without evil? When evil has served it's purpose, it will be consumed/destroyed by God's fire. You must beleive that God can destroy and remove that which he created right? He said his will is to save the world - you must know that his will is to be done- right?
"Who will have ALL men to be SAVED, and to come unto the knowledge of the TRUTH". (1 Tim 2:4).
"..He shall baptize you with the holy spirit AND WITH FIRE". (Matt 3:11).
*Baptize; "to be imersed".

We have all been born of God which is good. There IS good in all things and people (may be hard to find sometimes) as everyone has love in them no matter how evil they may seem. The evil in them must be burned/consumed out of them by their own judgement upon themselves through Gods fire.

God knows your heart. Do your best in beleiving and following his word and beleive in Jesus as savior and you "will" see his Grace.

Many times it was stated that God knows the sins of the flesh are inherent and that we cannot be perfect but in "spirit", so he sent Jesus to -Not to judge, but to fullfill. He came with the new covenant to clarify and it is this new covenant that we are to abide. God said he also chooses YOU, not all men, not in all ways. He knew you before you were born. He did not create you to be sent to this place some call "hell" to be tortured for all time- there is no glory for that and no purpose and in HIM all things are perfect.

Walter,

Thx for these comments. There have been threads on universal redemption here before, and some solid people take your viewpoint. Perhaps you might want to start a new thread on this. On some of those other threads I addressed the Greek - and it is not simplistic IMO.

So I will only say that the escaping "yet as through fire" is not saying that believers will iterally go through fire. This is a reference to the BEMA seat of Christ - where believers will be judged/rewarded for their actions. 1 Corinthians 3 is not talking about the lake of fire. Christians will not stand before the Great White Throne judgment and hence will not be thrown into the lake of fire.

Now if you're interested in comments regarding AIWN or AIWNION or several phrases in the NT using these terms, just search for my user-name and those terms. But here are a couple of single-posts just FYI...

AIWN in the NT:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=686720&postcount=244

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=681825&postcount=29

AIWNION in the NT:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=686794&postcount=249


And here's an article by William Lane Craig regarding why condemnation is logically eternal:
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Tom_Talbott_vs._Craig_Lane.html

Take care,

BD

John146
Jun 7th 2007, 07:09 PM
He cannot understand spiritual truths - granted. But the appeal of the gospel - that is clearly different. This text is saying that a person, on his own volition, will not naturally respond to spiritual truth and see it as reasonable. But if he is drawn by God, he can respond to the truth revealed to him. I never claimed that the natural man will choose without God's urging. I said that he is not so thoroughly depraved that he cannot call out for help. I take the Arminian position there.

John 6:39, 40; 44, 45; 47 "This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me."

"I assure you: Anyone who believes has eternal life."

Here we see that God has chosen some who will believe in Him. All those who do believe in Him (were all chosen before the foundation of the world) will be raised up at the last day and will have eternal life.

But it also says that no one can or will come to Him unless the Father draws him. Now it does not say, nor does it imply, that all who are drawn will come to Him, but that all who are drawn and who come to Him will be raised up at the last day.

It also says that all who listen to and learns from the Father comes to Christ. IOW, some have an attitude which is open to the gospel - and responds in faith. If they do respond in faith, obviously we can look backwards and proclaim with confidence that they were of the elect. But we cannot say that they were regenerated first so that they were able to respond. God has created us all in His image, and hence we can all respond to His wooing. That does not mean that we are the spititual man that Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3.

As AT Robertson expresses it, "The approach of the soul to God is initiated by God," or something like that. That does not mean that we cannot seek Him, that we cannot approach Him of our own volition. He initiates. We respond. And it is clear that God initiates this drawing for more than just the elect. But just the elect will respond in faith.

In John 6 earlier, Jesus spoke of those who would not respond in faith. Calvin said that His grace was irresistible, but Jesus makes it clear here that is not so:

John 6:36, 37 But as I told you, you've seen Me, and yet you do not believe. Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.

We understand this "drawing" process later in the chapter as well:

John 6:63-65 The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who don't believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning those who would not believe and the one who would betray Him.) He said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by the Father."

No one can come to Christ unless "granted to that person by the Father." So no one will indeed respond in faith if God is not at work, drawing and wooing him. From the perspective of the person, though, they have an opportunity to respond - they can choose to believe. The key in where we disagree is that you take the Reformed position that the person is regenerated so that he is able to believe/respond. But that is not what Christ said. I do not see that in scripture. It simply says that no one will come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. And Jesus told the Jewish leaders that they refused to come when drawn. So they could choose. There is the possibility that when drawn a person will respond in faith, or they will not.

BD

Outstanding post. I agree completely.

John146
Jun 7th 2007, 07:47 PM
This is exactly what I've tried to tell Teke, but she is adamant about thinking I believe God despises with emotion those who do evil.

No. As I've said time and time again, hate from God is resistance, just as God resists the proud, so He hates all workers of iniquity.

Teke insists on believing that God does NOT do this, but that He only hates the WORKS. Contrary to the plain reading of Scripture. Her reason? It's a "prayer psalm".

It's still an inspired prayer psalm.

God loves the world. He loves the human race. But He also hates and resists those who sin. It is interesting that God resists us while we all sin, yet somehow some still believe we are able to overcome God's resistance and freely choose Christ?

The more I meditate on this passage, the more it convinces me of Unconditional Election. The more it convinces me of Total Depravity. While in our sinful state, we are totally unable to come to Christ of our own free will not only because we don't want to, but because God is resisting us from even doing so because He cannot stand our sin! So what does He do? He places us IN CHRIST so that we CAN come to Him! Praise God for His grace! His mercy on those whom He has chosen!

God does not resist us from coming to Christ. Instead, Christ draws all people to Himself (John 12:32). He doesn't make everyone believe in Him, but He does draw them and call them to Himself. In Revelation 3:20 Jesus says, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me". Notice it says if ANY MAN hears His voice and opens the door, He will come in with him. This shows clearly that there is responsibility on our part. We have to open the door of our hearts to Him. We have to accept His gift of salvation. Since Jesus says that ANY MAN who does this will be saved, it has to be true that all of us have that capability of choosing whether to reject or accept the gift He offers.

Would you agree that most people from throughout history are not saved? The path to destruction is broad and the path to eternal life is narrow, right? Therefore, you believe that God created most or a majority of humanity with no chance of salvation so that they can be tossed into the lake of fire. Since God only does what He desires, it must be that He desires to watch most people get thrown into the lake of fire and He will enjoy watching them suffer. And you're fine with this? Is that the God of love that the Scripture teaches?

In the days of Noah, obviously most of the world rejected God. And it grieved Him that He even made them. Why would it grieve Him if they were just doing what He foreordained them to do? Your view contradicts the fact that God is not a respecter of persons, that He does not desire anyone to perish but for all to be saved, and that Christ draws all people to Himself.

BadDog
Jun 7th 2007, 08:42 PM
Right on, John.

BD

Christian Holzman
Jun 7th 2007, 11:01 PM
1John 4:19 We love him because he first loved us....Did he love us while we were sinners or while we were righteous?

Romans 5:8 did he love us while we were sinners or righteous?

Colossians 1:14 did he give his life for us because of his love of sinners or those who were righteous?

Ezekiel 3:11 does God having no pleasure in the death of the wicked have to do with his hate or love for the wicked?

Luke 9:54-56 james and john are eager to destroy the wicked by the wrath of God, but Jesus rebukes them. Is that because of the hate or the love of the sinners?

John 3:16 did Jesus die for the sins of the righteous or the sins of the world, including the sinners?

Noah was a drunkard, did God save him out of hate for him or love?

Saul was a murderer, did God save him out of love or hate?

David was a murderer and an adulterer, did God save him out of love or hate?

I could go on, but I think that proves my point.

BadDog
Jun 7th 2007, 11:29 PM
I didn't say you where distorting scripture to fit your theology. I said your eschatological view influences your understanding of scripture. That was brought out some posts back.

BD: Thx for clarifying. I sure didn't read it that way. :P

...

No, it wasn't just that (lion and lamb), it was other things which refer to your eschatology. ie. two resurrections, one for righteous without judgment and the other for those condemned.

BD: Right. Well, John did talk about two resurrections in Revelations.

In our age, the literalist Jew is known as a Zionist Jew. No Orthodox Jew agrees with such. Judas was a Zionist Jew, in that he believed that Jesus should destroy his enemies and set up a kingdom. Since that wasn't going to happen for him, he betrayed our Lord.

BD: Right. But Jesus' disciples expected Him to set up a literal kingdom. And when Jesus ascended, he did not deny this, just as He did not correct them for seeking position in the kingdom. He merely explained that He was not doing so yet...

Acts 1:6-11 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

The disciples focus was still on the physical kingdom... even after His resurrection, which had occurred 40 days earlier.

Well I'm neither of those. I believe Christ is the fulfillment of all prophecy. So if I'm anything, I'm a Christist. The only eschatology I agree with is that there will be a final judgment of all after the resurrection at His second coming (like the Creed says).

<snipped>

I did.
You certainly did have the courage and integrity to do so, and I appreciate it. Of course I was fairly certain of your responses there. I wanted others to realize how far we diverge in eschatology. Most here probably do not realize that most Reformed would answer "no" to those questions as well.


I understand, and I commented in your thread (I didn't say anything other than what I've said here). But I didn't say you were ignoring other approaches to prophetic scripture. As obviously your using a dispensationalist method with two comings, a rapture etc.
The OT has it's history, but all prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Meaning any OT prophecies which have also a future aspect, look toward their fulfillment in Christ. He is the eschaton of all prophecy. He said it is finished, and that He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets, meaning OT scriptural understanding.

As you can see from my answers, what I believe is what Christ said. That's all. :)

edited to add
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) is the Wiki on apocalyptic literature such as Revelation, and the different views. See "Eschatology" and the Protestant views. See also EO and Paschal liturgical, which is my view.
Thx. Appreciated.

BD

1SavedSinner
Jun 7th 2007, 11:44 PM
God does not resist us from coming to Christ. Instead, Christ draws all people to Himself (John 12:32). He doesn't make everyone believe in Him, but He does draw them and call them to Himself. In Revelation 3:20 Jesus says, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me". Notice it says if ANY MAN hears His voice and opens the door, He will come in with him. This shows clearly that there is responsibility on our part. We have to open the door of our hearts to Him. We have to accept His gift of salvation. Since Jesus says that ANY MAN who does this will be saved, it has to be true that all of us have that capability of choosing whether to reject or accept the gift He offers.

Would you agree that most people from throughout history are not saved? The path to destruction is broad and the path to eternal life is narrow, right? Therefore, you believe that God created most or a majority of humanity with no chance of salvation so that they can be tossed into the lake of fire. Since God only does what He desires, it must be that He desires to watch most people get thrown into the lake of fire and He will enjoy watching them suffer. And you're fine with this? Is that the God of love that the Scripture teaches?

In the days of Noah, obviously most of the world rejected God. And it grieved Him that He even made them. Why would it grieve Him if they were just doing what He foreordained them to do? Your view contradicts the fact that God is not a respecter of persons, that He does not desire anyone to perish but for all to be saved, and that Christ draws all people to Himself.
I fall into the Corporate Election camp. I'm on board with everything you've stated, John. Good stuff. Predestination/Election is one of the most difficult doctrines to get a grasp on, but it's so incredibly important that we get it right.

If God chose in eternity past who would burn in hell forever and who would not, based on nothing but his good will, that would defeat the entire purpose of giving anyone a choice anyway. That is, if God chose you or me to "get a free ticket to heaven", which is really what predestination boils down to, regardless of him looking ahead to see what we do or don't do, etc....... why bother sending Christ at all? There'd be no need for a savior... Saved by Faith? No need. In that scenario, you're saved by God's choosing you. Done. He may as well have created robots, because you or I are going to heaven, whether we want to or not, because God made the choice for you and me in history past. This is contrary to God's nature and to Free Will, in general.

Then, there are those who believe that God elects based on his foreknowledge of what you or I will do one day in the future. So, God see that in 2003, Bob accepts Christ, so therefore, God in history past "Elects" Bob to be one of the chosen. Well, I think this is much closer to the actuality of Election, but I think this still does not align or make much sense. You're saying, since God knows now what will happen in the future, he's choosing to give credit for the future event in eternity past. Well, he's God... why not just wait for the event to occur in 2003 or whenever, anyway? Lots of other points here, but I digress.

I cannot find anything scripturally that goes against Corporate Election..... Please let me know if you find that I've err'd in the the following....
God Elected a body of persons before time...
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ;
Eph 1:4 according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
Eph 1:5 having predestined us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He has made us accepted in the One having been loved.

Please note that he blessed "Us in Christ". Us is the body of believers (Ephesians was written to the Christian Saints). And we were blessed "In Christ". Way too many points to make here, but suffice to say that it only seems to make sense to me that God "Foreordained" or "Predestined" - "Any/all persons (his will being that none should perish) who in the future will choose Christ at their Lord and Savior." He predestined the need for Christ. He foreknew that Christ would one day die for the sins of the creation he had yet created. But, wanted EVERYONE to be saved... he gives all an equal chance to choose.

On the subject of Depravity... no doubt... we're sinners and totally and utterly depraved and without God's influences on our lives... we would NEVER choose Christ. But, God does influence / call / knock on the hearts of ALL of us. Some will listen. Some will not. But ALL have the same chance to be saved. And THAT is the Grace of God. This allows for all statements in the bible to be true. He wants all to be saved, but many won't be.... He chose a body of people to be saved, but others not to be... that body of people is ANYONE who, of their own choosing, at God's behest, decide to accept Christ. God is still loving and just. People still have total free will and those depraved people, while deserving of hell, due to their sin, will be saved, if they just choose to listen to the constant call of God. Amen.

BadDog
Jun 7th 2007, 11:52 PM
It is a good idea for Christians to pursue understanding those who hold different theological positions from their own. We do not need to agree with them. We do need to understand them from their own words: their perspective.

I bought a book by RC Sproul on eschatology, The Last Days According to Jesus. It expresses the preterist position well. I wanted to read something about preterism to better understand it, but I wanted it from their perspective - not a book in which someone who does not hold to preterism (I do not) criticized it. Preterism essentially says that all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD - except the return of Christ. I believe Teke holds to a similar position, but not preterism.

I also bought a nice little book, Four Views of Hell, in which gurus of vaious positions explain their thinking on hell. I hold to a literal hell, as explained in the book by John Walvoord (yes, he's still alive and a dispensationalist :P ).

I believe Teke holds to the view similar to that upheld by William Crockett (The metaphorical view) - he was also one of the editors of the book.

There's also a nice little book called Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views, edited by james Beilby and Paul Eddy. There William Lane Craig presents my position: middle knowledge. Such books are very valuable to help us understand various controversial topics and handy to have in your personal library as a reference as well.


BD

BadDog
Jun 7th 2007, 11:58 PM
1SavedSinner,

Nice post. I think that many here would be interested in the arguments that have convinced you regarding corporate election. (FYI: I personally do not hold to corporate election. I don't think it is necessary IOT allow for free will.)

Thx,

BD

1SavedSinner
Jun 8th 2007, 12:00 AM
I love the fact that you call "Four Views of Hell" a nice little book. :rofl:

That's just good stuff. I definitely don't think you meant that the thought of hell is nice, but at a first quick read, that's the way the verbiage first struck me. Thanks for the laugh, however unintentional it may have been. :lol:

1SavedSinner
Jun 8th 2007, 12:08 AM
1SavedSinner,

Nice post. I think that many here would be interested in the arguments that have convinced you regarding corporate election. (FYI: I personally do not hold to corporate election. I don't think it is necessary IOT allow for free will.)

Thx,

BD
BD,
Thanks for feedback. I've spent several months, off and on trying to grapple with what Election is. So far, Corporate Election is the only option that's been presented to me that seems to fit scripture. All others that I've thus far considered seem to contradict God's very nature and/or scripture directly.

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but one question I've posed to one of my Christian friends is this: "If God gave only certain folks the free ticket to heaven, then why spread the word at all? If God chose them, they don't need to hear from me or you. They're in the body of Christ already, so they don't need the gospel. For that matter, they don't need Christ. All they needed was God to pick them at random and since he's done that, there's nothing more to do."

Again, it wasn't a laundry list of things that led me to "buy into" Corporate Election, if you will. Rather, as each option is presented, I do my level best to hold it up to scripture to see if it is contradictory. If it is, I discard that explanation as false. I was not able to discard Corporate Election.

Can you share your thoughts on Predestination / election? I'm certainly open to others' thoughts. Again, thanks, again for your prior reply.

BadDog
Jun 8th 2007, 12:47 AM
BD,
Thanks for feedback. I've spent several months, off and on trying to grapple with what Election is. So far, Corporate Election is the only option that's been presented to me that seems to fit scripture. All others that I've thus far considered seem to contradict God's very nature and/or scripture directly.

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but one question I've posed to one of my Christian friends is this: "If God gave only certain folks the free ticket to heaven, then why spread the word at all? If God chose them, they don't need to hear from me or you. They're in the body of Christ already, so they don't need the gospel. For that matter, they don't need Christ. All they needed was God to pick them at random and since he's done that, there's nothing more to do."

Again, it wasn't a laundry list of things that led me to "buy into" Corporate Election, if you will. Rather, as each option is presented, I do my level best to hold it up to scripture to see if it is contradictory. If it is, I discard that explanation as false. I was not able to discard Corporate Election.

Can you share your thoughts on Predestination / election? I'm certainly open to others' thoughts. Again, thanks, again for your prior reply.:P Hey, less than 200 pages. FYI, there are some universalists on this board who are solid in their theology, in general. I wanted to understand from the horse's mouth their and other's positions on hell.

The purple text above is certainly a deterrent to witnessing, no doubt about it, and needs to be addressed by those who hold to personal election.

(They have been addressed by many Reformed theologians, but not to my satisfaction, FWIW.) Hey, I don't need to address this since I also hold firmly to free will.

No contradiction. I've tried to hold firmly to both positions at the same time, citing Isaiah 55:8-9, but now with a middle knowledge view of God's omniscience, it all makes sense. Here's a thread I started on it a couple of years ago: (Has it been that long?!)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=33612&highlight=middle+knowledge

Take care,

BD

RogerW
Jun 8th 2007, 12:54 AM
God does not resist us from coming to Christ. Instead, Christ draws all people to Himself (John 12:32). He doesn't make everyone believe in Him, but He does draw them and call them to Himself. In Revelation 3:20 Jesus says, "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me". Notice it says if ANY MAN hears His voice and opens the door, He will come in with him. This shows clearly that there is responsibility on our part. We have to open the door of our hearts to Him. We have to accept His gift of salvation. Since Jesus says that ANY MAN who does this will be saved, it has to be true that all of us have that capability of choosing whether to reject or accept the gift He offers.

How does one who is spiritually dead “hear” His voice? How does one who is spiritually dead open the door of our hearts to Him? How does one spiritually dead accept His “gift” of salvation? And along those same lines, salvation is NOT a free gift OFFERED, it is a free gift GIVEN.

Yes, Christ does draw all men. In other words Christ is not the Lord only to the Jews, He is the Lord of all who believe. It is not all men without exception, but all men without distinction. When Christ was crucified, resurrected, ascended to heaven in exaltation He redeems, justifies, and calls to Himself all of God’s elect from every age and nation. No longer is salvation limited to only the Jews. Our Lord is not the Savior of the Jews only, but the Savior of the world. Christ has other sheep that are not of the Jew, these too He will bring into the fold, these will hear His voice, and have one fold, with one Shepherd.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ tells us that His sheep “hear” His voice. He does not say everyone can “hear” His voice. What all of man can hear, through physical hearing is the message of the cross which is the means of salvation to all who “hear” His voice with spiritual ears.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Christ tells us that He knows His sheep, and His sheep know Him. He lays down His life for the sheep that He not only knows, but who also know Him.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Scripture commands all men to believe. Scripture also tells us no man will believe, no man can believe.

Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Ro 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We’re told we MUST believe, and we’re told we CANNOT believe, so how does any man believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in his own free will, since very obviously man has no free will ability to choose the Lord? Unless God does a supernatural drawing to the Word, then the Holy Spirit imputes faith to believe in our hearts of stone, then none can ever come to Christ on his own.



Would you agree that most people from throughout history are not saved? The path to destruction is broad and the path to eternal life is narrow, right? Therefore, you believe that God created most or a majority of humanity with no chance of salvation so that they can be tossed into the lake of fire. Since God only does what He desires, it must be that He desires to watch most people get thrown into the lake of fire and He will enjoy watching them suffer. And you're fine with this? Is that the God of love that the Scripture teaches?

What a negative way to look at the wonderful salvation the Lord has wrought for His elect. God did not predestine who would become saved based upon anything good or evil in them. How could He, since from the moment of birth God sees nothing good in any man.

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

Ps 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Ps 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ps 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Ps 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Since God sees men upon the earth, and finds them all filthy, and wicked with not one good among them, He has no reason to spare any of us. We are all equally guilty of iniquity before God, and all deserving of His wrath and eternal Judgment. Had God not, from the foundation of the earth, predestined some to receive eternal life, then all of mankind would be condemned. It is only because God chose a people to call His own, and set His saving love on them that any man is saved. Otherwise we would all receive the same destiny as Esau.

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.



In the days of Noah, obviously most of the world rejected God. And it grieved Him that He even made them. Why would it grieve Him if they were just doing what He foreordained them to do? Your view contradicts the fact that God is not a respecter of persons, that He does not desire anyone to perish but for all to be saved, and that Christ draws all people to Himself.

Just as in the days of Noah when God brought the flood waters upon the whole earth, destroying all but Noah and his family. You say God is not a respecter of persons, yet very clearly He set His love, compassion, and mercy upon Noah and His family and none others. God favored Noah, because he was righteous before God. But Noah had been predestined to receive eternal life, so Noah and his family were spared and through his seed Messiah (the Redeemer) would come. The Messiah would redeem not only Noah, but all the elect of God who have been predestined from the foundation of the world unto eternal life.

Ge 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

If God does not desire that any man should perish, but that all should be saved, why doesn’t He save all men? Why is their a lake of fire that many will be cast into if God does not will them to go there? Are you saying that man’s free will is more powerful then the will of God? That is a very weak, pathetic God, Who’s authority can be usurped by fallen man!

RW

RogerW
Jun 8th 2007, 01:16 AM
BD,
Thanks for feedback. I've spent several months, off and on trying to grapple with what Election is. So far, Corporate Election is the only option that's been presented to me that seems to fit scripture. All others that I've thus far considered seem to contradict God's very nature and/or scripture directly.

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole here, but one question I've posed to one of my Christian friends is this: "If God gave only certain folks the free ticket to heaven, then why spread the word at all? If God chose them, they don't need to hear from me or you. They're in the body of Christ already, so they don't need the gospel. For that matter, they don't need Christ. All they needed was God to pick them at random and since he's done that, there's nothing more to do."

Again, it wasn't a laundry list of things that led me to "buy into" Corporate Election, if you will. Rather, as each option is presented, I do my level best to hold it up to scripture to see if it is contradictory. If it is, I discard that explanation as false. I was not able to discard Corporate Election.

Can you share your thoughts on Predestination / election? I'm certainly open to others' thoughts. Again, thanks, again for your prior reply.

So your question is, "If God gave only certain folks the free ticket to heaven, then why spread the word at all? If God chose them, they don't need to hear from me or you. They're in the body of Christ already, so they don't need the gospel. For that matter, they don't need Christ. All they needed was God to pick them at random and since he's done that, there's nothing more to do."

God predestined His elect people from the foundation of the world. This is why Scripture refers to Christ as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Even though the eternal plan of redemption was written in heaven before the world began, Christ must still literally go to the cross, be raised from the dead, and ascend into heaven in time. The same is true of all who are predestined unto eternal life. It's one thing to be written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation of the world, but that does not mean that those predestined do not have to hear the gospel of salvation and become saved. This is why we need the gospel, the cross of Christ, the elect of God are predestined to receive eternal life, but we are not eternally saved until we are called, and imputed with faith enabling us to believe the gospel.

I've made dogmatic statements here that can be supported through Scripture. If you are really interested in understanding the doctrine of predestination and election then I will be happy to answer any questions you have and support my answers with Scripture. But only if you are really interested.

RW

BadDog
Jun 8th 2007, 02:19 AM
ow does one who is spiritually dead “hear” His voice? How does one who is spiritually dead open the door of our hearts to Him? How does one spiritually dead accept His “gift” of salvation? And along those same lines, salvation is NOT a free gift OFFERED, it is a free gift GIVEN.

Yes, Christ does draw all men. In other words Christ is not the Lord only to the Jews, He is the Lord of all who believe. It is not all men without exception, but all men without distinction. When Christ was crucified, resurrected, ascended to heaven in exaltation He redeems, justifies, and calls to Himself all of God’s elect from every age and nation...
Roger,

Let me preface this reply by saying that I'm going on vacation, and I won't be able to respond to any posts on this board for over a week. :P

Can you give me chapter-verse on the underlined portion above?

Obviously I agree with the 2nd phrase. But how is John 3:16 not the 1st phrase?

How about?

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.

2 Corinthians 6:1, 2 Working together with Him, we also appeal to you: "Don't receive God's grace in vain." For He says: In an acceptable time, I heard you, and in the day of salvation, I helped you. Look, now is the acceptable time; look, now is the day of salvation.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation--in Him when you believed--were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Titus 2:11, 12 For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people, instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age
If what you say is true here, than everyone will be saved - not just the elect.

Hebrews 2:3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.
Not offered?

Romans 10:9, 13 if you confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Not offered?

1 Thessalonians 2:16a hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan's working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned--those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.
(This is very interesting for those who hold to single predestination to support their position.) It is obvious above that there is an opportunity for people to believe the truth and hence be saved.

2 Timothy 1:9 This has now been made evident through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Clearly an opportunity for immortality is given.

Take care,

BD

1SavedSinner
Jun 8th 2007, 05:01 AM
I've made dogmatic statements here that can be supported through Scripture. If you are really interested in understanding the doctrine of predestination and election then I will be happy to answer any questions you have and support my answers with Scripture. But only if you are really interested.

RW,
I'm definitely interested on all viewpoints given. I had actually written a rather lengthy response but I lost my connection and thereby lost previous response. So, I'll keep this one quite a bit more brief...

1. Sincerely love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, in advance, for sharing.
2. Check out BD's link to very lengthy but VERY cool discussion on "Middle Knowledge".... http://bibleforums.org/showthr...ddle+knowledge
3. Not only would I like to hear what scripturally supports your vantage point, but I'd also like to hear the counter-scriptures or arguments against either Corporate Election or BD's "Middle Knowledge". I have been unsuccessful, in my mind, in finding anything against either one.
4. I'm therefore, until otherwise convinced, in belief that one of the 2 is true... Corporate Election or "Middle Knowledge". In both, we still have total free will and God is loving and just. The two statements reconcile. I cannot find that to be the case in other predestination lines of thought.

Looking forward to your response. And, BTW - thx to BD for his feedback as well. Really appreciate the insights here.:thumbsup:

Teke
Jun 8th 2007, 01:22 PM
RW,
I'm definitely interested on all viewpoints given. I had actually written a rather lengthy response but I lost my connection and thereby lost previous response. So, I'll keep this one quite a bit more brief...

1. Sincerely love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, in advance, for sharing.
2. Check out BD's link to very lengthy but VERY cool discussion on "Middle Knowledge".... http://bibleforums.org/showthr...ddle+knowledge
3. Not only would I like to hear what scripturally supports your vantage point, but I'd also like to hear the counter-scriptures or arguments against either Corporate Election or BD's "Middle Knowledge". I have been unsuccessful, in my mind, in finding anything against either one.
4. I'm therefore, until otherwise convinced, in belief that one of the 2 is true... Corporate Election or "Middle Knowledge". In both, we still have total free will and God is loving and just. The two statements reconcile. I cannot find that to be the case in other predestination lines of thought.

Looking forward to your response. And, BTW - thx to BD for his feedback as well. Really appreciate the insights here.:thumbsup:

Do you really understand all of this?:crazy:

Human logic applied to the atonement.....pretty bold if you ask me. :P
If the later reformers had re-examined their tools of intellect, they may have avoided such debates which cause division.

They should have proceeded from the Creator-creature distinction revealed to us in Genesis. Instead their scholastic logic is inherited from Aristotle. Meaning their "categories" of logic. Which follows the Roman churches pattern. Ironically the later reformers came up with all this to fight the Roman church and defend their claims.

Rather they should have let the biblical text correct them and followed the Creator-creature thought more carefully.

Scripture teaches us that our thoughts are not God's thoughts (Is. 55:8). Since this is true, then there is no "universal cause". As logical categories cannot be "universal" for God and man. God has sovereignty over all things as Creator. Man has responsible choice as creature.

The atonement can be unlimited toward all to whatever degree God chooses, and man has choice in responding. And it doesn't alter the Creator-creature order.

I tend to think that some confusion comes from the order of worship in the churches of modern day. Is God the center of worship, or is man? Seems more and more folks are looking to hear that piffy logic of a preacher which comforts them. :dunno:
Where is the faith.............

John146
Jun 8th 2007, 04:36 PM
How does one who is spiritually dead “hear” His voice? How does one who is spiritually dead open the door of our hearts to Him? How does one spiritually dead accept His “gift” of salvation? And along those same lines, salvation is NOT a free gift OFFERED, it is a free gift GIVEN.

Regardless of how, the fact is that the spiritually dead CAN hear His voice as the following passage makes absolutely clear:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Notice it says the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live. They pass from spiritual death to spiritual life.

Now let me ask a question. How does one who is spiritually dead have no excuse for not believing in God?

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

With your logic, since they are spiritually dead they should not be held accountable for not believing in God, yet this passage says they have no excuse for not believing in God. In the same way, there is no excuse for anyone not to repent and put their faith in Christ. But Calvinism gives someone an excuse: they couldn't help that they weren't elected and chosen, so they can't be held responsible. Yet, it's clear that unbelievers will be held responsible on judgment day. Why are they held responsible? Because they refused to repent and accept the gospel of Christ. Why else?

Also, since when are gifts forcefully given with no choice of whether to accept or reject the gift?



Yes, Christ does draw all men. In other words Christ is not the Lord only to the Jews, He is the Lord of all who believe. It is not all men without exception, but all men without distinction.

I completely disagree. The verse in question is John 12:32. When you look at the context surrounding it, I do not see that He was making a statement that He would draw not only to Him, but Gentiles as well. The context supports the view that He literally meant He would draw all mankind to Himself. Not that He would force all mankind to believe in Him, but His Spirit calls everyone to Himself, giving everyone the opportunity to respond with repentance and faith. Later in that same chapter, we see this:

46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:46-48

First, notice that Jesus speaks about those who reject Him. Do you really think it was His will for them to reject Him? If so, why will they be judged by His words? What is the reason for the day of judgment if everyone is just doing what they were predetermined or foreordained to do and believing what they were predetermined to believe? Also, notice that He said He came to save THE WORLD. How do you reconcile that with your view?



When Christ was crucified, resurrected, ascended to heaven in exaltation He redeems, justifies, and calls to Himself all of God’s elect from every age and nation. No longer is salvation limited to only the Jews. Our Lord is not the Savior of the Jews only, but the Savior of the world.

According to you, He is not the Savior of the world, but rather the Savior of an exclusive club to which He grants salvation.



Christ has other sheep that are not of the Jew, these too He will bring into the fold, these will hear His voice, and have one fold, with one Shepherd.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Christ tells us that His sheep “hear” His voice. He does not say everyone can “hear” His voice.

Yes, He does, as I showed previously.



What all of man can hear, through physical hearing is the message of the cross which is the means of salvation to all who “hear” His voice with spiritual ears.

Your theory (or should I say Calvin's) makes the preaching of the gospel pointless. Everyone's fate is sealed before they are even born, so there is no reason to preach the gospel to anyone because it won't change a thing.



Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Christ tells us that He knows His sheep, and His sheep know Him. He lays down His life for the sheep that He not only knows, but who also know Him.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Scripture commands all men to believe. Scripture also tells us no man will believe, no man can believe.

No, it does not say that no man can believe. You are forcing Scripture to contradict itself. There would be no reason to command people to believe if they did not have the capablility.



Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Ro 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We’re told we MUST believe, and we’re told we CANNOT believe, so how does any man believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in his own free will, since very obviously man has no free will ability to choose the Lord? Unless God does a supernatural drawing to the Word, then the Holy Spirit imputes faith to believe in our hearts of stone, then none can ever come to Christ on his own.

You are misinterpreting Romans 3:10-12. It is referring to the parallel passages of Psalm 14 and Psalm 53.

1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge. 7Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. - Psalm 14:1-7

When it says there is none that do good, it is only referring to fools that say there is no God. That obviously does not include everyone. Notice verse 4 above. It contrasts the workers of iniquity with God's people. So, when it says none understand and none seek God, it is not talking about all people, but rather the fools who say there is no God and the workers of iniquity. These workers of iniquity did not call upon the Lord. Because they didn't have the choice to do so? No. Nowhere does it say that. When God looked upon the earth in Noah's day, he saw mostly workers of iniquity except for Noah and his family.

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. - Hebrews 11:6-7

You say that none can seek after God. Once again, you are contradicting clear Scripture. Look at verse 6 above. Notice that it says without faith it is impossible to please God. Whose faith? God's or ours? Ours. We are required to have faith. Then notice that it says He that cometh to God must believe that He is. So, it is required that we come to God. He draws us, but we must also come to Him. Then notice that it says He is a rewarder of them that dligently SEEK Him. So, we can seek God even though your doctrine says we can't.




What a negative way to look at the wonderful salvation the Lord has wrought for His elect.

Negative or realistic? Are you uncomfortable with the fact that you believe God created most people to be damned to the lake of fire? Is that something you'd rather not talk about?



God did not predestine who would become saved based upon anything good or evil in them. How could He, since from the moment of birth God sees nothing good in any man.

So, the command to repent and believe is just for show and shouldn't be taken seriously, right? Why does anyone need to repent and believe in the gospel when everything is already determined?



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

Ps 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Ps 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ps 53:2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
Ps 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I must say, that is very selective quoting of Psalm 14 and 53. See my previous comments on those passages.



Since God sees men upon the earth, and finds them all filthy, and wicked with not one good among them, He has no reason to spare any of us.

God didn't see Noah and his family that way, which is why He spared them. You are not looking at the big picture.



We are all equally guilty of iniquity before God, and all deserving of His wrath and eternal Judgment.

I agree



Had God not, from the foundation of the earth, predestined some to receive eternal life, then all of mankind would be condemned. It is only because God chose a people to call His own, and set His saving love on them that any man is saved. Otherwise we would all receive the same destiny as Esau.

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

That passage has nothing to do with salvation. This passage is referenced:

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

God blessed Jacob for his faithfulness and penalized Esau for his rebellion and for selling his birthright (Hebrews 2:14-17).

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. - Hebrews 12:14-17

But it's also true that God loved Jacob's nation Israel for its faithfulness, and hated Esau's nation, Edom, for their wickedness. Either way, it has nothing to do with salvation, it had to do with God rewarding faithfulness and punishing unfaithfulness just as He has always done. There would be no cause for either rewarding or punishing if everyone is just doing what they were foreordained to do.



Just as in the days of Noah when God brought the flood waters upon the whole earth, destroying all but Noah and his family. You say God is not a respecter of persons, yet very clearly He set His love, compassion, and mercy upon Noah and His family and none others. God favored Noah, because he was righteous before God. But Noah had been predestined to receive eternal life, so Noah and his family were spared and through his seed Messiah (the Redeemer) would come. The Messiah would redeem not only Noah, but all the elect of God who have been predestined from the foundation of the world unto eternal life.

You are still making God out to be a respecter of persons. You have him showing favoritism to Noah for no real reason except that He just felt like favoring him over everyone else. That would mean He is a respecter of persons even though Scripture repeatedly says He is not. Noah was spared because of his faith, as I showed previously.



Ge 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

If God does not desire that any man should perish, but that all should be saved, why doesn’t He save all men?

If He just automatically saved all mankind there would be no relationship between God and His people. He would just be the puppetmaster and we would be His puppets. There would be no exchange of love between God and His people if we only believed because He programmed us to believe.



Why is their a lake of fire that many will be cast into if God does not will them to go there? Are you saying that man’s free will is more powerful then the will of God? That is a very weak, pathetic God, Who’s authority can be usurped by fallen man!

RW

I'm saying that God's will and man's will both determine one's salvation. God calls us and draws us, but that does not mean we are not responsible to respond with repentance and faith. Salvation is a two-way street, not one way. We see the verses that speak of those who diligently seek Him and verses like Luke 13:24 where Jesus says to strive to enter in at the strait gate and the verses that speak about those who call on the name of the Lord being saved. Salvation requires a response from both God and man. God never fails on His end but man does.

Tell me this: if God wills people to go into the lake of fire from the beginning with those people having no choice in the matter, then tell me why that is the case. Use Scripture. I see Scrpiture that says God loves the world, but you say He does not love the world, but only those who He has assigned into His exclusive country club. Your view throws human responsibility out the window because everyone is only doing what they were programmed to do. The Bible speaks of punishment for unbelievers, but how can it be punishment when those people are only doing what they were programmed or predetermined to do?

humbled
Jun 8th 2007, 04:58 PM
Regardless of how, the fact is that the spiritually dead CAN hear His voice as the following passage makes absolutely clear:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Notice it says the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live. They pass from spiritual death to spiritual life. It says that he who hears and believes HAS everlasting life.

Not WILL HAVE ...

Read in categorical form, it says:

IF you hear my word and believe, THEN you have everlasting life.

Rephrased:

IF you have everlasting life, THEN you hear my word and believe.

This is the logical form, and it is accurate.

God bless.

Oh, and for the second part ... it is not speaking of spiritual life. It is speaking of the resurrection.

John146
Jun 8th 2007, 05:13 PM
It says that he who hears and believes HAS everlasting life.

Not WILL HAVE ...

Read in categorical form, it says:

IF you hear my word and believe, THEN you have everlasting life.

Rephrased:

IF you have everlasting life, THEN you hear my word and believe.

This is the logical form, and it is accurate.

God bless.

Sorry, but I believe you are spinning the text to fit your view. Believing comes first, then eternal life.



Oh, and for the second part ... it is not speaking of spiritual life. It is speaking of the resurrection.

No, that is not correct. Do you think the resurrection is ongoing or a one time event when Christ returns? Notice He said, "the hour is coming, AND NOW IS". It is clearly speaking of spiritual life. When we are saved, we are brought from spiritual death to spiritual life as we can see in the following passage:

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:5-6

Physical resurrection is not in view in John 5:24-25. The physical resurrection of the dead is mentioned a few verses later in John 5:28-29.

humbled
Jun 8th 2007, 05:33 PM
Sorry, but I believe you are spinning the text to fit your view. Believing comes first, then eternal life.



No, that is not correct. Do you think the resurrection is ongoing or a one time event when Christ returns? Notice He said, "the hour is coming, AND NOW IS". It is clearly speaking of spiritual life. When we are saved, we are brought from spiritual death to spiritual life as we can see in the following passage:

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: - Ephesians 2:5-6

Physical resurrection is not in view in John 5:24-25. The physical resurrection of the dead is mentioned a few verses later in John 5:28-29.lol

Thank you for the kind words. I have not spun anything.

The text says (paraphrased) "He who hears and believes HAS eternal life."

Your interpretation makes it say "He who hears and believes WILL HAVE eternal life."

I disagree with your rendering.

But you may be right that it is speaking of spiritual life and not the resurrection. I read that part hastily. Nevertheless, it says that those who hear His voice SHALL live. It still indicates to me that the RESULT is not dependent on the hearing but on the living. It is much the same as breathing (which I was talking about in another thread). One is not alive AFTER breathing. Breathing is EVIDENCE of that life. So is believing.

Scripturally speaking, of course ;)

John146
Jun 8th 2007, 06:02 PM
lol

Thank you for the kind words. I have not spun anything.

I apologize for the poor choice of words. I don't really believe that you purposely spin anything. You just interpret things differently than I do.



The text says (paraphrased) "He who hears and believes HAS eternal life."

Your interpretation makes it say "He who hears and believes WILL HAVE eternal life."

I disagree with your rendering.

It's a matter of interpretation. I disagree with your rendering as well. But looking at Scripture as a whole, I think it's clear that we receive eternal life after we repent and believe. From God's perspective, we already had it even before then because He knows all things past, present and future.



But you may be right that it is speaking of spiritual life and not the resurrection. I read that part hastily.

No problem. I think it can't be interpreted any other way since it was a current reality even back then.



Nevertheless, it says that those who hear His voice SHALL live.

That implies that the hearing comes first.



It still indicates to me that the RESULT is not dependent on the hearing but on the living. It is much the same as breathing (which I was talking about in another thread). One is not alive AFTER breathing. Breathing is EVIDENCE of that life. So is believing.

Scripturally speaking, of course ;)

The hearing and the believing come first and then comes spiritual life. Everyone is spiritually dead in their sins until they pass from spiritual death to spiritual life as a result of the grace of God and our faith in Christ.

14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. - Mark 1:14-15

So, do you think the people of Galilee had spiritual life already at this point before they would repent and believe the gospel? Also, what is the point in Jesus telling people to repent and believe the gospel if everything is already determined?

humbled
Jun 8th 2007, 06:08 PM
I apologize for the poor choice of words. I don't really believe that you purposely spin anything. You just interpret things differently than I do.



It's a matter of interpretation. I disagree with your rendering as well. But looking at Scripture as a whole, I think it's clear that we receive eternal life after we repent and believe. From God's perspective, we already had it even before then because He knows all things past, present and future.



No problem. I think it can't be interpreted any other way since it was a current reality even back then.



That implies that the hearing comes first.



The hearing and the believing come first and then comes spiritual life. Everyone is spiritually dead in their sins until they pass from spiritual death to spiritual life as a result of the grace of God and our faith in Christ.

14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. - Mark 1:14-15

So, do you think the people of Galilee had spiritual life already at this point before they would repent and believe the gospel? Also, what is the point in Jesus telling people to repent and believe the gospel if everything is already determined?
I believe that only those who are spiritually alive, and thus AWARE of their spiritual bankrupcy, WILL believe they need to repent.

My athiest dad has no desire to repent. He doesn't think he's a sinner. Why not?

Also ... do you believe that salvation = eternal life?

Or do you believe that salvation = deliverance FROM sin FOR God?

I believe in #2 :) And I believe God GIVES us eternal life so we CAN BE saved.

John146
Jun 8th 2007, 06:32 PM
I believe that only those who are spiritually alive, and thus AWARE of their spiritual bankrupcy, WILL believe they need to repent.

But is there any Scripture that teaches that? How does one become spiritually alive then?



My athiest dad has no desire to repent. He doesn't think he's a sinner. Why not?

Because he is being rebellious and is making a bad choice of rejecting Christ. So far. Do you think he is beyond hope and is not one of the elect?




Also ... do you believe that salvation = eternal life?

Or do you believe that salvation = deliverance FROM sin FOR God?

I believe in #2 :) And I believe God GIVES us eternal life so we CAN BE saved.

I believe salvation is both eternal life and deliverance from sin. Where in Scripture do you find the teaching that God gives us eternal life so that we can be saved?

RogerW
Jun 8th 2007, 06:36 PM
RW,
I'm definitely interested on all viewpoints given. I had actually written a rather lengthy response but I lost my connection and thereby lost previous response. So, I'll keep this one quite a bit more brief...

1. Sincerely love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, in advance, for sharing.
2. Check out BD's link to very lengthy but VERY cool discussion on "Middle Knowledge".... http://bibleforums.org/showthr...ddle+knowledge
3. Not only would I like to hear what scripturally supports your vantage point, but I'd also like to hear the counter-scriptures or arguments against either Corporate Election or BD's "Middle Knowledge". I have been unsuccessful, in my mind, in finding anything against either one.
4. I'm therefore, until otherwise convinced, in belief that one of the 2 is true... Corporate Election or "Middle Knowledge". In both, we still have total free will and God is loving and just. The two statements reconcile. I cannot find that to be the case in other predestination lines of thought.

Looking forward to your response. And, BTW - thx to BD for his feedback as well. Really appreciate the insights here.:thumbsup:

I tried to access BD article on “middle knowledge” without success. If you would be so kind as to give me the exact post then I could read it. As for corporate election? If I am following you correctly, you believe that “God elected a body of believers before time, and that God "Foreordained" or "Predestined" - "Any/all persons (his will being that none should perish) who in the future will choose Christ at their Lord and Savior." He predestined the need for Christ. He foreknew that Christ would one day die for the sins of the creation he had yet created. But, wanted EVERYONE to be saved... he gives all an equal chance to choose.”

One problem apparent immediately is that God says that no unregenerate man can choose Christ as their Lord and Savior. How do you reconcile verses like Ro 3 with this understanding? Choosing Christ implies understanding and doing good, which God says NO man does.

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro 3:11 There is none that understand, there is none that seeketh after God.
Ro 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

We are not chosen because God saw who would choose Christ. God says He chose Jacob, and hated Esau before they were born, neither having done any good or evil. So God did not choose Jacob because He foreknew that Jacob would choose Christ. God chose the one and rejected the other to show His purpose according to election, so that salvation is determined not of works (our choosing Him), but according to whom He calls.

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Not only did God foreknow that Christ would die, He ordained it to be so.

Ac 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

It is only those who are ordained to eternal life who will believe.

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

God’s eternal redemptive plan was established in heaven before creation. God, wanting to have a people for Himself, knows that if He does not intervene in the hearts of some men, then no man will be saved, because all men are fallen, spiritually dead, and totally without ability to come to Christ on their own for salvation. So God the Father, and God the Son made a covenant in heaven before the world began. All of redemptive history was as though it had already happened before time began. One of the most profound statements in all of Scripture is, “Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” When you fully understand all the implications of what this statement implies, then you can better understand the Covenant of Redemption, and how the whole process is played out through history…HIS STORY!

The Kingdom of heaven was prepared for all who would be saved from the foundation of the world.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

The works of salvation were finished from the foundation of the world.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

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

The names of those chosen for salvation are written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

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

Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Even before creation God had already purposed to shed the blood of Christ for our redemption.

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

All who have been predestinated unto adoption by Christ were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Before the foundation of the world He had predetermined who would be accepted in the beloved through the blood of the Lamb.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

All who are chosen were given to Christ Jesus before the world began.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

God determined before the existence of time whom He foreknows, and these He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Even before time began He determines who are predestinated to be called, justified and glorified. Even before any were born, it’s as good as done because God has ordained it will be done.

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

God calls all men to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. But as I have shown you, God also says that no man can believe, because all men are fallen and without Spiritual life which enables us to believe. God foreknowing this before time began determined to have a people for Himself. A people who would bear the image of His only begotten, a people who would glorify Him and enjoy Him forever. God orchestrates bringing His people into His Eternal Kingdom through the Word. How do Spiritually dead men hear the Word, and become saved?

God must first draw His own to His Word. God draws us to Himself, we cannot come to Him without His supernatural guidance/aid.

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

The Word is heard, and if we are predestined to salvation, then the Holy Spirit imputes faith into our hearts, and opens our Spiritual ears to hear the Lord calling us by name. Faith is the essential ingredient we must possess in order to believe.

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

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Some hear the Word, who are not given ears to hear, and so they do not receive the necessary faith to believe. These are among the body of believers, the Covenant people of God, but they are tares, and never become wheat/believers.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Once we have faith we are able to heed the command to repent and believe, and are eternally saved.

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

Now the work, our work of faith begins. Because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit we desire to glorify God in our words, and deeds. We long to be among like-minded Christians, we seek deeper knowledge of the Lord through His Word, and we go to Him often in prayer, confessing and turning away from the sins we once loved. The fruits of the Spirit will become evident in our lives when we are truly in Him. Now we can rest in Him, with great assurance that what He has begun in us He will complete. We are no longer our own, but bought at a price. While it is true as the believer grows in faith, and a sanctifying life, there are many good works to be done, we were passive in the actual process that led us to salvation. As Jonah assuredly attests: “Salvation is of the LORD.”

RW

humbled
Jun 8th 2007, 06:59 PM
But is there any Scripture that teaches that? How does one become spiritually alive then?John 1-3 speaks on this subject. It is a work of God from start to finish.




Because he is being rebellious and is making a bad choice of rejecting Christ. So far.
As we all do.

Do you think he is beyond hope (1) and is not one of the elect (2)?(1) No since it is all of God, 100% and (2) I have no way of knowing.




I believe salvation is both eternal life and deliverance from sin. Where in Scripture do you find the teaching that God gives us eternal life so that we can be saved?Well, first of all, John 3 says that no one can SEE the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

Secondly, one must believe in order to be saved.

Thirdly, the natural (unregenerated) man cannot believe the things of the Spirit of God because it is foolishness to him (1 Cor 2), so with an accord of the Scriptures, the spiritually dead person will and does not believe anything spiritual, and sin is a spiritual condition which one must understand before they are able to repent of it. So with these Scriptures harmonizing, we see that man must be made spiritually alive in order to obey the command to repent and believe the gospel, which is what brings about salvation.

Therefore, we are spiritually alive (for a time) and yet still in our sins. But it is a short time, mind you. I believe the order of salvation is regeneration precedes faith, so if you would like a better understanding of my view, google "reformed ordo salutis"

John146
Jun 8th 2007, 07:46 PM
John 1-3 speaks on this subject. It is a work of God from start to finish.

Can you be a little more specific than this?



(1) No since it is all of God, 100% and (2) I have no way of knowing.

Do you think that if your dad never repents then that means it was God's will for that to be the case?



Well, first of all, John 3 says that no one can SEE the kingdom of God unless they are born again.

Right. How does this support your view exactly?




Secondly, one must believe in order to be saved.

True. Again, I don't see how this supports your view. Belief comes first.



Thirdly, the natural (unregenerated) man cannot believe the things of the Spirit of God because it is foolishness to him (1 Cor 2), so with an accord of the Scriptures, the spiritually dead person will and does not believe anything spiritual, and sin is a spiritual condition which one must understand before they are able to repent of it. So with these Scriptures harmonizing, we see that man must be made spiritually alive in order to obey the command to repent and believe the gospel, which is what brings about salvation.

What about John 5:24-25, which says that the spiritually dead hear His word and His voice and believe?



Therefore, we are spiritually alive (for a time) and yet still in our sins. But it is a short time, mind you. I believe the order of salvation is regeneration precedes faith, so if you would like a better understanding of my view, google "reformed ordo salutis"

Spiritually alive for a short time? Where does Scripture speak of this? I don't think it is possible to be spiritually alive and still be in our sins. It is possible to be spiritually alive and still sin, but we are now under grace and no longer slaves to sin and no longer under the law. You say regeneration precedes faith. Where does it say this in Scripture? I googled "reformed ordo salutis" and see mostly convoluted explanations that I really don't feel like trudging through. I'll just stick with the Bible alone on this topic, thanks. Also, I'm more interested right now in YOUR thoughts on this than someone else's. :)

RogerW
Jun 9th 2007, 05:21 PM
Regardless of how, the fact is that the spiritually dead CAN hear His voice as the following passage makes absolutely clear:

I understand what the passage says, and I believe it 100% truth, but truth is the Spiritually dead CANNOT hear! That is an impossibility! Can the physically dead hear with physical ears? No! Neither can the Spiritually dead hear with spiritual ears. The only way anyone can hear the voice of the Lord to be saved is supernaturally i.e. spiritually. Vs 25 says, “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” Many hear the preached Word and do not hear His voice, why don’t all the spiritually dead who hear the gospel preached hear and live? After all Scripture tells us “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” How can the dead hear? In the same way that Lazarus heard the voice of the Lord when He resurrected him to life. Only then, after being made physically alive, was he (Lazarus) able to hear the command to “come forth.” Lazarus could not respond until after he was given life. Neither can we who are Spiritually dead “hear” with spiritual ears and believe before we are made alive.

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it [the gospel] is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

God reveals Himself in two ways: through the grace of God in Christ (the righteousness of God to all who believe), and the wrath of God and judgment of God against all unbelievers. God has revealed Himself through His law, in the judgment upon Adam, Sodom, Noah’s time and many other ways, and also the cross of Christ where God spared not His own Son, Who bore the sins of His sheep.

All men have some knowledge of God through creation and conscience, but they suppress this knowledge and give themselves to evil only. Some things are made known of God through nature. His power, majesty and glory shine forth in the things He has created.

Ps 19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.

God gave man eyes to look about them to behold His glory. “Being understood” refers to the mind and heart of man, which was made intelligent and thoughtful, giving us no excuse to not recognize and love God. Fallen man is without excuse because he chooses to walk in the dark, for when we walk in the light our evil deeds are exposed (Ro 1:20). God did not cause man to sin, man chose to sin. God has given man manifestation of His works of creation, providence, the law and conscience, so they are without excuse before God. It is every man’s duty to make good use of these things, and the cause for their not doing so is not God’s but rather their own evil hearts.

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

In their own foolish minds and hearts they turned away from the revelation of God, and plunged into darkness and error, delusions, and unrighteousness. God did not ordain they would turn away from revelation of Him, they did so because their hearts are evil. And every single human is born with the same fallen nature, and evil heart. Once more, if God had not chosen some men to be saved, then no man could be saved.

Pr 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Because men will not have God to reign over them, darkness will reign IN them.

Forcefully given? How so? If the decision to receive the free gift of salvation is left to Spiritually dead men, how can they accept it? There’re Spiritual corpses, unable to respond unless they have first been made Spiritually alive.



I completely disagree.

Men may hear the gospel of Christ and understand what is being said, and do not believe it. Though faith comes by hearing, not everyone who hears is given faith to believe. So those who hear, and understand receive no profit by hearing because they deny the truth. If it was not the will of God that they would deny the truth, then He would have given them faith to believe. Christ did not come to condemn the world because it was already condemned. It is not ours to reason why God chose to save some men, and left others in their fallen state. This is the argument Paul anticipated in Ro 9 and his answer is, vs. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. vs. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. vs. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? vs. 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

All of mankind stands guilty before God, and condemned. Every man would deny the truth unless God opens their ears to hear, and imputes faith to believe. Fallen mankind has been judged already, which is why God sent His Son into the world, that the world might be saved through Him. You see a negative, where Scripture states the positive, had God in His great love and compassion for His own, not chosen to redeem some of mankind, then none of mankind would become saved. And the whole world would perish through unbelief and sin.

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

You see God’s redemptive plan as negative, where Scripture states the positive, had God in His great love and compassion for His own, not chosen to redeem some of mankind, then none of mankind would become saved. And the whole world would perish through unbelief and sin. If all mankind perished how is the glory of God revealed?



Your theory (or should I say Calvin's) makes the preaching of the gospel pointless.

I have never studied or even read the works of John Calvin. I hear this castigation against my character from those who deny eternal security from time to time, and since I bring nothing from Calvin into the discussion, and use only the Word of God to present my assertions, I am left to wonder if perhaps it is your hope that I am perceived as teaching what you believe is heresy (Calvinism) so that gives you excuse to reject what Scripture, not Calvin has to say against the opinion that we can lose our salvation?

As far as preaching the gospel, and why we must, because God tells us this is the means He has provided to bring salvation to those who believe.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 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?

How can we believe if we cannot understand, and we do not seek after Him?

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Ro 3:11 There is none that undersandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Ro 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is NONE that doeth good, no, NOT ONE.

I am not contradicting Scripture. I have just shown you the passage in Romans that very clearly states no one seeks Him. I can’t help but wonder why you skip over vs. 2,3 of Ps 53 and 14? You are right in saying that Ro 3 refers to these parallel passages in the Psalms, however you cannot simply read over the verses that Ro 3 parallels as though they don’t exist. How do you deal with them, because you cannot make them go away?

They clearly state, as does Ro 3 that God sees ALL the children of men, and all of them are fools who say there is no God. Until God gives us Spiritual life, and Spiritual hearing that we can understand, we are all equally considered fools without the Lord.

53:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
53:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, NO, NOT ONE.

Ps 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
Ps 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE.

I am comfortable with the fact that God is Sovereign in the affairs of all of His creation. I don’t try to guess why God is God, and behaves as the Sovereign God that He is. God’s creation was “very good.” He did not cause man to disobey and become spiritually dead. Man chose to rebel against the Almighty and His Authority over him. We are all equal in Adam, and without the intervention of God, no man would ever have eternal life, and all men would be damned. Not because God wills it to be so, but because we are fallen, and desperately wicked, and deserve to be cast away from God forever. But praise God, that in His great love and mercy, He shows compassion to some of fallen mankind, or none of mankind would be saved.

The command to repent and believe can only be obeyed AFTER we receive Spiritual life.

God determines to bring the flood upon the earth because all He had created had become corrupt. But God says Noah received grace from the Lord. Grace is favor, unmerited favor from God, and Noah received this grace. It does not say Noah deserved this grace, only that the Lord showed His grace toward Noah. God looked upon the earth and all flesh was corrupt (just like we find in Ro 3, and Ps 53 & 14), but God pours out His grace upon Noah, then after showering him with grace, God says Noah is righteous in his generation.

First we have God seeing all of humanity as corrupt. God does not say all of humanity EXCEPT Noah was corrupt, no, He says all flesh upon the earth is corrupt. Secondly we find God showering Noah with His grace. Finally we hear God declare Noah as righteous. You want to reverse the order, and say God spared Noah because Noah was already righteous, thereby making Noah’s righteousness come from within. Clearly that is not the order, nor the purpose for God declaring Noah righteous in his generation.

Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Ge 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for ALL flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Ge 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Ge 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.



That passage has nothing to do with salvation. This passage is referenced:

God blessed Jacob for his faithfulness and penalized Esau for his rebellion and for selling his birthright (Hebrews 2:14-17).

But it's also true that God loved Jacob's nation Israel for its faithfulness, and hated Esau's nation, Edom, for their wickedness. Either way, it has nothing to do with salvation, it had to do with God rewarding faithfulness and punishing unfaithfulness just as He has always done. There would be no cause for either rewarding or punishing if everyone is just doing what they were foreordained to do.

Your argument might carry some weight if we could only get rid of Ro 9:11, which very clearly tells us that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau before either of them had done any good or evil. So your argument that God chose Jacob for his faithfulness, and rejected Esau because of his rebellion and selling his birthright is without.

Ro 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Ro 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Since He doesn’t automatically save all mankind we have no need to worry. Those whom He does choose to save are happily His servants because He has changed their hearts of stone, and put His Spirit within them, thereby enabling them to love Him, and want to please Him, and serve Him because He first loved them.

God supernaturally calls us to His Word. If we are predestined to receive life, then the Holy Spirit applies the Word to our hearts enabling us to repent and believe, in this manner we enter into the kingdom of God FOREVER! Yes, we find verses telling us to seek, and we find verses telling us no one will seek, how do you harmonize these verses? Salvation is of God, after salvation, since we have the HS power we can now live a lives desiring to grow in faith, and the image of Christ.

It is not the will of God that fallen man be cast into the lake of fire. It is God’s will to save all whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life from the foundation of the world. If God did not will to save some, then all would be cast into the lake of fire, not because God wills it, but because man chose to sin. You attempt to make God responsible for man corrupting themselves through sin. God is not the author of sin, man is. I’ve already shown you how Christ came not to condemn the world, but to save it. I have also shown you that fallen humanity cannot make themselves righteous. God must intervene in the lives of fallen man or no man could be saved. God did not program, or predetermine man to fall, man has only himself to blame because man chose to usurp the authority of the Almighty, Sovereign God Who created them.

RW

RogerW
Jun 9th 2007, 08:13 PM
Roger,

Let me preface this reply by saying that I'm going on vacation, and I won't be able to respond to any posts on this board for over a week. :P

Can you give me chapter-verse on the underlined portion above?

Obviously I agree with the 2nd phrase. But how is John 3:16 not the 1st phrase?

How about?

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.

2 Corinthians 6:1, 2 Working together with Him, we also appeal to you: "Don't receive God's grace in vain." For He says: In an acceptable time, I heard you, and in the day of salvation, I helped you. Look, now is the acceptable time; look, now is the day of salvation.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation--in Him when you believed--were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Titus 2:11, 12 For the grace of God has appeared, with salvation for all people, instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age
If what you say is true here, than everyone will be saved - not just the elect.

Hebrews 2:3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him.
Not offered?

Romans 10:9, 13 if you confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Not offered?

1 Thessalonians 2:16a hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan's working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned--those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.
(This is very interesting for those who hold to single predestination to support their position.) It is obvious above that there is an opportunity for people to believe the truth and hence be saved.

2 Timothy 1:9 This has now been made evident through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Clearly an opportunity for immortality is given.

Take care,

BD

The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached. Why? For a witness unto all nations. The gospel of salvation is offered unto all the world, but salvation is GIVEN only to those who believe.

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mr 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Christ says “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” He does not say “Go ye into all the world and offer salvation to every creature.” It is in hearing the gospel of glad tidings, good news, that hearts are turned to the living God. We don’t have to offer salvation, when we offer the message of the cross, the Word that we proclaim is the power unto salvation.

Mr 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Why does Christ command us to “preach the gospel to every creature”? Because “it” the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. We proclaim, or offer the gospel message to all people, and all who hear and believe become saved. They are not saved because we offer them salvation, they are saved because they believe the message of the cross that is offered to every creature.

Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The power is in the offering of the gospel of salvation. After hearing the Word of truth, many believe, and these are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise through hearing the Word of truth that was offered. Not by making salvation an offer. Salvation is given, not offered upon belief.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Very clearly we read, the Gentiles become fellow heirs, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the offering of the gospel. They did not become saved because they were offered salvation, they became saved through the offering of the gospel, which is the power of God unto life to all who believe.

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

We are not saved through an offer of salvation, we are saved by grace (His) through faith (His); not of ourselves in reaching out an accepting an offering of salvation. It cannot be through our receiving an offer extended us because then salvation would be dependent upon our response, and God clearly tells us “not of yourselves” and “not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We offer the gospel unto all the world, and salvation is given to all who believe, but salvation is NOT offered.

RW

DSK
Jun 9th 2007, 08:15 PM
To "see" the kingdom of God does not mean that we cannot even respond to the appeal. All of Christ's parables regarding the kingdom make this clear. It is simply a way of saying that unless someone is born again he will never enter the kingdom.

BD

The word "see" is eido in the Greek, and isn't found in the Greek lexicons to be a word which can be replaced with the word "enter." The word "enter" is not a word the lexicons give us which can be substitued in place of the word "see" Also take note that I didn't find any translation that replaces the word "see" with the word "enter." The english word "enter" is eiserchomai in the Greek, not eido. Seems to me you may be mistaken and doing some unwarranted word inserting and replacement there BD.

ElBob
Jun 10th 2007, 06:54 PM
This debate has been going on for centuries and will continue until the Lord returns. One problem is, this subject has been so influenced by uninspired, extra-Biblical writings, “church” doctrines, and doctrines of men and devils that it is irreconcilable, from man’s perspective.

This is certain, this issue was settled in heaven. No one will accidentally go to hell or heaven. If he is saved, it is because God took the first step. If he remains lost, it is because he has rejected the truth.

DSK
Jun 10th 2007, 09:44 PM
Lazarus could not respond until after he was given life. Neither can we who are Spiritually dead “hear” with spiritual ears and believe before we are made alive.

If the decision to receive the free gift of salvation is left to Spiritually dead men, how can they accept it? There’re Spiritual corpses, unable to respond unless they have first been made Spiritually alive.

The command to repent and believe can only be obeyed AFTER we receive Spiritual life.



RogerW

Your beginning to sound more and more like me. ;)

RogerW
Jun 10th 2007, 10:54 PM
RogerW

Your beginning to sound more and more like me. ;)

So your the one! I knew I had learned that from someone.:spin:

RW

Teke
Jun 10th 2007, 11:03 PM
Now then you two, DSK and Roger who are in agreement.:P

Tell us why the dead (according to your understandings) die in baptism and are resurrected to new life. If they are already dead, then why die and raise?

RogerW
Jun 11th 2007, 12:52 AM
Now then you two, DSK and Roger who are in agreement.:P

Tell us why the dead (according to your understandings) die in baptism and are resurrected to new life. If they are already dead, then why die and raise?

Teke,

When we are born again, we have been baptized into Christ. We have union with Him by the Spirit of God, and are actually one with the Lord.

Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

When we are baptized in water we are identified with Christ's body in His death, burial, and resurrection. In newness of Spiritual life we become dead to the old nature, it is buried, and we arise as new creatures in Christ.

Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Our burial with Christ in Spiritual baptism means not only being dead with Christ, but being dead to the world of sin. We are no longer controlled by sin and self, but are now under the power of the Holy Spirit.

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Believers are one with Christ in His death, and have assurance of living forever with Him. Since Christ was raised from the dead, and will not die again, so to those who have died in Him are risen with Him. No charge can ever be brought against believers, for the full price has been paid, the law is honored and justice is satisfied.

Ro 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

You ask, "If they are dead already, why die and raise?"

Christ died to sin once, and in that death He fully satisfied every charge. When we have died with Him, and been raised to life in Him then we, like Him live unto God. We have complete deliverance from sin's curse, and sin's guilt, so sin no longer reigns over us. If we do not see complete deliverance being in Christ through having become partakers of His death and resurrection, then we open the door to unbelief and doubt, and leave room for attacks from legalism and self-righteousness.

RW

Teke
Jun 11th 2007, 01:31 AM
That didn't answer my question. :)
You used words like "spiritual baptism" and have agreed with DSK that man is spiritually dead. So my question was, how do you take a spiritually dead man, and make him dead again by baptism and then resurrect him.....spiritually that is.:P

RogerW
Jun 11th 2007, 01:57 AM
That didn't answer my question. :)
You used words like "spiritual baptism" and have agreed with DSK that man is spiritually dead. So my question was, how do you take a spiritually dead man, and make him dead again by baptism and then resurrect him.....spiritually that is.:P

Teke,

I'm not sure I am following your thought here. All men are physically born spiritually dead. Unless they are given Spiritual life they remain spiritually dead throughout their physical lives. When they physically die, never having received Spiritual life, they go into the grave to await the resurrection on the last day when they will be raised for Judgment.

When we receive Spiritual baptism, (not to be confused with water baptism) it means we have been buried with Christ, and resurrected in Him. Spiritual baptism does not make us dead again, it makes us Spiritually alive. Why do you think that those who are Spiritually dead are made dead by baptism? Are you referring to water baptism, or baptism of the Holy Spirit? When we are baptized into Christ we are dead to sin, but alive unto God through Christ.

Ro 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When we are in Christ we have been buried with Him in baptism (Holy Spirit), and we have been raised with Him from the dead. We were dead in sins, but in Christ we have been made alive through baptism of the Holy Spirit, and all our sins have been forgiven.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

RW

DSK
Jun 11th 2007, 09:14 AM
Now then you two, DSK and Roger who are in agreement.:P

Tell us why the dead (according to your understandings) die in baptism and are resurrected to new life. If they are already dead, then why die and raise?

First of all RogerW doesn't fully agree with me.

Secondly, the topic of this post is "Can anyone be saved? Do some have no chance?" To talk about baptism in this thread would take this thread in a direction it wasn't intended to go. I think you need to open your own thread on baptism in which you can present your views of baptism and open it up for discussion.

Teke
Jun 11th 2007, 05:49 PM
OK, DSK, forget about baptism. Baptism wasn't what I asked about, but spiritual life. I'll make my points to Roger's post here.


Teke,

I'm not sure I am following your thought here. All men are physically born spiritually dead.

God is Life, and God is Spirit. All mankind is born with life, which is a spiritual gift given by God. Along with other gifts He gives us (whether saved or not) without exception.

With all the examples given in scripture, I do not see how you can say this. First of all it denigrates the humanity of Jesus, who was fully human, and was not dead spiritually. John the Baptist was "filled" with the spirit even while in his mothers womb (before his birth), which means he was spirit inspired before he was born.

Because one persons spirit isn't as illuminated or inspired as another, doesn't mean that the one lacking is spiritually dead. Jesus said there were different measures of faith. So people will believe to different degrees, according the faith God has given them of their spirit (once God gives you life of His Spirit, it is then your spirit to be responsible for).


Unless they are given Spiritual life they remain spiritually dead throughout their physical lives.

Where does the scriptures say such a thing?


When they physically die, never having received Spiritual life, they go into the grave to await the resurrection on the last day when they will be raised for Judgment.


Do you believe your living two lives? A spiritual one and a physical one?

Thing is, all creation is endowed with spiritual life from God. Jesus said that if men had not proclaimed Him, the rocks would cry out. So if even rocks, which seem to us to be dead (no life), could proclaim the spiritual, then how is anything God created spiritually dead.
Even the wicked have a spiritual life, it just isn't the holy spiritual life dedicated to God.

Mankind is related allegorically with trees and fruit in scripture. God wants the fruit of this vineyard or garden He has planted. Not the seeds, or trees, or the peel on the fruit, but that which is inside, the very fruit itself.
And none of this is dead, it's producing either good fruit or bad fruit. God did all to ensure that it would produce (Is. 5).

If you give some thought to what I've put forth, you should understand how I do not see that humanity is spiritually dead in scripture or reality.
God is life, and He doesn't create dead things.:)

RogerW
Jun 11th 2007, 09:09 PM
OK, DSK, forget about baptism. Baptism wasn't what I asked about, but spiritual life. I'll make my points to Roger's post here.

God is Life, and God is Spirit. All mankind is born with life, which is a spiritual gift given by God. Along with other gifts He gives us (whether saved or not) without exception.

With all the examples given in scripture, I do not see how you can say this. First of all it denigrates the humanity of Jesus, who was fully human, and was not dead spiritually. John the Baptist was "filled" with the spirit even while in his mothers womb (before his birth), which means he was spirit inspired before he was born.

Because one persons spirit isn't as illuminated or inspired as another, doesn't mean that the one lacking is spiritually dead. Jesus said there were different measures of faith. So people will believe to different degrees, according the faith God has given them of their spirit (once God gives you life of His Spirit, it is then your spirit to be responsible for).

Where does the scriptures say such a thing?

Do you believe your living two lives? A spiritual one and a physical one?

Thing is, all creation is endowed with spiritual life from God. Jesus said that if men had not proclaimed Him, the rocks would cry out. So if even rocks, which seem to us to be dead (no life), could proclaim the spiritual, then how is anything God created spiritually dead.
Even the wicked have a spiritual life, it just isn't the holy spiritual life dedicated to God.

Mankind is related allegorically with trees and fruit in scripture. God wants the fruit of this vineyard or garden He has planted. Not the seeds, or trees, or the peel on the fruit, but that which is inside, the very fruit itself.
And none of this is dead, it's producing either good fruit or bad fruit. God did all to ensure that it would produce (Is. 5).

If you give some thought to what I've put forth, you should understand how I do not see that humanity is spiritually dead in scripture or reality.
God is life, and He doesn't create dead things.:)

Teke,

As a courtesy to you I will respond to your post, but if we continue on this path I fear DSK is right and we will take this discussion far from the OP. If you want to discuss this further, please start another thread.

When God created man, He instructed man not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God warned him that in the day that he ate from that tree he would surely die. Do you believe God meant what He said? I do. I believe that just as God had warned Adam that he would die in the day that he disobeyed, then most assuredly God kept His word, and Adam died.

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
But Adam did not physically die when he disobeyed God. Either God wasn’t serious, and therefore every command of God can be disobeyed without consequence, or Adam did die, not physically, but spiritually, and he began the process of aging and would one day also physically die. I believe that God’s commands are meant to be obeyed, and when God promises specific consequences we can be sure that God will do exactly what He has promised. Otherwise God’s threats and promises aren’t worth a hill of beans.

Before Adam disobeyed God, he had no knowledge of good or evil, and he (Adam) and Eve were naked, but there was no shame.

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Then when they disobeyed and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and they knew they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together to hide their nakedness because now they know shame. Their innocence and purity had been lost, now they knew sin and evil, and this is passed on to all of their offspring.

Ge 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I believe this demonstrates to us how Adam and Eve Spiritually died on the day they disobeyed God. That is why Scripture tells us we are from birth wicked, and dead in trespasses and sins. Not that we are physically dead, but most assuredly Spiritually dead, and unable to respond to Spiritual truth.

Eph 2:1 And you (hath he quickened), who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. [We are all wicked, and none righteous apart from Christ]

So too, this is why Christ tells us we must be born again. The Spiritual life that Adam possessed before he disobeyed God, that life that kept Adam pure and without knowledge of sin and evil, died on the day he failed to keep God’s command. This is why Christ says we must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Why is it necessary for man to be born again, or born from above if we already possess Spiritual life?

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I hope I have stated this in a way you can understand, and I hope that it helps you to see how we can be both physically alive, and Spiritually dead until Christ quickens us through His Word and Spirit.

RW

Teke
Jun 11th 2007, 11:04 PM
That is not how I would interpret those verses from Ephesians, Roger.
And if you interpret them in that manner, then you have a contradiction in Ephesians with them and Eph. 4:18, which says it's blindness of their hearts, not spiritual death.

I also don't interpret Genesis in the juridical manner. So I suppose if we disagree on the beginning, then there will likely be disagreement on other matters.:dunno:

:giveup:

RogerW
Jun 12th 2007, 02:00 AM
That is not how I would interpret those verses from Ephesians, Roger.
And if you interpret them in that manner, then you have a contradiction in Ephesians with them and Eph. 4:18, which says it's blindness of their hearts, not spiritual death.

I also don't interpret Genesis in the juridical manner. So I suppose if we disagree on the beginning, then there will likely be disagreement on other matters.:dunno:

:giveup:

Teke,

I hope you won't mind my asking you another question, I believe it is on topic. Why were their hearts blinded? Eph 4:18 is speaking of unbelieving Gentiles who walk in vanity of their own minds (vs 17). Paul says they are past feeling, and given themselves over to all uncleanness with greediness. Paul gives us the answer if we keep reading the passage. Their hearts were blinded because they had not learned Christ; had not heard Him, or been taught by Him the truth in Him. Why had they not so learned Christ? Because they had not been renewed in the spirit of the mind.

So Paul tells the Ephesians believers they are not like these Gentiles who had not learned Christ because they had been sealed with the Holy Spirit of God. Blindness of the heart and mind is the result of Spiritual death, separation from Christ. But when we are made alive Spiritually, then our hearts and minds become renewed in the Spirit, enabling us to put on the new man, which is after God and created in righteousness and holiness. As such we now have the ability to be kind toward one another, tender hearted, forgiving one another as Christ has forgiven us.

Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

RW

John146
Jun 12th 2007, 04:10 PM
That is not how I would interpret those verses from Ephesians, Roger.
And if you interpret them in that manner, then you have a contradiction in Ephesians with them and Eph. 4:18, which says it's blindness of their hearts, not spiritual death.

I also don't interpret Genesis in the juridical manner. So I suppose if we disagree on the beginning, then there will likely be disagreement on other matters.:dunno:

:giveup:

How would you interpret this passage:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Teke
Jun 12th 2007, 05:03 PM
How would you interpret this passage:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

IMO those verses speak of the general resurrection at the end of days. However, that "hour" is already present and "now is", in that an encounter with Christ results in life or judgment as a present reality, depending on ones response. Those who believe in Christ have already "passed from death into life".

Teke
Jun 12th 2007, 05:10 PM
Teke,

I hope you won't mind my asking you another question, I believe it is on topic. Why were their hearts blinded? Eph 4:18 is speaking of unbelieving Gentiles who walk in vanity of their own minds (vs 17). Paul says they are past feeling, and given themselves over to all uncleanness with greediness. Paul gives us the answer if we keep reading the passage. Their hearts were blinded because they had not learned Christ; had not heard Him, or been taught by Him the truth in Him. Why had they not so learned Christ? Because they had not been renewed in the spirit of the mind.

So Paul tells the Ephesians believers they are not like these Gentiles who had not learned Christ because they had been sealed with the Holy Spirit of God. Blindness of the heart and mind is the result of Spiritual death, separation from Christ. But when we are made alive Spiritually, then our hearts and minds become renewed in the Spirit, enabling us to put on the new man, which is after God and created in righteousness and holiness. As such we now have the ability to be kind toward one another, tender hearted, forgiving one another as Christ has forgiven us.

Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

RW

That is pretty much where all those blinded stand. That is, as the unlearned. Like the Ephesians verses say, Christ must be "learned", and relationship with Him must "be renewed", a process implying intimate relationship. And further, Christ must be "put on", a metaphor or illusion of baptism and the baptismal robe.

That is how we put off the old and put on the new. A child of light can no longer walk in darkness.

RogerW
Jun 12th 2007, 07:48 PM
That is pretty much where all those blinded stand. That is, as the unlearned. Like the Ephesians verses say, Christ must be "learned", and relationship with Him must "be renewed", a process implying intimate relationship. And further, Christ must be "put on", a metaphor or illusion of baptism and the baptismal robe.

That is how we put off the old and put on the new. A child of light can no longer walk in darkness.

Beloved Teke,

Where does this intimate relationship you speak of come from? How do those blind and unlearned have an intimate relationship with Christ when they are dead to Christ? They are dead in trespass and sin, they cannot see, hear, or learn unless they are first given Spiritual life to see, hear and learn.

RW

Teke
Jun 12th 2007, 08:27 PM
Beloved Teke,

Where does this intimate relationship you speak of come from? How do those blind and unlearned have an intimate relationship with Christ when they are dead to Christ? They are dead in trespass and sin, they cannot see, hear, or learn unless they are first given Spiritual life to see, hear and learn.

RW

Blind and unlearned doesn't equal dead. It means they need healing and understanding. God is so merciful and loving to us in our sick state.

Isa 1:5 ¶ Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head [there is] no soundness in it; [but] wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.


To learn one needs to hear.


Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jesus heals and gives understanding to those who ask.

John146
Jun 12th 2007, 08:56 PM
IMO those verses speak of the general resurrection at the end of days. However, that "hour" is already present and "now is", in that an encounter with Christ results in life or judgment as a present reality, depending on ones response. Those who believe in Christ have already "passed from death into life".

We haven't already passed from physical death to physical life, right? So, it's talking about passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. That is the present reality and the ongoing reality. John 5:24-25 is not speaking of the general resurrection. The general resurrection is spoken about a few verses later in John 5:28-29. In that passage you should notice that Jesus does not use the phrase "now is" and only says "the hour is coming". That has not happened yet. That is only a physical resurrection in which we are changed and receive new bodies. Spiritual resurrection "now is". Physical resurrection comes later. Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13 make it clear that we were dead in our sins before we were made alive in Christ. That is obviously not speaking of being physically dead, but rather spiritually.

Teke
Jun 12th 2007, 11:33 PM
We haven't already passed from physical death to physical life, right? So, it's talking about passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. That is the present reality and the ongoing reality. John 5:24-25 is not speaking of the general resurrection. The general resurrection is spoken about a few verses later in John 5:28-29. In that passage you should notice that Jesus does not use the phrase "now is" and only says "the hour is coming". That has not happened yet. That is only a physical resurrection in which we are changed and receive new bodies. Spiritual resurrection "now is". Physical resurrection comes later. Ephesians 2:5 and Colossians 2:13 make it clear that we were dead in our sins before we were made alive in Christ. That is obviously not speaking of being physically dead, but rather spiritually.

Sorry, I don't follow that logic.
And my eschatology is not one of two resurrections.

So do you think the prodigal son was really dead or dead spiritually when his father said, my son was dead. Or was he lost and found.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Really this is a very Jewish concept. If Jewish children left their parents or married outside the Jewish community, they treated them like they were dead to the Jews. But they weren't really dead physically or spiritually.

BadDog
Jun 14th 2007, 02:47 PM
Regardless of how, the fact is that the spiritually dead CAN hear His voice as the following passage makes absolutely clear:

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. - John 5:24-25

Notice it says the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live. They pass from spiritual death to spiritual life.

Now let me ask a question. How does one who is spiritually dead have no excuse for not believing in God?

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

With your logic, since they are spiritually dead they should not be held accountable for not believing in God, yet this passage says they have no excuse for not believing in God. In the same way, there is no excuse for anyone not to repent and put their faith in Christ. But Calvinism gives someone an excuse: they couldn't help that they weren't elected and chosen, so they can't be held responsible. Yet, it's clear that unbelievers will be held responsible on judgment day. Why are they held responsible? Because they refused to repent and accept the gospel of Christ. Why else?

Also, since when are gifts forcefully given with no choice of whether to accept or reject the gift?



I completely disagree. The verse in question is John 12:32. When you look at the context surrounding it, I do not see that He was making a statement that He would draw not only to Him, but Gentiles as well. The context supports the view that He literally meant He would draw all mankind to Himself. Not that He would force all mankind to believe in Him, but His Spirit calls everyone to Himself, giving everyone the opportunity to respond with repentance and faith. Later in that same chapter, we see this:

46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:46-48

First, notice that Jesus speaks about those who reject Him. Do you really think it was His will for them to reject Him? If so, why will they be judged by His words? What is the reason for the day of judgment if everyone is just doing what they were predetermined or foreordained to do and believing what they were predetermined to believe? Also, notice that He said He came to save THE WORLD. How do you reconcile that with your view?



According to you, He is not the Savior of the world, but rather the Savior of an exclusive club to which He grants salvation.



Yes, He does, as I showed previously.



Your theory (or should I say Calvin's) makes the preaching of the gospel pointless. Everyone's fate is sealed before they are even born, so there is no reason to preach the gospel to anyone because it won't change a thing.



No, it does not say that no man can believe. You are forcing Scripture to contradict itself. There would be no reason to command people to believe if they did not have the capablility.



You are misinterpreting Romans 3:10-12. It is referring to the parallel passages of Psalm 14 and Psalm 53.

1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge. 7Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. - Psalm 14:1-7

When it says there is none that do good, it is only referring to fools that say there is no God. That obviously does not include everyone. Notice verse 4 above. It contrasts the workers of iniquity with God's people. So, when it says none understand and none seek God, it is not talking about all people, but rather the fools who say there is no God and the workers of iniquity. These workers of iniquity did not call upon the Lord. Because they didn't have the choice to do so? No. Nowhere does it say that. When God looked upon the earth in Noah's day, he saw mostly workers of iniquity except for Noah and his family.

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. - Hebrews 11:6-7

You say that none can seek after God. Once again, you are contradicting clear Scripture. Look at verse 6 above. Notice that it says without faith it is impossible to please God. Whose faith? God's or ours? Ours. We are required to have faith. Then notice that it says He that cometh to God must believe that He is. So, it is required that we come to God. He draws us, but we must also come to Him. Then notice that it says He is a rewarder of them that dligently SEEK Him. So, we can seek God even though your doctrine says we can't.




Negative or realistic? Are you uncomfortable with the fact that you believe God created most people to be damned to the lake of fire? Is that something you'd rather not talk about?



So, the command to repent and believe is just for show and shouldn't be taken seriously, right? Why does anyone need to repent and believe in the gospel when everything is already determined?



I must say, that is very selective quoting of Psalm 14 and 53. See my previous comments on those passages.



God didn't see Noah and his family that way, which is why He spared them. You are not looking at the big picture.



I agree



That passage has nothing to do with salvation. This passage is referenced:

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

God blessed Jacob for his faithfulness and penalized Esau for his rebellion and for selling his birthright (Hebrews 2:14-17).

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. - Hebrews 12:14-17


But it's also true that God loved Jacob's nation Israel for its faithfulness, and hated Esau's nation, Edom, for their wickedness. Either way, it has nothing to do with salvation, it had to do with God rewarding faithfulness and punishing unfaithfulness just as He has always done. There would be no cause for either rewarding or punishing if everyone is just doing what they were foreordained to do.


You are still making God out to be a respecter of persons. You have him showing favoritism to Noah for no real reason except that He just felt like favoring him over everyone else. That would mean He is a respecter of persons even though Scripture repeatedly says He is not. Noah was spared because of his faith, as I showed previously.



If He just automatically saved all mankind there would be no relationship between God and His people. He would just be the puppetmaster and we would be His puppets. There would be no exchange of love between God and His people if we only believed because He programmed us to believe.



I'm saying that God's will and man's will both determine one's salvation. God calls us and draws us, but that does not mean we are not responsible to respond with repentance and faith. Salvation is a two-way street, not one way. We see the verses that speak of those who diligently seek Him and verses like Luke 13:24 where Jesus says to strive to enter in at the strait gate and the verses that speak about those who call on the name of the Lord being saved. Salvation requires a response from both God and man. God never fails on His end but man does.

Tell me this: if God wills people to go into the lake of fire from the beginning with those people having no choice in the matter, then tell me why that is the case. Use Scripture. I see Scripture that says God loves the world, but you say He does not love the world, but only those who He has assigned into His exclusive country club. Your view throws human responsibility out the window because everyone is only doing what they were programmed to do. The Bible speaks of punishment for unbelievers, but how can it be punishment when those people are only doing what they were programmed or predetermined to do?John's post above (to read it with the original nested quotes - go to post #163) is the best post I've ever seen on this board regarding human responsibility - and I am definitely including any responses I've made here. Most of this was simply ignored - not addressed.

Anyone who has not done so should go back to the original post (#163) and read it through very carefully. His logic is flawless, esp. in his handling of Romans 3, John 5 and John 12.

Now IMO this is not a refutal of election. It merely puts it in balance with free agency.

Excellent work, John. I cannot believe that no one read and complemented you on this post. They basically ignored most of your excellent arguments from John 5 and 12 as well as Romans 3.


We are not saved through an offer of salvation, we are saved by grace (His) through faith (His); not of ourselves in reaching out an accepting an offering of salvation. It cannot be through our receiving an offer extended us because then salvation would be dependent upon our response, and God clearly tells us “not of yourselves” and “not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Roger,

I still do not see any scriptural support of your main point. And if you understand what middle knowledge is all about, you would not say that if salvation would be dependent upon our response that it would by "of works." If I receive a gift, what have I to boast about? I simply said, "Help!" God did all the work. I simply stopped trying to earn my way to heaven and gave up - relying upon God's finished work in Christ... How is that works?!

And BTW, the faith is not "His" faith. Not possible there grammatically from the Greek - I already talked about that. It IS our faith. If it's "His faith," then God is holding us responsible for something that we are simpy not capable of changing and God is then not being just. Any way of making us still responsible for His actions is just double-talk. "Not of ourselves" simply means, as the text clearly states, that we are saved NOT by OUR works, BUT by His work. It does not say nor does it imply "not of our response." Nowhere does scripture say or imply such a thing. I'm from Missouri - show me.

Yes, I agree that it is the Spirit at work, drawing us to the Father and convicting us of sin. You betcha. But that does not even imply that a response is not necessary. The text clearly assumes one.

And it IS based upon our "receiving" ...

John 1:12 But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, he gave the power/right to become children of God.

Now, we do "receive" a gift, right? That's the obvious intended meaning. That's why an appeal is being made. As John 146 said, how else does an appeal make any sense?

BD

John146
Jun 14th 2007, 03:47 PM
John's post above (to read it with the original nested quotes - go to post #163) is the best post I've ever seen on this board regarding human responsibility - and I am definitely including any responses I've made here. Most of this was simply ignored - not addressed.

Anyone who has not done so should go back to the original post (#163) and read it through very carefully. His logic is flawless, esp. in his handling of Romans 3, John 5 and John 12.

Now IMO this is not a refutal of election. It merely puts it in balance with free agency.

Excellent work, John. I cannot believe that no one read and complemented you on this post. They basically ignored most of your excellent arguments from John 5 and 12 as well as Romans 3.

I appreciate the kind words, BD.



Roger,

I still do not see any scriptural support of your main point. And if you understand what middle knowledge is all about, you would not say that if salvation would be dependent upon our response that it would by "of works." If I receive a gift, what have I to boast about? I simply said, "Help!" God did all the work. I simply stopped trying to earn my way to heaven and gave up - relying upon God's finished work in Christ... How is that works?!

And BTW, the faith is not "His" faith. Not possible there grammatically from the Greek - I already talked about that. It IS our faith. If it's "His faith," then God is holding us responsible for something that we are simpy not capable of changing and God is then not being just. Any way of making us still responsible for His actions is just double-talk. "Not of ourselves" simply means, as the text clearly states, that we are saved NOT by OUR works, BUT by His work. It does not say nor does it imply "not of our response." Nowhere does scripture say or imply such a thing. I'm from Missouri - show me.

Yes, I agree that it is the Spirit at work, drawing us to the Father and convicting us of sin. You betcha. But that does not even imply that a response is not necessary. The text clearly assumes one.

And it IS based upon our "receiving" ...

John 1:12 But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, he gave the power/right to become children of God.

Now, we do "receive" a gift, right? That's the obvious intended meaning. That's why an appeal is being made. As John 146 said, how else does an appeal make any sense?

I agree. The gift is God's grace and salvation. But it is our faith. We are responsible for having faith. We don't deserve any credit for our salvation. How does accepting a gift and having faith mean that we deserve credit? The One who deserves all the credit is the One who makes it possible. However, we are responsible to receive or reject the gift. It is not forced upon us. If everything is predetermined and foreordained then there is no responsibility on anyone's part. And yet we know that on the day of judgment, everyone will be held responsible for their beliefs and actions.

Everyone will have to give account of themselves before Christ on that day. Will unbelievers be able to say "Well, I just did what you foreordained me to do and believed what you predetermined me to believe, so I don't deserve to be punished.". Obviously, that won't be a valid argument because they will be cast into the lake of fire. Are they cast into the lake of fire because that was God's desire for them from the beginning? I thought God is love? Would that be loving for God to do such a thing? I can't see it. Instead, I see that they will be punished due to their unbelief and their wickedness. They are responsible for their own demise because they chose to reject Christ. They "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thess 2:10). They are damned because they "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12).

Eric

BadDog
Jun 15th 2007, 12:43 PM
Eric,

Agreed. I never could understand how we could refer to faith as "God's faith," not ours. We're just talking theoretically when we do that. What do we really mean by such a statement? Do we mean that God is at work causing us to respond to the gospel in faith? If so, I agree. Do we mean that God believes for us? If so, then just what in the world does that mean? That is just then mumbo jumbo, until we define/explain what we mean by faith being a gift and it not being our faith.

I really would like to hear what those who have a Reformed ordo salutis mean by faith as a gift... explicitly. I know what I mean when I say that I have trusted in Christ to save me. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, though those things are certainly necessary. I mean simply that I am relying upon His death in my place to cover my sin.

Many try to talk about types of faith. They refer to james 2 and say that "you believe that God is one... the demons believe and tremble." Well, we're not saved by believing that God is one. And eternal life was never offered to angels or demons. Christ did not die for demons. He died for me and you. And the salvation in that context is not referring to gaining eternal life but salvation from a wasted life.

Thx,

BD

RogerW
Jun 15th 2007, 01:35 PM
BD & John,

I see especially you BD using the KJV of Scripture in many of your reponses. Do you use the KJV because you believe it is reliable, and trustworthy translation? I ask, because I believe the KJV of Scripture is the MOST reliable and trustworthy translation, and so I tend to depend on the faithfulness of the translators of the KJV and when doing serious, or indepth study I have come to trust this translation over all the modern translations.

One thing my studies using other translations has shown me time and again is how the modern versions have taken the simple little word "of" and translated it instead "in". You're probably thinking, as I also did at first glance, "so, what's the big deal?" It is a very big deal when looking at passages that speak of "faith" in Scripture. See for yourselves, I won't point out the many passages, just search the KJV for "faith of", and compare how the modern translations have translated this phrase.

If you are like me, and find the KJV the MOST reliable translation, then you should see that again and again the modern version translations have taken faith that rightly belongs to Christ and given it to man. Again, you may be thinking, "so what's the big deal"? I mean after all isn't faith imputed to us our faith? Here's the big deal! It is His faith imputed to us, and yes when we become saved what belongs to Him belongs to us, but when it comes to how we become saved, and Whose faith is saving us, it takes salvation out of our self determination "free will" and places our salvation in the hands of Christ.

And BD you often refer back to the original languages, this is easily verified when searching the concordance. The Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture also did not change "of" to "in", and isn't that interesting? If you still believe after searching the Scripture for "faith of" that it is our faith that saves us, then the abundance of Scripture has failed to convince you otherwise, therefore I would be foolish to think since Scripture failed to convince you that I somehow could.

RW

BadDog
Jun 15th 2007, 02:59 PM
BD & John,

I see especially you BD using the KJV of Scripture in many of your reponses. Do you use the KJV because you believe it is reliable, and trustworthy translation? I ask, because I believe the KJV of Scripture is the MOST reliable and trustworthy translation, and so I tend to depend on the faithfulness of the translators of the KJV and when doing serious, or indepth study I have come to trust this translation over all the modern translations.

One thing my studies using other translations has shown me time and again is how the modern versions have taken the simple little word "of" and translated it instead "in". You're probably thinking, as I also did at first glance, "so, what's the big deal?" It is a very big deal when looking at passages that speak of "faith" in Scripture. See for yourselves, I won't point out the many passages, just search the KJV for "faith of", and compare how the modern translations have translated this phrase.

If you are like me, and find the KJV the MOST reliable translation, then you should see that again and again the modern version translations have taken faith that rightly belongs to Christ and given it to man. Again, you may be thinking, "so what's the big deal"? I mean after all isn't faith imputed to us our faith? Here's the big deal! It is His faith imputed to us, and yes when we become saved what belongs to Him belongs to us, but when it comes to how we become saved, and Whose faith is saving us, it takes salvation out of our self determination "free will" and places our salvation in the hands of Christ.

And BD you often refer back to the original languages, this is easily verified when searching the concordance. The Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture also did not change "of" to "in", and isn't that interesting? If you still believe after searching the Scripture for "faith of" that it is our faith that saves us, then the abundance of Scripture has failed to convince you otherwise, therefore I would be foolish to think since Scripture failed to convince you that I somehow could.

RW

RW,

I just made an extensive reply... but it was all lost! Ugh. And i can't repeat it now - no time. Suffice me to say that you've got me confused with someone else. I greatly respect the KJV tradition, but my Bible of choice is the HCSB. I gave extensive explanation for why the KJV translation of Romans 3:22 ("faith of Jesus Christ") is not to be preferred over modern translations ("faith in Jesus Christ").

Look at Robertson's Word Pictures (Crosswalk) for Romans 3:22.

IMO modern translations have better scholarship, many more documents to compare in order to gain the meaning that the KJV had available to them.

If you want to pursue this, I can try to post later my understanding of Romans 3:22. It has to do with the subjective vs. the objective gentive... bot hare valid possibilities.

CYL,

BD

John146
Jun 15th 2007, 03:53 PM
BD & John,

I see especially you BD using the KJV of Scripture in many of your reponses. Do you use the KJV because you believe it is reliable, and trustworthy translation? I ask, because I believe the KJV of Scripture is the MOST reliable and trustworthy translation, and so I tend to depend on the faithfulness of the translators of the KJV and when doing serious, or indepth study I have come to trust this translation over all the modern translations.

All of the Scripture references I've given have come from the KJV. I'm not a KJV-only person, but I do think it is the most reliable.



One thing my studies using other translations has shown me time and again is how the modern versions have taken the simple little word "of" and translated it instead "in". You're probably thinking, as I also did at first glance, "so, what's the big deal?" It is a very big deal when looking at passages that speak of "faith" in Scripture. See for yourselves, I won't point out the many passages, just search the KJV for "faith of", and compare how the modern translations have translated this phrase.

There is the faith of Christ and there is faith IN Christ and we find both phrases in the KJV.



If you are like me, and find the KJV the MOST reliable translation, then you should see that again and again the modern version translations have taken faith that rightly belongs to Christ and given it to man. Again, you may be thinking, "so what's the big deal"? I mean after all isn't faith imputed to us our faith? Here's the big deal! It is His faith imputed to us, and yes when we become saved what belongs to Him belongs to us, but when it comes to how we become saved, and Whose faith is saving us, it takes salvation out of our self determination "free will" and places our salvation in the hands of Christ.

What I find is that His righteousness is imputed to us as a result of our faith.

This is speaking of Abraham:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. - Romans 4:20-25

Read this passage carefully. It is righteousness that is imputed to us "if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead". We have His righteousness (and faith?) imputed to us only if we believe in Him and the One who raised Him from the dead. We are required to put our faith in Him. We don't give righteousness to ourselves or justify ourselves. God does that. But He does require us to have faith. Our faith.



And BD you often refer back to the original languages, this is easily verified when searching the concordance. The Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture also did not change "of" to "in", and isn't that interesting? If you still believe after searching the Scripture for "faith of" that it is our faith that saves us, then the abundance of Scripture has failed to convince you otherwise, therefore I would be foolish to think since Scripture failed to convince you that I somehow could.

RW

When we put our faith in Christ, He imputes the righteousness of God (and possibly His faith?) in us through His Spirit. We are required to first have faith in Christ before righteousness is imputed to us. These passages are all from the KJV:

7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. - 1 Peter 1:7-9

Whose faith does this passage speak about? Christ's or ours?

1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? - 1 John 5:1-5

Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. So, part of the way one is born again is to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Is believing that Jesus is the Christ a gift from God that only a lucky few are given? I don't believe so. I don't see where it says that anywhere in Scripture. Each person is responsibile for believing that Jesus is the Christ in order to be born again. That is our responsibility and God does not do that for us. He certainly does everything He can to lead us to that point, but obviously many still reject Him. Many are called, but few are chosen(Matt 20:16, 22:14). Those who are chosen are those who believe that Jesus is the Christ. Those who are called and not chosen decided to not believe that Jesus is the Christ and they will be held responsible on the day of judgment. If they had no choice in the matter, there is no reason for them to be held responsible.

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. - Hebrews 11:6-7

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Whose faith pleases God? Ours. Noah's faith pleased God and he became the heir of righteousness which is by faith.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:26

This is from the KJV and says that we are the children of God by faith IN Christ Jesus.

3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, 5For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; - Col 1:3-5

Again, this is from the KJV and Paul is speaking of the believers in Colosse and their faith IN Christ Jesus.

5For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: - Col 2:5-6

Again, Paul speaks of their faith IN Christ. Also, notice that he says they have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord. Their faith in Christ came first.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. - John 20:30-31

This passage clearly speaks of each person's responsibility to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that by believing this we have life through His name.

27And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. - Acts 16:27-33

The prison keeper asked what he must do to be saved. The answer was that he needed to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". He was responsible for believing in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. - Romans 1:16-17

Again, this shows that salvation comes to those who believe. We must have faith in Christ and His gospel.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:16-18

Once again, we see that the one who has faith in Christ will not perish and is not condemned, but has everlasting life. It doesn't say whosoever has the faith of Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

Eric

RogerW
Jun 15th 2007, 07:21 PM
Not convinced by the abundance of Biblical proof that “saving faith” proceeds from God? Perhaps a study of righteousness will be beneficial.

Righteousness is defined; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:--righteousness.

Did Abraham believe God without God’s intervention?

The passage says that Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. It tells us that believing on Christ justifies the ungodly, and his faith is counted for righteousness. Paul quotes the words of David describing the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness, and whose sins are covered. Since Abraham believed and it was counted unto him for righteousness, and it is God Who imputes righteousness, how can Abraham’s belief proceed from self?

Ro 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Ro 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Ro 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Abraham’s faith was reckoned for righteousness that was not his own, but imputed from the Lord, that he might be the father of all who believe, that they too might receive imputed righteousness unto salvation.

Ro 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Ro 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

If the promise is through the righteousness of faith, and righteousness is imputed, how can faith be our own?

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Clearly we see faith is by grace to those who are of the faith of Abraham, for it is God Who quickens the dead, and calls His own.

Ro 4:16 Therefore of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickened the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Because God had imputed righteousness unto Abraham, he was strong in faith, and gave glory to God, knowing that what God had promised He was able to perform. This imputed righteousness is not to Abraham only, but to all who believe. Abraham doesn’t give any evidence that his faith, ability to believe came from within, he gives all the glory to God, saying what God promises He will perform.

Ro 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Ro 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, HE was able to perform.
Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Jesus was raised for our justification, we were not raised for our own justification. Since Christ is the One Who was raised for our justification, then Christ is the One Who justifies, therefore our justification cannot be based on any of our own justifying faith.

Ro 4:25 Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.

Where is this faith supposedly originating from within? The passage says many are MADE righteous, it does not say many are OFFERED righteousness. We read that grace reigns through righteousness (remember righteousness is imputed) unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be MADE righteous.
Ro 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Ro 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

We follow after [imputed] righteousness, which is OF FAITH. Righteousness is imputed and it is of faith. How is it ours if its through imputed righteousness?

Ro 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Paul has something to say about those who seek to establish their own righteousness before God.

Ro 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Ro 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge..
Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

We are in Christ Jesus, Who God has made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, that when we glory we glory in the Lord. We have no part in our eternal salvation, [I]“salvation is of the Lord.” It is His wisdom, His imputed righteousness, His sanctifying work, and redeemed through His faith, and His perfect obedience to the Father on our behalf.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and REDEMPTION:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

We are made righteousness of God in Him. MADE, not offered righteousness of God in Him.

2Co 5:21 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.

If salvation is of our own faith, then our salvation depends on our good work (by the law), but Paul says he will not frustrate the grace of God by making God’s grace a work we do, because then Christ would have died in vain.

Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

We learn a little more about how Abraham believed God, and was imputed with righteousness. The gospel was preached unto him, and he was told that in him all nations will be blessed.

Ga 3:6 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Ga 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before unto Abraham, saying In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

We receive the blessing of Abraham through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Is this our faith?

Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The promise by faith OF Jesus Christ is given to all who believe.

Ga 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

After we have been justified by His faith, we have been freed from the curse of the law, and are now able to profess to be children of God by faith IN Christ Jesus. It was His imputed faith that made us children of God, then we live IN the faith He has given us, because we have been baptized (Holy Spirit) into Christ and have therefore put on Christ.

Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Once we have become children of God, we have the power of the Holy Spirit and receive the fruits of the Spirit enabling us to overcome the many trials of faith we will have in this world. If it is our faith that saves us how can we read, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, That being justified by his grace.”?

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

It is true that “whosoever believes in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life,” but, as I have shown it is also true that the only ones who will believe are those who, like Abraham are imputed with righteousness enabling them to believe. Can we who are Spiritually dead produce from within us faith needed for salvation?

I realize this is a very controversial topic, and requires much diligent study, and abundance patience, and love in discussing it. If any feel compelled to reply I will try to respond, but happily we will be entertaining our beloved grandchildren for the next three weeks, and next week we will all be out of town. So, please be patient with me, and I promise to try to respond as time permits. Many blessings!

RW

justsurfing
Jun 16th 2007, 12:05 AM
I appreciate the kind words, BD.



I agree. The gift is God's grace and salvation. But it is our faith. We are responsible for having faith. We don't deserve any credit for our salvation. How does accepting a gift and having faith mean that we deserve credit? The One who deserves all the credit is the One who makes it possible. However, we are responsible to receive or reject the gift. It is not forced upon us. If everything is predetermined and foreordained then there is no responsibility on anyone's part. And yet we know that on the day of judgment, everyone will be held responsible for their beliefs and actions.

Everyone will have to give account of themselves before Christ on that day. Will unbelievers be able to say "Well, I just did what you foreordained me to do and believed what you predetermined me to believe, so I don't deserve to be punished.". Obviously, that won't be a valid argument because they will be cast into the lake of fire. Are they cast into the lake of fire because that was God's desire for them from the beginning? I thought God is love? Would that be loving for God to do such a thing? I can't see it. Instead, I see that they will be punished due to their unbelief and their wickedness. They are responsible for their own demise because they chose to reject Christ. They "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thess 2:10). They are damned because they "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12).

Eric

Hi,

I'm going to agree with you that those who reject Christ are responsible for their own demise... "I see that they will be punished due to their unbelief and their wickedness. They are responsible for their own demise because they chose to reject Christ. They "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thess 2:10). They are damned because they "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12)."

I agree with every word!

We are all responsible for our own actions.

I'm going to come against your argument. :)

Stop.

Imagine with me... that God never planned for Jesus to come to earth to save us from our sins.

Would God have every right NOT to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins?

Yes, He had every right NOT to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

Did God OWE it to us to send Jesus Christ?

No, God did not OWE it to us to send Jesus Christ.

Now there is no salvation and no Savior to consider (and by which Satan can blind our minds from simple truth about human responsibility).

Does God, NOW, have every right to send every human being to hell holding EACH ONE personally responsible for their sin?

Can you say... no? If you can say "NO"... I would need to see scripture that sin does not separate man from God or render man under the judgment of God and eternity separated from God in hell.

Because the only biblical answer is YES.

God has every right to send every human being born to hell holding EACH ONE personally responsible for their sin.

Think about it.

Really stop and think about the reality of how EACH ONE OF US DESERVES to spend eternity in hell because we have all sinned and are personally responsible for our sin RIGHT NOW!! before a HOLY, and JUST, and IRREPROVABLE... God.

Does your mouth silence before God?

Is all creation guilty before God and silenced before God in a sinful state with no room to cry "Foul! I don't deserve to go to hell!"

Can you feel the weight of conviction for sin and does the reality that each one of us JUSTLY JUDGED & CONDEMNED for sin... deserves to go to hell.... ?????

Does it silence all accusation of God for our responsibility for our own actions???

Or would we cry out, "You are God! So it's Your fault!!!"

It doesn't hold water. It's not God's fault. It's not God's responsibility. It's all our own fault - our own sin - and we deserve the judgment for our sin.

When that level of reality "sinks in"... which takes the Holy Spirit convicting us of the seriousness of our sin as sinners before a Holy, Just, and Irreprovable God... where's the "that's not fair!!" protest.

It's perfectly FAIR. It's completely fair.

Now, what difference does it make that Jesus came?

It doesn't change the reality that all of us deserve to go to hell.

God's sovereignty doesn't transfer responsibility from us to Him for our sin.

And if God, in His sovereignty, chose to grant grace to some of those sinners justly damned and condemned to hell... and granted them faith to believe... and sent Jesus to save only those upon whom God had mercy...

how does that change anything?

Everyone who goes to hell deserves to go to hell for their sin.

And God cannot be judged as if it's not "fair!" that He had mercy on some... and had no mercy on others... for He owed Jesus Christ... and He owed divine mercy to....

NONE!

And God's sovereignty, only in our own deceived minds, transfers responsibility for our sin from us... to Him.

When we get really, really convicted of sin... how do we turn around and blame-shift and point the finger at God... as if it wouldn't be "fair" for Him to cast sinners into hell... whether or not a Savior was provided... and whether or not they possessed internal ability to believe... and whether or not God decided to save some by grace and not others by His own sovereign decision in mercy on some and not others.

NO accusation against God can hold WATER... no matter what one's soteriological position... election by God's sovereign choice... or election by our sovereign choice.

NO ONE can come back with a just accusation against God... no matter what side of the theological fence we sit on: adoring man's will in salvation... or adoring God's will in salvation.

There's no safety in either one of those glass houses by which to throw stones at God.

Cause inside the glass houses of each of those positions is a sinner saved by grace through faith who has nothing of which to boast before God... nor any room by which to accuse God of casting ALL of the WHOLE human race into hell had HE so sovereignly chose.

If I'm on fire... it's cause sinful men think they have ground to accuse God in any way... whether He be sovereign and chose or whether He didn't.

In my opinion, we need to resist the accuser of the brethren, Satan, who surely is the one who tempts men to accuse God... the Father... of the brethren.

The Bible says God is sovereign.

Love in Christ,

justsurfing

BadDog
Jun 16th 2007, 08:59 PM
BD & John,

<snipped>

One thing my studies using other translations has shown me time and again is how the modern versions have taken the simple little word "of" and translated it instead "in". You're probably thinking, as I also did at first glance, "so, what's the big deal?" It is a very big deal when looking at passages that speak of "faith" in Scripture. See for yourselves, I won't point out the many passages, just search the KJV for "faith of", and compare how the modern translations have translated this phrase.

If you are like me, and find the KJV the MOST reliable translation, then you should see that again and again the modern version translations have taken faith that rightly belongs to Christ and given it to man. Again, you may be thinking, "so what's the big deal"? I mean after all isn't faith imputed to us our faith? Here's the big deal! It is His faith imputed to us, and yes when we become saved what belongs to Him belongs to us, but when it comes to how we become saved, and Whose faith is saving us, it takes salvation out of our self determination "free will" and places our salvation in the hands of Christ.

And BD you often refer back to the original languages, this is easily verified when searching the concordance. The Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture also did not change "of" to "in", and isn't that interesting? If you still believe after searching the Scripture for "faith of" that it is our faith that saves us, then the abundance of Scripture has failed to convince you otherwise, therefore I would be foolish to think since Scripture failed to convince you that I somehow could.

RWRW,

Hopefully this won't be "lost." (My firefox internet connection simply "disappeared" yesterday) :B :rolleyes:

We do not have "case" inherent in the noun text in English, as does Koine Greek. They had both the noun structure and prepositions. Now let me quote Robertson's Word Pictures for Romans 3:22, a text sometimes used by Reformed theologians:

Through faith in Jesus Christ (dia pistew� Cristou). Intermediate agency (dia) [I][BD -> DIA with the genitive is translated "through." "By" - KJV - is OK, but not as clear that it is not saying "because of." IOW, Paul is not saying that we are saved because of the faith of Christ, or "by means" of it - as I think you're implying, but "through" our faith.] is faith and objective genitive, "in Jesus Christ," not subjective "of Jesus Christ," in spite of Haussleiter's contention for that idea. The objective nature of faith in Christ is shown in Galatians 2:16 by the addition EIS Criston Ihsoun episteusamen (we believed in Christ), by THS EIS Criston pistew� umwn (of your faith in Christ) in Colossians 2:5, by en pistei th en Cristwi Ihsou (in faith that in Christ Jesus) in 1 Timothy 3:13, as well as here by the added words "unto all them that believe" (EIS pantaS touS pisteuontaS) in Jesus, Paul means. Distinction (diastolh). See on "1Co 14:7" for the difference of sounds in musical instruments. Also in Romans 10:12. The Jew was first in privilege as in penalty (Romans 2:9), but justification or setting right with God is offered to both on the same terms.
Robertson says that this is better translated as "in Christ Jesus" (objective genitive) than as "of Christ Jesus" (subjective genitive). Both genitives are quite common, so regardless modern translations in translating this as "in Christ Jesus" are not doing anything grammatically strange at all. He points out that in Galatians 2:16 we have a very similar text which has EIS, which cannot be translated as "of." The same is true in Colossians 2:5 and 1 Timothy 2:13, making it clear that a subjective genitive won't work in those texts. (EIS is present, making it clear.)

Here's the text...

Romans 3:22 (HCSB) that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction.

Here's the KJV:

Romans 3:22 (KJV) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Here's the Greek:

δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή

Actually, we need to look at two prepositions. (Both in bold above - in English.) Notice that I only emboldened one in the Greek (DIA - "through") since there is not a 2nd preposition in Greek.

Also, we have here "εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας" ("to all the believing ones"). EIS ("into, in, to") is present, making it clear that this is referring to faith in Christ Jesus. God's righteousness is offered to all who believe... hence it is not the faith "of" Christ Jesus. They believe. There is no preposition there, which might clarify. It is the genitive case alone.

I vote for the objective genitive. Some have done differently. Dr. Wallace translates it as "the faithfulness of christ Jesus" - a bit strange. But I prefer to translate PISTIS as "faith" over faithfulness - which is quite rare. The lexicons agree with me there.

Anyway, something "unorthodox" was certainly not done by modern translations there. Notice that Robertson uses the KJV in his commentary - yet he does not agree with what the KJV did in Romans 3:22.


OK, regarding the quality of the KJV trnaslation...

Fitst of all, I like the KJV and do have much respect for the KJV history and tradition. I have a couple of KJV Bibles at home, as well as NKJV Bibles. However, there are a couple of issues.

1 - The Greek text used (textus receptus). Now I do support the majority text (Byzantine text), and the KJV is in that family. But it is a poor representative of that family. Also, I do prefer the Alexandrian family (critical text) over the Byzantine family. Personally, I wish that textual critics used both families! But, unfortunately, they do not. Now Art Farstad was the editor of the NKJV. As soon as he finished it, he started on a fresh translation based on the Greek majority text which he and Zane Hodges developed. (I actually know Zane well and met and spoke with Art a couple of times... Yes, I asked him why he went with the TR instead of his Greek majority text on the NKJV. :D ) But Farstad's translation was the rough draft which became the HCSB... Unfortunately, when Farstad passed away in 98, his right handman converted it to an Alexandrian text! Bummer. But the TR has many flaws and some big errors - places where it agrees with almost no other Greek MSS of the thousands available.

2 - The KJV translators did not have some of the discoveries available to them that modern translators have. In the late 19th century a discovery was made of several business and everyday MSS (manuscripts) in Greek. Before then, translators thought that koine Greek (used in the NT writings) were some sort of holy Greek - with some terms developed by Paul to fit his need. However, we now know this is simply not true. Koine Greek is a common, everyday style of Greek - for the common man. And since we do not have 1st century dictionaries or lexicons to tell us what words mean, they had to be determined by use in other documents. Well, some words lacked anything until fairly recently. By seeing how certain words were used, we better understand their meaning. We can compare to classical Greek MSS at times, but it is not always the same.

For example of this last point, take MONOGENHS - used in John 3:16 and a few other places in John's gospel. It was translated as "only begotten" by the KJV. (And just what does "begotten" mean? Who uses it today?) That is based on MONO ("only") and the assumption that GENHS comes from GENAW ("to give birth"). It does not. We now know that it comes from GINOMAI ("to be, to become") Anyway, the word simply mean s, "only, one and only, unique." Sure, it is used of 1st-born sons, but it simply means that such are unique - the only 1st-born son. But JWs and others have tried to say that this term means that Jesus came into being - was born into being. It does not.

Why do you think that virtually all textual critics hold to the Alexandrian text, as do virtually all translators? Th is not to say that the Greek text of the KJV is unreliable! But God has given us better tools.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Jun 16th 2007, 09:08 PM
It is true that “whosoever believes in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life,” but, as I have shown it is also true that the only ones who will believe are those who, like Abraham are imputed with righteousness enabling them to believe. Can we who are Spiritually dead produce from within us faith needed for salvation?

I realize this is a very controversial topic, and requires much diligent study, and abundance patience, and love in discussing it. If any feel compelled to reply I will try to respond, but happily we will be entertaining our beloved grandchildren for the next three weeks, and next week we will all be out of town. So, please be patient with me, and I promise to try to respond as time permits. Many blessings!

RW
Just got back from vacation myself.

Where is the biblical basis for saying that Abraham or anyone else is imputed with righteousness enabling them to believe? I do hope you have a great 3 weeks. But this point has not been shown. Paul repeatedly says that Abraham was declared to be righteous as a result of his faith. "Abraham believed God and it (believing God) was accounted to him (as a result of his believing) as righteousness."


Good stuff, Eric (John146)

Take care,

BD

John146
Jun 17th 2007, 05:06 AM
Hi,

I'm going to agree with you that those who reject Christ are responsible for their own demise... "I see that they will be punished due to their unbelief and their wickedness. They are responsible for their own demise because they chose to reject Christ. They "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thess 2:10). They are damned because they "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12)."

I agree with every word!

We are all responsible for our own actions.

Thanks.



I'm going to come against your argument. :)

Stop.

Oh, too bad. Just when I thought you were going to be my friend. :D



Imagine with me... that God never planned for Jesus to come to earth to save us from our sins.

Would God have every right NOT to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins?

Yes, He had every right NOT to send Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

Did God OWE it to us to send Jesus Christ?

No, God did not OWE it to us to send Jesus Christ.

Now there is no salvation and no Savior to consider (and by which Satan can blind our minds from simple truth about human responsibility).

Does God, NOW, have every right to send every human being to hell holding EACH ONE personally responsible for their sin?

Can you say... no? If you can say "NO"... I would need to see scripture that sin does not separate man from God or render man under the judgment of God and eternity separated from God in hell.

Because the only biblical answer is YES.

God has every right to send every human being born to hell holding EACH ONE personally responsible for their sin.

Think about it.

Really stop and think about the reality of how EACH ONE OF US DESERVES to spend eternity in hell because we have all sinned and are personally responsible for our sin RIGHT NOW!! before a HOLY, and JUST, and IRREPROVABLE... God.

Does your mouth silence before God?

Is all creation guilty before God and silenced before God in a sinful state with no room to cry "Foul! I don't deserve to go to hell!"

Can you feel the weight of conviction for sin and does the reality that each one of us JUSTLY JUDGED & CONDEMNED for sin... deserves to go to hell.... ?????

Does it silence all accusation of God for our responsibility for our own actions???

Or would we cry out, "You are God! So it's Your fault!!!"

It doesn't hold water. It's not God's fault. It's not God's responsibility. It's all our own fault - our own sin - and we deserve the judgment for our sin.

When that level of reality "sinks in"... which takes the Holy Spirit convicting us of the seriousness of our sin as sinners before a Holy, Just, and Irreprovable God... where's the "that's not fair!!" protest.

It's perfectly FAIR. It's completely fair.

Now, what difference does it make that Jesus came?

It doesn't change the reality that all of us deserve to go to hell.

God's sovereignty doesn't transfer responsibility from us to Him for our sin.

And if God, in His sovereignty, chose to grant grace to some of those sinners justly damned and condemned to hell... and granted them faith to believe... and sent Jesus to save only those upon whom God had mercy...

how does that change anything?

Everyone who goes to hell deserves to go to hell for their sin.

And God cannot be judged as if it's not "fair!" that He had mercy on some... and had no mercy on others... for He owed Jesus Christ... and He owed divine mercy to....

NONE!

And God's sovereignty, only in our own deceived minds, transfers responsibility for our sin from us... to Him.

When we get really, really convicted of sin... how do we turn around and blame-shift and point the finger at God... as if it wouldn't be "fair" for Him to cast sinners into hell... whether or not a Savior was provided... and whether or not they possessed internal ability to believe... and whether or not God decided to save some by grace and not others by His own sovereign decision in mercy on some and not others.

NO accusation against God can hold WATER... no matter what one's soteriological position... election by God's sovereign choice... or election by our sovereign choice.

NO ONE can come back with a just accusation against God... no matter what side of the theological fence we sit on: adoring man's will in salvation... or adoring God's will in salvation.

There's no safety in either one of those glass houses by which to throw stones at God.

Cause inside the glass houses of each of those positions is a sinner saved by grace through faith who has nothing of which to boast before God... nor any room by which to accuse God of casting ALL of the WHOLE human race into hell had HE so sovereignly chose.

If I'm on fire... it's cause sinful men think they have ground to accuse God in any way... whether He be sovereign and chose or whether He didn't.

In my opinion, we need to resist the accuser of the brethren, Satan, who surely is the one who tempts men to accuse God... the Father... of the brethren.

The Bible says God is sovereign.

Love in Christ,

justsurfing

Did I ever say that I didn't believe God is sovereign and did I ever accuse God of anything? I used Scripture to back up my opinions. You, on the other hand, did not have one single Scripture reference in your entire post. I don't believe that is the way we should have conversations here. If you disagree with something that I said, please be specific and use Scripture to refute it. Our opinions aren't worth much without Scriptural support.

justsurfing
Jun 17th 2007, 10:27 AM
(I have to come back to edit in and clip and paste your post quote in which you blamed God and accused God and complained against God - as if God is responsible for man's sin and cannot hold man accountable for his own sins because God is sovereign.)

I'm still your friend. Jesus lives to intercede for us as born-again Christians - as Moses was a symbol and interceded for the Israelites in the wilderness.

:)

I find that people stop thinking. They have a "box" for every scripture. They have translated a scripture to mean this that or the other... to them.

So it's not the scripture they register when the scripture is presented, often, it's their own "rewrite" of the scripture in their own minds.

So I sometimes go set forth logical thought patterns... a line of reasoning.

My line of reasoning states that one cannot justly accuse God. And you did.

:)

But we we are born of the Spirit are forgiven, aren't we?

Scripture doesn't require the "sermon". I'll just give the scripture references - and maybe you'd like to re-read what I wrote in line of reasoning that underlying God's sovereignty is our full and total responsibility for sin - and God's right to judge and condemn all men. I have more scripture that states "who are you, oh man to accuse God"... on the basis of all things being done according to His will. I'll quote those another time. ;)

To condemn the counsel of the most High; to rebel against the words of God... to bring accusation against God... results in sitting in darkness, the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron... one's heart being brought down with labor... and even more dreadful, terrible things as the next scriptures state.

Psalm 107:10Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron;

11Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High: 12Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help.

" If everything is predetermined and foreordained then there is no responsibility on anyone's part. And yet we know that on the day of judgment, everyone will be held responsible for their beliefs and actions.

Everyone will have to give account of themselves before Christ on that day. Will unbelievers be able to say "Well, I just did what you foreordained me to do and believed what you predetermined me to believe, so I don't deserve to be punished.". Obviously, that won't be a valid argument because they will be cast into the lake of fire. Are they cast into the lake of fire because that was God's desire for them from the beginning? I thought God is love? Would that be loving for God to do such a thing? I can't see it. Instead, I see that they will be punished due to their unbelief and their wickedness. They are responsible for their own demise because they chose to reject Christ. They "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved (2 Thess 2:10). They are damned because they "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess 2:12)."

Friend, everyone is COMPLETELY responsible for THEIR OWN SIN. The "marriage" between will and choice means that I DO choose to do and believe all I choose to do and believe. I bear COMPLETE responsibility for every choice and belief and action. I cannot choose Christ apart from God granting me grace to choose Christ. And EVERY sinner CHOOSES to reject Christ. We ALL fully choose from the INSIDE of our beings... though God is still sovereign and ABLE to predetermine and foreordain every one of those choices WE make... kind of like a rope we are both holding in a "tug of war". No matter what He does on His side of the rope... what I do on my side of the rope... is FULLY my responsibility. :)

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

As you see, what occurs on earth occurs according to BOTH the determinate counsel... AS WELL... as the foreknowledge of God.

This is not an "isolated incident" of actions occuring by both determinate counsel (foreordained and predetermined by God) and the foreknowledge.

This is how life works. Though we don't have the wisdom, knowledge, revelation, and insight to fully comprehend the mysteries of how God works... that's the God sitting on the throne right now... orchestrating all things according to His determinate counsel and foreknowledge.

When God hears us murmur against His sovereignty and His right to bear rule and when He hears us complain against Him... apart from grace... apart from that intercession of Jesus Christ... He becomes so inflamed that it is His desire... TO SMITE US (ie... kill us). We can see that in scripture. We can also see that it "opens the door" for the destroyer.

There is no wisdom or knowledge against God!

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

And God REFUSED TO ALLOW the Israelites to enter the Promised Land for another 40 years - even after Moses interceded to spare their lives - because the SIN of COMPLAINING AGAINST GOD... the SIN of REBELLING AGAINST GOD... and CONDEMNING HIS COUNSEL... is SO great.

Fear of God restrains such evil counsel.

Joshua and Caleb were the only ones to enter the Promised Land - because they rose up in the fire of the Holy Spirit to shout down the complaints of the people - their condemnation of our Holy, Just, and Irreprovable God... and the rebellion against Him due to the hardening of hearts. (And you can read further in Hebrews 4 and elsewhere about the dangers of murmuring against God - complaining.)
Numbers 14


1And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night.
2And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
3And wherefore hath the LORD brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt?
4And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.
5Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.
6And Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, which were of them that searched the land, rent their clothes:
7And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land.
8If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
9Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD is with us: fear them not.
10But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.
11And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
12I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
13And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;)
14And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
15Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying,
16Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.
17And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying,
18The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
19Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.
20And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:
21But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
22Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;
23Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:
24But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.
25(Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley.) Tomorrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
26And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
27How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
28Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
29Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me.
30Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
31But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
32But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.
33And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
34After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
35I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
36And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
37Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.
38But Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, which were of the men that went to search the land, lived still.
39And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly.
40And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned.
41And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper.
42Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies.
43For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.
44But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah.

John146
Jun 18th 2007, 01:18 AM
justsurfing,

You're trying to tell me that I accused God, but I did not. I'm afraid your posting style does not sit well with me and you're also difficult to follow, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BadDog
Jun 18th 2007, 08:27 PM
The following was posted a few days ago, but I have not see anyone explictly explain what they mean by saying that faith is a gift. (I tried to delete the precious post - no need to have both. :P No can do.)

Eric,

Agreed. I never could understand how we could refer to faith as "God's faith," not ours. We're just talking theoretically when we do that. What do we really mean by such a statement? Do we mean that God is at work causing us to respond to the gospel in faith? If so, I agree. Do we mean that God believes for us? If so, then just what in the world does that mean? That is just then mumbo jumbo, until we define/explain what we mean by faith being a gift and it not being our faith.

I really would like to hear what those who have a Reformed ordo salutis mean by faith as a gift... explicitly. I know what I mean when I say that I have trusted in Christ to save me. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, though those things are certainly necessary. I mean simply that I am relying upon His death in my place to cover my sin.

Many try to talk about types of faith. They refer to James 2 and say that "you believe that God is one... the demons believe and tremble." Well, we're not saved by believing that God is one. And eternal life was never offered to angels or demons. Christ did not die for demons. He died for me and you. And the salvation in that context is not referring to gaining eternal life but salvation from a wasted life.

Thx,

BD

justsurfing
Jun 19th 2007, 02:21 AM
justsurfing,

You're trying to tell me that I accused God, but I did not. I'm afraid your posting style does not sit well with me and you're also difficult to follow, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree.

Below is scripture that doesn't agree with that you said:

"If everything is predetermined and foreordained then there is no responsibility on anyone's part."

You said human beings cannot be held responsible before God for their sin if God predetermined and foreordained their actions.

Here's a scriptural example of what you said in application:

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

You said that, for example in application, that there is no responsibility on the part of men whose wicked hands crucified and slew Jesus Christ.

Jesus was delivered to them by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

You say that God's predetermination of Jesus' crucifixion absolves men of their own responsiblity for their own sin in murdering the Son of God.

That's the application of your exegesis.

Can you see revealed, in application, just how "foul" (outside the lines of scripture) that line of reasoning is in that application?

How it turns to accuse God - for predetermining that Jesus would be delivered to their wicked hands - and absolves them of all their personal responsibility... because you hold God wholly responsible for their actions?

Absolving them of all personal responsibility?

Declaring that a loving, just God cannot rightfully judge or condemn them for this sin?

Saying that God is not Love should He do such a thing?

Do you realize that the son of perdition, Judas, was spoken of in scripture... and his acts were according to the determinate counsel of God?

The scriptures state that Judas did exactly what the scriptures stated he would do.

And Jesus said of him that it would be better for him (speaking of the eternal judgment Judas would face) if he had never been born.

God did not merely "foreknow" what would happen in the life and death of Jesus Christ... including Judas' actions, the actions of those who beat, scourged, spat upon, placed a crown of thorns on Jesus' head, plucked out His beard, pierced Him with a sword, crucified and murdered Jesus Christ, etc.

God planned it... and wrote His plan in scripture... and carried it out... and brought the scriptures to pass in finite detail.

How could anyone presume that all of the intricate, finite details of the life and death of Jesus - all the interactions with sinful mankind - were merely foreknown... rather than planned in intricate detail with every intricate detail having profound prophetic and covental significance?

Every intricate detail... like the hand of God revealing so many things relative to redemption and prophesying in such detail and ORDER in the Bible of what would happen to Jesus Christ... and ALL of it coming to pass exactly as prophesied.

Not like "fortunetelling"... merely foreseeing... but the intricate, detailed, ordered PLAN... every detail having SO MUCH meaning... allegorically... covenant revealed... such a God-only could have designed it level... PLAN.

And the application of your statement says that either Judas, and all other men, cannot be held responsible for their sin because God carried out His own plan by predeterminate counsel, plan, purpose, and design... or God is not Love?

Here's how applying what you said to the light of scripture appears to me:

You accused God.

You upheld Judas, etc.

Well, we can agree to disagree on that.

I will uphold God.

And I will not uphold Judas.

Sometimes people really don't "think through" what they are saying. Did you realize what you were saying?

Jesus said from the cross, "Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do."

And if you would like to stand on your assertion that God has no right to judge mankind because He is responsible for their sin - and they aren't - as they act in accordance with their own wills to sin against Him and betray Him to death on a cross - and crucify Him... because they did these things and more according to God's plan... His predeterminate counsel and foreknowledge... and "then there is no responsibility on anyone's part."...

That's up to you... as you, perhaps, let it dawn on you what the scriptures are saying... and you consider these things... and God... who sits on the throne.

Well, I don't personally believe God is going to agree with you on that one.

And if you believe you are justified in stating that God is rightly accused of not being Loving when He casts Judas and others into hell... because there is no responsibility on their part for their sin... all I can say is that I did see how that applied. And I piped up to say that accusations of God do not produce blessing from God.

:)

I just bow before God and agree that it's His right to judge. I wanna be found to be like Joshua and Caleb. :) With that kind of spirit.

Maybe God likes my posting style. (I sided with His right to judge - AND bring scripture to pass according to His determinate counsel and foreknowledge - and hold men fully responsible for their sin... all at the same time. I'm hoping He rewards and blesses me like He did Joshua and Caleb. Cause I'm going to fear Him and speak up... and leave the rest in His hands.)

:)

Love in Christ,

js

justsurfing
Jun 19th 2007, 03:08 AM
The following was posted a fewl days ago, but I have not see anyone explictly explain what they mean by saying that faith is a gift. (I tried to delete the precious post - no need to have both. :P No can do.)

Eric,

Agreed. I never could understand how we could refer to faith as "God's faith," not ours. We're just talking theoretically when we do that. What do we really mean by such a statement? Do we mean that God is at work causing us to respond to the gospel in faith? If so, I agree. Do we mean that God believes for us? If so, then just what in the world does that mean? That is just then mumbo jumbo, until we define/explain what we mean by faith being a gift and it not being our faith.

I really would like to hear what those who have a Reformed ordo salutis mean by faith as a gift... explicitly. I know what I mean when I say that I have trusted in Christ to save me. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, though those things are certainly necessary. I mean simply that I am relying upon His death in my place to cover my sin.

Many try to talk about types of faith. They refer to James 2 and say that "you believe that God is one... the demons believe and tremble." Well, we're not saved by believing that God is one. And eternal life was never offered to angels or demons. Christ did not die for demons. He died for me and you. And the salvation in that context is not referring to gaining eternal life but salvation from a wasted life.

Thx,

BD

Hi,

I'm not even going to claim to be "reformed"... cause I'm not. I don't even go to a reformed church... am not a "Calvinist"... just a person who studies the Bible for myself,... and does like this message board.

I can answer for an individual who sees faith as a gift - a gift whereby we believe in Jesus and are saved.

The Bible doesn't say, to start out, "By choice by will you are saved and this from within yourselves... because you already had faith to be saved yet grace is a gift of God whereby no one can boast."

"By grace through faith..."

The faith that equals justification unto salvation... wasn't in any of us.

It came from outside of us... then came inside of us.

Not by our choice - but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

We are justified by faith in our hearts, then we confess with our mouths and are saved.

If everyone already had that faith inside of their hearts - everyone would be justified before God (just as if they had never sinned).

That faith comes from the outside of us... by the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

A person can't "make that" happen.

That's why not everyone who heard Jesus speak live - believed.

There would be no such thing as an "unbeliever"... if people already had faith inside of them whereby they were justified... and were believers.

Remember, salvation doesn't come by human will or decision... it comes by the authority of God to those who believe.

How do they believe?

By the authority of God. God has authority to grant the gift of faith.

If the authority to believe was of human will or decision... we would be born of human will and decision... rather than born of God's authority... given to us... when we are GIVEN the GIFT of faith whereby we are justified as we believe.

People on this thread think, "It was a gift. I CHOSE to receive it."

That's not what the scripture says. How does the scripture say we received it? By faith. By believing. "to those who believe"

Believing was the act of receiving.

Not "choosing" to receive. No... believing = receiving authority from God.

Believing is not a choice of human decision. That's why the scripture says we were not saved by human decision.

Believing is the work of the Spirit. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. But the Word without the Spirit... is death. The Spirit gives life.

It's when the Spirit moves... in our inner beings.. granting revelation (a gift of faith whereby we believe).... that the Word... comes to LIFE... within us.

Not a work of our wills... a work of the Spirit. :)

We receive... not by willing or choosing out of our humanity... but we receive by the Holy Spirit regenerating us by a... GIFT of faith.

Receive = believe.

Every time a thought comes that says "Receive = human decision"... cast down that vain imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God! And replace it with "receive = believe... a work of the Holy Spirit"... and there's the explicit statement, perhaps?

(And as soon as that faith comes into your being... guess what??!!!! You've been given "the right" to become the son of God!!! God says, "Here's my faith that came from outside of you. I love ya, son. It's your faith now baby!!! lol Answer to the "God's faith"... "my faith" thang. Do you have any faith... that isn't of the Spirit? If so, it's not faith. But if you do... it's your faith now... by the Spirit. It came from God. He's working in your life.)

Here's the scripture:

JOhn 1:12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Love in Christ,

js

John146
Jun 19th 2007, 06:00 PM
We can agree to disagree.

Below is scripture that doesn't agree with that you said:

"If everything is predetermined and foreordained then there is no responsibility on anyone's part."

You said human beings cannot be held responsible before God for their sin if God predetermined and foreordained their actions.

Here's a scriptural example of what you said in application:

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

You said that, for example in application, that there is no responsibility on the part of men whose wicked hands crucified and slew Jesus Christ.

Jesus was delivered to them by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

You say that God's predetermination of Jesus' crucifixion absolves men of their own responsiblity for their own sin in murdering the Son of God.

No, I do not say that. People are responsible for their actions because of the choices they make.



Can you see revealed, in application, just how "foul" (outside the lines of scripture) that line of reasoning is in that application?

It's only foul from YOUR perspective. But I don't share your perspective.



How it turns to accuse God - for predetermining that Jesus would be delivered to their wicked hands - and absolves them of all their personal responsibility... because you hold God wholly responsible for their actions?

I do not hold God responsible for their actions. Everyone is responsible for his/her own actions. This is really getting to be ridiculous. :rolleyes:



Declaring that a loving, just God cannot rightfully judge or condemn them for this sin?

I did not say that. You really need to stop misrepresenting me.



Saying that God is not Love should He do such a thing?

Do you realize that the son of perdition, Judas, was spoken of in scripture... and his acts were according to the determinate counsel of God?

The scriptures state that Judas did exactly what the scriptures stated he would do.

Yes, I know that. That doesn't mean God desired for Judas to do what he did. But He knew that he would because God knows everything past, present and future.



And Jesus said of him that it would be better for him (speaking of the eternal judgment Judas would face) if he had never been born.

Why would he tell him that if it was His will for Judas to reject Him before the foundation of the world?



God did not merely "foreknow" what would happen in the life and death of Jesus Christ... including Judas' actions, the actions of those who beat, scourged, spat upon, placed a crown of thorns on Jesus' head, plucked out His beard, pierced Him with a sword, crucified and murdered Jesus Christ, etc.

God planned it... and wrote His plan in scripture... and carried it out... and brought the scriptures to pass in finite detail.

So, He created each of the people who were involved only for that purpose. And now they get to spend eternity in the lake of fire? You believe that was God's plan for those individuals before the foundation of the world?



How could anyone presume that all of the intricate, finite details of the life and death of Jesus - all the interactions with sinful mankind - were merely foreknown... rather than planned in intricate detail with every intricate detail having profound prophetic and covental significance?

Every intricate detail... like the hand of God revealing so many things relative to redemption and prophesying in such detail and ORDER in the Bible of what would happen to Jesus Christ... and ALL of it coming to pass exactly as prophesied.

I think you are confusing foreknowledge with predetermination.



Not like "fortunetelling"... merely foreseeing... but the intricate, detailed, ordered PLAN... every detail having SO MUCH meaning... allegorically... covenant revealed... such a God-only could have designed it level... PLAN.

And the application of your statement says that either Judas, and all other men, cannot be held responsible for their sin because God carried out His own plan by predeterminate counsel, plan, purpose, and design... or God is not Love?

Here's how applying what you said to the light of scripture appears to me:

You accused God.

No, I did not.



You upheld Judas, etc.

No, I did not.



I will uphold God.

So will I. All praise, honor and glory belong to God alone.



And I will not uphold Judas.

Neither will I.



Sometimes people really don't "think through" what they are saying. Did you realize what you were saying?

I know exactly what I was saying. One thing I'm not doing is judging you as you are judging me.



Jesus said from the cross, "Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do."

And if you would like to stand on your assertion that God has no right to judge mankind because He is responsible for their sin - and they aren't - as they act in accordance with their own wills to sin against Him and betray Him to death on a cross - and crucify Him... because they did these things and more according to God's plan... His predeterminate counsel and foreknowledge... and "then there is no responsibility on anyone's part."...

People are responsible for their own words and actions. I never once said that God is responsible for their sin.



And if you believe you are justified in stating that God is rightly accused of not being Loving when He casts Judas and others into hell... because there is no responsibility on their part for their sin... all I can say is that I did see how that applied. And I piped up to say that accusations of God do not produce blessing from God.

I never stated that God is not loving for casting anyone into hell or that there is no responsibility on their part. You continue to misrepresent my view.




I just bow before God and agree that it's His right to judge. I wanna be found to be like Joshua and Caleb. :) With that kind of spirit.

So do I



Maybe God likes my posting style.

I doubt He would approve the judgmental way that you are speaking to me.



(I sided with His right to judge - AND bring scripture to pass according to His determinate counsel and foreknowledge - and hold men fully responsible for their sin... all at the same time. I'm hoping He rewards and blesses me like He did Joshua and Caleb. Cause I'm going to fear Him and speak up... and leave the rest in His hands.)

I never said God didn't have the right to judge. Of course He does. And He will judge fairly and justly according to everyone's works (Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:31-46, Rev 20:12-13). Our works reflect our hearts. If we truly have faith, our works will reflect that. That is why we are judged by works. We are all responsible for every word we say and everything we do and at the Judgment, God will reward those who put their faith in His Son and obeyed Him and He will punish those who did not.

BadDog
Jun 20th 2007, 01:24 PM
May I suggest that weare moving off topic - away from the OP. That has to do with election and whether or not election, in any form, does not allow some people to have an opportunity to be saved.

Assuming this is true, is that fair on God's part?

And let's not allow things to get too personal - allowing each other to have differing viewpoints on this sticky issue.

Thx,

BD

Teke
Jun 20th 2007, 02:22 PM
Right BD, back to the OP.



I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)

In answer to the OP. God is continually calling everyone. But everyone doesn't respond the same.

Some have created doctrines around Jesus parables on God's calling. Personally I don't believe we can define God's calling of people as a doctrine. ie. predestination, election, covenant, dispensation etc.

As Jesus explains in His parable of the workers. Some came early and some came late, but they all received the same.(Matt. 20, verse 16 on called)

justsurfing
Jun 22nd 2007, 03:12 AM
May I suggest that weare moving off topic - away from the OP. That has to do with election and whether or not election, in any form, does not allow some people to have an opportunity to be saved.

Assuming this is true, is that fair on God's part?

And let's not allow things to get too personal - allowing each other to have differing viewpoints on this sticky issue.

Thx,

BD

Hey BD,

I'm not taking things personally.

In discussion whether or not everyone has a chance to be saved... the OP is about election and predestination.

And when someone says God is not Love if He holds people responsible for sins they commit... that God both foreordained and predestined... that's saying the only way to view God as Love is to say that God is a secretary who took notes.

He looked down the corridor of time... took notes... and then recorded what man would do of man's free will in the Bible.

God didn't write the Bible or come up with any plans according to His own will - He merely recorded what man would will and do... because He was impotent to alter human history... just record it by foreknowledge.

And if God has power to decree His will, write it down, and bring it to pass... then God is not Love.

And God wrote not only the Bible... but every book of each one of our lives.

And the bottom-line is that - a God who has power to bring His will to pass and determine our destinies - is a God we cannot control.

And this is the entire discussion of how this thread was started - who is in control? God? Or man?

Are men predestined by God to be saved? While others are not? Do some have no chance?

Election and predestination are 100% on topic.

And if someone can't handle the concept of God being in control, bringing His will to pass, predetermining a 100% salvation to all He chooses... that person has anger towards God... and is turning that anger on me.

God is accused of not being Love with no right to hold men accountable for their sins - because He is sovereign and has all power to create men for destruction.

And I am called judgmental.

I may have "triggered" man's greatest dread and fear... the fear of God... a God no man can control... who is subject to no man's will... and to whom all men are subject.

Election and predestination.

To my understanding, there is no rage greater than Satan's rage against God's eternal sovereignty.

There is no greater revelation of truth... that God sent Jesus Christ. God sent Jesus Christ with a specific plan that can never fail to accomplish the will of God for Jesus to gain all the Father gave to Him... and there is nothing that the devil or man can do to stop it... the redemption of the elect... in a total, full, complete salvation wrought 100% by God... and regenerating sons of God who do God's will freely of their own spiritual decision... by grace... in CONCERT with the Spirit actively.

The total ruin of all Satan's delusions of a successful rebellion and any concept that he has any power to thwart God's plan.

It's like a kid being home... and wanting to do everything his own way... and say, "Dad said I'm in charge. I can do anything I want. I'm in control. I am the authority."

And when someone says, "Dad is in charge. Dad is in control. Dad is in full authority. You will do your Father's will."... some pull out all stops and take that very personally.

I believe it's rebellion.

"If you loved me you would..." Some people just want their own way... and will redefine love to accommodate their own wills.

"If you really loved me... I'd have my will... and you'd subject your will to mine... God"

Same thing, imo.

It's not personal to me.

It's God's authority and power... and it defies the definitions of God's Love that render God subject to man with man able to do whatever He wants... as if God left earth and man is now in control... like a teenager with Dad gone on a trip.

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

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

God has created men for destruction.

They have no chance. They were created by God and predestined to unbelief. God will not grant them salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has created them to show forth His wrath and make His power known.

And He will bring all the redeemend under complete subjection to Jesus Christ... and their wills will rule NOTHING in Heaven. (They will reign and rule WITH Christ... in agreement and actively as the angels do God's will in Heaven... but man's will will be 100% subject to the will of God by the SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT... and sanctification cannot be fully realized until God's will is subjected to... and rebellion is at the core of the sinful nature... and resident in the souls of men who have not yet yielded to the truths of God's Word in various areas. Such is the nature of the battle of flesh vs. spirit/ old rebellious nature w/ new subjected nature in Christ.)

God's will is good. The redeemed do well to yield and surrender and be filled with the Spirit thereby.

God will fully restore His reign in the kingdom of Christ... by sanctification througoh subjection to Christ.

And all rebels will have their part in the lake of fire... fully responsible for their own sin and their own natural decision not to be saved.

No chance.

None.

ANd the redeemed? Complete security and complete guarantee in the will of God.

Hard truth... and only when it is subjected to... is the sanctification of the Spirit in subjection to God realized.

The carnal mind is enmity at God. The enmity is not towards a "wrong doctrine" but towards God for the reality of Who He is in authority and power over all of His creation... anger and enmity against God, imo.

Love in Christ,

js

BadDog
Jun 22nd 2007, 08:42 PM
Hey BD,

I'm not taking things personally.

In discussion whether or not everyone has a chance to be saved... the OP is about election and predestination.

BD: Good. I did not say that you were, nor did I intend to imply such, but I was concerned about the heat of some of the discussions on this thread recently, in contrast to how they had been - this is a sensitive topic for many.

And when someone says God is not Love if He holds people responsible for sins they commit... that God both foreordained and predestined... that's saying the only way to view God as Love is to say that God is a secretary who took notes.

He looked down the corridor of time... took notes... and then recorded what man would do of man's free will in the Bible.

God didn't write the Bible or come up with any plans according to His own will - He merely recorded what man would will and do... because He was impotent to alter human history... just record it by foreknowledge.

And if God has power to decree His will, write it down, and bring it to pass... then God is not Love.
Thx js,

Actually, you are assuming that if a Calvinistic ordo salutis is not followed, then it must be Arminian, and if a Calvinistic view of predestination/foreknowledge is not followed, then it must be the simple foreknowledge Arminian viewpoint. On both counts, you would be misconstruing what I have and am saying.

I do not believe in a note-taking God who merely observes things. My God is fully sovereign.

My God fully elected (chose) who would be saved. And while that was most certainly not done in a knowledge vacuum, it was not dependent upon knowing who would believe the gospel.

At the same time, people are fully free to choose Christ - to respond to the wooing of the Spirit as He convicts us of sin and illuminates us, or to resist the work of the Spirit. Both can and are true at the same time - no contradiction. IOW, I do not hold to irresistible grace.

My view of God's omniscience/predestination is called "middle knowledge."

Now regarding God loving us, and our response of love (a key to understanding why He did things the way He did) - God set things up so that we could choose. No one can miraculously be made to love someone else. Love is a choice. God knew that we must be free to choose if we were to genuinely love and desire a relationship with Him. Without free will, no one can love. Love is a choice, free taken.


And God wrote not only the Bible... but every book of each one of our lives.
BD: Agreed.

And the bottom-line is that - a God who has power to bring His will to pass and determine our destinies - is a God we cannot control.
BD: Agreed.

And this is the entire discussion of how this thread was started - who is in control? God? Or man?
BD: God. But that does not mean that God can do this only by removing free agency from man.

Hebrews 2:5-9 For He has not subjected to angels the world to come that we are talking about. But one has somewhere testified: What is man, that You remember him, or the Son of Man, that You care for Him? You made Him lower than the angels for a short time; You crowned Him with glory and honor and subjected everything under His feet. For in subjecting everything to Him, He left nothing not subject to Him. As it is, we do not yet see everything subjected to Him. But we do see Jesus-- made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God's grace He might taste death for everyone--crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death.

BD: We do not yet see everything subjected to Him. That is because God chose to allow mankind to have a free will to choose. He did so in a manner such that He still is sovereign in our lives. He works through the details. Is that not what Paul said regarding God's sovereignty in working through all that comes upon us as believers?

Romans 8:28-30 We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God: those who are called according to His purpose.

For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified.

BD: Now all things work together for good for believers (who love God and are also called according to His purpose...). That does not say that such brothers and sisters in Christ have no free will... it simply says that God works good through all things in our life - He is sovereign. Look at Joseph:

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, {but} God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

BD: Other people, such as Joseph's brothers, who planned and brought about evil in their brother's life, have freedom to choose to do either good or bad. But God brings about His will regardless. He works for good in our lives.

Are men predestined by God to be saved? While others are not? Do some have no chance?
BD: From God's perspective, He does choose some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Yet he does it by allowing all people to choose as well. Both can and are true at the same time. This will not work in either a "simple foreknowledge" or a "Augistinian/Calvinistic" framework for viewing God's omniscience/predestination. But I am not operating from either framework.

God has greater knowledge and greater sovereignty than either of those systems give Him credit for. Both systems limit God in one way or another. The simple foreknowledge system correctly assumes that God desires us to freely choose to love and follow Him. They incorrectly assume that God cannot be sovereign if this were so. The Reformed system correctly assumes that God is fully sovereign and that He fully determines who will be saved. It incorrectly assumes that in order for God to do so, man cannot have free agency. It does not recognize that God can be sovereign while allowing us to choose at the same time.

Some system, such as middle knowledge (other systems are out there that work here as well) does allow for both to be simultaneously true and not to be in contradiction. It allows for a bigger view of God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. God knows more than just what has, is and will happen - in infinite detail. He also knows what would or could happen, in infinite detail, for every little choice each free agency person makes - throughout history!

Since both concepts - God's election and man's free agency - are clearly taught and assumed in scripture, we need a system for viewing God's predestination and foreknowledge that does not limit Him to man's abilities to perceive such concepts.


Election and predestination are 100% on topic.
BD: Didn't say they were not.

And if someone can't handle the concept of God being in control, bringing His will to pass, predetermining a 100% salvation to all He chooses... that person has anger towards God... and is turning that anger on me.

God is accused of not being Love with no right to hold men accountable for their sins - because He is sovereign and has all power to create men for destruction.
BD: Don't assume they are expressing anger towards God. Are they not, perhaps, expressing an appreciation for God's love in the amazing manner in which He has done things? They are expressing offense, in God's behalf, in what they perceive as a system which makes God out to be a monster. Should they not be offended by that? IMO the Reformed view of God's predestination/foreknowledge does turn God into a monster. Of course they do not intend such, and argue differently. But their arguments are essentially just double-talk, IMO.

What do you mean by "100% salvation"? If you mean that God has already fully predetermined who will be saved - I agree. If you mean that man has no choice, and is not able to believe, then I disagree there. I do not see such a thing anywhere in scripture. I have dealt with every scripture that anyone has proposed says such a thing. They are taken out of context. The reason such things are pursued is due to a limiting view of God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge and His ability to predestine due to a limited understanding of God's omniscience.

I am not limiting God. If God has chosen to allow mankind to freely choose - so that he will choose to love (and without free will, we do not love, by definition) - then I will not limit how God does things because I cannot understand how he could do it differently than my perceptions and understanding about life. In the past, before I heard about "middle knowledge" - about 3 years ago, I think - I chose to believe both were true, even though I could not reconcile all of the details. Now I do not need to do so. It makes sense.

And since God has clearly chosen to do His will as taught in scripture, I accept it - without distorting what that means. God has chosen to limit HOW He goes about working things - He is still sovereign, that was His desire. Are you telling me that He cannot choose to limit how He does things? But He has chosen to do so while working through mankind. God's Word above says that God works in all things for good. It does not say that man does nothing at all - that he "over-rides" all that man's does. He is much smarter than that. He does not need to drag a person, kicking an screaming - to His Son. He is able to convict him of his sin through the Holy Spirit and illuminate him, as he responds to God's working.


And I am called judgmental.
BD: I did not say nor did I imply that you were! ?? If you thought that was what I was implying, please forgive me. Sorry. That was not what I was saying. But this is a very tense topic, and people become very involved in it. We all need to be careful to respect one another's views while explaining our own position - sometimes with passion. If others do not accept it or do not agree with us - so be it.

...

There is no greater revelation of truth... that God sent Jesus Christ. God sent Jesus Christ with a specific plan that can never fail to accomplish the will of God for Jesus to gain all the Father gave to Him... and there is nothing that the devil or man can do to stop it... the redemption of the elect... in a total, full, complete salvation wrought 100% by God... and regenerating sons of God who do God's will freely of their own spiritual decision... by grace... in CONCERT with the Spirit actively.

BD: Of course, as I see it, people choose to do so before being regenerated. God has chosen to create mankind such that he has a natural proclivity to seek truth. We are created in His image.

<snipped>

"If you really loved me... I'd have my will... and you'd subject your will to mine... God"

Same thing, imo.

It's not personal to me.

It's God's authority and power... and it defies the definitions of God's Love that render God subject to man with man able to do whatever He wants... as if God left earth and man is now in control... like a teenager with Dad gone on a trip.

BD: As I said above, it's not that simple. God is not subject to man merely because he chose to give man a free will. In fact, consider the incarnation as a grand view of God's scheme...

When Jesus was born as a human baby... do you really think that he did not have poopy diapers, or that He did not cry when he needed to be fed? Jesus as a human being chose to limit the use of His powers, while on earth. He was fully sovereign at all times, and fully omniscienct at al ltimes. yet he chose not to use His omniscience, just as He chose not to use His omnipotence.

What else explains such statements by our Lord that only His Father knew when he would return - when the kingdom would be set up? (Matthew 24:36) If we can accept that Jesus never ceased being fully God in every aspect - that He never laid down any of His attributes (to do so, would be to cease to be God... God cannot cease being Who he is any any manner) and yet that He chose not to exercise some of them, then why not accept that the Father has done the same thing - to a degree - in choosing to exercise His sovereignty while giving man freedom at the same time. He is able to do so. Let's not limit how He can do things just because it does not completely make sense to us in our limited abilities to reason.

Isaiah 55:7, 8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways." says the Lord. "For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

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

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

God has created men for destruction.

BD: Got no problem with this. Never said nor did I imply otherwise. The problem I have is saying that we must limit God... that God cannot do as you correctly declare above unless He hog-ties people. Where is such even implied in scripture, and refverring to it as "hog-tying" is a legitimate way of viewing the Reformed view of God's sovereignty, IMO.

They have no chance. They were created by God and predestined to unbelief. God will not grant them salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has created them to show forth His wrath and make His power known.

And He will bring all the redeemend under complete subjection to Jesus Christ... and their wills will rule NOTHING in Heaven. (They will reign and rule WITH Christ... in agreement and actively as the angels do God's will in Heaven... but man's will will be 100% subject to the will of God by the SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT... and sanctification cannot be fully realized until God's will is subjected to... and rebellion is at the core of the sinful nature... and resident in the souls of men who have not yet yielded to the truths of God's Word in various areas. Such is the nature of the battle of flesh vs. spirit/ old rebellious nature w/ new subjected nature in Christ.)

God's will is good. The redeemed do well to yield and surrender and be filled with the Spirit thereby.

BD: He will bring not only the redeemed but all people's wills under complete subjection to His will. But do not disregard Hebrews 2 (see above).

God will fully restore His reign in the kingdom of Christ... by sanctification througoh subjection to Christ.

And all rebels will have their part in the lake of fire... fully responsible for their own sin and their own natural decision not to be saved.

No chance.

None.

BD: Of course, this is where I disagree. I was saying "amen" unitl you concluded that man must have no choice - at all. I will not limit how God chooses to do it. Such a viewpoint does indeed limit God's sovereignty, and tellls Him how He must do things. I will not do so. Bite my tongue! What right does any man have to tell God how to do anything?!

Now, from God's perspective, it is true that God chooses all for salvation and for destruction. But that does not mean that they have no choice. Man's perspective may lead us to think it must be that way. God's Word clearly says otherwise, as has been shown on this thread several times. That is not contradictory.

And the redeemed? Complete security and complete guarantee in the will of God.

Hard truth... and only when it is subjected to... is the sanctification of the Spirit in subjection to God realized.

BD: While I am venturing off-topic to so so, may I suggest that a Reformed viewpoint does not depend on God alone for our salvation... because the "P" in the TULIP says that man is secure not because God preserves him, but because he perseveres in his faith and walk - in his works. Hence it brings works in the back door - so to speak. My position, which I refer to as "the preservation of the saints," says that God preserves us, even when we fall away and rebel, as believers, to God's Lordship. It is completely unconditional. He has doene it all. I do absolutely nothing. The Reformed position says that if I do not fully persevere in doing good works that I must not have really been of the elect... sorry, thought you were. Guess I was wrong. It takes the focus off Christ and puts it on man.

The carnal mind is enmity at God. The enmity is not towards a "wrong doctrine" but towards God for the reality of Who He is in authority and power over all of His creation... anger and enmity against God, imo.

Love in Christ,

js
Thx, js. Can you see that my position gives God greater sovereignty, greater grace, and does not turn God into some meany? You may not agree with some of what I have posted - I would be amazed if this were not true. But can you see the approach I am taking? ... that it does not limit God in any way, except by those limitations which He has chosen to impose upon Himself?

Thx again,

BD

willb
Jun 22nd 2007, 09:08 PM
The grace of God is open to all however some wont choose that.

I believe in election, that there are those chosen by Gods sovereign will to be saved. Who those are no one knows which is why we should try to win all to Christ - to leave any without the good news would be making the assumption we know the will of God in a area He has not permitted. That would be sin.

BadDog
Jun 22nd 2007, 10:36 PM
The grace of God is open to all however some wont choose that.

I believe in election, that there are those chosen by Gods sovereign will to be saved. Who those are no one knows which is why we should try to win all to Christ - to leave any without the good news would be making the assumption we know the will of God in a area He has not permitted. That would be sin.Amen!

Some will say that a position that says that man has no free agency essentially will lead to apathy - why share, since all who have been chosen WILL believe? It's a valid question, though I agree that we are pretending to understand how God thinks when asking such questions. :P

Thx,

BD

justsurfing
Jun 24th 2007, 03:56 PM
Thx js,

Actually, you are assuming that if a Calvinistic ordo salutis is not followed, then it must be Arminian, and if a Calvinistic view of predestination/foreknowledge is not followed, then it must be the simple foreknowledge Arminian viewpoint. On both counts, you would be misconstruing what I have and am saying.

I do not believe in a note-taking God who merely observes things. My God is fully sovereign.

My God fully elected (chose) who would be saved. And while that was most certainly not done in a knowledge vacuum, it was not dependent upon knowing who would believe the gospel.

At the same time, people are fully free to choose Christ - to respond to the wooing of the Spirit as He convicts us of sin and illuminates us, or to resist the work of the Spirit. Both can and are true at the same time - no contradiction. IOW, I do not hold to irresistible grace.

My view of God's omniscience/predestination is called "middle knowledge."

Now regarding God loving us, and our response of love (a key to understanding why He did things the way He did) - God set things up so that we could choose. No one can miraculously be made to love someone else. Love is a choice. God knew that we must be free to choose if we were to genuinely love and desire a relationship with Him. Without free will, no one can love. Love is a choice, free taken.


BD: From God's perspective, He does choose some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Yet he does it by allowing all people to choose as well. Both can and are true at the same time. This will not work in either a "simple foreknowledge" or a "Augistinian/Calvinistic" framework for viewing God's omniscience/predestination. But I am not operating from either framework.

God has greater knowledge and greater sovereignty than either of those systems give Him credit for. Both systems limit God in one way or another. The simple foreknowledge system correctly assumes that God desires us to freely choose to love and follow Him. They incorrectly assume that God cannot be sovereign if this were so. The Reformed system correctly assumes that God is fully sovereign and that He fully determines who will be saved. It incorrectly assumes that in order for God to do so, man cannot have free agency. It does not recognize that God can be sovereign while allowing us to choose at the same time.

Some system, such as middle knowledge (other systems are out there that work here as well) does allow for both to be simultaneously true and not to be in contradiction. It allows for a bigger view of God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. God knows more than just what has, is and will happen - in infinite detail. He also knows what would or could happen, in infinite detail, for every little choice each free agency person makes - throughout history!

Since both concepts - God's election and man's free agency - are clearly taught and assumed in scripture, we need a system for viewing God's predestination and foreknowledge that does not limit Him to man's abilities to perceive such concepts.


BD: Don't assume they are expressing anger towards God. Are they not, perhaps, expressing an appreciation for God's love in the amazing manner in which He has done things? They are expressing offense, in God's behalf, in what they perceive as a system which makes God out to be a monster. Should they not be offended by that? IMO the Reformed view of God's predestination/foreknowledge does turn God into a monster. Of course they do not intend such, and argue differently. But their arguments are essentially just double-talk, IMO.

What do you mean by "100% salvation"? If you mean that God has already fully predetermined who will be saved - I agree. If you mean that man has no choice, and is not able to believe, then I disagree there. I do not see such a thing anywhere in scripture. I have dealt with every scripture that anyone has proposed says such a thing. They are taken out of context. The reason such things are pursued is due to a limiting view of God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge and His ability to predestine due to a limited understanding of God's omniscience.

I am not limiting God. If God has chosen to allow mankind to freely choose - so that he will choose to love (and without free will, we do not love, by definition) - then I will not limit how God does things because I cannot understand how he could do it differently than my perceptions and understanding about life. In the past, before I heard about "middle knowledge" - about 3 years ago, I think - I chose to believe both were true, even though I could not reconcile all of the details. Now I do not need to do so. It makes sense.

And since God has clearly chosen to do His will as taught in scripture, I accept it - without distorting what that means. God has chosen to limit HOW He goes about working things - He is still sovereign, that was His desire. Are you telling me that He cannot choose to limit how He does things? But He has chosen to do so while working through mankind. God's Word above says that God works in all things for good. It does not say that man does nothing at all - that he "over-rides" all that man's does. He is much smarter than that. He does not need to drag a person, kicking an screaming - to His Son. He is able to convict him of his sin through the Holy Spirit and illuminate him, as he responds to God's working.


Thx, js. Can you see that my position gives God greater sovereignty, greater grace, and does not turn God into some meany? You may not agree with some of what I have posted - I would be amazed if this were not true. But can you see the approach I am taking? ... that it does not limit God in any way, except by those limitations which He has chosen to impose upon Himself?

Thx again,

BD

Hey BD,

This is a really good discussion. The carnal man is pre-set in his decision. His decision, "freely" of "his own will" IS to reject God. That's his nature.

? - does a person want to go to Heaven or hell? Cause they'll go exactly where they want.

God doesn't "hogtie" anyone.

There are shotgun weddings where a person truly is "forced". (There really were literal shotgun weddings in the past... hee hee.)

But other weddings are the result of falling in love.

The outcome of getting married... well, I say God causes us to fall in love... love is of God... and God doesn't have any shotgun weddings to Jesus Christ.

God gives the reprobate their choice. And they choose to reject salvation.

God doesn't leave the elect in their own decision making power. By grace, by teh Holy Spirit, God reveals the Lord Jesus Christ to their hearts in Love... and, quite as the result, they fall in love with Jesus and choose to marry Him. :) (I did!!!)

Not a shotgun wedding... but not a choice, either, I would have made apart from the grace of election in God choosing to reveal Jesus Christ to my heart inwardly in love nad faith by the Holy Spirit... that became MY love and faith.

Without love... the only chance someone has is for a "shotgun wedding"... in which they would be "forced" to marry Jesus Christ. ANd, you are right and I agree... God doesn't force His will for them to be saved on the reprobate. He allows them to hate and reject Jesus Christ by nature.

It is the elect that God has secondary grace on in enduing them with Love by revelatino and inward working of theHoly Spirit - touching the with the Spirit with love... pouring His Love into them by grace so that they believe by the Holy Spirit.

They choose freely of their own wills by their own faith by their own choice to love Jesus. Yet it is Love that has changed them... not just hearing about God's Love... but actually personally experiencing God's Love by the Holy Spirit touching them inside their beings... by grace.

So it's not God's fault that the reprobate have no chance... in one respect... because they are given the chance... they just naturally reject it left to their own devices. God doesn't "hogtie them".

And it's completely God's sovereignty by which the elect have a 100% guarantee of outcome... in one respect... because they are given the work of the Holy Spirit. And it is God's Love that changes the outcome inside of them whereby they freely choose of their own love, their own will, their own choice to belong to Jesus Christ.

Think about the difference between forced marriages and marriages in which people truly fall in love.

You can't say God forces the elect... because He doesn't. He just has power to reveal Jesus Christ inside them so that they love Jesus, fall in love, nad their choices are carried by God's Love.

And we can't say God denies the reprobate the opportunity to make their own choice... because He doesn't. He just chooses not to reveal Jesus Christ inside of them so that the do not love Jesus, do not fall in love, and their choices are the result of their own carnal minds. They reject Christ.

Everyone chooses freely.

The doctrines of predestination and election taken wholly don't take those things away from anyone at all.

:)

I'll come back another time and go point by point through your response.

Can you see the difference between choosing by falling in love... and having a union forced on a person when there is no love?

Did you feel "forced" to love Jesus?

Or do you think you made a decision of your own mind while hating Jesus Christ... but wanting "fire insurance" because you realized it was a true gospel.

Hey, even if someone really, truly knows it's true - like the devil's do and tremble - that doesn't mean that they have faith born of love or the ability to choose Christ.

The devils believe and tremble... cause they KNOW it's true... and have no love inside of them whereby to believe and freely choose to come to God to repent.

Who are those devils, BD?

Those devils that believe and tremble?

Are you open to see and know the truth?

Did you think the devils who believe and tremble were fallen angels?

And not reprobate sons of perdition on this earth?

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

Judas, the son of perdition who betrayed Jesus Christ, was one of those devils who believed and who trembled and was eternally condemned as a devil having the "faith" of demons.

All these reprobates who "believe"... and are devils... are just like him.

God calls the reprobate children of the devil in John 8.

I have no personal affection, no more than Jesus had, for devils nad children of Satan: the reprobate.

I don't see myself having any commonality with them.

I don't identify with them.

I have no mercy, no pity, no empathy for Satan, his demons, or the reprobate devils - those sons of perdition who will be cast into hell for all eternity.

Am I a "meany"... or I have I come into subjection and agreement with Jesus Christ and am I filled with the Spirit rather than the emotions of the flesh?

Yes, I have a love for all people and will bless all people - even my enemies.

However, I have no bonds of affection in the Spirit born of my flesh for children of the devil....

NO MERCY on those who have "no chance"... not because they weren't given a choice... but because they are devils/sons of perdition as Judas was and is.

I have equal mercy on those devils/those sons of perdition... the reprobate here among us who have flesh like we have who were born of Adam like we were... but who are not of us in Christ and are, truly, our enemies.... equal mercy, BD, that I have upon Satan and his legions of demons.

It's all the same to me.

They are in the same group in my understanding as Satan spiritually as members of his household and family spiritually,

Do you think I am "wrong"???

I am in complete agreement with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God.

And one of the primary reasons Christians cannot "get" the doctrine of election is because they do not identify and relate and view themselves according to Jesus Christ in Him...

And falsely identify with Adam...

And, thus, with the sons of perdition.

They are in the flesh and see from the world's perspective.

I am in the Spirit in Christ and see from God's.

And any emotional argument that comes at me for agreeing with God and disassociating with the reprobate... comes from the flesh (from whence John146 has made his doctrinal position.)

That's my opinion. :)

hee hee

Well, tell me if you think I am a cold-hearted, mean-spirited, hateful person... cause that's exactly what God... with Whom I agree... is being falsely accused of.... :)

And, know this: People who meet and get to know me tell me I am the most sincere and loving person... they are so amazed by the power of God's Love by His Spirit pouring out of me and emanating from me... they have ever met.

Attitdue determines altitude.

I am seated in Heavenly places with Jesus Christ. I agree with Him. I see from the perspective of the throneroom of God... seated in a throne to the right of my King... where the bride of Christ sits.

:)

hee hee.

And, if you are of a mind... I'm clipping and pasting below a response to another post... considering starting a new thread... ;)... if you want to read this post below.

I like your posts and I love your tone.

:)

Love in Christ!

js

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1301289&postcount=233


http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif

BadDog
Jun 25th 2007, 05:33 PM
Hey BD,

This is a really good discussion. The carnal man is pre-set in his decision. His decision, "freely" of "his own will" IS to reject God. That's his nature.
Morning js,

I think we need to look first at themeaning ofthe natural man, carnal (archaic word, lit. - "fleshly") man and the spiritual man.

The natural man is unsaved - he has never trusted in Christ for eternal life.
The carnal/fleshly (lit. meaning) man is a Christian who HAS trusted in Christ. But he is not living by the SPirit at the moment
The spiritual man is a believer who is living by the power of the Spirit

Text: 1 Corinthians 2:11 through 3:4
For who among men knows the concerns of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the concerns of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God. We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.

But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. For: who has known the Lord's mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh (KJV = "carnal"), as babies in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able, because you are still fleshly (KJV = "carnal"). For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly (KJV = "carnal") and living like ordinary people? For whenever someone says, "I'm with Paul," and another, "I'm with Apollos," are you not typical men (KJV = "carnal" - poor trans. by KJV - word is ἄνθρωποί - "people," instead of σαρκικοί - "fleshly ones/people") ?

Now these "carnal"/"fleshly" ("Fleshly" is more accurate now and understandle - I'll stick with that for now on.) people are addressed as "brother" in vs. 1 of chapter 3, so clearly they are saved.


? - does a person want to go to Heaven or hell? Cause they'll go exactly where they want.

God doesn't "hogtie" anyone.

There are shotgun weddings where a person truly is "forced". (There really were literal shotgun weddings in the past... hee hee.)

But other weddings are the result of falling in love.

BD: Agree with all of the above. My concern is that classic Reformed theology does not - people have no choice but to choose to go to hell if they are not elect. God is not responsible, but people cannot but choose hell. That's what I have an issue with. :P

The outcome of getting married... well, I say God causes us to fall in love... love is of God... and God doesn't have any shotgun weddings to Jesus Christ.

BD: Agreed. But some, indeed most, Calvinists say that John 6:44 decares God to "draw"/"drag" the sinner - as he's fighting all the way. But as I've researched the word translated "draw" there ( and in John 12:32) when used of people, it refers to wooing, as a man woos a maiden - you're right there. But RC Sproul says that God "drags" resisitng sinners to faith in His Son. I do not agree, and see no scriptural basis for that.

God gives the reprobate their choice. And they choose to reject salvation.

BD: Amen! Of course, this is not Reformed soteriology.

God doesn't leave the elect in their own decision making power. By grace, by teh Holy Spirit, God reveals the Lord Jesus Christ to their hearts in Love... and, quite as the result, they fall in love with Jesus and choose to marry Him. :) (I did!!!)

BD: Amen! And it is a process, IMO> It sometimes takes years of wooing by God's SPirit before we stop resisting. but Refofmed theology has thislittle thing called "irresistible grace." Got a problem there. :P

Not a shotgun wedding... but not a choice, either, I would have made apart from the grace of election in God choosing to reveal Jesus Christ to my heart inwardly in love nad faith by the Holy Spirit... that became MY love and faith.

BD: Well, don't know as I'd go that far. Because as I understand the process, no one can think my thoughts for me or believe for me. he CAN certainly influence my thoughts and my faith - but that's not the same as "giving" faith to me. I'm just trying to make sense of something that's nonsensical to me. :D

Without love... the only chance someone has is for a "shotgun wedding"... in which they would be "forced" to marry Jesus Christ. ANd, you are right and I agree... God doesn't force His will for them to be saved on the reprobate. He allows them to hate and reject Jesus Christ by nature.

BD: Agreed. he als oallows those whom he woos to come to Him as well, as he draws them. he draws more than just the elect, but only the elect will respond in faith.

It is the elect that God has secondary grace on in enduing them with Love by revelatino and inward working of theHoly Spirit - touching the with the Spirit with love... pouring His Love into them by grace so that they believe by the Holy Spirit.

BD: Amen. The Holy Spirit is the Agent working on our hearts, and the Catalyst. :D (Chemistry? :D ) But we believe. We choose to receive His enlightenment or to reject it...

They choose freely of their own wills by their own faith by their own choice to love Jesus. Yet it is Love that has changed them... not just hearing about God's Love... but actually personally experiencing God's Love by the Holy Spirit touching them inside their beings... by grace.

BD: amen.

So it's not God's fault that the reprobate have no chance... in one respect... because they are given the chance... they just naturally reject it left to their own devices. God doesn't "hogtie them".

BD: Amen.

And it's completely God's sovereignty by which the elect have a 100% guarantee of outcome... in one respect... because they are given the work of the Holy Spirit. And it is God's Love that changes the outcome inside of them whereby they freely choose of their own love, their own will, their own choice to belong to Jesus Christ.

BD: Amen.

Think about the difference between forced marriages and marriages in which people truly fall in love.

You can't say God forces the elect... because He doesn't. He just has power to reveal Jesus Christ inside them so that they love Jesus, fall in love, nad their choices are carried by God's Love.

BD: Spoken like a true Arminian. :P

And we can't say God denies the reprobate the opportunity to make their own choice... because He doesn't. He just chooses not to reveal Jesus Christ inside of them so that the do not love Jesus, do not fall in love, and their choices are the result of their own carnal minds. They reject Christ.

Everyone chooses freely.

BD: Well, mostly agree. But I believe that He does give the reprobate (let's just call them the non-elect, since were all reprobate before Christ changed us. :D ) an opportunity to trust Christ - a genuine opportunity. (That's where "middle knowledge" comes into play. God knows all of the what if's and wouldwouldhave happened if this or that... So he is fullysovereign while allowing each individual to freely choose or not choose to seek truth. IOW, I do believe that many are enlighteneed and drawn to the savior, who choose to not respond - non-elect.)

The doctrines of predestination and election taken wholly don't take those things away from anyone at all.

:)

BD: Agreed.

I'll come back another time and go point by point through your response.

Can you see the difference between choosing by falling in love... and having a union forced on a person when there is no love?

Did you feel "forced" to love Jesus?

Or do you think you made a decision of your own mind while hating Jesus Christ... but wanting "fire insurance" because you realized it was a true gospel.

Hey, even if someone really, truly knows it's true - like the devil's do and tremble - that doesn't mean that they have faith born of love or the ability to choose Christ.

The devils believe and tremble... cause they KNOW it's true... and have no love inside of them whereby to believe and freely choose to come to God to repent.

Who are those devils, BD?

Those devils that believe and tremble?

Are you open to see and know the truth?

Did you think the devils who believe and tremble were fallen angels?

And not reprobate sons of perdition on this earth?

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

Judas, the son of perdition who betrayed Jesus Christ, was one of those devils who believed and who trembled and was eternally condemned as a devil having the "faith" of demons.

All these reprobates who "believe"... and are devils... are just like him.

God calls the reprobate children of the devil in John 8.

I have no personal affection, no more than Jesus had, for devils nad children of Satan: the reprobate.

I don't see myself having any commonality with them.

I don't identify with them.

I have no mercy, no pity, no empathy for Satan, his demons, or the reprobate devils - those sons of perdition who will be cast into hell for all eternity.

Am I a "meany"... or I have I come into subjection and agreement with Jesus Christ and am I filled with the Spirit rather than the emotions of the flesh?

Yes, I have a love for all people and will bless all people - even my enemies.

However, I have no bonds of affection in the Spirit born of my flesh for children of the devil....

NO MERCY on those who have "no chance"... not because they weren't given a choice... but because they are devils/sons of perdition as Judas was and is.

I have equal mercy on those devils/those sons of perdition... the reprobate here among us who have flesh like we have who were born of Adam like we were... but who are not of us in Christ and are, truly, our enemies.... equal mercy, BD, that I have upon Satan and his legions of demons.

It's all the same to me.

They are in the same group in my understanding as Satan spiritually as members of his household and family spiritually,

Do you think I am "wrong"???

I am in complete agreement with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God.

And one of the primary reasons Christians cannot "get" the doctrine of election is because they do not identify and relate and view themselves according to Jesus Christ in Him...

And falsely identify with Adam...

And, thus, with the sons of perdition.

They are in the flesh and see from the world's perspective.

I am in the Spirit in Christ and see from God's.

And any emotional argument that comes at me for agreeing with God and disassociating with the reprobate... comes from the flesh (from whence John146 has made his doctrinal position.)

That's my opinion. :)

hee hee

Well, tell me if you think I am a cold-hearted, mean-spirited, hateful person... cause that's exactly what God... with Whom I agree... is being falsely accused of.... :)

And, know this: People who meet and get to know me tell me I am the most sincere and loving person... they are so amazed by the power of God's Love by His Spirit pouring out of me and emanating from me... they have ever met.

Attitdue determines altitude.

I am seated in Heavenly places with Jesus Christ. I agree with Him. I see from the perspective of the throneroom of God... seated in a throne to the right of my King... where the bride of Christ sits.

:)

hee hee.

And, if you are of a mind... I'm clipping and pasting below a response to another post... considering starting a new thread... ;)... if you want to read this post below.

I like your posts and I love your tone.

:)

Love in Christ!

BD: Thx. Ditto

js

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1301289&postcount=233


http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif

Sorry, but cannot finish this - gotta go. But I would like to address James 2 and those devils that tremble in the future. Also, I agree that Judas never really came to faith in Christ... he could have. But he did not, and of course, he was never of the elect. I will say that Jesus never died for demons/devils, and eternal life was never offered to them. I will also say that James 2 is not talking about eternal salvation - gaining eternal life.

Gotta go,

BD

John146
Jun 26th 2007, 12:57 PM
Thx js,

Actually, you are assuming that if a Calvinistic ordo salutis is not followed, then it must be Arminian, and if a Calvinistic view of predestination/foreknowledge is not followed, then it must be the simple foreknowledge Arminian viewpoint. On both counts, you would be misconstruing what I have and am saying.

I do not believe in a note-taking God who merely observes things. My God is fully sovereign.

My God fully elected (chose) who would be saved. And while that was most certainly not done in a knowledge vacuum, it was not dependent upon knowing who would believe the gospel.

At the same time, people are fully free to choose Christ - to respond to the wooing of the Spirit as He convicts us of sin and illuminates us, or to resist the work of the Spirit. Both can and are true at the same time - no contradiction. IOW, I do not hold to irresistible grace.

My view of God's omniscience/predestination is called "middle knowledge."

Now regarding God loving us, and our response of love (a key to understanding why He did things the way He did) - God set things up so that we could choose. No one can miraculously be made to love someone else. Love is a choice. God knew that we must be free to choose if we were to genuinely love and desire a relationship with Him. Without free will, no one can love. Love is a choice, free taken.

BD: From God's perspective, He does choose some for eternal life, and some for destruction. Yet he does it by allowing all people to choose as well. Both can and are true at the same time. This will not work in either a "simple foreknowledge" or a "Augistinian/Calvinistic" framework for viewing God's omniscience/predestination. But I am not operating from either framework.

God has greater knowledge and greater sovereignty than either of those systems give Him credit for. Both systems limit God in one way or another. The simple foreknowledge system correctly assumes that God desires us to freely choose to love and follow Him. They incorrectly assume that God cannot be sovereign if this were so. The Reformed system correctly assumes that God is fully sovereign and that He fully determines who will be saved. It incorrectly assumes that in order for God to do so, man cannot have free agency. It does not recognize that God can be sovereign while allowing us to choose at the same time.

Some system, such as middle knowledge (other systems are out there that work here as well) does allow for both to be simultaneously true and not to be in contradiction. It allows for a bigger view of God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. God knows more than just what has, is and will happen - in infinite detail. He also knows what would or could happen, in infinite detail, for every little choice each free agency person makes - throughout history!

Since both concepts - God's election and man's free agency - are clearly taught and assumed in scripture, we need a system for viewing God's predestination and foreknowledge that does not limit Him to man's abilities to perceive such concepts.


BD: Don't assume they are expressing anger towards God. Are they not, perhaps, expressing an appreciation for God's love in the amazing manner in which He has done things? They are expressing offense, in God's behalf, in what they perceive as a system which makes God out to be a monster. Should they not be offended by that? IMO the Reformed view of God's predestination/foreknowledge does turn God into a monster. Of course they do not intend such, and argue differently. But their arguments are essentially just double-talk, IMO.

What do you mean by "100% salvation"? If you mean that God has already fully predetermined who will be saved - I agree. If you mean that man has no choice, and is not able to believe, then I disagree there. I do not see such a thing anywhere in scripture. I have dealt with every scripture that anyone has proposed says such a thing. They are taken out of context. The reason such things are pursued is due to a limiting view of God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge and His ability to predestine due to a limited understanding of God's omniscience.

I am not limiting God. If God has chosen to allow mankind to freely choose - so that he will choose to love (and without free will, we do not love, by definition) - then I will not limit how God does things because I cannot understand how he could do it differently than my perceptions and understanding about life. In the past, before I heard about "middle knowledge" - about 3 years ago, I think - I chose to believe both were true, even though I could not reconcile all of the details. Now I do not need to do so. It makes sense.

And since God has clearly chosen to do His will as taught in scripture, I accept it - without distorting what that means. God has chosen to limit HOW He goes about working things - He is still sovereign, that was His desire. Are you telling me that He cannot choose to limit how He does things? But He has chosen to do so while working through mankind. God's Word above says that God works in all things for good. It does not say that man does nothing at all - that he "over-rides" all that man's does. He is much smarter than that. He does not need to drag a person, kicking an screaming - to His Son. He is able to convict him of his sin through the Holy Spirit and illuminate him, as he responds to God's working.


Thx, js. Can you see that my position gives God greater sovereignty, greater grace, and does not turn God into some meany? You may not agree with some of what I have posted - I would be amazed if this were not true. But can you see the approach I am taking? ... that it does not limit God in any way, except by those limitations which He has chosen to impose upon Himself?

Thx again,

BD

Very well said. I see it the same way.

John146
Jun 26th 2007, 01:34 PM
And any emotional argument that comes at me for agreeing with God and disassociating with the reprobate... comes from the flesh (from whence John146 has made his doctrinal position.)

No, I do not make my doctrinal position from the flesh. I rely on the Holy Spirit and God's Word for understanding. I always make my points using Scripture. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved(1 Timothy 2:4). Do you disagree? Immediately following that verse, it says that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all. Do you disagree? Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance(2 Peter 3:9). Again, do you disagree? Am I basing my position on emotion here or on Scripture? Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but you can't accuse me of believing what I do just based on emotion.

humbled
Jun 26th 2007, 02:41 PM
No, I do not make my doctrinal position from the flesh. I rely on the Holy Spirit and God's Word for understanding. I always make my points using Scripture. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved(1 Timothy 2:4). Do you disagree? Immediately following that verse, it says that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all. Do you disagree? Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance(2 Peter 3:9). Again, do you disagree? Am I basing my position on emotion here or on Scripture? Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but you can't accuse me of believing what I do just based on emotion.You should read those verses in context, my friend :)

John146
Jun 26th 2007, 04:12 PM
You should read those verses in context, my friend :)

I have, my friend. I interpret the context differently than you. I think we've already had this discussion, though.

BadDog
Jun 26th 2007, 05:17 PM
No, I do not make my doctrinal position from the flesh. I rely on the Holy Spirit and God's Word for understanding. I always make my points using Scripture. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Do you disagree? Immediately following that verse, it says that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all. Do you disagree? Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Again, do you disagree? Am I basing my position on emotion here or on Scripture? Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but you can't accuse me of believing what I do just based on emotion.
Before we look at the context of these two verses, let me say that we should never on this board tell someone (or imply) that they are operating from the flesh or are following Satan or any similar such language. It simply has no place here. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. We must respect each other if for no other reason than out of regard for the obvious love which Christ showed when He died for that person.

1 Timothy 2:3-8 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself--a ransom for all (hUPER PANTWN - "in behalf of all"), a testimony at the proper time.

For this I was appointed a herald, an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying), and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument.

I included the latter portion which I believe lead some to think that the PANTA ANQRWPOU (all people) refers to only the elect. But the context indicates clearly otherwise, as We see 1 God, 1 Mediator and all people. Jesus Christ is the Gobetween. Calvinists, since they assume that the penalty for sin was paid only for the elect, must read this to mean that the ransom ("for all" - PAS) must be referring to only all elect. They will see that in verses 7, 8 Paul says that he is an apostle and a teacher to the Gentiles. Then in vs. 8 Paul says that because of what he has just shared in vss. 4-6 about Christ being the Mediator between God and mankind that it says that "the men in every place" should pray. Hence they equate the two "alls."

Does not work. It is not "all men" in vs. 8, but "the males in every place." (BTW it is TOU ANDRA - "the males." Earlier Paul used PANTA ANQRWPOU which refers to all people. Here he uses a word which refers to ONLY the males. So clearly this vs. and vs. 8 cannot be compared grammatically as I have seen it done in the past.) Now, which men? The men to whom Timothy has a ministry and whom he should exhort to pray so that the gospel would be well received, since God "desires all people to be saved & to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and mankind - all people. Not all people will be saved - will respond to the gospel and trust in Christ. But Christ died for all people.

2 Peter 3:7-9; 14-15a; 17-18 But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all (PANTA "all") to come to repentance.

Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found in peace without spot or blemish before Him. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Bssed on vs. 7, some will perish, but that is not God's desire. Here Paul is telling us that it is not that God is tardy in returning, or that He is just delaying. But He desires to give an opportunity for as many as possible to be saved. The very way this is expressed implies the free choice of people. Now, the only possible way in which you could take "all" to no trefer to all people is if you assume that after people have trusted in Christ they may yet lose their salvation and perish... IOW, you have to be Arminian in your soteriology.

Paul wants his readers to be without spot so that they will receive the highest rewards. He wants them to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." How they live can impact who else trusts in Christ. While they are waiting for Christ's return, then, they need to be on their guard.

How about one more?

1 John 2:1, 2 My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for [those of] the whole world.

Here John tells his readers that what he wrote earlier about dealing with their sin (confession, etc.) was so that they would not sin. Sin breaks fellowship with a holy God. But, if any believer DOES sin, we know that we have an advocate (PARACLHTHS - one who comes alongside and walks with us, helping us.)

PERI hLOU TOU KOSMOU - "concerning the whole/entire world. "Isn't it obvious? What is the natural reading? Jesus is the propitiation (hILOSMOS) not only for our sins (believers' sins) but also for the entire world's as well. Now I have seen (and heard) the arguments otherwise. But how else can this be understood?! How can "the whole world," or "the entire world" be assumed to refer to the world of the elect when John says that Jesus is the propitiation (satisfaction - and more) for "our sins" and then he says that He also covered those of the entire world!

I do not think that we need to go down the path of limited atonement anymore on this thread, though it obviously does apply. Beating a dead horse. :OFFT:

Take care,

BD

humbled
Jun 26th 2007, 05:34 PM
I have, my friend. I interpret the context differently than you. I think we've already had this discussion, though.
Here's a little assistance for you:

EDIT: Watch this one first:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=a29b1bdbab0f2a1a94af

THEN watch this one :)

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=90bc77c1fed3c94885c8

God bless

John146
Jun 26th 2007, 06:24 PM
Before we look at the context of these two verses, let me say that we should never on this board tell someone (or imply) that they are operating from the flesh or are following Satan or any similar such language. It simply has no place here. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. We must respect each other if for no other reason than out of regard for the obvious love which Christ showed when He died for that person.

1 Timothy 2:3-8 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself--a ransom for all (hUPER PANTWN - "in behalf of all"), a testimony at the proper time.

For this I was appointed a herald, an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying), and a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument.

I included the latter portion which I believe lead some to think that the PANTA ANQRWPOU (all people) refers to only the elect. But the context indicates clearly otherwise, as We see 1 God, 1 Mediator and all people. Jesus Christ is the Gobetween. Calvinists, since they assume that the penalty for sin was paid only for the elect, must read this to mean that the ransom ("for all" - PAS) must be referring to only all elect. They will see that in verses 7, 8 Paul says that he is an apostle and a teacher to the Gentiles. Then in vs. 8 Paul says that because of what he has just shared in vss. 4-6 about Christ being the Mediator between God and mankind that it says that "the men in every place" should pray. Hence they equate the two "alls."

Does not work. It is not "all men" in vs. 8, but "the males in every place." (BTW it is TOU ANDRA - "the males." Earlier Paul used PANTA ANQRWPOU which refers to all people. Here he uses a word which refers to ONLY the males. So clearly this vs. and vs. 8 cannot be compared grammatically as I have seen it done in the past.) Now, which men? The men to whom Timothy has a ministry and whom he should exhort to pray so that the gospel would be well received, since God "desires all people to be saved & to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and mankind - all people. Not all people will be saved - will respond to the gospel and trust in Christ. But Christ died for all people.

2 Peter 3:7-9; 14-15a; 17-18 But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all (PANTA "all") to come to repentance.

Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found in peace without spot or blemish before Him. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Bssed on vs. 7, some will perish, but that is not God's desire. Here Paul is telling us that it is not that God is tardy in returning, or that He is just delaying. But He desires to give an opportunity for as many as possible to be saved. The very way this is expressed implies the free choice of people. Now, the only possible way in which you could take "all" to no trefer to all people is if you assume that after people have trusted in Christ they may yet lose their salvation and perish... IOW, you have to be Arminian in your soteriology.

Paul wants his readers to be without spot so that they will receive the highest rewards. He wants them to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." How they live can impact who else trusts in Christ. While they are waiting for Christ's return, then, they need to be on their guard.

Excellent. I agree.




How about one more?

1 John 2:1, 2 My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for [those of] the whole world.

Here John tells his readers that what he wrote earlier about dealing with their sin (confession, etc.) was so that they would not sin. Sin breaks fellowship with a holy God. But, if any believer DOES sin, we know that we have an advocate (PARACLHTHS - one who comes alongside and walks with us, helping us.)

PERI hLOU TOU KOSMOU - "concerning the whole/entire world. "Isn't it obvious? What is the natural reading? Jesus is the propitiation (hILOSMOS) not only for our sins (believers' sins) but also for the entire world's as well. Now I have seen (and heard) the arguments otherwise. But how else can this be understood?! How can "the whole world," or "the entire world" be assumed to refer to the world of the elect when John says that Jesus is the propitiation (satisfaction - and more) for "our sins" and then he says that He also covered those of the entire world!

I'm with you. I don't know how "the whole world" can mean anything but literally "the whole world". In every other verse I found with that phrase, it means literally the whole world. So, why not in 1 John 2:2?

justsurfing
Jun 29th 2007, 02:52 AM
No, I do not make my doctrinal position from the flesh. I rely on the Holy Spirit and God's Word for understanding. I always make my points using Scripture. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved(1 Timothy 2:4). Do you disagree? Immediately following that verse, it says that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all. Do you disagree? Scripture says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance(2 Peter 3:9). Again, do you disagree? Am I basing my position on emotion here or on Scripture? Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but you can't accuse me of believing what I do just based on emotion.

Well, when we have scripture... and human interpretation of scripture... do you believe that human error is possible?

And, if so, could human error be arrived at by one's emotional attachment to the concept of "Love"???

Because your entire argument, the way I read it (and correct me if you didn't say this)... is that it can't be true that God would predestine and foreordain men... then judge them... cause that wouldn't....be....



LOVE


And am I coming from out of completely "nowhere" to say that is an argument based on a concept of Love... that is... emotional?

I mean if we can eliminate our own personal attachments to what constitutes love... I guess that wouldn't be "emotional".

I just read a book that says our decisions are based on 100% emotion.

And I believed it!!!!

(It was all about the buying decision of buyers in a sales process. Their decisions are 100% emotional... though they try to rationalize them... try to make them "logical"... by force of reason... but really, the decision is completely emotional.)

As a top professional in that industry... having been called "the best closer in the business"... I can tell you that my entire sales process is NOT about facts, logic, or any such thing that wouldn't move anyone.

It's ALL about EMOTION!!!!

So that's where I'm coming from.

I believe that when you say that you don't believe God could possibly foreordain or predestine anyone... then judge them for their sins... cause then God wouldn't be "loving"... that emotions are involved in your decision... focussed on your conceptualization of what "love" is.

I'm just sayin'.....

And the folks who deny most that they are emotional beings... are usually the ones I sell the best to.

hee hee

I'm just sayin'.....

:)

So, is this an "attack"? To discuss how emotions play into our interpretations of scripture?

Because to deny that emotions have any bearing on how we see and view the world, those around us, a PRODUCT we buy, ;), and how we view scripture... denies our humanity, imo.

If we were perfectly sanctified... I'd agree that emotions would have no bearing on our differing perceptions of scripture.

It would be strictly due to what then?

Intelligence?

Knowledge?

Those aren't the reasons people buy into decisions, in general.

The decisions are emotional.

Only on the planet Vulcan... do emotions play no role.

:)

So... this is not an "attack".

This is the reality of a discussion.

Men are from Mars

Women are from Venus.

None of us are Vulcan.

:)

Beam me up, Jesus!

hee hee

OK, I can see that it will be necessary to post a pic of me smiling. lol

Did you know that I was recently pulled over I think 3 times within the last 6 months?

Deserved a ticket EVERY time.

But... no points.

;)

Yep, I may need a picture.

I'm not that great looking - not saying that...

but my smile... well, it does tend to get me by without getting...

points!!!

hee hee

(Or is a sense of humor evidence of incapacity???? You know, not serious enough. Like only serious people can understand the Bible intellilgently. I have a heart like the smallest child... and I... get it!!!! God will reveal things to me... and do things for me... like I'm the apple of His eye. It's ALL GOOD between my Savior and me. :) )

I don't wanna be serious!!!!

I wanna be... happy!!!!

The joy of the Lord is my strength.

:)

I'm not judgmental. I'm... discerning.

hee hee

:)

lol

Love in Christ,

js

walked
Jun 29th 2007, 03:18 AM
I’m curious because I have heard so many different opinions on this. I have friends who says you have to be “called” and I have friends who say that you call.

But to me if you have to be called then the only choice you make is to receive it or to reject it. And this means people who are never called will never have an option of being saved.

Sorry if it’s a silly question but I’m still fairly young in my learning. :)
I firmly belive that anyone can be (saved/restored to fellowship to God) through Christ blood, Gods sacrifice. And repenting is a result of Gods calling. And confessing sin or confessing that Jesus is Lord or confessing that the works of Gods Holy Spirit is from God is a result of faith in Gods word.

justsurfing
Jun 30th 2007, 07:02 AM
I do not think that we need to go down the path of limited atonement anymore on this thread, though it obviously does apply. Beating a dead horse. :OFFT:

Take care,


Hey, BD...

You are always free to say you what you'd like to discuss... but when others are limitted in their free expression of a position - time to go.

***comment removed by wia***

This whole topic is about limited atonement... and how can you say that it has no place on the thread?

So, only unlimited atonment has a place?

***commentary removed by wia***

I'm A-OK with it.

Thanks for the discussion, BD.

Time to go!

Love in Christ,

js

BadDog
Jun 30th 2007, 05:23 PM
Hey, BD...

You are always free to say you what you'd like to discuss... but when others are limitted in their free expression of a position - time to go.

***comment removed by wia***

This whole topic is about limited atonement... and how can you say that it has no place on the thread?

So, only unlimited atonment has a place?

***commentary removed by wia***

I'm A-OK with it.

Thanks for the discussion, BD.

Time to go!

Love in Christ,

jsjs,

Not saying that. I was merely striving to get the focus back on the OP. No issue with discussing other things... but after awhile... time to get back on track.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Jul 1st 2007, 06:54 AM
Regarding this issue of free choice/election, I would like to consider what the logical conclusion will be when we assume that man does not have free agency.

1) "The devil made me do it"
Of course we laugh, when we consider this excuse used by some, but we do need to consider this dynamic. Let's think about it... who made the devil and those angels (1/3rd of em) who rebelled against God do so?

If free will requires doing what one desires, and complete sovereignty of God means that all desires come from God, then logically it follows that God caused Satan and those rebellious angels to sin by rebelling against Himself! But of course God cannot sin nor can He even look upon sin and ignore it, so we are faced with a contradiction with such a definition of sovereignty.

With such a definition of sovereignty as is used by hardcore Calvinists we must needs conclude that God is not fully sovereign over angels... if such sovereignty requires no free agency.

2) God created Satan and every creature who has ever lived... so He did so by giving them the capacity to commit evil. But this capacity must come from God alone, and hence He must needs be the source of all evil in the universe... all of it.

So again our definition of sovereignty, or rather - that of Calvinism - has an issue - a serious one. God is the source, the author, of all evil. That of mass murders, rapists... how can that not be true if God is fully sovereign in the classical Reformed manner?

3) If I am fully evil, and I can only choose evil, then why did God create me that way? Now I realize that man rebelled against God - the fall of man is the source of such evil - man's depravity. But as many Calvinists say (supralapsarian - sp?) - God planned the fall of man - He was sovereign over it, and indeed caused it. Now some Calvinists do not hold to such a position, but many do. This view (that God is as active in condemning the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is sometimes referred to as "equal ultimacy" or "double election" (R.C. Sproul in Chosen by God, p142, called supralapsarianism such - yes, RC Sproul does hold to the position that God predestined man's fall). IMO it is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and is a distortion of historic Calvinism. John Calvin was definitely a infralapsarian.

But back to the point, if God is fully sovereign, then where is the source of evil as far as mankind is concerned? Must not God have actually planned and predetermined that Adam and Eve would rebel against Himself? At any rate, I find the Reformed view of God's sovereignty lacking when we view it closely. IMO, we do not need to assume such a form of complete sovereignty that hog-ties every person who has ever lived.

I realize that most Calvinists posting on this thread do not hold to such an extreme view of God's sovereignty, but if they do not, then how can they disallow the free agency of mankind? Do you see my point? And with such a view of God's sovereignty, we must indeed say that, as was posited by the OP, some have no chance at all to be saved.

My position regarding God's sovereignty is that God is indeed fully sovereign... but that need not require that we strip free agency from mankind. Could not God have chosen to give mankind a free will, to work through man's free will? Cannot God fully accomplish His will in such a system? And there is much evidence that this is indeed how God has determined to do things.

Calvinists and Arminians of all sorts agree that God holds all people responsible for their moral actions, yet the Calvinist must account for the fact that all people were born with a sin nature, and hence, from a Reformed perspective, have no capability to do anything but evil... at all.

4) IMO it is logical that there cannot be responsibility where there is no capability to respond. We cannot rationally hold a person responsible for their thoughts and actions if they had no ability to behave differently. And the Reformed view of total depravity places mankind in just such a niche. It also forces us to say that God is not acting rationally. Since God is completely omniscient, He must be the most rational Creature in the universe!

Hence, rationally, reason demands that all creatures are morally free to choose and have the capability to choose God... to seek His will. I spoke of this before as a result of being created in God's image.

Sure, without God working in our lives and drawing us to Bimself, we would not, could not, choose Him. But He IS at work. And He has chosen to give mankind the ability to seek God. He has chosen to sovereignly do so, because then people can freely choose to love. In fact, without such capability, man cannot love God. And without freely choosing someone, we have not love.

Let me ask: if they did not have Romans 3, could Calvinists have such a position of total depravity that logically leads to the issues listed above? I think there would be absolutely no scriptural basis for even hinting at this. So perhaps they have misunderstood what God is saying there.

Now I absolutely agree that God must needs be involved in this process. But it is not simply monergistic (no involvement from a person when a person is saved - it comes from God alone - from beginning to end) - it must needs be synergistic (involving cooperation between God and man).

Freedom is undeniable. It must be, or else we create a Monster for our God. And it is not biblical, IMO, for this very reason. Now I care not about hearing any arguments or scripture to support man's incapability to do good... to choose ought but evil. First I need some answers to the 4 logical points above.

We cannot OTOneH take a supralapsarian position, involving a monergistic plan for salvation, and then OTOtherH take a position that man is responsible for his sin.

Comments? (I am not trying to stir up a heated argument - I seriously want to understand how Calvinism works logically.)

Thx,

BD

justsurfing
Aug 4th 2007, 11:21 AM
Hi,

I tried to "go back" and delete my posts on this thread... and found there was no option to do so.

I will request to have them deleted.

When someone doesn't accurately state the truth to me, and I repeat what is not the truth... I tend to feel righteous indignation.

I believe I am telling the truth, and yet lie... because someone didn't state the truth to me accurately.

On the basis of factual inaccuracy, I told lies... for which I apologize.

My intentions were good... but I retract my position on this thread.

By no means, whatsoever, do I believe any human being has "no chance" for salvation as the result of the absolute sovereignty of God.

I know that God is Love.

I would only define God as Love from within scripture... because scripture is the revelation of God.

My Bible translations was factually inaccurate in translation, imo. Every Bible translation I have ever read was deceitful, dishonest, slanderously falsely accusing God... that's my opinion.

I cannot even define how it is that I feel in response to these things. For a book stating on the cover "Holy Bible"... to misrepresent and to set forth factual inaccuracies as the revelation of who God is... and for me as a sincere follower of Jesus Christ... to turn, in naivete... and misrepresent the Creator of Heaven and of earth... it isn't really anger I feel.

It isn't even righteous indignation.

I cannot describe it at all. Sadness isn't the word. There is no word.

I did not knowingly or intentionally lie or misrepresent God.

I functioned on the basis of what was printed in a book that stated on the cover "Holy Bible"... and the conclusions I drew on the basis of what was stated in that book were sound and well studied... and, actually, inescapable with sound means of logic employed by a person willing to die to know the truth. And I was not, imo, given an accurate translation of key words in the Bibles I've read since I was a child.

I retract all earlier statements.

I believe it is false to state that any human being was created with no chance to spend eternity in Heaven with God as the direct result of God's absolute sovereignty.

And may God have mercy on the souls of those who knowingly or unknowingly altered His Word... out of human error... or in the interest, perhaps, of book sales. Who knows what the motives were or who was consciously aware that the words they stated deviated from the truth in which they were written.

May God have mercy on their souls.

And can someone help me to delete the earlier posts?

Love in Christ,

Laura

BadDog
Aug 4th 2007, 04:49 PM
Laura,

It is rare to see someone who is willing to acknowledge a mistake, poor judgment, or that anything could have been even partially their fault, etc. So I really appreciate the spirit with which you posted here.

And I do think it comes down to recognizing just Who God is. Is He a God who would design a world system knowing that certain individuals He created and predestined for eternal damnation would never be able to respond... to choose God... to choose life over death? No way. I cannot follow such a God, and I am convinced that God's plan is not like that. Therefore whatever system we ascribe to must allow for the character of God to not be that of a Monster.

I have for years held to the belief that man had a free will. Anyone who has even shared the gospel and seen the result of God changing that person's heart as he crumbles and trusts in Christ would deny that people do have a choice in the matter. But I also for years believed that God was sovereign and chose those whom were saved. I didn't understand how it worked out, but I was convinced that they must both be true.

Today, I realize that He is God and I am not. I will never come close to fully understanding the mind of God. But I am convinced that He is loving, and just, at the same time. I understand a bit better how both can and are true. But I've got a long ways to go.

Nothing else makes sense to me. Laura, you may want to research a topic of philosophy called "middle knowledge." William Lane Craig, recognized as the world's foremost apologist, is an advocate of this philosophy. It helped me to see things a bit more clearly.

And I do not for a moment think that most of our Bibles are twisted or that the translators were deceitful. It is difficult to translate and not have our theology affect our exegesis a bit.

Take care,

BD

justsurfing
Aug 4th 2007, 06:15 PM
Laura,

It is rare to see someone who is willing to acknowledge a mistake, poor judgment, or that anything could have been even partially their fault, etc. So I really appreciate the spirit with which you posted here.



HI BD,

:)

Thank you for being so gracious and kind.



And I do think it comes down to recognizing just Who God is. Is He a God who would design a world system knowing that certain individuals He created and predestined for eternal damnation would never be able to respond... to choose God... to choose life over death? No way. I cannot follow such a God, and I am convinced that God's plan is not like that. Therefore whatever system we ascribe to must allow for the character of God to not be that of a Monster.


I am a person who knows God to be wholly Love... Holy Love.

I know Jesus and His heart. I would agree with you completely and without reservation at this time.




I have for years held to the belief that man had a free will. Anyone who has even shared the gospel and seen the result of God changing that person's heart as he crumbles and trusts in Christ would deny that people do have a choice in the matter.


I believe we are saved wholly and completely by grace alone. Our wills, sadly and most assuredly, are so impacted by the reality of sin having devastated our spirits... that we are spiritually blind, spiritually deaf, and spiritually incapable of knowing the love and truth of Jesus Christ apart from the Holy Spirit. If we only knew Jesus, BD, can you agree that we would love Him?

Those who reject Him, BD, truly never knew Him as Jesus said in the Word. I believe, BD, that had they known Him, they would have loved Him.

:)



But I also for years believed that God was sovereign and chose those whom were saved. I didn't understand how it worked out, but I was convinced that they must both be true.



Amen, God is absolutely sovereign and chooses those who are saved. The Bible clearly states this inescapable truth.

:)



Today, I realize that He is God and I am not. I will never come close to fully understanding the mind of God. But I am convinced that He is loving, and just, at the same time. I understand a bit better how both can and are true. But I've got a long ways to go.


I believe I understand now, BD, how God is loving and just at the same time. Praise the Lord!



Nothing else makes sense to me. Laura, you may want to research a topic of philosophy called "middle knowledge." William Lane Craig, recognized as the world's foremost apologist, is an advocate of this philosophy. It helped me to see things a bit more clearly.

And I do not for a moment think that most of our Bibles are twisted or that the translators were deceitful. It is difficult to translate and not have our theology affect our exegesis a bit.


Well, BD, I want to have grace on those who have erred... because, surely, we fight not enemies of flesh and blood but spiritual principalities and powers of darkness. My heart is prayer and grace and mercy for those who corrupted, imo, the plain truth of God's Word in blindness having their blindness effecting their exegesis.

Without question, the Bibles I read contained major doctrinal error that has resulted, imo, in sincere Christians seeking to balance and know the truth... being denied that opportunity.

There is no possible way, imo, as a person who spent so many hours in prayer and Bible study that I would have "missed it"... had I been given the literal translation of the words rather than false conclusions of errant translaters. Once I was given the words, and was able to confirm their literal meanings objectively, I saw the whole counsel of God in no time flat. It took a couple days, BD, for me to overcome my misplaced trust in the book I'd been reading that said, "Holy Bible" on the cover.

It is truly grave responsibility for anyone who translates to stamp on the cover of a book, "Holy Bible"... which calls it's believers to place faith in the infallibility of the words contained therein.

I guess I never seriously analyzed that I was placing faith, at some level, in the infallibility of certain translaters who were mere men and women made of flesh and bones. I should have cross-referenced and not placed such blind faith in human beings. It never really occurred to me I was doing so.

Thank you for your kindness,

Love in Christ,

Laura

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2007, 06:21 PM
Now you guys have me interested. What words are you speaking about Laura? What verse or translation?

Thanks.

justsurfing
Aug 4th 2007, 06:39 PM
Hi Brother Mark,

I need wisdom from the Lord to answer your question in diplomacy and truth.

:)

I've seen your question, and it's my desire to respond truthfully... and need to seek the Lord on how to do that with the wisdom of Esther.

(I have a sister Esther, btw. Oh let me tell a story and be personable. My sister Esther worked for a company in the largest city of my state. She was very well loved and received special favor from the Jewish community. She was married. They assumed her maiden name had been Jewish. It was not. But my sister, in the wisdom of Esther, never clearly confirmed to them that she was nor denied that she wasn't.)

The wisdom of Esther... biblical or familial... that's what I need!

In the good humor of God who is good,

;)

I shall respond (perhaps after consulting my sis... or some other paragon of wisdom... hee hee)

Love in Christ,

Laura

Brother Mark
Aug 4th 2007, 06:45 PM
Ok. If you had rather, just PM me. ;)

RogerW
Aug 4th 2007, 07:00 PM
RW,

Hopefully this won't be "lost." (My firefox internet connection simply "disappeared" yesterday) :B :rolleyes:

We do not have "case" inherent in the noun text in English, as does Koine Greek. They had both the noun structure and prepositions. Now let me quote Robertson's Word Pictures for Romans 3:22, a text sometimes used by Reformed theologians:

Robertson says that this is better translated as "in Christ Jesus" (objective genitive) than as "of Christ Jesus" (subjective genitive). Both genitives are quite common, so regardless modern translations in translating this as "in Christ Jesus" are not doing anything grammatically strange at all. He points out that in Galatians 2:16 we have a very similar text which has EIS, which cannot be translated as "of." The same is true in Colossians 2:5 and 1 Timothy 2:13, making it clear that a subjective genitive won't work in those texts. (EIS is present, making it clear.)

Here's the text...

Romans 3:22 (HCSB) that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction.

Here's the KJV:

Romans 3:22 (KJV) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Here's the Greek:

δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή

Actually, we need to look at two prepositions. (Both in bold above - in English.) Notice that I only emboldened one in the Greek (DIA - "through") since there is not a 2nd preposition in Greek.

Also, we have here "εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας" ("to all the believing ones"). EIS ("into, in, to") is present, making it clear that this is referring to faith in Christ Jesus. God's righteousness is offered to all who believe... hence it is not the faith "of" Christ Jesus. They believe. There is no preposition there, which might clarify. It is the genitive case alone.

I vote for the objective genitive. Some have done differently. Dr. Wallace translates it as "the faithfulness of christ Jesus" - a bit strange. But I prefer to translate PISTIS as "faith" over faithfulness - which is quite rare. The lexicons agree with me there.

Anyway, something "unorthodox" was certainly not done by modern translations there. Notice that Robertson uses the KJV in his commentary - yet he does not agree with what the KJV did in Romans 3:22.


OK, regarding the quality of the KJV trnaslation...

Fitst of all, I like the KJV and do have much respect for the KJV history and tradition. I have a couple of KJV Bibles at home, as well as NKJV Bibles. However, there are a couple of issues.

1 - The Greek text used (textus receptus). Now I do support the majority text (Byzantine text), and the KJV is in that family. But it is a poor representative of that family. Also, I do prefer the Alexandrian family (critical text) over the Byzantine family. Personally, I wish that textual critics used both families! But, unfortunately, they do not. Now Art Farstad was the editor of the NKJV. As soon as he finished it, he started on a fresh translation based on the Greek majority text which he and Zane Hodges developed. (I actually know Zane well and met and spoke with Art a couple of times... Yes, I asked him why he went with the TR instead of his Greek majority text on the NKJV. :D ) But Farstad's translation was the rough draft which became the HCSB... Unfortunately, when Farstad passed away in 98, his right handman converted it to an Alexandrian text! Bummer. But the TR has many flaws and some big errors - places where it agrees with almost no other Greek MSS of the thousands available.

2 - The KJV translators did not have some of the discoveries available to them that modern translators have. In the late 19th century a discovery was made of several business and everyday MSS (manuscripts) in Greek. Before then, translators thought that koine Greek (used in the NT writings) were some sort of holy Greek - with some terms developed by Paul to fit his need. However, we now know this is simply not true. Koine Greek is a common, everyday style of Greek - for the common man. And since we do not have 1st century dictionaries or lexicons to tell us what words mean, they had to be determined by use in other documents. Well, some words lacked anything until fairly recently. By seeing how certain words were used, we better understand their meaning. We can compare to classical Greek MSS at times, but it is not always the same.

For example of this last point, take MONOGENHS - used in John 3:16 and a few other places in John's gospel. It was translated as "only begotten" by the KJV. (And just what does "begotten" mean? Who uses it today?) That is based on MONO ("only") and the assumption that GENHS comes from GENAW ("to give birth"). It does not. We now know that it comes from GINOMAI ("to be, to become") Anyway, the word simply mean s, "only, one and only, unique." Sure, it is used of 1st-born sons, but it simply means that such are unique - the only 1st-born son. But JWs and others have tried to say that this term means that Jesus came into being - was born into being. It does not.

Why do you think that virtually all textual critics hold to the Alexandrian text, as do virtually all translators? Th is not to say that the Greek text of the KJV is unreliable! But God has given us better tools.

Take care,

BD

Greetings BD,

Sorry about the tardy reponse. I'm sorry to say I had altogether forgotten about this thread. Please accept my humble apologies.

Actually the proper way to translate Ro 3:22 from the Greek:

CV - Ro 3:22 - Yet a righteousness of God, through Jesus Christ’s faith, for all and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction

Gal 2:16 - having perceived that a man is not justified by works of law, except it be through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe into Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh be justified.

Col 2:5 - For even if I am absent in flesh, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and observing your order and the stability of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:5 is better understood when we read it in context of vs. 6-8 which explain how believers come to have faith in Christ. Our salvation is not dependent upon some imagined faith we try to muster, but our sanctifying life most certainly IS dependent upon how we live by this knowledge of faith we have been given (imputation) through Him. Remember we are saved; born again (once), we are being saved; continually being sanctified, and we will finally be fully saved; body and soul eternally.

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Since this thread has nothing to do with Bible translations, I have no intention of getting into a discussion about which translation, which manuscripts, which textual critic is best. Suffice it to say I believe the KJ translation, along with any other translation using the Textus Receptus have endured the test of time. If the Textus Receptus is not faithful, or unreliable in it’s translations, then God did not preserve His Word through the ages as He promised He would. It cannot be the Inspired Word of God if we cannot trust the faithfulness of the manuscripts this Word was translated from.

RW

justsurfing
Aug 4th 2007, 07:38 PM
Greetings BD,

Sorry about the tardy reponse. I'm sorry to say I had altogether forgotten about this thread. Please accept my humble apologies.

Actually the proper way to translate Ro 3:22 from the Greek:

CV - Ro 3:22 - Yet a righteousness of God, through Jesus Christ’s faith, for all and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction

Gal 2:16 - having perceived that a man is not justified by works of law, except it be through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe into Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh be justified.

Col 2:5 - For even if I am absent in flesh, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing and observing your order and the stability of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:5 is better understood when we read it in context of vs. 6-8 which explain how believers come to have faith in Christ. Our salvation is not dependent upon some imagined faith we try to muster, but our sanctifying life most certainly IS dependent upon how we live by this knowledge of faith we have been given (imputation) through Him. Remember we are saved; born again (once), we are being saved; continually being sanctified, and we will finally be fully saved; body and soul eternally.

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Since this thread has nothing to do with Bible translations, I have no intention of getting into a discussion about which translation, which manuscripts, which textual critic is best. Suffice it to say I believe the KJ translation, along with any other translation using the Textus Receptus have endured the test of time. If the Textus Receptus is not faithful, or unreliable in it’s translations, then God did not preserve His Word through the ages as He promised He would. It cannot be the Inspired Word of God if we cannot trust the faithfulness of the manuscripts this Word was translated from.

RW

Aha!

This is what I was saying! The propitiation of Jesus Christ for sins... is the source from which faith flows!

Jesus is the "arche"... the first principle... and it's the "faith of Jesus"... flowing to us FROM the propitiation: Jesus Christ.

It's through JESUS CHRIST's faith that we are saved, not our own.

:)

(You know, as soon as that one error was clarified, the propitiation could literally, by me, be visualized. I mean I knew it before... but then I could visualize it at a new level.)

When Jesus Christ is stated to be the propitiation through faith... the faith is not on the "part" of the objects of propitation as a source:

Romans 3:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=25&version=9&context=verse)
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


1 John 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=2&verse=2&version=9&context=verse)
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=4&verse=10&version=9&context=verse)
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


The "faith of Jesus Christ" is flowing from Jesus Christ to the objects of the propitiation.

It's not the faith of the objects of the propitiation. It's the faith of the propitiation, Jesus Christ, "capturing" the objects.

(This wasn't the word or passage that was inaccurately translated to me... as disclaimer.)

Thanks for the word study!

(Yeah, my KJV... that's one of the translations where the BIG error was, imo. Read it since I was a child... )

Love in Christ,

Laura

RogerW
Aug 4th 2007, 07:39 PM
Just got back from vacation myself.

Where is the biblical basis for saying that Abraham or anyone else is imputed with righteousness enabling them to believe? I do hope you have a great 3 weeks. But this point has not been shown. Paul repeatedly says that Abraham was declared to be righteous as a result of his faith. "Abraham believed God and it (believing God) was accounted to him (as a result of his believing) as righteousness."


Good stuff, Eric (John146)

Take care,

BD

No one receives the promise through a righteousness of themselves. God gives (imputes) righteousness, which is reckoned as faith to whosoever He will.

De 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
De 9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. If this righteousness originates from Abraham, it is his work, and therefore not of grace, but of debt. But Christ says to him who does not work, but believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. David describes the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works. Saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Abraham believed God and his faith was counted for righteousness, this righteousness, not of himself, but imputed to him without being his work, his faith, his righteousness. Without this imputation of righteousness, where would his faith that is counted as righteousness come from? If it comes from Abraham, is it counted as debt, and not reckoned of grace?

God imputes righteousness, faith is counted for righteousness. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. A righteousness imputed by God enabling Abraham to believe on Him through faith which is counted for righteousness.

Ro 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Ro 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

RW

RogerW
Aug 4th 2007, 08:19 PM
The following was posted a few days ago, but I have not see anyone explictly explain what they mean by saying that faith is a gift. (I tried to delete the precious post - no need to have both. :P No can do.)
I really would like to hear what those who have a Reformed ordo salutis mean by faith as a gift... explicitly. I know what I mean when I say that I have trusted in Christ to save me. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean that I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, though those things are certainly necessary. I mean simply that I am relying upon His death in my place to cover my sin.

Many try to talk about types of faith. They refer to James 2 and say that "you believe that God is one... the demons believe and tremble." Well, we're not saved by believing that God is one. And eternal life was never offered to angels or demons. Christ did not die for demons. He died for me and you. And the salvation in that context is not referring to gaining eternal life but salvation from a wasted life.

Thx,

BD

The gospel of Christ reveals the righteousness of God Ro 3:25,26 “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
If we would become saved His righteousness must first be found in us, for God is holy, just, and righteous, therefore we must become righteous, not by ourrighteousness, which is filthy rags, but by His righteousness Ro 10:1-4 “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
We can only obtain salvation through the gospel of Christ, for therein is the righteousness of God revealed Ro 5:19 “For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” 2Co 5:21 “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.”

This righteousness is not known nor understood by the light of nature, but must be revealed 1Co 2:9-10 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Righteousness is revealed by Christ and secured through faith. “From faith to faith” means from one degree of faith to another, for faith, like any other grace, grows. As we grown in the faith we have received, we have a better view of God’s righteousness in Christ and a better view of our sin and unworthiness.

Four times in Scripture we read, “The just shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38). We begin through faith of Christ Ro 3:22 “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference” , we continue in faith Col 1:23 “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister”, and we die in faith Heb 11:13 “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” We live not upon faith, but through it upon Christ!

RW

BadDog
Aug 4th 2007, 09:17 PM
Roger,

Nice post. Got no problem with any of it. I am curious what Calvinists mean when they say that salvific faith is a gift.

Thx,

BD

RogerW
Aug 6th 2007, 11:10 PM
Roger,

Nice post. Got no problem with any of it. I am curious what Calvinists mean when they say that salvific faith is a gift.

Thx,

BD

BD,

I can't answer for the Calvinist, but if you would like to here my response see post #201 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1294201&postcount=201) in this thread.

RW

BadDog
Aug 9th 2007, 03:30 AM
BD,

I can't answer for the Calvinist, but if you would like to here my response see post #201 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1294201&postcount=201) in this thread.

RWRoger,

What I mean is that the concept of one person giving someone else "faith" makes no logical sense - it's an abstract notion. No one can believe for me.

BD

RogerW
Aug 9th 2007, 09:32 PM
Roger,

What I mean is that the concept of one person giving someone else "faith" makes no logical sense - it's an abstract notion. No one can believe for me.

BD

BD,

Have you ever considered imputation?

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted [imputed] unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned [imputed] of grace, but of debt.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted [imputed] for righteousness.
Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God [imputeth] righteousness without works,
Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not [impute] sin.
Ro 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned [imputed] to Abraham for righteousness.
Ro 4:10 How was it then reckoned [imputed]? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness [might be imputed] unto them also:

Ro 4:22 And therefore [it was imputed] to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that [it was imputed] to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be [imputed], if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

RW

BadDog
Aug 10th 2007, 03:28 AM
Yes, but that doesn't work for faith. To impute is to consider us to be righteous. He died in our place and hence God has reckoned us, credited us, with righteousness based on faith alone - He has declared us to be righteous. It's a forensic term. The Bible says that salvation is a free gift. IOW, God gives us eternal life as a result of our faith.

How does that work for faith?

Now all I am asking is how do you give someone something which is abstract, not concrete? What does someone mean when they say that faith is a gift of God? In down-to-earth, practical terms, just precisely what did God do?

Anyone?

Thx,

BD

RogerW
Aug 10th 2007, 04:21 AM
Yes, but that doesn't work for faith. To impute is to consider us to be righteous. He died in our place and hence God has reckoned us, credited us, with righteousness based on faith alone - He has declared us to be righteous. It's a forensic term. The Bible says that salvation is a free gift. IOW, God gives us eternal life as a result of our faith.

How does that work for faith?

Now all I am asking is how do you give someone something which is abstract, not concrete? What does someone mean when they say that faith is a gift of God? In down-to-earth, practical terms, just precisely what did God do?

Anyone?

Thx,

BD

Greetings BD,

I would truly love to disguss saving faith with you. But before we get down to it, please allow me to try to understand your way of viewing saving faith; by asking you two questions. (1) Would you agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation? (2) Would you also agree that our salvation is not dependent upon any work we do? If you answer the above questions yes, then please permit me to ask one more question of you. (3) How can something absolutely required (meaning it's necessary to be done), be an action required (work), from us? If it's our faith it is an effort, and any effort we do makes it our work.

RW

BadDog
Aug 10th 2007, 01:38 PM
Greetings BD,

I would truly love to disguss saving faith with you. But before we get down to it, please allow me to try to understand about your way of viewing saving faith; by asking you two questions. (1) Would you agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation? (2) Would you also agree that our salvation is not dependent upon any work we do? If you answer the above questions yes, then please permit me to ask one more question of you. (3) How can something absolutely required (meaning it's necessary to be done), be an action required (work), from us? If it's our faith it is an effort, and any effort we do makes it our work.

RWRoger,

I would love to discuss "saving faith," though actually that is not what I am asking here. What I am asking is simply "what does it mean to receive faith as a gift?" How is that possible? How does that happen? What does God do? What do we do? How do you give someone an abstract substance? I'm not necessarily saying it's not possible. I simply want to understand what you, and other Calvinists, mean when you say that?

OK,

(1) Would you agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation?
1 - Of course - it is not only necessary, it is sufficient.

(2) Would you also agree that our salvation is not dependent upon any work we do? If you answer the above questions yes, then please permit me to ask one more question of you.
2 - Of course.

(3) How can something absolutely required (meaning it's necessary to be done), be an action required (work), from us? If it's our faith it is an effort, and any effort we do makes it our work.
3 - Here's how I see it. Faith is not a work. It is 0% work, 100% relying upon Christ. We do nothing, zip, nada... He has done it all. You see, your question needs to be modified slightly, for as it is presently worded, it assumes that faith is an action... something we do. That is not how I see it. Faith is a recognition that I can do nothing to save myself. It is to say, "Help!" It is to give up completely on myself, and to turn fully to God to save me. Paul often contrasted faith and work. He emphasized again and again that we are saved by not working, but instead by trusting in what Christ did in our behalf. So IMO to view faith as something which we do is to kinda miss the point that Paul is making.

Your question was, "How can something absolutely required (meaning it's necessary to be done), be an action required (work), from us??

The underlined word assumes that faith is something which we do. It is not. We do not do faith. We do not choose to believe. Either we believe that Jesus died for us, or we do not. Either we trust in Him or we are relying upon ourself. Now let me clarify a bit. We do choose to seek truth, to desire to understand Who Jesus is and to seek illumination. We cannot choose to believe. We choose to seek truth, which may result in our becoming convinced (faith) that we cannot save ourself, and only Christ can. In a vert real sense I cannot choose to believe that a life boat will hold me up and save me. Either I do or I do not. I can choose to trust in that boat, but ultimately, it is based on my faith. Faith is not a decision. That assumes that it is concrete in nature. We cannot trust in Christ unless we truly believe that we are sinners and that He can save us.

So then, faith is not work. If it is, then we are saved by faith plus works, and I know that you would call that anathema! :P

So then, what I am asking, and I am NOT trying to make some point... I simply want to understand better. What I am asking is simply how do we receive something as a gift which is abstract? What is the process? I do have some thoughts on it, but I need someone who believes that God gives us faith as well as eternal life to explain what they mean by that. Because without that all I can conclude is that it must be impossible for faith to be a gift.

Does God say, "Here you go BadDog. Open up your hands. There. Now, just lift up the top of your skull and pore it in. Good job. Now, shake it around... a blittle more. Oops, it's coming out your ears." Then I respond, "Wow! Now I believe. Cool!"

I know it doesn't work anything like that, but I have never, ever, heard anyone explain what they mean when they say that faith is a gift. I'm just trying to get someone to explain it. Faith is abstract. God does not simply "give" it to us - believe for us. No one can believe for someone else. Not even God. That would make us simply puppets. So then, just what does He do? In practical terms...

Thx,

BD

Mograce2U
Aug 10th 2007, 02:24 PM
BD,

Have you ever considered imputation?

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted [imputed] unto him for righteousness.
Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned [imputed] of grace, but of debt.
Ro 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted [imputed] for righteousness.
Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God [imputeth] righteousness without works,
Ro 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not [impute] sin.
Ro 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned [imputed] to Abraham for righteousness.
Ro 4:10 How was it then reckoned [imputed]? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness [might be imputed] unto them also:

Ro 4:22 And therefore [it was imputed] to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that [it was imputed] to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be [imputed], if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;Sounds to me like the gift we are given by grace is righteousness and that the only requirement to receive this gift is to believe in the righteousness of Christ.

John146
Aug 10th 2007, 04:16 PM
Greetings BD,

I would truly love to disguss saving faith with you. But before we get down to it, please allow me to try to understand your way of viewing saving faith; by asking you two questions. (1) Would you agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation? (2) Would you also agree that our salvation is not dependent upon any work we do? If you answer the above questions yes, then please permit me to ask one more question of you. (3) How can something absolutely required (meaning it's necessary to be done), be an action required (work), from us? If it's our faith it is an effort, and any effort we do makes it our work.

RW

Roger,

You, of course, know the verse that says we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. Think about it. If faith is a work, then that verse would make no sense. It would be saying we could be saved through faith and not by works, even though faith is a work? That would make the "not by works" part contradictory. It would have to be reworded to say that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, except by the work of faith. That verse clearly differentiates between faith and works. Therefore, faith is not a work.

Works are physical deeds. Works are not equivalent to our thoughts or beliefs. Works are the result of acting on thoughts or beliefs. They only have to do with what we actually do physically. Look at the following verse:

For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory. - Isaiah 66:18

Notice it differentiates between works and thoughts.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 5:16

This verse shows that works are things that are seen. Works are things that people physically do.

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. - James 2:17-18

Once again we see a passage that clearly differentiates between faith and works. Good works are the evidence that one has faith. But faith is not a work, otherwise there would be no reason for passages like this to differentiate between the two.

Eric