|
| |
Was Pharaoh responsible? |
|
|
|
Rom 9:17
|
| |
There is certainly room for disagreement on how much control God exercised over Pharaoh's heart and decisions at this time, but I think Romans 9:19-23 laves no question that Pharaoh was held guilty for the attitude that he had toward the Lord and his people. -- -- I am not of a Beza-Calvinist position that would suggest deliberate control over a person's final responsiveness to the Holy Spirit's conviction. Immediately before this exposition of God's control is the sequence of Romans 8:28-30, where God's foreknowledge of his people is followed by predestination to conform us to his image, then calling, justification and glorification in respective sequence. -- -- I assert that Pharaoh's heart was against God and his people. However, even a king who refused to worship God and love his people would be expected to exercise wisdom through temporary repentance. It is this temporary repentance that God prevented. His objective was not to have his people go into the desert, worship him, and return to slavery under a pagan king; his objective was to lead his people into a new life free from slavery and under willing submission to Himself as Lord and Savior. God controlled circumstances and even intervened in Pharaoh's heart and plans to accomplish this purpose and to bring himself glory. -- -- God does not choose to crush the wicked (whom he foreknows) before they are born but endures them despite his knowledge that their creation will result only in rebellion and destruction. However, he intervenes as he wishes in order to reveal Himself and to keep his plans for the righteous on course. -- -- I don't know whether the totality of what Pharaoh saw finally convicted him -- bringing him to repentance -- or whether he went the route of (most of) the Pharisees in blaspheming the Spirit in the face of unquestionable demonstration of God's power and authority in the world. His part in the Bible story ends at the Red Sea, but there is no indication in the history that I know that either Pharaoh or the Egypt of Pharaoh's time turned from their idols to God. Instead, those who turned to God apparently left with the Israelites as part of the "mixed multitude" (Ex.12:38). |
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
The common trait of all the verses you quote is that they all say that the man who chooses Christ will be saved. BUT THEY NEVER SAY WHAT KIND OF MAN CHOOSES CHRIST! This is the case with all so-called "free will" verses.
The verses supporting predestination, on the other hand, are very explicit: they all say that no man can choose God unless God enables them to; or they say that God has chosen certain people to respond to His call.
Taking this in view, it is very consistent to conclude that God foreordains whom He will save; and when these people choose God, they will have everlasting life.
But if you simply say that sinful people who despise God somehow, magically, choose God; then you are really saying that man is not thoroughly sinful, that the inclinations of his heart are not evil continually, and you still have no explanation for how a corrupt man could choose Christ and a way of life which is entirely against all the sinfulness within that sinful man. And you also have no explanation for all the verses which explicitly state that God has predestined a people to Himself.
I suggest YOU read John 6:44 in context. In the midst of telling people how to be saved, Jesus makes the EXPLICIT point that they cannot do it on their own. They have not ears to hear. Only the elect, those few who are responding to Christ, are saved; and He makes it clear, properly giving glory to God, that the ones responding have been chosen and predestined by God -- in other words, they are not choosing on their own, but God Himself is drawing them. So, clearly, God's drawing precedes their choosing. In context, the point is clear that Jesus says ONLY the ones who are drawn will be saved; for indeed they are the only ones who are enabled to come to Christ. |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Please be very careful here not to just jump into this doctrine. The study of election requires a careful and detailed study of many topics including the sovereignty of God, the fall of man, The work of salvation (man's capabilites, God's will and God's work) before one should even begin to think about election, predestination and free will. I taught a Sunday School class on this. It took a full year to complete. I would be happy to post it here a little at a time, if you would rally like to investigate, or we can work out a way for me to send you the entire set of notes from the class. |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I do believe your interpretation of Divine Predestination. I guess where I disagree is interpretation of Election. In the verse you listed (2 Thes 2:13), I interpret this as follows: Paul is writing to a group of believers and when he refers to "God has chosen (elected) you from the beginning for salvation", he's not telling them that they are special because God had pre-chosen them individually, but God had made a provision for them to be saved and they are special (the "Elect" or in today's terms "the born-again" or "believers") because they accepted God's gift and chose to follow Christ.
There are many verses in the Bible that talk about God wanting all to be saved and for us to choose to believe. When you look at the verses that talk about the elect and apply the interpretation that the elect are another way of saying believers and that predestination is refering to God's over-all plan rather than individually, then the whole bible falls together. I haven't seen any "Election" verses that can't interpreted this way. I have seen many verses and stories in the Bible that the "Election theory" doesn't hold up.
I will be spending some time exploring the "Election" interpretation in greater detail and hope you will also spend some time exploring the "Free Will" interpretation in an unbiased study. |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I said to be careful, not ignorant. The true student of the Word of God wants to see it in it's completeness and this takes careful study and a lot of time. As you stated, such a study gives the BIG picture of who God is, who we are and who does what in salvation. It is an eye-opener and should be pursued, but it should be done slowly and prayerfully.
As to your statement of free will, this is true, to some extent. We are free to choose that which we have the ability and desire to choose. Choosing Christ is not within either our ability or desire until we are born again, and that is solely a work of God.
As to your comment about being removed from the Book of Life, your interpretation of Exodus 32:33 is incorrect. God is speaking about his revelation to Moses at this point, the history from Genesis on to that day. It is not a reference to the Book of Life in Revelation. We cannot lose our salvation. I can show you dozens of verses which prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, the very study of predestination and election leads to this conclusion as well. |
| |
I agree with you 100 percent. But... |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Well, I'm sorry if I have offended you. I do not mean to assume anything. But I also do not see that there is much to be gained in discussing the predestination/freewill issue with you, since our feet our firmly planted on opposite sides. Maybe on some other issue, we will be able to discuss things more fruitfully. Many regards. |
| |
Do you believe once save, always saved. |
|
|
|
Luke 23:43
|
| |
(I would like to submit Part Two.)
. . . "Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God's unconditional election (or predestination) of certain ones to saved and certain others to be lost, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God's saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation.
. . . "Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God's salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation. (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian (5) One's salvation can be lost through willful disobedience.
. . . "Rather than the unconditional predestination of Calvinism, Arminianism teaches conditional predestination. We are predestined to eternal life if we accept God's provision of salvation.
. . . "The __________ __ ___ leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind's free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths.."
So there it is: Calvinism, Arminianism, a little of each, or neither. Take your pick. |
| |
Predestination vs free will--a thought.. |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Just a bit of logical reasoning about the issue of "predestination" vs "free will." I've seen many who question as an either-or proposition a person's fate by God's "predestination" with a person's "free will" to determine his/her own fate. I don't think these things are contradictory and I can't help but consider how this may be applied to Jesus, himself. I mean the Bible points to the fact his fate on the cross was predetermined (See Isaiah 53:5)--God knew what would happen and gave that information to the prophets, such as Isaiah, centuries in advance--and yet, Jesus still had the free will to sacrifice himself on the cross. (See John 10:18)
So, I think the same applies to us. God KNOWS who will and will not follow Him in advance--thus, in that sense our fates are predestined--but, the choice is still ours to freely make, just as it was with Jesus.
Would anyone else like to comment on this? |
| |
Predestination vs free will--a thought.. |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Just a bit of logical reasoning about the issue of "predestination" vs "free will." I've seen many who question as an either-or proposition a person's fate by God's "predestination" with a person's "free will" to determine his/her own fate. I don't think these things are contradictory and I can't help but consider how this may be applied to Jesus, himself. I mean the Bible points to the fact his fate on the cross was predetermined (See Isaiah 53:5)--God knew what would happen and gave that information to the prophets, such as Isaiah, centuries in advance--and yet, Jesus still had the free will to sacrifice himself on the cross. (See John 10:18)
So, I think the same applies to us. God KNOWS who will and will not follow Him in advance--thus, in that sense our fates are predestined--but, the choice is still ours to freely make, just as it was with Jesus.
Would anyone else like to comment on this? |
| |
Predestination vs free will--a thought.. |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I couldn't agree with you more!
|
| |
Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
You are very encouraging, have you ever read Edwards on this? The reason I ask is because he encourages one to think carefully about the implications of choice -- and his treatise on free will is one of the truly finest things ever written. It is clearly the best essay by an American ever!
According Jonathan Edwards the word election must mean choice or cause in some sense. As I understand it, there is a field of inquiry called Biblical Theology and another we know as Systematic Theology. The doctrine of election is not categorized in Biblical Theology, but instead in Systematic Theology. Therefore, we can conclude that it is gotten by looking at the real meaning of the word and harmonizing what does the Bible mean when it talks of predestination.
Often, there is a need to do some quality logic along with the observation of Biblical texts in order to even be able to understand the words and ideas there. Some Biblical texts take less thought than others. Do you notice that many people (who have come to inconsistant conclusions) have done a quality job of getting at what the Bible says, but don't do quality logic with what it means --which makes application impossible. Such as drawing conclusions that fit their view of God (which view is limited to a preconceived notion of their own or of their culture's, etc.). |
| |
Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
Paul is not at all alone as one who uses the language of Elect and predestination, foreknowledge etc., look up Peter and John and Luke also! Moses and David and Solomon come to mind as well. I would like to add that Paul was hardly reminding them of things they already knew. The cannon was not complete and the newness of the gospel was absolutely incredible. Revelation in the first fifty years hardly strikes me as 'old hat' nor does it to me today. Every detail of Christianity stands out from our modern culture and it has always done so or else it isn't really Spirit-led Christian doctrine.
Who knows about the actual position of the people of Noah's day. Keep in mind that God may take even the elect home "early" and of course this doesn't have to reflect their eternal state. But when we see such huge acts of judgement based on "every thought was only evil continually", it seems quite fair to also conclude that He withdrew his grace from these people. Your view of chance required to receive the Gospel must easily see that their chances were made quite impossible once drowned. Your only hope is in God's Grace bestowed as it must be before the foundation of the world otherwise it isn't grace. To trust this world system to get the good news to you could fail as it did the people in Noah's day!
You should read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and then get back to me on your idea of actors ad-libbing, with the "g" god of the universe watching. Luther will blow your mind, I guarantee you'll love it!
All who are accepted in the Beloved are exactly in the place of the puppet in the positive sense. We are there cabled up to our God free from having to serve sin (Eph 2:1-3) as we used to and we live and move and have our being IN our great God. He is our Puppetier and we are His creatures, and its even better than puppetiers that I've seen because God's undergirding is personal and not mechanical. He shows us what He is like and we learn how we should live. He forgives us and He is not at fault if a cable appears to be broken! Please don't be so overwhelmed with the sin and death and sadness and inhumanity of this world to think that any of those things taint the place of a Christian. These things are not the problem of a salvation experience. Not one of them will affect our cables to God as he undergirds us! Praise God!
|
| |
All names still in the book of life? |
|
|
|
Rev 17:8
|
| |
I think the logic behind the question is this:
Since (1) mankind is born in sin (Rom 3:10, 23) and (2) those that do not believe in and accept the free gift of salvation offered by the Father through the Son are destined to perish in the lake of fire, and (3) believers’ names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation (I assume this means the creation) of the world, then one could presume that (4) unbelievers are destined for the Lake of Fire from the foundation of the world (Rev 20:15).
There is no verse that I know of that *explicitly* says that, but there are also no verses that *explicitly* say that God is triune.
If one accepts the doctrine of predestination (and I don't know how you couldn't, with all of the verses that are very clear-cut on that), then you have to accept predestination to hell as well as to heaven.
How we reconcile predestination with John 3:16 is a mystery, and I don't think any of us will know how God in His infinite wisdom and grace works out the details of free-will vs. predestination (at least until we get into His Presence in our glorified state).
Love in Yeshua
|
| |
All names still in the book of life? |
|
|
|
Rev 17:8
|
| |
camainc,
While I’ve nothing against the right use of logic, I’ve found that all too often Christians do not rightly use logic when it comes to interpreting scripture. One example of this is when we take a verse that is clear, precise, distinct and directly to the point and then assume it says something not even found in the text or is blatantly contradictory to the text. Perhaps it is because a particular verse does not agree with one’s preconceived idea of what they believe. Nevertheless, if we ignore verses that leave no other conclusion than precisely what it states, then we can create our own truth and force scripture to mean whatever we want it to mean.
To your statement: “(2) those that do not believe in and accept the free gift of salvation offered by the Father through the Son are destined to perish in the lake of fire”,
I would disagree slightly but probably because of an insufficient explanation which could lead to a misunderstanding of scripture. It is true that one must believe, however, believing alone does not save anyone. The unclean spirits believe but also tremble in fear for they know their eternal fate. Many humans believe but never come to salvation. I never had any problem believing what the bible stated many years before I was saved but I was still an unbeliever. I would also disagree with salvation being a gift offered to the unbeliever and left to their own logic as to whether they want to be saved or not. The unbeliever is blinded by Satan so that he cannot see (understand) the glorious gospel. Therefore, logically speaking, the unbeliever is unable to understand the gospel and this is further supported by 2 Cor. 2:14. His logic is rendered useless and since John 1:12,13 clearly state that the unbeliever’s will has nothing to do with his salvation, we must rest on the clear passages of scripture that rule out salvation being an offer made to the unbeliever to exercise his will logically to decide if he wants to be saved.
To your statement: “(3) believers’ names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life from the foundation (I assume this means the creation) of the world, then one could presume that (4) unbelievers are destined for the Lake of Fire from the foundation of the world (Rev 20:15)”
In the light of clear and unambiguous scripture, one can come to no other conclusion and I agree with you. Rev. 20:15 is clear, distinct, direct and to the point. Adding anything or changing anything this verse says only destroys the truth of what it says.
To your statement:
There is no verse that I know of that *explicitly* says that, but there are also no verses that *explicitly* say that God is triune.
Perhaps not “explicitly” in word for word detail, however, the bible is replete with the doctrine of the trinity. One does not need a verse that literally states in word for word detail the trinity to be actual when there are hundreds of verses that very clearly lead a logically minded believer to be convinced of the trinity.
To your statement:
If one accepts the doctrine of predestination (and I don't know how you couldn't, with all of the verses that are very clear-cut on that), then you have to accept predestination to hell as well as to heaven.
I agree but many do not. Many do not believe in what is called “double-predestination”. However, I have found they have trouble understanding it because of a faulty understanding of scripture.
To your statement:
How we reconcile predestination with John 3:16 is a mystery, and I don't think any of us will know how God in His infinite wisdom and grace works out the details of free-will vs. predestination (at least until we get into His Presence in our glorified state).
Reconciling the two is not a mystery. With all due respect, NOT reconciling the two is a mystery, meaning I cannot understand why any believer would want the two to be contradictory when they are not. The basic problem with free-will theism is when it is placed at the wrong time and to the wrong person. The unbeliever has no free-will to decide if he wants to be saved according to the numerous verses mentioned above. However, many will completely ignore those verses and insist on the unbeliever being able to do what God says he cannot do. It is when the Holy Spirit circumcizes the heart, gives life, renews the will to become responsive to God’s calling that the believer’s will repents and believes. The will must be enabled to respond, repent and believe.
Sam Hughey |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Joe, there are numerous exhortations in Scripture to turn to God (Isaiah 31:6, Joel 2:13, Acts 3:19 for example) to repent (Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:3,5, Acts 2:38, 17:30), and to believe (John 6:29, Acts 16:31, 1 John 3:23). So why would God waste his time with us living our lives if man's will wasn't free in this regard? Scripture indicates that 'election' is based on God's foreknowledge of who would respond positively to such exhortations (Romans 8:28-30, 1 Peter 1:1).I am not interpreting Scripture in every way possible just to back up my point. I could accuse you of the same thing. And Romans 3:10-18, John 6 and Romans 9 do not refute the idea of man's free will. Please show me in these verses where it 'soundly' says so.I really don't understand what you mean by "propitiation in theory", but in Scripture, Christ died for and has appeared to all men, not merely the elect (Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:6, 4:10, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 2:2).As for Norman Giesler, I don't even know the guy! And it is not for us to determine who Christ died for, since it is clear that Christ died for all, the righteous and the unrighteous, so that we would have the opportunity to choose Him. Try to look at Scripture and see where it says that God cares for and loves all men (John 3:16) and sent His Son to die for all, being the perfect Sacrifice, once for all. If I have knowledge but not love, have I gained anything? God does not create people to hate them. This simple fact will refute your theories of predestination and show how flawed and incomplete they really are. |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
I think that predestination (God's choosing or election) is being confused here with God's regeneration of human beings. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that we were chosen by him before the foundation of the world. However, I was not born "saved." No Christian believes that. What God's election means is that at some point in my life the Holy Spirit would regenerate me, actually cause me to be spiritually reborn so that I will put my trust in Christ. For me that happened around the age of eleven. Before that I was spiritually dead just as you were before you placed your trust in Christ. What unconditional election holds is that God chose you and I and all the rest of the elect to be reborn before time began. The actual spiritual rebirth takes place in time during our respective lifetimes, however.
That is why there are people getting saved every day. God the Holy Spirit works through a variety of means, especially those who are already "new creations" to provide the message of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit transforms the heart of the unbeliever so that she will put her trust in Christ in response to the message. The fact that people are not actually saved until the moment at which they put their trust in Christ's substitutionary death is not a point of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists. We can stand together on that, and that does indeed make us brothers in Christ even if we disagree on the extent of God's role in the whole process.
The people in foreign lands (I suppose you mean the people who never hear of Christ) die in their sins, since there is no gospel presented to them. This fits in more with a predestination view than a view that God intends on saving everyone. A God who intends on saving the savage in the jungle is not very powerful if He cannot get the message to them. If he must rely on human beings, that means that he NEEDS us, which is contrary to his sovereignty and omnipotence.
Those in foreign lands who hear the message and accept Christ are part of the elect. No problem here.
Contrary to your attack on the motives of Calvinists, the doctrine of predestination is no excuse to not evangelize. The largest revival in American history, the First Great Awakening, was spearheaded by Jonathan Edwards, who was a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool, Presbyterian 5-point Calvinist. He certainly didn't argue for sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may. Calvinists hold that God ordained believers as His means of spreading the message of Christ, to glorify God, to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. God is sovereign, however, and no one's salvation hinges on my decision (or lack thereof) to preach the Gospel to every creature. God will provide the gospel to those who were chosen, and the Holy Spirit will regenerate them (in other words, no one comes to Christ "on their own" according to Calvinism). If it is through my evangelism, I am blessed to be part of God's plan, and I am living for the purpose for which I was re-created (Ephesians 2:10), and I am being obedient to the God who called me (1 Peter 2:9,10).
An important point: Calvinists do not hold that the elect have been revealed to humanity. It is stepping way out of line to try and play God and decide for ourselves who God has chosen. This is a complete misrepresentation of unconditional election that some may use to shirk their responsibilities, but I stand with you in saying that it is completely unbiblical.
I do not think I am better than anyone else. In fact, I hold that people who think they have any role in their own rebirth are giving themselves reason to boast. Here is what I mean: if the gospel is preached to two individuals at the same time, and one accepts Christ and the other one never does, does that mean that the saved one was wiser or smarter or better (or whatever you would say) than the other one? The Arminian would have a harder time showing how there was no room for boasting (and I have heard many a free-will type scoff at the "stupidity" of the unbeliever with quite the attitude of superiority). The Calvinist say that the Holy Spirit acted in the heart of one and not the other, causing the saved one to believe. This is not because one is better, because as Romans 3 says, we were all equally Christ-haters before God saves us. It is God's sovereign choice not based on our brains or charm or race or gender or eloquence or goodness or kindness or apparent usefulness or our connections. That is why it is termed "unconditional election." God did not save us due to any inherent condition we had that makes us superior to those who are not of the elect.
The only atheists we as human beings know are predestined to Hell are the dead ones. People who declare enemies of Christ to be permanently beyond the reach of God's regeneration should take a hard look in Acts 9 at a Pharisee named Saul...
Thanks for your comments!
--Joe! |
| |
Predestination vs free will--a thought.. |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"predestination" vs "free will" ?
bcbloyd: In no way do I mean to suggest that your wording of the question is "wrong". In fact, I believe it is highly inappropriate for one poster to tell another: "You are wrong!" Such a comment would be the height of rudeness, ignorance and disrespect.
With all due respect, an alternate wording of the question "predestination" vs "free will" might be "divine sovereignty vs human responsibility." Again no criticism of you is intended. While I see no possiblity of a middle ground between the mutually exclusive positions of Calvinism and Arminianism, I do think we can and must acknowledge a balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. For anyone to suggest that man's responsibility and so-called "freewill" somehow outweigh the sovereignty of Almighty God, would be to take a foolish and indefensible position.
For what it's worth, I have re-read the basic points of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Frankly, there are points in both extremes that I find unbiblical and unacceptable. I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist. (I used to wonder why everyone is so down on Calvinism. Having read the postings of the last week, now I think I know why.) What I do believe is the Bible doctrine of Election, which is defined in the Bible itself, and does not need to be defined or defended by thousands of pages of the dogma of any denomination.
I would like to address here your remark: "God KNOWS who will and will not follow Him in advance--thus, in that sense our fates are predestined--but, the choice is still ours to freely make, just as it was with Jesus." May I point out the following?
"Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
"But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
(...)
"In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice."
(The above is but one part of a more comprehensive article by John MacArthur. See: www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/election.htm) |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Calvinists viewpoints on hell..1) True2) True3) True4) This is an age old Calvinistic opinion "not due to our choice" goes into predestination with the contention that we are not saved by choice (eliminating free will). This means that a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent. This has no Scriptural support, so it must be a misinterpretation.5) False - God IS obligated because He obligated Himself. Question: Who has the authority to obligate God? God!! Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word. Read Acts 10:34-43. His Word states that He is not a respecter of persons. It is funny that Peter said this while he was working with the first Gentile conversions. (Gentiles were the first 'non-elect'.)6) Why are you using the word "Kindness" instead of salvation? Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind? Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing.7) If this is the case, then you have to maintain that grace is universally available. Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation. Read Romans 5:17-18 and 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, Acts 2:38. God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual. (1 Peter 3:9).I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs. Don't worry, I'm not in a hurry. You can go consult with your Calvinistic friends and get with them first before answering these flaws in Calvinism. But I do ask that you would not IGNORE them, since that would prove that Calvinism is not able to answer such flaws.Thank you for your thoughts!-Nolan! |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Part 1 to Nolan,
If I may be allowed to step into this discussion I would like to ask you a few questions in regards to your statements concerning your view of an age old Calvinistic opinion.
Your statement, “…a person who is not 'elected' to salvation has no hope to repent and conversely the person who's election is predestined has no need to repent” is fraught with error and a lack of understanding of both the Bible and Calvinism. The doctrine of election is not a Calvinistic opinion, it is God’s holy word. Ephesians 1:3-6; "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 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: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Election and Predestination are not inventions of men and they are not left to the notions or opinions of man’s will to determine or alter what God has stated to be true. If one rejects and denies these to Biblical doctrines then that person rejects and denies the truth of God’s holy word.
To say that God is obligated to save anyone is false and greatly dishonors God and exalts one’s opinion above the holy word of God. If you are attempting to force your opinion of God being obligated to save anyone by Acts 10:34-43 then you have both failed to do so and have accomplished the reverse. These verse do not say anything at all about God’s obligation to man, it only states that all who believe receive the forgiveness of sins. To say that God is obligated in any way whatsoever to do anything at all for man, is to deny the sovereignty of God and to exalt the will of man above the throne of God. Perhaps you can produce a verse that actually states God has obligated Himself to save anyone and without forcing an opinion onto the text?
To your statement; “Due to God's pure nature He cannot go back on His Word” I agree and so does Isa. 55:11; “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB). “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereunto I sent it” (KJV). If God’s will, which is His Word, goes forth from His mouth to save all humans without exception, then God cannot go back on His Word and all humans must be saved since God’s Word will successfully accomplish the purpose for which God sent it, which is salvation. Notice Nolan that it is God who said He saves on the basis of pleasing Himself and not because He is obligated to sinful man. Do you agree or disagree that Isa. 55:11 is true and that God’s Word will always be successful in the matter in which God sent it?
You are correct in that God is not a respector of persons, however, how you are attempting to use this term has nothing to do with what you call “free-will”, in fact, it states quite the opposite. Nolan, the very words you are using refute your own claim that God is obligated. If God is obligated, then He is a respector of persons for he owes something to us. However, John 1:13 clearly states in regard to salvation that man’s will has absolutely nothing to do with whom God saves.
To your statement, “Is God just being "nice" by offering salvation or is that his plan for mankind?. First of all, God does not offer salvation as a choice to be made by the unbeliever who is still dead in his sins and I challenge you to produce any verses of holy scripture that actually make that claim. In addition, God states in Eph. 1:5; “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (KJV) and He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will (NASB). Again, God predestined us to salvation according to the pleasure (kindness) of His own will and not ours.
Sam Hughey
Part 2 to follow: |
| |
Election, Summary. |
|
|
|
1 Pet 1:2
|
| |
Sam Hughey,
I appreciate your input on what election means to each and every one of us. The statement that you cited about God's foreknowledge did not come from myself, but it came straight out of the Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible (NASB95). So if you disagree with the commentary of Ryrie on this verse, then that is certainly something that we could talk about..
I agree with you that 1 Peter 1:2 does not refer to our election, but only on the foreknowledge of God the Father. I still like this verse, though, being the dynamic verse that it is! I find myself in agreement with you right up to where you talk about predestination, which is something that I view in a sense of God's sovereignty. I agree with you that man's choosing is not the cause and basis for election to salvation, since Eph. 1:5 and 1 Peter 1:3 along with several other verses clearly state that election and the basis of foreknowing rests with God alone. Any view that places 'man's choosing' above the sovereignty of God is easily debunked through Scripture. I agree that we are called to salvation by God, and it is through this call that the unbeliever makes the willful action to follow Christ and begin the road to salvation. However, the unbeliever still must make this 'action' or choice, and not reject it even though he/she may be called. When I came to salvation, I did have a 'calling' to know the Lord and to change my ways so that I would be made right with Him. But I still had to make that choice to conform to His will and to heed my salvation. But my choice to recognize my salvation in no way usurped the foreknowledge of God and His knowledge of where my soul is going to end up. I do believe in election and the Scriptural support for it. Sam, I am in agreement with you about how you explain election and I appreciate you 'pointing' out that 1 Peter 1:2 is referring to the foreknowledge of Jesus and not to our election. I do believe in election..
If I had to 'sum' up my belief on election in a nutshell, here's what I would say, "God elected people to salvation who He foreknew would of their own free will believe in Christ and persevere in the faith." So God is in charge here, knowing that the people (or elect) whom He would call would receive salvation, which is something that pleases Him. I believe that God elected before the foundation of the world, He knowing who would accept Him. And election is based on this premise: the foreknowledge of God, being spelled out so clearly in Scripture. And you are absolutely right, man's choice has nothing to do with or cannot take the place of the foreknowledge of God. Excellent post, Sam!
Nolan Keck |
| |
Is there middle ground? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
I came across this quote and I had to append it to the forum after all the discussion on Election – Free Will and Calvinism - Arminianism
“… in Romans 9, which deals with one of the thorniest theological problems in the Bible: predestination. It comes on very strongly on the side of divine election, which may lead you to conclude that Paul was a Calvinist and not an Armenian. I, however, believe he was both. You see, I believe that in most of the great theological controversies that have separated the Church, there has been light on both sides. Each side quotes the Scriptures that support them and ignores the Scriptures that are against them. I personally believe that it is logically possible to find an interpretation that affirms both truths. I believe it is the inevitable choice you have to make if you believe the whole Bible.” Quote by Derek Prince in the Summer 2001 issue of Christians for Israel Today.
Could we all search for that middle ground Derek Prince talks about? I like his last sentence it is something you have to do if you believe the whole Bible.
|
| |
Is there middle ground? |
|
|
|
Romans
|
| |
Lionstrong your assuming one side is wrong and one is right. Could it be they are equally wrong and the correct understanding is something else?
I think I know just about every verse the Calvinist use and I also know just about every verse Arminians use. If you compare them one for one you come out with a tie unless you are predisposed to read into either something that is not there.
Then if you take the verses used to prove predestination and those that show free will or choice, you again come out for all intents and purposes tied. I submit to that proves something is wrong.
As you said both can't be right, and we know the Bible does not contradict itself therefore we must be doing something wrong. What could that be? Are we tainting our reading by with prejudiced and presumed ideas?
Before you answer think about it. Men of equal intelligence, equal sincerity, equal hunger for the truth have debated this topic for over 500 years. Yet they reach no satisfactory answer.
Why? I contend they have been trying to prove their point rather than find the real answer.
I can listen to the arguments of the Calvinist and see their point, however if I remove their bias, their slant to scripture then I can also read the scripture to mean something entirely different. I can then listen to the arguments of the Arminians and see their point. And again if I remove their bias and slant I can see an entirely different reading to scripture.
Is Mr. Prince so far off? No, I think not. He is not asking for or suggesting a compromise. He is saying there has to be true doctrine that answers each sides questions, which neither Calvinism nor Arminianism presently does. Therefore there has to be another answer.
Lionstrong I thought Derek Prince spoke with wisdom you don’t. Your sure what he said was an attempt to weaken or compromise doctrine. I see him saying there has to be an answer that responds or addresses each side of this debate with a non changing, read nothing into it answer. You see him saying let’s agree to disagree and reach a compromise. I think the fact that we both see Derek Prince saying something different says one of us read what he said with a preconceived notion. Maybe that is how we are reading the scriptures also.
|
| |
What are Calvins and Arminians? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
From the Holman Bible Dictionary..
"Election and the Christian Life Paul admonished the Thessalonians to give thanks because of their election (2 Thess. 2:13), while Peter said that we should make our “calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). However, in the history of Christian thought few teachings have been more distorted or more misused. The following questions reveal common misperceptions. (1) Is not election the same thing as fatalism? Predestination does not negate the necessity for human repentance and faith; rather it establishes the possibility of both. God does not relate to human beings as sticks and stones but as free creatures made in His own image. (2) If salvation is based on election, then why preach the gospel? Because God has chosen preaching as the means to awaken faith in the elect (1 Cor. 1:21). We should proclaim the gospel to everyone without exception, knowing that it is only the Holy Spirit who can convict, regenerate, and justify. (3) Does the Bible teach “double predestination,” that God has selected some for damnation as well as some for salvation? There are passages (Rom. 9:11-22; 2 Cor. 2:15-16) which portray God as a potter who has molded both vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction. Yet the Bible also teaches that God does not wish any one to perish but for all to be saved (John 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:9). We are not able to understand how everything the Bible says about election fits into a neat logical system. Our business is not to pry into the secret counsel of God but to share the message of salvation with everyone and to be grateful that we have been delivered from darkness into light. (4) Does not belief in election result in moral laxity and pride? Paul says that God chose us “to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit” (2 Thess. 2:13). We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, even though to be sure, it is God who is at work within us both to will and do His good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13). The proper response to election is not pride but gratitude for God’s amazing grace which saves eternally. Election, then, is neither a steeple from which we look in judgment on others, nor a pillow to sleep on. It is rather a stronghold in time of trial and a confession of praise to God’s grace and to His glory."
|
| |
What are Calvins and Arminians? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"ARMINIUS, JACOBUS (1559–1609) Dutch theologian; founder of an anti-Calvinist Reformed theology
Arminius was born in the Netherlands during the Spanish occupation, at Oudewater near Utrecht. His father, an armorer or smith, died around the time of the boy’s birth, so Arminius was educated under the direction and at the expense of family friends who recognized his abilities as a student. He had just entered Marburg University (Germany) when news came of the infamous Oudewater massacre by the Spanish. Arminius returned home to learn that his mother and several of his brothers and sisters had been among the victims.
When the new University of Leiden opened nearby in 1576, Arminius was the twelfth student enrolled. That seems to have been the first public recording of his Latinized name (Jacobus Arminius; he had been born Jacob Harmenszoon). At Leiden he adopted the controversial theology of the French scholar Peter Ramus (1515–1572), and later went on to study at the Geneva Academy (1582), which was then headed by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor. Because Arminius’s defense of Ramus angered the Genevan authorities, he left briefly for Basel (1583). There he was offered a doctorate but declined, convinced he would not bring honor to the title.
After returning to Geneva, Arminius must have been more prudent, for in 1585 Beza wrote to the Amsterdam city rulers (who were sponsoring the young man’s education), commending his ability and diligence highly and encouraging a continuance of their “kindness and liberality.” Perhaps significantly, Beza made no mention of Arminius’s theology. After a short visit to Italy, Arminius returned home, was ordained, and in 1588 became one of the ministers of Amsterdam. His 1590 marriage to a merchant’s daughter gave him influential links.
From the outset Arminius’s sermons on Romans 7 drew the fire of “high” Calvinists who disliked his views on grace and predestination. (Grace is the unmerited favor God shows toward sinners. Predestination is the biblical doctrine that God determines beforehand who will be saved.) High Calvinists held that although God’s saving grace is completely unmerited, he extends it only to those whom he predestines to salvation. Arminius disagreed. In 1592 a colleague formally accused him of Pelagianism (an emphasis on free will, among other things, that took form in the fifth century), overdependence on the early church fathers, deviation from the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (two early Calvinist standards), and erroneous views on predestination. When challenged, however, his critics proved reluctant to substantiate the charges—and the city authorities were on his side. The question of predestination was not systematically raised until Arminius became professor of theology at Leiden (1603–1609), where he spent the last six years of his life in controversy.
In his 1606 rectorial address “On Reconciling Religious Dissensions among Christians,” Arminius argued that such dissension damages people intellectually and emotionally and creates doubt about religion that leads to despair, atheism, and Epicureanism (hedonistic withdrawal from responsibility). He proposed as remedy the calling of a national synod, “an orderly and free convention of the parties that differ from each other.” Further, Arminius believed that the natural arbiter between feuding churchmen was the “godly magistrate,” a view called Erastianism. The dispute with Arminius, led by Franciscus Gomarus at Leiden, centered around the Calvinist interpretation of the divine decree about election and reprobation. When a synod finally met at Dort (1618) to resolve the dispute, Arminius had been dead nine years.
In his attempt to give the human will a more active role in salvation than orthodox Calvinism conceded, Arminius came to teach a conditional election in which a person’s free will might or might not affect the divine offer of salvation. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between Arminius’s teaching and what later became known as Arminianism, which was more liberal in its view of free will and of related doctrines than was its founder. Arminius’s views were never systematically worked out until the year after his death, when his followers issued a declaration called the Remonstrance (1610), which dissented in several points from orthodox Calvinism. It held, among other things, that God’s predestination was conditioned by human choice, that the gospel could be freely accepted or rejected, and that a person who had become a Christian could “fall from grace” or lose salvation.
A mild-tempered man, Arminius nonetheless spoke his mind in controversy and characteristically defended his position from Scripture. His friend Peter Bertius paid tribute to the oft-misunderstood scholar when he declared at his funeral that those who truly knew Arminius could not sufficiently esteem him."
Taken from Who's Who in Christian History
|
| |
Created for heaven or hell? |
|
|
|
2 Pet 3:9
|
| |
Hello JVH0212,
Thank you for your response!
_______________________________________________
This is surely the most popular passage cited (almost never with any reference to the context) to “prove” that God could not possibly desire to save a specific people but instead desires to save every single individual person, thereby denying election and predestination. The text seems inarguably clear, but it is always good to see a text in its own context:
Please read 2 Peter 3:3-13:
Immediately one should see that unlike passages such as Ephesians 1, Romans 8-9, or John 6, this passage is not talking about salvation as its topic. The reference to “coming to repentance” in 3:9 is made in passing. The topic is the coming of Christ. But the next thing that stands out to me is the clear identification of the audience to which Peter is speaking. When speaking of the mockers he refers to them in the third person as “them”. But everywhere else he speaks to his audience as the “beloved” and “you”, and that this audience should behave “in holy conduct and godliness”, and that they look for the day of the Lord. Peter includes himself in verse 13, where we “look for new heavens and a new earth”. This is vitally important, for the assumption made by the person looking to insert freewill here, is that when verse 9 says the Lord is “longsuffering to us-ward” that this us-ward refers to everyone. How they conclude this, I don’t know. Likewise, then, when it says “not willing that any should perish” but that “all should come to repentance”, it is assumed that the “any” and “all” refers to anyone at all of the human race. Yet, the context indicates that the audience is quite specific. In any other passage of Scripture the interpreter would realize we must decide who the “us-ward” refers to and use this to limit the “any” and “all” of verse 9. For some reason, this simple and fundamental necessity is overlooked when this passage is cited. 2 Peter 1:1-3 tells us the specific identity of the audience to which Peter is writing:
2 Peter 1:1-3:
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Peter writes to a specific group, not to all of mankind. “To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” This not only refers to faith as a gift, but it surely limits the context to the saved, ‘cause they received this faith “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” There is nothing in chapter 3 that indicates a change in audience, and much to tell us the audience remains exactly the same. Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the person wanting to insert freewill here, is badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really saying. The longsuffering of the Lord is displayed toward His elect people (the “you” of verse 9). Therefore, the “not willing that any should perish” must be limited to the same group already in view (the elect). In the same way, the “all should come to repentance” must be the very same group. So, in essence Peter is saying the coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of God can be gathered in. There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance. Instead it is clearly His plan and His will that all the elect come to repentance, and they most assuredly will do so!
_______________________________________________
Thanks again, talk to you soon,
proorizo
|
| |
predestination - free will or God |
|
|
|
John
|
| |
We are studying Ephesians 1:5,11 predestination. The pastor said, "the Holy Spirit quickens a man so he can hear the call but man has the free-will to say YES or NO to the offer of salvation."
in John 6:37,39 Jesus says ALL the Father gave Him will be saved, that He will not lose any of them. in Eph.2:8-9, Paul says "...faith, a gift of God, not of works..."
it seemed to me that God chooses which of us He wants and He gets us. He is sovereign. when i asked (one on one, outside of class) the pastor to explain, he refused, said he didn't want to talk about it now. i then gave him a list of verses which i thought supported God's supremacy and asked for verses from him which supported man's free will. nothing in response after 2 weeks.
if any of you believe man has a free will to say NO to God regarding salvation, please give me some verses.
|
| |
predestination - free will or God |
|
|
|
John
|
| |
jim in san jose: I welcome you to the Forum. What follows is no criticism of you, sir. I am merely pointing out the dissension and unending debate the question of election or predestination has already caused in the past. I hope you elect to stay with us here on the Forum.
On this Forum in the recent past, Calvinism vs. Arminianism (predestination/election vs. freewill) has been the subject of a long, bitter debate that left people with hard feelings. I think it very unwise, counterproductive and risky to start up again on what is now a very tired and tiresome debate. There is no need for everybody to go back over all the arguments for each side.
Jim, I do not mean to imply that you yourself are quarrelsome or that your intent is to get a debate going here. I am not trying to tell you what to do, nor would I. It isn't you, Jim, it's the subject, which, although a reasonable one for research, is one that is better avoided around here. No one is trying to restrict anyone from asking questions. In fact, whenever someone posts any question regarding a past topic, it is recommended they look it up using the Search function. We are not only trying to avoid highly controversial issues, but we are hoping to save everyone's time and move on to new subjects.
We have really had enough of the predestination debate. So for the sake of maintaining peace and avoiding hard feelings, it would be better if everyone just dropped the subject. (Of course, I am merely another member of the Forum just as everyone else is. This is only a suggestion.) Well over 100 questions and answers have been posted regarding Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Use the Search function on the homepage to find many previous questions, answers and notes on the subject of predestination (election). Also note that you will want to look up the word "election" since it is the word most used here to mean predestination.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. And, again, welcome to the Forum.
--JVH0212
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
|
| |
Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect |
|
|
|
1 Tim 3:1
|
| |
bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less..... I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy. While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign. On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject. --Hank |
| |
Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect |
|
|
|
1 Tim 3:1
|
| |
HANK
bjanko, you make some good observations, and it seems unconscionable for any Christian to entertain the palest of notions that God is anything but sovereign. We do, however, tread in water over our heads when we presume to read the mind of God with our limited minds, and no better example can be put forth than our pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes, and this would surely encompass the terms election and predestination, about which I know little and understand even less.....
BJANKO
If you will re-read my posts, I would be very interested if you can actually find any "pretense to understand fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..."
I would also take issue that the long-held orthodox teachings on election and predestination, are pretenses "at understanding fully and precisely all God's plans and purposes..." These are long-held doctrines, not because they venture into the "secret counsels" of God, but because they are revealed in Scripture.
If you fear that they might lead to human pride, trying to uncover every facet of the secret counsels of God, then I would venture to correct you: the doctrines of predestination and election are not what are in question, but your understanding of those doctrines are, as you honestly claim when you said, "about which I know little and understand even less..... "
HANK
I'm not sure your contextual definition of "semi-Pelagianism" squares with the views of Pelagius. He held that man is born with no bias to evil and is capable of freedom from sin and of salvation by works. He taught that man sins because of his environment alone and not at all because of his nature. All of which is, of course, unvarnished heresy."
BJANKO
True. That is why I did not say your beliefs were "Pelagian," but rather "semi-Pelagian," which is a technical term, fairly similar with the term "Arminianism." Neither "semi-Pelagianism" nor "Arminianism" is rank heresy; but they are both unbiblical. Whlie they may try to claim that God has some sovreignty in salvation, they always, ALWAYS place man's responsibility and will ABOVE God's sovreignty -- a view which is patently unscriptural.
HANK
While you and I may have slight variations of viewpoints on the subject of election, neither of which approaches heresy, I think that we are certainly in unison on the belief that God is sovereign.
BJANKO
I have to admit, I'm not completely sure of your views; but if you are an Arminian, then I would suggest that our differences on election are more than slight and that, while neither of us would be a heretic, our views on God's sovreignty are equally NOT in unison.
HANK
On this note I submit that it is in the best interests, not only of ourselves but of the forum as a whole, to drop the issue and thus not attempt to resurrect a debate over it that raged on and ravaged the forum for many days in the recent past. Thank you for sharing your beliefs, and it is hoped that I will be privileged to engage in further discourse with you, but on a somewhat less controversial subject.
BJANKO
Nice conversing with you.
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
