Whosoever Will

[DHK]

I normally don't respond to you but couldn't resist this one. You are showing your ignorance of Scripture. The passage cited says nothing about thinking for your self. It says that you are to study [and hopefully learn] what GOD is telling us.

As for thinking for yourself be careful. Scripture, which you should study, tells us:

Proverbs 14:12. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

This is so important that GOD repeats the admonition.

Proverbs 16:25. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

So thinking for yourself can be dangerous.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Scriptures say that the Thessalonicans searched the Scriptures daily; not the Institutes of Calvin or the Doctrines of Grace. They searched. They thought. They studied. Thy used their minds.
They weren't "copy and paste" people.

 

[OldRegular]

rrutt rroww.......:laugh:


We have a contender!


Cal's and DOGer's will not admit that God chooses people to go to hell. Instead they will say that God "passes them over" and they go to hell based on their own wickedness.

Are you denying that people go to hell based on their own wickedness?

 

[Amy.G]

Are you denying that people go to hell based on their own wickedness?

I am denying that God passes over people and doesn't offer salvation through Christ.

People go to hell because they have rejected God's offer of salvation through Christ.

If God "passes over" some, then they never had the opportunity to reject that which was never offered.

 

[The Archangel]

Olegig, (and AmyG, later on down)

As you have guessed, I am not OldRegular. I don't even play him on TV. Since I have some time, please allow me to comment.

This is perhaps why I stopped reading when I came to this statement:
1. God the Father foreknew and chose a people to be His own before the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:4].

Ephesians 1:4 (King James Version)
4According 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:

It appears to me the verse is saying that before the foundation of the world, God chose what He would do with those who are in Christ.
And it goes on to say that God chose that He would find those in Christ to be holy and without blame before Him in love.

This cannot be grammatically. He chose us to be holy and blameless... The being verb in Greek, here, is the infinitive form. So, God did not chose what He would do. He chose people--"He chose us." For what purpose? To be holy and blameless.

Your C/P seems to be saying something to the effect that before the foundation of the world God chose who would be placed in Christ.
IMHO this goes completely against the nature of God in that it would also require God to be choosing who would go to Hell simply by default.

OldRegular, are you telling me that my God chose who would go to Hell?

I'm not OldRegular. But, yes, that's exactly what I'd tell you--God does choose who would go to hell. Sovereignty means nothing less.

Now, if I may be so bold, your statement "this goes completely against the nature of God" shows a misunderstanding of the God of the Bible. That sounds much more harsh than I intend it to. But, I'd encourage you to read J.I. Packer's Knowing God or John Frame's The Doctrine of God and investigate the texts they point out.

AmyG said this:

rrutt rroww.......:laugh:

We have a contender!

Cal's and DOGer's will not admit that God chooses people to go to hell. Instead they will say that God "passes them over" and they go to hell based on their own wickedness.

Well, people do go to hell based on their own wickedness. But even the saved Christian still deserves hell.

All of us are "by sin destroyed and dead." God choosing to save some and passing over some shows a sovereign prerogative. Does He actively choose whom He will save? Yes. Does He passively choose whom He will not save (because all are damned already)? Yes. Either way, it is God's sovereign choice.

Blessings to you both,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I am denying that God passes over people and doesn't offer salvation through Christ.

People go to hell because they have rejected God's offer of salvation through Christ.

If God "passes over" some, then they never had the opportunity to reject that which was never offered.

But, you assume God owes them the opportunity. He doesn't.

Also, on a theological note, people don't go to hell primarily because they've rejected Christ. People go to hell because they are sinners and are subject to God's divine wrath.

If, believing as you do, someone dies without even hearing Jesus' name or having an opportunity to believe, what does God do? What about the Native American Indian in, say, AD 800. Did he have the opportunity? No. What does God do with him? How do you deal with that?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

But, you assume God owes them the opportunity. He doesn't.

I'm not Amy, (at least I hope not )
However, she did not say that God 'owed' anyone anything.

Also, on a theological note, people don't go to hell primarily because they've rejected Christ. People go to hell because they are sinners and are subject to God's divine wrath.

Yes, scripture states they go to hell 'for sin', do so due to the fact they rejected His spiritually revealed truth, all of which reveals and points to Jesus. This is not to say that all people get the gospel or know Jesus without the gospel message, but to simply state that to reject any spiritual truth which God reveals is to reject the one of who they speak/reflect. Thus, in essense, to reject any revealed spiritual truth from God is to reject Christ.

If, believing as you do, someone dies without even hearing Jesus' name or having an opportunity to believe, what does God do? What about the Native American Indian in, say, AD 800. Did he have the opportunity? No. What does God do with him? How do you deal with that?

Yes, he did have an opportunity to believe regarding those revealed truths of God (Rom 1-2) and if they did not believe then they are held accountable for their reject of the truth which God Himself revealed to them. But if they did believe, then God would send forth the rest of His truth, some way or another to them to tell them the rest of the story. (such as Paul and his shipwreck, or Philip and the Etheopian). And please don't take this to mean God is waithing in heaven, biting his nails, wondering who will believe but in His infinate wisdom knowing all things which are to be, he know exactly what is and needs to happens and has already set up all things that are needful.

 

[The Archangel]

I'm not Amy, (at least I hope not )
However, she did not say that God 'owed' anyone anything.


Yes, scripture states they go to hell 'for sin', do so due to the fact they rejected His spiritually revealed truth, all of which reveals and points to Jesus. This is not to say that all people get the gospel or know Jesus without the gospel message, but to simply state that to reject any spiritual truth which God reveals is to reject the one of who they speak/reflect. Thus, in essense, to reject any revealed spiritual truth from God is to reject Christ.


Yes, he did have an opportunity to believe regarding those revealed truths of God (Rom 1-2) and if they did not believe then they are held accountable for their reject of the truth which God Himself revealed to them. But if they did believe, then God would send forth the rest of His truth, some way or another to them to tell them the rest of the story. (such as Paul and his shipwreck, or Philip and the Ethiopian). And please don't take this to mean God is waiting in heaven, biting his nails, wondering who will believe but in His infinite wisdom knowing all things which are to be, he know exactly who and where they are and His plans include getting to them the fullness of His truth.

Allan, I love you, brother, but you could not be more wrong.

The AD 800 Native American did not--and could not--know Christ. Therefore, he simply is not and cannot be saved, since there is salvation in only one name--Christ.

Now, will he be subjected to the same horrific judgment as, say, the person living today who has heard the Gospel and the name of Christ many, many times in his life? No. But, it cannot be, scripturally, that he could be considered saved.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[RAdam]

So I guess there have been whole continents that didn't accept any truth concerning God since there were continents that didn't have the gospel preached to them at all for ages.

This idea that God tests people based on the light of nature and if they accept that He will get the gospel to them is ridiculous. The people on the island of Melita were hardly believers in God until Paul got there. The gentiles Paul preached to on Asia Minor and in Greece were idol worshippers before he got there. The people at Lystra tried to worship he and Barnabas as if they were Mercury and Jupiter, two of their Roman/Greek gods.

Romans 1 isn't saying, "if you will accept this much truth, more will be sent your way." Romans 1 is saying that there is enough light in nature for the wicked to know better than to do the things which they have been doing.

 

[Robert Snow]

Revelation 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 .

Revelation 20:15 - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27 - And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth , neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

It'll be very interesting to watch how those who deny God His sovereign right to choose His people will say that these words do not really mean He chose whom He would from before the foundation of the world.

I agree that God knows, from eternity past, who will and who will not respond to the Gospel of His Grace. The ones who will respond He has written down. His election is based on His foreknowledge.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I love you, brother, but you could not be more wrong.

The AD 800 Native American did not--and could not--know Christ. Therefore, he simply is not and cannot be saved, since there is salvation in only one name--Christ.

Now, will he be subjected to the same horrific judgment as, say, the person living today who has heard the Gospel and the name of Christ many, many times in his life? No. But, it cannot be, scripturally, that he could be considered saved.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I didn't say they knew Christ, I said they had to accept or reject God's truths revealed to them through nature and the conscience.

No one the OT knew Jesus either but they were saved by trusting in what God had revealed to them in shadows of Him who was to come. If they accept those spiritual truths revealed by God to them, do you honestly believe that God has/had not determined a way to bring them to the fulness of what/whom those truths regard?

 

[Allan]

So I guess there have been whole continents that didn't accept any truth concerning God since there were continents that didn't have the gospel preached to them at all for ages.

This idea that God tests people based on the light of nature and if they accept that He will get the gospel to them is ridiculous. The people on the island of Melita were hardly believers in God until Paul got there. The gentiles Paul preached to on Asia Minor and in Greece were idol worshippers before he got there. The people at Lystra tried to worship he and Barnabas as if they were Mercury and Jupiter, two of their Roman/Greek gods.

Romans 1 isn't saying, "if you will accept this much truth, more will be sent your way." Romans 1 is saying that there is enough light in nature for the wicked to know better than to do the things which they have been doing.

According to Romans 1 the only reason God turned them over to their sins was AFTER He revealed to them spiritual truths, and did so because they rejected those truths. The fact about Rom 1, is not that it refers to all men specifically because we know not all men are lost/unbelievers thus it is speaking 'in general' of mankind. God's turning them over to their sins is ALWAYS after He reaches out to them and personally reveals His truths to them. (the amount and or depth of truth revealed is God's to determine though we know it is at least - what sin is, righteousness, and the judgment to come. All of which are spiritual truths)

Secondly, no one said they were 'believers' except in the sense that they believed those basic truths God revealed to them, but not every gets truth revealed to them at some certain physical age. There are many other passages apart from Romans 1 but it is the most detailed I like to use.

However, If I remember correctly though, you believe that God has already eternally saved, seperate from faith, all those He has chosen and that the gospel is only to 'some' of those already eternally saved for their temporal or timely salvation. - Both aspects of which of which I completely reject.

 

[The Archangel]

I didn't say they knew Christ, I said they had to accept or reject God's truths revealed to them through nature and the conscience.

No one the OT knew Jesus either but they were saved by trusting in what God had revealed to them in shadows of Him who was to come. If they accept those spiritual truths revealed by God to them, do you honestly believe that God has/had not determined a way to bring them to the fullness of what/whom those truths regard?

Those in the OT are a different case. They had God's special revelation (the Jews and select others--Rahab, Uriah the Hittite).

You asked: If they accept those spiritual truths revealed by God to them, do you honestly believe that God has/had not determined a way to bring them to the fullness of what/whom those truths regard?

The problem with this statement is that the so-called spiritual truths revealed to the Native American in AD 800 are not Christ. Now, is it possible that God would direct someone to that person to share Christ with them? Sure.

However, the question assumes that God did not send someone to share the Gospel. Therefore, the Native American in AD 800 died without hearing about Christ and, as such, had no opportunity to respond to the Gospel.

As far as God's designed/determined way to bring people to the spiritual truth is the Gospel. If the Gospel of Christ is not preached, no salvation occurs. (see Romans 10).

General revelation (the things that are plainly visible) is sufficient to condemn, not to save.

By the way, your statement is indicative of what I consider to be a huge, gaping hole in Arminian-leaning theology. There has to be some excuse or, worse, a post-mortem opportunity for salvation, or a natural gospel. None of these options are scriptural. (Please note, my friend, that I am not saying that you are saying these things. I am using your statement and making a general statement about a theological system, not you).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Those in the OT are a different case. They had God's special revelation (the Jews and select others--Rahab, Uriah the Hittite).

We will disagree here as I believe scripture speaks to the fact that the revelation of God to all men came through the Jews, of whom God specially revealed Himself first. It was through they life, beliefs and walk that men would come to know [their] God and choose to come

You asked: If they accept those spiritual truths revealed by God to them, do you honestly believe that God has/had not determined a way to bring them to the fullness of what/whom those truths regard?

The problem with this statement is that the so-called spiritual truths revealed to the Native American in AD 800 are not Christ. Now, is it possible that God would direct someone to that person to share Christ with them? Sure.

I agree, and 'that' was my point.
It is through these 'basic' truths (sin, righteousness, and the judgment) that we understand what is, but just because we 'understand' something does not mean we believe it. I understand evolution but I don't believe in it. Their rejection of those truths that God was revealing (showing He is working on them) is the express reason for His choice to turn them over to their sins.

However, the question assumes that God did not send someone to share the Gospel. Therefore, the Native American in AD 800 died without hearing about Christ and, as such, had no opportunity to respond to the Gospel.

Yes, they had not opportunity to respond to the 'gospel' specifically. But that does not negate the fact they God was already working upon them to reveal those basic truths, and the fact the gospel was never sent over there illistrates their rejection of it already because of their rejection of His revealed truths already.

As far as God's designed/determined way to bring people to the spiritual truth is the Gospel. If the Gospel of Christ is not preached, no salvation occurs. (see Romans 10).

Agreed. I haven't contended anything different.

General revelation (the things that are plainly visible) is sufficient to condemn, not to save.

Again, Keep preach'in.

By the way, your statement is indicative of what I consider to be a huge, gaping hole in Arminian-leaning theology. There has to be some excuse or, worse, a post-mortem opportunity for salvation, or a natural gospel. None of these options are scriptural.

There is always the opportunity of salvation just not through some 'natural gospel' nor that this opportunity is always necessitated only by the gospel. The opportunity is how we respond to God's revealed truths, whether by nature, conscience, or the very gospel itself. The first two will not save you but if one believes in those things and understands their need for a savior, rejects their own views but has nothing as of yet to place their faith into - will God not send forth one to them, whom He has already prepared their hearts.

I agree also that sometimes the gospel is sent to some who could careless or that the gospel is at times sent to them who had not yet believed the truths of God but had also not yet been turned over to their sins This however is not something left up to chance but is known already in the will and knowledge of God.

(Please note, my friend, that I am not saying that you are saying these things. I am using your statement and making a general statement about a theological system, not you).

I realize this :thumbs:
However I think you are misunderstanding my point and confusing with those who believe the natural revelation is enough for salvation. No, by the reject of it they are condemned just as they are for rejection of Christ but in the acceptance of those basic truths, they are afforded more light, though not salvation for believing them. Salvation is found in only one name.

 

[olegig]

olegig

I was preparing a response to your last post when I took a break for supper. I then began to wonder if wou were just trying to pull my chain like DHK. If you are really serious then I suggest that you read my posts or get one of the books I recommended.

OldRegular, rest assured I am not pullin' your chain. I am only trying to get some feed back from your head, not that of some "scholarly author".
However if you should try to hit me over the head with your chain, then, yes, I might give it a bit of a yank. :love2:

I can read and read and read and get so confused. :BangHead:
Personally I like the way Paul revealed the mysteries to us,,,short and sweet,,, where I can understand them.
I marvel at man's volumes trying to say and explain what Paul did so well in so few words.

Therefore I ask again:
What is the difference between sovereign grace and the Grace of God?
From several proceeding posts I can tell you are well read and have many scholarly folks to which you give credit; but I would like to see your thoughts on the matter.
Just a few sentences in your own words please would be great.

 

[olegig]

It'll be very interesting to watch how those who deny God His sovereign right to choose His people will say that these words do not really mean He chose whom He would from before the foundation of the world.

pinoybaptist, I find it interesting how you have added to the scripture the word "before" just to support your point.

Revelation 17:8 (King James Version)
8The 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.

The Bible reads "from the foundation of the world" not "from before"...
The first would mean that something has been happening since the foundation of the world with the foundation as the beginning point; however you seem to be trying to make the verse say it took place "before" the foundation.

Sorry, I cannot accept your addition to scripture.

 

[olegig]

I agree that God knows, from eternity past, who will and who will not respond to the Gospel of His Grace. The ones who will respond He has written down. His election is based on His foreknowledge.

Very profound!!!

God's foreknowledge always comes first. It is His foreknowledge upon which He bases all things, not some sovereign decree.

Any two-bit dictator with enough power can make something happen by decreeing it to happen and therefore know it will happen.

I cannot limit God to only knowing something will happen just because He said He would make it happen.

Real power is found in the One who not only knows what choices will be made, and the results of those choices; but also knows what would take place if other choices are made.

 

[pinoybaptist]

pinoybaptist, I find it interesting how you have added to the scripture the word "before" just to support your point.

Revelation 17:8 (King James Version)
8The 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.

The Bible reads "from the foundation of the world" not "from before"...
The first would mean that something has been happening since the foundation of the world with the foundation as the beginning point; however you seem to be trying to make the verse say it took place "before" the foundation.

Sorry, I cannot accept your addition to scripture.

Okay, like you said, something was happening since the foundation of the world with the foundation as the beginning point. And you're right, "before" was not in the verse, my mistake. Well, here's what was happening before the foundation of the world. God was choosing the people who was to be His gift to Christ, and to whom He will give Christ as His gift.

Ephesians 1:3-4 -

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 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: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Now, humanists (although they will not admit it here on this board) will say that the choosing was for the sinner to be holy and without blame before God, in love.
How ?
On your own merit ?
Like I said, it's going to be interesting.
A few posts up you will see somebody saying, in effect, that God looked down in the corridors of time and saw who will accept Christ as Savior and based on that action (their merit) He chose them and wrote their names in the book of life.
Nothing in Scripture that says that.
Will you accept that ?
I think you will, hope I'm wrong though.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Very profound!!!

God's foreknowledge always comes first. It is His foreknowledge upon which He bases all things, not some sovereign decree.

Any two-bit dictator with enough power can make something happen by decreeing it to happen and therefore know it will happen.

I cannot limit God to only knowing something will happen just because He said He would make it happen.

Real power is found in the One who not only knows what choices will be made, and the results of those choices; but also knows what would take place if other choices are made.

oh, there you go.
now, you're showing your true soteriology color in the spectrum.
so drop the pretense about wanting to "understand" the other side.

you don't accept scripture quoted to you because one word was added which you felt wasn't there, and then you accept a whole bunch of suppositions.
Where in Scripture does it say that God looked, saw who was going to accept Christ, and based on this acceptance, made His election of them, and wrote their names down in the book of life ?
That's not just one word, that's a whole danged bunch of error !
And you find that "profound" !!
This is becoming veeerrryy interesting.

 

[kyredneck]

....now, you're showing your true soteriology color in the spectrum. so drop the pretense about wanting to "understand" the other side......

:thumbsup:.......very perceptive of you Brother...........

 

[kyredneck]

Very profound!!!

God's foreknowledge always comes first. It is His foreknowledge upon which He bases all things, not some sovereign decree.

Any two-bit dictator with enough power can make something happen by decreeing it to happen and therefore know it will happen.

I cannot limit God to only knowing something will happen just because He said He would make it happen.

Real power is found in the One who not only knows what choices will be made, and the results of those choices; but also knows what would take place if other choices are made.

Really, if you're a free willer/synergist/arminian just admit it. There's no need to carry on a charade.