Whosoever Will

[olegig]

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

I am but a simple man and quiet frankly I have no idea what those terms mean.
I would call myself a Bible Believing Christian who is a member of the local Southern Baptist Church because it more closely follows the doctrines, in which I believe, than any other church in my area.

I don't know what you mean by "charade" for I have only asked simple questions and my responses have been with scripture.
I will admit in the post from which you quoted, I did forget to mention the scriptural reference, to which I apologize.
Please find it below from Romans.

I do believe no scripture is of private interpretation:

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version)
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Which means to me that every interpretation of a given scripture should be viewed in light of its agreement with other scripture, or one should re-visit the interpretation.

Granted, some scriptures are harder to interprete than others; but in these cases one only needs to study other plainer scripture for the correct interpretation.

I would call your attention to the following:

Romans 8:29-30 (King James Version)
29For 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.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Please note in the above passage from Romans the very first thing mentioned is God's foreknowledge.
God's foreknowledge proceeded everything else.

Do we see this in scripture? Yes, I think so.
Exo 4:21 says God will harden the heart of Pharaoh; however we see previous to this in Exo 3:19 that God already knows the state of Pharaoh's mindset.

Now, if we apply this same interpreting scripture with scripture to Eph 1:4, we see that even before the foundation of the world God foreknew who would accept His free gift of salvation and way back then God predestined what He would do with us and for us.

I have asked OldRegular a few time what is the difference between sovereign grace and the Grace of God; but he must be occupied with something else.

If you, or anyone else, would care to give a simple answer I would be happy to read it.

 

[webdog]

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.

Are you saying your understanding of Scripture is immutable...and DHK relies solely on himself?!?

There is also another Proverb you forgot...Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[webdog]

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 think Paul disagreed with you when he penned Acts 17:26-27

 

[The Archangel]

I think Paul disagreed with you when he penned Acts 17:26-27

How so? If you continue down this line of reasoning, you have no choice but to deny that Christ is the only way of salvation. Show me how that is not the case.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

How so? If you continue down this line of reasoning, you have no choice but to deny that Christ is the only way of salvation. Show me how that is not the case.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Let's substitute " AD 800 Native American" into the text in question...

6From one man he made the AD 800 Native American, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for the 800 AD Native American and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that the AD 800 Native American would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

This falls in line with the truth Allan has presented from Romans 1 in rejecting the truth revealed to mankind.

 

[RAdam]

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.

First of all, God left enough light in nature for man to reasonably conclude the following: there is a creator God, He's not a creature and thus man shouldn't form an image of Him as a creature and worship Him that way, that this creator God loves law and order and thus there must be some basic moral standard set up by Him that man needs to adhere to. God doesn't reveal righteousness or final judgement through nature but rather through His Son Jesus Christ. Righteousness is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith and final judgement is assured by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Man did not reject some spiritual truth God revealed to them personally. Man looked at nature and did not see the things he should have concerning God. Man then went on to committ abominable sins for which God gave them over to further wickedness and blindness.

I agree that God personally teaches some, but these are His children and not the wicked, Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34. All those taught in this manner, come to Jesus Christ and shall be raised up at the last day, John 6:45.

Now, I do not believe man is saved apart from faith. I do not believe that man is regenerated by his act of faith. When the Holy Ghost borns one again they have the fruit of the Spirit, one part of which is faith. Faith is that by which the things of God are revealed.

 

[webdog]

First of all, God left enough light in nature for man to reasonably conclude the following: there is a creator God, He's not a creature and thus man shouldn't form an image of Him as a creature and worship Him that way, that this creator God loves law and order and thus there must be some basic moral standard set up by Him that man needs to adhere to. God doesn't reveal righteousness or final judgement through nature but rather through His Son Jesus Christ. Righteousness is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith and final judgement is assured by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Man did not reject some spiritual truth God revealed to them personally. Man looked at nature and did not see the things he should have concerning God. Man then went on to committ abominable sins for which God gave them over to further wickedness and blindness.

I agree that God personally teaches some, but these are His children and not the wicked, Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34. All those taught in this manner, come to Jesus Christ and shall be raised up at the last day, John 6:45.

Now, I do not believe man is saved apart from faith. I do not believe that man is regenerated by his act of faith. When the Holy Ghost borns one again they have the fruit of the Spirit, one part of which is faith. Faith is that by which the things of God are revealed.

Creation is but one "c" God has given man to reveal Himself, the others being our conscience, desire for life to never cease (Ecc. 3:11) and our individual circumstances (Acts 17:26-27). One aspect on it's own "may" not be enough, but collectively they are more than enough to

 

[pinoybaptist]

I<snip>
Now, if we apply this same interpreting scripture with scripture to Eph 1:4, we see that even before the foundation of the world God foreknew who would accept His free gift of salvation and way back then God predestined what He would do with us and for us.

No. The predestination was not unto salvation. It was unto conformity with the image of His Son. Read the verse again. Better still, here it is:
"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." The italicized states the purpose for the predestination.
Election is unto salvation. Chosen is unto salvation. That salvation is eternal in character. It is not offered. It is gifted. You don't offer a gift. You give a gift.
Those elected unto salvation had not one iota of contribution to that salvation, not their acceptance of it, not their knowledge of it, that salvation is all of the Lord, from inception (before the foundation of the world) to authorship and consummation.
And that salvation is over, finished, accomplised already.
During the finalization of that salvation here in time the judgment of the prince of this world was also consummated, and all who were not of the elect of God, whoever and wherever and whenever they exist, or existed, or will exist, are forever effectively sealed out from God's mercy, just as those for whom that redemption and salvation was authored are forever effectively sealed in and preserved in the blood of the Lamb of Calvary and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So, we can argue till we're blue about election or freewill, it won't change the outcome of God's atoning sacrifice.
Jesus Christ is in heaven now, seated and resting at the right hand of power, and the next thing all His people are looking forward to, is His second advent.

 

[The Archangel]

Let's substitute " AD 800 Native American" into the text in question...

6From one man he made the AD 800 Native American, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for the 800 AD Native American and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that the AD 800 Native American would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

This falls in line with the truth Allan has presented from Romans 1 in rejecting the truth revealed to mankind.

The Greek doesn't comport with that. The ESV Study Bible explains this more concisely than I would, so I'll post it here:

Feel their way toward him implies a kind of groping around in darkness, without really knowing how to find God, though they hoped that they would. The verbs translated “feel their way” and “find” are in the optative mood in Greek, suggesting possibilities considered uncertain of realization. (The ESV Study Bible, Crossway Books, "Acts 17:27 note")

The optative mood (which is quite rare in the NT and was disappearing from the "common" koine language) speaks against your interpretation.

Because Paul uses the optative mood, he expects that the action will not happen. If he wanted to suggest the possibility, he would have used the subjunctive mood, which is much more capable of showing something expected to happen.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

The Greek doesn't comport with that. The ESV Study Bible explains this more concisely than I would, so I'll post it here:



The optative mood (which is quite rare in the NT and was disappearing from the "common" koine language) speaks against your interpretation.

Because Paul uses the optative mood, he expects that the action will not happen. If he wanted to suggest the possibility, he would have used the subjunctive mood, which is much more capable of showing something expected to happen.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This is the kind of logic that makes me chuckle. God didn't really place man in the exact location, space and place in time to really seek him...He did this so they could "grope around" for Him :laugh: It's like placing a toy just out of reach from my daughter.

Of course Paul didn't expect man to reach out to God first, hence God's action described in Acts 17:26-27. The "operative mood" aligns itself with what man would never do apart from God acting first in man's life.

Me thinks you rely on the Greek just a little bit too much.

 

[The Archangel]

This is the kind of logic that makes me chuckle. God didn't really place man in the exact location, space and place in time to really seek him...He did this so they could "grope around" for Him :laugh: It's like placing a toy just out of reach from my daughter.

Of course Paul didn't expect man to reach out to God first, hence God's action described in Acts 17:26-27. The "operative mood" aligns itself with what man would never do apart from God acting first in man's life.

That would be "optative mood," not "operative." And it's not "logic," it's grammar.

A great difference is that some search the text and the grammar and build their thinking off of those inputs. Others have their thinking and see the text and grammar and read those things in light of their thinking, not in light of the text and grammar.

Me thinks you rely on the Greek just a little bit too much.

That is, perhaps, the best compliment I've ever received from you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

OldRegular,

Golly you gave me a lot of reading.... But I am looking for a simple explanation, preferably in your own words.

What is the difference between sovereign grace and the Biblical Grace of God?

Grace is the unmerited favor of GOD. There is a sense in which all mankind are recipients of the Grace of GOD. This is generally called common Grace. Scripture tells us:

Matthew 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.

Another passage of Scripture which shows the common Grace of GOD is:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is not only the creater of the universe but that it is sustained by HIM. Again demonstrating what we call the common Grace of GOD since all mankind benefits.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The NASB writes the above Scripture as:

Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

However there is also an expression of the Grace of GOD which is directly related to the Salvation of man. The term for this Grace is sometimes, perhaps generally, called prevenient Grace.

Most Baptists will insist that they believe in Salvation by Grace alone. The question then becomes : To what extent does the Grace of GOD determine the Salvation of man?

Those who hold to the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism, which I call Freewillism, believe that in the final analysis the free will of man is the determining factor in his own salvation.

Then there are those who believe that Salvation is truly by the Grace of GOD alone. Historically, at least since the Reformation, these people who believe that the Scriptures teach the Sovereignty of GOD in Salvation have been called Calvinists. That name, which Spurgeon called a nickname for the Biblical Doctrines of Grace, has in recent years been used in a perjorative sense by many Southern Baptists.though it is the Doctrine of Salvation that was prevalent at the founding of the Convention. In recent months I have began to use the name Doctrine of Sovereign Grace [the same a prevenient Grace] rather than Doctrine of Grace to make a clear distinction from those who hold the doctrine of Freewillism even though they claim to believe that Salvation is by Grace alone. I have no idea whether or not this term [Sovereign] is used by others.

From post 104 you say:

The doctrine of the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation is clearly expressed in the Covenant of Grace.

So now I also ask (in your own words please) what is the Covenant of Grace and where is it found in scripture? I have, in the past, done some study dealing with the 8 covenants; however I do not recall this one.

The Covenant of Grace [or Covenant of Redemption] is not presented explicitly in Scripture but is developed from the Scriptural teachings related to Salvation. I identified many of these Scripture in my initial post.

The definition I presented was in my own words. I would not claim that the thoughts are original with me, they are not but I have not been able to find in any literature I have the exact wording I used. Similar wording is found in the booklet Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology by Richard P. Belcher. I have noted this on another thread. In that same book you will find Spurgeons almost poetic description of the Covenant of Grace.

You would do well to note that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not specifically defined in Scripture. [I note on another thread that I believe that without the Triune Godhead, and thus the Covenant of Grace/Redemption, there would be no Salvation.]

As with many long writings there always seems to be a premise, and if the author can get the reader to accept the premise; then the author can make his point based on the premise.
I have this habit of first checking the soundness of the premise before I continue. (Usually my continuation is based on my take of the soundness of the premise.)

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.

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.

Your above paragraphs are, to put it politely, confusing. Actually Ephesians 1:3-7 is a simple Biblical statement of the Sovereignty of God in Salvation He chose certain people out of the mass of humanity to be HIS own before the foundation of the world. Those HE chose, GOD all by HIMSELF, made accepted in the beloved [Jesus Christ].

This truth of the Sovereignty of GOD in Salvation is expressed also in Romans 8:28-30.

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

1. The called [Verse 8:28] are the elect.
2. As to those HE foreknew note that it does not say “those HE knew would believe” but that HE knew them and predestinated them to be conformed to the image of HIS SON.[Note Ephesians 1:5.]
3. Those HE forknew before the foundation of the world HE also glorified.

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

I can’t speak for your god. I can only “copy and paste” what Scripture, the Revelation of the only GOD, states unequivocably. HE [Jesus Christ] is the author [look it up] and finisher [look it up] of our faith. [Hebrews 12:2]

 

[webdog]

That would be "optative mood," not "operative." And it's not "logic," it's grammar.

Typo on my part (spell check doesn't recognize optative, I guess)...and yes, the logic was used to understand the grammar. To think God in His omnipotence place man in a specific place, environment and location in time to just "grope around" for Him is comical. In context to Paul's address to the pagans, that understanding of the Greek meaning is quite flawed. The OPTATIVE mood clearly speaks of God acting first, but not in how you understand it.

A great difference is that some search the text and the grammar and build their thinking off of those inputs. Others have their thinking and see the text and grammar and read those things in light of their thinking, not in light of the text and grammar.

...and another difference is there are those who are just as knowledgeable in the Greek who disagree with your understanding of the Greek as well. I would love to see a debate between John of Japan and yourself.

Since 99.5% of the world can't read Greek, I guess only the .5% of humanity will ever get it, I guess I'll rely on the many scholars who have translated it into English for me, and refer back to the Greek when there is a tension between translations, or in understanding a tough text.

 

[paul wassona]

People resond of their own freewill, people react accordingly, people comply with dictates. God is not a dictator, nor is God an event.:type:

 

[olegig]

No. The predestination was not unto salvation. It was unto conformity with the image of His Son. Read the verse again.....................
..........Jesus Christ is in heaven now, seated and resting at the right hand of power, and the next thing all His people are looking forward to, is His second advent.

Since you feel free to put words in my mouth, I suppose I can feel free to spit 'em out.

I did not say predestination was unto salvation. I said:
"God predestined what He would do with us and for us"

I will say for the most part I agree with you that God did predestinate before the foundation of the world that those in Christ would be conformed into the image of the Son.

Concerning your last statement; I am not waiting for the second Advent, but the catching out of the Body of Christ, to which I know I am a member.

 

[Robert Snow]

This is the kind of logic that makes me chuckle. God didn't really place man in the exact location, space and place in time to really seek him...He did this so they could "grope around" for Him :laugh: It's like placing a toy just out of reach from my daughter.

Of course Paul didn't expect man to reach out to God first, hence God's action described in Acts 17:26-27. The "operative mood" aligns itself with what man would never do apart from God acting first in man's life.

Me thinks you rely on the Greek just a little bit too much.

You are correct. I don't need the Greek to understand English!

 

[pinoybaptist]

I don't know what you mean by "charade" for I have only asked simple questions and my responses have been with scripture.

What the word means is that there have been lately people who came into this board pretending to be interested to find out what we of the Doctrine of Grace and Calvinists believe and hold on to.
They start out with friendly, seemingly innocent questions, and then the discussions turn into insinuations against and about our doctrines, our view of God, our salvation and before long animosity is developed and hateful words exchanged.
I am reminded of what somebody somewhere said: the guy who smiles at you and puts his arm around your shoulder may just be the guy who sticks a knife into your gut, so be careful.
A streetwise advice that helped me survive the streets of Manila, which are just as mean as any street of any city here in the US.
Too bad it has to be applied in a supposedly Christian board too.

In your post # 135 you noted that the word "before" was added by me, essentially the implication is that I have altered the word of God with that one word. Yet you say that the statement that God saw who will accept Him and on that basis wrote their names in the book of life was a profound statement which you justify by saying, in so many words, that by comparing Scripture with Scripture we can come to such a conclusion (not verbatim, but therein is the thought).
Yet there is not one Scripture you can cite that man will choose Christ willingly and voluntarily, so you are engaging in mere conjecture and creating a doctrine that not only adds something to Scripture but essentially denies God's assessment of man: creatures used to doing evil.

On the other hand, my using the word "before" comes from my conclusion that the writing of these names in the Lamb's book of life at the earliest could be no earlier than "before" the foundation of the world because that is when God did His choosing of His elect, according to Ephesians 1:4 - "According as he has chosen us him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"

So, did I alter Scripture to fit my theology or did you engage in speculation to fit yours ?

 

[olegig]

OldRegular,

First let me thank you for the information supplied in post 152. It does give me light on your theology.

I would respond to but a few things you said:
Those who hold to the doctrines of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism, which I call Freewillism, believe that in the final analysis the free will of man is the determining factor in his own salvation.
It will be interesting to see where you place me in the future. I will tell you a bit about me though.

Many, many years ago I was saved by God's Grace, through faith. Eph 2:8
That saving faith was not my personal faith in Christ; but the gift (Eph 2:8) of the Faith of Christ. Gal 2:16
This all came about when I followed the instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ given to us through Paul to believe on the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 15:1ff
At that time I was spiritually circumcised with the circumcision made without hands cutting my soul from my flesh so the sins of the flesh no longer stain my soul. Col 2:11
By the mercy of God I was washed clean by the blood of Christ. Titus 3:5ff
Now I am sealed with the Holy Spirit and joyously waiting for the inheritance of my gloried body. Eph 1:13ff

Your above paragraphs are, to put it politely, confusing.
I am sorry; but I do understand your confusion.

1. The called [Verse 8:28] are the elect.
It would appear in the context that "the called" are the ones just previously mentioned "them that love God"

I can’t speak for your god.

I don't quiet know what to make of this, your use of "god" with a small "g".
I certainly don't see it as a reflection of brotherly love.
Might I ask what other emotions your theology brings out in you, do you feel your theology leads you to be more Christ like as we are called to be, and how do these emotions affect your witness to the lost?

pinoybaptist,

By the way, that's an interesting name. Might I ask what does the "pinoy" mean?

Yet there is not one Scripture you can cite that man will choose Christ willingly and voluntarily,
If I have given the above impression, I apologize. I feel the order of a man receiving Christ is shown in Rom 10:13ff

On the other hand, my using the word "before" comes from my conclusion that the writing of these names in the Lamb's book of life at the earliest could be no earlier than "before" the foundation of the world because that is when God did His choosing of His elect, according to Ephesians 1:4 - "According as he has chosen us him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"

So, did I alter Scripture to fit my theology or did you engage in speculation to fit yours ?

I am sorry, but I don't quiet understand what you are asking with the above. I have read and re-read it; but still cannot get a good handle on it.

I will tell you what I feel the verse is saying.

Paul is speaking to Christians who are in Christ "in him". Paul is telling us (those in Christ) that before the foundation of the world God chose to predetermine our destiny that we would be holy and without blame before Him in love.

Concerning the Book of Life:
Revelation 3:5 (King James Version)
5He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Why would the Lord make a statement like the one above if it not possible to blot someone's name from the Book?

 

[OldRegular]

OldRegular,

I can’t speak for your god.

Peoples use of the statement: "My God would not do this or My God would not do that is nonsensical and condesending."

There is only one GOD. He is your GOD whether you acknowledge it or not. He is your GOD whether you have a saving relationship with HIM or not.

 

[Jerome]

Peoples use of the statement: "My God would not do this or My God would not do that" is nonsensical and condesending.

Straight from the horse's mouth.