Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Election is my answer! Have you not got that by now???

HP: I think I am beginning to understand your position and how you get there.

DW: The Father elected "US" in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and chose us from the beginning "TO" salvation "THROUGH" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" that is, "he called us through the gospel to the obtaining of the glory" (2 Thes. 3:6). Who did? The Father did! Thus whom the Father chose, the Father drew, the Father gave and the consequence is that they come to the son -all that were given because all were chosen.

HP: Can any come to the Father that are not chosen in the manner you say they are? Is there any possibility that those eventually lost could have came to the Father? Now will you not admit clearly to believing in double predestination, and that by necessitated consequence, just as Calvin clearly did????

 

[Jedi Knight]

Now, one does not have to believe in UNCONDITIONAL election to arrive at the same sure end. A person can believe in CONDITIONAL election and arrive at the same conclusion but no one believing what you believe can arrive at that conclusion drawn in John 6:36-65.

Like I can understand 2+2=4 Basic stuff right? I might be terrible at algebra but even mathematicians agree 2+2=4. The Father says "son take these I give you and don't loose none.'' Basic stuff right? But how? Well that's the algebra part....study,study...and more study.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: I asked first....unless your bossy.

HP: I simply asked for your help to enlighten me so as to give you an enlightened answer.:saint:

 

[DHK]

HP, how many of Calvin's Institute's did you thoroughly study?
And why did you bring his name into this again. I am sure that you use the name of Calvin more than the name of Christ. Why would that be?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

*

DHK: And why did you bring his name into this again. I am sure that you use the name of Calvin more than the name of Christ. Why would that be?

HP: I suppose it might be because I cannot help but make the clear connection betwen his Institutes and the posts I read so often on this forum, your posts being no exception.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: I think I am beginning to understand your position and how you get there.




HP: Can any come to the Father that are not chosen in the manner you say they are? Is there any possibility that those eventually lost could have came to the Father? Now will you not admit clearly to believing in double predestination, and that by necessitated consequence, just as Calvin clearly did????

Just because you believe in election does not mean you believe any were forced to come to the Son. For example, those who believe in "conditional" election believe God simpy looked down in the future and saw who would come to Christ and be ultimately saved. Hence, their position is that the Father gave these to the Son and that is why the they do come and are finally saved because God's omniscience is never wrong.

The other view of election is "unconditional" which also incorporates God's looking down into history (Psa. 14:2-3; Rom. 3:10-11) but foreseeing no sinner if left to their own free depraved choice would ever seek God and so God justly allowed some to follow the dictates of their own free choice while purely by grace chose others equally as sinful and unwilling (hence without respect of their person) to save their will from its rebellion and resistance toward God (Rom. 7:8) separated from the life of God through the darkness of the old heart (Eph. 4:18) by giving them a new heart and a new spirit that is willing to repent of sin and believe in the gospel (Deut. 5:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26; Rom. 10:10) and work in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philip 2:13) until the day of redemption (phil. 1:6).

The elect are known by their willing response to the gospel (1 Thes. 1:4-5; Acts 13:48; 2 Thes. 2:13-14) while the non-elect are known by their continued FREE CHOICE to resist and reject seeking God. God's justice is glorifed in the non-elect while God's grace is glorified in the elect:

Rom. 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[DHK]

*

HP: I suppose it might be because I cannot help but make the clear connection betwen his Institutes and the posts I read so often on this forum, your posts being no exception.

1. It is doubtful that you have read all of Calvin's Institutes.
2. Based on the above premise, it is doubtful that you really know what Calvin believed. You only assume you know what he believed based on "hearsay," that is, what you have heard in various discussions.
3. When someone tells you they are not a Calvinist (like myself), you refuse to listen, and lay a false allegation against them.
4. You would do well to stick with the Bible and leave other men's theology to them instead of invoking their names when in reality you don't even know exactly what they believed.
5. What is the authority of your beliefs. Calvin, Arminius, or some other man?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, you do not know what I have read and studied. I am familiar with Calvin's Institutes and Calvinism in general and have a hard back copy of his Intitutes to study and refer to as well as other books on the subject by various authors. As to your question:

DHK: 5. What is the authority of your beliefs. Calvin, Arminius, or some other man?

I would say, God, the Scriptures and God instilled reason. :wavey:
I must retire briefly to accomplish other tasks. I am not avoiding anyone. I will try to take up where we are leaving off when I return.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: I simply asked for your help to enlighten me so as to give you an enlightened answer.:saint:

No trick question.....Did Jesus do ALL the Fathers will? Yes or No

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

*

HP: I suppose it might be because I cannot help but make the clear connection betwen his Institutes and the posts I read so often on this forum, your posts being no exception.

GE:
If Calvin could not convince you of 'Calvinism', I doubt anyone else will. But try Spurgeon. What I find most helpful after many years of the study of many men's works on Election, is the Canons of Dordrecht. A small document, very simple, and consisting of almost Scriptures only. It is a masterpiece on par - in my opinion - with the Apostolic Confession of Faith and Athanasius' Confession. You will be able to download it from internet somewhere, I am sure. I sincerely wish you would study the Canons. I can witness to its worth and help.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Just because you believe in election does not mean you believe any were forced to come to the Son. For example, those who believe in "conditional" election believe God simpy looked down in the future and saw who would come to Christ and be ultimately saved. Hence, their position is that the Father gave these to the Son and that is why the they do come and are finally saved because God's omniscience is never wrong.

HP: Although it is true that you can believe in election and not believe any were forced to come to the Son, the example you give here does that very thing regardless of rhetoric to the contrary. Your last sentence reveal the truth of this view. It is nothing more than necessitated fatalism, decided long before they were even born, hence you say that is "why they do come." If God’s foreknowledge is the cause, then determinism rules. If no other possibility exists, the matter is determined and necessity rules. The view you presented here in no way escapes deterministic fatalism.

DW: The other view of election is "unconditional" .....

HP: You speak of ‘free choices’ but there is not an ounce of freedom nor is there any choice in this view of election. Freedom involves the possibility of contrary choice. The difference between freedom and necessity is that freedom demand that for any given antecedent there must be more than one possible consequent. If there is only one possible consequent to a given antecedent, necessity rules. If you are going to say that freedom exists period, there must be more than one consequent, but in this scheme of things that would involve the possibility of God making a mistake in His foreknowledge and we know that cannot be the case. Absolute necessity rules in this model. Not only due to the points made but also due to the belief that one being created in a sinful state that apart from the grace of God could be nothing other than the sinner they were created to be. So from every angle you look at the model of election you mention here, freedom is absolutely non existent. It is a chimera.

The Calvinist, or one following hard after Calvinism, often speaks of freedom, not to actually will but ‘to do AS one wills.’ Again, there is not the least shred of freedom in such rhetoric. The doing sustains to the will the relationship of necessity, not freedom. One can ONLY do as they will. If freedom exists at all it must reside in the will, NOT IN THE DOING, having the real possibility of contrary moral choice. Every brand of deterministic theology confuses the sensibilities and the will, trying to attach freedom where it cannot and does not exist and denying that it exists where in reality is the very seat of freedom. Freedom in the Calvinistic scheme of things is an absolute sophism. Their freedom is no freedom at all.


So to summarize, both schemes of election you mention are nothing more or less than deterministic fatalistic models that in reality deny all true freedom.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: What I find most helpful after many years of the study of many men's works on Election, is the Canons of Dordrecht.

HP: Are not these Canons nothing more or less than the five points of Calvinism set forth and expounded upon?

 

[DHK]

HP: Are not these Canons nothing more or less than the five points of Calvinism set forth and expounded upon?

You tell us. You use the name of Calvin more than anyone on the board. One would assume you are an authority on the man.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Although it is true that you can believe in election and not believe any were forced to come to the Son, the example you give here does that very thing regardless of rhetoric to the contrary. Your last sentence reveal the truth of this view. It is nothing more than necessitated fatalism, decided long before they were even born, hence you say that is "why they do come." If God’s foreknowledge is the cause, then determinism rules. If no other possibility exists, the matter is determined and necessity rules. The view you presented here in no way escapes deterministic fatalism.

What is the definition of a false prophet? Isn't it someone who predicts a future event that does not come to pass? Do you believe that God CAN be a false prophet or do you believe what He predicts to come to pass must come to pass as predicted????

Your position would reject divine prophecy because it is necessitated to come to pass as God predicts or else God is a false prophet.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

So we arrive right back to the issue of God's foreknowledge. Do you desire to start a new thread or discuss it here? The issues are clearly entwined. I will not be able to post today but will get back with you soon.

Let the reader understand there are only two positions to take, one of honest free will and choice or one of necessity. The two positions of election DW has presented thus far are absolute deterministic models which in reality deny freedom of the will. To deny freedom of the will is to make a mockery of morality and any semblance of moral action including but not limited to love. It destroys accountability and justice in holding man accountable for his actions. To deny free will is to empower fatalism, a notion foreign to Scripture and reason as well as the realm of morality consisting of just blame and praise for moral intents.

So with that backdrop, I welcome the needed discussion on the foreknowledge of God and how it can be shown consistent with or opposed to freedom and responsibility. We need to understand clearly how ones notions concerning the foreknowledge of God drives a system of true freedom or one of necessity and determination as do the two models of election DW has already set forth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So we arrive right back to the issue of God's foreknowledge. Do you desire to start a new thread or discuss it here? The issues are clearly entwined. I will not be able to post today but will get back with you soon.

Let the reader understand there are only two positions to take, one of honest free will and choice or one of necessity. The two positions of election DW has presented thus far are absolute deterministic models which in reality deny freedom of the will. To deny freedom of the will is to make a mockery of morality and any semblance of moral action including but not limited to love. It destroys accountability and justice in holding man accountable for his actions. To deny free will is to empower fatalism, a notion foreign to Scripture and reason as well as the realm of morality consisting of just blame and praise for moral intents.

So with that backdrop, I welcome the needed discussion on the foreknowledge of God and how it can be shown consistent with or opposed to freedom and responsibility. We need to understand clearly how ones notions concerning the foreknowledge of God drives a system of true freedom or one of necessity and determination as do the two models of election DW has already set forth.

Again, do you believe that Divine prophecy is necessitated OR do you believe God can be a false prophet. This is a very simple question and yet I cannot get you to give a straightforward and honest answer.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Brother Heavenly Pilgrim, The Calvinistic explanation of the concept of foreknowledge sounds quite convincing on the surface, but it is mistaken when it denies the fact that foreknowledge can be simple prescience. It does not have to refer to knowing someone in advance in an intimate, relational sense.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This could well prove to be an interesting and enlightening discussion. Why don't one of you start a thread and see how it goes. I will be waiting with anticipation to read the discussion when I return.

DW, as we go along your questions to me will be answered. And now,.... for a brief intermission on my part..

Expound on that thought Adiscipledlearner. I would like to see you explain that thought a little further.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Brother Heavenly Pilgrim, The Calvinistic explanation of the concept of foreknowledge sounds quite convincing on the surface, but it is mistaken when it denies the fact that foreknowledge can be simple prescience. It does not have to refer to knowing someone in advance in an intimate, relational sense.

Can you answer my question then? Does divine prophecy necessitate the outcome predicted OR is it possible that God can be a false prophet? You see "heavenly" denies even prescience or any explanation that demands a necessary outcome.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

All of God's prophecies come to pass.