Gods View of Lost Man

[quantumfaith]

I get what you're saying. My point in the OP is that God does't look at us, as is suggested, and according to our good things, decide to elect us accordingly.

That's nonsense.

The lost remain under wrath until saved. That He saves us is unconditional to anything about us or what we have done.

I would like to request that you refrain from stating this as it has been brought to your attention repeatedly that No One makes this claim, rather it is how you continue to label and trivialize positions different from your own. It is in fact, "nonsense" that you continue to throw this up over and over.

 

[preacher4truth]

I would like to request that you refrain from stating this as it has been brought to your attention repeatedly that No One makes this claim, rather it is how you continue to label and trivialize positions different from your own. It is in fact, "nonsense" that you continue to throw this up over and over.

Well, good morning qaf!

To be honest, your thoughts of me hardly ever concern me, nor of what I say, as to be yet still honest, I rarely see anything you say as contributing, but rather caustic and antagonistic in nature. I hope for better dialogue stemming from grace within in the near future. :love2:

One more thing, it has been emphatically stated. So, yes, someone did make this claim.

You happen to be wrong my friend. :thumbsup:

Also, what label did I give it? Trivialize it? Nope. Compare it to Scriptures? You Betcha!!!! The Bereans practiced this too, does that make them labellers and trivializers?

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, good morning qaf!

To be honest, your thoughts of me hardly ever concern me, nor of what I say, as to be yet still honest, I rarely see anything you say as contributing, but rather caustic and antagonistic in nature.



One more thing, it has been emphatically stated. So, yes, someone did make this claim.



You happen to be wrong my friend. :thumbsup:

Also, what label did I give it? Trivialize it? Nope. Compare it to Scriptures? You Betcha!!!! The Bereans practiced this too, does that make them labellers and trivializers?

Something I have hoped for all along, but it seems difficult for you to "diagree" with a fellow believer in an "agreeable" manner. You simply let them know that what they think is either "baloney" or "nonsense".

It has NOT been emphatically stated that "men are good enough" to warrant God's attention or grace on them. Rather, it is because God LOVES and "IS Love" that he grants His grace upon anyone, You and Me included.

I happen to "think" (that means be convinced) that You (brother) are incorrect.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, the implication is that God foreknew and preplanned to bring salvation to the Gentiles from the beginning, a mystery just being made known to the people of that time. That is the big issue of their day. Paul is not debating Cal vs. Arm theology, he is debating Jew vs Gentile theology.

Where in Romans 8 do you find the Jew vs Gentile debate? All the way through, Paul is speaking of "we" and "us," meaning himself and the people he was writing to, the Christians of Rome. Paul does not address the Jew/Gentile question until 9:1.

Steve

 

[preacher4truth]

Something I have hoped for all along, but it seems difficult for you to "diagree" with a fellow believer in an "agreeable" manner. You simply let them know that what they think is either "baloney" or "nonsense".

It has NOT been emphatically stated that "men are good enough" to warrant God's attention or grace on them. Rather, it is because God LOVES and "IS Love" that he grants His grace upon anyone, You and Me included.

I happen to "think" (that means be convinced) that You (brother) are incorrect.

It certainly HAS been stated, as a matter of fact, the OP quotes this. Did you miss that?

Sometimes we are convinced someone is wrong, that something has not been said, when it's our ownselves who are incorrect. I kindly suggest this is you at this time my friend.

 

[preacher4truth]

A beautiful passage supporting election as unconditional:

Rom 9:8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
Rom 9:12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
Rom 9:13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
Rom 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Amen!

 

[freeatlast]

It has been argued on BB that "But how can God be just and not consider what he sees in man?"

This statement is made in context of election, and of God seeing good in man. According to this statement, we are looked upon by God, and election becomes conditional upon "what he sees in man." It is concluded that then each man will be judged by his works. This was said to specifically deny unconditional election, and worded to prove election is conditional, or that unconditional election is wrong, or both, and that our works sway Him, and that by this it proves God is just. How could it be otherwise is the arguments platform.

What do the Scriptures teach, and where does this above teaching stem from, and from whose notable theological stance? Has anyone else in the history of the church taught this?

When we read Scripture we see that in fact lost man is under condemnation; He is under view of God in these ways: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36, also Ephesians 2:3

That his works are wicked and evil. Colossians 1:21; John 2:25

That he or she, again, abides under Gods wrath. Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6; Romans 1:18

That there is nothing in man that merited or earned election. Nothing in Scriptures supports that man earned it by a god who views man in the quotes above in the opening OP.

I've not seen this God in the Scriptures.

That election is based upon Gods mercy alone, and not upon what man has merited or has done is a Scriptural tenet. At least I thought it was.

God does love the world, but this love was unmerited, not due to one thing in man, but all due to Gods Grace and Mercy. In other words we got what we didn't deserve or merit, or, Grace, and we escaped what we did deserve, or Mercy.

What do you all think of this? Am I wrong and unscriptural in how I'm using Scripture to show Gods view (by way of warning) upon man, that His wrath is upon them, that they are in condemnation &c...or is the view that in election God "justly" considers our works, and thus, it is no longer unconditional that He chooses us, but conditioned.

I believe we were chosen by Grace unconditonally and totally apart from anything we have done, then He in choosing us imparts to us all the things needed to make us alive and bring us into His Kingdom.

- Grace and Peace

There is no question that God's Grace is unconditionally given and totally apart from anything we have done. However I do not believe that such removes man's volition. How the two are brought together I have no clue, but I have no clue how there is one God and three Persons so I just believe even in the mist of my lacking full understanding.
So does God choose unconditionally choose who will be His? Yes! Does man choose to accept by his own volition? Yes!

 

[preacher4truth]

There is no question that God's Grace is unconditionally given and totally apart from anything we have done. However I do not believe that such removes man's volition. How the two are brought together I have no clue, but I have no clue how there is one God and three Persons so I just believe even in the mist of my lacking full understanding.
So does God choose unconditionally choose who will be His? Yes! Does man choose to accept by his own volition? Yes!

Amen brother. Some of this is difficult to grasp, yes, but I believe His Grace to be irresistible to His elect. His ways are above our ways for sure.

One thing for certain, it is all unconditional. This is one reason we stand in awe of God.

A problem with the question "How can God be just if he doesn't consider what man has done" or however it is worded fails in this:

Do we really want Gods JUSTICE? We better not want this! We better think this through very carefully. If all men recieved Justice from God, where in the world would mankind be? It is GRACE that we want, not justice. Uzza received Justice, and so many others in Scripture.

 

[quantumfaith]

It certainly HAS been stated, as a matter of fact, the OP quotes this. Did you miss that?

Sometimes we are convinced someone is wrong, that something has not been said, when it's our ownselves who are incorrect. I kindly suggest this is you at this time my friend.

If you would kind enough to share the entire post to determine if as you say,

"and according to our good things, decide to elect us accordingly."

is precisely what was communicated.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you would kind enough to share the entire post to determine if as you say,

"and according to our good things, decide to elect us accordingly."

is precisely what was communicated.

I bolded you above.

Who are you quoting here, me?

If so, understand those are my words (if in fact they are a verbatim quote of myself) not me saying that is an exact quote of another person, as it is not.

The OP is plain enough, my quotes there are sufficient and are direct quotes.

Is lost man under wrath, or is election conditional upon man, and if so, would that make God a respecter of persons?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do we really want Gods JUSTICE? We better not want this! We better think this through very carefully. If all men recieved Justice from God, where in the world would mankind be? It is GRACE that we want, not justice. Uzza received Justice, and so many others in Scripture.

No brother because we all deserve death. What we want is his mercy. Praise God from who all blessings flow. :godisgood:

 

[preacher4truth]

No brother because we all deserve death. What we want is his mercy. Praise God from who all blessings flow. :godisgood:

That's exactly correct. When we say God is a Just God, we should tremble at the thought of this, because it is true, and due to the implications of this truth.

We should also tremble at the thought of His Mercy and Grace.

- Peace

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's exactly correct. When we say God is a Just God, we should tremble at the thought of this, because it is true, and due to the implications of this truth.

We should also tremble at the thought of His Mercy and Grace.

- Peace

Thats Amazing Grace....and you know the rest of the song as well as my own story.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thats Amazing Grace....and you know the rest of the song as well as my own story.

Yes, and we see God as the One who extends His Grace to whom He wills. Not based upon God looking at what man has done, nor does God need to have His Justice vindicated by any person claiming He has to consider our works (for Him to remain or be Just.)

His Justice is not tied to anything in man whatsoever, and we surely don't provoke Him to prove it. To ask if God is just then say He must do or consider anything is a fallacy. Do you see this?

Nope, for Him to be Just, He needs no support nor vindication. He simply is Just.

:thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

PFT,

Help my simple mind. Here are the opening words of your OP.

It has been argued on BB that "But how can God be just and not consider what he sees in man?"

This statement is made in context of election, and of God seeing good in man. According to this statement, we are looked upon by God, and election becomes conditional upon "what he sees in man." It is concluded that then each man will be judged by his works. This was said to specifically deny unconditional election, and worded to prove election is conditional, or that unconditional election is wrong, or both, and that our works sway Him, and that by this it proves God is just. How could it be otherwise is the arguments platform.

A bit later....as "I" interpret it....you make the statement (interpretation) that your opening quote implies the person credited with your OP quote means the following:

"and according to our good things, decide to elect us accordingly."

I am simply asking for the source, the complete source and context of your OP quote to agree or disagree with your interpretaion of the initial quote in the OP.

Thank YOU

 

[preacher4truth]

PFT,

Help my simple mind. Here are the opening words of your OP.

It has been argued on BB that "But how can God be just and not consider what he sees in man?"

This statement is made in context of election, and of God seeing good in man. According to this statement, we are looked upon by God, and election becomes conditional upon "what he sees in man." It is concluded that then each man will be judged by his works. This was said to specifically deny unconditional election, and worded to prove election is conditional, or that unconditional election is wrong, or both, and that our works sway Him, and that by this it proves God is just. How could it be otherwise is the arguments platform.

A bit later....as "I" interpret it....you make the statement (interpretation) that your opening quote implies the person credited with your OP quote means the following:

"and according to our good things, decide to elect us accordingly."

I am simply asking for the source, the complete source and context of your OP quote to agree or disagree with your interpretaion of the initial quote in the OP.

Thank YOU

You are correct, that is what I conclude from the quoted argument concerning election, and the arguing is against it (election) being unconditional.

In other words, some do believe that election is not unconditional, and rather conditional. Romans 9:8 and following dismiss this premise. When I say "some" means it doesn't limit this some to only the BB.

I'll take a pass on providing anything further, as I find these things using "search."

I can't honestly say any engagement with you proves a profitable engagement in my recollection. I speak this in love and just being frank. I feel your cycling and recycling the same thing here has a negative objective on your part, and I judge this from past experience with you on the BB. I desire it to be otherwise, but honestly don't see it happening.

Everything I say here is in love, but also, in truth.

Sometimes self-discovery is our best teacher my friend.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are correct, that is what I conclude from the quoted argument concerning election, and the arguing is against it (election) being unconditional.

In other words, some do believe that election is not unconditional, and rather conditional. Romans 9:8 and following dismiss this premise. When I say "some" means it doesn't limit this some to only the BB.

I'll take a pass on providing anything further, as I find these things using "search."

I can't honestly say any engagement with you proves a profitable engagement in my recollection. I speak this in love and just being frank. I feel your cycling and recycling the same thing here has a negative objective on your part, and I judge this from past experience with you on the BB. I desire it to be otherwise, but honestly don't see it happening.

Everything I say here is in love, but also, in truth.

Sometimes self-discovery is our best teacher my friend.

I will remember the next time my students seek insight on a Partial Fraction Decomposition or calculating the partial derivative of a function of several variables....."Self discovery is your best teacher" good luck with that one.

 

[revmwc]

There is no question that God's Grace is unconditionally given and totally apart from anything we have done. However I do not believe that such removes man's volition. How the two are brought together I have no clue, but I have no clue how there is one God and three Persons so I just believe even in the mist of my lacking full understanding.
So does God choose unconditionally choose who will be His? Yes! Does man choose to accept by his own volition? Yes!

My point exactly with God Predestined us, those who will believe to be His children. Because He knew in eternity past the choice we would make concerning His Son. Do we see an example in the Bible that shows what He foreknows, you bet we do with Jacob and Esau.
Did God know before the two boys were born what choices they would make, scripture shows it.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Romans 9: 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Paul makes it clear they were called not according to not of works, and yet God knew Esau would serve Jacob and God hated Esau, not that he hated in our terms He knew Esau's heart and that Esau would reject Him.

God foreknows the choices we would make and Election stands on that.

 

[quantumfaith]

Where in Romans 8 do you find the Jew vs Gentile debate? All the way through, Paul is speaking of "we" and "us," meaning himself and the people he was writing to, the Christians of Rome. Paul does not address the Jew/Gentile question until 9:1.

Steve

Actually the debate begins back in Chapters 2 and 3. An earlier part of one contiguous letter. Chapter 8 it appears to me is a continuation of this Jew/Gentile.....Outward Jew/Inward Jew debate emphasizing that real life is by the Spirit rather than the law.

 

[JesusFan]

My point exactly with God Predestined us, those who will believe to be His children. Because He knew in eternity past the choice we would make concerning His Son. Do we see an example in the Bible that shows what He foreknows, you bet we do with Jacob and Esau.
Did God know before the two boys were born what choices they would make, scripture shows it.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Romans 9: 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Paul makes it clear they were called not according to not of works, and yet God knew Esau would serve Jacob and God hated Esau, not that he hated in our terms He knew Esau's heart and that Esau would reject Him.

God foreknows the choices we would make and Election stands on that.

So then you are agreeing with us that in 'classic" Arminianism, the election by God is based upon the person own free will choice? So man is ultimate source/basis of salavtion?

just asking as our moderator Skandlion I don't think holds that Arminianism election is based upon the point of God "seeing" our faith response in the Future and electing based on that?