Dominion vs determinism

[Ben1445]

But He chose them based upon nothing within them. The others nation He left without a covenant, without priests and prophets to intercede for them, not sacrificial system. So, you are correct; that was a strike, that I hammered over 500 feet for a home run.

Would you care to explain Jonah and Ninevah who was left without a prophet?
And do you think that the Bible is an exhaustive list of the acts of God?
And Melchizedek was the priest of the most high God after Abraham was brought out of Ur.

Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Deuteronomy 1:17
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Deuteronomy 16:19
Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

2 Samuel 14:14
For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

2 Chronicles 19:7
Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Proverbs 24:23
These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.

Proverbs 28:21
To have respect of persons is not good:
for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.

Romans 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.

Ephesians 6:9
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Colossians 3:25
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

James 2:1
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

1 Peter 1:17
And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

It took God saving the gentiles for Peter to figure it out. What will it take for a Calvinist to figure it out?

 

[Ben1445]

I am not certain in anything in or of myself. My certainty is Christ Jesus.

From 2 Timothy 1:12 - "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."

And what have I committed unto Christ? My whole salvation.



I have the entire Word of God, the Bible, and, as God did to Lydia to attend to the things spoken by the apostle Paul, He has done to me - opened my heart to attend to the things written therein.

So you have committed something. Oh! For shame!! You think that your so much holier than the rest of us that you can commit something to God !!!

 

[Ben1445]

Romans 9:10-21
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
( 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; )
it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
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?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

The same post again, but God is not saying that he created Pharaoh for hell. God is saying that he raised up Pharaoh, not only as ruler, but also over the world, and exalted him highly, to make him an example to the world. Because God will be glorified in those who choose not to give Him glory.

 

[Ben1445]

….And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.— Romans 11:17-23

And for all you doubters, able is potential. If God is able to graft them back in, then the group of people Jesus died for is not limited. The limit is in who trusts Jesus.

 

[Ben1445]

Again, this shows that when God elects ppl, He does not do it based upon whom they are and what they do, or will do later down the road. That is election. It is you who absolutely fails to understand election.

Lottery?

Actually if you look at respect of persons, which I have laid out for you, you will be able to see, you have the potential to see that God is fair and gives a fair judgement to all based on their own actions, their own faith, their own person.

 

[Psalty]

??? Newsflash: the Gentiles aren't all elect. Only those for whom Christ died are elect. The Father has chosen a vast crowd (Rev. 7:9) for salvation, and given them to the Son to redeem; and He will not lose even one of them (John 6:40 etc.).

Its nice what you strung together there without talking anout the unelect. By backing up SGs argument you fall into the same trap. The problem with what you are doing is taking Gods definition of Election, then saying He really doesnt mean what He said.

You have just made “elect” mean that people that are called elect might not really be. You have devastated any sense of knowing whether you are elect or not according to how you all are treating election. And this is exactly what Calvinism does to security, it just takes pointed questions to reveal it.

 

[Psalty]

Its sad that many who Christ died for, who paid their sin debt in full, died eternally lost, even when their sins have been paid for.

Yes, sad that a human woulnt see that value loss! Their short coming, not Gods who on calvinism is the one who blinds them to grace.

Its sad that many thwart God's will and die eternally lost, who God tried to save, but they thwarted His will, and overrode it. So much for an omnipotent God.

Gods will is for them to chose, so it is not thwarted. Yet He retains His maximum grace, unlike the limited graciousness of the calvinistic God. And God can exercise His power when and how he choses on any system… you seem to miss this basic concept of HOW He has chosen to express it.

Man is stronger than Him and can say, "God tried to save me, but I didn't let Him. My will overpowered His will. Nanananananana boo boo!"

Well thats a good characature, but in reality, God expresses love by letting someone chose to love Him or not. Its His prerogative… you do realize the type of forced love you are establishing that your God has… only love through force… what heights of soverign “grace”! Even a progressive liberal knows better than the calvinist about love and consent. Wow!

 

[Psalty]

You aren't as slick as you think you are my friend. When I get time, I will go through this to prove we are right in regards to election and predestination.

Sounds good, I look forward to hearing how you can make this logically consistent.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Its nice what you strung together there without talking anout the unelect.

Thank you for thinking it's nice. The non-elect are those who are not elect. I didn't think it was necessary to point that out, but perhaps it was.

The problem with what you are doing is taking Gods definition of Election, then saying He really doesnt mean what He said.

How have I done that? I may possibly have done it to your definition of election, but not to God's.

You have just made “elect” mean that people that are called elect might not really be.

Called elect by whom?

You have devastated any sense of knowing whether you are elect or not according to how you all are treating election. And this is exactly what Calvinism does to security, it just takes pointed questions to reveal it.

Not at all. Anyone's warrant for salvation is knowing that one is a sinner. Christ died for sinners, so anyone who knows he's a sinner, repented and trusted in Christ for salvation can know that he is elect, that Christ suffered and died for him and that God has loved him from eternity and drawn him to Himself with covenant mercies.
BTW, I have not observed any "pointed questions." All I have seen are unsubstantiated claims.
No one should look inside himself to find if he is elect. He'll get no help there. He should look to Christ who saves sinners.

 

[Ben1445]

Its sad that the Calvinist god is limited in his grace to a select few. Its such a weak god of limited grace.

On the other-hand, the God of the bible is maximally gracious and offers grace to EVERYONE! His grace is unlimited

I understand your point but people do limit God. So I shy away from saying it is unlimited.
But it is definitely unlimited in its offer.

 

[KenH]

A major issue with the idea that Christ paid the sin debt for every single human being but not every single human being is saved, is that it has the same sin debt being paid twice in the case of those who go to Hell. The idea has Christ paying their sin debt and the person that goes to Hell pays the same sin debt a second time. That, in and of itself, totally discredits the idea that someone for whom Christ paid their sin debt can go to Hell.

Augustus Toplady dealt with this subject in a hymn. (in 8.8.6 meter)

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Psalm 116:7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; For the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee.

1. From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hast Thou, O Father, put to grief
Thy spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

2. Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate'er Thy people owed:
How then can wrath on me take place,
If shelter'd in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood?

3. If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again at mine.

4. Turn, then, my soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Speak peace and liberty:
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

 

[Ben1445]

??? Newsflash: the Gentiles aren't all elect. Only those for whom Christ died are elect. The Father has chosen a vast crowd (Rev. 7:9) for salvation, and given them to the Son to redeem; and He will not lose even one of them (John 6:40 etc.).

Correction: only those in Christ are elect.
If God is going to graft any back in, (as He is able to do) then He will have to die again because He didn’t die for them the first time?

 

[Psalty]

Thank you for thinking it's nice. The non-elect are those who are not elect. I didn't think it was necessary to point that out, but perhaps it was.

How have I done that? I may possibly have done it to your definition of election, but not to God's.

Called elect by whom?

Not at all. Anyone's warrant for salvation is knowing that one is a sinner. Christ died for sinners, so anyone who knows he's a sinner, repented and trusted in Christ for salvation can know that he is elect, that Christ suffered and died for him and that God has loved him from eternity and drawn him to Himself with covenant mercies.
BTW, I have not observed any "pointed questions." All I have seen are unsubstantiated claims.
No one should look inside himself to find if he is elect. He'll get no help there. He should look to Christ who saves sinners.

You jumped in on SGs argument affirming his thoughts. If you dont know what he said you should go and read it so you know what you are backing up.
Edit: its clear you didnt catch the wuestions and answers, youll have to go back one page. It was the end of what you were responding to.

If you think you can handle it, Ill ask you the same question:
If Israel was called Gods chosen and his elect, why werent all of israel saved?

 

[Ben1445]

A major issue with the idea that Christ paid the sin debt for every single human being but not every single human being is saved, is that it has the same sin debt being paid twice in the case of those who go to Hell. The idea has Christ paying their sin debt and the person that goes to Hell pays the same sin debt a second time. That, in and of itself, totally discredits the idea that someone for whom Christ paid their sin debt can go to Hell.

Augustus Toplady dealt with this subject in a hymn. (in 8.8.6 meter)

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Psalm 116:7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; For the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee.

1. From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hast Thou, O Father, put to grief
Thy spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

2. Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate'er Thy people owed:
How then can wrath on me take place,
If shelter'd in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood?

3. If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again at mine.

4. Turn, then, my soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Speak peace and liberty:
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

But if they are still in their sins and their sins are not allowed to be with God, it is their own fault that they are in their own sins when their way has been paid.

That is an interesting point. I once walked out of a store with something someone gave to me in the store. I paid for it. When we left they wanted it back again. But I had the receipt. The accountability for it was with me, even though it had been paid for twice, the other kid didn’t keep receipts and he ended up without. The difference here is that God keeps the records. We may either accept His payment or remain in our trespasses and sins.

 

[Psalty]

But if they are still in their sins and their sins are not allowed to be with God, it is their own fault that they are in their own sins when their way has been paid.

That is an interesting point. I once walked out of a store with something someone gave to me in the store. I paid for it. When we left they wanted it back again. But I had the receipt. The accountability for it was with me, even though it had been paid for twice, the other kid didn’t keep receipts and he ended up without. The difference here is that God keeps the records. We may either accept His payment or remain in our trespasses and sins.

Ive heard the old school “lay-away” analogy used too. But now that credit does everything, lay-away has gone away!

Edit:Its like having a purchased ticket, but refusing to receive it and missing the flight.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You jumped in on SGs argument affirming his thoughts. If you dont know what he said you should go and read it so you know what you are backing up.
Edit: its clear you didnt catch the wuestions and answers, youll have to go back one page. It was the end of what you were responding to.

If you think you can handle it, Ill ask you the same question:
If Israel was called Gods chosen and his elect, why werent all of israel saved?

You should not confuse the 'old' (Sinaitic) covenant with the new covenant in Christ Jesus.

The Sinaitic covenant was made with a people, not with individuals. Consider Exodus 6:6-8. Very few indeed of the people addressed there made it to the Promised land, but the nation did. This national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals; nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry of any individuals so long as that was not sanctioned or tolerated by the governing authority. It was a type of the covenant later made with true believers, but only ‘a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb 10:1). So when, as a nation, they had broken the covenant irretrievably (cf. Jer 5:1ff), God declared that He would make a ‘new covenant,’ putting His laws not only into the hands of its recipients, but also in their inward parts, writing it on their hearts rather than on stone tablets, forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more (Jer 31:31ff).

The Israelites then, had many advantages, outward privileges and encouragements to seek the Lord for true salvation, but like so many professing Christians today, most of them rested in their privileges and sought no more. This outward covenant was made with a nation, entitling them to outward national blessings (cf. Deut 28:1-14) on condition of outward national obedience and warning of national calamities in the event of national disobedience; whereas the new covenant is ratified personally with true believers and secures spiritual blessings (eg. 1Peter 1:1-5, 9) by producing a holiness of heart and evangelical obedience to the divine law. Some Israelites were indeedborn anew; Psalm 119 is written by a regenerate person. It is only the one to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity who can say, “Oh! How I love Your law, etc.” But to others, the law stood at best as a schoolmaster, cane in hand, and at worst as a sword of Damocles, poised to deliver destruction.

Yahveh is often described as being the Lord and God of the Israelites, even where it is clear that most of them were quite devoid of internal purity, and many of them were thoroughly wicked. How then could He be their Lord and God in distinction from the Gentiles? Only on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant. He had become their Lord by covenant and they were bound to own Him as such, unlike the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:16). As the covenant was a national one, a child born into a Jewish family entered into that covenant at birth regardless of the true faith of its parents, and automatically partook of its blessings, responsibilities and liabilities, receiving (if male) the national covenant sign, which indeed looked back to the faith of Abraham and forward to the true Seed who should be born of the line of Abraham but yet said nothing about the piety of the circumcised child or of his parents.

But now, the national relationship between Yahveh and Israel having been long dissolved (Matt 21;43), the Jew has no prerogative above the Gentile and therefore no one has the right to call Yahveh their God if they do not yield willing obedience to Him and perform spiritual worship (Rom 2:28-9; Phil 3:3). It is therefore a mixing of the covenants and a confusing of Mt. Sinai with Mt. Zion, to suppose that a child becomes a Christian in any sense by birth and is therefore entitled to the new covenant sign, baptism.

[Much of the last few paragraphs is an abridgement of the work of Abraham Booth]

‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb 8:10-11). The people referred to here and no others, are God’s new covenant people, who are born, ‘Not of blood………but of God’ (John 1:13). There is no membership of God’s kingdom based on an external covenant or a relative holiness. The purpose of the Sinaitic covenant was to bring in the new covenant at the time appointed by God (cf. Gal 4:4-5). That was completed with the coming of Christ and that first covenant has long since passed away (Heb 8:13).

I hope that is helpful to you. It is worthwhile comparing Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10. The first is conditional; the second is unconditional.

 

[Psalty]

You should not confuse the 'old' (Sinaitic) covenant with the new covenant in Christ Jesus.

The Sinaitic covenant was made with a people, not with individuals. Consider Exodus 6:6-8. Very few indeed of the people addressed there made it to the Promised land, but the nation did. This national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals; nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry of any individuals so long as that was not sanctioned or tolerated by the governing authority. It was a type of the covenant later made with true believers, but only ‘a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb 10:1). So when, as a nation, they had broken the covenant irretrievably (cf. Jer 5:1ff), God declared that He would make a ‘new covenant,’ putting His laws not only into the hands of its recipients, but also in their inward parts, writing it on their hearts rather than on stone tablets, forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more (Jer 31:31ff).

The Israelites then, had many advantages, outward privileges and encouragements to seek the Lord for true salvation, but like so many professing Christians today, most of them rested in their privileges and sought no more. This outward covenant was made with a nation, entitling them to outward national blessings (cf. Deut 28:1-14) on condition of outward national obedience and warning of national calamities in the event of national disobedience; whereas the new covenant is ratified personally with true believers and secures spiritual blessings (eg. 1Peter 1:1-5, 9) by producing a holiness of heart and evangelical obedience to the divine law. Some Israelites were indeedborn anew; Psalm 119 is written by a regenerate person. It is only the one to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity who can say, “Oh! How I love Your law, etc.” But to others, the law stood at best as a schoolmaster, cane in hand, and at worst as a sword of Damocles, poised to deliver destruction.

Yahveh is often described as being the Lord and God of the Israelites, even where it is clear that most of them were quite devoid of internal purity, and many of them were thoroughly wicked. How then could He be their Lord and God in distinction from the Gentiles? Only on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant. He had become their Lord by covenant and they were bound to own Him as such, unlike the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:16). As the covenant was a national one, a child born into a Jewish family entered into that covenant at birth regardless of the true faith of its parents, and automatically partook of its blessings, responsibilities and liabilities, receiving (if male) the national covenant sign, which indeed looked back to the faith of Abraham and forward to the true Seed who should be born of the line of Abraham but yet said nothing about the piety of the circumcised child or of his parents.

But now, the national relationship between Yahveh and Israel having been long dissolved (Matt 21;43), the Jew has no prerogative above the Gentile and therefore no one has the right to call Yahveh their God if they do not yield willing obedience to Him and perform spiritual worship (Rom 2:28-9; Phil 3:3). It is therefore a mixing of the covenants and a confusing of Mt. Sinai with Mt. Zion, to suppose that a child becomes a Christian in any sense by birth and is therefore entitled to the new covenant sign, baptism.

[Much of the last few paragraphs is an abridgement of the work of Abraham Booth]

‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’ (Heb 8:10-11). The people referred to here and no others, are God’s new covenant people, who are born, ‘Not of blood………but of God’ (John 1:13). There is no membership of God’s kingdom based on an external covenant or a relative holiness. The purpose of the Sinaitic covenant was to bring in the new covenant at the time appointed by God (cf. Gal 4:4-5). That was completed with the coming of Christ and that first covenant has long since passed away (Heb 8:13).

I hope that is helpful to you. It is worthwhile comparing Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10. The first is conditional; the second is unconditional.

I will happily go through this! Take me a little bit later today to get to it though.

For context first though what in 1 Peter 2:9- 10 makes you say that it is unconditional? There is nothing in the text and additionally, he is quoting Exodus to make his point i.e. identifying election as the same from the old covenant to the new covenant. Is this just because you want it to be unconditional, or does something in the text indicate that to you?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Correction: only those in Christ are elect.

Those in Christ are those for whom He died (Eph. 1:7 etc.).

If God is going to graft any back in, (as He is able to do) then He will have to die again because He didn’t die for them the first time?

Those whom God will graft back in are the Israelites. The vast majority of these were never in Christ (see my post #156 above). The idea that someone can be in Christ, then out again, and then back in again - born again, then dead again, then born again again - is a non-starter

 

[Ben1445]

Those in Christ are those for whom He died (Eph. 1:7 etc.).

He died for the ungodly. The ungodly are not in Christ. They are still in their sins.

Those whom God will graft back in are the Israelites. The vast majority of these were never in Christ (see my post #156 above). The idea that someone can be in Christ, then out again, and then back in again - born again, then dead again, then born again again - is a non-starter

Well that is not what I was saying at all. We are not so far apart as you have assumed.
The point is that if God is stated as only able and not as already having done so, then He is either the potential Saviour that @Brightfame52 doesn’t believe in, or He must die again to include those He did not die for the first time.
Obviously Jesus doesn’t have to die again so He has clearly provided for all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I will happily go through this! Take me a little bit later today to get to it though.

No problem! Take your time

For context first though what in 1 Peter 2:9- 10 makes you say that it is unconditional? There is nothing in the text and additionally, he is quoting Exodus to make his point i.e. identifying election as the same from the old covenant to the new covenant. Is this just because you want it to be unconditional, or does something in the text indicate that to you?

Just compare Exodus 19:5-6 with 1 Peter 2:9-10.
Exodus 19:5. “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”
1 Peter 2:9. 'But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, His own special people.....'

Can you not see the contrast? The people to whom Peter is writing are 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 1:2). They have been born anew through the resurrection of Christ (which presupposes His death on the cross) 'to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away.' (vs. 3-4).