The basis of God's predestination

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 Peter 1:20 "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world..."
A cross-reference verse about Jesus. He was foreordained. Foreordained as a word in scripture is never used in reference to believers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The translation has led you to a wrong conclusion. And the translation you are using confirms that “foreknowledge” is understood to be causative. “Foreordained” is the word proginosko. Contrary to your claim above, it is used of believers in Rom 8:29 and of Israel in Rom 11:2. This last passage in particular refutes your claim that foreknowledge is not causative. When God “proginosko”ed Israel, it means that he chose them among all the nations on the earth (cf. Deut 7:7ff).

When you say Foreordaination is causative, not foreknowledge you are, through no fault of your own, making an absurd statement. Foreordination is foreknowledge. It is the same word. You are saying that “proginosko is causative, not proginosko.”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, if foreknowledge is causative, then there is no such thing as resisting the Holy Spirit and the doctrine of "Irresistable Grace" would be truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No and yes. It is possible to resist the Holy Spirit. But not resist the effectual call. People all through human history have rejected the Holy Spirit. No one has ever rejected the effectual call of the Spirit.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]

How can anyone read anything written here and believe that God saves people without faith?

S., you are in danger of having your posts deleted for this reason. We have repeatedly said that we do not believe God saves people without faith. Yet you continue to willfully misrepresent the truth.

Let me be very clear and let this serve as your final warning: Calvinism does not believe that God saves people without faith. Faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Start deleting.

we do not believe God saves people without faith

God doesn't "DRAG" people to the altar, or salvation.

YOU, not God, will have to become "humble as a child" before God will save, and God doesn't use Predestination to "force" that humility on any, it's "THEIR CHOICE", a "free will choice".

To have Faith or not is a CHOICE the person makes when hearing the "SPIRIT" that leads to salvation.

I have noticed, as long as you're debating on an "intellectual level", around here, everything fine, but mention the "SPIRIT", you're deleted.

But then I wouldn't want the Spirit around either if I was going to teach that God didn't love the whole world, Jesus didn't die to the sins of the whole world, God's willing some should perish, and personal faith has no place in God's Predestinated plan.

Better "try the Spirits", the one you're following doesn't agree with "God's word".


Keep in mind, there's is a record being kept of all that being said, whether it's being spoken by the spirit or not, and you'll face, not delete, that record.


OK, now you can delete.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
God doesn't "DRAG" people to the altar, or salvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please cite where someone said that he does.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>YOU, not God, will have to become "humble as a child" before God will save, and God doesn't use Predestination to "force" that humility on any, it's "THEIR CHOICE", a "free will choice".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Denial of Scripture with regards to predestination.

Perjorative terminology with regards to "forcing" humility on anyone.

Failure to use Scripture to support "free will" choice as you want to define it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To have Faith or not is a CHOICE the person makes when hearing the "SPIRIT" that leads to salvation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who here denies this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have noticed, as long as you're debating on an "intellectual level", around here, everything fine, but mention the "SPIRIT", you're deleted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[qb]

The problem is not the Spirit; the problem is your misunderstanding of the revelation of the Spirit concerning how the Spirit works. The further problem is your continued refusal to deal with the Scripture that the Spirit inspired.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[qb][But then I wouldn't want the Spirit around either if I was going to teach that God didn't love the whole world, Jesus didn't die to the sins of the whole world, God's willing some should perish, and personal faith has no place in God's Predestinated plan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty good that you string four lies together here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK, now you can delete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no desire to babysit you and delete your posts. My problem is not that you disagree with me. The problem is 1) your misrepresentation and lies concerning what your opponents believe; 2) your unbiblical spirit in the confrontation of those with whom you disagree; and 3) your unwillingness to engage Scripture.

As I told someone else, the "woe is me" song doesn't play well here. Get with the program. Follow the example of some of your "friends" here. Trueliberty and Eric both disagree but at least they are making an attempt to interact with Scripture. You could do the same if you would choose to.

 

SBaptist wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For by grace you have been saved through (your)faith <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I don't see the word "your" in the text. Looks like you added that. You may be good, but you're not good enough to edit God's Word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I chose to believe the "SPIRIT", not calvin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds awfully Corinthian. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of Scripture and you seem to have a problem with what the Scripture asserts, then you tell me. Plus this type of subjective "the Word says this but the Sprit says that" is one of the plagues dogging our churches today. And no one here has mentioned John Calvin til you did. So you're avoiding the issue.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
Pastor Larry, if foreknowledge is causative when it comes to the elect, then maybe you can tell us from Scripture why God bothers to use the Holy Spirit to convict the non-elect if they will never get this "effectual call" you talk about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My quess would be in line with Isa 6 and Christ's citation of it in the gospels where the preaching of the word and the conviction of the heart serves only to further harden for the day of judgment.

I am not sure why the fact that God has not revealed everything to us is a weak answer to you however. That seems like a copout for a desire to know everything when God has decided not to tell us. It seems to me to be questioning the wisdom of God's revelation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does the Scripture give a clear difference between effectual and non-effectual calls?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theologically yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why does God wait a long time for some to get this "effectual call"? Why not save them while they are young so that the kingdom of God can be advanced that much more?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. AGain, God has not told us.

Perhaps you can answer this question, if foreknowledge is not causative but simply reactive, what purpose does election serve? Why does God elect those who are going to believe anyway?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
But it's not the preaching and the conviction themselves that initiates the hardening.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not what any of the texts you quote say. Your theology must be driven by Scripture. You repeat the assertion about Pharoah that has already shown to be wrong. Your understanding of John 12 specifically denies the wording of the text.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Speaking of copout!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a copout at all. It is a demonstration of commitment to the text of Scripture to affirm what it affirms and go no farther. Your question has shown no inconsistency in my position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why longsuffer if they are of the elect anyways?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because God's plan is worked out in time. Rom 9 clearly states that the longsuffering is to give a chance for God to show mercy to vessels prepared beforehand for glory. It is beforehand that they were prepared and it was glory that they were prepared for. AGain, a commitment to the text of Scripture would answer these questions for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's easy. The purpose of election is to be conformed to the image of God's son (Romans 8:29).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No kidding. It of necessity first requires salvation. No matter how you read these verses, justification is involved. If they are going to be saved anyway, then election serves no purpose.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To answer the second question, predestination denotes eternal security. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will have to assert this from Scripture. (HINT: It's not there.)

The one common thread through all that you are posting here is a consistent failure to deal with the text of Scripture. Your theology is weak because it ignores clear Scripture in favor of your interpretation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Larry:I am not sure why the fact that God has not revealed everything to us is a weak answer to you however. That seems like a copout for a desire to know everything when God has decided not to tell us. It seems to me to be questioning the wisdom of God's revelation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope Larry will not be offended that I respond to his comment above but, since that was a constant refrain regarding his objections to my comments on another subject, I'm compelled to respond.

First of all, I don't think anyone is asking Larry to explain everything concerning God's mind. But explanations are being asked regarding practical matters that pertain directly to our salvation. These are things we should know and that do not require any delving deep into the so-called "deep mysteries" of God. That is not to deny that mysteries regarding God do exist but God does not keep any mysteries with respect to our relationship with and obligations to him.

Secondly, I doubt very much if TrueLiberty or anyone else is "questioning the wisdom of God's revelation." What is being questioned is Larry's understanding of God's revelation.

There is a simple rule that I follow: If I can't explain it, that means I don't understand.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

Election
It is clear in my reading of the Bible that unconditional Election is right. We need just to look at ourselves and see that there is no good thing in us. We are even told that we are dead in sin (Eph 2:1) and it is even more clear that a dead person can not make a decision. I ask the question to you how could Lazarus come back from the dead without the Lord telling him to do so.
A person can be a murderer and a total outcast but the Lord can still save them. As the great theologian and reformer John Calvin said “The wicketness of Man can change the election of God”
There are many times in the bible that says that God chooses the sinner .

 

Ben Hutton says, 'There are many times in the Bible that says that God chooses the sinner.'

Now you are telling the truth! He chooses all sinners to be saved. Now in time He only asks that they believe. [John 3:16;Acts 2:2l;I Timothy 2:4--'Who WISHES (in the Greek) all men to be saved . . .';I Timothy 2:6 'Who gave Himself a ransom for ALL . . .' Romans 5:18. Adam fell and judgment came on all human beings. God's supreme desire is to recover all who fell in Adam. Thus, you read, 'even so by the righteousness of One--the free gift came on all men unto justification of life.' The free gift is His grace. Luther and other quasi-orthodox Calvinists believe the gift is bound and if not, at least 'the bondage of the will.' His election is based entirely on whether a person believes or remains in unbelief. This is the Divine plan that reaches into the eternities past.

Dr. Berrian

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
His election is based entirely on whether a person believes or remains in unbelief.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please produce Scripture to this effect. You have been asked before and you keep ignoring it. Why?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Thus, you read, 'even so by the righteousness of One--the free gift came on all men unto justification of life.'
Dr. Berrian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are ALL MEN justified?

Why is it when you move from "Ray", to "Ray Berrian, Th.D" to "Dr. Berrian", your responses are less and less biblcal??

 

Chris Temple,

Your question essentially was, Are all people justified because the free gift came to all men unto justification of life? Your answer is in verse nineteen if you take time to read it. [Romans 5:18&19] ' . . . so by the obedience of one {Jesus}shall MANY be made righteous.' A
N
Y

Jesus atonement was sufficient for the whole world of people, but only effective in those who believe.

If Adam caused the fall of every human person, and he did--then if Jesus only died for some He would be less effectual than the one who He created--namely Adam.

As to your last question--I like diversity. This is why I sign off differently.

IRB

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Your question essentially was, Are all people justified because the free gift came to all men unto justification of life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, his question was "Are all men justified?" You reference v. 19 which says many. The question is do you have a cogent explanation for why the "all" becomes the "Many." My suspicion is you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have misinterpreted the passage to begin with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus atonement was sufficient for the whole world of people, but only effective in those who believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Calvinist ever said it better. Careful, you are slipping here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If Adam caused the fall of every human person, and he did--then if Jesus only died for some He would be less effectual than the one who He created--namely Adam.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a prime example of bad theological reasoning. This is no where in the text. You have read it in because of your presuppositions. The text plainly says that all are justified by Christ. Yet you have fel the liberty to change that for some reason.

The point of the passage is the modus operandi: All in Adam are affected by his sin just as all in Christ are affected by his righteousness.

Additionally, I notice that you skipped right over my question to get to Chris's. Why?

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

You have given misinformation to Ben Hutton.

Biblical theology bases its truth as to election on the 'foreknowledge of God' rather than outright predestination. The word 'foreknowledge' means prognosis. In eternity past the Lord viewed how each human being would respond to His free offer of grace. It was on this basis that He has predestinated the majority to Hell, and some to the joy and felicity of being forever with Him in Heaven.

"Ray"

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

I want to say this respectfully to you. No Calvinist that I ever met admitted that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but only efficient in the elect. Perhaps you have turned the corner in favor of Biblical theology.

A true Calvinist would say Christ's atonement was only for the elect. Thus, the third error of Calvinism--a Limited Atonement. The non-elect were not even considered in the matter of salvation. A true Calvinist calls this 'Limited Atonement.'

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I want to say this respectfully to you. No Calvinist that I ever met admitted that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but only efficient in the elect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you need to get out more becuase I have never met one who denies it. This shows how horribly inadequate your knowledge on this information is. You seem very limited in your information about this.

One of the most popular and often published authors on Calvinism very clearly refutes what you are saying. Read Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

Limited atonement deals with the efficiency of the atonement. No Calvinist would argue that more of a sacrifice was needed if God had decreed to save everyone in human history.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You have given misinformation to Ben Hutton.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowledge, I have not addressed any information to Ben.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Biblical theology bases its truth as to election on the 'foreknowledge of God' rather than outright predestination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one argues this. HOwever, as I have already addressed and you have ignored, foreknowledge does not means prognosis. You are giving misinformation.

I have just looked at the following brief lexical works: Louw-Nida, UBS (Shorter Danker), Friberg, and LSJ. All of these agree with me and against you.

You make foreknowledge refer to a thing: foreseen faith. Foreknowledge in salvation as described in Scripture never deals with a thing; it always deals with a person. God foreknew people, not things about people.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In eternity past the Lord viewed how each human being would respond to His free offer of grace. It was on this basis that He has predestinated the majority to Hell, and some to the joy and felicity of being forever with Him in Heaven. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what did election accomplish? It chose those who were already chosen? Surely not. You make election to mean nothing at all. It is useless if God looked to see what man would do.

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]