Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

Why would it say that? Have you considered the intended audience?

If by that you mean it originates from human beings, then can you please provide the chapter and verse for that, and then explain how it fails to contradict all of the scripture that says we receive faith as a gift from God?

Yes, and that proves what? Assuming this statement is correct (and I happen to believe it probably is), then what that says is that the atonement is sufficient for all. It says nothing about the issue of election one way or another.

Put another way, I can taste pizza for all, but that doesn't mean I have to give everyone a coupon for Pizza Hut. The two issues aren't even necessarily related.

 

Absolutely.

I'm not insisting anything of the sort. When Jesus tells people to believe, He is exorting them, telling them what they ought to do, and telling them what they must do. But that does not mean they can do it of their own free will.

Once again, you are doing violence to the text by inserting your philosophy into scripture, as if it must be there because that's the only way it makes sense to you. If Jesus commands, you reason, that means we must have the ability to comply. That's the same as the error, "when it says if you will believe, that means you must be able to believe of your own free will." To which Luther so amusingly replies, it also follows that, "If Caesar shall conquer the Turks, he shall gain the kingdom of Syria: therefore, Caesar can conquer, and does conquer the Turks."

In sharp contrast, there are many verses (several of which are quoted here repeatedly, including the ones I've posted in this thread) that teach that we cannot believe without the enabling power of God. One does not have to dream up logical consequences of what it means to say "if" or command an action in order to understand these verses, as you continue to do in the following:

Exactly. Man does not have the capability until he is enabled by God. So why does that negate what Jesus is saying? Even if God never enabled anyone to believe -- ever -- and all ended up in hell, then the statement that "one must believe to be saved" is no less true. However, Jesus was speaking then to people who were enabled as well as those who weren't, and the scriptures continue speak to, exhort and command a mix of elect and non-elect to this day. So where's the mystery in that Jesus or the apostles would say that one must believe? There is none.

[ January 20, 2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

Ray,

If you will continue to read Hebrews 2, you will see that the the every man for whom Christ died are described as His "brethren." You know, the brethren of Romans 8 that you've never answered? The brethren for whom Christ was firstborn? Those who were "foreknown" of God? It all harmonizes together beautifully Ray. It's just that you are blinded by will-worship to see the truth. I pray that if it be God's will that He would give you eyes to see and ears to hear the truh.

 

The context of that verse in Hebrews is about the Adamic race. You can see that in Vss.6&7. Christ tasted death for EVERY MAN just like it says.

you can look at 1 timothy 2:1-4 to see that as well. and if your still not convinced you can always go back to 1 john 2:2.

[ January 20, 2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: shilo ]

 

1st off I would find out who Christ said were his Brethren.

2nd you seem to be insinuating, by saying "those who were "foreknown" ( though the word is "foreknow")

That the word "Foreknow" in vs.29 means (to you)that God did in fact have some pre-arranged plan.. is that what you are saying?

[ January 20, 2003, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: shilo ]

 

First, as I pointed out earlier, "tasting death for every man" and 1 John 2:2 imply that the atonement is sufficient for all. These verses do not say anything about whether or not God intended to apply the atonement to all. You can speculate endlessly about why God would provide all-sufficient atonement if it was not His intention to apply it to all. But unless you have a scripture that answers the question, all you are doing is inquiring into the unknowable motives of God. Such speculation proves neither the free-will nor election views.

Second, if "those he foreknew" refers to a foreknowledge of those who would choose of their own free will to believe, then God necessarily foreknows who will not choose to believe. God therefore foreknows everyone. The difference is not between whom He foreknows, but what He foreknows about everyone.

Scripture does not support this interpretation of the phrase "whom He foreknew".

For example, Jesus says in Matthew 7:22-23, "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.'"

There you have people who claim to know Christ, to want Christ, to name Jesus as their Lord, and claim to have produced good fruits for Christ. What happened to Romans 10:9? Didn't these people confess with their mouth "Jesus is lord?" What happened to "You will know them by their fruits?" Didn't these people produce good fruits for God? How is it these people did not believe if they performed miracles in His name?

Yet Jesus does not say, "I knew you, and I knew your hearts were not sincere." He does not say, "I knew you and you did not really choose to believe of your own free will." Jesus does not say, "I knew you and thererfore know you are lying about what good works you did." Jesus says, "I NEVER KNEW YOU." They were not among those whom God foreknew.

This does not tell us exactly what it means to be foreknown. Taken alone, it does not prove election or disprove free will. But it does make it nearly impossible to say that "those He foreknew" refers to those He knew beforehand would choose salvation of their free will.

[ January 20, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

npetreley,

I suggest that you're interpretation of scripture is just as much your own philosophy/theology as anyone else's is. Your understanding of the scriptures debated upon in this thread are not the result of some clear, visible meaning to which you can see and others cannot. Its simply your theology. For example, you said,

I suggest those verses don't say anything about the sufficiency you allude to either. And I understand your statement to mean this is one of many verses explaining "sufficiency" when in fact it is "effectual" for only some. This is simply Calvinism's theology of which you, apparently, are convinced is true.

IMO, the scriptures you, or anyone else, provides in support of Calvinism, are just as clouded with personal philosophy that you claim is the reason for "blindness" of the opposers.

P.S I respect anyone's personal beliefs. This is not meant to be derogatory. It's simply a point to be made so that both sides can "admit" this is all about one's personal theology. Not the "clear" meaning of some scripture in which one side is right and the other wrong.

 

Pastor Larry said,

I walk into a strange room, find a chair that by all appearances would support me if I sat down on it. By sight, I have faith in the chair. Is that chair the author of my faith? Not in the least! My faith in that chair comes from within me, and is based on my experience with similar objects, not from that specific chair.

Now, a stranger whom I've never before met walks up to me. Do I without hesitation trust that stranger with every fiber within me? No, none of us do that! If that stranger is the Christ, does that make a difference? No, how do you know that stranger is the Christ until you get to know Him? What was there to distinguish Jesus as the Christ? He was born of lowly estate, dressed like a 'commoner', and his own people recognized him not! So what was it caused the 12 to become his disciples? At first it was word of mouth eyewitness reports. and then with an authority Jesus uniquely called some out to follow him. Those twelve did not follow Jesus because He was the cavalier knight in shining armor like they wanted the Messiah to be. They followed him because he possessed an authority unseen in others.

The more I learn of this stranger the more he earns my trust until at some point, I, all by myself, come to the point where I am compelled to believe what I know about him. He is not the author or finisher of my faith except that he is the object of my faith and that finishes it for me! I need look no further for the long awaited Christ, because I have found Him in Jesus.

My faith in Jesus comes from MY experience with Jesus. I went from non believer to believer within MY OWN self, based on what I learned of Jesus. Now, if there were no Jesus, or If I did not hear of Jesus, I would have no faith in Jesus and neither would you! Have I seen Jesus in the flesh? Not hardly, and that is why my faith in Him is the substance of what I hope for and the evidence of that which I have not seen. If I had the experience that the Apostles had, I would have no need for faith in Jesus because I would have first hand Knowledge of Jesus. I, like Peter, would know that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah based on what I learned about and from Him. It took the Apostles over three years of constant companionship with Jesus to learn that Jesus was in fact the Messiah. But, because my knowledge is not first hand, but cometh from the Word of God, I must rely on my faith which is confirmed as true by the Holy Spirit.

Go ahead, tell us that is not the way you came to faith! Tell us that you did not first have to learn of Jesus before you had enough knowledge of Him for you to accept what is written of Him as truth.

 

"Knowing" goes both ways; referring to an intimate relationship. If a person does not know Jesus as Lord and Savior, then it's not that Jesus doesn't know who he is; (and this passage does not speak of foreknowing!) it's that He doesn't "know" them in a saving relationship. In the context, the reason He doesn't know them is because they are "workers of iniquity" (still unrepentant in their sins); not they are workers of iniquity because He didn't [fore]know them.

 

So you want to rewrite "I never knew you" to mean "I don't know you now because you didn't come to know me when I gave you the chance to do so of your own free will." How fascinating! Perhaps it also means, "I never met you," or "I foreknew you but I don't really know you now because we weren't properly introduced."

So it is perfectly fine to rewrite this passage of scripture, yet practically hang an entire theology on the word "any" in "not willing that any should perish".

 

Wrong on three points (or at least two, if I misunderstand Calvinism):

1. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Calvinism does not assert this, but asserts that the all-sufficiency of atonement is not true or even necessary, since only the elect need atonement.

2. Regardless of what Calvinism states, I get my views from the Bible, not from Calvinism. As you can see, I'm not even totally familiar with Calvinism.

3. If I were convinced of this interpretation of the verses, I would not have said that the verses imply all-sufficient atonement. My point was only that the verses did NOT say anything about applying atonement to everyone, no matter what you believe about the sufficiency of atonement.

[ January 20, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

npetrely,

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Point taken.

 

THe atonment that God Paid on the cross was applied to everyone just as the bible SAYS!

1 Timothy 1-6 staes that it is all men whom God wills to be saved.

1 peter 1:2 makes it clear that Election is based upon obedience.

2 Peter 2:1 makes it clear that Jesus paid the debt of sin for lost men as well.

"But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them."

Hebrews 10:29

"Of how much sorer punishment , suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath TRODDEN UNDER FOOT athey Son of God, and hath counted the BLOOD covenant, wherewith he was santified, and unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

As the scriptures said in 1jn 2:2 and Hebrews 2:9 Jesus tasted death for every man and paid the sin debt of the world. the scriptures make that crystal clear.

.

 

Then why do people go to hell?? How does God send people to hell for sins that have already been paid for?

 

Stop right there. Based on obedience?!?

Here's what the text says:

Elected for obedience, and even that through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, not our free will. Election is not based on obedience.

 

Why do people go to Hell? If the atonement covers the sins of the saved and the non-elect how can they be lost and placed into Hell?

Partiality [Galatians 2:6]in His Divine attribute of love would negate the infinity of His love. [John 3:16] If God infused the 'bondage of the will' as some claim then the 'immutability of His counsel' would be subverted. Because after binding the future elect having been sinners, He then would have to rethink what He had done and unbind those very souls. God is not portrayed in Scripture as being fickle.

The only sin that is unforgiveable in this world and the next is 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (which) shall not be forgiven . . . neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [Matthew 12:31-32] Some theologians believe that 'attributing the things of God to Satan' is that sin and/or the rejection of Christ as the Savior. This does not mean that if a person doesn't accept Christ at his first hearing about Him that he will be forever lost, but he sure will if he rejects Christ and dies in that specific sin of unbelief.

As the Word say, 'Whoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.' [Acts 2:21]

 

But answer the question Ray -- Why do people go to hell for sins that have already been paid for??

To talk about the unpardonable sin does not help. If Christ paid for all sins, then how is there an unpardonable sin? Doesn't "all" mean "all"? Or are you saying that he paid for all sins except the sin of unbelief.

 

Sin not confessed is a sin not forgiven.

The Christ did not die so that man could go on sinning. He died so that any and all who believe in him are justified before the throne of God.

Believers and confessors do not go to hell!

Believers and Confessors become repenters.

Only believers can be confessors, all others are braggers, for without repentance confession is merely a gesture.

The unpardonable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), and without the Holy Spirit, who flees the blasphemer, there is no hope of redemption.

How can a recipient who refuses the gift, possess the gift? It is impossible to refuse a gift and have that gift. If you refuse (reject) it, it is withdrawn from you.

If you refuse the Gift given, forgiveness of the sins of the world, is refused, the refusing one cannot be covered by the gift!

Do you mean that you do not know that?

 

Sorry Yelsew, but that is a direct contradiction of Shilo. See above.

 

No, I konw that. What I don't think you have reconciled is the idea of Christ paying for all sins for all time. If you believe that, then you must question why anyone goes to hell.

It seems you must say that Christ did not really pay for sin, he only made a payment possible.

The unpardonable sin (BTW) is not able to be committed today. If you read the context, it was attributing the casting out of demons by Christ to the power of Satan. It is not mere unbelief. It was a different thing. Let us not make points with out of context Scripture.

But back to the point at hand, the atonement of Christ is something that your position has not fully reckoned with. Again, you must deal with the question: If Christ paid for all sins, then why does anyone go to hell?

Consider it this way: If someone pays my credit card bill, it does not matter whether I believe they paid it or not. It is paid. If someone offers to pay my credit card bill, then it matters whether i believe them. If I believe them and accept, they will pay it; if I refuse to believe then they will not. But there is a difference between the offer and the payment.

1 John 2:2 says that Christ paid it; it does not say that he offered it. This is a contradiction in your position that you must deal with.