Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

Originally posted by Yelsew:
]'If unbelief is a sin'? Do you believe it is?

Click to expand...

Yes.

The only one you sin against is you!

Click to expand...

How about God??

Jesus said it right! Belief Saves, Unbelief Condemns!

Click to expand...

Unbeleivers are already condemned according to Christ. Their sins, according to Christ, are what sends them to hell (Rev 21:8; 20:11-15).

Jesus payment for the sins of the world does not exhonerate the sinner from the guilt of committing the sin.

Click to expand...

Then you completely misunderstand the atonement in Scripture. The atonement was the removal of guilt by the satisfaction fo the debt. If you believe that Jesus sacrifice did not remove guilt, then how in the world does it get removed? By human merit? By what? The Bible teaches that Jesus' death removed the guilt of sin. We need to believe what Scripture teaches.

So the question remains: If unbelief is a sin and Jesus paid for all sins, then how do people go to hell? How does a just God exact two punishments for one sin?

npetreley/or any Calvinist,

Unconditional Electionn . . . . Invincibility . . .

Any reflections on post January 23 at 3:12 A.M. on the truth of the credibility of the will of the human being in relation to personal salvation.

The wind (spirit) blows wherever it pleases? This is an extremely inappropriate metaphor if Jesus is teaching free will. Rather, He would say something like, "The wind blows everywhere, but men choose of their own free will to breathe it in." But that's not at all what Jesus says. The wind blows where it pleases -- Being born of the spirit is something that occurs wherever the spirit pleases to give birth, not wherever men please to accept it.

Click to expand...

I take exception to the last sentence. The Holy Spirit, in the manner of wind, goes where it will and while humanity can "feel" its affect on the human spirit, it remains unseen by human vision. The human spirit, like the Holy Spirit is also unseen by human vision, and cannot be controlled by any but the human who is that spirit.

I see Jesus speaking of human spirit. Born of water is natural human child birth, born of spirit is regeneration or salvation of fallen human spirit. Both images are of human 'birth', and that is why Nicodemus questioned Jesus about revisiting the womb. You assume that Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit when he refers to being born from above, The human spirit is not 'above' but must be born from above.

He simply did not understand that Jesus was speaking of rebirth of the unholy, sinful spirit that God sees as dead, into a regenerated, saved, new nature spirit that God sees as alive. You obviously are like Nicodemus in your lack of understanding.

To paraphrase, "Nicodemus, you don't even seem to understand the earthly things I say. So if you ain't got the spirit (if you haven't been born from above) how can you expect to get this spiritual stuff?"

Click to expand...

If you cannot understand the natural, which includes both flesh and spirit, how is it possible for you to understand spiritual things?

Your statement tells me that you believe man has no spirit until one is given to him from above. Do you really believe that? If Yes, what do you do with the scriptural statement that "the life of the flesh is spirit". How does human flesh live without spirit? How did Nicodemus live long enough for this conversation with Jesus? How did he survive live child birth if he had no spirit? Being born from above simply means regeneration of the human spirit from sin nature to righteousness nature. That occurs when one's spiritual persuasion changes from 'not believing' to 'believing' in the Son of God, or even His name, belief being a human spiritual condition. Changes in spiritual persuasion are effortless changes and are therefore not a human work. Believing is accepting a new persuasion as fact. Only the "acceptance of", "believing in", "being persuaded", concerning the Work that God has already completed through Jesus brings new birth to the human spirit.

Only when you receive or accept a gift is the gift truly yours. The giver of a gift can leave the Gift on your spiritual doorstep, but if you do not open the door and "receive" the gift, it is not yours.

Now go back and reread John 3 with the view of Jesus telling Nicodemus, a man with a human body and a human spirit, that he must be born "again" from above. If you do not see the truth of what is being said, it is because of your convoluted Calvinistic doctrine.

While on the subject of spirit. Do you think the battle with principalities and powers is about human flesh? I can assure you that the graves remain full of worthless human flesh, and no one wants it! The battle is a spiritual battle for the spirit of man. The flesh is of no consequence! That is why being born from above is absolutely essential for salvation into eternal life with Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus payment for the sins of the world does not exhonerate the sinner from the guilt of committing the sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you completely misunderstand the atonement in Scripture. The atonement was the removal of guilt by the satisfaction fo the debt. If you believe that Jesus sacrifice did not remove guilt, then how in the world does it get removed? By human merit? By what? The Bible teaches that Jesus' death removed the guilt of sin. We need to believe what Scripture teaches.

So the question remains: If unbelief is a sin and Jesus paid for all sins, then how do people go to hell? How does a just God exact two punishments for one sin?

Click to expand...

My apology, I meant to say, "Jesus' payment for the sins of the world does not exonerate the sinner from the consequences of committing the sin." If it did, born again suicides wouldn't work!

Hold it! Back Up a minute!

Here's another stumper. Most Arminians I know interpret the following to mean that every knee WILL bow and every tongue WILL confess that Jesus is Lord. The only difference will be the state the person is in when doing so (some will do so willingly in gratitude, since they are saved, and others will do so in fear and sorrow because they did not do this when they had a chance to be saved.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippians 2:9, 10...
But to take a typical Arminian "logical" stance in defense of the love of God:

If God is a loving God, and everyone does eventually bow the knee and confess Jesus is Lord, then why won't God save them at that point? Why does God care that you didn't believe when your physical body was alive? As long as you believe and confess Jesus is Lord, why should God reject you then? Sure it's easier to believe when you're physically dead and then wake up and see for yourself that Jesus really exists and there's more to this creation than your physical body. But isn't that just the point? If God is loving, why does he only accept faith when it's hard to have it, but reject it when it's easy? If God is not willing that any should perish, one must assume that God would make faith as easy as possible, and accept faith when it's arrived at easily, such as when we die and are confronted with a reality that is impossible to refute.

Click to expand...

John 20:29, Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe. Of course, the disciples saw, but they had to in order to be the original apostles. No wonder He said that others would be "greater than them" in the Kingdom.
It can be troubling having to believe in faith all of this stuff we are millennia removed from. Still, a lot of people (including some I have dealt with) want to get as much as they can out of this life, (they think of Christian life as all rules, and they don't want to give anything up without 100% certainty that it is a worthy cause) and then if it "happens to" be true, that God would "understand" and take them to Heaven anyway. So, as they say, "all this and Heaven too". But that's not what God wants. He wants unconditional commitment, not "I'll only believe if I know I'm getting something out of it".
So when they are raised back up, and see Him face to face, it is too late; they tried to do it their way, and gambled and lost.
One could pose the same question to Calvinists--
If a person's faith is only from God's enabling, then why doesn't He save them then, that He's finally revealing Himself to them? Whatever purpose He had in keeping them lost on earth (i.e. Pharaoh not letting thepeople go, etc) would be fulfilled by then.
Of course, the answer would be "He needs these "vessels of wrath" to show us His power. First, again, that passage is talking about Him showing His power on earth, not in Hell. Second, is that necessary to show His power? There are plenty of examples of His power all through out the universe we will probably be exposed to. Are you guys really looking forward to seeing people roasting in Hell? (Yes, I want to see sin punished, but it's the righting of the wrong, not the actual torture itself that I look forward to)

Anyway, I always did think that we were a bit hastily interpreting that as such a definite "every single soul who ever existed will bow and confess, even in Hell". It does say, "every knee and tongue should..., and of course, everybody is not doing as they should. It's pointing out what Jesus deserves, not what He is actually getting. Besides, once the wicked are disposed of, all the creatures left will be bowing and confessing.
Not arguing this point, just showing it is a possibility.

[ January 23, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Any reflections on post January 23 at 3:12 A.M. on the truth of the credibility of the will of the human being in relation to personal salvation.

Click to expand...

I have responded to that line of thinking several times.

It is amazing to me how you know what God "Would have said." I only know what God did say and I know that if Calvinism is true, then God said exactly what we would expect him to say. The verses you give don't contradict Calvinism in any way. They are a problem for you because you do not know what you are talking about. You keep making up stuff and expect us to believe what you say we believe.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
My apology, I meant to say, "Jesus' payment for the sins of the world does not exonerate the sinner from the consequences of committing the sin." If it did, born again suicides wouldn't work!

Click to expand...

That's better but still inaccurate. It does release them from teh eternal consequences of sin but not the temporal ones.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
That is why Luther was wrong about God readdressing the situation and binding the will, as in Bondage of the will.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that you don't understand what Luther is saying in Bondage of the Will. If I understand Luther right, he's talking about our fallen state, just as I am.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Pizza: You buy pizza for a party but not all are required to eat it. The other day a Lehigh University I met with my wife for lunch. Usually it is pizza, but on that day I ate Strombole. God offers a changed life of grace to all who believe; everything hinges on whether that person believes and trusts in Christ as noted in John 3:15 and 18. We might hope that all will eat pizza and partake of everlasting life.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with analogies, which is why I should try to avoid them more often. One ends up discussing and picking apart the analogy instead of the point.

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Your statement tells me that you believe man has no spirit until one is given to him from above. Do you really believe that?

Click to expand...

No, because that would contradict scripture. The issue here is whether or not he is born from above (born of the Spirit of God).

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Only when you receive or accept a gift is the gift truly yours.

Click to expand...

This is great material for greeting cards, but it isn't in the Bible anywhere.

"Every knee shall bow"

Some in reverence and submission in the presence of the victorious Lamb of God, a show of respect and worship.

Many in defeat at the hands and Great power of Almighty God. A show of humility in the agony of defeat as those who have no power to fight on. Will they be saved? It is not likely for they failed to choose while living the temporal life.

Remember the illustration of the rich man who died and went to hell, and the poor man Lazarus who died into Abraham's bosom. The rich man wanted to warn his family. But God told him, to wit. "they have the same warnings that you had, if they don't hear and believe, they will be joining you". There was no attempt to "save" or "redeem" the rich man from where he is.

The rich man kneels in defeat while Lazarus kneels in worship.

Nevertheless, every knee shall bow.

That's the problem with analogies, which is why I should try to avoid them more often. One ends up discussing and picking apart the analogy instead of the point.

Click to expand...

YES you do!

Isaiah 66:3 indicates that the Jews 'chose their own evil ways. The free will was viable. You indicate to me that they chose to be disobedient because of their Total Depravity. The Calvinistic view of God is that He must have directed them down their doomed path. The problem is in order to 'choose' Webster says you must 'decide' which necessitates an 'alternative.' "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary", p. 236 right column. This being true God gave them a free will to decide their eternal destiny.

In II Peter 3:9 Professor Grimm, Trench, Thayer and Wuest all speak about 'the freedom of the will.' Dr. Wuest's Greek translation goes like this. 'The Lord is not tardy with regard to the appointed time of His promise, as certain consider tardiness, but is longsuffering toward us, not having it as His considered will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'

You stand corrected. In order to have a choice you must have an alternative.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Isaiah 66:3 indicates that the Jews 'chose their own evil ways. The free will was viable.

Click to expand...

Ray, we agree with you on this. Move on.

The Calvinistic view of God is that He must have directed them down their doomed path.

Click to expand...

No its not.

The problem is in order to 'choose' Webster says you must 'decide' which necessitates an 'alternative.'

Click to expand...

That's not as great a problem as defining theology by Webster. These words have a theological usage.

We agree that the Jew freely chose their own way. They did exactly what they wanted to do.

You stand corrected. In order to have a choice you must have an alternative.

Click to expand...

There is an alternative. At any time they wish, they may turn to Christ for salvation. They do not turn because they do not want to.

Well said, Pastor Larry.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Isaiah 66:3 indicates that the Jews 'chose their own evil ways. The free will was viable.

Click to expand...

Pastor Larry did a great job answering you, but I want to take you a step further.

No one's will is truly free. If you decided you wanted to grow wings and fly around the world, you couldn't. Why? Your will is limited by your own physical limitations. You don't have omnipotence, as does God, therefore you cannot exercise the full measure of your will, as can God. He is the only one with true free will.

Now, if we can agree that our wills are limited by our physical abilities (or lack there of), why can't we also agree that our wills are limited by our lack of spiritual ability? In our fallen state our will is in bondage to the slavery of our sin nature.

The bible clearly teaches that we are born "dead in our sin," and "slaves to the sin nature." That doesn't sound free to me?

We don't experience true freedom until Christ sets us free, then we are free indeed! Which fully explain John 6 when Jesus tells his disciples that no one can come to him unless he is enabled by the Father. Without God's enabling, a man remains unable to seek and know the Son.

So, a better way to understand mankind, in its natural state, is that they can do whatever they desire. The problem is they only have selfish desires. Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, they can't seek after God or desire Him. So there is no one in the world banging on heaven's door saying let me in, while God says, "No you can't your not elect." That's not how it works.

Nor is their anyone being dragged into heaven kicking an screaming saying no, no I don't want to go, while God say, sorry buddy your elect, your going in. God gives us a new heart when we are born again and our desire for Him changes. Make since?

Sam

Ray Berrian,

What exactly is the problem? The Calvinists affirm that the Jews chose their own ways.

"Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." (Psalms 76:10)

God did not restrain the Jews from committing their abominations, but suffered them to walk in their own ways. Is God unrighteous for permitting the Jews to walk in accordance with their own sinful desires? God forbid! The natural man always chooses that which is contrary to God. You cannot make a lion eat straw, and you cannot make a natural man receive the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

You say a 'natural man,' a sinner can choose to find and follow Christ and this is true. Since God the Spirit is always at work with sinners [Revelation 22:17] there is no encumberance on their soul like the Bondage of the Will to hold them back from finding the Lord. This makes room for those who believe who become part of 'the remnant according to the election of grace. [Romans 11:5]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You say a 'natural man,' a sinner can choose to find and follow Christ and this is true.

Click to expand...

I get the impression you're quoting someone who supports Calvinism, but I don't see that kind of statement made anywhere by anyone other than arminians. If you're referring to Samuel's statement:

Originally posted by Samuel:
So, a better way to understand mankind, in its natural state, is that they can do whatever they desire.

Click to expand...

Then IMO you missed his point entirely. The point is that we are not forcibly restricted from choosing Jesus, but we have no inclination whatsoever to choose Jesus, nor are we able to be persuaded to choose Jesus in our natural state by natural means, therefore we are not "free" to choose Jesus. Thus, we do whatever we want, but there are things we do not want, and cannot be enabled to want except through the power of God. (Correct me if I'm wrong Samuel - I don't mean to speak for you.)

Since God the Spirit is always at work with sinners [Revelation 22:17] there is no encumberance on their soul like the Bondage of the Will to hold them back from finding the Lord.

Click to expand...

Revelation 22:17 has nothing to do with the issue you raise. Here's the text:

Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with bondage of the will, especially with respect to the way Luther understood it (not the way you are misrepresenting it)? The above is perfectly clear. Whoever hears, whoever is thirsty, whoever wishes, come, the gift is free! What it does not describe at all is who hears, is thirsty, or wishes, and why they are that way.

This makes room for those who believe who become part of 'the remnant according to the election of grace. [Romans 11:5]

Click to expand...

Again, nobody disagrees with you that those who believe are the elect. I don't see your point.

[ January 24, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

That's not as great a problem as defining theology by Webster. These words have a theological usage.

We agree that the Jew freely chose their own way. They did exactly what they wanted to do.

Click to expand...

Explain what the theological usage is of the words that are merely defined in Websters may be that renders them useless in theological circles.

Then you agree that free will is an attribute of man?

Do you believe that free will cannot be exercised to believe (have faith) in God? That is afterall what you have been saying all along.

[ January 24, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

Almighty God would not make a proclamation to turn to God if there was not a choice and possibility for all human beings to find Him. [Jeremiah 21:8; John 3:18; Romans 11:15; I Peter 2:10]