predestnation vs free will

God is Sovereign.

You might say that my box (as far as this issue is concerned) has very loose boundaries. I recognize that the Bible presents God as Sovereign. I also recognize that the Bible presents God as wanting to reconcile all men to Himself. I see in the Bible that God also holds man responsible for his choices. I don't try to make them all fit in a box because I can't. Obviously, from the presentation of all these themes in Scripture God means for us to accept all of these revelations about Him.

A better name for this thread according to my understanding would be predestination and free will.


In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

Tim Too,
So you don't have an interpretation of John 6:37?

In Christ,
Bobby

 

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. John 6:37 NIV

God is sovereign. God is the author and perfector of our salvation. I see that those who come to salvation in Jesus do not have a boast in that salvation. What I do not see in this verse is that God doesn't offer salvation to all men.

There are stronger verses to show that God elects unto salvation. I do not deny that the Bible reveals God as electing unto salvation. What I also do not deny is that the Bible reveals that God desires for all men to come to repentance and this is the very thing that you deny.

What do you do with this verse?

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32 NIV

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

Maybe I need to be more specific
“Who” are the ones given to Jesus by the Father?

Second of all, I would love to discuss this verse with you. I must mention again that context is king. All these verse you are citing look nice until you look at the context. That is why I would like to discuss each one ‘individually’ with you.

Im sure your aware that the word “all” can have different meanings, depending on the context.
For example, look at Mark 1:4. Also look at 1 Cor. 12:13, Does All mean everybody? Or just Christians?

Context!

Lets read Romans 11:28-32 in context.
(28)As concerning the gospel, they (JEWS) are enemies for your (GENTILES) sakes: but as touching the election, they (Jews) are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29)For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance
(30)For as ye (GENTILES)in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (JEWS) unbelief
(31)Even so have these (JEWS) also now not believed, that through your (GENTILES) mercy they (JEWS) also may obtain mercy.
(32)For God hath concluded them all (JEWS) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all (NOT JUST JEWS, GENTILES ALSO).

Again, your “proof text” falls in light of the immediate context. You can clearly see from the context that Pauls point is that now God has mercy upon “all” , meaning “Not Just JEWS”. Your usage of the word “all” is not found in this context.

In Christ,
Bobby

 

If you are going to harp about me pulling things out of context why do you insist that I say in this passage the "who" are those God's has elected unto salvation? I have already said that I believe the Bible shows God elects unto salvation. John does not use the word elect in any of his writings. Do you want me to go out of the immediate context to stick the word elect here? As I have said there are better verses for showing God electing unto salvation.

From the context the "who" are those the Father gives to Jesus.

Jews are one specific group of people and Gentiles are... EVERYBODY ELSE!?!?!?

Looks like you are going to see what you are going to see and you can say the same about me so let's drop it.

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

I think it is an absurdity to say God is drawing all men to salvation and that Christ died for all men, without exception.

I would say that the following verses mean all men without exception:

Why does this cover all men without exception ? Because the Bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

The following also apply to all without exception:

Because meekness towards God and towards fellow men is a fruit of the Spirit which indwells every child of God.

The following cannot be construed as all without exception.

Geographically, it will be impossible for all humankind to learn or hear of the Roman Christians' obedience. Chronologically, we, of this present age, can only read of their obedience, not witness it, or hear someone audibly bear witness of it. Therefore, Paul was using the Greek word of the English all in relation to his position in time.

Do all men, without exception, have his proper gift of God ?
Was Paul the servant of all ? Was Paul a servant of unsaved men of his time ?


This verse, again, means all without exception:

Not all of humankind look to a hope in Heaven, but all men (Jew or Gentile) elect of God, have their hope in Christ.

This scripture does not mean an all-inclusive "all"

....because the next verse says "there is one mediator between God and men" and we know that Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and His people only.

This verse also does not mean "all" as in all mankind:

Because the context clearly shows the longsuffering is towards God's people, not mankind.


Finally, the Holy Spirit is the One who regenerates. The Father chose, the Son redeemed, the Spirit regenerates. Why should the Holy Spirit draw all men without exception to Christ, when "there are three that bear record in Heaven, and these three are one " ? One God, One Purpose, One Will.

For the Spirit now to draw all men to Christ is to go against the will of the Father who elected a people unto Himself, and the will of the Son, who saved His people from their sins.

 

pinoybaptist,

I am not going to quibble with you about what every use of "all" means. I will agree that evidently in some instances Paul used hyperbole, but not all. You have, therefore the luxury of doing away with every ALL that does not fit you theology.

In the verses that pertain to salvation where he used ALL do you think that Paul (the Calvinist as you would have him) did not know a Greek word for some?

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

Put some context around that and you'll see that he's not talking about "all men" as in "everyone who has ever lived" but "all men" as in "both Jews and Gentiles alike". Similarly, when he says "all Israel will be saved", only universalists believe that means every Israelite. Obviously the word "all" is often used as a generalization, not specifically "everyone without exception".

Text in [] mine:

 

Of course he knew Greek words for some, and he would have used them, if he did not intend to mean all men as in all races of men, Jew or Gentile.

Remember that the Jews considered themselves superior to Gentiles, because to them were entrusted the oracles of God, as a people. Therefore, Paul used all in the sense of conveying that there is no more distinction between men, and that God had always had his people among all men.

Jesus Himself refutes your position that the Holy Spirit draws all men to Christ when He said:

and also,

Of course, you can read any word the way you like to fit your theology, and use sillogism if you want, but the Bible still says we need to compare Scripture with Scripture, a precept here, a precept there, a line here, a line there.

One cannot take one word that seems to imply that God loves all men and wants all men to be saved and forget other verses that deal with God's holiness, sovereignty, power, might, wisdom, and of man's depravity, fallen nature, sinfulness, and pride.

 

So why couldn't he clearly articulate that he meant some of all men. Maybe you just don't want to accept what it says so you reintrepret to fit Calvinism.

And where did the Bible say that?

And by the same token can one take verses that say God is sovereign, and God elects unto salvation and forget about other verses that show God wanting to reconcile all men to Himself? You only want it to work only one way.

I don't forget about God's sovereignty. I recognize that He elects unto salvation. I recognize that the Bible reveals that God desires for all men to be repent and be saved. Both are in there. Even though I can't, in my limited knowledge, make the two fit I gladly accept both.

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time. 1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

Here is another "generalization" of Paul's that I have ripped out of context. What do you say about it?

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time. 1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV

pinoybaptist,

Thanks for setting me straight on that precept thing. From the context it doesn't look like it was too good for those it was written about.

Here is a verse (posted earlier) that shows God wanting to reconcile all men to Himself. Though it doesn't specifically have the word reconcile in it I believe that you would agree that what it means to be reconciled to God is present in this verse.

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

Tim Too:

Again, it is not all men as in every single human being, elect or unelect. To say so, and then elect some to salvation, and leave out others, would be to say that God merely made salvation a possibility to others and a sure event to others, or, to make it more consistent with what you would like the verse to mean, to make of salvation an offer which is 'of him that runneth' when Scripture clearly says, 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy' (Romans 9:16).
Here is part of John Gill's exposition on this verse

 

IMO the whole Calvinism/ Arminianism thing is a collosal red herring and waste of energy. It stems not from the Bible but from Augustine's Promethean wrangles with Pelagius in the 410s. Now, I am in no way sying that Pelagius was right - he wasn't -but Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonic dualism - paganism - and this, combined with the polarisation of positions during the polemic of his his fight with Pelagius, caused him to adopt a strict 'either/or' position on soteriology - either Man as saved by his own efforts, or it was entirely God's work. If the latter, then it followed that (a) Man has no choice about his salvation or damnation and (b) God creates some to be destined for salvation and others for damnation. Thus we see the influence of pagan rhetorical technique in the early Catholic church.

The truth of the matter is that God is much bigger than either extreme, and can embrace both 'opposites' in tension, The nearest I can get in explaining it is to say that, yes, I have free will, but that is finite and small, and pales into insignificance compared to God's infinite Will.

I find it odd and slightly disturbing that this debate seems to consume Christians who otherwise profess to be sola scriptura when neither Arminianism nor Augustinian-Calvinist determinism are found in Scripture; both Augustine and Calvin were into determinism which, like its counterpoint, Arminiamism, is the child of Platonic dualism rather than the Scriptures.

THe point is that both sides can cite Scripture to back up their positions, and can easily twist the Scriptures that contradict them into making them say what they want them to say; for example, a Calvinist might want to twist the a Calvinist might want to twist the quote from 2 Pet 3:9 by saying 'all' means 'all who are already saved', and there are of course verses that Calvinists quote with approval that Arminians have to twist to justify their POV. Both amount to an abuse of Scripture; instead of adopting a position that was first expounded long after the NT was written, whether it be the 5th century in the case of Augustinian determinism or the 17th in the case of Arminianism, and then trying to make Scripture fit that view, we should allow Scripture, and solely Scripture, to shape our views and make our views fit with Scripture

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

PS 1000 posts! Woo-hoo!

(Sorry )

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Hey, Yo ! Congratulations, Matt !!

 

Well, the first thing I say is that your quote is a mistranslation. The word "men" in verse 6 was added by the NIV translators and does not exist in the Greek. That may be irrelevant, and it may not. But it's a point to consider.

Anyway, here's the same basic section from YLT (Young's Literal):

Now, one must ask, what is the preceding context of the remark that God "doth will all men to be saved"?

To paraphrase, the context is something like this: "I encourage you to pray for all men - not just those of us in low places but even for kings and those who are in authority that we might not stir up trouble, even if they are currently persecuting us - and even if this is counterintuitive, it is right and good, because whatever you may think of someone in authority and what he's doing at any given time, remember that God wills that all men of all stations, even these men, be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth..."

IMO, whether or not God wills all men who ever lived to be saved is not what is being addressed by this passage. In other words, this passage proves neither one side nor the other.

But your interpretation does beg the question: if God wills that all men who ever live to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, then how can it be that not all men who ever live are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth? Can man thwart God's will?

 

Maybe the question should be about the will of God. Just because the Bible says that something is the will of God, does that mean that it automatically happens? Is there some truth to the notion of a perfect will of God and a permissive will of God?

In the love of Christ,
Tim

 

NPETERELY,
Thanks for saving me they type by explaining the "context". All these verse that Tim Too is citing fall to the ground with context.

Tim Too,
Maybe I missed your answer but who are the ones given to the Father in John 6:37? May I also add, you are offering absolutely "NO" exegetical responses to the passages that you are using. Maybe because your interpretation is traditional rather than Biblical.

In Christ,
Bobby