A question about Noah...

[Skandelon]

12strings,

Good question. The first better represents my view, but please allow me to clarify. Paul was saved by grace through faith, just like us. The difference was that God used much more convincing means to bring him to faith and repentance than He does with most of us. That is part of the reason he has Apostolic Authority. He learned directly from Christ.

Paul, on his own, was rebellious and if left to his will he would have kept killing Christians. He was self-hardened and blind to the truth. God appointed him to be an apostle, not because of anything good in him, but according to his own mercy...just as he chose Jacob over Esau. But Paul's next door neighbor, also a Pharisee Christian killer, was left in his rebellion and blinded from the truth. He was used for an "ignoble purpose," he was "cut off from the tree" and he "had stumbled," but not beyond recovery. (Rm 11:11) In fact, due to Paul's ministry to the Gentiles he might be provoked to envy and saved. (v. 14).

Jonah is another good example of God using overwhelming means to change a messengers will in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose. But, consider this question: Is proof that God intervened to change Jonah's will through those outward 'normative' means (boat, storm, fish), also proof that God somehow inwardly, secretly, and supernaturally worked in the hearts of a select number of Ninevites to change their wills so that they would certainly believe his message?

That doesn't make much since to me. If God works that way, why didn't he just use his supernatural inward 'trick' to make Jonah's will change? God works through outward/normative means to provoke and change men's will, some more convincingly than others because when it comes to delivery of his message He can and does use effectual means...but even those appear to be outward/normative rather than secret/inward.

Make sense?

 

[12strings]

Paul, on his own, was rebellious and if left to his will he would have kept killing Christians. He was self-hardened and blind to the truth. God appointed him to be an apostle, not because of anything good in him, but according to his own mercy...just as he chose Jacob over Esau. But Paul's next door neighbor, also a Pharisee Christian killer, was left in his rebellion and blinded from the truth. He was used for an "ignoble purpose," he was "cut off from the tree" and he "had stumbled," but not beyond recovery. (Rm 11:11) In fact, due to Paul's ministry to the Gentiles he might be provoked to envy and saved. (v. 14).

This sound very similar to that pseudo-calvinist I quoted in another thread who believed God elected some to irrisitable salvation, and left the non-elect with the gospel message only, and that some of them may come to christ also, but the Elect surely will.

Jonah is another good example of God using overwhelming means to change a messengers will in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose. But, consider this question: Is proof that God intervened to change Jonah's will through those outward 'normative' means (boat, storm, fish), also proof that God somehow inwardly, secretly, and supernaturally worked in the hearts of a select number of Ninevites to change their wills so that they would certainly believe his message?

No, it is not proof.

That doesn't make much since to me. If God works that way, why didn't he just use his supernatural inward 'trick' to make Jonah's will change? God works through outward/normative means to provoke and change men's will, some more convincingly than others because when it comes to delivery of his message He can and does use effectual means...but even those appear to be outward/normative rather than secret/inward.

I don't think a calvinist necessarily has to divorce the outward/normative means from the inward. they would say they are all working together. So in Paul's case, there was both an outward blinding light and voice, and an inward working of the H.S. God uses means to accomplish what he has designed to do.

 

[Skandelon]

You have to remember that Arminius was a "Calvinist" who respected John Calvin. He simply tweaked some of the points he believed to be in error, so I suspect He would sound a lot like a 'Calvinist' in many respects.

I don't think a calvinist necessarily has to divorce the outward/normative means from the inward.

Some are very careful not to...but I've heard some argue that someone may be regenerated a long time before hearing the gospel and coming to faith. And even those who put them together seem to be still placing the power in the inward/secret working rather than in the gospel itself. I think truth, especially truth inspired and sent by God to man, is powerful and has an inward effect. There is nothing secret about it. The truth shall set you free, unless of course you trade it in for a lie.

Jesus said, the words I speak to you are spirit and life. I think we can undermine that truth when we presume his words must be accompanied by the spirit in order for them to have life. Words have power, not because we say them, but because HE inspired them, persevered them, and sends them through HS indwelled messengers into every part of the earth.

they would say they are all working together.

And honestly, I don't take a hard stance against this view. I do disagree that it is "irresistible," but if someone wants to say the spirit is working in conjunction with the word, I don't try to dispute that because the result is the same for the most part. Now, if they say the word of God can be read/preached by not have power, I'll take issue with them, because the scripture CLEARLY says it NEVER returns void and that it ALWAYS accomplishes its purpose.

So, if a preacher preaches the gospel to a crowd and no one is saved I would never say something like...well the spirit didn't work. If the gospel was preached, the Spirit was at work because the preaching of the gospel IS A WORK OF THE SPIRIT! We can't know what impact his word is having on the hearts of man, so who are we to conclude when He is or isn't at work? See what I mean?

So in Paul's case, there was both an outward blinding light and voice, and an inward working of the H.S. God uses means to accomplish what he has designed to do.

Ok. But it appears to me the spirit indwells a man through faith according to scripture, so we may just disagree as to the order of events in this regard. We agree that all are involved, but just may differ on the effectuality and order of the Spirits working.

 

[JesusFan]

You have to remember that Arminius was a "Calvinist" who respected John Calvin. He simply tweaked some of the points he believed to be in error, so I suspect He would sound a lot like a 'Calvinist' in many respects

.


Think some of the non cals, and for that matter, arminians, are surprised just HOW much like a cal he sounded in some ways!

Some are very careful not to...but I've heard some argue that someone may be regenerated a long time before hearing the gospel and coming to faith. And even those who put them together seem to be still placing the power in the inward/secret working rather than in the gospel itself. I think truth, especially truth inspired and sent by God to man, is powerful and has an inward effect. There is nothing secret about it. The truth shall set you free, unless of course you trade it in for a lie.

I reject the concept that God can regenerate infants to receive jesus, or that there can be "long" intervals between that aspect and actual faith in Christ..
BUT

Do hold that repentance/regeneration/faith are ALL part of the 'salvation process" of the Lord, and they all happen basically at time of the sinner becoming a saint...


NO cal here would deny the Gospel, Cross of Christ, is void and has no power to save BUT

We hold that the fall made us ALL dead to be effected by it until God applies towards us the effetual Grace of the Cross in order to allow/permit the Gospel to do its saving work in us...


Spritually dead sinners as result of the fall, Ftaher elects those whom Christ died for to receive His atonement work of Grace ob Cross, sends His HS to them, along with Gospel, All things working together to get one who dead in sin, blind to the Cross, to being as Apostle paul, now "I see"

Jesus said, the words I speak to you are spirit and life. I think we can undermine that truth when we presume his words must be accompanied by the spirit in order for them to have life. Words have power, not because we say them, but because HE inspired them, persevered them, and sends them through HS indwelled messengers into every part of the earth.

be careful, sounds like saying words have "magic: in them to save us, like power in them apart from the HS doing His work in the process...

The Cross of Christ saves us, God grants to us the entire 'process" to apply that Grace to our behalf, Gospel part of that...



And honestly, I don't take a hard stance against this view. I do disagree that it is "irresistible," but if someone wants to say the spirit is working in conjunction with the word, I don't try to dispute that because the result is the same for the most part. Now, if they say the word of God can be read/preached by not have power, I'll take issue with them, because the scripture CLEARLY says it NEVER returns void and that it ALWAYS accomplishes its purpose.

it does produce that effect in those whom God has elected unto eternal life in christ, but to sinners will just harden them further...

jeremiah had the power of the 'word of the Lord" not ONE person in the land l at that time chose to obey God and heed his message...

isaiah also had 'word of the Lord" come to him, but the Jewish people again were 'tone deaf" to the message of God!

In fact , it seems thast ALL of the prophets of God in OT had the "word of the Lord" come to them, gave to the people, minority"faithful remnant" heard and heeded, majority ignored it...

same way, Gospel produces its intended effect to being the elect to salvation, but remainder are 'tone deaf" to it!

So, if a preacher preaches the gospel to a crowd and no one is saved I would never say something like...well the spirit didn't work. If the gospel was preached, the Spirit was at work because the preaching of the gospel IS A WORK OF THE SPIRIT! We can't know what impact his word is having on the hearts of man, so who are we to conclude when He is or isn't at work? See what I mean?

The Gospel will always do its work to "wake up" the elect of God.....

Ok. But it appears to me the spirit indwells a man through faith according to scripture, so we may just disagree as to the order of events in this regard. We agree that all are involved, but just may differ on the effectuality and order of the Spirits working.

Seems that it ALL comes back to how we view effect of the fall to all of us, as your theology tends to see it as 'warping/marring" while ours tend to send it 'destroying/killing" us off!

 

[matt wade]

Seems that it ALL comes back to how we view effect of the fall to all of us, as your theology tends to see it as 'warping/marring" while ours tend to send it 'destroying/killing" us off!

I propose we remove posting privileges from those that are unwilling to use the quote feature properly.

Here's a clue JesusFan, if your responses end up in the big grey box, you are doing it wrong.

 

[JesusFan]

I propose we remove posting privileges from those that are unwilling to use the quote feature properly.

Here's a clue JesusFan, if your responses end up in the big grey box, you are doing it wrong.

thanks for the help!

What did you think about what was posted though?

 

[matt wade]

thanks for the help!

What did you think about what was posted though?

I don't know. That's the problem. When you don't post things properly it makes it tough for people to read what you are saying.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't know. That's the problem. When you don't post things properly it makes it tough for people to read what you are saying.

guess I am in good company, as even the Apostle paul was experiencing people "having trouble" reading and understanding him!

 

[Robert Snow]

Aaron...of course this is it. He was part of the Godly line preserved by God's grace....so the promised seed could come:type::type:

Boy, wasn't Noah lucky?

 

[Aaron]

I don't think a calvinist necessarily has to divorce the outward/normative means from the inward. they would say they are all working together. So in Paul's case, there was both an outward blinding light and voice, and an inward working of the H.S. God uses means to accomplish what he has designed to do.

I find it humorous that Scandal classifies Jonah's and Paul's experiences as "normative." I can just hear the Ninevites:

First Ninevite: Hey, did you hear about that guy that was vomited out onto the beach by a big fish?

Second Ninevite: Just arrive on earth, did you? That's almost as unusual than the flea I found on my dog!
​

First, Jonah's will was not changed. He did not willingly go to Ninevah. He was carried there quite against his will. He was coerced to preach, and was bitter and depressed over Ninevah's repentance. There was no change in Jonah's heart.

Second, no man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost, and that isn't an outward, natural or visible work. It is supernatural, and invisible, but it is not secret, as libelously asserted by Scandal.

 

[Aaron]

Boy, wasn't Noah lucky?

The implicaton here is that Noah was chosen on the basis of some good he had done. And that is the great blasphemy of noncalvinistic thought. Some will deny it, but it doesn't change the fact that if Calvinism is not the Gospel, then men are chosen based upon their own good and favorable responses to the revelations of God, either through nature or otherwise.

 

[quantumfaith]

The implicaton here is that Noah was chosen on the basis of some good he had done. And that is the great blasphemy of noncalvinistic thought. Some will deny it, but it doesn't change the fact that if Calvinism is not the Gospel, then men are chosen based upon their own good and favorable responses to the revelations of God, either through nature or otherwise.

The implication in scripture is that there was a "reason" other than some mysterious decree, connected to Noah finding favor in God's eyes. It follows that line that you seem to stop with:

"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time and he walked with God. Why did Noah walk with God? Had he be regenerated?

You so love to toss around the allegations of blasphemy and its cousin heresy.

 

[preacher4truth]

The implicaton here is that Noah was chosen on the basis of some good he had done. And that is the great blasphemy of noncalvinistic thought. Some will deny it, but it doesn't change the fact that if Calvinism is not the Gospel, then men are chosen based upon their own good and favorable responses to the revelations of God, either through nature or otherwise.

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't go as far as "Calvinism is the Gospel" (although I get what you mean here) but the fact is that if God, Himself alone, does not choose some, the whole entire race would be lost.

Those who embrace conditioned election/grace (chosen based upon ANYTHING other than God choosing alone) are teaching another Gospel altogether.


This truth is taught throughout Scripture (that God alone chooses/elects) . It is then an eternal truth.

 

[DHK]

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't go as far as "Calvinism is the Gospel" (although I get what you mean here) but the fact is that if God, Himself alone, does not choose some, the whole entire race would be lost.

Those who embrace conditioned election/grace (chosen based upon ANYTHING other than God choosing alone) are teaching another Gospel altogether.


This truth is taught throughout Scripture (that God alone chooses/elects) . It is then an eternal truth.

God does nothing based on randomness. You portray God as an evolutionist--something many Calvinist do--a God of randomness. He did not randomly choose Noah. There was a reason--purpose in what he did.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
--This describes the condition of the world at that time. However there was an exception.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8)
--Apparently Noah was not included in the general description given in verse five. He was a preacher of righteousness; a man who found grace in the sight of the Lord.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)
--He was a man of faith, an heir of righteousness.

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)
--In contrast to the others, Noah was Godly. God spared him.

 

[JesusFan]

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't go as far as "Calvinism is the Gospel" (although I get what you mean here) but the fact is that if God, Himself alone, does not choose some, the whole entire race would be lost.

Those who embrace conditioned election/grace (chosen based upon ANYTHING other than God choosing alone) are teaching another Gospel altogether.


This truth is taught throughout Scripture (that God alone chooses/elects) . It is then an eternal truth.

Curious to just WHERE in the NT that Skan and others here see 'corporate election" by God, that God chose the "plan" to have those saved to be added into Body of Christ...

Jesus said that His Father gave Him "people" not "plans"

paul was called individually, as were ALL of the Apostles...

again, where did this Corporate election come from?

Also, where did God EVER say He was basing His responses to save us by how odedient/acted good etc?

 

[DHK]

Curious to just WHERE in the NT that Skan and others here see 'corporate election" by God, that God chose the "plan" to have those saved to be added into Body of Christ...

Jesus said that His Father gave Him "people" not "plans"

paul was called individually, as were ALL of the Apostles...

again, where did this Corporate election come from?

Also, where did God EVER say He was basing His responses to save us by how odedient/acted good etc?

What saved Noah?
It was the Ark (a type of Christ). All (corporately) who were in the Ark, were saved. All who were outside of the Ark perished.

 

[preacher4truth]

God does nothing based on randomness.

You call it random. God calls it predestination, and His plan and His purposes. It only looks random to you as you are in utter fallacy theologically.

Thus, you portray God in error. Me? According to the Scriptures.

No need for your evolutionist drivel. It's not in the context here and is inflammatory nonsense. In other words? That's right: a strawman.

You're wrong yet again.

 

[preacher4truth]

Curious to just WHERE in the NT that Skan and others here see 'corporate election" by God, that God chose the "plan" to have those saved to be added into Body of Christ...

Jesus said that His Father gave Him "people" not "plans"

paul was called individually, as were ALL of the Apostles...

again, where did this Corporate election come from?

Also, where did God EVER say He was basing His responses to save us by how odedient/acted good etc?

They didn't get it from the Scriptures.

 

[DHK]

You call it random. God calls it predestination, and His plan and His purposes. It only looks random to you as you are in utter fallacy theologically.

Thus, you portray God in error. Me? According to the Scriptures.

No need for your evolutionist drivel. It's not in the context here and is inflammatory nonsense. In other words? That's right: a strawman.

You're wrong yet again.

You really believe it was a random choice. I pity you--the theological outlook you have.

Was it also a random choice here?

And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-24)

 

[preacher4truth]

You really believe it was a random choice. I pity you--the theological outlook you have.

Was it also a random choice here?

And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-24)

You're still incorrect. You're the one who calls His plan random. He doesn't call it that. You do.

Also, there is not a thing about the ambigous relationship of God and Enoch that suggests it was random. That's just a false non-theological unscriptural term you've used to label what the Word of God calls election. Obviously it was God who has Himself chosen all of His people. This is dogma, and applies here as well. It also dismantles your proof-text and feeble theology.

That you don't like it doesn't do a thing to this truth of Scripture.