Calvinism/Arminianism Forum - Finally Imploded?

[The Archangel]

If Calvinism were true, then Paul actually told the Philipian jailer a lie that would damn him to hell. He should have told the Philipian jailer he could do absolutely nothing whatsoever, and that if he was fortunate he might be one of the elect, and that God would regenerate him. He should perform no action whatsoever, because that would be a work that would forfeit salvation.

It is amazing, Calvinism actually makes people afraid to perform what is necessary to be saved.

I see you're demonstrating your absolute misunderstanding of Calvinism...again. At this point--since you've been instructed so many times--I don't think it is a misunderstanding. I think you are deliberately misrepresenting our position.

A Calvinist would never say the words you put into Paul's mouth. A Calvinist would tell you the Jailer's question, "What must I do to be saved," is evidence of regeneration. A Calvinist would tell you that Paul's example of telling him to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" is what we are all supposed to do (regardless of someone's status as elect or reprobate). We do not know who is elect or reprobate so we preach "Repent and Believe" to all.

Maybe it is the case that your torpid mind is not grasping these things. Whatever the case, however, you would do well to quit misrepresenting our position and it would do you well to stop saying things (see quote above) that are hideously stupid and demonstrate that you are, among other things, ignorant.

The Archangel

 

[jbh28]

No, election is according to foreknowledge. What does the word "foreknowledge" tell us? It tells us that election is based or conditioned upon something God knew before it happened. What could that be? I say it is faith, and I have shown several examples from scripture that shows God knows who will believe on Christ before they actually do. He also knew Judas would betray him before it actually happened. So, it doesn't matter that we were not born or created before the foundation of the world, God could see ahead in the future and knows who will believe and who will not.

In Ephesians, it says it is according to God's will. According means in agreement/harmony with, not necessarily conditioned.

However, I think you do see that either with conditional election or unconditional election, you were one of the elect before the foundation of the world. You were elected in Christ, yet you were not in Christ yet.

You didn't come right out and say faith is a work, but you certainly implied it when you said this:

You misunderstood or I didn't make my self clear. No problem. I wasn't saying that faith is a work.

You say if election is conditioned on faith then we would have something to boast about. So you view faith as a work performed by us.

No, it isn't a work, but if you were elected because of your faith that you made yourself, then you were elected because of something with you. God sees your faith so He elects you. That's not saying you worked for your election, but there was something Good in you.

You will be offended by this, but you have to do something to be saved, you can't do absolutely nothing. When the Philipian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, did Paul say "Do nothing!"? No, he gave him a definite answer, he told him he must believe on Jesus to be saved.

Why would I be offended by that. Did you read my previous post where I said Faith was required for Salvation?

If Calvinism were true, then Paul actually told the Philipian jailer a lie that would damn him to hell.

You misunderstand Calvinism. Did Spurgeon ever say that believing wasn't required for Salvation? No wonder you hate Calvinism so much, you don't distinguish between the hypers and the non-hypers.

He should have told the Philipian jailer he could do absolutely nothing whatsoever, and that if he was fortunate he might be one of the elect, and that God would regenerate him. He should perform no action whatsoever, because that would be a work that would forfeit salvation.

It is amazing, Calvinism actually makes people afraid to perform what is necessary to be saved.

I have heard a hyper say that, and I responded with the same verse. But that isn't mainline Calvinism, nor is it what I believe.

 

[jbh28]

And choosing God is not a work, because God first chooses us. He initiates the whole process. If he did not send his word into the world, you could not be saved.

Yes, God starts not us. We love him because he FIRST loved us. (notice it doesn't say We love him because he first loved us because he looked ahead and saw we loved him. That's illogical.

God chose the Jews, but were all the Jews saved? No, only those who believed were saved. Does this not prove that election is conditioned on faith?

No, not at all. Election of the Jews is different from election for Salvation. Also, did God choose the Jews because he knew they would choose Him to be His chosen people?

I have heard this analogy, and though all analogies fail at some point, it is pretty good.

Election is similar to a company looking for an employee. They start the whole process by listing a job in the paper. You see the ad and go down and apply. You go through the interview, and they tell you they need to conduct more interviews and will get back to you.

Two days later they call you up and say they liked you and have decided to hire you. So, they chose you.

But do you have a choice in the matter as well? Of course, you must also choose them. You might tell them you are not interested in working for them.

But if you do choose them, does that negate that they first chose you? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. You could not possibly choose them unless they had first chosen you. Does that make you the boss? Does that take away their sovereignty? Of course not.

What if they called and said they had chosen someone else for the job? Could you tell them that they have to hire you because you had chosen them? Of course not, that would be ridiculous as well.

So, God first chooses us, but we also have to respond by choosing him. If he did not first choose us, then it would be impossible for us to choose him.

And can you see that choosing God does not rob his sovereignty over you?

The problem is that the person looking for a Job is seeking after God, something the Bible says is false. Before we are saved, we don't want God. The other problem is that God will reject no one that comes to him. So your analogy has many flaws in it.

God letting man have a choice wouldn't be an attack on His sovereignty. However, if you say God wants to save someone, but can't, that would be an attack on God's sovereignty.

 

[John Toppass]

Winman,
I understand what you are saying. Your right, Paul did not tell the jailer about Calvinism because it was several hundred years later before unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace was added by man's word to the doctrine of salvation. As for me I will stick with the scripture as breathed by God.

 

[psalms109:31]

Scripture

1 John 4:1
[ Test the Spirits ] Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[Or spirit] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.


People who look for false bills, don't study all the false bills out there to find fake, but study the real one to find the false one's.

 

[jbh28]

Winman,
I understand what you are saying. Your right, Paul did not tell the jailer about Calvinism because it was several hundred years later before unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace was added by man's word to the doctrine of salvation. As for me I will stick with the scripture as breathed by God.

Shows both of your ignorance because unconditional election, limited atonement(which I don't agree with btw) and irresistible grace are not how to get saved, which was what the jailer asked about.

 

[convicted1]

I believe in election, but I believe the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election to be error.

I believe God elected those whom he saw in his foreknowledge would have faith.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Here God says he has chosen the poor of the world who are rich in faith. Is that unconditional?

It is not because they are poor that they are chosen, it is because of their faith.

Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.

Look up the definition of trust in the OT. It's definition means to "flee for refuge to" or to "seek protection from" Trust is a relying, a depending, a casting of one's self upon another for refuge or help.

And you will see this theme throughout the scriptures, that the poor tend to trust in God, while the rich trust in their own riches. That is why it is very difficult for a rich man to be saved.

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Being rich does not guarantee a person will be lost. Abraham was rich, as was Job and Solomon. And being poor does not guarantee a person will be saved.

No, faith is the condition upon which God chooses or elects men. The scriptures show that from the beginning Jesus knew who believed not, and who should betray him. He therefore also knew from the beginning who would believe in him. This is who he elects or chooses.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Whether you will accept it or not, John 6:64 is showing God's foreknowledge that from the beginning he knows who will believe and who will not. And we are elected according to this foreknowledge.

1 Pet 2:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

How are we sanctified by the Spirit? Through God's word.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Remember that Jesus said ye must be born of the "water" and the Spirit? The water is the word of God. The word of God is truth, and you must believe the truth to be chosen.

2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

God chooses people because they have been sanctified by the Spirit (through the word of God), and because they believed the truth (the word of God).

Brother Winman,

You broke that down quicker than a "polk stalk"(single barrell) shotgun! Wow! Those are some sweet words you posted!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

i am I ams!!

Willis

 

[Winman]

Brother Winman,

You broke that down quicker than a "polk stalk"(single barrell) shotgun! Wow! Those are some sweet words you posted!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

i am I ams!!

Willis

Thanks. I simply believe there are clear examples of God's foreknowledge in knowing who will believe and who will not (John 6:64). And election is "according" to God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).

And there are several verses that show God elects those who have faith such as James 2:5 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:13.

Calvinists will never accept this, because their entire system will collapse.

Jesus said he knew whom he chose.

John 18:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Jesus knew all of the apostles and whether they would believe before he chose them. He chose eleven because he knew they would truly believe in him. They did, and nearly every one of them gave their lives for the gospel.

But he also knew Judas would betray him. The scriptures had foretold this hundreds of years before. Jesus knew Judas was the exact man who would betray him, and therefore chose him that he would fulfill this prophesy.

Look at verse 19, Jesus said he was telling his disciples these things before they came to pass. This is foreknowledge plain and clear. God knew before the foundation of the world who would believe his words, and who would not, and elected those whom he knew would believe.

As you see, there are many examples of God's foreknowledge in the scriptures, and many directly concerning who would believe or not. It is right there if people have eyes to see.

 

[Winman]

Archangel said:

I see you're demonstrating your absolute misunderstanding of Calvinism...again. At this point--since you've been instructed so many times--I don't think it is a misunderstanding. I think you are deliberately misrepresenting our position.

You know, you and all the other Calvinists need to come up with a better argument than this. This seems like the only argument you can come up with. Besides being completely untrue, it is plain lame. I have done much study of Calvinism over the last year, and I think I am pretty clear on what you believe.

A Calvinist would never say the words you put into Paul's mouth. A Calvinist would tell you the Jailer's question, "What must I do to be saved," is evidence of regeneration.

Well, Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist, and he said a "regenerate" person is a saved person, and it would be unnecessary and ridiculous for him to preach faith to a person who is already saved.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners."

Spurgeon was correct here, although I personally disagree with many other things he said. But he was correct that a regenerate person is already saved, so it would be unnecessary and ridiculous to tell them to believe on Jesus to be saved when they are already saved.

And it would have been just as unnecessary and ridiculous for Paul and Silas to tell the Philipian jailer to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," if he was already regenerated as well.

So, Spurgeon clearly did not agree with what you believe.

 

[jbh28]

Well, Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist, and he said a "regenerate" person is a saved person, and it would be ridiculous for him to preach faith to a person who is already saved.

Spurgeon is correct here, although I personally disagree with many other things he said. But he is correct that a regenerate person is already saved, so it would be unnecessary and ridiculous to tell them to believe on Jesus to be saved when they are already saved.

And it would have been just as ridiculous for Paul and Silas to tell the Philipian jailer to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," if he was already regenerated as well.

So, Spurgeon clearly did not agree with what you believe.

I agree that a regenerate person is a saved person. As with the Jailer, it is a sign of God working on his heart, but he isn't regenerate yet.

Thanks. I simply believe there are clear examples of God's foreknowledge in knowing who will believe and who will not (John 6:64). And election is "according" to God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).

And there are several verses that show God elects those who have faith such as James 2:5 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:13.

I already proved to you that James 2:5 doesn't teach that at all. You abandoned it when I pointed it out, but I guess you decided to bring it up again.

James 2:5

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?​

We have "and heirs" what was the first item? Your view, you are left with nothing but a grammar issue. I say that it is "rich in faith" and "heirs of the kingdom"
So no, God doesn't choose those that already have faith, at least not according to this passage

2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:​

God has chosen us to Salvation. It says from the beginning(ie before the foundation of the world) and it doesn't say on what basis His choice was based on. Salvation will come through "sanctification of the Spirit" and "believe" in the truth."

Calvinists will never accept this, because their entire system will collapse.

Calvinists will never accept this, because it is against biblical teaching.

Jesus said he knew whom he chose.

John 18:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Jesus knew all of the apostles and whether they would believe before he chose them. He chose eleven because he knew they would truly believe in him. They did, and nearly every one of them gave their lives for the gospel.

Jesus chose 12 disciples. All of them came with him. This election isn't election to salvation, but a totally different election. Jesus chose the 12 not based on if they would agree or not. Judas was chosen to be a disciple, but not chosen to salvation.

But he also knew Judas would betray him. The scriptures had foretold this hundreds of years before. Jesus knew Judas was the exact man who would betray him, and therefore chose him that he would fulfill this prophesy.

Of course Jesus knows everything

Look at verse 19, Jesus said he was telling his disciples these things before they came to pass. This is foreknowledge plain and clear. God knew before the foundation of the world who would believe his words, and who would not, and elected those whom he knew would believe.

But, the Scriptures NEVER say that his basis of His election would be looking to see who would believe. Of course those that he chose are those that believe. Of course Jesus knew who would believe. According to your argument, God cannot cause anything on his own will because he knows the future already.

As you see, there are many examples of God's foreknowledge in the scriptures, and many directly concerning who would believe or not. It is right there if people have eyes to see.

But it is non-sequitur to assume that because God knows the future, he can't cause that future.

 

[Winman]

I agree that a regenerate person is a saved person. As with the Jailer, it is a sign of God working on his heart, but he isn't regenerate yet.

Well, if there is anything about Calvinism that is difficult for a non-Cal to understand, it is understanding what a Calvinist means when they say regeneration, and how they define this word. Some say it means to be born again, being spiritually alive, and having everlasting life. Others seem to define conviction as regeneration. Being convicted is a work of the Spirit, but it is not regeneration.

James 2:5
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

We have "and heirs" what was the first item? Your view, you are left with nothing but a grammar issue. I say that it is "rich in faith" and "heirs of the kingdom"

So no, God doesn't choose those that already have faith, at least not according to this passage

I'm sorry, but that is some of the worst exegesis of a passage I have ever seen. You are forcing your presupposition into this verse.

Matthew Henry was a Calvinist, and he understood this passage as I do.

Again, take notice that many poor of the world are rich in faith; thus the poorest may become rich; and this is what they ought to be especially ambitious of. It is expected from those who have wealth and estates that they be rich in good works, because the more they have the more they have to do good with; but it is expected from the poor in the world that they be rich in faith, for the less they have here the more they may, and should, live in the believing expectation of better things in a better world.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a theologian to understand why the poor have faith. The poor have always been oppressed by the rich and always will be. The poor do not have power. They are often in need. So, they look to God to protect them. This theme is shown throughout the scriptures.

And you know this yourself, it is obvious to everyone.

Psa 34:6 This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.

The rich on the other hand are often very proud. They believe in themselves and do not look to others, or even to God. They view their success as proof of their superiority over others.

Prov 18:11 The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit.

Not all poor people trust in the Lord, but most do. And not all rich people trust in themselves, some trust in the Lord. But generally speaking, the poor tend to trust in God, the rich do not.

 

[Winman]

God has chosen us to Salvation. It says from the beginning(ie before the foundation of the world) and it doesn't say on what basis His choice was based on. Salvation will come through "sanctification of the Spirit" and "believe" in the truth."

What length will you go to hold to your doctrine? It is absolutely clear that they are chosen "through" sanctification of the Spirit "and" belief of the truth.

2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

How can you be chosen to salvation without faith? Are you saying a person can be saved without faith? Are you saying salvation comes before faith?

No, the word "though" shows the conduit into this choosing you to salvation, the bridge, the way.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

What does the scripture "foresee" here? It foresees the heathen will be saved through what? Through faith. The scriptures foresaw faith. It saw Abraham would be saved by faith, and that his "seed" , that is, those who also believed would be justified or saved by faith.

Matthew Henry understood this as I do, he wrote:

The scripture is said to foresee, because he that indited the scripture did foresee, that God would justify the heathen world in the way of faith; and therefore in Abraham, that is, in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, should be blessed; not only blessed in the seed of Abraham, but blessed as Abraham was, being justified as he was. This the apostle calls preaching the gospel to Abraham; and thence infers (v. 9) that those who are of faith, that is, true believers, of what nation soever they are, are blessed with faithful Abraham. They are blessed with Abraham the father of the faithful, by the promise made to him, and therefore by faith as he was. It was through faith in the promise of God that he was blessed, and it is only in the same way that others obtain this privilege.

God saw beforehand who would believe as Abraham did, that is why he told him his seed would be like the stars that could not be numbered (Gen 15:5-6).

Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Notice God told Abraham his seed would be like the stars of heaven (vs. 5) BEFORE Abraham actually believed (vs. 6). This is foreknowledge.

You go on wresting the scriptures, but it is clear that God sees beforehand who will have faith, and you can only be saved by faith.

 

[jbh28]

I'm sorry, but that is some of the worst exegesis of a passage I have ever seen. You are forcing your presupposition into this verse.

You were not able to answer the question now were you. It's not the "worst exegesis" you have ever seen. Why don't you respond to the grammar issue with your interpretation. Or will you just ignore this point like you did before?

We have "and heirs" what was the first item? Your view, you are left with nothing but a grammar issue. I say that it is "rich in faith" and "heirs of the kingdom"

We have been chosen to be heirs. What was the first item we have been chosen unto in James 5? The part before the "and heirs."

Matthew Henry was a Calvinist, and he understood this passage as I do.

No, where did Henry say that God chose by looking to see who had faith? Nowhere. The point of the James passage is that Jesus doesn't look at who we consider great(like being rich) but chooses the poor in this world. James was condemning people that honor the rich but put down the poor.

Here is the context.
James 2:2-6
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom. God doesn't choose someone because they are rich, like many times we do.

 

[jbh28]

What length will you go to hold to your doctrine? It is absolutely clear that they are chosen "through" sanctification of the Spirit "and" belief of the truth.

2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

How can you be chosen to salvation without faith? Are you saying a person can be saved without faith? Are you saying salvation comes before faith?

You keep confusing election with salvation. Salvation comes from "sanctification of the Spirit" and "belief in the truth." Like our president, he wasn't president in November when he was elected. In wasn't in the office, he hadn't been sworn in. He had nothing about the president. In January, he then became president, but had been elected back in November.

No, the word "though" shows the conduit into this choosing you to salvation, the bridge, the way.

It's the bride of how you get saved, just as the passage says, "salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" Not elected through sanctification...

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

What does the scripture "foresee" here? It foresees the heathen will be saved through what? Through faith. The scriptures foresaw faith. It saw Abraham would be saved by faith, and that his "seed" , that is, those who also believed would be justified or saved by faith.

And who decided that faith would be what would save people. It says that God foresaw that faith would justify the heathen. Is that why God chose faith to be what we are saved through, or did God choose that?

You go on wresting the scriptures, but it is clear that God sees beforehand who will have faith, and you can only be saved by faith.

Nice straw man you like to do.

1. God sees beforehand who will have faith.
have I ever denied this? No, I have not.
2. You can only be saved by faith
have I ever denied this? No, I have not.

 

[Winman]

You keep confusing election with salvation. Salvation comes from "sanctification of the Spirit" and "belief in the truth." Like our president, he wasn't president in November when he was elected. In wasn't in the office, he hadn't been sworn in. He had nothing about the president. In January, he then became president, but had been elected back in November.

Let me ask you something. Was Obama's election unconditional? Or did he have to fulfill a condition to be elected? He had to win the Electoral College to be elected President didn't he? Election is not unconditional. And in the same way, you have to have faith in Christ to be God's elect. The only difference is that God can see the future and knew in advance who would believe. That is why we are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father". God can elect you before you are born, because he can see you will believe in the future after you are born. But election is not unconditional, 1 Peter 1:2 proves that. It is "according" to foreknowledge.

Now, we could argue all day what this foreknowledge is. You might not believe this to be faith as I do. I have submitted what I feel is strong evidence that this foreknowledge is faith, you have submitted nothing.

But you can't say election is Unconditional, it is not. It is "according" to foreknowledge.

And in my last post I showed another example of this foreknowledge. How could God tell Abraham that his seed would be like the stars of heaven and that all the nations would be blessed in him unless he forsaw who would believe in the future?

And he said this to Abraham before Abraham had believed. Abraham is shown to believe AFTER God made this prediction of the future.

So, I have shown many examples of God seeing beforehand who will believe. I present that as evidence to support my view.

But once again, you can't say election is unconditional, it is not.

And it is amazing, you can ask any Calvinist if God can see the future from the beginning, and every Calvinist will say absolutely yes with one exception, they say he cannot see who will believe in Jesus. Oh, God can see the Beast, he can see the Antichrist, he can see the destruction of Babylon, but yet he cannot see who will have faith in Jesus. What a joke.

 

[jbh28]

I noticed you abandoned James 2:5 again...

Let me ask you something. Was Obama's election unconditional? Or did he have to fulfill a condition to be elected? He had to win the Electoral College to be elected President didn't he?

Something he was elected to, you didn't think that through very well.

Election is not unconditional. And in the same way, you have to have faith in Christ to be God's elect.

Do you know anybody that elected because they saw the future and saw who would be president? Did anybody based their election on foreknowledge? And it never says in Scripture you have to have faith to be an elect. It says you have to have faith to be saved.

They only difference is that God can see the future and knew in advance who would believe.

Something I have NEVER denied

That is why we are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father".

In agreement with God's foreknowledge, again nothing I have ever denied

God can elect you before you are born, because he can see you will believe in the future after you are born. But election is not unconditional, 1 Peter 1:2 proves that. It is "according" to foreknowledge.

According means in agreement with, it doesn't necessarily mean it is based on. I Peter doesn't say what this foreknowledge is. You assume it means something, but that is just an assumption.

Now, we could argue all day what this foreknowledge is. You might not believe this to be faith as I do. I have submitted what I feel is strong evidence that this foreknowledge is faith, you have submitted nothing.

Not one shred of evidence to saw it is faith, just your assumption based on faulty reasoning. Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean that he based it on that. That is where you logic falls apart.

But you can't say election is Unconditional, it is not. It is "according" to foreknowledge.

Unconditional on something with us, it wasn't just random.

And in my last post I showed another example of this foreknowledge. How could God tell Abraham that his seed would be like the stars of heaven and that all the nations would be blessed in him unless he forsaw who would believe in the future?

I don't read when you go back and edit your posts, only your original post. But it never said that God choose Abraham because he believed. Again, your logic means that God NEVER decided anything but just looked ahead. Doesn't he know EVERYTHING that will happen?

And he said this to Abraham before Abraham had believed. Abraham is shown to believe AFTER God made this prediction of the future.

So, I have shown many examples of God seeing beforehand who will believe. I present that as evidence to support my view.

Again, your straw man, I have never denied that God knows everything. But you assume that because he knows the future he bases his decisions on that, which is faulty reasoning and creates a non-sovereign god that doesn't make decisions.

And it is amazing, you can ask any Calvinist if God can see the future from the beginning, and every Calvinist will say absolutely yes with one exception, they say he cannot see who will believe in Jesus.

Who said that? Or are you going to lie again?

Oh, God can see the Beast, he can see the Antichrist, he can see the destruction of Babylon, but yet he cannot see who will have faith in Jesus. What a joke.

You are the joke. You just made a lie. I have said many times over that I believe God knows who will believe. (otherwise it would be an attack on God's omniscience) Can you quote a Calvinist(not a hyper as that has nothing to do with this) that says that God doesn't know who will believe? Come on lair, let's see it or admit you lied.

 

[Winman]

Do you know anybody that elected because they saw the future and saw who would be president? Did anybody based their election on foreknowledge? And it never says in Scripture you have to have faith to be an elect. It says you have to have faith to be saved.

Yes. God saw that Cyrus would be king, and that he would decree the Jews would rebuild Jerusalem. Most scholars believe Isaiah made this prophesy around 700 B.C., Cyrus was not born and ruled Persia until about 150 years later. Most believe that Cyrus made the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 538 B.C., so God through Isaiah predicted this around 162 years in advance if scholars are correct on the exact dates.

Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 44:28 was written somewhere around 700 B.C.

Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Most scholars believe this decree of Cyrus was made around 538 B.C.

And by the way, I have been completely civil in this conversation, but you called me a liar repeatedly in your last post.

I have showed a quote by Spurgeon himself where he said that God did not elect us according to anything he foresaw in the future. Well, that can't be true because election is according to God's foreknowledge. And you say you agree that God can see who will believe.

I think the reason you are getting mad and calling me a liar is because deep down you know my argument has real substance to it, and you don't like that because it would prove your doctrine error.

 

[jbh28]

Yes. God saw that Cyrus would be king, and that he would decree the Jews would rebuild Jerusalem. Most scholars believe Isaiah made this prophesy around 700 B.C., Cyrus was not born and ruled Persia until about 150 years later. Most believe that Cyrus made the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 538 B.C., so God through Isaiah predicted this around 162 years in advance if scholars are correct on the exact dates.

Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Isaiah 44:28 was written somewhere around 700 B.C.

Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Most scholars believe this decree of Cyrus was made around 538 B.C.

And by the way, I have been completely civil in this conversation, but you called me a liar repeatedly in your last post.



I think the reason you are getting mad and calling me a liar is because deep down you know my argument has real substance to it, and you don't like that because it would prove your doctrine error.

Yes, I called you a liar because you lied. I'm not getting mad. Just disappointed that a Christian would resort to misrepresenting. Show me one Calvinist(non-hyper) that claims that God doesn't know who will believe. You say you have been civil(which I agree for the most part) but then you like to bring out lies. You misrepresent me repeatedly and your misrepresent Calvinist. That's called lying. Don't say you are being civil when you misrepresent your opponents like you do.



In addition, why do you even mentioned them, you are discussing something with me. I call people liars that lie. You lied. You said something untrue to attempt to prove your point. As I have pointed out, according to doesn't mean based on but in agreement with.

I have showed a quote by Spurgeon himself that says God did not elect us according to anything he foresaw in the future. Well, that can't be true because election is according to God's foreknowledge. And you say you agree that God can see who will believe.

Not based on anything , but that doesn't mean God didn't know. logic 101


Hey, where is your response to James 2:5 or do you agree with me now?

 

[Winman]

Yes, I called you a liar because you lied. I'm not getting mad. Just disappointed that a Christian would resort to misrepresenting. Show me one Calvinist(non-hyper) that claims that God doesn't know who will believe.

John Piper said:

God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren't any such free decisions to know.

Oh, I know what you will say, you will say Piper is a "hyper" Calvinist. You know, you can go to some sites like Outside the Camp and they will say Piper was not even a true Calvinist. So, the term "hyper" can be manipulated to fit your argument. He was a well known Calvinist, all would agree on that.

 

[jbh28]

John Piper said:



Oh, I know what you will say, you will say Piper is a "hyper" Calvinist. You know, you can go to some sites like Outside the Camp and they will say Piper was not even a true Calvinist. So, the term "hyper" can be manipulated to fit your argument. He was a well known Calvinist, all would agree on that.

No, I'm not going to call Piper a hyper Calvinist.

However, if you read his quote in its context, Piper isn't saying that God doesn't know something, he is saying that men don't have totally "free" decisions.

God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know. If anyone comes to faith in Jesus, it is because they were quickened from the dead (Ephesians 2:5) by the creative Spirit of God. That is, they are effectually called from darkness into light.

http://www.theologicalperspectives.org/?p=238

Now, if you seem to have misunderstood Piper and thought he was saying that God didn't know something, when in fact Piper was making another different point. If you were not trying to misrepresent, I retract my lying accusation. However, you have never heard me say it and you have heard me say that I do believe God knows all events, so there is no reason to say it.


thanks for the clarification.

any response on James 2:5?