Calvinists please help me as I am trying to understand.

[zrs6v4]

No brother, it is Greek defintion.

Look it up in any Theological lexicon of the Greek words and you will never find a definition declaring the term to refer to love.
The closest it comes is a Jewish idiom for se*ual int*rcouse, and that is used in a general way in scripture refering to man and wife as well as being with prostitutes and those raped.

You can even look in any Concordenance or bible dictionary.

The problem is that it is never used in this manner in the words historical usage both it's biblical nor cultural language usage.


I will state this though.. The reformed position on this definition is more to do with what is considered to be implied than it is in it's actual defintion.
I have no real issue with the implication of love in foreknowledge I just have an issue with trying to state foreknowledge means foreloved as if that is it actaul meaning.

This is interesting, thanks

I do remember reading stuff in the OT about people knowing their wives, which is what you said it means..

 

[Jarthur001]

I agree that this is what Calvinists 'call' it.

Yes...thank you

But the fact is this is not what the word actaully means.

Really?

Humm

There are words in the Greek which means love but this particular word in the Greek "gnōsis" unfortunately does not.

Thou are wrong my friend.

The closest thing you can come to is that it is an idiom refering to se*ual int*rcourse, which doesn't refer to love since the word is used just as often regarding the se*ual union of those who were raped and of those with prostitutes.

You have but a limited and twisted (opinion)<<(thrown it as a joke to you...please not another hate mail..just a joke) in which you see the meaning. At the very heart it means a close imminent caring love.

What was it about them that God loved?

That is the point of grace my friend. Nothing in THEM, but all in Gods love. I have tons of verses for you to read on this one.

Or maybe a question that is more in line with your thought:
Why did God choose to love them only?

Gods grace is expressed in two ways. General and special grace. This takes a while to develop so I'll keep it short here hoping you understand. General grace in that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust. More to it than this, but the point would be in this way God has showed his love to a group. The whole of mankind.

But even in this case of general grace, we should still ask what you asked above. That is what the Psalmist asked. "What is man that thou are mindful of him?"

As to special grace....
Why did God choose Paul over others? Paul had a special grace given to him. Paul was blinded and God had a one on one talk with him from heaven. Was it because Paul was seeking to come to Christ? Paul was killing followers of Christ. Was it because if God talked to him God would know he would come to Christ? If so, why did God not blind Nero from Rome and talk to him from heaven? God choose Paul and did not choose Nero. Why?

In each case we are told because he Loved the ones he choose, but we are not told why he loved them. So again we must ask as the Psalmist..."What is man that thou are mindful of him?"

Ummm no, that is not what the Arminian argument states.

Ummmm no. you have given just part of it my friend. The argument is built around what they see as the meaning of "Foreknowing". They see the "knowing" part meaning "knowing about". Who does God know about? All men. The key verse they use is Romans 8. The next time you read the verse please notice the key word...whom Who does God know about??????????

The Arminian argument states that God elects these people based upon His 'knowledge' of who will choose Christ as savior and not that because God has knowledge of anything it is elected. Therefore His decree is made after His decision to elect them.

This is why the Calvinist view is true. God "knows"(loves) alone the elect. It is limited. Where as if foreknowing means ..know about.....well God knows about all of mankind.

 

[Jarthur001]

This is not true James and you know it.

A non-cal typically hold a view closer to that of a Calvinist rather than the Arminian and thus the term "Non-Cal".

This indeed is puzzling. If its not Calvinist, it has to be non-Calvinist. But are all non-Calvinist Arminian? But what was said was Arminian.

also....You said close to Calvinist.
Closer in what way? How close do they get? How far are they off from Arminian?

 

[Jarthur001]

The other view is actaully a reversal of the above in that God decrees first to save by grace through faith and simultainiously knows all who are of faith. These are His chosen/elect. His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save a particular group of mankind.

In other words, salvation of a group.

yes..well there is that view but no support in scripture. Salvation is personal as I'm sure you will agree. I'm sure you would not hold to this view.

Are there any others beside salvation of a group and salvation based on God looking down in time, that are not Calvinist?

 

[Jarthur001]

The other view is actaully a reversal of the above in that God decrees first to save by grace through faith and simultainiously knows all who are of faith. These are His chosen/elect. His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save a particular group of mankind.

I looked at this again and what did I see?

Allan, you said above

God decrees...first to save by grace through faith and simultainiously knows all who are of faith

You said.......Knows all who are of faith?

How is this not the same as

"God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ because He KNOWS before hand and elects because they choose."

??????????????

Please help me on this one.

 

[webdog]

You have but a limited and twisted (opinion)<<(thrown it as a joke to you...please not another hate mail..just a joke) in which you see the meaning.

Any kind of class, respect and serious debate you once held here is completely gone. Please go back under the bridge...

 

[Jarthur001]

Please go back under the bridge...

Do I see a bit of hate in this post? I'm sure I'm wrong in that there is hate, but rather misunderstanding of what you said.

So please...

What do you mean when you say...

"Please go back under the bridge"? Do you fill I'm homeless? If so, what does that have to do with the thread?

Please try to stay on track and to the point, and not beat around the bush

 

[webdog]

Do I see a bit of hate in this post? I'm sure I'm wrong in that there is hate, but rather misunderstanding of what you said.

So please...

What do you mean when you say...

"Please go back under the bridge"? Do you fill I'm homeless? If so, what does that have to do with the thread?

Please try to stay on track and to the point, and not beat around the bush

Hate? No. Aggravation and frustration from reading this trolling (the bridge reference)? Absolutely.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hate? No. Aggravation and frustration from reading this trolling (the bridge reference)? Absolutely.

Why do you focus on me?

Why are you aggravated and frustrated?

What words have I used in order that you feel I have trolled?

Have I not addressed the subject? I feel I have. Please reply to the subject and drop the hate/frustration/aggravation. :godisgood:

 

[Amy.G]

This is why the Calvinist view is true. God "knows"(loves) alone the elect. It is limited. Where as if foreknowing means ..know about.....well God knows about all of mankind.

You say God loves only the elect and that Christ shed His blood for only the elect. Calvinists say that Christ did not shed His blood for all mankind, for if He did, then His blood is ineffectual because not all will be saved.

Yet Jesus makes it clear that He shed His blood for Judas.

Lu*22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Lu*22:21 ¶ But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
Lu*22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!


Jesus is speaking to the 12, all of them, saying He shed His blood for all of them. Yet we know that Judas was the son of perdition and he was not saved.


How do you explain this?

 

[Jarthur001]

Why do you focus on me?

Why are you aggravated and frustrated?

What words have I used in order that you feel I have trolled?

Have I not addressed the subject? I feel I have. Please reply to the subject and drop the hate/frustration/aggravation. :godisgood:

oh well...

I have waited for a while and must go to a meeting. Maybe this will be addressed later.

I'm not sure how you know if anyone other than yourself has ever sent me a email/IM from the BB. And if you do know, how would you know if what was said, other than if someone shared it with you.

If you would want me to remove my clearly marked joke that was address to allan, does this apply to all jokes or just my joke? Is what I said true or not? Was it a joke or was I telling the truth? It would seem to me that you can only address this if it relates to your inbox or sent box and not others. Unless you can see my inbox and know.

If you would like you can send me one of your IM telling me how I was wrong and let the thread get back to the subject. The choice is yours.

For now, please keep on track.

 

[webdog]

Accusing a brother of "hate" jokingly? Really?...that's something to joke about? That lacks any class whatsoever. The "joke" was classified as the twisted opinion...not the "hate filled mail" Allen allegedly sent comment, that is pretty clear from reading that comment.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Amy,

You say God loves only the elect and that Christ shed His blood for only the elect. Calvinists say that Christ did not shed His blood for all mankind, for if He did, then His blood is ineffectual because not all will be saved.

Let me address a few things here. Allow me to post a line from before..

Gods grace is expressed in two ways. General and special grace. This takes a while to develop so I'll keep it short here hoping you understand. General grace in that God sends the rain on the just and the unjust. More to it than this, but the point would be in this way God has showed his love to a group. The whole of mankind.

General/common grace is beyond just these few words. You can get into restraining grace which is part of common grace.

Then we have special grace which is particular. Paul was particular loved.
*****
Next you said that Calvinist say...

then His blood is ineffectual because not all will be saved.

Yes...some do say this. I have said it before too. But I now feel it is wrong to express it that way. I feel Gods love could never run out and is overflowing with extra love beyond what we could know. This however does not mean Christ blood covered all of mankinds sins and it is in the power of man to bring that power of the blood to life. It is clear to me that Christ died for his people.

Yet Jesus makes it clear that He shed His blood for Judas.

Lu*22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Lu*22:21 ¶ But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
Lu*22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

You need to read this with John 13 to see the full picture.

The Apostles, including Judas, ate the Passover meal. While the meal was going on, Jesus tells them one of the twelve was a betrayer. Judas Iscariot left to betray Christ. Luke does not tell us precisely when Judas left the group, but it must have been before Jesus said: “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.” (Luke 22:28

After this, Jesus gives the Lord’s Supper with the eleven apostles, who had ‘stuck with him during his trials.

How do you explain this?

Harmony of the gospels


The Sequence..

Judas talks with the Chief priests about the money Luke 23:2-6

Than they ALL eat the Passover Supper Mark 14:17

JOHN 13..
Next... Jesus washes all their feet ....John 13:2-11
Next....Jesus say not ALL CLEAN, meaning Judas. ......13:11
Next...They talk about the meaning of the footwash. ......13:12, 28
Next....Jesus says it is but ONE that will betray him...... 13:21
NExt... They ask him..., "Is it me?"....This includes Judas 13:22-25)
Next... Jesus says...its the one that dips the SOP that will betray Him.....John 13:26
Next,.... Judas is told its him..... 13:27-30
NEXT........ Judas IMMEDIATELY LEAVES!!!!!....13:30


Next... the Lord's Supper. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20
Next... They sing a Hymn Mark 14:46

 

[Jarthur001]

Accusing a brother of "hate" jokingly? Really?...that's something to joke about? That lacks any class whatsoever. The "joke" was classified as the twisted opinion...not the "hate filled mail" Allen allegedly sent comment, that is pretty clear from reading that comment.

What still more about me?

So far 3 post straight about me from YOU. Good and personal ones too. You are going to make me think I'm really more then I am.


BTW..the joke was the word OPINION...for which Allan always argues about others. The hate mail was not part of the joke....and I never said it was.


Now try to stay on the topic if you can and stop telling others to get under a bridge. That shows no love. :godisgood:

Stay focused please

 

[Amy.G]

Hello Jarthur.

You said that Judas wasn't with the 12 during the Lord's supper, but scripture says this:

Lu*22:21 ¶ But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.


Does this not mean that Judas was there at the time Jesus spoke this?






Here is the same verse in other versions, if that helps.


NKJV - Luk 22:21 -
But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.



NLT - Luk 22:21 -
"But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me.



NIV - Luk 22:21 -
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.



ESV - Luk 22:21 -
“But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.

 

[zrs6v4]

Im trying to understand this, haha, and I think it is simple on the basic level

Jesus' blood was enough for all man's sins (and was for all) and God wishes that all would accept Him to be saved, including Judas, but all have turned to their own ways and everyones nature is bound by sin which results in nobody choosing to believe unless God calls them to Himself regenerating them to do so. This is a complete act of grace seeing as everyone equally doesn't deserve it, while deserving a just penalty. When this grace is given to a man it results in the production of fruit by a changed heart which always results in a new life of knowing God(To know probably means love, but this is still unclear on this thread).

So yes Jesus died for Judas, but God allowed him to do his evil deed and continue in his unbelieving nature so that God's will would be carried through as it always is. While Jesus died for all mankind, His blood is not applied to anyone except those God has graciously chosen to give Himself to, according to the view of Calvin

 

[zrs6v4]

My question that is unanswered is how does God sovereignly move the non-elect such as Judas to carry out His will perfectly as planned.. Calvins's view of foreknowledge is that God knows and gives Himself to the elect which causes them to do good deeds and the good of His will at times. We can only say God knew before time Judas was going to make the decision of betrayal; in Calvins view, God is moving the elect sovereignly with no choice in a sense, while only seeing the evil's work. So Calvins view for the elect is sovereign, but Calvin has an Arminian view of foreknowledge on those not elected? unless Im completely missing the point here.... If Calvin doesnt have an Arminian view of foreknowledge then God is causing sin, which cant be. So God must have based His will off of evil choices by the non-elect while giving grace to the elect to cause them to do every good deed that has been done....

So does God base His foreknown will on evil choices, or what? either way I see our human choices determining God's will to some degree

 

[Amy.G]

So yes Jesus died for Judas, but God allowed him to do his evil deed and continue in his unbelieving nature so that God's will would be carried through as it always is. While Jesus died for all mankind, His blood is not applied to anyone except those God has graciously chosen to give Himself to, according to the view of Calvin

His blood is applied by faith and only to those who put their faith in Christ. The blood was shed for all, but not all will have faith. He shed His blood for Judas as well as the others (as Luke 22:20-21 clearly says), but Judas did not apply the blood through faith, but instead betrayed the Lord because of an unbelieving heart. He who does not believe is condemned.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Jarthur.

That would be jarthur001

Or just call me Brad Pitt.

You said that Judas wasn't with the 12 during the Lord's supper, but scripture says this:

Indeed I did.

Lu*22:21 ¶ But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.


Does this not mean that Judas was there at the time Jesus spoke this?

Most would say no. I would agree with them. You must take into account John 13, Mark 14, and Matt 26.

Luke says nothing about Judas leaving, but it clear he left after the SOP and before the Lords Supper going by other accounts. This was covered in the last post.






Here is the same verse in other versions, if that helps.


NKJV - Luk 22:21 -
But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.



NLT - Luk 22:21 -
"But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me.



NIV - Luk 22:21 -
But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.



ESV - Luk 22:21 -
“But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jarthur001]

Im trying to understand this, haha, and I think it is simple on the basic level

It goes full circle. Once you see it, its just simple. You will see it over and over in all the pages of the Bible you never saw before.

Jesus' blood was enough for all man's sins (and was for all)

I would say it was enough for all but not for all.

and God wishes that all would accept Him to be saved, including Judas, but all have turned to their own ways and everyones nature is bound by sin which results in nobody choosing to believe unless God calls them to Himself regenerating them to do so.

Sounds like you are getting it.

This is a complete act of grace seeing as everyone equally doesn't deserve it, while deserving a just penalty. When this grace is given to a man it results in the production of fruit by a changed heart which always results in a new life of knowing God(To know probably means love, but this is still unclear on this thread).

Indeed...it does mean love just as you stated and just as the Bible declares.

So yes Jesus died for Judas, but God allowed him to do his evil deed and continue in his unbelieving nature so that God's will would be carried through as it always is.

I would say that Jesus did not atone for Judas sins.

While Jesus died for all mankind, His blood is not applied to anyone except those God has graciously chosen to give Himself to, according to the view of Calvin

No...this atonement for all the sins of all people is not what Calvin wrote, nor is it Calvinist, but rather free-willism. Its free-willism, because what you just said places the power in man. Christ blood has no power till man says it has power. Calvin said and Calvinism teaches that the power is in the blood and WORKED on the cross the very day Christ died when he said..."it is finished"