Calvinists please help me as I am trying to understand.

[Jarthur001]

No, read what I said about it (below) and contrast it to the Cal position. They are distinctly different though very similar.
This position allows for mans choice and God's soveriegnty.

I did read the whole thing and that is the reason I asked. I read it over 4-5 times.

You said...

The second has God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.

That alone is Calvinist. When I asked about it you added....

What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

HOW to me would be process.

But as I said - the 'non-cal' reference is used to indicate that they are closer to the Cal position than the Arminian

I still don't see it Allan. The 1st and second statements...put then together as one for me please and maybe i'll get it.

Also...just for the record. Is this your own view?

 

[Allan]

You said...

That alone is Calvinist.

No, not Calvinist (as in exactly) just calvinistic in the way it is said.

When I asked about it you added....

What is distinct is that His decree was not made based upon all who would believe but on how He had chosen to save certain individuals out of mankind.

HOW to me would be process.

Now I see what you were talking about.
Election can be seen as both the act as well as the process for the act. However what I mean by the 'how' is the decree itself. The decree was made first and His chosen were established because of it. As I stated that disctintion is in the fact that the Arminian states God's choice to elect some and not others was based upon God looking to see who would believe and then God decrees them to be His. The other view is situatated upon God first determing that He will save/love and how, establishing the "who" which are His chosen.

IOW - It was not that they would believe that caused God to make them His chosen ones but it was Gods will/decree that 'caused' God to pour out His love upon certain ones in the fullness of time to save His chosen based upon His will and not their choice. Their choice is true and man's responsiblity is summed up in it but our salvation is not because of us but Him. They are chosen by God because it was God desire to choose them according the manner which He determined. God choice isn't based upon man but His own will.

I still don't see it Allan. The 1st and second statements...put then together as one for me please and maybe i'll get it.

Also...just for the record. Is this your own view?

If you don't see it brother, then why call the view I gave - Calvinist?

This view is what I have always been taught and most of the non-cals I know or have spoken with. Many have a harder time describing it because it is not something they spent to much time on because (as I have always stated) it is a subject of speculation the order of decrees and what was going on in the mind of God regarding 'why'. The above is nothing more than a conclusion drawn up upon the theological understanding of a particular group. It isn't something stated in scripture, which is same for everyone else, it is just conjecture.

 

[Jarthur001]

I never said this, hah, misunderstanding...... Jesus the atonement was not for all people, but only the elect. again, I simply am stating the blood was enough for all people, but nobody accepts due to inability other than those that God calls.. So you could look at it like Christ only died for a few on the cross which is true, but the bible also seems to tell us He died for the world.

Hello zrs,

The death on the cross was the atonement.

A few verses that support limited atonement. (Not atoning (covering)the sins of the whole world)

Isaiah 53
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:15)
Not for the wolves who would reject Him John 10:26

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:25)
GAVE..as in death (atonement)


Rev 5...the meaning of all the world.
9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Rev 1....addressing the church
To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood"
NOTE: Some people read this as if it is address to all mankind.

JOHN 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Heb 9:15....The death was only for those called.
"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance"

"the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20)
NOTE: This only means something if you understand the covenant promise itself. Like this..."I will be your God," is an unconditional undertaking on God's part to be "for us"

Like this passage in Ex 19. Notice how it is Gods covenant

4Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

5Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Covenant faithfulness is the means of receiving covenant benefits based on how well man keeps his relationship with God. A covenant is for Gods people only.

Now back to that verse and see that the blood is a part of that benefit...
Heb 13: 20-21 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

More to come later...I need to eat.
********

Then there are a few that seem to say that Christ died for all. Others will post them

 

[Jarthur001]

No, not Calvinist (as in exactly) just calvinistic in the way it is said.

God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.......is pure Calvinist. Nothing but. God does the choosing. God decrees it to be.

Its when you add the other part...."how" that it becomes something else.

Now I see what you were talking about.
Election can be seen as both the act as well as the process for the act. However what I mean by the 'how' is the decree itself. The decree was made first and His chosen were established because of it.

Do you mean ordo-salutis? At any rate, you have the degree all of God that is followed by election all of God. So the last thing...(I think)....is why were those that are elected...elected?

If you don't see it brother, then why call the view I gave - Calvinist?

This view is what I have always been taught and most of the non-cals I know or have spoken with. Many have a harder time describing it because it is not something they spent to much time on because (as I have always stated) it is a subject of speculation the order of decrees and what was going on in the mind of God regarding 'why'. The above is nothing more than a conclusion drawn up upon the theological understanding of a particular group. It isn't something stated in scripture, which is same for everyone else, it is just conjecture.

I would not call realy theology pure conjecture, but I understand what your getting at.

Yet what I have not seen is how those two statements you made are added together. I understand the 1st one..and agree with it for all Calvinist would say it. The how...however...is another thing.

Please put them together in one short statement.

 

[Allan]

Hello zrs,

The death on the cross was the atonement.

I believe Z has is understanding it fairly well, but then again what he is stating is not what a Calvinist would allow in his camp.
However, no one disputes that Christ's death specifically atoned for the sins of believers who by faith receive that atonement. Yet at the same time it can not be denied the large amount of scrptures which state His atonement/propitiation was not just for the elect but all men but not all men by faith receive it.

The below is not so much a refute to what you are saying James as it is a difference of view on certian passages that you have given and even some agreements on them.

A few verses that support limited atonement. (Not atoning (covering)the sins of the whole world)

Isaiah 53
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

This one I can agree with you on that it speaks of the 'atoned' work of some because it specifically states He bore (carried away) the sins of many. However that is refering to what transpires by faith (Rom 3:25). Yet look if you will at the other parts of the passage James. It states He made intercession for the transgressors, now who are they - the elect? No because just two lines above it states that He was numbered amoung them - those condemned in sin. Now here is the kicker - where both of these transgressors the elect? No, one was and the other was not. So in effect though He was counted as one of them both making intercession on both their behalf. Yet Christ's work effectually took away (bore) the sins of many but not all. Why? Rom 3:25 clarifies that.

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:15)
Not for the wolves who would reject Him John 10:26

I agree with you here to that Christ did in fact lay down His life for the the sheep only. His death for them proved they were His and established them as His own by right. If He did not die for His own sheep then He could not claim to be their Great or Good Shepard./ The reason is a hireling will not die for the sheep since those sheep they are tending are not theirs. His death is proved they are indeed His sheep and not someone elses. Therefore the laying His life down for the sheep isn't specifically about the atonement but nor the extent of the atoment but about ownership of the sheep which is defined as those who enter in (vs 10). And that is why it Jesus makes the declaration about dieing for them- to prove ownership.

Also.. the lost in general are never called wolves, that is reserved for false prophets and or false christs. When Jesus states in verse 15 is that they are not of His sheep - meaning though they are sheep (who have gone astray) they are just not His sheep which follow Him as the Great Shepard.

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:25)
GAVE..as in death (atonement)

Agreed.

Rev 5...the meaning of all the world.
9 And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Agreed. The propitiation was made on behalf of all but only applied by faith. Thus He death purchased all those who will come to Him (John 10:9). Therefore what you see 'at the end' are everyone who was purchased for God with His blood.

Rev 1....addressing the church
To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood"
NOTE: Some people read this as if it is address to all mankind.

I've heard universalists say that, are there any in my group?
This by context is as you stated - to the church. We are not washed from our sins by His blood without faith. Thus to me it can not be the world at large.

JOHN 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

This is indeed true, but it was speaking of the disciples whom He called friends and thus was able to share with them what He was doing and why, which one could not to a servant. A servant was only told to obey a friend was allowed to understand why.

Also ..Does not scripture state that while we were yet in our sins Christ died for us?
And if in our sins are we not enimies of God also known as children of wrath? (Rom 5:10)

Heb 9:15....The death was only for those called.
"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance"

Yes, James - Only those whom God has brought will receive the eternal promise, not those who presume to be able to come on their own (Matt 7:22). But remember my brother, many are called but few are chosen!

"the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20)
NOTE: This only means something if you understand the covenant promise itself. Like this..."I will be your God," is an unconditional undertaking on God's part to be "for us"
Like this passage in Ex 19. Notice how it is Gods covenant

Covenant faithfulness is the means of receiving covenant benefits based on how well man keeps his relationship with God. A covenant is for Gods people only.

I agree!! The NT Covenant (Rom 9:12) See we do agree at times on these issues

Then there are a few that seem to say that Christ died for all. Others will post them

Most likely

 

[Allan]

God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.......is pure Calvinist. Nothing but. God does the choosing. God decrees it to be.

Its when you add the other part...."how" that it becomes something else.


Do you mean ordo-salutis? At any rate, you have the degree all of God that is followed by election all of God. So the last thing...(I think)....is why were those that are elected...elected?



I would not call realy theology pure conjecture, but I understand what your getting at.

Yet what I have not seen is how those two statements you made are added together. I understand the 1st one..and agree with it for all Calvinist would say it. The how...however...is another thing.

Please put them together in one short statement.

I'll get to this one later as today is my son's 5th brithday :wavey: :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

I'll get to this one later as today is my son's 5th brithday :wavey: :thumbs:

I'll wait...


Cause over the last 2-3 years this is the closest I have been to understanding your views on this. Its just me I guess. But I would for you to reply to that one post.

Thanks Allan.


James

 

[Jarthur001]

I believe Z has is understanding it fairly well, but then again what he is stating is not what a Calvinist would allow in his camp.

I have no idea if he is a calvinist or not. I only answer as I see it and does not apply to all, but maybe most Calvinist. To tell you the truth I'll need to see what this subject was after a post this.

However, no one disputes that Christ's death specifically atoned for the sins of believers who by faith receive that atonement. Yet at the same time it can not be denied the large amount of scrptures which state His atonement/propitiation was not just for the elect but all men but not all men by faith receive it.

I do not deny that there are a few verses that seem to say this.

This one I can agree with you on that it speaks of the 'atoned' work of some because it specifically states He bore (carried away) the sins of many. However that is refering to what transpires by faith (Rom 3:25). Yet look if you will at the other parts of the passage James.

I have looked at all the verses in this passage and I have preached on it. I have seen nothing that changes my mind.

It states He made intercession for the transgressors, now who are they - the elect?

No...the transgressors are mankind. This is saying he was marked as a sinner, but still he didn't not sin.

No because just two lines above it states that He was numbered amoung them - those condemned in sin.

yes...ALL of them. ALL of mankind.

Now here is the kicker - where both of these transgressors the elect?

The kicker is that this is not limited to just those two. I'm not going to debate you on this because we would get off path. That is the wrong way to look at ths passage,

However, lets say that it was only those two. It changes nothing. He died among the sinners...marked as a sinner...but he did not die for all, but many.

I agree with you here to that Christ did in fact lay down His life for the the sheep only. His death for them proved they were His and established them as His own by right. If He did not die for His own sheep then He could not claim to be their Great or Good Shepard./ The reason is a hireling will not die for the sheep since those sheep they are tending are not theirs. His death is proved they are indeed His sheep and not someone elses. Therefore the laying His life down for the sheep isn't specifically about the atonement but nor the extent of the atoment but about ownership of the sheep which is defined as those who enter in (vs 10). And that is why it Jesus makes the declaration about dieing for them- to prove ownership.

I'm going to pass on this one. There is just to much to write. Needless to say, you said at the beginning we agreed, but by the end you changed you mind. Lets just say we disagree on this one. I take the text as is on this one. But you have a few coming that may help your cause I'm sure.

Also.. the lost in general are never called wolves, that is reserved for false prophets and or false christs. When Jesus states in verse 15 is that they are not of His sheep - meaning though they are sheep (who have gone astray) they are just not His sheep which follow Him as the Great Shepard.

humm
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Agreed. The propitiation was made on behalf of all but only applied by faith. Thus He death purchased all those who will come to Him (John 10:9). Therefore what you see 'at the end' are everyone who was purchased for God with His blood.

Then in fact we do not agree. We would say it is applied at the cross when Christ said it is finished, as I'm sure you know.

This is indeed true, but it was speaking of the disciples whom He called friends and thus was able to share with them what He was doing and why, which one could not to a servant. A servant was only told to obey a friend was allowed to understand why.

I'm sure your not saying that Christ is calling for others to have a greater love than he. Greater love....no matter who it is....has no man. And yes he was addressing the disciples, and that would also be the point. If it was for all, then the love for the disciples was not greater than his love for others. Yet going by this passage, not just this one verse, his love was greater for them, and proved it by giving his life for them.

Its like if I told my wife I loved her just as much as I loved all ladies...what great love is that? None I say. My love is showed when i single her out.

Also ..Does not scripture state that while we were yet in our sins Christ died for us?
And if in our sins are we not enimies of God also known as children of wrath? (Rom 5:10)

Yes. I fail to see a point here

Yes, James - Only those whom God has brought will receive the eternal promise, not those who presume to be able to come on their own (Matt 7:22). But remember my brother, many are called but few are chosen!

Called takes on the context of the passage. The verse you are talking about is election, not atonement

 

[Jarthur001]

^
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
i
I
I
Look above​

 

[Jarthur001]

opps.......please see above

 

[Allan]

God determining to save those whom He has chosen to be His own.......is pure Calvinist. Nothing but. God does the choosing. God decrees it to be.

Just because Calvinists believe in the Trinity does not make that Calvinist nor justification nor the saying that salvation is limited to God's elect. What makes a view or statement Calvinist is the theology behind it. Even Arminians believe that God decrees it to be (the salvation of His elect). So what distinquishes their statement from the Calvinist is not the statement but the theology that defines it.

Do you mean ordo-salutis?

No, not the order of salvation. That is defined in time, at least that is how I always have seen its function.

At any rate, you have the degree all of God that is followed by election all of God. So the last thing...(I think)....is why were those that are elected...elected?

Because it was His pleasure, purpose and plan to do so.
Is that not what you always say when asked why did God elect some and not others? :laugh: (I'm being funny here)
Maybe this will help flesh out what I'm saying -

God didn't elect them because He was responding to what they would do, their election was the responce of what He choose to do. IOW - God didn't choose out some people first and then decide how He wanted to save them. If that were the case you would have God arbitarily choosing people and then choosing how He wanted to save them - which practically no one agrees with. Nor was God watching to see what man would do so He could figure out what was His best choices. God already knew all mankind was going to be fallen, so God determined (in my view) that He would not only save but also how He would save them (by grace through faith) - and this He did first. Thus His decree to do so toward mankind established the very people which He both knew and wanted draw out from mankind via grace, to become His own in time. And since they were His choice and so wanted/desire, He loved them. Therefore His love in this was not a responce to their choice but His love toward them was a responce to His choice regarding those whom He chose to save.

He loved them because He chose them, and they love Him because He first loved them. The above as I see it, does not remove God's soveriegnty over mans salvation and yet maintians mans resposibility to choose (via previent grace). God love and election are not based upon mans decision but His.

You could say the decree itself was the choice itself of whom God had chosen to save.

I would not call realy theology pure conjecture, but I understand what your getting at.

I wasn't speaking of theology on the whole just the order of decrees being conjecture. We know they were/are but we don't know or have anything telling us in what order God determined them. That comes from our theological suppositions.

 

[Allan]

I'm just clarifying my view regarding your answering post to my previous one.

I have no idea if he is a calvinist or not. I only answer as I see it and does not apply to all, but maybe most Calvinist. To tell you the truth I'll need to see what this subject was after a post this.

It looks like he is working out the L/U of atonement but on the rest he has espoused the Reformed views as he and I have talked.

No...the transgressors are mankind. This is saying he was marked as a sinner, but still he didn't not sin.

I agree do agree (the two were representive of the whole of mankind) and thus he was numbered as one of them in this matter. However what you commented on just now was not only saying that he was 'marked' as a sinner but that He made 'intercession' for the transgressors (those same people He was marked with). That was what I was trying to illistrate.

I'm going to pass on this one. There is just to much to write. Needless to say, you said at the beginning we agreed, but by the end you changed you mind. Lets just say we disagree on this one. I take the text as is on this one. But you have a few coming that may help your cause I'm sure.

No, I was agreeing that Christ died for His sheep and that was the extent of it. Though as seen even in my previous post I do not dispute that His death there was for the purpose of His intened - His sheep.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Yes, but wolves here is not the unsaved as a whole because they are not sent unto the wolves but into the midst of wolves or better out where the wolves are. Matthew only uses the twice in his gospel account and the first on in chapter 7 speaks about them being false prophets/teachers in sheeps clothing and the other is also speaking of sheep and wolves as they (sheep) are sent out amoung the wolves (false teachers/prophets and anti-christs who would try to discredit and refute them).

I'm sure your not saying that Christ is calling for others to have a greater love than he. Greater love....no matter who it is....has no man.

Of course not. But I think you are misinterpreting what He is saying. It isn't that 'no man' would do this (lay down his life for his friends) because we know that even lost sinful man committed to the world can and has done just this. But that was Jesus point. The greatest love a man will give is to lay down His life for his friends and they was precisely who there now were. Jesus told them they were no longer servants but friends and thus He was telling them they are not just any ol' friend but a friend worth dieing for. Unless of course we are to presume that Jesus was not a man, since 'no man' has greater love than this.

Yet this shows the very greatness of God's love since scripture tells us that while we were yet sinners (enemies, not friends) Christ died for us.

And yes he was addressing the disciples, and that would also be the point. If it was for all, then the love for the disciples was not greater than his love for others. Yet going by this passage, not just this one verse, his love was greater for them, and proved it by giving his life for them.

On that I disagree with you conclusion. Jesus point (im my opinion) was to confirm to His followers they were more than servants, in fact no longer servants but friends. Remember, He is speaking here as a man to men speaking how the greastest display of love a man can offer. He does this so that they might understand both their position (as friends) and their relationship with Him (Beloved).

However with due respect toward God and mans relationship toward Him:
While we were yet sinners (enemies of God) Christ died for us.
The first is speaking of the fellowship of man toward man.
The second is speaking of the relationship of man toward God. Even Paul states that before we were saved we were at enmity with God. Therefore the greatest thing a man can do is die for someone who loves him, yet the greatest thing God do is die for those who are His enemies that they might become His very children.

Anywho, as I said was not specifically trying to debate them but showing a different perspective on what those passage are seen to mean by others.

I have given my view of those particular passages, neither persuade nor refute but declare a difference of opinion on some.

 

[Jarthur001]

God already knew all mankind was going to be fallen, so God determined (in my view) that He would not only save but also how He would save them (by grace through faith) - and this He did first. Thus His decree to do so toward mankind established the very people which He both knew and wanted draw out from mankind via grace, to become His own in time. And since they were His choice and so wanted/desire, He loved them. Therefore His love in this was not a responce to their choice but His love toward them was a responce to His choice regarding those whom He chose to save.

He loved them because He chose them, and they love Him because He first loved them. The above as I see it, does not remove God's soveriegnty over mans salvation and yet maintians mans resposibility to choose (via previent grace). God love and election are not based upon mans decision but His.
.

Lets keep it short and simple.

What was Gods election based on?

Calvinist say it simple...its based on his will and pleasure.

How does your view change from this?

 

[Allan]

Lets keep it short and simple.

What was Gods election based on?

Calvinist say it simple...its based on his will and pleasure.

How does your view change from this?

Who said it is changed? Mine isn't and is said so over and over again in what I gave you. Their election was based upon His will, His choice, and that was because it was His pleasure to do so.

 

[Jarthur001]

Who said it is changed? Mine isn't and is said so over and over again in what I gave you. Their election was based upon His will, His choice, and that was because it was His pleasure to do so.

If you believe as a Calvinist does on election and you also disagree as do Calvinist do with others that God does not elect based on "foreknowing who would believe" why do you argue with Calvinist over this subject?

You Allan have asked me tons of times, "but why does he choose who he chooses?". Am I right?

Now you claim the same reply as a Calvinist? I don't get it.

 

[Rippon]

Some Hints

God didn't elect them because He was responding to what they would do, their election was the responce {sic}of what He choose to do. IOW - God didn't choose out some people first and then decide how He wanted to save them. If that were the case you would have God arbitarily {sic}choosing people and then choosing how He wanted to save them - which practically no one agrees with. Nor was God watching to see what man would do so He could figure out what was{sic} His best choices. God already knew all mankind was going to be fallen, so God determined (in my view) that He would not only save but also how He would save them (by grace through faith) - and this He did first. Thus His decree to do so toward mankind established the very people which He both knew and wanted draw {sic}out from mankind via grace, to become His own in time. And since they were His choice and so wanted/desire, He loved them. Therefore His love in this was not a responce {sic} to their choice but His love toward them was a responce {sic}to His choice regarding those whom He chose to save.

What in the world are you saying?I would have said "trying to say",but it's apparent that you aren't really trying to be clear.You are lost in your wilderness of words.

Your last sentence in particular is very confusing.Let me try to rephrase it and see if you're making any sense :Therefore, the Lord's love toward His own wasn't a response to their choice of Him -- but His love toward them was a response to His choice regarding those whom He chose to save.

Nope.You are not making any sense whatsoever.Reduce the volume of your words to a more manageable amount.Take time to think clearly and then type with deliberation.Don't try to cover a lot of ground.Watch your spelling and grammar.

That's it for now.

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm just clarifying my view regarding your answering post to my previous one.

It looks like he is working out the L/U of atonement but on the rest he has espoused the Reformed views as he and I have talked.

I agree do agree (the two were representive of the whole of mankind) and thus he was numbered as one of them in this matter. However what you commented on just now was not only saying that he was 'marked' as a sinner but that He made 'intercession' for the transgressors (those same people He was marked with). That was what I was trying to illistrate.

No, I was agreeing that Christ died for His sheep and that was the extent of it. Though as seen even in my previous post I do not dispute that His death there was for the purpose of His intened - His sheep.


Yes, but wolves here is not the unsaved as a whole because they are not sent unto the wolves but into the midst of wolves or better out where the wolves are. Matthew only uses the twice in his gospel account and the first on in chapter 7 speaks about them being false prophets/teachers in sheeps clothing and the other is also speaking of sheep and wolves as they (sheep) are sent out amoung the wolves (false teachers/prophets and anti-christs who would try to discredit and refute them).

Of course not. But I think you are misinterpreting what He is saying. It isn't that 'no man' would do this (lay down his life for his friends) because we know that even lost sinful man committed to the world can and has done just this. But that was Jesus point. The greatest love a man will give is to lay down His life for his friends and they was precisely who there now were. Jesus told them they were no longer servants but friends and thus He was telling them they are not just any ol' friend but a friend worth dieing for. Unless of course we are to presume that Jesus was not a man, since 'no man' has greater love than this.

Yet this shows the very greatness of God's love since scripture tells us that while we were yet sinners (enemies, not friends) Christ died for us.


On that I disagree with you conclusion. Jesus point (im my opinion) was to confirm to His followers they were more than servants, in fact no longer servants but friends. Remember, He is speaking here as a man to men speaking how the greastest display of love a man can offer. He does this so that they might understand both their position (as friends) and their relationship with Him (Beloved).

However with due respect toward God and mans relationship toward Him:
While we were yet sinners (enemies of God) Christ died for us.
The first is speaking of the fellowship of man toward man.
The second is speaking of the relationship of man toward God. Even Paul states that before we were saved we were at enmity with God. Therefore the greatest thing a man can do is die for someone who loves him, yet the greatest thing God do is die for those who are His enemies that they might become His very children.

Anywho, as I said was not specifically trying to debate them but showing a different perspective on what those passage are seen to mean by others.

I have given my view of those particular passages, neither persuade nor refute but declare a difference of opinion on some.

I'm not going around with you again on this stuff. You know full well what I will say, and I have heard all your stuff before and disagree with it. I said you or someone else can post their own verses if they wish, but no one has done this.

If you get some new and better arguments we can talk about it.

 

[Allan]

If you believe as a Calvinist does on election and you also disagree as do Calvinist do with others that God does not elect based on "foreknowing who would believe" why do you argue with Calvinist over this subject?

I have always disagreed with the premise that God's election was based on who would believe. I have never changed that, to my knowledge (on the BB at least ). I 'have' argued that God's knowledge and decrees work in tandom with one another and never seperate of one another. But that is not the same as declaring that God chose me because I chose Him.

However, by the same token I do not hold the Calvinists version either according to their theological reasoning behind election.

You Allan have asked me tons of times, "but why does he choose who he chooses?". Am I right?

Agreed :tongue3:

Now you claim the same reply as a Calvinist? I don't get it.

No brother, it is not the same as the Calvinist. Just because I say that election is God choice does not make it Calvinist. As I said before -
"What makes a view or statement Calvinist is the theology behind it."

Besides the fact is that I have always maintained that our election was based on God's decision not ours. The premise might be seen as Calvinist but the view is not and is decidedly not Arminian.

I don't know how much simpler I can make what I am saying James. What I hold can not be seen as Calvinist due to the theological view behind it (which includes previent grace) though it's premise or core can be stated as a Calvinist principle. And I have no problem to claim it as such. Though I'm sure there would be many Calvinists would 'vehemently' deny my view is such in any form.

 

[Allan]

What in the world are you saying?I would have said "trying to say",but it's apparent that you aren't really trying to be clear.You are lost in your wilderness of words.

Your last sentence in particular is very confusing.Let me try to rephrase it and see if you're making any sense :Therefore, the Lord's love toward His own wasn't a response to their choice of Him -- but His love toward them was a response to His choice regarding those whom He chose to save.

Nope.You are not making any sense whatsoever.Reduce the volume of your words to a more manageable amount.Take time to think clearly and then type with deliberation.Don't try to cover a lot of ground.Watch your spelling and grammar.

That's it for now.

Thee abuv makes qite a bit of sense, really.

And thee amount wuz qite manegible, as, i could hav brokin it down and made it much longer. :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

I have always disagreed with the premise that God's election was based on who would believe. I have never changed that, to my knowledge (on the BB at least ). I 'have' argued that God's knowledge and decrees work in tandom with one another and never seperate of one another. But that is not the same as declaring that God chose me because I chose Him.

However, by the same token I do not hold the Calvinists version either of God's election where by God first elects some to be saved and then determines how He will save them. This premise is why Calvinists are always asked if God choice is arbitrary because they have God choosing some for reasons they beleive are never revealed except to say - it was God's purpose, plan, and pleasure.


Agreed :tongue3:


No brother, it is not the same as the Calvinist. Just because I say that election is God choice does not make it Calvinist. As I said before - "What makes a view or statement Calvinist is the theology behind it."

Besides the fact is that I have always maintained that our election was based on God's decision not ours. The premise might be seen as Calvinist but the view is not and is decidedly not Arminian.

I don't know how much simpler I can make what I am saying James. What I hold can not be seen as Calvinist due to the theological view behind it (which includes previent grace) though it's premise or core can be stated as a Calvinist principle. And I have no problem to claim it as such. Though I'm sure there would be many Calvinists would 'vehemently' deny my view is such in any form.

If you are at peace with what you said, so be it. I don't follow it. Its like talking in circles to me. This is why I have been hard on you in the past. No matter how many times I ask you, I still don't understand what your saying. I know of no other way to put this Allan.

I understand Calvinism and agree. I understand Arminianism and disagree. I understand hyper-Calvinism and disagree. I understand free-willers and disagree.

I never can understand your logic on election and you have been through it 20 times. You use to many words. You go around in circles.

If you know of a better way to explain it let me know.

Hold on...I got it.

Give me a book that best tells of your views. I will buy it and read it, because I have tried for years and we just do not connect on this.

Before you said you would change nothing, now you say its not the same.

Never mind trying again. If you have a book tell me the name and writer and I'll buy it.