Dr. Luke—the Proto-Reformed Theologian

God is sovereign that is without question. Yet why do those who wish to be called calvinists with a capital C fear the free will of man so terribly?
Is free will to God as is kyroptonite to superman?

God is so sovereign yet according to some man's free will is the one force that can destroy God's sovereignty?

I firmly believe God can remain fully sovereign while man has the freedom to use his free will. Our ability to choose does not diminish God's sovereignty in the least.

That being said I know this much. By God's grace I accepted His offer of salvation. Yet the moment that act of salvation occurred I realized that it was God that had drawn me to Himself.

I'm not all out calvinistic Scripture has alot to say about election and free will that is a fact.

In my opinion one indictment apart from scripture that is being revealed in these recent times against the arminian, easy believism crowd etc... is the state of evangelicalism today in america.

All the gimmicktry, programs, Church growth movement etc... can be traced back to those whose theology is arminian to one degree or another. The Willowcreekers, Purpose Driven crowd are of that ilk.


just my musings , any thoughts out there?

 

If you do a survey, you will find out that very few, if ever, "wish" to be called calvinists, and in fairness, very few wish to be called arminians.

These are simply labels attached by one side to the other, some with no malice, others with malice, as you will see from at least one poster here.

And for what it's worth, nothing can threaten God's sovereignty, not even the so-called free will of man which really exists only in the minds of arminians.

 

Nice try -- but remember, Gomer was once married to Hosea and, yes, she did once have to commit to Hosea.

Furthermore, Gomer is a picture of Israel. God will take Israel back in the end times despite her apostacy.

They did not "obtain" to the belief in Messiah/Jesus. Saving grace with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only obtained through belief on Christ. They rejected Him, remember?

No, saving grace comes through Christ. Have you totally forgotten?

"The rest" didn't believe on Christ. They CAN become believers. If I offer you a proposition, are you capable of understanding and receiving it?? Sure! I've lost track of the particular scripture we are talking about here but often "election" regarding the Jews speaks of the nation descended from Abraham who were "elect" according to God's purposes. And grace/Christ did come to us through them, right?

skypair

so....who chooses who?[/QUOTE]

 

And you seem to believe on grace without Christ else you would affirm you were saved by Him and not it. :laugh:

skypair

 

Great post!! :godisgood: I appreciate your testimony.

skypair

 

You need to read the book again. This was all setup by God, for the picture of salvation.

Gomer is a picture of Gods people. And God goes after His people, but others he gives over to their own lust. Read Romans 1 on this.

Not so...

They were LOOKING for Christ...and still missed it. Why? The passsge tells us.

Indeed...because the election of God obtained it for them? Do you not rememeber what the Bible says?

Not so.
and the rest were blinded....is what the passage says. Why were they blinded? If they were blinded and could still come, what was the meaning of the Blinding?

If I understand your propostion I may. But if I am blinded from the truth of your propostion, how can i? God blinded them...right? Now would be a great time to start believe Gods Word and stop changing it.

Romans 11

Often is does. However in this case it is speaking of salvation. That is the main point..check it out below..

This is clearly talking about the Israelites. But notice Cast away...what is Paul talking about?

Well...back in chapter 10 Paul is showing that God is not just working with the Jews.

When Paul asked is His people the jews now cast away...or is God no longer working with the Jews...Paul says "God forbid"...and then follows with...

Then Paul address all the bad things they did..like killing prophets and leaving God out of their life...and even worshipping Baal.

But in verse 5 he reminds his readers that ELECTION of GRACE...kept a remnant through the bad times...

Which gets us to our text..

In this text Paul shows us clearly where this grace comes from. He tells us also that if it were not for election no one would obtain it.

And there you have it again.

So lets try this again and see if you understand this time.

1) Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh

seeketh....they looked for it...they wanted it...they did obtain the grace

2) but the election hath obtained it

"it" is the saving grace found above.

All those from the remnant according to the election of grace....that remnant found in verse 5...got saving grace from election....or obtained it because of election.

3) and the rest were blinded.

rest? The rest that did not odtain grace through election.

The rest was blinded. Blinded..meaning they God gave them blindness...so they should not see. Verse 8 says it this way..."God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear"

hear what?

so I ask again...could those that God blinded believe?

God choose. Always my frind...always

 

Have you no humility at all? It's not even possible for you to admit your error? Instead, you take another ignorant stab at twisting words so you won't have to deal with your mistake. I never said anything even remotely like "I believe on grace without Christ."

You said "We are NOT saved by grace". Then I posted the scripture that says we ARE saved by grace. A rational, humble person would simply say, "I don't know what I was thinking. There it is in scripture in black and white. My bad, of course we are saved by grace." But rather than humble yourself and admit your error, you compound it and dig yourself deeper by making an accusation out of nowhere that I believe on grace without Christ.

Have you no clue how foolish you seem to anyone with half a brain?

 

Indeed it is --- ISRAEL'S marriage at Sinai to God and her later divorce in Jer 3:5 from which God would take her back in the passage you showed me at Messiah's coming!

skypair

 

That they didn't see Messiah when He came. Then Paul tells them that not all were blinded -- the he himself was not.

"Even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election [the purpose] of grace." is how I read it. Like Paul, their "election"/ministry/purpose "of grace" was, as Jewish remnant, to spread the gospel of grace. Do you get that?

11:7 -- "...the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded." IOW the remnant, like Paul, obtained it.

Gotta go. Back later.

skypair

 

The passage speak of two types of Jewish groups.

1) was the group choosen by election of God as a remnant.

2) a group that was blinded by God

>>>>>Can those blinded by God believe?

 

I wasn't talking about salvation being obligatory, I was talking about the "offer" being obligatory (I'm posing this from a free-willer's perspective - believers in election/predestination do not see it as an "offer").

As soon as anyone says God would be unfair if He didn't offer salvation equally to all, they make the offer of salvation obligatory on God's part, and remove all the meaning from the word "grace". God is not obliged to offer salvation to anyone, let alone give it to anyone.

 

You obviously disagree with most of the free-willers on this board. The free-willers here repeatedly pose salvation as an offer which men either accept or reject. Right, it's not necessarily the "two hands" thing, but they still pose it as an offer.

I don't get your logic here at all. Why wouldn't it be a gift? I don't usually like to debate using analogies because we get side-tracked by the analogies and lose sight of the point. But I can't think of a better way of demonstrating the flaw in your logic. If I deposit $100 into your bank account without even your knowledge OR approval, isn't it still a gift?

I don't get your question here. We spread the Gospel to the elect and the non-elect every day.

Where do you get the idea that God is equally merciful? It's certainly not from the Bible. Romans 9:18 - "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

I agree. That is why nobody can fault God for NOT being equally merciful.

Again, that's not what the Bible says (see above). And your presumption leads to skypair's conclusion: God wants everyone to be saved, but fails. So either God is incompetent, or God isn't trying to save everyone at all -- He will have mercy on whom he has mercy, and whom He will he hardens. Which is more Biblical?

You agree that God is under no obligation to extend savlation to anyone, let alone everyone equally -- so why do you obligate God to love everyone equally so as to "attempt" to have mercy on everyone? No matter how you slice it, if you assume any of God's attributes requires Him to treat everyone equally on any level, you remove all meaning from the word grace. The bestowal of grace cannot have any obligation attached to it.

 

Okay! "For God so loved the world." Compare to 1 John 2:15 "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Obviously, "world" cannot possibly mean "everyone in the world" everywhere it is used. So who is to say it MUST mean "everyone in the world" in John 3:16? To me, it means "the world" as in "Jews and gentiles alike, not just Jews only".

Better yet, just look past verse 16: "19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

There you have the world consisting of men who refuse to come into the light. Then it is contrasted by "he who does the truth comes to the light". Obviously, the world cannot include "he who does the truth", right? In short, there's no reason why "world" MUST mean every person.

----------

Remember, whenever you see "all" or "any" you have to ask yourself, "all of whom?" or "any of whom?" Any of the whole world? Any gentiles? Any Jews? What's the context? Look at the context of 2 Peter 3:9. It tells you right there who he's talking about when he says "not willing that any should perish".

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

So the "any" refers to "us". So again, in context:

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any [OF US] should perish but that all [OF US] should come to repentance.

And who are "us"? Peter and the people to whom he was writing. The elect.