Elect does not mean "saved at birth"

[skypair]

Originally Posted by canadyjd
Romans 9:18-21 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (19) You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resisits His will?' (20) On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you makes me like this,' will it? (21) Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?"

Do you ever resist His will??? Sure you do! Your interpretation is in error then.

Romans 9:22-23 "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (23) And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory."

The"vessels of wrath" are the Jews -- the "vessels of mercy" post-Christ are the believing Gentiles. Again, you misunderstand Paul to be speaking about lost and saved rather than Jews and Christians.

[/quote]John 1:12-13 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man ("free-will" rejected here in very plain terms) but of (the will of) God. (they are born by the will of God, and then born again (John chp. 3) by the will of God Holy Spirit.)[/b][/quote] It is your scholars that try to leave out John 1:12. Why? Because it makes it abundantly clear that WE must receive Him to become the children of God. Yes, once we BELIEVE, God briths us of His own will -- not ours! It goes like this, canady -- BELIEF -- REGENERATION -- FAITH. That is precisely what I see in John 1:12-13. And you?

Matt 11:27-28 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (28) Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

Behold the will of Jesus Christ is determining who will "know" the Father and Himself.[/quote] And notice too that immediately Jesus says "Come unto Me ALL who are weary..." I would say that He wills for ALL to come, wouldn't you? Isn't that what He just said??

Surely "all things" includes the salvation of men's souls, or do you believe Jesus wasn't telling the truth when He said "all things have been handed over to Me by My Father" and then in the next sentence speaks of those who "know" and those who do not know the Father.

All THINGS is the earthly kingdom. "Of Him [God], through Him, and to Him are all things."

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Excellent! ALL that the Father gives are those that BELIEVE. Why would God give unbelievers into Christ's kingdom??

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me.
John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."

"Sheep" are BELIEVERS. And, as a matter of fact, there are TWO FOLDS of them -- OT and NT! Even the lost sheep in Luke 15 is a believer gone astray. Notice, too, that when "one climbs up another way" he is NOT called a sheep.

You're just been deceived, canady. There are scriptural explanaions that are more compelling than those you give.

skypair

 

[skypair]

canady,

I think this bears repeating here from another thread:

John 1:12-13. Here is a perfect example of what John would have been thinking about there (regneneration and faith given by the will of God). Do you remember Simon Magus? He is one who "believed" but wasn't "regenerated" (no one was until Peter and John came to Samaria). When peter came, Simon "proved" the reason for his profession -- he really wanted to have the Spirit indwelling and power (1:13) without the life-changing commitment of "receiving" Christ (1:12).

Therefore, when John penned 1:13, he was thinking about those like Simon who would think that it was by their own will that one could receive "regeneration" (which is what 1:13 is talking about).

The point would be that you MUST commit to Christ (1:12) -- THEN it is up to God's will (if your motives were right) that you receive the Spirit of regeneration.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

Do you ever resist His will??? Sure you do! Your interpretation is in error then.

The question is not whether you ever resist God's will, and that is certainly not Paul's point. His point is that, as mere men, we do not have the authority or right to judge God's work in the lives of men. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. He hardens whom He hardens. He is the potter. Men are merely clay. God can create a man for whatever purpose pleases Him. As a worm, you don't get to talk back to God if you don't like the fact He made you a worm.

The"vessels of wrath" are the Jews -- the "vessels of mercy" post-Christ are the believing Gentiles. Again, you misunderstand Paul to be speaking about lost and saved rather than Jews and Christians.

Romans 9:2 "even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Paul is not separating them into "Jews" and "Christians" but into "the called" among the Jews and the Gentiles and those that are "not called" among the Jews and the Gentiles. He separates them into those God has has mercy on (among the Jews and Gentiles) and those God has hardened (among the Jews and the Gentiles). God had mercy on some Gentiles prior to Christ. He has mercy on some Jews today. Your theology fades quickly in the clear light of scripture.

canadyjd said:John 1:12-13 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man ("free-will" rejected here in very plain terms) but of (the will of) God. (they are born by the will of God, and then born again (John chp. 3) by the will of God Holy Spirit.

skypair responded: It is your scholars that try to leave out John 1:12. Why? Because it makes it abundantly clear that WE must receive Him to become the children of God. Yes, once we BELIEVE, God briths us of His own will -- not ours! It goes like this, canady -- BELIEF -- REGENERATION -- FAITH. That is precisely what I see in John 1:12-13. And you?

I didn't leave anything out, and I was unaware that I owned any "scholars". But in the spirit of not leaving anything out, remember that John had said in chp 1, v.10-11 "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. (11) He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him."

Then, in verse 12, John tells us that as many as received Him, He gave the right to become children of God. We have an apparent contradiction here.

How can John say "His own did not receive Him", and in the next sentence indicate some had receieved Him? If we believe your interpretation, verse 11 is an error and God responded to the faith of those who received Christ by granting them the right to become children of God.

But verse 11 is not an error. Having already demonstrated that mankind has rejected God and His Christ in 1:v4 "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" and v.10 "The world did not know Him" and v. 11 "His own did not receive Him", we see John is introducing a new theme in verse 13. The theme of being "born by the will of God".

Being "born by the will of God" will be further elaborated on in Chp. 3, and forward. There are a couple of things we consistantly see. It is according to the "will of God" and it includes "belief" or "faith" in the Word, Jesus Christ.

I believe God, through John, chose the analogy of "being born" for a specific reason. We can all agree, or at least should be able to agree, that a baby does not exercise its will in the process of "being born". The mother and father create the baby. The mother carries the baby. When the mother's body is ready, she gives birth to the baby. The baby cannot, rightly, be considered a spectator to the event, since it doesn't even know what is happening. It is born, and it responds to this new event that has occurred.

Such is the life of an unbeliever who is "born again" by the will of God. God causes the unbeliever to be born again through Holy Spirit (John 1:12-13 and 3:8). God has chosen to use the "gospel" of Christ, that is Christ and Him crucified for sins, in the process of "birthing" Christians (I Cor. 1:21)

Upon hearing the gospel, the unbeliever (chosen by the will of God before the foundation of the world to be one of His chosen sheep) will be convicted of the truth of Christ and His righteousness; his own sinfulness; and the coming judgment (John 16: 8-11). The (chosen) unbeliever will respond, without fail, to this movement of Holy Spirit to regenerate his very nature, with repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

That's how I see it only because scripture is so clear that is the way it is.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

The question is not whether you ever resist God's will, and that is certainly not Paul's point. His point is that, as mere men, we do not have the authority or right to judge God's work in the lives of men. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. He hardens whom He hardens. He is the potter. Men are merely clay. God can create a man for whatever purpose pleases Him. As a worm, you don't get to talk back to God if you don't like the fact He made you a worm.

Romans 9:2 "even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Paul is not separating them into "Jews" and "Christians" but into "the called" among the Jews and the Gentiles and those that are "not called" among the Jews and the Gentiles. He separates them into those God has has mercy on (among the Jews and Gentiles) and those God has hardened (among the Jews and the Gentiles). God had mercy on some Gentiles prior to Christ. He has mercy on some Jews today. Your theology fades quickly in the clear light of scripture.

I have to partially agree with you, canady. Paul is speaking of converted Jews and Gentiles among the saved.

But having reread the passage, your logic fails to convince. In Rom 9-11, Paul is talking about "sovereignty" -- I have that heading written in my Bible. But the sovereignty he talks about is regarding the OT Jews, a "chosen people" but not all saved. Look at every opening verse, canady. They all mention Paul's roots in and desire for the Jews. Many, like you, have made him refer falsely to individual salvation in Rom 9-11 but it ain't there.

But in the spirit of not leaving anything out, remember that John had said in chp 1, v.10-11 "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. (11) He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him."

Then, in verse 12, John tells us that as many as received Him, He gave the right to become children of God. We have an apparent contradiction here.

How can John say "His own did not receive Him", and in the next sentence indicate some had receieved Him? If we believe your interpretation, verse 11 is an error and God responded to the faith of those who received Christ [verse 12] by granting them the right to become children of God.

My view would be that we receive Christ and then God gives regeneration and faith and adoption. Watch this:

John 1:11 -- He came to His own but the Jews whom He came for did not, as a people, receive Him (nor did the "world"/Romans, 1:10). BUT (1:12) as many individuals as receive Him from either "people" could be saved. No contradiction. BELIEVE - REGENERATION - FAITH.

But verse 11 is not an error. Having already demonstrated that mankind has rejected God and His Christ in 1:v4 "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" and v.10 "The world did not know Him" and v. 11 "His own did not receive Him", we see John is introducing a new theme in verse 13. The theme of being "born by the will of God".

Oh? Was that NOT the case in the OT also??

Being "born by the will of God" will be further elaborated on in Chp. 3, and forward. There are a couple of things we consistantly see. It is according to the "will of God" and it includes "belief" or "faith" in the Word, Jesus Christ.

Well, of course it includes belief and faith. It's no coincidence that those who truly believe are saved, given regeneration and faith!

I believe God, through John, chose the analogy of "being born" for a specific reason. We can all agree, or at least should be able to agree, that a baby does not exercise its will in the process of "being born". The mother and father create the baby. The mother carries the baby. When the mother's body is ready, she gives birth to the baby. The baby cannot, rightly, be considered a spectator to the event, since it doesn't even know what is happening. It is born, and it responds to this new event that has occurred.

While it is true that we are born involuntarily, it is absurd to believe that we are reborn in that way. If you do, in fact, it is doubtful that you could truly be reborn. It took TWO people becoming as one to birth you once -- it takes God the Spirit and you to birth you again.

Such is the life of an unbeliever who is "born again" by the will of God. God causes the unbeliever to be born again through Holy Spirit (John 1:12-13 and 3:8). God has chosen to use the "gospel" of Christ, that is Christ and Him crucified for sins, in the process of "birthing" Christians (I Cor. 1:21)

What purpose the gospel if you have no volition?? Is it "pixy dust?" Is that how you picture "preaching?" As "magical incantation" that changes A into B? Lead to gold? What actually does preaching of the gospel have to do with an involuntary conversion at all.

You know what I think you and many Calvinists are convinced of? That because infants can be saved by infant baptism, that conversion has absolutely nothing to do with anything we do or are able to do. Do you believe that by stating the right words over an infant, that that infant can become one of the "elect"/saved?? Isn't that precisely what you are calling for with this sotierology of yours?? And I can see how it makes WONDERFUL strategic sense on Calvin's part to continue this salvation through baptism of the ignorant since his Catholic competition offered that as an advantage. Can you imagine a Catholic seriously considering converting to a faith where their children were condemned to hell if they died??!

Upon hearing the gospel, the unbeliever (chosen by the will of God before the foundation of the world to be one of His chosen sheep) will be convicted of the truth of Christ and His righteousness; his own sinfulness; and the coming judgment (John 16: 8-11). The (chosen) unbeliever will respond, without fail, to this movement of Holy Spirit to regenerate his very nature, with repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

This is the normal conversion process the way you say it here. The unbeliever PERIOD is convicted, responds, is regenerated, and becomes one of God's "elect." Yes, God foreknew he/she would do so from "before the foundation of the world." But God grants salvation conditionally. All the things you say have to happen. You have a good grasp on salvation -- just not on who does the choosing to salvation.

skypair

 

[skypair]

canady,

I found the perfect example of what John is talking about in Acts 8:9 and following. You see, Simon the Magician believed on Christ but at the time, the Spirit of regeneration was not given. When John and Peter came to Samaria showing signs of the Spirit, Simon Magus thought to "buy" the power. Now we learn why Simon really converted -- not for salvation but for personal power.

One who believes for wrong motives is NOT given the Spirit of regeneration by God. Does that make sense to you? Of course regeneration and faith are give by God, but it is to those who believe "receiving" Christ for the right reasons!

skypair

 

[MB]

Many people misrepresent calvinists thinking that we believe that we were born saved since we are elect.
THis is NOT the case, though some hyper cals will believe this heresy.

When we elect a new president, he has already been elected. He will become president the next January. But He is not there yet.
God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.
It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

Just as a president who dies before his inauguration will never actually be president, one of the elect who would die before salvation would go to hell.
The difference is that God is long-suffering, not willing that ANY of His elect should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation.

Even if you do not agree, I hope that those of you that misunderstood this about Calvinism will understand better now.

It would be interesting indeed if a Calvinist would step forward and show us the election of any Gentile from scripture.
MB

 

[eightball]

If God didn't allow this hardening process ala Romans Chapter 1, how in the world would any of us realize what a terrible despicable spiritual condition we are in.

Remember King Nebucanezzer (mispelled no doubt), he indeed sinned more and more as he thought he was like God, and what happened? God struck him down with insanity, as he grazed in the fields like a cow. After God released this insanity, King Neb, is only remembered in Daniel as a man who venerated God.
*****
This is repeated time and again in the bible, and it's repeated time and again in last 2,000 + years. Man resists God's grace, God lets man spirial deeper into debasement or sin. God doesn't do this as a curse or judgement of the alleged unelected, but as a matter of of mercy expressed through His grace(unmerited favor) in order to wake up, "Oh yee sinner", and see your true plight or condition.

Why did Paul who was saved, say that when he is weak, God is strong. Well, unsaved man has the biggest dose of self-strength ever. God will tolerate it patiently, but will indeed allow this self strength to be exposed for the hoax that it is in human kind. This is part of Gods incredible grace, as he weakens us in order that He may become enthroned in our souls in place of ourselves.

Even John and Jane Doe Christian can suffer from the "self" cycle, and God will mercifully bring about or allow "things" in those individual lives that hit right home at the areas of self strength in order that saved man will realize with objectivity the Lordship of Christ must not be intellectually understood, but most be experientially understood for these human vessels to be useable to glorify Him. Pauls Romans Chapter 7 travail is exemplary at revealing this human struggle.

Speaking of clay, we indeed are metaphorically like that. We are fragile, we leak as vessels, and we constantly need refilling and patching. Call it discipling, exhorting, encouragement.......

Also, indeed, the Potter does have the last word on what kind of piece of clay we will be. We may be intended for common use, or for great public display.........yet we are still clay, and we all are valued equally as His adopted ones.

I will never ascribe to the belief that Jesus sent those disciples and us out into the known world to save the already saved, as it goes totally against Jesus's nature, and standard bible hermeneutics. Also it kills all incentive to perceive and see the best and worst of mankind all in the same light; as "Whosoevers" 2 Pet. 3:9., and the World, ala John 3:16.

 

[J.D.]

What is this?

standard bible hermeneutics

 

[Dale-c]

It would be interesting indeed if a Calvinist would step forward and show us the election of any Gentile from scripture.
MB

Are you a gentile? Are you elect? That is to say, are you saved? Elect in this sense is just the ones that are or will be saved.
God has elected them before the foundation of the world to be saved but Jesus still had to die on the cross and these men must still believe.

In God's sovereign will everyone will come to that destiny.
We must still go and preach the gospel because God commands it and because God has guaranteed that everyone that He has predestinated WILL be saved.

 

[Dale-c]

I will never ascribe to the belief that Jesus sent those disciples and us out into the known world to save the already saved, as it goes totally against Jesus's nature, and standard bible hermeneutics. Also it kills all incentive to perceive and see the best and worst of mankind all in the same light; as "Whosoevers" 2 Pet. 3:9., and the World, ala John 3:16.

I have missed a lot of this thread but in short, no one is "saved already"
Actually the world was condemned already.
In God's mercy though He has chosen some for eternal life.
Those whom He has chosen will be saved.
But they will be saved by the preaching of the gospel and they must still believe.

 

[npetreley]

It would be interesting indeed if a Calvinist would step forward and show us the election of any Gentile from scripture.
MB

I don't know how many times we have to post the same verses.

 

[Dale-c]

I don't know how many times we have to post the same verses.

You have to answer each person directly, if you answered someone else, that doesn't count.

 

[canadyjd]

I have to partially agree with you, canady. Paul is speaking of converted Jews and Gentiles among the saved.

Then your views have become partially closer to being scriptural:smilewinkgrin:

But having reread the passage, your logic fails to convince. In Rom 9-11, Paul is talking about "sovereignty" -- I have that heading written in my Bible. But the sovereignty he talks about is regarding the OT Jews, a "chosen people" but not all saved. Look at every opening verse, canady. They all mention Paul's roots in and desire for the Jews.

You simply have missed the Paul's point, which is not that the Jews were exclusively the chosen people of God, but just the opposite. The children of God shall be chosen from among all the nations, including the Jews and the Gentiles.
Romans 10 12 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all....."

Many, like you, have made him refer falsely to individual salvation in Rom 9-11 but it ain't there.

I don't remember ever saying Romans 9-11 referred to individual salvation. Perhaps you could show me where I posted that.

My view would be that we receive Christ and then God gives regeneration and faith and adoption. Watch this:

John 1:11 -- He came to His own but the Jews whom He came for did not, as a people, receive Him (nor did the "world"/Romans, 1:10). BUT (1:12) as many individuals as receive Him from either "people" could be saved. No contradiction. BELIEVE - REGENERATION - FAITH.

Getting scripture to fit your beliefs is pretty easy when you can just add words to suit your fancy, huh? The only problem is you had to change the text. If you have to change the text to fit your interpretation, your interpretation is wrong.

And when you change the text in verse 11 to fit what you want it to mean, you find yourself in contradiction with v.13 which clearly says those who become children of God do so by the will of God, not by exercising their own will to "receive" Christ.

While it is true that we are born involuntarily, it is absurd to believe that we are reborn in that way. If you do, in fact, it is doubtful that you could truly be reborn.

Are you questioning my salvation, sir? Are you really saying it is "doubtful" that someone who holds that salvation is a complete work of God according to His unmerited favor can be genuinely saved?

I'll assume you misspoke and give you an opportunity to apologize.

What purpose the gospel if you have no volition?? Is it "pixy dust?" Is that how you picture "preaching?" As "magical incantation" that changes A into B? Lead to gold? What actually does preaching of the gospel have to do with an involuntary conversion at all.

I Cor. 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."
Preaching the gospel is the method God has ordained to bring His chosen sheep to salvation. It is the "truth" that Holy Spirit convicts us of, having regenerated our natures so that our ears can hear and our eyes can see, the truth which brings us to faith in Jesus Christ and salvation.

Preaching the gospel is God's plan to bring His children to salvation.

This is the normal conversion process the way you say it here. The unbeliever PERIOD is convicted, responds, is regenerated, and becomes one of God's "elect." Yes, God foreknew he/she would do so from "before the foundation of the world." But God grants salvation conditionally. All the things you say have to happen. You have a good grasp on salvation -- just not on who does the choosing to salvation.

Your sentence is so poorly constructed I cannot understand what belief you are attributing to me or to yourself. I will try to address what I can, as candidly as I can.

God elects people before the foundation of the world. He did so out of His mercy and compassion. He elected them for the purpose of being in His presence and enjoying Him forever.

He did not "look forward" and see who would believe, and then base His election of them on that new information. He chose them out of His mercy, His Grace. Grace is the unmerited favor of God. If we "merit" it because of a foreseen belief in Christ, then the election is no longer of Grace, it is based on our own merit.

God then unfolded His plan to bring His children unto Himself. He created the universe and everything in it. He created mankind. The fall of mankind was included in the plan of God to bring His children unto Himself, it was not something He responded to afterward, as if it surprised Him.

Why did God allow evil? What did God create Satan, knowing he would rebel and fall? Why did God allow Satan into the garden to tempt Eve? Why would God plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, anyway?

God allowed sin to enter into the world for the benefit of His elect. How is that possible? Because if sin had never entered into the world, then suffering and death would never have entered into the world. If suffering and death had not entered into the world, then the elect would never know that God loves them so much, He was willing to suffer and die on their behalf.

And so, when the elect stand in the presence of God, they will appreciate Him all the more, knowing the things He suffered for their sakes.

I will now address conversion. I do not believe all conversions follow a "normal conversion process", as you have said. Some people are under conviction for years before they are "converted". Some hear the gospel many times. Some respond with genuine faith the first time they hear the gospel. Some, like myself, considered themselves to be saved for years before they are genuinely converted and understood their own lostness.

Conversion then (logically, if not chronologically) is..... election by God according to His unmerited favor, being born in time according to the plan of and direct control of God, the "elect" are unsaved at this point in that they are under the condemnation of God just like the rest of humanity because of their sinfulness and rejection of Him; then;

(simultaneously) exposure to the gospel of Jesus Christ according to plan of God at the right time in our lives, regeneration by Holy Spirit, conviction of truth of Jesus Christ by Holy Spirit, which leads the elect to respond with repentance and faith toward Jesus Christ as God (simultaneously)
Then; the elect are "saved' from the wrath of God and the consequences of being alienated from God by their sinfulness.

The now indwelling Holy Spirit equips Christian to live his life for His Lord, Jesus Christ; the Christian binds himself/herself together with other believers (according to God's Word) and lives his life for Christ until the end of his/her days upon the earth, the elect's spirit goes into heaven at the death of his/her body, the elects body is resurrected/changed and reunited with his/her spirit on the Day of Lord.....then

we live with God and enjoy Him forever. Amen.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

Dalec and npeterely -- you might as well read this too. :laugh:

Getting scripture to fit your beliefs is pretty easy when you can just add words to suit your fancy, huh? The only problem is you had to change the text. If you have to change the text to fit your interpretation, your interpretation is wrong.

Words on a page still have to be interpretted as to meaning, canady. Even the command "go get the dog" does not give us enough information to get "the" dog. It has to be interpretted as to the referant, no?

And when you change the text in verse 11 to fit what you want it to mean, you find yourself in contradiction with v.13 which clearly says those who become children of God do so by the will of God, not by exercising their own will to "receive" Christ.

Ala, Simon Magus, one who believes for wrong motives is NOT given the Spirit of regeneration by God. Does that make sense to you? Of course regeneration and faith are given by God, but it is to those who believe "receiving" Christ for the right reasons!

Are you questioning my salvation, sir? Are you really saying it is "doubtful" that someone who holds that salvation is a complete work of God according to His unmerited favor can be genuinely saved?

We NEVER question someone else's salvation here. It is entirely likely that you received Christ and are like most Calvinists I debate with who, upon the "discovery" of Calvinism, renounce the very manner and gospel by which they were saved. What is not in doubt is that Sardis/Reform "has a name that liveth and art dead" and Philadelphia/free will "has kept the word of My patience," the gospel of salvation intact!

God elects people before the foundation of the world. ...

He did not "look forward" and see who would believe, and then base His election of them on that new information. ...

Yes, I am very familiar with Calvinism's sotierology, thank you. It reinterprets Rom 8:29 "foreknow" so that it complies with their theology (just like you complain I do in John 1:12-13 BTW). "Foreknow" is simply "to know beforehand." And why would you call anything "new" to an omniscient God? Do you have some understanding of "eternal" that escapes the rest of us?

And why would you call "belief" "merit?" Why would you claim "merit" for something you merely received from someone else?? Paul puts that silly argument "to rest" in his epistles -- I'll go look it up for you. 1Cor 4:7 -- "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? Is receiving you did not have "merit?" I say no.

If we "merit" it because of a foreseen belief in Christ, then the election is no longer of Grace, it is based on our own merit.

No, now you are confusing "merit" with "works." But again, belief is NOT works per Rom 4:5 -- "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him..., his faith is counted for righteousness."

Why did God allow evil? Why did God create Satan, knowing he would rebel and fall? Why did God allow Satan into the garden to tempt Eve? Why would God plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, anyway?

Because He wanted people who would FREELY CHOOSE to love Him. In order for any to FREELY choose Him, they must have free moral agency to choose also evil.

I will now address conversion. I do not believe all conversions follow a "normal conversion process", as you have said. Some people are under conviction for years before they are "converted". Some hear the gospel many times. Some respond with genuine faith the first time they hear the gospel. Some, like myself, considered themselves to be saved for years before they are genuinely converted and understood their own lostness.

FYI, we call your type conversion "convinced," not "convicted," canady.

Conversion then (logically, if not chronologically) is..... election by God according to His unmerited favor, being born in time according to the plan of and direct control of God, the "elect" are unsaved at this point in that they are under the condemnation of God just like the rest of humanity because of their sinfulness and rejection of Him; then;

So, no such thing as "elect" infants going to heaven, right?

(simultaneously) exposure to the gospel of Jesus Christ according to plan of God at the right time in our lives, regeneration by Holy Spirit,

OK, let me see that I am clear on this --- regeneration means that the Holy Spirit indwells a "totally depraved" body? Because as yet, without repentance, how can there be any change whatsoever in the unbeliever?? You're saying the Spirit is "given" to the "elect" while he/she is still "totally depraved?"

I think your sotierology fails to comprehend that an unbeliever MUST be JUSTIFIED before he/she can be SANCTIFIED. JUSTIFICATION comes from repentance of the soul, the "moral compass" or conscience, toward God. Then SANCTIFICATION can begin by the Spirit being moving into a "cleansed temple" and indwelling his/her spirit.

Don't feel bad. Many have been deceived just like you by a "human packaged" theology.

...conviction of truth of Jesus Christ by Holy Spirit,

Yes, conviction from OUTSIDE, not inside. Through the gospel -- not through "rebirth without impregnation." 1Pet 1:23 - "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." By the WORD of God from OUTSIDE -- not by the Spirit of God from inside. Your example of our first birth is very helpful in understanding this, don't you think? There has to be a "seed" and that "seed" is NOT the rebirth but precedes it. And the "seed"/sperm must be "mated" with something that we egg-like possess -- a mind and a will which we call our "spirit!"

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

Are you a gentile? Are you elect? That is to say, are you saved? Elect in this sense is just the ones that are or will be saved.
God has elected them before the foundation of the world to be saved but Jesus still had to die on the cross and these men must still believe.
.................

Dale-c:

The highlighting of your quoted words are mine. Phrases like these confuse me.

I was listening on the radio a couple of days ago to this young Calvinisic preacher in a Calvinistic radio station (Harold Camping's Family Radio, and I don't think there is anyone on this board that will argue that their music is worth listening to, if not Harold Camping).

This preacher said Jesus Christ is Redeemer and Savior, and like you, he said we still need to go out and preach the gospel to a lost world.

All right. Now.

If Jesus Christ is Redeemer, is He an already Redeemer ? Or is He a Redeemer to be. If Jesus Christ is Savior, is He an already Savior ? Or is He a Redeemer to be, and a Savior to be.

If He is an already Redeemer and an already Savior, then who did He redeem, who did He save, when, where, why, and how ?

If He is an already Redeemer and an already Savior, then your words which I highlighted makes no sense.

On the other hand, the semi-pelagian Arminians on this boards' contention makes more sense, and despite you and other Calvinists' claim that salvation is OF the Lord, it appears you are more aligned with the Arminian's theology.

Then you say, as Arminians do, that salvation is by grace. Then if it is of grace, there must needs be absolutely no input from the recipient, right ? Bear in mind that I am here speaking of eternal salvation. The kind that God Himself planned, authored, and covenanted in eternity past before man ever existed on earth.

If, as you say, the elect must still believe in order to be saved, then there is input. If you don't want to call it works, fine, but the fact is there is still input from the recipient, the elect. Where then is grace ?

Just so it is clear to one and all where I am coming from, let me explain:

I believe the Holy Creator God elected innumerable men from the fallen race of Adam unto salvation. That these men were elect in Christ, redeemed in Christ, and covered by the blood of the Eternal Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, which blood was then shed in time by Calvary's Lamb, thus sealing the elect's redemption for all eternity, past, present and future.

I believe that, comparing Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, there is no escaping the fact that all who were chosen in Christ, and accepted in the beloved, were, are, and will be born saved and redeemed solely and purely by the grace and mercy of the Creator God, that Christ is God's gift to them, and they are God's gift to Christ.

Notwithstanding, all the elect of God were, are and will be born unregenerate, at enmity with God, and all were, are, and will be quickened or regenerated in due time by the Holy Spirit, apart from any means (no human voice, no printed matter) and all will be drawn to Christ and brought home to Christ (gospel or no gospel), and none will be lost, and that these were elected and saved based on no theology, creed, race, tongue, or such divisions as is common in this fallen world from which they were redeemed unto God by the Lamb's blood.

That is where I am coming from, and I do not claim that this is Primitive Baptist doctrine, neither do I speak for all Primitive Baptists.

I adhere to the Doctrine of Grace, but grace that is unpolluted by any input from man.

 

[canadyjd]

Words on a page still have to be interpretted as to meaning, canady. Even the command "go get the dog" does not give us enough information to get "the" dog. It has to be interpretted as to the referant, no?

The words you added to verse 11 changed its meaning, not make it clearer. The words you added to verse 11 make it contradict verse 13.

Ala, Simon Magus, one who believes for wrong motives is NOT given the Spirit of regeneration by God. Does that make sense to you? Of course regeneration and faith are given by God, but it is to those who believe "receiving" Christ for the right reasons!

Again, you are adding words that aren't there to change the meaning. The text doesn't say "to those who received Him for the right reasons...." or "to those who believed with right motives...". You put those qualifiers there, not John.

We NEVER question someone else's salvation here.

Since it is obvious you don't understand the words of scripture, perhaps you can tell me what your own words meant then?

While it is true that we are born involuntarily, it is absurd to believe that we are reborn in that way. If you do, in fact, it is doubtful that you could truly be reborn.

That sounds like you are questioning my salvation.

It is entirely likely that you received Christ and are like most Calvinists I debate with who, upon the "discovery" of Calvinism, renounce the very manner and gospel by which they were saved.

And now you say I have renounced the gospel by which I was saved. Tell me exactly what "gospel" it is "entirely likely" that I have renounced.

What is not in doubt is that Sardis/Reform "has a name that liveth and art dead" and Philadelphia/free will "has kept the word of My patience," the gospel of salvation intact!

Yes, I am very familiar with Calvinism's sotierology, thank you.

If you understand it, you don't seem to have the ability to articulate it very well.

And why would you call "belief" "merit?"

Because you use it as if it were "merit" when you claim God saw those who would believe and based His election of them on their act of believing. That has God responding to the acts of men in election, not God pouring out His grace (unmerited favor) on those He has chosen for His own purposes.

OK, let me see that I am clear on this --- regeneration means that the Holy Spirit indwells a "totally depraved" body?

Regeneration means Holy Spirit works in such a way as to transform the nature of an unbeliever so that they will respond to the truth of the gospel with repentance and faith. When Holy Spirit actually "indwells" the person (prior, simultaneous, after repentance?) I simply do not know.

From your question it doesn't appear that you understand what "totally depraved" means either.

I think your sotierology fails to comprehend that an unbeliever MUST be JUSTIFIED before he/she can be SANCTIFIED. JUSTIFICATION comes from repentance of the soul, the "moral compass" or conscience, toward God. Then SANCTIFICATION can begin by the Spirit being moving into a "cleansed temple" and indwelling his/her spirit.

You don't appear to understand what justification or sanctification mean either. No wonder you are so confused.

Yes, conviction from OUTSIDE, not inside. Through the gospel -- not through "rebirth without impregnation." 1Pet 1:23 - "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." By the WORD of God from OUTSIDE -- not by the Spirit of God from inside. Your example of our first birth is very helpful in understanding this, don't you think? There has to be a "seed" and that "seed" is NOT the rebirth but precedes it. And the "seed"/sperm must be "mated" with something that we egg-like possess -- a mind and a will which we call our "spirit!"

The word for "being born again" is the Greek word "anagegennamenoi", which is a "perfect, passive, verbal participle". Being "passive" means just that. The object of the action has nothing to do with the action (being born again). There is a way in Greek grammar to show the person takes part in the action, but Peter doesn't use it here.

Therefore, your interpretation here, like all the others you have consistently spewed out, is easily shown to be incorrect from a simple, plain reading of the text.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

The words you added to verse 11 changed its meaning, not make it clearer. The words you added to verse 11 make it contradict verse 13.

Again, you are adding words that aren't there to change the meaning. The text doesn't say "to those who received Him for the right reasons...." or "to those who believed with right motives...". You put those qualifiers there, not John.

Read the context, canady. Why do YOU think Simon wasn't "given" the indwelling Spirit?? And did not ALL the Samaritans have to believe BEFORE they were regenerated?? This says EXACTLY what the context of John 1:11-13 says. I AM bringing the meaning from scripture to scripture. You are bringing the meaning from Calvinism to scripture.

And now you say I have renounced the gospel by which I was saved. Tell me exactly what "gospel" it is "entirely likely" that I have renounced.

The gospel that "you received and wherein you stand ... unless you believed in vain." 1Cor 15:1-4

Because you use it [belief] as if it were "merit" when you claim God saw those who would believe and based His election of them on their act of believing. That has God responding to the acts of men in election, not God pouring out His grace (unmerited favor) on those He has chosen for His own purposes.

Actually, you READ it as if it were "merit." Why? Because Calvinism says it is.

Actually, belief is "receiving" something that we get no credit for -- else it wouldn't be grace! Else God would "owe" us salvation. I am with you that we have nothing in us that "merits" salvation but we can be given the truth, receive it, and be regenerated and "elect."

Regeneration means Holy Spirit works in such a way as to transform the nature of an unbeliever so that they will respond to the truth of the gospel with repentance and faith. When Holy Spirit actually "indwells" the person (prior, simultaneous, after repentance?) I simply do not know.

But that question is the whole point. I appreciate your honesty, though.

And I think the problem is that Calvinism equates belief with faith when, in truth, belief (hope of salvation) precedes regeneration and faith (actual confidence of salvation) succeeds regeneration. Regeneration is the proof the links belief to faith in the manner of "Faith[/Holy Spirit] is the substance of things hoped for [believed]." To me as to you, it is hard to delineate which comes first - faith or regeneration. But rationally, if the Holy Spirit is the proof, then it comes followed by faith, right?

From your question it doesn't appear that you understand what "totally depraved" means either.

Go ahead. What does it mean in case I am not clear on your definition.

You don't appear to understand what justification or sanctification mean either. No wonder you are so confused.

Here is where I think you are confused. Your soul has to be "prepared" for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit/mind of Christ. This is done by "justification" wherein our "moral compasses" no longer point wherever we want them to but point to God via repentance and acceptance of the truth. Do you see that it is no sense giving the Holy Spirit to people focused on themselves - like Simon Magus?

NOW we will be able to receive truth, even the "hidden wisdom of God," unto sanctification of our spirits "till we come to the full measure of Christ."

The word for "being born again" is the Greek word "anagegennamenoi", which is a "perfect, passive, verbal participle". Being "passive" means just that. The object of the action has nothing to do with the action (being born again). There is a way in Greek grammar to show the person takes part in the action, but Peter doesn't use it here.

And that is fine because even I agree that the Spirit of rebirth is "given," "bestowed," but only upon believers. What you postulate is that God gives the Spirit to totally depraved unbelievers who are "without a lick of" spiritual sense.

Therefore, your interpretation here, like all the others you have consistently spewed out, is easily shown to be incorrect from a simple, plain reading of the text.

Could we please refrain from slandering me? God could infer that you are blaspheming the Spirit in saying that my words are lies.

Does your pastor not use other words to explain scripture to you?? How about Calvinism? Do you let Calvinism "teach" you the defintions of words like foreknow, all, world, elect, etc. You seem to have accepted their words as subsitutes for scriptural wording.

Did Paul use his own words interpretting Christ and scripture when presenting the gospel? In presenting eschatological truth, etc.? Almost everything we read of Paul's is the mind of Christ -- not words of scripture, right? The mind of Christ became words of scripture through him, no? Your indignation at me trying to "teach" you is simply irresponsible. That you vehemently disagree with me and with my understanding of the Spirit and mind of Christ and not with the "mind of Calvin" is the issue.

skypair

 

[skypair]

If, as you say, the elect must still believe in order to be saved, then there is input. If you don't want to call it works, fine, but the fact is there is still input from the recipient, the elect. Where then is grace ?

Does scripture not say "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" Does scripture not teach this "cause and effect" relationship? Why do you pervert this simple formulation?

I believe the Holy Creator God elected innumerable men from the fallen race of Adam unto salvation.

No, first He FOREKNEW a finite number of men who would beleive, Rom 8:29. Then He "elected" them, chose them out/separated them, unto service and blessing.

I believe that, comparing Scripture with Scripture, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, there is no escaping the fact...

Ah, but there is a way of "escaping the facts" --- "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.." Isa 28:13-14

"Scornful men" can take "scripture, precept, and line" to "break, snare, and take" men prisoner. This is what the Pharisees did, right? How? By "putting their own spin" on God's word such that it becomes the "doctrines of men!" I fear that many fall into this error.

Notwithstanding, all the elect of God were, are and will be born unregenerate, at enmity with God, and all were, are, and will be quickened or regenerated in due time by the Holy Spirit, apart from any means (no human voice, no printed matter)...

OK, so "belief" is not a condition of salvation like scripture clearly says it is. Is that right? No "cause and effect." IOW, the new covenant is "unconditional" just like the Abrahamic covenant was. Am I hearing you right? That the "elect," unlike Abraham, are totally oblivious to God (even enemies of God) with no obedience at all and God just "walked in the midst the carcass" for them bestowing an inheritance in glory upon them? Would that be your description of the "new covenant?"

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

Read the context, canady. Why do YOU think Simon wasn't "given" the indwelling Spirit??

I can't find the Simon you are speaking of in John 1:10-13. Do you find Simon there?

And did not ALL the Samaritans have to believe BEFORE they were regenerated?? This says EXACTLY what the context of John 1:11-13 says.

I can't find mention of the Samaritans in John 1:11-13. Do you find mention of the Samaritans there? You must, since you claim the Samaritans are "EXACTLY" the context of John 1:11-13.

And I think the problem is that Calvinism equates belief with faith when, in truth, belief (hope of salvation) precedes regeneration and faith (actual confidence of salvation) succeeds regeneration.

The words for faith and belief are formed from the same Greek word "pistis". One is used as a verb, and the other as a noun. The reason you are separating them as you do is because English doesn't have a verbal form for "faith". Whereas the Greek use of these words denoted external actions (i.e. faithing Jesus), the King James folks used the word "belief" (unfortunately) which makes it appear to be an internal mental assent to certain facts rather than external actions. You have developed a theology based on a difference that doesn't exist.

Go ahead. What does it mean in case I am not clear on your definition.

Total depravity means an inability to come to a saving knowldege of Almighty God without His intervention to transform us.

Here is where I think you are confused. Your soul has to be "prepared" for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit/mind of Christ. This is done by "justification" wherein our "moral compasses" no longer point wherever we want them to but point to God via repentance and acceptance of the truth.

I would normally ask you to provide scripture to back up your assertions. However, since you see mention of Simon Magus and the Samaritans in John 1:10-13, I know that such a request would be a futile. I am certain you would quote scripture (adding words to make your belief seem plausible) out of context.

I will simply say your stated belief "moral compasses" justifying our souls in preparation for the indwelling Holy Spirit has no support from scripture.

skypair said:Yes, conviction from OUTSIDE, not inside. Through the gospel -- not through "rebirth without impregnation." 1Pet 1:23 - "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." By the WORD of God from OUTSIDE -- not by the Spirit of God from inside. Your example of our first birth is very helpful in understanding this, don't you think? There has to be a "seed" and that "seed" is NOT the rebirth but precedes it. And the "seed"/sperm must be "mated" with something that we egg-like possess -- a mind and a will which we call our "spirit!"

canadyjd said: "The word for "being born again" is the Greek word "anagegennamenoi", which is a "perfect, passive, verbal participle". Being "passive" means just that. The object of the action has nothing to do with the action (being born again). There is a way in Greek grammar to show the person takes part in the action, but Peter doesn't use it here."

skypair responded:

And that is fine because even I agree that the Spirit of rebirth is "given," "bestowed," but only upon believers.

So you now agree with me that what you stated about the gospel needing to be "mated" with our minds,wills, and spirit to have a "rebirth" is, in fact, unsupported by scripture?

God could infer that you are blaspheming the Spirit in saying that my words are lies.

:laugh: I know you think very highly of yourself, but if I can see the difference, I am sure God can tell the difference between what you are saying and what He has said.

That you vehemently disagree with me and with my understanding of the Spirit and mind of Christ and not with the "mind of Calvin" is the issue.

You are incorrect, again. The issue is whether what you are "teaching" is contrary to scripture (which it is).

peace to youraying:

 

[npetreley]

God could infer that you are blaspheming the Spirit in saying that my words are lies.

:laugh:

.........................