Ezekiel 3 Debunks "Election"

[Revmitchell]

if we were living in the 16th century it would be a distraction. However, we are not living in the 16th century but the 21st century and it is delusional to restrict these termonologies to the 16th century when the theological base has broadened exceedingly to include vast variations.

If this is what you and James want to argue about, then your argument is with Presbyterians not Baptists and High Calvinism of the supralapsarian variety. However, even among supralapsarians there are differences.

Good grief nevermind

 

[The Biblicist]

Good grief nevermind

What is "good" about "grief"?:laugh:

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

First, the text does not say anything about "the sinner COULD HAVE been saved." That is your assumption, your inference not the inference of the text. The text deals only with the accountability of the watchman and his responsiblity. If he had been responsible that still would not have guaranteed preventing the wicked from death (2 Cor. 1:15-17). His irresponsibility was not the cause of the wicked being punished as that would incriminate God as unjust if it were.

Of course "could have been" is clearly implied in the text. Why else would God hold someone accountable. First of all, if it were not POSSIBLE that the sinner COULD BE saved by the warning, then there would be no logical reason for the witness to warn in the first place. Your rebuttal here defies the common sense reason of why a witness is to be a witness in the first place. You are arguing that a witness is sent out and gives a warning that does not include the possibility that a person can be saved. This defies common sense, Romans 10:9-13, and you own view of "means".

YES, his lack of responsibility in fact DOES lead to the sinners failure. That is EXACTLY what Ezekiel is talking about. You are attempting to argue for primary causation while ignoring partial causation and the shared responsibility that God JUDGES THE WITNESS ON. The very fact that God even judges the witness for this debunks your entire explanation.

What do you imagine "responsible...usage" is? It is accountabilty for the predestinated means employed. Your error of logic is that you assume every time the gospel is preached to an elect that this is also the appointed time for the gospel to come in power when it is not always the case as the planting and watering scenario demonstrates. So simply because God has appointed the means and responsible usage does not mean that the FIRST or SECOND or THIRD time is the appointed time.

Must I remind you of your own posts??

"You would be right IF God did not also predestinate the responsible use of means by the righteous. However, you simply omit that little fact from your argument. Any argument that is based on half truth is a falsehood." Post #8

Now you are attempting to revert back to your original argument and switching back and forth whenever you get cornered on the fallacy of one particular position.

If God has appointed a person's salvation, then there can ONLY BE ONE DAY in which that person is predestined to be saved. To say that God predestinates OPPORTUNITIES and then considers those opportunities as a predestinated bona fide offer of salvation is ABSURD and a complete and utter contradiction. One time does not equal 3 chances. If God's grace is irresistible, and God's word, as you say from Isaiah 55:11 "does not return void and accomplishes what I send it to do" then how could a potential convert possibly have "3 chances" or more? That is a blatant contradiction unsupported by Scripture, and defies simply logical reduction.

No, I did not switch gears or flip flop at all. Do you actually believe that you are the first to present this argument to me???? My response is my common response to this argument that Arminians use from this passage and other passages similar to this one. Your whole argument is based upon the fallicy that predestinated means is contrary to responsibility for those means. It is also based upon the fallicy that responsible use would have prevented the wicked from death and irresponsible use is what condemns the wicked to death when neither is true.

Yes, you flip flopped and I proved it. And again, I did not present this argument TO YOU. You chose to respond to it, and just because you responded to it does imply that I wrote this thread with "Biblicist" in mind. That is some ego you have.

And you keep flip flopping by saying that "God predestinates the means" "God does NOT prestinate the means" "God predestinate the means vs God predestinates the RESPONSIBLE USE of the means". MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Does God predestinate the MEANS or does he predestinate the RESPONSIBLE USAGE of those means. You can not claim both at the same time because the functions of both terms are mutually exclusive to each other. RESPONSIBLE MEANS is based on the witnesses own choices, volition and initiative. Yet if God predestines the means to salvation, and that salvation must necessarily HAPPEN because God decreed it, then it is an utter contradiction that God could determine the means, and the witness could FAIL in his presentation of the warning.

Your view of predestinated means and predestinated responsible usage of means is an absolute contradiction.

Do you really believe that God condemns people to an eternal hell for someone's elses fault????? That is precisely what you are teaching! They do not go to hell because of my wickedness but because they are "wicked". My wickedness (irresponsiblilty) is laid to my account alone not theirs.

This is precisely what Ezekiel is referring to. Yes, the sinner bares responsibility, but the witness does as well which is obvious BECAUSE HE IS JUDGED FOR IT.

"because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

Causation doesn't get any more clearer than BECAUSE. You may not like it, but that's exactly what the Bible says

No it does not! Your statement simply ignores other Biblical data that denies the premise of your statement. Your statement perverts our position, builds a straw man and then triumphantly burns it. The fact is that uncondiitional election is not contrary to God's predestinated time for application which in turn is not contraditory to the gospel being shared multiple times to an elect before being empowered by God to their salvation - as some plant and others water but in God's due time God gives the increase.

There's another big problem with this view: HOW DOES A DEAD SINNER GET A SECOND CHANCE???

What you are failing to see from the text is that there is no mention for any second, third, twentieth presentation of the warning. THIS SINNER IN EZEKIEL 3 IS D-E-A-D--DEAD.

This argument is like that evolutionist buying time to prove the theory of evolution, but instead of adding millions and billions of years to the argument, you are adding second, third, fourth opportunities so that your argument can still be supported simply by enough passage of times and opportunities. Yet you still fail to see how any "second time" , "third time" is not a charm to the Calvinist system because it still conflicts with irrresistible grace no matter how you try and spin it.

Scripture please??? Furthermore, this is not the tenet of all Calvinists and it is false to suggest that it is. I know of no Calvinist that believes that the FIRST exposure to the gospel MUST salvation occur to one of God's elect. Calvinist teach that the gospel comes in "word only" many times before it comes "in power." You are simply living in the land make believe.

Why do I need Scripture to argue FOR YOUR position? That is absured. I am not arguing for a Biblical position here, I am arguing AGAINST a stated-Calvinist axiom. Then you follow it up with what you claim no Calvinist believes which proves that you knew I wasn't arguing a Biblical position but against a Calvinist belief. Your debate tactics are scandalous.

But again, you can not argue for the "we do not believe that a sinner is always saved at the first presentation" argument in Ezekiel 3 because God is holding the witness here accountable for someone who DIES IN THEIR SIN. You can not add second, third, fourth, fifth opportunities when Ezekiel is clear that the witness can and is held accountable for not giving A warning, and that lack of warning RESULTS IN THE SINNERS DEATH without ANY MENTION of there being a second or third opportunity to receive an additional warning.

You are simply igorant of the varies views among Calvinists and it is obvious. No Calvinist on this forum believes that the elect MUST BE saved the very FIRST TIME they hear the gospel. I doubt if you can even quote any standard Calvinist theology that makes such a statement?

Again, this "first time" evolutionary nonsensical line of thought is unbiblical and absurd to the text of Ezekiel 3.

The bottom line that you refuse to accept is that the Bible says clear as day that a witness that fails to warn the sinner can be held accountable for that sinner dying in his sin, and if irresistible grace, predestination and election AS DEFINED BY ANY Calvinist theological system is true, then there is no possible way that any sinner could be lost even at the first presentation or lost at all. The sinner is either elect or he is not elect, and the fact that the sinner in Ezekiel 3 DIED IN HIS SIN proves that any second, or third time is totally non sequitur to the text.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course "could have been" is clearly implied in the text. Why else would God hold someone accountable.

For their own responsibility! The wicked is responsible for his wickedness whether he is warned or not by others as his own conscience bears witness to his guilt and warns him. The righteous is responsible because of his knowledge of the truth.

First of all, if it were not POSSIBLE that the sinner COULD BE saved by the warning, then there would be no logical reason for the witness to warn in the first place.

You are arguing with the supralapsarian which I am not. It is not possible only because the wicked is not willing and the not willing is due to his nature and his nature is due to his own responsiblity in Adam where the whole human nature acted in rebellion against sin and thus "all have sinned" when Adam sinned and that is the whole point when Paul continues to argue "BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE......MANY WERE MADE SINNERS"

YES, his lack of responsibility in fact DOES lead to the sinners failure.

No, it does not! He is "wicked" already and he knows it due to his own conscience at minimum and He knows it due to his own responses to the testimony of creation which he willfully suppresses so that he "is without excuse" whether some man warns him or not. The issue is that the watchman is also without excuse.

Must I remind you of your own posts??

"You would be right IF God did not also predestinate the responsible use of means by the righteous. However, you simply omit that little fact from your argument. Any argument that is based on half truth is a falsehood." Post #8

Now you are attempting to revert back to your original argument and switching back and forth whenever you get cornered on the fallacy of one particular position.

That is what I said, but not I did not say that in the context of your later defintion of "predestination to salvation" which demands salvation must occur at FIRST EXPOSURE to the gospel. Neither did I say that God gives different PREDESTINATED OPPORTUNITIES OF EFFECTUAL CALLING simply because of different exposures to the Gospel. I plainly said that the gospel comes many times "in word only." When it comes in "word only" are those who present the gospel responsible witnesses? Yes, because POWER is not their responsiblity. When some sow and others water have they done their responsiblity? Yes! But giving the increase is not their responsibility but God's "WHEN IT PLEASED GOD....He revealed His son in me" Paul says, although he had been exposed to the gospel many times before when he heard Philip, when he put in jail Christians "BUT WHEN IT PLEASED GOD" was the predestinated time when the gospel came "in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance".

If God has appointed a person's salvation, then there can ONLY BE ONE DAY in which that person is predestined to be saved.

True! But what day is that day? For you to arbitrarily demand it MUST BE the first exposure completely invalidats Paul's evidence of election that such a day does not occur whenever the gospel comes "in word only." It contradicts planting and watering and it contradicts that the increase is of God because you are denying it can happen when "IT PLEASED GOD"!

If God's grace is irresistible, and God's word, as you say from Isaiah 55:11 "does not return void and accomplishes what I send it to do" then how could a potential convert possibly have "3 chances" or more? That is a blatant contradiction unsupported by Scripture, and defies simply logical reduction.

He is not talking about when His word goes forth from the mouth of men but from Him alone! When the gospel comes "in word only" it does not come "in power and in the Spirit" as it is not being used as God's creative word (2 Cor. 4:6). God's power does not always accompany man's use of God's Word, but God's power always accompanies God's use of God's Word and Isaiah refers to God's use not man's.

And you keep flip flopping by saying that "God predestinates the means" "God does NOT prestinate the means" "God predestinate the means vs God predestinates the RESPONSIBLE USE of the means". MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

You are the one confused because you are READING INTO my words YOUR DEFINITIONS. When I say God predestinated the means, I am referring to the use of God's Word for that purpose, I am not referring to the appointed time when God obtains that application of His Word. When I say God appointed the responsible use of those means, I am referring to the watchman's accountability to God for how he uses those means rather than the effectual application of those means. You are READING INTO my words YOUR DEFINITIONS.

Your view of predestinated means and predestinated responsible usage of means is an absolute contradiction.

It will continue to be a contradiction IN YOUR MIND because you continue to READ YOUR DEFINITION of these terms into my use of them.

This is precisely what Ezekiel is referring to. Yes, the sinner bares responsibility, but the witness does as well which is obvious BECAUSE HE IS JUDGED FOR IT.

Precisely, but for different reasons. We can't be held responsible for people going to hell as that would incriminate God not us as God would have unjustly sent them to hell FOR OUR FAULT. That is what you position demands.

On the other hand we are held accountable for our sin for not warning him when we were capable but chose not to do so. The truth is what God uses to redeem the wicked and WE KNOW THAT and so his "blood" is required at our hands IN REGARD TUR RESPONSIBILITY to share what we know God uses to save the wicked. The man in hell is there because he is "wicked" not because we did not share the gospel for if that were the reason for God's judgment upon him then God condemned the wrong person.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, kids have fun, I have got to go do some chores, will pick up later.:wavey:

 

[The Biblicist]

For their own responsibility! The wicked is responsible for his wickedness whether he is warned or not by others as his own conscience bears witness to his guilt and warns him. The righteous is responsible because of his knowledge of the truth.






You are arguing with the supralapsarian which I am not. It is not possible only because the wicked is not willing and the not willing is due to his nature and his nature is due to his own responsiblity in Adam where the whole human nature acted in rebellion against sin and thus "all have sinned" when Adam sinned and that is the whole point when Paul continues to argue "BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE......MANY WERE MADE SINNERS"






No, it does not! He is "wicked" already and he knows it due to his own conscience at minimum and He knows it due to his own responses to the testimony of creation which he willfully suppresses so that he "is without excuse" whether some man warns him or not. The issue is that the watchman is also without excuse.






That is what I said, but not I did not say that in the context of your later defintion of "predestination to salvation" which demands salvation must occur at FIRST EXPOSURE to the gospel. Neither did I say that God gives different PREDESTINATED OPPORTUNITIES OF EFFECTUAL CALLING simply because of different exposures to the Gospel. I plainly said that the gospel comes many times "in word only." When it comes in "word only" are those who present the gospel responsible witnesses? Yes, because POWER is not their responsiblity. When some sow and others water have they done their responsiblity? Yes! But giving the increase is not their responsibility but God's "WHEN IT PLEASED GOD....He revealed His son in me" Paul says, although he had been exposed to the gospel many times before when he heard Philip, when he put in jail Christians "BUT WHEN IT PLEASED GOD" was the predestinated time when the gospel came "in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance".




True! But what day is that day? For you to arbitrarily demand it MUST BE the first exposure completely invalidats Paul's evidence of election that such a day does not occur whenever the gospel comes "in word only." It contradicts planting and watering and it contradicts that the increase is of God because you are denying it can happen when "IT PLEASED GOD"!

If God's grace is irresistible, and God's word, as you say from Isaiah 55:11 "does not return void and accomplishes what I send it to do" then how could a potential convert possibly have "3 chances" or more? That is a blatant contradiction unsupported by Scripture, and defies simply logical reduction.

He is not talking about when His word goes forth from the mouth of men but from Him alone! When the gospel comes "in word only" it does not come "in power and in the Spirit" as it is not being used as God's creative word (2 Cor. 4:6). God's power does not always accompany man's use of God's Word, but God's power always accompanies God's use of God's Word and Isaiah refers to God's use not man's.






You are the one confused because you are READING INTO my words YOUR DEFINITIONS. When I say God predestinated the means, I am referring to the use of God's Word for that purpose, I am not referring to the appointed time when God obtains that application of His Word. When I say God appointed the responsible use of those means, I am referring to the watchman's accountability to God for how he uses those means rather than the effectual application of those means. You are READING INTO my words YOUR DEFINITIONS.




It will continue to be a contradiction IN YOUR MIND because you continue to READ YOUR DEFINITION of these terms into my use of them.





Precisely, but for different reasons. We can't be held responsible for people going to hell as that would incriminate God not us as God would have unjustly sent them to hell FOR OUR FAULT. That is what you position demands.

On the other hand we are held accountable for our sin for not warning him when we were capable but chose not to do so. The truth is what God uses to redeem the wicked and WE KNOW THAT and so his "blood" is required at our hands IN REGARD TUR RESPONSIBILITY to share what we know God uses to save the wicked. The man in hell is there because he is "wicked" not because we did not share the gospel for if that were the reason for God's judgment upon him then God condemned the wrong person.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

1. The wicked man dies in his iniquity EITHER WAY, warned or not warned.

2. The watchman by warning him "DELIVERED THY SOUL"

Warning or not warning makes no difference to the judgment of the wicked. It only makes a difference in the judgement of the righteous.

 

[Iconoclast]

webdog

Not only that, he added p4t to the list of those who want to seriously discuss doctrine. He is more blind than I thought.

While you have trouble with P4T is that he weeds through your smokescreen of debate fallacy,begging the question,non sequitor,red herring quips.....then offers scripture......but by that time you have already attacked him personally,trying to catch him in his wording,rather than staying focused on the topic.

If you were honest about it, P4T is more than a scriptural match for you.

With iconoclast, you can engage him in his confessions, sermons and copy and paste verses,

I have waited in "vain" for you to engage any link, or article i pasted ...as a matter of fact....You wimped out on listening to an audio sermon on acts 17 that i told you would address what we discussed and you avoided it like the plague:laugh: A verse is a verse if it is cut and pasted, or typed out so you still avoid them....like kryptonite:wavey: You have the big red S on your tea shirt....for synergism:laugh:

and when cornered where you point out where he is wrong

,

maybe you could post an example of me being cornered and let's see what really happened.....hint...you whining about Augustine does not equal me being cornered:thumbsup:

he will make a little joke, add an emoticon, and vanish, not actually addressing anything.

Sometimes....I do have to drive....I am at lunch break now....I address any serious post.....some like AIC, are not serious and post nonsensical things that deserve no response.

He will then come back with 'you don't provide Scripture', 'you are a one line poster', blah, blah, blah.

Will you pay me a dollar for every one line post you and RM post??? or each post where you do not post or allude to scripture?

 

[Iconoclast]

webdog

Let's try this.

okay-

Where in Acts 18 do you find electing grace and reprobation without arriving at it with this preconceived notion?

I will show where I and many others have seen it.

Without pre-conceived notions?

I am a presuppositionalist in understanding and apologetic. In other words I carry clearly revealed truth with me from passage to passage.Why would I not do this as the bible has no contradictions in it?

the term born from above is not in acts 18, but the teaching is
the trinity is not mentioned but is there.
the word covenant is not there but the teaching is

let's hear YOU defend your position.

Not a problem WD.....so we can look forward to you answering scripturally from now on ?
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

Paul followed a pattern;acts17
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Opening and alleging...are legal terms, he made a scriptural legal case against guilty sinners with Jesus being the only God given remedy...

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Vs.6 Paul is quoting from ezk 33.....your blood be upon your own heads....

He has done this all along.....Acts13-

, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers,

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
he warned of reprobation.....this was his manner...a pattern...

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Usually the unbelievers would attack Paul....so here in Acts 18 god speaks directly to him;
9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


Paul is told by God that he is to speak boldly....God is with him,and God assures him that he has....MUCH PEOPLE....in that city....[the elect]...they are known to God...The Lord knoweth them that are His.

The word elect is not used.....but God does not save non -elect.
The word sheep is not used....but God does not come to seek and to save goats.....They are predestined to be conformed to the Image of the Son,so they had to be saved.
Those whom God had in this city were quickened as in eph2:1-10
do you see it now?...I did not even read to see what Augustine or Calvin said, imagine that:thumbs: it would not disturb me to read what anyone offers on it however. After i study a passage, then I rad to see what Spurgeon or others saw, that I might have missed.

 

[webdog]

webdog



While you have trouble with P4T is that he weeds through your smokescreen of debate fallacy,begging the question,non sequitor,red herring quips.....then offers scripture......but by that time you have already attacked him personally,trying to catch him in his wording,rather than staying focused on the topic.

If you were honest about it, P4T is more than a scriptural match for you.

You are absolutely delusional. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I have waited in "vain" for you to engage any link, or article i pasted ...as a matter of fact....You wimped out on listening to an audio sermon on acts 17 that i told you would address what we discussed and you avoided it like the plague:laugh: A verse is a verse if it is cut and pasted, or typed out so you still avoid them....like kryptonite:wavey: You have the big red S on your tea shirt....for synergism:laugh:

Now you are flat out dishonest. I also don't recall seeing you interact with any thread I start. Wonder why...

,

maybe you could post an example of me being cornered and let's see what really happened.....hint...you whining about Augustine does not equal me being cornered:thumbsup:

Yawn.

Sometimes....I do have to drive....I am at lunch break now....I address any serious post.....some like AIC, are not serious and post nonsensical things that deserve no response.

Irrelevant.

Will you pay me a dollar for every one line post you and RM post??? or each post where you do not post or allude to scripture?

Stupid question. Come on, you can do much better...like questioning my salvation or something.

 

[webdog]

webdog



okay-


I will show where I and many others have seen it.


I am a presuppositionalist in understanding and apologetic. In other words I carry clearly revealed truth with me from passage to passage.Why would I not do this as the bible has no contradictions in it?

Translation: I arrive at every passage of Scripture looking for a TULIP.

the term born from above is not in acts 18, but the teaching is
the trinity is not mentioned but is there.
the word covenant is not there but the teaching is


Not a problem WD.....so we can look forward to you answering scripturally from now on ?
4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

Paul followed a pattern;acts17
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Opening and alleging...are legal terms, he made a scriptural legal case against guilty sinners with Jesus being the only God given remedy...

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Vs.6 Paul is quoting from ezk 33.....your blood be upon your own heads....

He has done this all along.....Acts13-

, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers,

26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
he warned of reprobation.....this was his manner...a pattern...

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Usually the unbelievers would attack Paul....so here in Acts 18 god speaks directly to him;
9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.


Paul is told by God that he is to speak boldly....God is with him,and God assures him that he has....MUCH PEOPLE....in that city....[the elect]...they are known to God...The Lord knoweth them that are His.

The word elect is not used.....but God does not save non -elect.
The word sheep is not used....but God does not come to seek and to save goats.....They are predestined to be conformed to the Image of the Son,so they had to be saved.
Those whom God had in this city were quickened as in eph2:1-10
do you see it now?...I did not even read to see what Augustine or Calvin said, imagine that:thumbs: it would not disturb me to read what anyone offers on it however. After i study a passage, then I rad to see what Spurgeon or others saw, that I might have missed.

Would you like to tell me how any of this answers the questions I posed or counters the argument made in the op? I didn't ask you to eisegete...I mean jump around from Acts 17 to Ezekiel 33, then to Acts 13 and Ephesians 2. This looks like your basic confusing answer meant to deflect from actually engaging the question posed, your MO.

 

[Iconoclast]

Translation: I arrive at every passage of Scripture looking for a TULIP.

Would you like to tell me how any of this answers the questions I posed or counters the argument made in the op? I didn't ask you to eisegete...I mean jump around from Acts 17 to Ezekiel 33, then to Acts 13 and Ephesians 2. This looks like your basic confusing answer meant to deflect from actually engaging the question posed, your MO.

Maybe it is your dispensational backround that does not allow you to follow the thoughts expressed here...direct quotes are not eisegesis.

When acts 18 speaks of election...much people....and the gospel is rejected...your blood be upon your own head...that answers the question you asked. If You would really want to see the answer...it is right there.:thumbs:

the other verses show the pattern,,,,as his manner was...

 

[Alive in Christ]

DrJames posted...

By election, of course, I am referring to the Reformed/Calvinist view of election, that God has elected all who will be saved, the list is made up and determined, those elected can not resist, and man has no free will and no choice in the matter.

Ezekiel 3 disagrees.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity;[q but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This passage makes it clear that the watchman would be blamed if a sinner died in their sin because of the watchman's failure to warn him. This shows that a sinner has a choice and can respond to warnings given to choose life or choose death.

If God had predetermined the sinners salvation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ezekiel to have written this. If the sinner's salvation is already predetermined, then there could be no possibility that his salvation could be jeopardized because of a watchman failing to give him a warning, he would be saved whether the watchman warns him or not.

Calvinism holds that God controls the salvation as well as the means (i.e., the witnesses presentation of the gospel, and the sinners response) but yet if God controls the MEANS than how could there be a failure on the part of the witness to warn the sinner? so much that God requires the sinners blood at the witnesses hand? This clearly indicates that the sinner COULD HAVE been saved had it not been for the witnesses lack of diligence. Yet there are no "could have beens" in Calvinism: you are either elect or you are not.

This one passage (among many) completely annihilates the Calvinist view of predestination and election.

__________________
What Kills You Makes You Stronger: Rom 8:13

Absolutly. Agree completly.

The scriptures are so clear.
Founder Do Right Christians

 

[agedman]

There is a basic problem with the assumptions made in the OP.

The emphasis is NOT upon those who are to hear the message, but upon the messenger.

Just as the believers must be just as earnest as the first century believers in carrying the gospel, so to the watchman of Ezekiel was responsible to deliver the message, irregardless of the people's response.

The believer is given the commission, the quest that must be carried out from the time of new birth to the time of eternal glory.

We are the "watchman."

We are not responsible for the salvation of souls, or who does or doesn't listen to the message. Our ONLY responsibility to deliver the Gospel, baptize and disciple those who believe.

The OP seeks to refute some system of theological thought using Ezekiel, and some folks would rather accept any "proof" to scandalize a view rather than actually examining the truth of what the Scriptures really are stating and how it is applicable to the believer.

Rather than merely jumping on the "bandwagon" of misinformation, does not Paul tell the folks to examine EVERY word spoken of the Scriptures? Does not Paul emphasis that the believers are to cherish as fine gold what is True to the Scriptures and what is not, to treat it as trash?

Yet, on this thread, when it is obvious that the very OP has the agenda contrary to what is responsible exegesis, few have actually called attention to the truth.

Folks, if you are that completely enamored with trying to fight over some view that you actually do not engage the truth of the Scriptures, it is astoundingly sad.

The TRUTH is that this part of Ezekiel is applicable to EVERY believer no matter the doctrinal view. It refutes nor supports ANY view, but states the commission the believer is to engage.

Any other rendering is just wrong.