Foreknowledge/election and honest invitation

[Luke2427]

God cannot do whatever, and simply because he is God that makes it right.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

God cannot do whatever, and simply because he is God that makes it right as Luke seems to suggest. Here Jesus said that if he were to deny that he knows the Father, he would be a liar like any other man.

God did not kill Jesus, he offered him to save mankind, huge difference. And Jesus did not commit suicide, he willingly offered himself to save man. It is like a soldier who leaps on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers, or a fireman who loses his life rushing into a burning building to save a child.

It is like parents who allow their child to go off to war to defend their country. Do we think these parents killed their child? No, at least I do not consider it that way.

Nor do we say of these parents that they bruised their child. That's why your illustration does not work (though it is a refreshingly good one).

God bruised his Son according Is 53. God the Father was not passive in the death of his Son like parents who offer their sons in war.

What was poured upon Jesus was not just the wrath of Rome or the wrath of the Jews: it was the wrath of God.

It PLEASED the Lord to bruise him when he made his soul an offering for sin.

 

[Ceegen]

On what basis does the person decide? Why does a person choose one way rather than the other?

Let's say someone has an hour to kill. The person can choose to watch TV, or read his bible. How does the person's will consider the benefits/consequences of both... weigh them in the balance and then choose....?

At the moment of choice, IMHO, the person's will chooses that which seems most desireable to it. The person may regret the choice immediately, or later,... but they will always choose that which is most desireable at the moment of decision.

At the moment of choice, there are a multitude of factors that influence the decision we make. We are influenced by our lifetime of experience., the opinion of friends and family, our understanding of right/wrong...good/evil... as well our own sinful nature and deceitfulness of Satan... and so on. Do you believe that?

If those things, and many others, do not affect the decisions we make, then any decision made must be random since it isn't based on anything.

peace to youraying:

If we are only the product of our collective life-long experiences, and nothing but, then logic dictates that Job would have cursed God in the very first chapter of the book that bears his name. Job lost everything! But love isn't logical, Job loved God. Despite the odds against him, Job never faltered where others have. It's a choice to love God!

 

[Ceegen]

Ceegan,
Gen 1:31 is an important verse,and you are correct to look there first.However it does not make your case at all. that Satan as the opposer entices men to sin, also does not make your case about the will.

Satan entices, but not all fall for the lies.

Not at all ceegan! The verse you pointed out shows that it was not so.
men were accountable to God before the fall.men are accountable to God after the fall.....they are responsible to be perfect .

Before the law was handed down by God, we could not be held accountable for our actions.

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." - Romans 5:13

Yet Adam and Eve sinned. It wasn't because they hated God, but because the lies of Satan corrupts innocence. They didn't know any better, but they still knew what God said and did it anyway.

Your reply does not address the wrongly offered passage from 2 pet 3...did you see why it was used out of context???

I'm sorry, but ALL means ALL. God doesn't wish that any should die, but, being that God is God... He knows who isn't going to make it. That's just how it is.

ceegan...we always need to be influenced by scripture only....
[QUOTE7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.] is how paul said it.

Everything matters, but the bible is the most important repository of information we have. It is the inspired Holy WORD of God, and yet...

Revelation 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why would God feel the need to tell us to not add to or take away from the words that are written in Revelation, if God didn't already know that someone would do it? Furthermore, do these two verses apply to the rest of the bible? I think so.

While I use the KJV exclusively, it is only because I don't know Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. It has errors, regardless of how well it was translated, which is why having other sources of information to clarify and verify what is in the bible, is VERY imporant. Nothing changes the laws of God, except the error of man, and we must know what those errors are in order to stamp out the lies and bad doctrine associated with it.

Jesus rebuked the "religious" Jews of the time for their errors, and in all of the years from then till now, evil still exists to belittle and destroy God's holy Word... From within. Why are there so many denominations, if Satan wasn't actively working against us, to make us argue about lies?

"Divide and conquer."

 

[Ceegen]

If Adam & Eve were the first humans, tell me then who are the "we" you are talking about?

You've opened a can of worms with that one question!

As much as I have been studying the bible, it is odd to me that God created man on "day six", rested on "day seven", and then created Adam and Eve after the completion of "day seven". If read in order, there is nothing to suggest that it is a "re-telling" of "day six".

I say this only because, was God resting after he created Adam and Eve? No, he wasn't. Even if you go by what is written in the bible, you have God actively participating in events for a thousand years AFTER Adam and Eve were created. How then was God resting, knowing this?

It doesn't make sense. Something is wrong here.

 

[OldRegular]

I used to think like you do, but nothing you will say will sway me on this for the simple fact that God said that Satan is a fallen angel. Lucifer WAS the most beautiful of all angels. God creates only good, and sin which is a condition of turning away from God is a personal choice. God did not create things with evil built into them.

"12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:" - Isaiah 14:12, 13.

You really need to quote more Scripture regarding Lucifer!

Isaiah 14:12-17
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16. they that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17. That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Notice that Scripture speaks of the person called Lucifer:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,

and then:

Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

If Lucifer were an angel why did he say "I will ascend to heaven?

If Lucifer were an angel why did those in the pit say: "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble?

 

[Skandelon]

If it is not unholy for him to do it once, then it is not unholy for him to do it ALWAYS.

Do what?

1. Temporarily blind people from the truth of who Christ was, so that they would kill him in order to provide redemption? (as I believe)

or

2. Deterministically cause all things, even the evil intent of man?


You seem to think that my affirmation of the first validates the second.

 

[Ceegen]

You really need to quote more Scripture regarding Lucifer!

Isaiah 14:12-17
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16. they that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17. That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Notice that Scripture speaks of the person called Lucifer:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,

and then:

Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

If Lucifer were an angel why did he say "I will ascend to heaven?

If Lucifer were an angel why did those in the pit say: "Is this the man that made the earth to tremble?

Why then is Jesus often referred to as... "The Son of Man"?

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" - Matthew 25:31.

 

[Amy.G]

The verses in Isaiah 14 are describing the king of Babylon.

 

[Iconoclast]

Satan entices, but not all fall for the lies.



Before the law was handed down by God, we could not be held accountable for our actions.
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." - Romans 5:13

Yet Adam and Eve sinned. It wasn't because they hated God, but because the lies of Satan corrupts innocence. They didn't know any better, but they still knew what God said and did it anyway.



I'm sorry, but ALL means ALL. God doesn't wish that any should die, but, being that God is God... He knows who isn't going to make it. That's just how it is.



Everything matters, but the bible is the most important repository of information we have. It is the inspired Holy WORD of God, and yet...

Revelation 22:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why would God feel the need to tell us to not add to or take away from the words that are written in Revelation, if God didn't already know that someone would do it? Furthermore, do these two verses apply to the rest of the bible? I think so.



Ceegan,

Before the law was handed down by God, we could not be held accountable for our actions.
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." - Romans 5:13

Men are fully accountable since Adam. All men are responsible to God fully at all times.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.[/QUOTE]

then we have this:

I'm sorry, but ALL means ALL. God doesn't wish that any should die, but, being that God is God... He knows who isn't going to make it. That's just how it is.

And ALL is defined by the context.....all oranges does not equal all fruit:wavey:

Ceegan....you are clearly not wanting to look at the 2 pet 3 passage.
God is speaking to the elect, the Beloved....in contrast to the scoffer and unbelievers.

King James Version (KJV)


3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Ceegan...the all in verse nine are going to be saved...ALL of them because they are elected by God. it is not All men everywhere.

 

[Ceegen]

The verses in Isaiah 14 are describing the king of Babylon.

To my knowledge, no king of Babylon was ever named "Lucifer".

Everything in the bible is a part of prophecy, (otherwise there wouldn't be so many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled), and prophecy is but a "shadow of things to come".

It isn't over yet. There are still wars and rumors of wars.

 

[OldRegular]

Why then is Jesus often referred to as... "The Son of Man"?

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" - Matthew 25:31.

If there is a point to your response it eludes me!

 

[OldRegular]

The verses in Isaiah 14 are describing the king of Babylon.

You hit the nail on the head again Amy G.:thumbs:

 

[Ceegen]

And ALL is defined by the context.....all oranges does not equal all fruit:wavey:

Then who did Jesus die for? Just a portion of us, or ALL of us? We are all sinners, and Jesus came for the sinners, to call them to repent.

Ceegan....you are clearly not wanting to look at the 2 pet 3 passage. God is speaking to the elect, the Beloved....in contrast to the scoffer and unbelievers.

Yeah, I am seeing it clearly. We're ALL sinners, and we are all beloved of God.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" - Romans 3:10.

Ceegan...the all in verse nine are going to be saved...ALL of them because they are elected by God. it is not All men everywhere.

And why aren't all men everywhere going to be saved? Because they refuse it, and not because it is God's will that some should perish. It's a personal choice to accept Jesus as Messiah, that we are held personally responsible for: Free will.

"For many are called, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:14

You might be elect, or chosen, or whatever... But some Christians are Christian by the choice of their own free will. There is a clear distinction between the two, and Paul was one such who was chosen/elect by God.

Not everyone who gets saved by Jesus is struck down on the way to Damascus!

 

[Iconoclast]

Ceegen

Then who did Jesus die for? Just a portion of us, or ALL of us?

Good question....the bible says He died for the sheep that the Father gave Him. Not the goats:thumbs:
the Bible says he died for the Church, The brethren, the many,....but not all!

We are all sinners, and Jesus came for the sinners, to call them to repent

.

Yes.....all have sinned...Jesus did come for sinners...a multitude that were given to Him of the Father.....He saves all of them[those given by the Father]....no more, no less.

We do not know which sinners were given by the Father to the Son...so we preach to ALL men...even though the results belong to God, we are to tell all men:

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

to save sinners....but not all of them! We know that because Jesus says many will be cast into hell.

Ceegan...it was a covenant death for all who were sanctified;

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Yeah, I am seeing it clearly. We're ALL sinners, and we are all beloved of God

.

Wrong Ceegan......the love of God is In Christ....not outside of Him.Ceegan can you show me from the book of Acts where the apostles said that all sinners are loved???? let me know if you see that.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" - Romans 3:10.

Yes...Paul quotes this from Psalm 14 where we are told that no man seeks God;

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

And why aren't all men everywhere going to be saved? Because they refuse it, and not because it is God's will that some should perish.

All men refuse it Ceegan, until God makes them willing....it is God's will that many perish...because many perish at the white throne:thumbsup:

It's a personal choice to accept Jesus as Messiah, that we are held personally responsible for: Free will.

Ceegan...I know you have heard this, but not in the bible anywhere.men are responsible, but cannot come unless God allows them;

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"

You might be elect, or chosen, or whatever... But some Christians are Christian by the choice of their own free will. There is a clear distinction between the two, and Paul was one such who was chosen/elect by God.

No one will be in heaven by the will of the flesh.....

 

[quantumfaith]

Then who did Jesus die for? Just a portion of us, or ALL of us? We are all sinners, and Jesus came for the sinners, to call them to repent.



Yeah, I am seeing it clearly. We're ALL sinners, and we are all beloved of God.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" - Romans 3:10.



And why aren't all men everywhere going to be saved? Because they refuse it, and not because it is God's will that some should perish. It's a personal choice to accept Jesus as Messiah, that we are held personally responsible for: Free will.

"For many are called, but few are chosen." - Matthew 22:14

You might be elect, or chosen, or whatever... But some Christians are Christian by the choice of their own free will. There is a clear distinction between the two, and Paul was one such who was chosen/elect by God.

Not everyone who gets saved by Jesus is struck down on the way to Damascus!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

Do what?

1. Temporarily blind people from the truth of who Christ was, so that they would kill him in order to provide redemption? (as I believe)

or

2. Deterministically cause all things, even the evil intent of man?


You seem to think that my affirmation of the first validates the second.

I don't think the difference between the two is significant.

Number 1 is the means whereby he brought number 2 to pass.

If you admit that God can determine that men would commit the sin of murder to kill Jesus in order that we might be redeemed and that determination not be sinful on God's part, then you yield that God can determine that at least ONE sin come to pass and still maintain his holiness.

If that can be true for one sin, it can be true for all sins.

The "determinate council" of God is what orchestrated the murder of Christ (ultimately).

But let me hasten to say that SOMEHOW- and I don't know how- those men who did it were in the truest sense still responsible for the sin of the murder of Christ.

Both of these are clearly taught in Scripture.

BUT it was NOT sin on God's part because God's HEART behind the determination of the killing of Christ was gloriously pure, righteous and noble. God's motive was the glory of his Son and the salvation of billions.

 

[Luke2427]

The verses in Isaiah 14 are describing the king of Babylon.

This is absolutely right.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Good question....the bible says He died for the sheep that the Father gave Him. Not the goats
the Bible says he died for the Church, The brethren, the many,....but not all!

1.)

The Sheep:

Yes
2.)

Not the goats:

Please cite any passage wherein that is said
3.)

the Church:

Yes indeed
4.)

The brethren:

Yes indeed again!!
5.)

the many

: Correct again
6.)

but not all

: You assume this, there is no Scripture anywhere which says Christ did NOT die for them as well, none, please provide one which states this.

There are Many passages which describe Christ as having died for ALL men, there are also many which describe him dying for the Church, the elect, the brethren, the sheep et. al. They are both true. If Christ died for ALL, and he did, then the rest is true by default. You are reading passages which state that he died for these subgroups...and literally mentally adding into and reading into them the prepositional phrase:

but not all

It is not stated in Scripture. Not once.

There are sets, and there are subsets....The "set" Christ died for is humanity...the "subset" which accepts the free gift of Salvation are the sheep, the elect, the Brethren et. al. It never was as complicated as you are making it. There is simply NO Scripture which states that there are those FOR whom Christ did NOT die. Limited Atonement is merely a logical construct which follows only by necessity from logically prior Calvinistic assumptions. It is not Scriptural.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think the difference between the two is significant.

Number 1 is the means whereby he brought number 2 to pass.

Okay, I understand. Now, I think we are getting somewhere. So, you believe God temporarily blinds people from the truth of who Christ was, as a means to deterministically cause THAT evil intent of man (the intent to kill Jesus)?

There is a distinction between our views and I want to unpack that very clearly to make sure we are on the same page.

1. Why does God need to blind people born totally blind and unable to willingly come to him in the first place?
2. I DO NOT believe God determined their sinful intent to murder Christ, but apparently you do, is that right?

I believe God simply knew that they would want to kill anyone claiming to be divine who they didn't believe really was divine, so all he had to do in order to ensure his crucifixion was to blind them to the truth of his being divine.

I've used this illustration before but I think it applies here:

In my view judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth which could otherwise lead to repentance. So God is not said to have caused or inticed anyone...he simply lets them continue down their already self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His great purpose being served.

Let's look at another analogy. Suppose my 3 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking...she is about to steal a cookie and she knows she isn't supposed to.


Now, as a parent I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie...at least until the next time she was alone. However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pouce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.

Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I didn't cause it. I could have ended it my simply showing myself, but I didn't. This is like hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to sin. I'm I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.

Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have done a "Damascus road experience" with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn't. Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time. We see him hiding the truth in parables. WHY? If men are born deaf, blind and dumb to the truth why would he need to do this??? He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemtive purpose to accomplish through them first.​

I'll stop there for now and respond to your other comments in another post...

 

[Skandelon]

Discussion with Luke continued:

If you admit that God can determine that men would commit the sin of murder to kill Jesus in order that we might be redeemed and that determination not be sinful on God's part, then you yield that God can determine that at least ONE sin come to pass and still maintain his holiness.

As my 'cookie jar' illustration from the last post explains, I don't believe your view of 'God can determine that men would commit the sin' and my view of 'God can hide his revelation to allow and ensure that sinful men to do what they already want to do,' is the same.

For example, lets go back to the analogy. Suppose I had given my daughter a pill earlier that day which made it impossible for her to resist the temptation of cookies (I'll call it the "PILL of inability"). How would that change the analogy? It would change it BIG TIME. I would now not merely be hiding my presence so that she was merely doing what she wanted to do, but now I would be actively involved in making her will want to do what was wrong. I would now be culpable for her wrong doing because I made it such that she could not have done otherwise...I chose for her to sin, not her. See the difference?

Now, I know you don't believe God literally gives men a pill, but think about this. If we are born "totally depraved" as a result of the Fall, then who is the one who designed it that way? God did. That is the PILL. He punishes all mankind for Adam's sin by giving them the "PILL of inability" from birth in your system. And then he still goes to the trouble of blinding them through normative means, like parables (for some unknown useless reason), and then holds them to account for that which he determined they would do from before they were born.

There is a huge difference between the analogy with the "PILL of inability" and the one without it. Understand the distinction?

You want to use my concession that God does hardened men to ensure the crucifixion (with no PILL), to justify the culpability issues of your system's view, which has the PILL. Make sense?

But let me hasten to say that SOMEHOW- and I don't know how- those men who did it were in the truest sense still responsible for the sin of the murder of Christ.

I know how. Just like my daughter was responsible for taking the cookie in my analogy. All you have to do is remove the "PILL of inability" from your belief system and you will not have this dilemma.

BUT it was NOT sin on God's part because God's HEART behind the determination of the killing of Christ was gloriously pure, righteous and noble. God's motive was the glory of his Son and the salvation of billions.

I agree. Just as my act of hiding myself from my daughter had a good motive. I did nothing wrong by hiding my presence from her. But regardless of my motive, there could be no justification for my giving her a "PILL of inability" and then also hiding my presence from her while still holding her responsible. No one, in any world, or by any standard of fairness would find that just...or biblical (IMO).