Foreknowledge/election and honest invitation

[reformed_baptist]

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: 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.

I wonder if it is the right way to look at scripture to set a standard of what you want to see and when you don't see it you reject a teaching. You say there is not a verse in the bible that says Jesus did not die for everyone - well that depends upon what you are looking for I suppose. However why would we expect to see such a verse int he word of God. Isn't the positive assertion of who he did die for enough?

There are verses that identify who Jesus did die for - we all agree with that, however nowhere does the bible teach that Jesus died for every person who has ever lived in the entire world, and no verse says that because if it did the only conclusion we could draw (and remain consistent) is universalism. That is because the death of Jesus Christ redeems and saves. The bible does not say that redemption is possible, or salvation is possible through of death of Jesus Christ - it says his death accomlished these things.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Anything but a calvinistic perspecftive has to read terms like 'potentially' into such verses.

 

[Ceegen]

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!

Then what do you have to say about the words of Jesus himself, in John 3:15-17? It isn't from the book of Acts like you requested, but:

"15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Jesus put absolutely NO qualifiers in there saying that He died for only a portion of mankind. He died that "whomsoever believeth in him [Jesus]" will be saved. Yes, the goats will be separated from the sheep at the end, but Jesus did die for all.

If we believe that there is no free will, no choice in serving God out of the love of our heart, then where does evil come from? If God is the one who saves, then what need has God of me to preach to sinners? Not having free will makes all of our choices arbitrary and pointless.

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

Exactly. You can't work your way into heaven. Free will has nothing to do with works. Free will is intent. Your intent to serve God or not, and is made manifest in your works. This is why Jesus said that an evil tree brings forth corrupt fruit, and a good tree brings forth good fruit. You honestly think Jesus was simply talking about trees? Why are the trees that Jesus speaks of, not really trees?

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" - Matthew 13:34

 

[Iconoclast]

HOS

Quote:
Not the goats:

Please cite any passage wherein that is said

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

I forgot that we are speaking of two different redemptions.

The biblical redemption of All elect sheep, was accomplished at the cross.
it actually redeems actual people .These people who are thus redeemed are the sheep the Good Shepherd came to save. The cross actually saves people.

Your idea has people going to hell whose sins were potentially taken away.but not really because they wind up in hell for their sins.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

They die in their sins....one of which is unbelief...but they die in their sins...they were not removed.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Then what do you have to say about the words of Jesus himself, in John 3:15-17? It isn't from the book of Acts like you requested, but:

"15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Jesus put absolutely NO qualifiers in there saying that He died for only a portion of mankind. He died that "whomsoever believeth in him [Jesus]" will be saved. Yes, the goats will be separated from the sheep at the end, but Jesus did die for all.

If we believe that there is no free will, no choice in serving God out of the love of our heart, then where does evil come from? If God is the one who saves, then what need has God of me to preach to sinners? Not having free will makes all of our choices arbitrary and pointless.



Exactly. You can't work your way into heaven. Free will has nothing to do with works. Free will is intent. Your intent to serve God or not, and is made manifest in your works. This is why Jesus said that an evil tree brings forth corrupt fruit, and a good tree brings forth good fruit. You honestly think Jesus was simply talking about trees? Why are the trees that Jesus speaks of, not really trees?

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" - Matthew 13:34

Ceegan,

So... we see that you did not find the word LOVE...in the Apostolic preaching,anywhere in Acts . The Love of God was there ceegan, but only in Christ...so the apostles focus and repent and believe to get the elect into Christ:thumbsup:

. Okay....so we go back to Jn 3:16-36.....that is a great section of scripture.

16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave,
that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

18 he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 `And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil;

20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected;

21 but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.'

Ceegan....the everyone believing will only be the elect sheep.....if you can get any non-elect to believe...go right ahead!

do you see in verse 20....those who do NOT COME to the light??? those are non elect persons. We do not know who they are, but Jesus said they wll not come to the light,and indeed he said they cannot.jn6:44
NO MAN CAN, ....unless drawn by the Father.:wavey:

That salvation goes worldwide in scope...go into all the world....does not mean the redemption was for all men ever born. All tribes and nations...but not every individual. Again...none of these verses address 2 peter 3 at all.

The apostles did not preach such a message in Acts as you know....the word love is not there. If anyone wants to know the love of God....they must repent and believe , because it is only found in Jesus.

If we believe that there is no free will, no choice in serving God out of the love of our heart, then where does evil come from? If God is the one who saves, then what need has God of me to preach to sinners? Not having free will makes all of our choices arbitrary and pointless.

God has ordained to work through means...preaching and teaching of His word are primarily what He uses.
That is mostly what God uses to convert sinners from darkness to light.
There is no free will...only self will. We choose selfishly being slaves to our sinful nature.....Romans 6;16-18.......servant...is a "willing" bondslave.

 

[Ceegen]

Ceegan,

So... we see that you did not find the word LOVE...in the Apostolic preaching,anywhere in Acts . The Love of God was there ceegan, but only in Christ...so the apostles focus and repent and believe to get the elect into Christ:thumbsup:

Is the Word of God contained only in the book of Acts? Shall we only look there for examples?

Ceegan....the everyone believing will only be the elect sheep.....if you can get any non-elect to believe...go right ahead!

Many non-elect have been converted. The elect are a certain "class" of people, like the prophets. Everybody else is welcome to come, but not everyone does, hence why Jesus said that many are called but few are chosen. Why would Jesus say that, if it wasn't so?

do you see in verse 20....those who do NOT COME to the light??? those are non elect persons.

No, they're sinners, just like everyone else.

We do not know who they are,

Wrong. "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

but Jesus said they wll not come to the light,and indeed he said they cannot.jn6:44
NO MAN CAN, ....unless drawn by the Father.:wavey:

To be "drawn by the Father" is to believe what He says. It's a choice.

That salvation goes worldwide in scope...go into all the world....does not mean the redemption was for all men ever born. All tribes and nations...but not every individual. Again...none of these verses address 2 peter 3 at all.

All means all.

The apostles did not preach such a message in Acts as you know....the word love is not there. If anyone wants to know the love of God....they must repent and believe , because it is only found in Jesus.

Yes, but you're confusing the "elect" with people who convert.

God has ordained to work through means...preaching and teaching of His word are primarily what He uses.
That is mostly what God uses to convert sinners from darkness to light.
There is no free will...only self will. We choose selfishly being slaves to our sinful nature.....Romans 6;16-18.......servant...is a "willing" bondslave.

Exactly. We willingly serve God. Why is that?

"Self will" IS free will.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ceegen

Is the Word of God contained only in the book of Acts? Shall we only look there for examples?

Your contention was that God loves everybody

Many non-elect have been converted.

No, there will be no non elect in heaven

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.
( Matthew 22:14; Matthew 13:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4, 5; John 6:44, 45, 65; 1 John 2:24, 25; Acts 4:12; John 4:22; John 17:3 )


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I wonder if it is the right way to look at scripture to set a standard of what you want to see and when you don't see it you reject a teaching.

Why would you assume that is what has occured? It is arrogant of determinists to assume that their "teachings" are rejected simply because too many people don't "want" to see it. Isn't it equally possible that we think your arguments simply aren't Scriptural? I studied Calvinist assertions for years with an open mind....and STILL do, and many of us simply believe they are dead wrong. This is similar to those of the Cal bent who regularly say non-Cals..."reject" or "refuse" the "Scriptural teachings" of Calvinism.

You say there is not a verse in the bible that says Jesus did not die for everyone -

Correct, there is not

well that depends upon what you are looking for I suppose

.

Yes it does.

However why would we expect to see such a verse int he word of God. Isn't the positive assertion of who he did die for enough?

Again...You are correct

There are verses that identify who Jesus did die for - we all agree with that, however nowhere does the bible teach that Jesus died for every person who has ever lived in the entire world,

Except for perhaps these verses:

Verses that show the atonement is available for all:

•Isaiah 53:6 - The iniquity of us all was put on Christ.
•Matthew 11:28-30 - Any who come to Christ are welcome.
•Matthew 18:14 - The Father does not wish that any should perish (anti predestined-reprobation).
•John 1:7 - Jesus intended for all, wants all to believe.
•John 1:29
•John 3:16-17
•John 6:33, 51
•John 12:32, 47
•Romans 3:23-24 - All have sinned and all have access to justification in Christ Jesus.
•Romans 5:6 - Christ died for the ungodly. Since all are ungodly, Christ died for all.
•Romans 5:15 - Since sin spread to all, Christ's atonement is meant for all.
•Romans 10:13 - Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
•2 Corinthians 5:14-15 - All died, yet Christ died for all.
•1 Timothy 2:3-6 - God desires all men to be saved, and gave Himself for all
•1 Timothy 4:10
•Titus 2:11 - God's necessary grace that leads to repentance appears to all.
•Hebrews 2:9 - Jesus tasted death for everyone.
•Hebrews 10:10 - Christ offered once for all.
•2 Peter 3:9
•1 John 4:14
•1 John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not just for believers, but for the whole world.
•John 4:42
•Revelation 22:17

and no verse says that because if it did the only conclusion we could draw (and remain consistent) is universalism.

Simply not true

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=...s.Fallacy-7.Arminianism-Leads-to-Universalism

That is because the death of Jesus Christ redeems and saves. The bible does not say that redemption is possible, or salvation is possible through of death of Jesus Christ - it says his death accomlished these things.
1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Anything but a calvinistic perspecftive has to read terms like 'potentially' into such verses.

http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=...ment.Dealing-With-John-Owens-Arminian-Dilemma

 

[Hawkins]

Arminians argue that the foreknowledge/election of God that is mentioned in scripture refers to God looking through time (Since God exists outside of time) and seeing who will believe the gospel message and God then responds to that choice of man by choosing them to be His elect.

If this argument is true, it raises Questions:

1. Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can any arminian preacher honestly say that salvation is open to all people?

God has seen those who will not believe. None of those whom God has already seen reject the gospel is capable of accepting the gospel since God has already seen the rejection. It has become a determined fact...a reality. Therefore, the arminian claiming that salvation is open to all is not giving an honest invitation.

2. How can the arminian preacher claim a man must make a choice, to accept or reject God according to their "free-will"? Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, those who would believe the gospel, they are incapable of rejecting the gospel. God has already seen the acceptance, therefore it is a reality that cannot change. They are not capable of exercising their "free-will" to reject the gospel.

peace to youraying:

First God (can) knows before we choose to sin, He can thus stop us from sinning at all. He doesn't because freewill to a certain extent means He allows us to choose to sin, and to judge us afterward. So what He knows can be independent of what we are going to do.

Second, His omniscience is not a kind of out of control knowing, or else He's not omnipotent. He can choose to know and He can choose not to know as well. He actually chooses not to know those who are in a permanent separatoin with God. That's why it is a permanent separation so to speak. The same applies to His omnipresence. He's not with those wicked in Hades, He's not with those finally burnt in hell. Choosing not to be there is part of His omnipotence.

Even when He's absent from those wicked in Hades, those wicked are still execising there right of freewill. Even when God chooses not to know you and not to be with you. You are still the you with your freewill to do what you decide to do.

He knows before hand what you will choose, at the same time He allows you to choose to make your own decsion. The contradiction doesn't exist as He might well choose not to know your choice, you still choose under the circumstance. His foreknowledge can be independent of what you do. He knows simply because He's powerful. He might well choose not to know. Under either circumstance, you make your own choice whether He chooses to know or not.

"He knows such that you don't have a real choice" is just another human assumption, perhaps due to our lack of equal intelligence to understand God's deed.

I am not an Arminians. But I think that what drives an inevitable division is freewill. It is because of freewill that people have to be divided that some of them in Heaven and some of them in hell. It is because logically when people of freewill are put in front of true choices, they will have to divide. Alternatively speaking, if people don't divide, logically they either don't have freewill or they don't have true choices.

 

[Ceegen]

Ceegen

Your contention was that God loves everybody

Because He does.

Matthew 5:
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Why would Jesus tell us that we are to love our enemies, to be "perfect" like our Father is perfect? This means that God loves everyone, even the bad ones, which causes the verses about "whomsoever shall" and "not willing that ANY should perish" to make sense.

Why would Jesus say that "many are called but few are chosen", if God wasn't trying to save everyone? God doesn't violate our free will to choose, because God is perfect. He wants us to love Him as much as He loves us, out of the freedom of our choice to do so, and not because we are scared of the punishment if we don't.

I want you to specifically answer my question about the verse that "For many are called, but few are chosen." From, Matthew 22:14, which you keep ignoring. In fact, from verses 1 to 14, we clearly see that God is willing to bring in anyone to the "wedding" from off of the street and in the field. They weren't initially invited to the wedding celebration, but they accepted and were allowed to come in!

No, there will be no non elect in heaven

In all those verses you quoted, not one proves that God wills that anyone should die the second death in the lake of fire. Not one! It would go to reason that if God chooses only those who he preordained to eternal life, then he in effect has chosen those who will go to hell. This means that we had no choice to serve God, no choice to repent, no choice to turn away from God, no choice in anything. This is no different than Islam, which teaches nearly the same thing, that "allah" is a cold and cruel "god" who only saves who he wants!

Is our God unrighteous and unloving, or are we just automatons?

Not having free will means that I would have no choice to do evil, and that repenting is just a process that is for the appearance of forgiveness! Which would go to reason that if I was already forgiven [before I even sinned] by a God who has already chosen me, I wouldn't need to repent in the first place. I could sin as much as I wanted, and still go to heaven: Did Jesus die for nothing, then? God forbid!

Understanding free will and how it makes you personally responsible for your sins, solves the mystery as to why we need to repent in the first place: Because it was a choice to sin and turn away from the God who created everything and everyone.

If you can't see that, then the words of Jesus doesn't matter when He said that "Many are called, but few are chosen." And in final:

Ezekiel 28:
12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

This "King of Tyrus" is no earthly king. It's the "King of the [false rock]" - Satan, the anointed cherub that covereth. Lucifer was perfect in all his ways when he was created, until "iniquity" was found in him. How could this be possible, a perfected creation turning away from God, if we had no free will?

 

[MB]

Arminians argue that the foreknowledge/election of God that is mentioned in scripture refers to God looking through time (Since God exists outside of time) and seeing who will believe the gospel message and God then responds to that choice of man by choosing them to be His elect.

Can you give reason for believing that God exist out side of time?

If this argument is true, it raises Questions:

1. Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can any arminian preacher honestly say that salvation is open to all people?

God has seen those who will not believe. None of those whom God has already seen reject the gospel is capable of accepting the gospel since God has already seen the rejection. It has become a determined fact...a reality. Therefore, the arminian claiming that salvation is open to all is not giving an honest invitation.

How do you know what God has seen? were you there when He seen me accept Him as Lord and Savior. You talk as if you know what God has seen and I don not believe that is true at all.

2. How can the arminian preacher claim a man must make a choice, to accept or reject God according to their "free-will"? Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, those who would believe the gospel, they are incapable of rejecting the gospel. God has already seen the acceptance, therefore it is a reality that cannot change. They are not capable of exercising their "free-will" to reject the gospel.

peace to youraying:

Excuse me; You stated above that God knows who will believe and who won't This may be true. However if the man does not acknowledge his faith then that man will be lost is this also true?

In order for God to know who will and who won't there has to be some kind of action to happen that God could have seen, for Him to know it. You tend to want to leave what God had seen out of the picture after you first mention it, and have God Zap the man with Salvation with out him ever believing in the first place.

After all Calvinist on this board have claimed they did not believe untill the Holy Spirit regenerated him. So what you believe is that since God already knew who would believe and who would not are saved with out faith. Negelecting the fact that inorder to have faith in the first place we must have something we are convinced of to have faith in.

So if the man has never heard the gospel and is suddenly regenerated and given faith. What pray tell is that faith in since he still doesn't know Christ.

It isn't foreknowledge, election or drawing men should be concerned about No man can believe with out being convinced of the gospel. Other wise he has no one to place his faith in. Regeneration is being saved and there is no Salvation with out faith. So how is it that you believe you are saved with out faith?
MB

 

[Iconoclast]

Ceegen,

I want you to specifically answer my question about the verse that "For many are called, but few are chosen." From, Matthew 22:14, which you keep ignoring. In fact, from verses 1 to 14, we clearly see that God is willing to bring in anyone to the "wedding" from off of the street and in the field. They weren't initially invited to the wedding celebration, but they accepted and were allowed to come in!

We do not get our main doctrinal teaching from parables.A parable usually has one main point.This parable is about gentiles coming into the kingdom after Israel was rejected in mt21:43....
Many are called by the gospel outwardly:

and as many as ye shall find

and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

The Man without the wedding garment[Christ's righteousness} has tried to enter.He is rejected.

 

[OldRegular]

God is Omnipotent, but he cannot do the logically impossible. Thus, if God's purpose were indeed to create a being with genuine LFW, then he CANNOT simultaneously guarantee the outcome of all decisions made. He could refuse to grant LFW, and have created the world with intentions as explained by Calvinism, but he could not grant true LFW and guarantee all decisions made.

God created Adam with freewill. Unfortunately Adam yielded that freewill to sin and Satan.

John 8:34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

God created Adam with freewill. Unfortunately Adam yielded that freewill to sin and Satan.

John 8:34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

both Lucifer and ASdam created with free moral agency, both disobeyed god freely, so now ALl after them are bound up in having their 'free will" bound and restricted by now sinful condition!

Sinners still free to choice, but unlike before, some things they will NOT freely chose to do!

 

[Luke2427]

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)?

Sorry I've been a couple days getting back to you. We have vbs this week and I have been very busy.

God determines beforehand. God brings it to pass by these means.

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?

Because the Word of God is the means whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the spirit of a lost person.

The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world. The Gospel opens blinded eyes.

God does not blind them to keep them from being saved. They are already blind. God simply does not open their eyes.

2. I DO NOT believe God determined their sinful intent to murder Christ, but apparently you do, is that right?

God determined that men would become sinners. God orchestrated the means whereby that has come to pass.

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.

Since I believe that the Bible teaches that everything is part of God's plan and it all has a purpose and that God has known it forever, I cannot see God ever "simply knowing" anything.

It seems clear to me in the Bible that God has not only known what WOULD happen, as if he had nothing to do with it, but that he has purposed for it to happen and brings it to pass by his own power.

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.​

I agree with this.

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.

I agree with this.

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.

I agree. I think there are some important factors that your illustration does not take into account, but I agree with the pertinent points your illustration brings to bear.

In the illustration you have no purpose or design for her to want to steal a cookie from the cookie jar. God had a purpose for the people to want to crucify Christ.

In the illustration you are not the Maker of the little girl having designed her and all before her back to Adam with a particular purpose for her being exactly the way she is to want exactly what she wants at this exact moment.
God was the Maker of Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans and all their ancestors and intended that they be exactly the way they were on the day they sentenced Christ to death.

Also, you are not the one holding her together at the atomic level completely in control of her very existence energizing even her ability to generate thoughts to ponder the decision. God not only brought Herod and Pilate to the throne and governorship. God not only turns their hearts as the rivers of water. But he upholds their very existence by the word of his power.

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.

I could not agree more.

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???

I think I answered this above. If three men are blind and I have, say a magical orb, that when it gets within 50 feet of a blind man it heals blindness- if I want 2 of the three blind men to see, but I have a good purpose for not wanting the third blind man to see, then what I must do is hide it from the third blind man.

Do you see?

There is something else I could do. I could harden their blindness- I could make their blindness more severe so that even in the presence of the orb they would not get healed by it.

He did it because he didn't want them to come to repentance YET! He had a bigger redemptive purpose to accomplish through them first.

I agree except for the "YET" part. There is no reason to think that he ever intended for them to come to repentance. We know history. They certainly did not (Herod and Pilate are both tragic stories). We have no indication that they were ever confronted with the Gospel again. If God hardened them during those days, God might have hardened them from the only opportunity they ever had to truly come to repentance. We don't know, but there is no reason to think they ever got another opportunity.

God can desire at one level for something to happen but desire at a higher level for something else to happen and bring to pass his greatest desire. I desire to lay around the house all day and not work out. But I desire more to lose some weight and live longer. So I will bring to pass that which I desire most between the two sets of desires.​

 

[humblethinker]

1. Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can any arminian preacher honestly say that salvation is open to all people?

Would you accept this modification to your question canadyjd?

Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can God honestly expect that those who actually will exhaust their earthly opportunities, how can He genuinely expect them to believe?​

In this scenario, it seems logically consistent that God therefore would have no expectation for those specific someones to believe. Yet classical Arminians hold that God believes that it could be the case that those specific someones could be in a state of belief. So, here's the idea: God knows belief can not be the case while at the same time he genuinely hopes that belief will be the case. Imo, this idea seems to show God embracing contradiction or duplicity, which is why, as such, I do not accept the scenario as a valid reality. Hopefully someone will show exactly where the description I've given is significantly inaccurate or incomplete.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry I've been a couple days getting back to you. We have vbs this week and I have been very busy.

Mine starts next week, so I have that to look forward to! :thumbsup:

God determines beforehand.

God determined what before hand? Only that Christ would be crucified, or man's intent to kill, or both? See the difference? Its as different as my merely hiding myself from my daughter to ensure she stole the cookie, versus my giving her the intent to steal it. I'm trying to get to bottom of that distinction because you appear to equate them as one, and I do not.

Because the Word of God is the means whereby the Spirit of God regenerates the spirit of a lost person.

The Gospel has the power, when effectuated by the Spirit, to regenerate every single person in the world. The Gospel opens blinded eyes.

Then why blind them from the Gospel when all that is necessary is to leave them unregenerate? You don't need to blind a man born totally blind do you? I'm not seeing how this answer addresses your dilemma.

God does not blind them to keep them from being saved.

Jesus said, "to those on the outside everything is said in parables (blinded) so that, " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!' "

I could quote similar verses over and over (Acts 28; Matt 13; Rom 11; etc)

So, how can you conclude that he isn't blinding them from being saved when clearly the scripture says that he blinds them 'lest they turn and be forgiven.' Please explain HOW and WHY you come to your conclusion? Quotes from the scripture supporting your views and explanations of how you interpret these texts would be helpful.

Since I believe that the Bible teaches that everything is part of God's plan and it all has a purpose and that God has known it forever, I cannot see God ever "simply knowing" anything.

It seems clear to me in the Bible that God has not only known what WOULD happen, as if he had nothing to do with it, but that he has purposed for it to happen and brings it to pass by his own power.

Then why does scripture even speak of God's knowledge or permission? Doesn't that mislead readers? Why not only refer to God's plan and purpose if that is the intent? Think about it. If you planned, orchestrated and brought to pass the death of you dog Rover, why would you even speak of merely knowing it and allowing it to happen?

I agree. I think there are some important factors that your illustration does not take into account, but I agree with the pertinent points your illustration brings to bear.

In the illustration you have no purpose or design for her to want to steal a cookie from the cookie jar. God had a purpose for the people to want to crucify Christ.

My purpose would be to teach her a valuable lesson, just as God's purpose is also good in permitting sin. I'm not sure how the illustration falls short in that regard???

In the illustration you are not the Maker of the little girl having designed her and all before her back to Adam with a particular purpose for her being exactly the way she is to want exactly what she wants at this exact moment.
God was the Maker of Herod, Pilate, the Jews and the Romans and all their ancestors and intended that they be exactly the way they were on the day they sentenced Christ to death.

I understand, and this gets to the heart of our disagreement. How did God create us? As deterministic beings merely acting in accordance with the prewritten script of the divine plan, or free accountable creatures? The other posts I wrote earlier about 'the PILL" address this issue.

Also, you are not the one holding her together at the atomic level completely in control of her very existence energizing even her ability to generate thoughts to ponder the decision. God not only brought Herod and Pilate to the throne and governorship. God not only turns their hearts as the rivers of water. But he upholds their very existence by the word of his power.

I agree, now the question is, "What type of existence is he upholding, a free one or a pre-determined one?" To assume its a pre-determined one kind of begs the question.

I think I answered this above. If three men are blind and I have, say a magical orb, that when it gets within 50 feet of a blind man it heals blindness- if I want 2 of the three blind men to see, but I have a good purpose for not wanting the third blind man to see, then what I must do is hide it from the third blind man.

You don't regenerate him, period.

Scripture says God 'sent them a spirit of stupor' (Rm 11) and that they 'become blind' after a time of rebellion (Acts 28) and if they hadn't they "might see, hear, understand and be healed." It doesn't say they were born in that condition and never able to do these things, as you seem to suggest.

I agree except for the "YET" part.There is no reason to think that he ever intended for them to come to repentance. We know history. They certainly did not (Herod and Pilate are both tragic stories). We have no indication that they were ever confronted with the Gospel again. If God hardened them during those days, God might have hardened them from the only opportunity they ever had to truly come to repentance. We don't know, but there is no reason to think they ever got another opportunity.

Many of the same "blind" people who cried out "crucify him" back then were the same people who came to faith in Acts 2 when Peter preached the Gospel and 2000 were saved. Had they not been hardened and had come to Christ before Christ was crucified I assure you they wouldn't have ever crucified him. God was blinding them temporarily to accomplish redemption. He wasn't blinding them because he didn't love them and want them to be saved!

That is why Paul goes into all that explanation in Romans 11 and concludes by saying, "He has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Even in his hardening of the Jews, He is showing them mercy!

 

[Luke2427]

Mine starts next week, so I have that to look forward to! :thumbsup:

Hope you have a great one. Our community is vbs'd out. Everybody's already been to about 5 different church's vbs's.

God determined what before hand? Only that Christ would be crucified, or man's intent to kill, or both? See the difference?

God determined both. God determined that Christ would be crucified and that man would intend to crucify him.

Its as different as my merely hiding myself from my daughter to ensure she stole the cookie, versus my giving her the intent to steal it. I'm trying to get to bottom of that distinction because you appear to equate them as one, and I do not.

They are not the same but they are inextricably linked. To "permit" or "allow" simply means "not to hinder or stop".

God determined that man would intend to kill Christ AND he allowed them to do so "not hindering or stopping" them.

Then why blind them from the Gospel when all that is necessary is to leave them unregenerate? You don't need to blind a man born totally blind do you? I'm not seeing how this answer addresses your dilemma.

God either hides the Gospel that opens blinded eyes (like Christ did in the parables) or he hardens their blindness (renders it irreparable).

Either way these are people who "have eyes but do not see."

Blinding themselves is what natural men do if God does not overcome them. The blindness is willful blindness.

They CANNOT see because they do not WANT to see. But that's not SOME people- that's ALL people. Men love darkness rather than light and they WILL NOT come to the light.

We agree on that so I don't understand your point here.

Both of us agree that all men are willfully blind from birth and that no one comes unless the father draws him.
You consider this process to be prevenient grace whereas I call it regeneration.

At least that's what I thought.

So, how can you conclude that he isn't blinding them from being saved when clearly the scripture says that he blinds them 'lest they turn and be forgiven.' Please explain HOW and WHY you come to your conclusion? Quotes from the scripture supporting your views and explanations of how you interpret these texts would be helpful.

The Scriptures do not teach that man is born with spiritual sight and that through sin he closes his eyes over time. The Scriptures address man as ALREADY blind and present the Gospel as the means whereby God opens their eyes.

Isaiah 42:16-18: "And I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them. 17 They are turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in carved idols, who say to metal images, ‘You are our gods.' 18 Hear, you deaf, and look, you blind, that you may see!"

Their condition, before Christ finds them, is ALREADY blind.

He also says in that chapter:

6 ‘I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. 8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.'"

In Luke 4 Jesus quotes Isaiah as referring to Jesus:

18 ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'

Again here:

2 Corinthians 4:3-6: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

What's the idea here? That they had sight and then Satan blinded them? No. That they were already blind and Satan veiled the Gospel sealing their condition.

There are many more where this idea is taught. All of the passages that speak of Christ being the light of the world carry this same idea. Whenever one finds passages expounding the subject of spiritual darkness carry this same idea.

The overwhelming teaching of Scripture is that man is born in darkness (blind) and that the light of Christ is his only hope.

Then why does scripture even speak of God's knowledge or permission? Doesn't that mislead readers?Why not only refer to God's plan and purpose if that is the intent? Think about it. If you planned, orchestrated and brought to pass the death of you dog Rover, why would you even speak of merely knowing it and allowing it to happen?

Because God is bringing evil to pass by secondary means. He is using motives that are not his own motives.

Murder, forever silencing the voice of Jesus Christ, promotion of a dead Jewish religion at the expense of the life of an innocent man, the preservation of the glory of Rome- these were not God's motives in the killing of Christ. They were the motives of the humans involved. So God allows them to pursue their motives, which are not his motives.
But God is actively involved in the ordeal at the same time. He is bringing his motives to pass by using the motives of evil men.

God designed the universe to this end. This event was determined by God in eternity before time began. It is the pinnacle of history. It is not God working out a mess he never intended, doing the best he can with the hand he has been dealt. This was God's plan from before the beginning.

I understand, and this gets to the heart of our disagreement. How did God create us? As deterministic beings merely acting in accordance with the prewritten script of the divine plan, or free accountable creatures?

I respectfully reject the premises here. The one is not contrary to the other (though I am not so concerned with the adjective "free").


You don't regenerate him, period.

Scripture says God 'sent them a spirit of stupor' (Rm 11) and that they 'become blind' after a time of rebellion (Acts 28) and if they hadn't they "might see, hear, understand and be healed." It doesn't say they were born in that condition and never able to do these things, as you seem to suggest.

The Scripture does teach that men's natural condition is that they are blind and born in darkness (synonymous terms).

You must interpret these passages in light of this explicit truth taught throughout Scripture.

You bring other passages to bear upon these and combining them you uncover the truth.

It seems to me that the idea here is that the Gospel has the power, effectuated by the Spirit, to awaken the dead spirit of depraved man. So God sends stupor where the Gospel might otherwise awaken.

The Acts 28 passage just does not say that they became blind after a period of rebellion.

Many of the same "blind" people who cried out "crucify him" back then were the same people who came to faith in Acts 2 when Peter preached the Gospel and 2000 were saved.

Yes, this is true. And God is able to bring anyone to himself whenever he gets ready. And he is able to prevent anyone from coming to himself, even under the sound of the quickening, enlightening Gospel, until He gets ready.

Had they not been hardened and had come to Christ before Christ was crucified I assure you they wouldn't have ever crucified him.

I think this is conjecture, Brother. Even if it is accurate, I cannot see how it conflicts with my stance at all.

God was blinding them temporarily to accomplish redemption. He wasn't blinding them because he didn't love them and want them to be saved!

The former statement is probably true. The latter is conjecture- at least concerning the ones who never DID get saved. It is clearly accurate concerning the ones who did.

That is why Paul goes into all that explanation in Romans 11 and concludes by saying, "He has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Even in his hardening of the Jews, He is showing them mercy!

I don't think that is precisely Paul's idea in Romans 11. But we've got enough to talk about above.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, for the sake of brevity and focus allow me to narrow our discussion to a couple points from your last post. If you want me to specifically address something please don't hesitate to ask, as I'm not attempting to avoid anything, but simply to get to the main issues of our disagreement, okay?

1. In the beginning of the post you said that God determines men's sinful intent and later you say, "He is using motives that are not his own motives." Can you explain this? You seem to be saying that God determines their motive and uses motives that are not his? How is that possible? If he is determining a man's motive to do evil how is it not God's? Understand the question?

2. Why can't you maintain your view without claiming God determined mens intent/motive to do evil? Scripture says He doesn't even tempt men to evil, yet you seem to believe that he determines them to want to do evil? How do you reconcile that with God's holiness?

3. You speak of "recovering of sight to the blind" but at the same time claim they could never see. What is being recovered if they have never been able to see? And why do the texts speak of the people 'becoming blind/hardened' rather than being born as such?

Please understand that I concede that the Gospel is what brings (1) the knowledge of Christ and (2) the enabling power for which one can respond unto reconciliation, but you are the only one who is insisting that men are born irrevocably blinded to that Gospel. Given that view, how do you reconcile the passages which speak of God's temporary blinding of the Jewish people specifically for the purpose of keeping them from repenting and being healed? I've yet to see a response to that question. And YES, I agree that men's eyes are veiled (specifically Israels), but in that same passage you quoted from it also says, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, for the sake of brevity and focus allow me to narrow our discussion to a couple points from your last post. If you want me to specifically address something please don't hesitate to ask, as I'm not attempting to avoid anything, but simply to get to the main issues of our disagreement, okay?

1. In the beginning of the post you said that God determines men's sinful intent and later you say, "He is using motives that are not his own motives." Can you explain this? You seem to be saying that God determines their motive and uses motives that are not his? How is that possible? If he is determining a man's motive to do evil how is it not God's? Understand the question?

God determines that the humans who killed Christ would have an evil motive. God's motive for this is holy (without sin there is no grace, without sin there is no redemption for which Christ receives praises forever, etc, etc, etc...)

2. Why can't you maintain your view without claiming God determined mens intent/motive to do evil? Scripture says He doesn't even tempt men to evil,

Scripture does not include the word "even". It simply states that he does not tempt men to do evil. We all affirm that.

Tempting men to do evil and determining that they do it are not even remotely synonymous.

yet you seem to believe that he determines them to want to do evil? How do you reconcile that with God's holiness?

It is not difficult. Compatabalism. God and Christ's human killers are bringing to pass the death of Christ. God's motive is pure. The humans' motive was not. God's motive for humans having an impure motive was pure.

I cannot see how that contradicts God's holiness in the least.

3. You speak of "recovering of sight to the blind" but at the same time claim they could never see. What is being recovered if they have never been able to see? And why do the texts speak of the people 'becoming blind/hardened' rather than being born as such?

The only time the Greek word for "recovering sight" is used is in this text (and in the Septuagint in the parallel passage).

This means that the preponderance of Scripture that shows that man is spiritually blind takes precedent over one single Greek word which is only used one time in the entire Scripture.

It means that that one Greek term cannot be implying that men are born with spiritual sight and then lose it somehow and then get it back.

Scripture is clear. There are NONE that understand. None that seek after God. Men (as in mankind) love darkness rather than light and WILL NOT come to light because their deeds are evil. THE heart of man is desperately wicked, deceitful above all things (the essence of the blind condition).
"To the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure: their very minds and consciences (spiritually blind) are corrupted." Titus 1:15 The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God AND HE IS NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM (spiritual blindness) for they are spiritually discerned."

Please understand that I concede that the Gospel is what brings (1) the knowledge of Christ and (2) the enabling power for which one can respond unto reconciliation, but you are the only one who is insisting that men are born irrevocably blinded to that Gospel. Given that view, how do you reconcile the passages which speak of God's temporary blinding of the Jewish people specifically for the purpose of keeping them from repenting and being healed?

Help me to understand what part of this I did not answer in my previous post. Remember I talked about how the Gospel can open the eyes of ANYONE and one of the ways God can keep someone from having their eyes opened is by hardening their lost condition (intensifying their blindness). He can even shut opening eyes (which I think is what gives us apostates like many of the false teachers that Peter and Jude speak about).

I've yet to see a response to that question. And YES, I agree that men's eyes are veiled (specifically Israels), but in that same passage you quoted from it also says, "But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Right. But it is God overcoming these specific people's blindness causing them to turn. God could do that to everyone if he so chose.

They are already blind spiritually (as I think I demonstrate in the above Scriptures).
Satan veils these already blind eyes from the one thing that opens blind eyes- the Word of Christ.
God in the midst of that turns these people to Christ overcoming their blindness and removing the veil.

 

[Luke2427]

And why do the texts speak of the people 'becoming blind/hardened' rather than being born as such?

Here is the text from above where I answered this:

God either hides the Gospel that opens blinded eyes (like Christ did in the parables) or he hardens their blindness (renders it irreparable).

Either way these are people who "have eyes but do not see."

Blinding themselves is what natural men do if God does not overcome them. The blindness is willful blindness.

They CANNOT see because they do not WANT to see. But that's not SOME people- that's ALL people. Men love darkness rather than light and they WILL NOT come to the light.

We agree on that so I don't understand your point here.

Both of us agree that all men are willfully blind from birth and that no one comes unless the father draws him.
You consider this process to be prevenient grace whereas I call it regeneration.

At least that's what I thought.