FOREKNOWLEDGE

So the grace of God is nothing but election.
Election is foreknowledge, and for that when you read in Ephesians 1:3-15, we have been predestined for an inheritance because he has saved us from the foundation of the world. Dead men would not know this.

 

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus is not talking about the whole world here since He did not come for the goats, he only came for His sheep the ones born from above. I say this because the Bible clearly states that those who love the world are enemies of God. The children of God are not of this world nor do they love the world. Jesus came into the world to set his sheep free and to grant them eternal life. To the goats (the children of Satan) He brings wrath and judgment.

 

That's fine man no problem with me but should you ever ask that question then you will know the right doctrine.
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you clarify exactly what you are saying here?

Are you denying the injustice of the idea that one can be created for the purposes of destruction, destined for hell before
one draws one's first breath, not even given the opportunity to choose the narrow path?

If so, is your defence more or less that "this is what Scripture says" and that "we have no right to question God".

If so, can you at least see how this notion will sound to the "world" out there - how it will seem that Christians are willing to deny the manifest testimony of their own consciences and subscribe to a position that makes God seem unloving in the extreme?

 

Jesus is speaking DIRECTLY to NICODEMUS, a Jew, a teacher in the land (Israel)! With Jesus are his close associates that we know as Apostles, but perhaps not all of them. Don't make it anything or anyone more! At the time Nicodemus was not a sheep, and we do not have a record of Nicodemus becoming a sheep!
Why would God tell Nicodemus that God loves only the Elect and gave his Son for only the elect for their salvation when Nicodemus is not an Elect?

 

Hello Wes.

I think Jesus telling one in person that one needs to be born again assures one of election. His behaviour later shows him to be elect and as such he was a sheep that Jesus came to find in my opinion.

john.

 

Hello Andre.

I am.

It is.

I can see. I understand. I have spoken this message for twenty years and I understand the effect it has.

I am not sure what you mean Andre. I have no conscience about God's actions only my own.
To my mind the idea stinks but then I should not think that He cannot do what I should not do.

I do subscribe to this doctrine but it is not by preference. The scriptural evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of our God creating for the purpose of destroying. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Romans 9:17.

In Romans 9 Paul is speaking of God's Sovereignty over people. He gives some examples of how people are treated by God for His own purposes.
At the end of his explanation, Romans 9:17, Pauls concludes with, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. verse 18.

That is the conclusion of his statements. The fact, proved by Paul with scripture, that God has mercy and He hardens whoever He chooses without a 'by your leave'.

Well if that is so, that He hardens who He wants and He has mercy on who He wants then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? verse 19.
That is a question that Paul expects you to ask. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Why would he anticipate the question if it was not his conclusion that the question must be asked? Paul doesn't say you are mistaken in asking the question but he says who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:20-21.

Is that any clearer?

john.

 

I think Jesus telling one in person that one needs to be born again assures one of election. His behaviour later shows him to be elect and as such he was a sheep that Jesus came to find in my opinion.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]Nice opinion, where's the support?

 

Grace in order to be grace must be FREE. God does NOT have to give pardon to all because He gives it to some. ALL of us are JUSTLY condemed by God. There is no injustice being done to anybody. God's grace to the elect does not change the righteous punishment of the those not elect. The punishment is just in that the wicked FREELY choose to be at enmity with God.

Again the free choice of giving grace to enable people to believe is NOT a requirment by God to all.

If I have a purpose to give 20 bucks to someone down at the homeless shelter, even though I have enough to give everybody 20, I have a purpose just to give it to one, do the others have a RIGHT to DEMAND that I give 20's to all? Do they have a claim? Can they take me to court and demand that I give everyone 20 bucks? No.

God has His divine purposes and will carry them out.

 

Hello Wes.

If I had support I wouldn't say it was opinion would I?

john.

 

Very clear indeed. While I cannot go with you, I commend you for your consistency and willingness to acknowledge the "challenging" side of the position you are taking.

 

I have no problem with the $20 example you give. However, I do not think it squarely deals with my point. I have no quibble with what you say above, provided that you would also agree that this "free choice" of man means God is not 100 % sovereign. By the very meaning I ascribe to the notion of "100 % sovereignty", all events are fully and sufficiently caused by the agency of God. If man has any free choice at all in respect to decision "X", then God has, by logical necessity, given up some of His sovereignty in respect to decision "X".

 

I'll have to disagree, although he had compassion for Jesus he never acknowledged Jesus as Lord. Nicodemus said "Rabbi, we know You are a Teacher who has come from God." "We" means the favorable ones on the council, he was expressing the general consensus of the council not just his own opinion. Addressing Jesus as "Rabbi" and "Teacher" shows his inadequate comprehension of who Jesus was and instead related to Jesus as another Rabbi.

 

I'll not argue it as I'm supposed to be a miserable Calvinist and as I said it was an opinion but he stood up in council to defend a man from being judged guilty before any trail.
He helped Joseph of Arimathea with the burial and that must have taken guts. He buried his Lord at the risk of being associated with Him.

I think. I do not know a man's heart.

john.

 

If the elect are not responsible for choosing God, the non elect are also not responsible for rejecting God. If the elect's salvation is not determine by free will, the non-elect's condemnation is not determine by free will.

Everyone is born into sin therefore all are destined for God's judgment. The elect who are chosen from all mankind receive eternal life and the rest who are not chosen, "God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36). There is no escape from God's wrath for those not chosen, they begin with sin, continue in their sin and die in their sins. The elect are predestine before the foundation of the earth, those remaining are the non elect who are destined "from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 17:8).

 

The Pharisees stood up in council to defend Paul.

 

Hello prophecynut.

Only because they found a common enemy, the Sadducees. But it seems that many might have been sheep in wolves clothing.

john.

 

The Pharisees and Sadducess were at each other much of the time, like quarreling brothers they got along sometimes. Pharisees were descendents of Jacob and Sadducees were descendents of Esau, the reason for the conflict between the two.

I think the Pharisees defended Paul because he was also a Pharisee.

 

Hello prophecynut.

Paul divided his enemies. He knew the key points of conflict and used them against his persecutors. A case of trust in God and use your brains. I did not know the Pharisees and Sadducees were Jacob and Esau. I just thought they were two streams of thought not lineage. A bit like Arminians and Calvinists.

John 3:2 He came to Jesus at night... He might have been busy in the day. I think we jump to conclusions too fast.

john.

 

"Paul divided his enemies" - I think you're right, this type of action by Paul would follow advice given to the apostles by Jesus to "be as shrewd as snakes and as innocient as doves" Mt.10:16.

I did not know either until recently of the linage difference embodied in the Sanhedrin.

Sadducees were aristocrats who collaborated with the Roman occupiers to gain economic and political control over others. They were described as heartless, characterized by crudity, coarseness, loudness, and violence. Typical of Esau.

Pharisees were depicted as refined, urbane, harmonious and amiable. Typical of Jacob.

Arminians/Esau and Calvinists/Jacob, I like the comparison. Now I understand why they go at each other on the board.

 

If I had support I wouldn't say it was opinion would I?

john. </font>[/QUOTE]You said that Nicodemus was a sheep that Jesus came to find.

The scripture says that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. Seems to me that Nicodemus was the one doing the seeking and finding, asking and receiving, and He did that after doing the Hearing! You see, the scriptures do not say that a 'regenerated' Nicodemus was compelled by the spirit to come to Jesus.