Free choice to choose...

I don't know. The Bible never explains other than that it is "the good pleasure of His will":

That's the point. There is nothing about me that caused God to plant the light of the Gospel in my heart. If there were, then God would be a respector of persons and I would claim of "merit" or "worthiness" of salvation. I am not.

Why did God choose Abraham from Ur to be the father of a great nation?
Why did God choose the trickster Jacob to be the continue the lineage instead of the firstborn Esau?
Why did God choose Mary to conceive the Messiah?
Why did God choose to intervene in Paul's plot and shine His light and speak to him audibly to covert him and make him a missionary? Why did He not do that with others?

I do not understand this, but it seems to be evident from the Bible, and God is the cause of saving faith. He and He alone must receive all credit for salvation.

If God shows any favor to anyone for any reason, it is not because that person had anything good of himself, but that God had a purpose (which we may not understand) in doing so.

 

At least you are honest. I like that answer, if you don't know, then we should say so.
To me showing respect of persons is to choose one above the other, when both are the same.

It seems to you that respect of persons is if one has done something to merit the respect.

You ususally can find the reason in ever instance why God chose who He did.
Abraham was because of "faith".
Jacob was I think because God saw before hand that Esau would sell his birthright.
Mary was a virgin and highly favored among women.
Paul was a predestinated vessel.

Corneilius prayers and alms came up before God.
Many scripture says "thy faith hath made thee whole.

 

Ok, I'll ask my papa to explain that one since It'll never get through in 'ere!

Thanks

 

So the bottom line is that all these people were "good" in some way, as opposed to people that are "bad" in some way. Only the good can be saved?

 

This is not the kind of "acknowledgement" on my part that you think you may be getting. This is the whole point I try to get across. All we know about God is what He has revealed in His word. Just because I cannot understand a paradox does not mean that it does not exist.

The Bible is clear that none are righteous nor seek after God (Rom 3:10-11). I believe this.
The Bible is clear that all are guilty before God and are completely responsible for their willful sin (Eze 18:2-9). I believe this.
The Bible is clear that one must believe in the finished work of Christ on the Cross to be saved (Acts 16:31). I believe this.
The Bible is clear that those who are saved were chosen before the foundation of the world, and that they were chosen for the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:4-7). I believe this.
The Bible is clear that no one can come to the Father except Jesus draws (as a fish in a net) him (John 6:35-40, 44). I believe this.

The fact that the Bible clearly teaches that man has a "choice" and is fully responsible for that "choice," that no one can come to Jesus except that they are given by the Father, and that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him, and those who come and believe were chosen before the foundation of the world is an incomprehensible paradox. It is not necessary for man to understand it; only to believe it.

Do you accept this paradox for what it clearly is, or do you wish to deny one side (election of God) because you lean solely toward the other (faith exercised by man)?

How is this "respect of persons"? Of what from an equal sample is God regarding?

Does that not make sense according to the denotation of the term?

Since Abraham was a pagan, living in the pagan city of Ur, did Abraham exercise faith before or after God chose to speak to him?

God could have prevented him from doing that, just as He prevented Saul from persecuting Christians.
Jacob was no angel. Did Jacob exercise faith before or after God gave him the visions?

I don't question that, but I don't see this clearly in Scripture. Maybe you can point it out. Scripture does say that she was favored by God. Was Mary the greatest and mostly godly woman who ever existed and ever will exist?

I think you got that right. There was nothing good about Paul that would have made him special before God. God chose Paul to be His missionary for the good pleasure of His will. He could have chosen to shine a light and speak audibly to any other Pharisee to fulfill this purpose, but he chose Paul, the "chief of sinners" to be His vessel.

Of course, since none seek after God, it takes light for one to do so. God may do this in any manner He wishes and in as many stages as He wishes.

Here, since Cornelius was obviously familiar with Jewish culture, God gave him some light that other Gentiles were not so privileged.
An angel appeared to him in a vision, revealing more light.
God spoke to Peter to go to Cornelius.
When Peter arrived, Cornelius worshipped Peter.
When Peter spoke, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those that heard. All of them which the Holy Spirit fell upon believed.

Of course. The faith comes from God and it becomes your own. Since the Bible also says that no one came come to the Father except the Son draw (drag) him, and that all that the Father gives will come, the only logical (and Scriptural) conclusion is that those who exercise saving faith were given it by God.

A (believer) possesses B (faith) to yield C (salvation).
A (believer) cannot obtain C (salvation) except D (the Son) draws [drags] him.
E (the Father) gives A (believer) to D (the Son) to be drawn [dragged].

Therefore, E (God the Father) by giving A (believer) to D (the Son) to be drawn [dragged] must also grant A (believer) B (faith) to yield C (salvation).

 

Skypair red the context ? Gosh, that's just asking too much. You might as well ask a dog to sing, or a bird to bark !

As long as he can get away with it, he won't, especially if an article is too long people won't bother seeing if what he says is true, and most especially if by un-contexting something he can destroy a theology that threatens his vision of uniting Christians under himself.

 

Some chose to believe int the Spirit that strives with all men.

 

Believing in God and His promise is faith, and it is your faith, and God's works, that you must have that faith.

 

Just to clarify things, here's that whole chapter Skypair quoted out of context in order to make it appear as if Calvin is warning against people thinking they are elect when they are not. Those who know how to read and understand context, check it out:

Those highlighted in blue are what Skypair lifted out of context.

Here's the rest of that section.

Well, there you go. Calvin says beware of Satan because he wants you to be shaken in your trust. Keep your eyes on Christ and remember His mercy. (not verbatim, but at least I believe what I said to be in context with what this theologian is saying).

Uhmmm. Pervert. The dictionary defines pervert as:

1.to affect with perversion. 2.to lead astray morally. 3.to turn away from the right course. 4.to lead into mental error or false judgment. 5.to turn to an improper use; misapply. 6.to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someone's statement

 

Of course it doesn't, Ja. PL was saying that he and Calvinists knew they were saved. He has represented before that it was via 1John. I merely remarked that Calvin wasn't totally ignorant of the Bible -- those verses have been there to comfort believers for a long time.

The point is, if YOU don't get to choose Christ but are elected by God, you CAN'T know if you are saved. It's wasn't your decision and God has not shown you His "book of life."

skypair

 

VEry good Russ. As you must know, I don't have "Institutes" in my library.

However, does Calvin give us the correct method of inquiry?? I would just say that Calvinism avoids the obivous way --- that we could know if it was for us to decide, right? If God really meant "choose ye this day" and we did choose life, we would know that we received the promise of eternal life.

These "proper ways" of Calvin's leave room for "strong delusion" - 2Thes 2:11-12. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,..." Why? Do you believe the lost - say Mormons - can convince themselves that they are leaning on Christ alone? Do they think they "hear His voice, experience His protection, see His work" in them? Sure!

These are indirect assurances. The PROMISE is if WE choose on Christ, John 3:15 "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." That's the promise --- Calvin relies on God's on "election" -- something he admit we can't see.

Now what did you find about Satan trying to convince us that we are not saved?

skypair

 

You can't even answer without making "believe" the basis for "rebirth!"

OK, what does one have to believe before one is regenerated? Here's your chance. I won't go any farther without you declaring your belief.

As you see, I did get around to your reasons for believing you are saved and they coincide with what russ said Calvin said. It's the ISSUES you refuse to deal with, not my posts.

skypair

 

Larry,

Didn't you just say "for those who believe it." Ostensibly, we could believe in regenration before belief and that would be enough, right?

I'm really having a problem with you not addressing the issues, Lar.

skypair

 

I don't have them either. They are all online here. That's a handy place to look up all those Calvin quotes anti-Calvinist sites put up. Quite often, when you see the quotes in their whole context, you'll find the quotes have been cherry-picked, and they are sometimes saying something quite different in context than the sites lead us to believe.

Yes. I gave them to you. Examine yourself to see if you are leaning on Christ's work alone for your salvation. Examine yourself to see if you can see God's work within you, etc.

Mormons don't believe you can be saved by leaning on Christ's work alone. Their delusion is that they need to add their own works to Christ's. Perhaps a Mormon may convince themselves they are saved, but they would not be relying on Calvin's test to do it. They'd have to be relying on the sufficiency of their own works for their salvation.

This is exactly what Calvin is saying. If someone is trusting (believing) in Christ for his salvation, then he can be sure of his election.

No, he doesn't. Read the section. He relies on one's trust in Christ as proof of election and proof of salvation.

Calvin says that Satan can use inquiry into the reasons why we are ELECT (NOTE: this is not the same thing as inquiring into the reasons why we are SAVED) to cause us to doubt.

 

Please illuminate this with scripture. I can't even fathom what you are saying. Let's just take the "intelligent design" justification of creation --- it was intelligent. That is, it was thought out -- "engineered" if you will. If not, then creation existed with God and was not a creation, was it?

OK, I see what you are saying -- Joe didn't have a mind before creation. But you also just admitted/averred above that God knew Joe's mind from eternity -- real eternity to you -- past.

So, yeah, Joe didn't have a choice in the course of time. But God's foreknowledge was perfect and He could foresee what Joe's decision would be -- Christ or death. Do you believe God has that ability? Or not and that God designates Joe to heaven or hell sight unseen?

I'm going with your line of reasoning for now. Go ahead.

That's true. They realize how awkward that would be in lieu of Rom 8:29. Instead they have to "go even farther out on their already cracking limb" and say that God "foreloved" the "elect" -- knew them intimately, etc. Some will actually say that this is where God chooses the elect and then He predestines them. That makes sense -- all but this notion that He has no conditions on choosing whom He will.

Explain to me how it couldn't be random. It certainly can't be by "respecting persons." That would also suggest knowledge beforehand which Calvinists deny vehemently.

You don't even know when you are wrong?? Jesus said the Holy Spirit lived WITH them but now shall live IN them, John 14:17. What do you think was the big "hubbub" at Pentecost, Larry? Jer 31:31 said indwelling was for a future day. Ezek 37:14, Larry. For heaven's sake! Have you gone to seminary for nothing??

Your education is deficient, Larry. As I have noted before, scripture goes way beyond what Calvin allows or knew. Your knowledge of scripture is basically "frozen in time" -- it is as if Rip Van Winkle went to sleep 400 years ago and now came back to teach us about scripture. And with no even thought of updating his data base. Here are a list of the defects I find:

no distinction between soul and spirit
no distinction between "choosing" belief vs. the gift of faith
no understanding of sin nature and original sin (infants condemned)
no knowledge of why God chooses whom He does to salvation
no comprehension of God's sovereignty thereby making God the cause of sin, etc.
actual perversion of the meaning of "elect," "election," "foreknowledge," etc. -- many other terms.

Gotta go --- storm!

skypair

 

So do you mind if I "fill you in?"

Believing in grace rather than in Christ for salvation, you mean. Well, let's just examine it. You just also told me that God "passes over" some who "believe" but aren't "elect." So there's the basis for saying you believe in something other than belief in Christ.

Then you say you have confidence that you are "elect" unto salvation.
So where do you think I get the idea that you depend on grace rather than on belief in Christ?

Same verses we couldn't agree on before, eh? I said "chosen to salvation ... through faith in the truth" I can see where you are coming from in that it appears say saved by 1)regeneration and 2) then faith. I hadn't seen that before. And it is true! But it leaves out belief and foreknowledge. IOW, the very manner of God's choosing you is on account of foreknowledge/knowledge beforehand of your belief. This verse picks up talking about "election" (you substitute "chosen" I notice this time) saying that knowing that, God gave you 1) regeneration and 2) faith on account of His knowledge of your belief.

Here's where justification comes in. You were justified by belief first -- in your soul your conscience being turned to God and given His righteousness. Then, by way of sanctification, God gave you the 1) Spirit indwelling and 2) faith (after all, the Spirit IS the evidence of what you "hoped"/believed so faith does follow proof/evidence IAW Heb 11:1!) But the Bible certainly NEVER says that God's Spirit dwells in a filthy "house" of unbelief.

"Chosen" = Jews

skypair

 

Wise insight, rip. In fact, Calvin pretty much wanted to restrict Geneva's religious life to his theology. And so, indeed, Calvinism doesn't like choices for anyone. That's called a "sacral society" -- society all belong to the same religion that is enforced by the gov't.

We live in -- and it is God's plan -- a "composite society" where diversity of views is welcomed so that, as Paul said, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." 1Cor 11:19 That is the ONLY reason we let the Calvinists continue to exist! :laugh:

We are here debating because this is God's will. Believe me, this would not have been tolerated in any major society regardless of religion (true or pagan) prior to 1700.

skypair

 

John 3:15 -- "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." The Bible DOES have something to say about it. He chose you according to YOUR belief.

Belief, Ares.

No, He would be called a "Keeper of Promises."

Because God is a Promise Keeper and when we believe or don't believe, He had promised us consequences.

He gets credit for making it available, sure. He did all He could do, something that Calvinism seems to deny in that their God never gives most people a chance.

skypair

 

You're starting to get the Bible message, JD. You have to at least "believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that do righteously." Do you believe that?

skypair

 

pinoy,

Thank you. It IS always better to present skeptics with the whole passage in question.

No, this wouldn't be best. If scripture is to be believed, we must say that our best evidence is not that we can "fake it" like the Pharisees but that we CHOSE Christ. Basically, this part calls for Lordship Salvation where no salvation need exist.

The first part of this is "scare tactics" and "sophistry" but the bold is good advice. However, Calvin denies us the only real proof we have of salvation and that is that we CHOSE Christ -- believed on Him. Instead, he recommends (like MacArthur, Boice. etal.) the testimony of a "holy life." Well, that just brings salvation all back to "works" again, now doesn't it. Assured salvation = faith + works.

Which begs the issue, are you saved or just "elect."

So it still depends on something we can't know -- whether it was God's call or our own. Whether we are "elect" or just think we are. How about begin and end with what you will do with Christ??

This again is more sensing salvation by our circumstances. As Adrian used to say, "God isn't going to do His deepest work in your shallowest dimension [your emotions]."

But pinoy, I would be interested in hearing from you how what I said Calvin said differs from what Calvin said. What harm have I done to Cavlin's words? What harm to the word of God?

skypair