Featured free will vs. election???????

That was for the benefit of those around Him...

24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

I added to post 399...

 

Welcome to B.B. most of the time an informal logical fallacy is alleged, it is done so inaccurately or inappropriately. It's often the "Straw-man" allegation which is most entertaining to read........and somewhat sad.

 

All those words I bolded don't mean what you say they do, according to HW. So eternity is only for "a certain space of time" and not for ever....

 

HW, you posted this on page 21:

We are now on page 41 and you still haven't gotten there. Please own up and fess up......

 

Yes, indeed, and some need to learn the definition of a word before using it.

 

Appreciate that you hold your ground on the "total inablility" issue. I too do not share the position of those in the DoG camp on the issue of total inability. Your observation of the events in the Genesis record certainly suggest that man is irreconcilably separated from God, but retains the ability or redemption only according to His grace.

 

lol!!! :laugh:

Clouds but no rain.

Now, if he ever owns up and 'fesses up, well well, we'll really know something has changed in him. For the good. Up to this point his character is marred by his support and engagement in fabrications. :smilewinkgrin:

I'd be seriously worried about myself if I could engage in that behavior and carry on as if everything is OK while showing no repentance about it whatsoever. THAT right there tells a lot about a person.

 

the conversation was between me and amy and she bailed out--so it was stopped :godisgood::godisgood:

 

My mistake -- in my last post I thought Heir of Salivation was the one being spoken to, not HW.

I apologize to HW.

But as far as what I said, it implies to Heir of Salivation 100%.

- Blessings

 

Not one single one of these verse makes a distinction between an effectual call and a general call (Not to mention that you are again quoting confessions like they are Scripture).

Not one single verse listed states that a man is MADE willing. Psalm 110:3 says that God's people "shall be willing". It doesn't say "shall be MADE willing". The confession added this in a creed and quoted it as if it read like that in the Bible. Furthermore it is THE DAY of Thy power, not each time a sinner gets saved. THE DAY is a future prophetic event, has nothing to do with God predestinating individual sinners.

Ezekiel 36:26 is about ISRAEL not the church. It is plain throughout the entire chapter "the house of ISRAEL".

Acts 26:18 is referring to God now offering salvation to non Jews (v 17) and doesn't help Calvinism because they are sanctified BY FAITH, not determinism. Paul states in verse 19 "I was not DISOBEDIENT unto the heavenly vision" which clearly demonstrates that PAUL HAD A CHOICE.

And Song of Solomon 1:4? Really??? This is almost as bad as reading Bride Chamber Theology into the text.

Romans 11:7 is the worst possible verse they could have used to support this, because this verse shows a clear difference in the VARIOUS elect of the Bible. In Calvinist, all elect will be saved, and if this verse is used to support that the Church is the elect, and the rest are blinded, then there's a problem because Israel was called God's elect in Isaiah 45 and many other passages.

The proper interpretation of this verse is that this refers to ISRAEL AS A WHOLE did not obtain what they sought for (the Kingdom, Matthew 24:1-3, Acts 1:6), because they WOULD NOT (Matthew 23:39) and the REMNANT that will be saved during the tribulation will obtain it (vs 5). Romans 11:7 is not about the church, it's about a REMNANT OF ISRAELITES, PAUL'S KINSMEN "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (Rom 9:3). Israel is going to be "raised from the dead" during the tribulation (Rom 11:15) when the gospel turns away from the Gentiles after the "times of the Gentiles" is completed, and then 144,000 Jews are sealed (Rev 7:4-8) to be witnesses lead by the 2 witnesses of Revelation 11:3 (Moses and Elijah).

Notice the analogy that Paul uses is of an elect WITHIN AN ELECT that were reserved for the battle, at the beginning of the chapter. The analogy was based on 1 Kings 19 where God chose from Israel (His elect) 7,000 ISRAELITES to battle. Now it never says that ONLY 7000 did not bow down to Baal, but that he used 7000 that didn't.

Romans 11:7 is NOT THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH. Beginning in Romans 9-11, this fact is made clear. It is only when verses are isolated out of context, and out of their intended historical and future context that false doctrine is built around private interpretations inserted into Scripture.

None of the other verses support anything said in that "confession" and I will get to the rest of those later.

 

No brass ring

The foolish things of the world are according to the world's value system, like you trying to sell a pig in a poke. Calvinism is irrational foolishness, but we are to be sober minded.

Here we get another redefinition of a word, faith is simply the noun form of the verb believe. So if you believe in the truth, you have faith in the truth. The idea that the noun refers to divine belief, and the verb belongs to human belief is without merit.

Next, our all-powerful God is said to be unable to credit our faith in Christ as righteousness. Scripture, Romans 4:4-5,24 says He does. Romans 5:2 says our faith in Christ provides our access to the grace in which we stand. Thus we are saved by grace through our faith that God credited as righteousness.

No one said man has the ability to self reconcile. Why do you keep changing the subject. Scripture says men received the gospel with joy. Scripture says 3 of the 4 soils could understand the gospel. Scripture says men seek God both through works and through faith. Calvinism's claims are completely false. There is no support in scripture for Calvinism, at least the TULI part of the tulip.

All true, no one said 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was a corporate election, it is our individual election for salvation, a conditional election.

Yes the order of the steps presented is important and should be given weight. For example, many are called but few are chosen, certainly suggests God chooses from among the called.

However in this verse we get the clause through the sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth, presented in parallel, i.e. both are the objects of through. How are we set apart in Christ? The Holy Spirit baptizes us spiritually into Christ. This is the sanctification by the Spirit, and thus tells us how we are chosen. On what basis are we chosen. Through faith in the truth. And only those whose faith has been credited by God as righteousness are chosen. So the conditional election is by God alone, based on His actions alone. But He is honoring His promise, whoever believes in Him shall not perish.

The Hebrews 11 saints gained approval through faith. Your view has them approved unconditionally, then given faith. Not how it reads. No one is claiming our faith accomplishes salvation, it is God who credits or not our filthy rag faith as righteousness. Again, if the faith had been implanted, there would be no need for God to credit it as righteousness, it would already be righteous divine faith.

Bottom line, Calvinism is deeply embedded in your understanding of scripture, so I doubt anything I say will be received with joy.

 

Note: Van's quotes from his post are edited to heighten the focus the shorten the total length of this post.

Because some do view "Calvinism (as) irrational foolishness" it really does seem that often on this board contention on the board centers upon some distortion of the non-cal or cal view.

Just because some have a non-cal view does not mean that all hold to all that is contained in a systematic theology that ultimately leads to Universalism.

Most Calvinistic thinking folks have a modified view of what is called Calvinism. I dare say that on the BB there is actually no one that would not sincerely contend with Calvin, himself, over some doctrine that he maintained.

For instance, I personally have taught both perseverance and preservation as one not existing without the other. Some would disagree with that view.

I hold a view that some moderate Calvinistic thinkers are not comfortable with, that the heathen is not just unable but totally incapable of free choice / free will. That all choices the heathen make are a selection of options that are fallen and in line with the natural which ultimately lead to decay and destruction. Of course, the Hollywood versions and their theological schemes have totally rejected this view.

There is a distinction. The scriptures state clearly that even the demonic world believe. One can believe a truth, or believe something occurred... and never have the ability to exercise the faith because that is given by God.

Folks, this passage is sharing the experience of Abraham. Because Van considers faith as man generated ability to depend upon God, his view of Abram is that Abraham used his own ability irregardless of the the fallen nature being unable and incapable of receiving the things of God.

Van, it was not Abraham's unique ability, but the faith that God put in Abraham when he claimed him as His - at the call to leave from is own home to wander in "no continual dwelling place." This is the same faith that ALL believers have given to them, that the believer might walk by faith that God is faithful.

A passage that explains this is found in Romans 1:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.​

But "understanding" is mental ability - it is not salvation.

Perhaps you can show me were men (all humankind) seek God when the Scriptures clearly teach just the opposite.

You again are making a claim about Calvinism that is unsupportable, and not really important to the discussion. Of course one could state that because you seem to agree with the "P" part that you are a one point Calvinist.

Sounds like you are more Calvanistic that you want to let on.

All you have to do is come to understand that the "faith" that allows us to embrace the truth is that which God generates with in the elected ones. For instance, in the account of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, the folks that traveled with Saul heard the voice and therefore understood what was spoken to Saul. Why then were they not converted? Only Saul had been kicking against the pricks (conviction of the truth brought by the Holy Spirit).

If your view is true, then we should see the lack of need for earth moving equipment. Man's own ability to exercise man's faith could move mountains, stop the mouths of lions, and proclaim (irregardless of the presence of the Holy Spirit) unto salvation.

But that isn't the case, is it. Rather, just the opposite.

So, even in the practical world system, your view isn't supportable.

Rather than harping a dirge against Calvinism, why not merely promote your view of Scriptures.

I generally receive responses to my posts with joy, because at my age just having someone of your obvious ability respond is great encouragement. We may not agree on some matters, but then in a few moments of time it will all be settled. We probably will find we are both wrong with Peter and Paul both ready to say, "You foolish gentiles! Can't you read!"

 

I didn't "bail" out. I dusted my feet. There's a difference.

 

Still doesn't say what you are imposing on that verse. And quite frankly you have not made it clear how you even came to that conclusion.

 

The distinction is between the verb, an action to believe in something, and the noun, what is believed, thus if you believe in Christ, you have faith in Christ.
It is up to God to credit that faith as righteousness.

Scripture does not say fallen men are unable to receive all things of God. Fallen men are unable to receive spiritual meat, but are able to understand spiritual milk, as taught in 1 Corinthians 3:1 where Paul speaks to born anew folks as to men of flesh, demonstrating men of flesh can understand milk. Calvinism is based on mistaken claims like fallen men cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit including milk. Simply untrue.

Romans 1:16-19 does not support Irresistible grace at all. It does support the grace of God in revealing Himself to man in various ways, including the gospel of Christ as scripture. Here the effort is to claim when God reveals something to a person, the person is compelled to believe. Pure fiction. Jesus revealed God to men but many men did not believe. God is a God of persuasion, he does not compel men to believe. That again is the Calvinist fiction, nowhere found in scripture.

Understanding does not equate with salvation. Of course it does not.

Yes, I am a one point Calvinist, but many non-Cals believe in once saved always saved.

This is wrong on so many levels, lets count the ways:

(1) Faith comes from hearing the word of God, i.e. faith in Christ comes from hearing and understanding and embracing the gospel of Christ. Calvinism's fiction says no one can embrace unless altered, but 3 or the 4 soils of Matthew 13 did embrace to a degree the gospel of Christ, i.e. received it with joy.

(2) We are elected through faith, thus faith precedes our individual election, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Calvinism gets the cart before the horse because it claims the corporate election of Ephesians 1:4 was individual. But verse after verse after verse teach God chooses individuals during their lifetime, after they have lived without mercy, such as James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.

(3) In Matthew 23:13 we have people entering heaven, thus having faith in God to some degree, yet are blocked by false teachings. Thus their faith was not instilled, and the grace of the revelation upon which they based their faith was not irresistible. This one verse teaches Calvinism's "T" and "I" are unbiblical. ​

Wrong again, my view is not that our faith saves us, but rather God saves us after crediting our worthless filthy rag faith as righteousness.

 

He posted it in a different thread under Hebrews 10:14. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86595 HOwever, doesn't explain how he reached the conclusion in that thread either. But the Greek structure of the sentence works against him, not for him.

 

He posted that in this thread first but the problem is that verse does not say what he is imposing on it. He is trying to make an inference that is not there nor is it in view. This is common in reformed theology.

 

If Christ died for all sinners then no one could go to hell. What would they go to hell for? For sin? Not if Christ died for their sins.

EVERYBODY believes that God elected ONLY SOME. Arminians believe that God elected those he foresaw would repent and trust in him.

Once again, if God elected every single person, then every single person would be in heaven in the end and no one would be in hell. If you don't believe that everyone ggoes to heaven, then you cannot believe that God elected every single person.

 

Well done Rick.....and in 3 paragraphs too! :smilewinkgrin: