God, That's not fair!

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
Its not biblical. That's it. The bible teaches what I have presented but it does not teach what you have presented. Do you think I only object to Calvinism because I think its unfair or unreasonable? I used to debate professors and friends with passion defending Calvinism. I don't have a problem accepting Calvinism's claims IF indeed the scripture support it. But it doesn't!

Excellent. We agree that Calvinism is not unfair or unreasonable. Now we can settle down to see if Scripture reveals a God of unconditional election or not.

I had said, 'What then do you believe Paul refers to when he refers to the Christian's election?'
Skan says, To what passage are you referring? I need to know the context.

Well, for example, Rom.11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. and 1 Thess.1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
I just wanted to add a note to this. You must remember the point Paul goes out of his way to mention: The ingrafting of the Gentiles was meant to provoke the unbelieving Jews to envy so that they might believe. If the only unbelieving Jews who were going to be saved were elect then why would they need to be provoked by envy? Couldn't they have been effectually called just like the "remnant" which included Paul? Paul and the remnant of his day didn't need to be provoked by envy, they were effectually called. Why aren't the other "elect Jews" simply effectually called as were the first group? What purpose does provoking them accomplish?

1. Because it was a means God had chosen and revealed through His OT prophets. But we've been through the 'means' issue before.
2. The elect of the foundation church were called before the Gentiles were being brought in. Later, by the time of Paul's ministry, the means would significantly include this 'provocation to envy'.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Excellent. We agree that Calvinism is not unfair or unreasonable. Now we can settle down to see if Scripture reveals a God of unconditional election or not.

That's not exactly what I meant. I was simply making the point that IF the scripture was truly making the argument that God hardens people from birth, then I would not have a problem accepting it. I may, as most Calvinists admit, have difficulty accepting it, but I would IF scripture made that argument. However, if indeed Paul is arguing that God only hardens people who have continually rejected God's revelation of himself, which he clear does, then I would find a teaching that claimed what TD claims as being unfair and unjust by the standards of scripture. Scripture sets the standard for what is right and fair, we don't. (I know you agree) Scripture does teach that God hardens rebellious men who have freely, by their own volition rejected his revelation. It DOES NOT teach that God hardens people from birth, or even that they are born essentially hardened--unable to see, hear or understand God's revelation. They can understand (Rm 1) and thus are without excuse. They can respond in faith and must if they will avoid judgement. A doctrine that has God removing that ability from people who have only refused to utilize it and act upon it even in the face of his patient endurance is a doctrine I accept because it IS biblical. But I cannot accept a doctrine that says the ability was removed from birth and never granted to most yet they are held accountable. Why? Simply because its unfair? NO. Because its unbiblical and thus by that very fact is unfair, unjust and ungodly.

I had said, 'What then do you believe Paul refers to when he refers to the Christian's election?'
Skan says, To what passage are you referring? I need to know the context.

Well, for example, Rom.11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. and 1 Thess.1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.

Let's look at two types of election:

1. Individual election would simply refer to God's choosing to save or even use certain people from a larger group.

2. National election would simply refer to God's choice to save or even use a particular group of people.

I believe both forms of election are taught in scripture. Number 1 for example would be seen in God's selection of Paul. Paul was chosen from a larger group of people, the Jews, to be an apostle. This choice of God included his being effectually called to this task which certainly resulted in Paul's salvation. I think this is what the Romans 11:5 verse is refering to when Paul speaks of God's selecting individuals, his remnant, to carry the message of the gospel to the world. But once again I must point out that proof God individually chooses and effectually calls the messengers to their divine task and ultimately salvation does NOT prove that he does so with those in their audience who respond positively to their message.

Number 2 would be represented by what we see Paul write in Romans 11:25: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved." He is clearly refering to the Gentile people as he points out in verse 30. I believe we see an example of this in 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13-14 as Paul thanks God for his chosing the Gentile people even before the foundation of the world. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was writing to a Gentile church that he had begun and was simply thanking God for His choice in granting them repentance/salvation.

 

[Eric B]

As to man creating sin, how can one 'create' sin, other than by sinning. We 'create' sin every day. Sin is the violation of God's command and standard for us.

No, I meant the acts, not the condition; the sin nature. Each individual man did not create this just by sinning; he sinned because of the nature. Nobody has any choice but to be born a sinner.

God did not create a substance called sin and set it upon Adam - Adam disobeyed God. God had ordained that in such a way that the moral responsibility for the sin lay with the sinner, not with Him. How did He do so? We don't know, He doesn't say. But like job, we are not to charge God foolishly. We can be sure that the Holy One does only what is right and good, even if it means suffering and death for us.

Our understanding of 'fault' and 'opportunity' must come from what God says, not our human reasoning. As I said before, human reasoning will lead us to Open Theism and worse.

So then, God placed some [spiritual] "substance" on him, called "responsibility without ability". "How" God did it? We see no such question even raised in scripture. Likewise, some new divine understanding of "fault" and "opportunity". The passages, like Romans 9 that are used to teach this are nowhere near the idea. That is a parodox cerated by reading total depravity and unconditional election (as well as limited atonment) into the scriptures. Instead of just admitting that what we can't know is how God gives us free will (from which comes the "responsibility"), yet is still in control. No, we would rather set up this other paradox, and then claim we can't understand it.

And the 'good or evil' refers to man's works, not to his nature. God viewed man in his fallen state, and chose from among such a people for Himself.

But the "works" are what man is judged for, not simply a nature.

The Old Covenant was an opportunity to be saved, for failure to keep it brought condemnation. But you agree it was impossible for man to keep, due to his sinful nature. You then say it was not a 'real' opportunity. But then God must be unfair when He condemns the Jews for breaking it - Jer.31:32. The truth is, the OC was a real opportunity in God's sight, and that should settle it for us.

Yes, people could accept by faith the atonement system that God provided for their failure to keep the Law, and still be saved. Many were saved, so yes, it was definitely an "opportunity". What you're talking about makes the NC Gospel less of an opportunity than the OC!

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said,
Number 2 would be represented by what we see Paul write in Romans 11:25: "I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved." He is clearly refering to the Gentile people as he points out in verse 30. I believe we see an example of this in 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13-14 as Paul thanks God for his chosing the Gentile people even before the foundation of the world. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was writing to a Gentile church that he had begun and was simply thanking God for His choice in granting them repentance/salvation.

So you are saying that each Christian is not individually elected of God for salvation? And that when Paul speaks of 'your election' he is speaking of them only as a group?

1. Israel the nation was elected of God for a privileged position. Where do we read of the Gentiles being so elected? All the references to Gentiles being elected seem to me to be individuals for salvation. The group is believing Gentiles, but even then it is the individuals who are elect. Israel's salvation is also based on indivuals being elected for salvation, not on membership of the nation.

2. Reading through Rom.8 we find God's predestinating grace, not for Israel or the Gentiles as groups, but 'for us', 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Here's what he says to them, 28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Peter says in 2 Peter1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; If our election is not individual how can we make it sure? How could these brethren make sure the call and election of a group?

No, my friend, the unconditional election you accept for Paul and a few others is the exact same loving choice God made of each one of us in eternity past.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
So then, God placed some [spiritual] "substance" on him, called "responsibility without ability".

Being wicked makes one responsible - it does not require God to impose responsibility. If I rob a bank and spend the money on riotous living, I am still responsible even if I cannot pay the money back. If I hate God, I am responsible even if I am unable(because unwilling)to do anything else.

But the "works" are what man is judged for, not simply a nature.

We agree. Man is judged for both.

Yes, people could accept by faith the atonement system that God provided for their failure to keep the Law, and still be saved. Many were saved, so yes, it was definitely an "opportunity". What you're talking about makes the NC Gospel less of an opportunity than the OC!

Paul makes it clear that the Law - and that included the sacrifical system - could save no one. The terms of the OC were 'do this and live', not 'believe and live'. Yet the Jews were held as guilty for not fulfilling the OC. The saints under the Law did indeed 'believe and live', based on the promises to Abraham - but they just as much as the unbelievers did not keep the Law. For that they were held responsible and required forgiveness.

You cannot escape the reality that God does hold people responsible, even if their nature permits them to do nothing else.

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

Being wicked makes one responsible - it does not require God to impose responsibility. If I rob a bank and spend the money on riotous living, I am still responsible even if I cannot pay the money back. If I hate God, I am responsible even if I am unable(because unwilling)to do anything else.

That is not the same thing. Robbing a bank is a work. "Wickedness" the way you are using it, on one hand is a nature, but in practice, comparing it to the work of robbing a bank, you are making it a series of works. (It can be used either way in the Bible). But a person can choose not to rob a bank, so they are not the same thing.

We agree. Man is judged for both.

Both? only in the sense that the nature made them do the works. But in judgment, we see it is always the works that people are condemned for.

Paul makes it clear that the Law - and that included the sacrifical system - could save no one. The terms of the OC were 'do this and live', not 'believe and live'. Yet the Jews were held as guilty for not fulfilling the OC. The saints under the Law did indeed 'believe and live', based on the promises to Abraham - but they just as much as the unbelievers did not keep the Law. For that they were held responsible and required forgiveness.

You cannot escape the reality that God does hold people responsible, even if their nature permits them to do nothing else.

BUT, He provides a way out. That's what the debate is about.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
Both? only in the sense that the nature made them do the works. But in judgment, we see it is always the works that people are condemned for.

The nature cannot be separated from the works; out of the heart proceed all the evil men do. It is impossible for man not to express what he is.

BUT, He provides a way out. That's what the debate is about.

No, the point was being made that God holds men guilty even when they are only doing what their evil nature requires them to do. He held the Jews guilty of breaking the Law, even though they were unable because of their nature to do otherwise. He also holds them guilty of refusing the gospel, but that is a separate issue.

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

The nature cannot be separated from the works; out of the heart proceed all the evil men do. It is impossible for man not to express what he is.

But what they are is not what they chose to be.

No, the point was being made that God holds men guilty even when they are only doing what their evil nature requires them to do. He held the Jews guilty of breaking the Law, even though they were unable because of their nature to do otherwise. He also holds them guilty of refusing the gospel, but that is a separate issue.

Not really a separate issues, because you are extending the idea of one to the other. This is precisely what turns the Gospel of Grace into another Law of sin and death: "Just like they could not keep the Law, and God held them responsible; so today, they cannot accept the Gospel, and God holds them responsible". Nothing better at all from before.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
Not really a separate issues, because you are extending the idea of one to the other. This is precisely what turns the Gospel of Grace into another Law of sin and death: "Just like they could not keep the Law, and God held them responsible; so today, they cannot accept the Gospel, and God holds them responsible". Nothing better at all from before.

'Nothing better'!?? The Law saved NNE. The gospel saves MULTITUDES, Rev.7:9.

The gospel is horrible to the reprobate for it goes against everything their sinful heart loves. It IS death to them, for we must die to ourselves to be alive with God. But it is not like the Law that brought death even to those who wanted to be justified by it. The gospel brings life to all who want to be justified by it. It is just that the reprobate DO NOT WANT to be justified by it.

You are making excuses for rebels, Eric. They are without excuse. We are born enemies of God. We are responsible for what our hearts desire.

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

As it is unconditional election that makes people "want to be justified" either under the Law (right?) or the gospel, then it is both the same. If the reason the gospel is horrible to the reprobates is because of inability to want to be justified resulting from being non-elect, then the gospel does not save, but is only a means of bringing in the sheep, just like the tablets of stone in the OT that did not save, but God used to alert the "elect" to respond, and were "Death" to the "reprobates, then as well.
I am not making excuse for rebels. What you are describing is not really rebellion (a choice of wrong over good they could do), but preprogramming of their hearts towards certain desire, all to justify a doctrine of "inability" that goes beyond what the scriptures teach. All are rebels. Those who do repent were no less rebels, and of course, that's the whole point, isn't it?
Much of this debate is because your view is trying to butter up what is really a trap people are put into, and make it look like they did it to themselves just because they happen to be blind enough now to like their state and reject the alternative. But that's apart of the supposed "inability", not any active "choice" in itself. Yes, we are born enemies of God, and are responsible for this in that God has given everyone the ability to repent. You try to say "He does not give the reprobates the ability because they didn't want it". But then they didn't want it because they were unable to want it. God's purpose for leaving them in that position is not simply because they wanted to be there. They could NOT repent "if they wanted to", because "wanted to" is MOOT in this case; not a real viable "choice". So you should admit that predestination is double, and God just chose certain people for Heaven, and others for Hell, and fixed it so they would have a sin nature to justify it. But that seems too "unfair" even for you.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry, I've been out so long. Its been a busy few weeks.

Originally posted by Ian Major:
So you are saying that each Christian is not individually elected of God for salvation? And that when Paul speaks of 'your election' he is speaking of them only as a group?

Yes. He is thanking God for choosing to save the Gentiles. Not that all of them will be saved, but that they have been chosen to be granted entrance into God's covenant. Remeber this is a new concept to them.

1. Israel the nation was elected of God for a privileged position. Where do we read of the Gentiles being so elected?

We don't. We read of the Gentiles being selected to be included into God's covenant. "I will make them a people who are not my people."

All the references to Gentiles being elected seem to me to be individuals for salvation. The group is believing Gentiles, but even then it is the individuals who are elect. Israel's salvation is also based on indivuals being elected for salvation, not on membership of the nation.

Read Romans 9:30: "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith" Is that individuals being elected to "righteousness?" No, its the nation. Do all Gentiles attain it? NO, because its through faith and not all choose to act in faith. The group is elected to attain righteousness through faith but only some of the group attains it. Explain that.

2. Reading through Rom.8 we find God's predestinating grace, not for Israel or the Gentiles as groups, but 'for us', 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Here's what he says to them, 28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Yes, God has determined beforehand what would happen to those who love him. We (US) will be conformed to the image of his Son, but who is we/us? The elect ones to the neglect of the non-elect ones? "We/us" are the ones who love God through faith. We are the ones who have a hope of our adoption, not ones who have already been adopted. We are predestined to be adopted but it hasn't happened yet.

Peter says in 2 Peter1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; If our election is not individual how can we make it sure? How could these brethren make sure the call and election of a group?

Call to what? Call to believe the gospel. Election to what? To be Adopted into his body and conformed to his image as his church, his bride. We as believers still wait this adoption and this transformation because it is something God as destined us, as believers, to. However, He didn't predestined us to be or not to be believers, instead He predestined what would happen to those who do believe. (<--- KEY POINT)

On this verse Adam Clarke writes: "For your calling to believe the Gospel, and your election to be members of the Church of Christ, will be ultimately unprofitable to you, unless you hold fast what you have received by adding to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance etc."

No, my friend, the unconditional election you accept for Paul and a few others is the exact same loving choice God made of each one of us in eternity past.

Then the words you write must be as authorative as Paul's words. Afterall you too were "set apart from birth" and "effectually called." You too learned "directly from the Lord" and not from man. All these things Paul lists as reason for his aposolic authority to the churches he wrote yet you claim they are just as true of the church members as they are of him. Tell me, why would he list them as reasons for his authority if indeed they were common to all believers?

What if someone claimed to be virgin born or sinless? Wouldn't that undermine Christ's authority to claim to share a part of his divine uniqueness? Sure it would, and you wouldn't stand for it. So too, when you claim to be "set apart", "effectually called" and "directly taught from above" you undermine the authority by which the apostles taught and ministered. What is the difference between you and Paul except that he claimed to be an apostle? What gives him the right to speak as an authority in you system. He was set apart just as you were, he was called just as you were and he was taught directly by Holy Spirit inspiration just as you were. You could still be writing our cannon!

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said
As it is unconditional election that makes people "want to be justified" either under the Law (right?) or the gospel, then it is both the same.

Wrong. Unconditional election made people who were under the Law want to be justified by faith. It is the free-will of wicked man that made them want to be justified by the Law.

If the reason the gospel is horrible to the reprobates is because of inability to want to be justified resulting from being non-elect, then the gospel does not save, but is only a means of bringing in the sheep, just like the tablets of stone in the OT that did not save, but God used to alert the "elect" to respond, and were "Death" to the "reprobates, then as well.

It is free-will gospel that does not save. It is powerless in the face of man's rejection. The biblical gospel saves everyone it was meant to save. Yes, it is a means of our salvation, in the same sense as God's ordering of our circumstances, the terrors of the Law, or any other of the things God uses to preare us to repent and believe. But the gospel is the immediate outward means, the final link in God's plan for our salvation. That plan began in eternity when He predestined us, then called us, then justified us - and will eventually glorify us.

Much of this debate is because your view is trying to butter up what is really a trap people are put into, and make it look like they did it to themselves just because they happen to be blind enough now to like their state and reject the alternative. But that's apart of the supposed "inability", not any active "choice" in itself.

I see how you view sovereign grace, but you fail to see the reality, my brother. The reality is that man IS guilty for being the wicked person he is, not just for refusing to repent of it. I know it doesn't fit too well with man's view of himself, but it is God's view we must bow to. You insist it would be unfair of God to hold man responsible for being evil, since he was born that way. You seek to avoid this by making him only responsible if he doesn't repent of his wickedness. That is merely human thinking. Paul answers it well when he responds to the objection 'Why does He still find fault?' by saying, Rom.9: 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

In Him

Ian

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;

Wrong. Unconditional election made people who were under the Law want to be justified by faith. It is the free-will of wicked man that made them want to be justified by the Law.

If this is true then why did the Jews reject Christ?. How is it they were able to do this ? They were his elect, all that is, that were of the seed of Isaac.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Eric B]

Eric said
As it is unconditional election that makes people "want to be justified" either under the Law (right?) or the gospel, then it is both the same.

Wrong. Unconditional election made people who were under the Law want to be justified by faith. It is the free-will of wicked man that made them want to be justified by the Law.

Well, I apparently misunderstood what you meant by "trying to be justified by the Law". I thought you were referring to people who may have genuinely wanted to be saved, but were unaware that it is by faith and therefore tried to keep that Law. I see you are referring to those who try to justify themselves by their own righteousness. But still, the point was still that in your system, it is just as impossible for the lost to have this faith as it is to keep the Law perfectly, so both are unreachable goals unless you are unconditionally elected. Therefore, they are for all purposes, the same, except that God gives some new ability with the latter that He didn't give with the former.

It is free-will gospel that does not save. It is powerless in the face of man's rejection. The biblical gospel saves everyone it was meant to save. Yes, it is a means of our salvation, in the same sense as God's ordering of our circumstances, the terrors of the Law, or any other of the things God uses to preare us to repent and believe. But the gospel is the immediate outward means, the final link in God's plan for our salvation. That plan began in eternity when He predestined us, then called us, then justified us - and will eventually glorify us.

No, it is the total inability/unconditional election gospel that does not save, because it is just as unattainable as the Law, and only given to some. Therefore, it is the unconditional election decree that is what really saves. But don't forget, in free-will, nobody says man is just wallowing around in sin, and then suddenly snaps out of it and turns to God on his own. God has given the ability to believe to mean, and then still choose darkness over light.

I see how you view sovereign grace, but you fail to see the reality, my brother. The reality is that man IS guilty for being the wicked person he is, not just for refusing to repent of it. I know it doesn't fit too well with man's view of himself, but it is God's view we must bow to. You insist it would be unfair of God to hold man responsible for being evil, since he was born that way. You seek to avoid this by making him only responsible if he doesn't repent of his wickedness. That is merely human thinking. Paul answers it well when he responds to the objection 'Why does He still find fault?' by saying, Rom.9: 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Still using a passage that is not talking about "unable sinners held responsible". In fact, that passage clearly makes God "responsible" for the state of the "vessels". You can't have it both ways.
It's not "only responsible if he doesn't repent", but responsible for the light he is shown (John 3:19), which was sent to save men (v.17).

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Sorry, I've been out so long. Its been a busy few weeks.

No problem, brother. Just respond when you can. That's my m.o. as well.

Yes. He is thanking God for choosing to save the Gentiles. Not that all of them will be saved, but that they have been chosen to be granted entrance into God's covenant. Remeber this is a new concept to them....

We read of the Gentiles being selected to be included into God's covenant. "I will make them a people who are not my people."...
Read Romans 9:30: "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith" Is that individuals being elected to "righteousness?" No, its the nation. Do all Gentiles attain it? NO, because its through faith and not all choose to act in faith. The group is elected to attain righteousness through faith but only some of the group attains it. Explain that.

For a start, it is not THE Gentiles, i.e. the whole Gentile world, Paul speaks of. It is Gentiles who have attained to righteousness, believing Gentiles. That is the only group we can think of as being elected. O.K., even if we say it is of the Gentiles as a group of believers Paul speaks, which I deny, consider the impossibility of Peter's commandment to his readers in 2 Peter 1: 10Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;

These believers, whether Jew or Gentile, are to make their group election sure??? Certainly an impossibility. We can only take care of our own souls. But you then deny this speaks of the same election Paul spoke of, you say this IS individual election, but not to salvation - only to the benefits of it.

So you say that election is of Jews or Gentiles as groups to salvation, then, when that is shown to be an impossible meaning in 2 Peter 1, you say it is individual election, but only to the benefits.

Is the calling of 2 Peter 1 different from that of 1 Cor.1: 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29that no flesh should glory in His presence.?

How many callings and elections must be invented to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture that our calling and election is as individuals? We are individually called by our Heavenly Shepherd, we hear His voice as individuals and we respond as individuals. We certainly are all members of the same flock, same family, but we have an individual relationship to our God.

However, He didn't predestined us to be or not to be believers, instead He predestined what would happen to those who do believe. (<--- KEY POINT)

It certainly is a key point. It is absolute desperation that drives free-willism to assert this. Let's look at what Scripture actually says: Romans 8: 28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

1. Paul is speaking about the 'called' here.
2. He says those who would be called were first of all foreknown by God.
3. They were then predestined by God to be conformed to Christ's image.
4. They were then called.
5. They were then justified.
6. They were then glorified.

Note the order: LOVED;PREDESTINED;CALLED;JUSTIFIED;GLORIFIED.

How does your idea of calling and election fit in here? This passage shows us God's eternal love for a certain people - those whom He foreknew. THEM, and them only, He predestined, called, justified, glorified.

The call cannot mean a general call of the gospel that all might hear - the chain is unbroken, all who are called are justified <--- KEY POINT

On this verse Adam Clarke writes: "For your calling to believe the Gospel, and your election to be members of the Church of Christ, will be ultimately unprofitable to you, unless you hold fast what you have received by adding to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance etc."

Yes, Adam Clarke did believe in being saved and lost again. At least he makes more sense with this election that is individual and can be forfeited than any sort of corporate election.

Then the words you write must be as authorative as Paul's words. Afterall you too were "set apart from birth" and "effectually called." You too learned "directly from the Lord" and not from man. All these things Paul lists as reason for his aposolic authority to the churches he wrote yet you claim they are just as true of the church members as they are of him. Tell me, why would he list them as reasons for his authority if indeed they were common to all believers? What if someone claimed to be virgin born or sinless? Wouldn't that undermine Christ's authority to claim to share a part of his divine uniqueness? Sure it would, and you wouldn't stand for it. So too, when you claim to be "set apart", "effectually called" and "directly taught from above" you undermine the authority by which the apostles taught and ministered. What is the difference between you and Paul except that he claimed to be an apostle? What gives him the right to speak as an authority in you system. He was set apart just as you were, he was called just as you were and he was taught directly by Holy Spirit inspiration just as you were. You could still be writing our cannon!

Of course we are not called to be apostles. But we are called to be saints, set apart for God. It is that calling that both Paul and we share:

Rom.1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor.1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1 Cor.6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

CALLED to be SAINTS; SANCTIFIED; set apart for God. Same God; same sovereign work.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Mike said
If this is true then why did the Jews reject Christ?. How is it they were able to do this ? They were his elect, all that is, that were of the seed of Isaac.

The Jewish nation was elect, as God's instrument for accomplishing His salvation. But they were not elect for salvation as a whole. Israel only contained the elect in that sense.

The idea that Isaac's seed rather than Ishmael's was the chosen, is used as a type of the spiritual reality: Rom.9: 8That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. Paul makes the point elsewhere that it is not of Abraham's blood but of Abraham's faith that his children are made.

So Paul concludes in Rom.11: 7What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. It is not that God's election has failed, for all whom He has chosen He keeps safe. He reserves them for Himself, even in the midst of great apostasy.

One day He will bring the nation to repentance and they with the gentile believers will make up the final number of the Church.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said
But still, the point was still that in your system, it is just as impossible for the lost to have this faith as it is to keep the Law perfectly, so both are unreachable goals unless you are unconditionally elected. Therefore, they are for all purposes, the same, except that God gives some new ability with the latter that He didn't give with the former.

Yes. But the exception is THE thing.

No, it is the total inability/unconditional election gospel that does not save, because it is just as unattainable as the Law, and only given to some. Therefore, it is the unconditional election decree that is what really saves. But don't forget, in free-will, nobody says man is just wallowing around in sin, and then suddenly snaps out of it and turns to God on his own. God has given the ability to believe to mean, and then still choose darkness over light.

Eric, that is just illogical. My gospel saves the elect. Yes, the decree of election is a part of the means God uses, but likewise your system has God's provision of ability to believe. In neither system does the hearing of the gospel save on its own.

Still using a passage that is not talking about "unable sinners held responsible". In fact, that passage clearly makes God "responsible" for the state of the "vessels". You can't have it both ways.

Does it not in fact clearly state that the vessel is guilty, regardless of God creating the vessel in that state?


It's not "only responsible if he doesn't repent", but responsible for the light he is shown (John 3:19), which was sent to save men (v.17).

Surely that is covered in failure to repent. Let me ask you , Is man responsible for just being an evil person, regardless of any subsequent refusal to repent?

In Him

Ian

 

[Eric B]

Therefore, they are for all purposes, the same, except that God gives some new ability with the latter that He didn't give with the former.

Yes. But the exception is THE thing.

Well, if that's all, then He could have just as well given the ability to keep the Law to some in the OT, and it would be the same thing. So there is really no benefit in the NT, it's only unconditional election in the form of one given ability or another.

Eric, that is just illogical. My gospel saves the elect. Yes, the decree of election is a part of the means God uses, but likewise your system has God's provision of ability to believe. In neither system does the hearing of the gospel save on its own.

Well, I wasn't trying to say that just hearing alone saved. So yes, the means or provisions God uses are basically where the disagreement is.

Does it not in fact clearly state that the vessel is guilty, regardless of God creating the vessel in that state?

Actually, no! I'm not saying they weren't guilty, but "guilt" was not the point of the passage. "Not the children of the flesh (Physical Israel), but the children of the promise are counted as seed". And that God uses people, despite their "good or evil (i.e. "guilt")" to accomplish His purposes.

Surely that is covered in failure to repent. Let me ask you, Is man responsible for just being an evil person, regardless of any subsequent refusal to repent?

Well, "to him who knows to do right and does it not, to him it is sin". "Evil" is charged based on the light given, including the human conscience, which knows that things like killing and stealing are wrong. That's the responsibility, not some unconditional guilt pinned on someone just to make them a vessel of wrath. If he knows he is doing wrong, he can ask God to forgive him and save him. That is all that is meant by "repent" in this case. Yes, then the rest of repentance (stopping and turning) is done through God's regenerating power.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said
Well, if that's all, then He could have just as well given the ability to keep the Law to some in the OT, and it would be the same thing. So there is really no benefit in the NT, it's only unconditional election in the form of one given ability or another.

Same thing? If God had given any man the ability to keep the Law, then salvation would be of works, not grace. THAT is what God will not allow. No flesh shall glory in His presence. That is also the reason free-will is not sovereign - no one will be able to boast of their part in their salvation. It is all of grace. God even determined that most of the saved would be the weak/foolish/ignoble of this world, 'that no flesh should glory in His presence. ', 1 Cor.1:29.

If he knows he is doing wrong, he can ask God to forgive him and save him. That is all that is meant by "repent" in this case. Yes, then the rest of repentance (stopping and turning) is done through God's regenerating power.

So Mr. Free-willer in his unregenerate state can truly turn to God, but not actually turn from his sin until later?? The more I see the consequences of free-willism, the more I'm convinced of Calvinism.

For a man to have the ability to reject the god of this world and turn to the One True God, something that lies at the very heart of struggle for his soul, but then not be able to turn from lust, wrath, envy, etc. - that is truly amazing.

For us old Calvinists, the same power that enabled us to believe continues to enable us to put to death the deeds of the flesh.

In Him

Ian