The first part of your response separates ability to keep the Law from ability to believe, arguing that if God gives the latter, it is grace, but if God gives the former, then it is works. But then the last part of your response contradicts this with the typical lumping together of ability to simply turn to God, and ability to turn from sin. In other words, the whole argument of Calvinists here has been that faith is a "work", just as much as turning from sin, and if man could turn to God on his own, then he has "saved himself" and salvation is by works, and can supposedly boast. Yet based on that premise then, if God did give OT people ability to keep that Law, it would be as much "grace" as giving the ability to have faith. Or, on the flipside, they would NOT be able to boast, because their ability came only from God. The "grace" is the unconditional regeneration (God-granted ability) in itself, isn't it; not whatever means God hypothetically grants. This is why, I repeat, in your system, faith is for all purposes the same as Law, and the more I see the consequences of it, the more I'm convinced against Calvinism. There is no reason why God would not give the ability to call out to Him, and then regenerate them when they do. I have never heard of a drowning person who calls out for help, being boastful that he didn't drown like that other person who was too proud.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God, That's not fair!
- Thread starter Ian Major
- Start date
People who are "drowning in sin" cannot call out for help, unless they hear the word of God and the Holy Ghost moves them to believe it. I would be absolutely frightened to say that I was the one that started my faith in Jesus Christ.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually Genesis 6:5
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalms 14:2-3
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Romans 9:15-16
The first four words of the Holy Bible set the key/standard. It's about God, even your salvation. He is the Alpha and Omega of our salvation. If anything less is said you down play the sovereignty of God.
Your will is subject to your heart which only continually thinks evil. If your heart always thinks evil then how can it come to God who is only good. Notice in Romans that it does not say that some men willeth and then God shows mercy. I think the reason more and more people have drifted farther and farther from Calvanism(the truth) is because we are selfish and don't like that fact that the ball is not in our court but Gods. I dont think people like that fact that the world does not revolve around themselve, but that the universe totally and utterly revolves around God.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually Genesis 6:5
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalms 14:2-3
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Romans 9:15-16
The first four words of the Holy Bible set the key/standard. It's about God, even your salvation. He is the Alpha and Omega of our salvation. If anything less is said you down play the sovereignty of God.
Your will is subject to your heart which only continually thinks evil. If your heart always thinks evil then how can it come to God who is only good. Notice in Romans that it does not say that some men willeth and then God shows mercy. I think the reason more and more people have drifted farther and farther from Calvanism(the truth) is because we are selfish and don't like that fact that the ball is not in our court but Gods. I dont think people like that fact that the world does not revolve around themselve, but that the universe totally and utterly revolves around God.
by semamiyth
When Jesus said "I am the door", any religion man establishes, any creed he clings to, any belief he adheres to, any door he proposes to enter into, will not change and negate the fact that Jesus is THE door, and Him only.
Well put, brother (or sister ?).
When Jesus said "I am the door", any religion man establishes, any creed he clings to, any belief he adheres to, any door he proposes to enter into, will not change and negate the fact that Jesus is THE door, and Him only.
Eric said
The first part of your response separates ability to keep the Law from ability to believe, arguing that if God gives the latter, it is grace, but if God gives the former, then it is works. But then the last part of your response contradicts this with the typical lumping together of ability to simply turn to God, and ability to turn from sin. In other words, the whole argument of Calvinists here has been that faith is a "work", just as much as turning from sin, and if man could turn to God on his own, then he has "saved himself" and salvation is by works, and can supposedly boast.
My apologies, Eric. In my haste I did not grasp your meaning accurately, nor answer so. Rereading what you actually 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.', I agree with you.
God (in theory) could have saved us by grace, through WORKS - provided He gave the ability. The point about the Law, however, is that it did not have such a thing in view. The Law provided justification by man-originated works, and therefore was hopeless in the face of man's depravity.
But back the the crux of your argument, the issue I was not mistaken in confronting: 'no benefit in the NT' is obviously erroneous, for it ignores the REALITY that the actual Old Covenant was based on man's free-will works-righteousness. The New Covenant however, is based on God's free-will unconditional election, and irresistable grace - Jer.31: 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
There is no reason why God would not give the ability to call out to Him, and then regenerate them when they do. I have never heard of a drowning person who calls out for help, being boastful that he didn't drown like that other person who was too proud.
The idea that God has given everyone the ability to repent is contradicted by both Scripture and experience.
Scripture tells use that prior to the New Covenant age, the Gentiles in general were shut off from repentance. With the few exceptions, where God sovereignly intervened and called individuals to Himself (e.g. Rahab), the masses of mankind perished in their sins, without God and without hope.
Experience shows us that most of mankind perish in their sins, many without ever hearing the gospel.
You say everyone of these folk are given the ability to call out to God for salvation. Is this at a subconsciuos level? For if you ask the average heathen about his need to be saved by the True God, I'm sure you would find a denial of that need. Many are sure their false gods are the way to heaven. Many believe in no god at all.
Yet you say they have a real ability to turn, something that involves both the knowledge needed and the freedom to act. Surely, being free to choose either way, one would expect about 50% of the world to be saved?
Why are so few saved? Is it not because they are slaves to sin, blinded by their master, Satan? They need to be freed from that. They need to be given a new heart so that they will choose to follow the Lamb. Not all are given this new heart. Most are left with their own heart, and will always reject whatever they know of God, be it by conscience, creation, or the Gospel.
In Him
Ian
The first part of your response separates ability to keep the Law from ability to believe, arguing that if God gives the latter, it is grace, but if God gives the former, then it is works. But then the last part of your response contradicts this with the typical lumping together of ability to simply turn to God, and ability to turn from sin. In other words, the whole argument of Calvinists here has been that faith is a "work", just as much as turning from sin, and if man could turn to God on his own, then he has "saved himself" and salvation is by works, and can supposedly boast.
My apologies, Eric. In my haste I did not grasp your meaning accurately, nor answer so. Rereading what you actually 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.', I agree with you.
God (in theory) could have saved us by grace, through WORKS - provided He gave the ability. The point about the Law, however, is that it did not have such a thing in view. The Law provided justification by man-originated works, and therefore was hopeless in the face of man's depravity.
But back the the crux of your argument, the issue I was not mistaken in confronting: 'no benefit in the NT' is obviously erroneous, for it ignores the REALITY that the actual Old Covenant was based on man's free-will works-righteousness. The New Covenant however, is based on God's free-will unconditional election, and irresistable grace - Jer.31: 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
There is no reason why God would not give the ability to call out to Him, and then regenerate them when they do. I have never heard of a drowning person who calls out for help, being boastful that he didn't drown like that other person who was too proud.
The idea that God has given everyone the ability to repent is contradicted by both Scripture and experience.
Scripture tells use that prior to the New Covenant age, the Gentiles in general were shut off from repentance. With the few exceptions, where God sovereignly intervened and called individuals to Himself (e.g. Rahab), the masses of mankind perished in their sins, without God and without hope.
Experience shows us that most of mankind perish in their sins, many without ever hearing the gospel.
You say everyone of these folk are given the ability to call out to God for salvation. Is this at a subconsciuos level? For if you ask the average heathen about his need to be saved by the True God, I'm sure you would find a denial of that need. Many are sure their false gods are the way to heaven. Many believe in no god at all.
Yet you say they have a real ability to turn, something that involves both the knowledge needed and the freedom to act. Surely, being free to choose either way, one would expect about 50% of the world to be saved?
Why are so few saved? Is it not because they are slaves to sin, blinded by their master, Satan? They need to be freed from that. They need to be given a new heart so that they will choose to follow the Lamb. Not all are given this new heart. Most are left with their own heart, and will always reject whatever they know of God, be it by conscience, creation, or the Gospel.
In Him
Ian
No, the Old Covenant was based purely on God's Law, which man was hopeless to keep, not man's free will. Since man could not keep that Law, the NT introduces something that was not impossible to man: faith. (Rom.7:19) You have it backwards in that respect. Jer. does not say it is unconditional, irresistible grace. All it says is that that is now whoever believes will receive that promise.
I don't believe salvation was completely closed to all of them. It may have been much harder for them to get saved (I never said it was equal, like others may argue), hence the NT being "good news"; but still not completely shut out. Rom. 2 is one hint of this.
Also, a question I've been thinking of; especially in regard to the teaching of the Primitives here. When we hear "without hope", we think "oh, they had no way of escaping hell; there was absolutely no chance for them"; but this is how we use the word "hope". I believe it was in my debate with preterists (who say there is nothing prophetic in the future; we arwe already in the Eternal Kingdom/New Heavena & Earth; which to me dimmed our "hope"), that I looked up "hope", and it means "expectation", not "chance to escape [something]". The Primitives emphasize the Gospel being a proclamation to "feed the sheep". I would also add that since Christ was Lord and we were called to glorify Him, why shouldn't we proclaim His name and salvation? So that would be why He commands it, even though, as the Primitives argue, it is not really necessary for the person to "believe" to be elect. In other words, people who never heard may get to Heaven, but still, we are called to give them their "hope" (expectation) of what God has done, as well as proclaim His due glory to the nations. Why shouldn't that be done now? (And preterists would add that all the "salvation" and "damnation" spoken of for accepting or rejecting Christ was fulfilled with the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem, anyway). I'm not trying to deny the Gospel is necessary, but trying to be honest, and acknowledging popular interpretations one holds can be wrong, I just wanted to pose the question.
Once again, nobody is saying that man just snaps out of it with no move of God at all. No one is saying that man "starts" his faith or it isn't about God, He isn't the author andfinisher of salvation, etc. All of that is a Calvinist straw man caricature (And Calvinists are the ones always complaining about "caricatures" of their position, lately).
For one thing, I don't think the account of the period right before the flood is a universal description of man for all time. That period, man had gotten particularly wicked. It was so bad that God decided to destroy the whole world. Man's nature is always wicked, but as many scriptures show, it does get worse, and man is often given over to sins, as Rom. 1 shows. So you can't use that to say that man cannot even see his sin and repent, especially given passages saying that God is drawing all men. Most Calvinists deny that man can't ever do anything good ("is always as bas as he can be"), but that is what that reading of that passage would suggest.
I used the drowning analogy to show that the person who calls out and is then saved cannot boast of saving himself, but you seem to portray even that as the act of saving one's self ("calling out"="believing", so therefore the Holy Spirit must unconditionally grant both acts together as the same thing, and therefore gives no one else the ability to call out.)
As for "willing", that means that a person cannot determine how they will be saved, and cannot will himself to keep the Law perfectly (which would have been the only way one could save themselves). That has nothing to do with a simple calling out to God to save him. Once again, in Rom. 7:19 Paul distinguishes "will" from what actually prevents him from doing "that which is good", which of course is the sin nature. So it's NOT "the will prevents me from doing good, [and I cannot therefore even have faith without unconditional election]"
Attributing it to man's selfishness and trying to have the ball in his corner or the world revolve aroung him (and that other one that attributes it to "American spirit of independance") is ridiculous as well, though some nominal Christians might possibly be like that. Everyone arguing against this here are people who believe that God has saved them, and are concerned about the implications of this teaching to those not saved (not completely good news since God does not want most people saved!); your argument might fly if it was people who were not saved and were afraid they were preordained to Hell that were arguing our side.
GeneMBridges
New Member
"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)"
===========
This is a quote from someone or someone quoting someone. There's to much stuff on here for me to read, so I would just like to comment on this one piece.
If you say God didn't predestinate us to believe or not, then you take away from God's sovereignty. You would have to say that God is not all knowning to say that he didn't predestinate anyone to believe or not. Everything has been predestined. Not just some things.
===========
This is a quote from someone or someone quoting someone. There's to much stuff on here for me to read, so I would just like to comment on this one piece.
If you say God didn't predestinate us to believe or not, then you take away from God's sovereignty. You would have to say that God is not all knowning to say that he didn't predestinate anyone to believe or not. Everything has been predestined. Not just some things.
Once again, I think you're taking that one instance of the Bible (period right before the flood), and using it to build a case for total inability to an extent that the Bible does not really support. If what you said was true, then why would man be able to even "muster are acts of civil virtue" or "want the benefits of a relationship with God and be motivated toward virtuous acts"? (even if it was "works oriented"?) Sin is sin, and there is no such dichotomy of man's relationship to man and man's relationship with God, with man being able to do some good to one, but not the other.
I also forgot to address the citation of "no one seeks". "seek" in the Hebrew and Greek word translated here means to "frequent" or "follow" ("for pursuit or search"), or "search out", "investigate", "crave", "demand", and ultimately "worship". God giving an offer of salvation to man, and man accepting does not violate this, as that does not constitute things like "craving", "demanding", or even "pursuit", "search" and "investigate" in a sense that man initiates it. Man certainly doesn't on his own worship God (which these senses are really pointing to, for one "craving" Him would worship Him [properly]), and that is the point of the Psalm Paul quoted from. Paul's own context was the sinfulness of all men in general, Jew as well as gentile, not an individual's inability to repent. (Because the Jews thought only gentiles were "sinners", yet the Psalm is pointing out their sin as well). It has nothing to do with man responding to a call.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Do you have biblical support for this statement? You can't just presume that because the scripture teaches that believers are predestined to be conformed and adopted that all happenings are predestined in the same way. Nor can you merely assume that God would be compromising his sovereignty by allowing created beings to have some measure of freedom. These a are mere logical assumptions, not biblical teachings.
Eric said
No, the Old Covenant was based purely on God's Law, which man was hopeless to keep, not man's free will.
Think about it, Eric. What kept a man from obeying the Law? His evil heart, to which his will is tied. The Law said to that Heart and Will, 'Do this and live'. The answer was always 'NO'. Sure, it involved many struggles, for even the natural man is aware of his peril to some extent and will seek to earn his way to heaven if the cost is not too great. But the bottom line is always reached, and the world is chosen instead of Christ. Man needed his heart changed if his will was to accept Christ.
The Nation of Israel failed to keep the Law. An elect remnant saw beyond the Law to the One who would be their righteousness for them. They had this new heart.
In the New Covenant times Jew and Gentile are made aware that this salvation by faith is and has been the only means to be right with God. And in a coming day, all the Nation of Israel will be given a new heart, causing them to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Since man could not keep that Law, the NT introduces something that was not impossible to man: faith. (Rom.7:19) You have it backwards in that respect. Jer. does not say it is unconditional, irresistible grace. All it says is that that is now whoever believes will receive that promise.
The NT did not introduce faith - it was always the only means of salvation. So how come the great majority of the nation rejected God, if faith 'was not impossible to man'? No, faith is impossible to man because his heart is evil. Only when God changes his heart and gives him faith will he repent.
Jeremiah says the opposite of what you say. He - or rather God - says that the NC will be unlike the OC in that the OC was breakable. The NC cannot be broken. Why? Because God will write His Law on our minds and hearts. We will not be able to break it. The figure is also related to His promise in Ezekiel 36, where He promises a new heart, Ezek.36: 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Note the sovereign nature of this salvation: they are not asked for their consent beforehand - they are changed from within and then told to do His will. And they gladly do so.
I don't believe salvation was completely closed to all of them. It may have been much harder for them to get saved (I never said it was equal, like others may argue), hence the NT being "good news"; but still not completely shut out. Rom. 2 is one hint of this.
This should be an alarm to every free-willer. To hold to your system you have to allow for sinners being saved without the gospel. You cannot have, for example, aboriginals in Australia in Moses' time perishing without hope. You must allow that they have enough light from nature for them to repent and believe in the One True God. Never mind that the sacrifices were for Israel alone, and only those heathens whom God brought into Israel (e.g. Rahab) are declared to be saved. The rest were 'without God and without hope'.
Also, a question I've been thinking of; especially in regard to the teaching of the Primitives here. When we hear "without hope", we think "oh, they had no way of escaping hell; there was absolutely no chance for them"; but this is how we use the word "hope".... I looked up "hope", and it means "expectation", not "chance to escape [something]". The Primitives emphasize the Gospel being a proclamation to "feed the sheep". I would also add that since Christ was Lord and we were called to glorify Him, why shouldn't we proclaim His name and salvation? So that would be why He commands it, even though, as the Primitives argue, it is not really necessary for the person to "believe" to be elect. In other words, people who never heard may get to Heaven, but still, we are called to give them their "hope" (expectation) of what God has done, as well as proclaim His due glory to the nations. Why shouldn't that be done now?... I'm not trying to deny the Gospel is necessary, but trying to be honest, and acknowledging popular interpretations one holds can be wrong, I just wanted to pose the question.
Eric, I respect your openess about this. First, let me say I know little about the Primitives. However, the idea that the elect can be saved without the gospel is foolish, for God has tasked the church to go through blood and tears to bring the Word to His elect. A tragic waste if they can be saved otherwise. Paul says in Rom.10: 13For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." He then goes on to say, 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? The gospel is the means of salvation. Yes, God may choose to personally confront an individual, as with Saul of Tarsus, but it is the gospel with which He confronts him.
As to 'hope' meaning 'expectation', of course that is its meaning - I hope for my wages week by week. I expect them to be in the bank. The specific reference to what is hoped for comes from the context. Concerning 'hope' in Ephesians 2: 12that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. - the expectation is salvation. So Gentiles were hopeless regarding salvation. They had no grounds to expect it. They were without the One who provides it. But in these NC days, God has brought you and me and every other true follower of his Son into the commonwealth of Israel. We are just as sure of His salvation as are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. :love:LORD!
In Him
Ian
No, the Old Covenant was based purely on God's Law, which man was hopeless to keep, not man's free will.
Think about it, Eric. What kept a man from obeying the Law? His evil heart, to which his will is tied. The Law said to that Heart and Will, 'Do this and live'. The answer was always 'NO'. Sure, it involved many struggles, for even the natural man is aware of his peril to some extent and will seek to earn his way to heaven if the cost is not too great. But the bottom line is always reached, and the world is chosen instead of Christ. Man needed his heart changed if his will was to accept Christ.
The Nation of Israel failed to keep the Law. An elect remnant saw beyond the Law to the One who would be their righteousness for them. They had this new heart.
In the New Covenant times Jew and Gentile are made aware that this salvation by faith is and has been the only means to be right with God. And in a coming day, all the Nation of Israel will be given a new heart, causing them to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Since man could not keep that Law, the NT introduces something that was not impossible to man: faith. (Rom.7:19) You have it backwards in that respect. Jer. does not say it is unconditional, irresistible grace. All it says is that that is now whoever believes will receive that promise.
The NT did not introduce faith - it was always the only means of salvation. So how come the great majority of the nation rejected God, if faith 'was not impossible to man'? No, faith is impossible to man because his heart is evil. Only when God changes his heart and gives him faith will he repent.
Jeremiah says the opposite of what you say. He - or rather God - says that the NC will be unlike the OC in that the OC was breakable. The NC cannot be broken. Why? Because God will write His Law on our minds and hearts. We will not be able to break it. The figure is also related to His promise in Ezekiel 36, where He promises a new heart, Ezek.36: 26I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Note the sovereign nature of this salvation: they are not asked for their consent beforehand - they are changed from within and then told to do His will. And they gladly do so.
I don't believe salvation was completely closed to all of them. It may have been much harder for them to get saved (I never said it was equal, like others may argue), hence the NT being "good news"; but still not completely shut out. Rom. 2 is one hint of this.
This should be an alarm to every free-willer. To hold to your system you have to allow for sinners being saved without the gospel. You cannot have, for example, aboriginals in Australia in Moses' time perishing without hope. You must allow that they have enough light from nature for them to repent and believe in the One True God. Never mind that the sacrifices were for Israel alone, and only those heathens whom God brought into Israel (e.g. Rahab) are declared to be saved. The rest were 'without God and without hope'.
Also, a question I've been thinking of; especially in regard to the teaching of the Primitives here. When we hear "without hope", we think "oh, they had no way of escaping hell; there was absolutely no chance for them"; but this is how we use the word "hope".... I looked up "hope", and it means "expectation", not "chance to escape [something]". The Primitives emphasize the Gospel being a proclamation to "feed the sheep". I would also add that since Christ was Lord and we were called to glorify Him, why shouldn't we proclaim His name and salvation? So that would be why He commands it, even though, as the Primitives argue, it is not really necessary for the person to "believe" to be elect. In other words, people who never heard may get to Heaven, but still, we are called to give them their "hope" (expectation) of what God has done, as well as proclaim His due glory to the nations. Why shouldn't that be done now?... I'm not trying to deny the Gospel is necessary, but trying to be honest, and acknowledging popular interpretations one holds can be wrong, I just wanted to pose the question.
Eric, I respect your openess about this. First, let me say I know little about the Primitives. However, the idea that the elect can be saved without the gospel is foolish, for God has tasked the church to go through blood and tears to bring the Word to His elect. A tragic waste if they can be saved otherwise. Paul says in Rom.10: 13For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." He then goes on to say, 14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? The gospel is the means of salvation. Yes, God may choose to personally confront an individual, as with Saul of Tarsus, but it is the gospel with which He confronts him.
As to 'hope' meaning 'expectation', of course that is its meaning - I hope for my wages week by week. I expect them to be in the bank. The specific reference to what is hoped for comes from the context. Concerning 'hope' in Ephesians 2: 12that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. - the expectation is salvation. So Gentiles were hopeless regarding salvation. They had no grounds to expect it. They were without the One who provides it. But in these NC days, God has brought you and me and every other true follower of his Son into the commonwealth of Israel. We are just as sure of His salvation as are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. :love:LORD!
In Him
Ian
Do you have biblical support for this statement? You can't just presume that because the scripture teaches that believers are predestined to be conformed and adopted that all happenings are predestined in the same way. Nor can you merely assume that God would be compromising his sovereignty by allowing created beings to have some measure of freedom. These a are mere logical assumptions, not biblical teachings. </font>[/QUOTE]For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his SON, that he might be the firstbord among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified them he also glorified Romans 8:29-30
But then this gets back to what I said before. There really is no difference between the OC and NC. Salvation was always by unconditional election with "faith" as a means. Only now, people were "made aware" of it as you said. In that light:
I did not mean that the NT introduced faith, but sort of like what you just said, it was here that it was more clearly proclaimed. It's not that people were "made aware" as if it was never revealed before. (Hab.2:4) Still, in your system, what difference does even all of that make? In either covenant, God only makes some aware, and then actively "blinds" the rest by passively "leaving them in their state". The Godd News then, is not anything peculiar to the New Covenant, and not for all men, but in every age, only some will be offered salvation. Just hope you are one of them. PReaching then, really is not necessary, esxcept as a script --er, "means" to just accomplish a dual goal of salvation and damnation. That is not really any good news unto all men at all.
Sacrifices did not bring salvation anyway, as we saw with all of the Israelites who still were lost. The main theory behind that is that if they did cry out to the one true God, He would send a missionary to them. Back in the days of Israel, when Christ was not even here, they would be saved the same way Israel was (and once again, it was not by sacrifices, because the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sin). So they in that sense, even if you hold to the unconditional election of OT saints, were technically "saved without the Gospel", meaning the proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth dying on the Cross. Some try to say "It was all revealed in the OT, so they all still "believed in Christ", but while they may have looked forward to some things about the Messiah, they did not have a working knowledge of "Jesus Christ at Calvary". So I guess this could be extended even to those after Christ who the Gospel has not reached yet. Christ would still be the means by which they were saved.
Not a waste if the purpose of bringing the Word is for the purpose of proclaiming God's glory, and giving them the hope, even of it might possibly come to them unexpectedly otherwise. Those passages don't actually say "salvation", at least in the sense of the afterlife, which is what we in this debate have been focusing on. Being "without God and without hope" in that sense would not be referring to what happens when they die, but rather an unfortunate state in this world, which we are called to remedy. Also, a lot of this is in light of the doctrine of preterism, which applies almost all of the "salvation" and "damnation" references to AD70; at least if they're consistant. I fought this doctrine tooth and nail over on Other Religions, but they did have a lof of good points, even though there are some obvious holes left open.
So I'm not seriously arguing all of this, but I do wonder, expecially given all of the hard questions left by the common understanding of scripture. I guess just concluding they were vessels of wrath with their place and time simply being a "means" God uses to make them vessels of wrath is also an "easy" way of resolving that, though it has an even "harder" implication. That to me, compromises the concept of "Good News". You would say with so many being lost, it would be the same in a free-will system anyway, and that at least yours has God "in control". But that does not make the news any more good, except to the elect.
I guess, I often hope we were wrong, and that that theory turns out to be true. For now, I will not just "believe it because it sounds good" (What Arminians are often accused of here, anyway), but if more of us had that kind of attitude, then perhaps the world would see Christianity as more good news, instead of a bunch of bloodthirsty cold hypocrites who love the idea of people roasting in Hell.
I don't see your point. The fact is that the good news is not good news to those who perish. This is true regardless of whether you believe in free will or election.
Our job is not to alter the good news in order to make it seem like "better" good news to all, but to proclaim the Gospel and let the chips fall where God intends them to fall. Consider this section of 2 Cor 2:
It is unfortunate that the NIV arbitrarily adds the words "for profit" to "peddle the word of God", because that alters the meaning of the whole section. Young's Literal Translation makes the meaning even more clear, IMO:
In other words, we who present the Gospel are the fragrance of death to death and the fragrance of life to life, and we're not - as many others do - adulterating the word of God in order that it should be more palatable - we're just sincerely speaking the truth of God in Christ, and it works death in those who are perishing, and life in those who are being saved.
But our overall message is not really that God offers salvation to all, but that most He does not even want to save, rather than salvation ios open to all, and you must choose. Some of you will claim to affirm the latter, but then you must aoways add "well, whoever does not choose was never given the ability to anyway". However you slice it, the message that sends is that salvation is not really open to most (let alone "all") at all. And it's the message that is actually sent that is more important than what we say we "mean". (Hence the confusion in the debate, with Calvinists always claiming to be misunderstood or misrepresented). There may be some questions that are hard for the other side to answer, but I think your side goes way too far in deducing something like God passing over all who will be lost, unconditionally.
Never said we should "alter" or "adulterate" it; I was talking about our "attitude", and many people in issues like this can't seem to recognize attitude in preaching the truth, and how it can make the gospel unnecessarily, or more "offensive" than it really is. (e.g. Rom.2:24). "I got mine, so it is good news to me, and that is all that matters; and the rest can roast in Hell' (Some, including Spurgeon, even thought that this would be a source of awe for he saved to watch!) is not the attitude anyone should have. I'm not saying that all of you (or even any of you here) are like this, but this is the perception that many in the world have gotten from Christians over the centuries. That's all I was addressing.
Also keep in mind, some of the thoughts I was posting above I was not seriously arguing, but just asking a question.
As for fragrance of life vs. fragrance of death, these are not groups of predetermined individuals, because many who were lost reacted the same way all of their lives, until being converted. All that says is whoever in a given point of time is in the lost state it will be a fragrance of death, and as long as they harden their hearts,, it works death in them. Still, once again, we do not have to make it more of a fragrance of death than it actually is by raising such hypothesis as "God did not want you to be saved if you die without receiving Him".
Wow! Haven't seen you in such a long time. Forgot all about you. Must have been way back in the old days with Larry and the others here.
Whether free will or election advocates say it, it is incorrect (IMO) to say that "they were never given the ability to choose". The Bible does not teach that we are unable to choose, but that we are by nature unwilling to choose God. Therefore, given only the "ability to choose", nobody would choose salvation.
It is more accurate is that "they were never given the desire to choose otherwise". There is a huge difference. The former implies that, given the ability to choose, some of the lost might choose salvation, and if God denies them free will, He arbitrarily locks them out of something they might want. The latter clearly states that, given the ability to choose, they would never choose salvation because their will is bent against it.
And, IMO, that's what Paul is saying. He's not "peddling" the Gospel -- that is, he's not interested in making it less offensive or more appealing (which, IMO, is adulterating it), but simply stating the truth.
I have a hard time believing Jesus cares about what parts of the truth offend anyone. Note John 6...
Then note carefully what follows...
Jesus doesn't seem terribly concerned that He "lost" many of the disciples because they were offended at His truth. It's hard to understand why outside of the context of election, which is stated clearly in verse 65.
That's true, but all it says is that we're all perishing until we are saved. It doesn't speak to free will or election either way.
That all is still "ability". Having this supposed will that makes it impossible to choose favorably makes then "unable"! (and this whole "will" concept is drawn from some verses on man's sin/works that are overgeneralized to include will to choose God). Your whole "given the ability to choose" scenario becomes meaningless, and is basically an admission that they were not given ability. Giving them the "desire" IS "giving them the ability" in that case. They certainly won't want to be in Hell, and might then wish they had "chosen". (they won't be singing "Good riddance to God"; though some now do think Hell will be some kind of party with all their friends). In both sides, that would be the case, but still, in your side, they never were in any sense "able".
But He also didn't add teachings just to make it more hard, or try to justify teachings as if "because it's hard, it must be the truth", either. He did not gloat or think people's destruction was good, or stuff like that. Those were my only points in that area.
Common mistake" thinking the people were being offended at Christ's supposed teaching of "unconditional election"; so there, that proves it's truth baseed on its "hardness"
They were offended at their misunderstanding of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" (v.51-60). Then, it's in this context that He refers again to no one coming to Him unless "given him" of the Father (v.65). This refers to the blinding of the Jews (as discussed in Rom.9) that would prevent them from understanding Christ's parabolic language (Mt.13:11-15), and instead, only take such things as this literally and thus get offended. You have to take verses like this in their context.
That's all I was pointing out.
I don't know of any people who present the Gospel that way, let alone because they believe in election, so I guess I don't get your point. In fact, the only time I ever hear anyone ever bring up the issue of election/free will when sharing the Gospel is when they present it as a free will choice. (Even Billy Graham does this, no? I know C.S. Lewis taught that.) So I'm not sure what you are saying about attitude ever surfaces. If it does, I've never witnessed it.
Ironically, my belief in election is the reason why I don't consider attitude about election (or even free will) a problem. If God intends to use the truth (however it is wrapped) to bring someone to Him, then His will in this matter cannot be thwarted. That's why I think many are saved by hearing the message through Billy Graham, even though I happen to believe Graham has it wrong with respect to free will.
Yes, I agree. I'm sorry if I failed to present my point well enough - which was that Jesus was not concerned about whether or not they were offended by the truth. Why? Because it doesn't matter. After all, He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." So it didn't matter if His talk about eating His flesh and drinking His blood had offended them.
Drawing someone to salvation is not a matter of making things attractive, because you don't draw them, the Father does. Conversely, you can't drive away the elect by making things unattractive, because it is the Father who draws them -- in spite of you, if necessary.
(I am using the editorial "you", not you in particular.)
By the way, it's nice to be back and nice to be exchanging these messages with you again. Lots of important changes in my life (many of them wonderful) and a bout with Bell's Palsy kept me off Baptist Board for a while.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I asked for biblical support for this statement:
This verse says NOTHING about God predestinating belief. Nor does it support the logic that God must do so in order to remain fully sovereign. Nor does it support the logic that God's omniscence is comprised in the presence of other beings with freedom. These are all merely speculations and assertions you bring to the text.
To Skandelon:
It says God predestinates us to this order:
to be called, once called...to be justified.
Now to be JUSTIFIED is to be IN Christ: "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ"
If He predstinates us to be justified, He predestines us to be in Christ.
Once justified, we will soon be glorified in perfection.
"being JUSTIFIED freely by His GRACE, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24)
Again, if we are predestined to be called, and the called He justified...than that leads us to the fact that He DID predestinate us into Christ.
It says God predestinates us to this order:
to be called, once called...to be justified.
Now to be JUSTIFIED is to be IN Christ: "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ"
If He predstinates us to be justified, He predestines us to be in Christ.
Once justified, we will soon be glorified in perfection.
"being JUSTIFIED freely by His GRACE, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24)
Again, if we are predestined to be called, and the called He justified...than that leads us to the fact that He DID predestinate us into Christ.