God, That's not fair!

[Bartholomew]

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Unbelievers don't love God.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

He predestinated those who love God to be conformed to the image of his Son.

30 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.

This is what happened to those predestined to the image of his Son: they were called, justified and are certain of glorification.

 

[Skandelon]

Well stated Bartholomew!

Calvin4me, this verse never says we were predestined to be called and justified. It says those who love God are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image and MOREOVER those predestined to be conformed had been called, justified (through faith which is understood) and glorified.

This passage is clearly describing what God has done for those who love him. It doesn't explain man's role in that process, but even Calvinists must admit that faith fits in this process somewhere.

 

[calvin4me]

Then how do you describe this verse:
"Blessed is the man YOU choose, and CAUSE to approach you." (Ps.65:4)

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by calvin4me:
Then how do you describe this verse:
"Blessed is the man YOU choose, and CAUSE to approach you." (Ps.65:4)

Yes and in verse 1 of the same passage it says that all flesh will come to him and later it says the hills and grain will shout for joy and sing praise. Don't know if that is the best place to pull soteriological absolutes from, do you?

Plus, Arminians don't deny that God chooses certain men and "cause them to approach him." Look at Paul for example. But I believe the effectuality of his call was unique to his apostleship. Why? Because he refered to it as reason for his unique authority. If every believer was called effectually in such manner then they too could claim such authority.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
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.

Actually, the verse is pretty clear with respect to God's sovereignty in salvation.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

For whom He foreknew

The word for foreknew is proginosko, which refers to people He knew intimately in advance. "For whom He foreknew" is opposed to "Those whom He did NOT foreknow". For an example of the latter, see Matthew 7:23, And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Jesus did not say "depart from me, workers of iniquity, I never knew what you were going to choose." There is no implication here of foreknowledge of events (such as what they would choose of their own free will).

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined

Those He knew intimately in advance, He also predestined. As opposed to whom? As opposed to those He did not foreknow, whom He did NOT predestine (to conform to the image of His son).

whom He predestined, these He also called;

Again, He also called those whom He predestined. As opposed to whom? As opposed to those He did not predestine (to conform to the image of His son). So God did not call everyone.

whom He called, these He also justified;

Who did God justify? Those He called. As opposed to whom? Those He did not call. And who did He call? Those He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. As opposed to whom? Those He did NOT predestine to be conformed to the image of His Son. And whom did He predestine? Those He foreknew. As opposed to whom? Those He did not foreknow.

And so on... salvation all comes down to whom God foreknew, not who chooses to believe. If "foreknew" implied at all a foreknowledge of what they would do - believe or not believe - then one might conclude from this passage that salvation might hinge upon man's choice. But that's not what the word says.

 

[Skandelon]

See the thread "Seek and save the Lost" for my reply.

 

[semamiyth]

This verse says NOTHING about God predestinating belief.

Notice that everyone who God foreknew, those he also called. God already foreknew everyone that he was going to call, before the foundation of the world. And everyone that is called, was written in the Book of life before the world began. The verse does not read:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, they chose him: and those who chose, them he also justified

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn 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. Roman 8:29-30

Notice also that God calls people according to his purpose in verse 28.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Rev. 17:8

God calling people goes hand in hand with God electing. Therefore I would like to point out that nobody seeks God, or chooses Jesus Christ on their own.

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one Roman 3:11

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

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

If your thoughts are only evil all the time, you cannot come to Jesus Christ by yourself.

Whence then cometh wisdom? and where is the place of understanding? Seeing it is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air. Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame thereof with out ears. God understandeth the way there of, and he knoweth the place thereof. Job 28:20-23

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, There fore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father John 6:65

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is , but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him Luke 11:22

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by semamiyth:
I would like to point out that nobody seeks God, or chooses Jesus Christ on their own.

Nobody here is saying that anyone can choose or seek Christ on their own.

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one Roman 3:11

This certainly shows the fallenness of man's heart after the fall but it never teaches us that men cannot respond in faith to the call of the gospel message.

I agree that if mankind were left on his own without God's intervention that men wouldn't seek him and would be without any goodness, but that is not what happened. God sent Jesus, the apostles and the gospel message into the world. That is the means of intervention He chose. So you can quote every verse in the scripture that tells about men's inability to save himself without God's intervention but until you prove that the invention of Christ, the apostles and the gospel wasn't enough the Calvinistic claims remain unfounded.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said,
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.

Eric, you are confusing the Old Covenant with salvation in Old Covenant times. The OC was based on man's will -'Do this and live'. NO salvation came through it. Salvation in that time came depending on a Covenant that would one day be established, the New Covenant, established by Christ's blood. That covenant covered all believers throughout the ages. The NC was based on God's will -'I will put my Law in their minds, etc.'

Yes, salvation was always by unconditional election. Yes, it has been made plain now that salvation only comes this way. The OC proved man's utter inability to save himself, and his absolute need of a Saviour.

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.

Again, salvation was always outside the OC. Those who trusted in the OC perished. Only those who had hearts of flesh believed the gospel preached in the Garden, by Noah, Abraham, etc. They alone saw beyond the types and shadows to the coming One who would bear away their sin.

So there is no difference in method of salvation before or after the Cross. It was always based on the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

One difference in the two ages is that of the reach of salvation: in the former, by God's sovereign choice, it had been mainly restricted to Israel and his descendants. Sovereign exceptions were made. But in the age of the NC, salvation has been granted to the Gentiles in a big way. Multitudes of them are being brought into the commonwealth of Israel, made fellow-heirs.

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.

Right, like breathing is not necessary to life, just a means to that end!!! Eric, the means are necessary, preaching is necessary to convey the Word, the Word necessary to inform the will and bring the Spirit to change the heart to move that will. I know you are saying that if God has appointed some to believe, then the means are unnecessary. But they are necessary because God has chosen this path to bring His people under the blood of Christ.

Could He have chosen a different way? Could He have let people continue through life ignorant of His very existence and when they die, whip them ino His presence and say, Rejoice, for Christ has paid for your sins and given you His righteousness? I don't know, but I DO know that He has chosen to do otherwise. That is why I refute any idea that those who never hear the gospel can be saved.

This gospel I preach is good news to all who will receive it. It is not meant to be good news to those who reject it. It is the message of death to them. 'Flee from the wrath to come' is good news to those who want to flee, no matter the cost to them. It is very bad news to those who don't want to flee, for it assures them that the Wrath is coming.

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).

Calvinists have no problem with anyone crying out to God and Him sending them the gospel. Rahab and other OT Gentiles were saved this way. They were sovereign exceptions to God's choice of Israel as His people. The point is, they were not saved apart from the gospel, not saved apart from becoming a part of Israel. They were then covered (in type) by the blood of atonement. The rest of the world was not.

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.

Utterly wrong, Eric. The Word preached in the OT times was the gospel, just was surely as that preached by John the Baptist and our Lord Himself, and that preached by the apostles and the church since. The later contained much more of the glorious detail, but the former had all the essentials. Your defination of the gospel is faulty. So all today who do not hear the gospel will perish. Knowing that there is a God is not enough, trying to please him by our works and suffering is not enough. We must hear of His righteousness and trust in His Son to receive it.

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.

The gospel is NOT only about proclaiming God's glory. It is about saving His people. It is HIS means to save His people. Without the gospel they remain without Him and without hope in this world or the next.

The Preterists (Full) are indeed an Other Religion. They have so twisted Scripture to establish their own doctrines that I cannot conceive how any are truly saved. I may be wrong, and some are just taken captive by Satan and deluded. I pray it may be so. But their doctrine is straight from the pit.


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'm sorry you see John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, Gresham Machen, Martin Lloyd-Jones, Al Martin, John McArthur, and a vast array of godly men down the ages as 'bloodthirsty cold hypocrites who love the idea of people roasting in hell'. I'm sure there are such in the annals of history, but I've never read or encountered any. Can you give me the evidence for your description of Calvinists? I think you will find in the writings and sermons and conversation s of most Calvinists a compassion for souls,and an earnest pleading with men because we know the terror of the Lord.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Oops. Sorry I almost missed this one...

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.

Of course, this is part of my point. Its not about all the individuals but about the group in general. He divides the group as those attaining righteousness = Gentiles and those not attaining righteousness = Jews. We know because of the very fact that Paul is a Jew that he is not speaking of every individual within those two larger groups. He is speaking generally. This goes to show my point about Romans 9's intent. It is not about specific "elect" individual being chosen for salvation and all other being hardened to certain damnation. Its about two groups in general. One group is being hardened temporarily because of their continued rebellion in the face of God's hands being held out to them and the other is a group who is unworthy to even be called a nation who is now believeing and being ingrafted into the covenant. The Gentiles are "being shown mercy" and the Jews are objects of wrath who made themselves "fit for destruction."

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.

Why do you think he couldn't be refering to a group making their election sure? Think about it, many people were doubting the validity of a Gentile church in those days simply because they had Gentiles. Why did they doubt it? Because they doubted that God would choose or "elect" a group of dirty Gentiles. So Peter's instruction to make their election sure would have been a challenge to them to show themselves and those around them that their faith is geniune and thus their calling is too. The measure of ones calling was the change of lifestyle and the fruit that came. To show the world that they were called and truely elected as a people they couldn't "fall" back into their old way of life. Notice that he does speak of falling in that passage which wouldn't happen to the elect of Calvinistic dogma, so why does Peter warn against 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.

First, as I have shown its not an impossible meaning. Second, isn't it possible for God to have chosen that a group of people would be granted entrance into the covenant through without individually selecting people from that group to receive faith to the neglect of the rest? I think you must admit its possible. Now, if it is possible look at these passages with that possiblity in mind and see if it could be understood with that intent. I think if you are objective you will see that it can and in fact if you spend some time really studing this objectively you will come to find that it is even more likely.

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.[/i]?

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.

Nothing new must be "invented," you just must understand what exists. Who was known at that time as being the "weak" and "despised" of that day? Was it not the Gentile people? Jews throught of them like trash and indeed it was these people God has chosen to shame them. It fits perfectly into the idea of God electing or choosing the Getiles as a group. BTW, we are not one flock, but two. Remember Jesus' teaching in John 10 when he speaks of the first flock and then the second flock that must be brought in? The first are the remnant of Jews selected to take the message to the world and the second flock were those who believed in Christ through their message, which mostly consisted of Gentiles.

Me: 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

Where does faith fit into that unbroken chain? Paul doesn't address it does he? Does that mean it doesn't have a place in the process? Or could it be that it is assumed? We have no idea whether he assumed it as being effectually given to all God foreknew and predestined or if Paul was speaking about groups in general once again meaning..."And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose [from the Jews and also the Gentiles]. 29For whom He foreknew [yes even Gentiles were foreknown], 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 [who responded in faith], these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified

Notice that I said those called "who responded in faith" these he also justified. Now you may repell that statement at first glace but to be honest you have to accept it if you truely affirm salvation is by grace through faith. These leaves the question unanswered as to the effectual cause of man's response but this passage doesn't address it and can't be used as some kind of an "end all debate" passage.

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.

Yes it is the same God but its not the same work. Notice the passages you selected never speak of the individual being set apart from birth, they may have been set apart after their faith (sanctified) but nothing is said about their being individually chosen or effectually called to sainthood. Paul shares in the calling to sainthood and these are the verses that point to that shared calling, but Paul's calling to apostleship is seperate and its described as individual and effectual, the call to salvation that he shares with the saints doesn't use that language. My charge against Calvinism has always been that they take passages having to do with the effectual and individual nature of God calling to aposleship and appling it to God's calling to salvation. Even by your own admission they are different calls, but you have still failed to show me what is different about them. The only difference I see in them is the title and who is to say that Paul didn't just give himself that title? What power or uniqueness is there in the apostle's call?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
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'm sorry you see John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, Gresham Machen, Martin Lloyd-Jones, Al Martin, John McArthur, and a vast array of godly men down the ages as 'bloodthirsty cold hypocrites who love the idea of people roasting in hell'. I'm sure there are such in the annals of history, but I've never read or encountered any. Can you give me the evidence for your description of Calvinists? I think you will find in the writings and sermons and conversation s of most Calvinists a compassion for souls,and an earnest pleading with men because we know the terror of the Lord.

I try not to interviene to much in others discussions but I wanted to say something about this. I don't want to speak for Eric but it doesn't seem by his statement that he views Calvinistic doctrine or those who hold to it as "bloodthirsty cold hypocrites..." but instead the way in which the world sees us as a group. If you honestly think about it from the perspective of those who are lost the message of Calvinistic dogma is very harsh. In fact it would be difficult to call the Calvinistic gospel "good news" in light of the fact that its not good for most people in the world.

I've heard many Calvinistic preachers and ministers speak about how the Calvinistic doctrine is for the saved and only the mature. Why? Where does the bible warn us that certain parts of its teaching are not to be preached to the lost? I think Calvinists realize the implications of their message to a lost world and know its not the message of hope they need to hear. In fact, let me ask what hope is there in the Calvinistic message for one who is lost? Most immature believers and even some unbelievers that I have come in contact with have responded to Calvinism's dogma by asking, "So what does it matter what I do, I don't have any say in it anyway?"

Granted it is a bad reaction and it immature. Its not what Calvinists teach or believe, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that most react that way to it. I don't believe that is a biblical reaction to the message being preached then. No one ever says, "Oh well, God has already decided so it doesn't matter what I do."

Think about it, in our history there has always been fractions of Hyper Calvinists who didn't believe evangelism was necessary. Tell me where that fraction was during biblical times since apparently everyone was "Calvinistic?" Why wasn't Paul warning against the Hyperism tendenies of his doctrine? Where were the immature ones saying, "So it doesn't matter what I do because its already decided?" They don't exist because that is never what the biblical authors taught. They taught men were responsible, which means "response able" or "able to respond." And they taught that men were held accountable to that response. Calvinism undermines that whole structure and would certainly cause the outside world to view Christians in a much darker light than true biblical Christianity would otherwise be viewed.

 

[Eric B]

Eric, you are confusing the Old Covenant nwith salvation in Old Covenant times. The OC was based on man's will -'Do this and live'. NO salvation came through it. Salvation in that time came depending on a Covenant that would one day be established, the New Covenant, established by Christ's blood. That covenant covered all believers throughout the ages. The NC was based on God's will -'I will put my Law in their minds, etc.'

Yes, salvation was always by unconditional election. Yes, it has been made plain now that salvation only comes this way. The OC proved man's utter inability to save himself, and his absolute need of a Saviour.

Again, salvation was always outside the OC. Those who trusted in the OC perished. Only those who had hearts of flesh believed the gospel preached in the Garden, by Noah, Abraham, etc. They alone saw beyond the types and shadows to the coming One who would bear away their sin.

So there is no difference in method of salvation before or after the Cross. It was always based on the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

One difference in the two ages is that of the reach of salvation: in the former, by God's sovereign choice, it had been mainly restricted to Israel and his descendants. Sovereign exceptions were made. But in the age of the NC, salvation has been granted to the Gentiles in a big way. Multitudes of them are being brought into the commonwealth of Israel, made fellow-heirs.

But according to you, believing on Christ and having faith or receiving that good news is just as much a case of "do this and live" that man is utterly unable to do. THIS was the basis of my original claim that the NC to you winds up no better than the OC. Then yes, the only benefit now is that it is spread to select [relative] few over a broader area.

Right, like breathing is not necessary to life, just a means to that end!!!

Yes it is

This gospel I preach is good news to all who will receive it. It is not meant to be good news to those who reject it. It is the message of death to them.

But you make it sound like it was specifically designed to be that way. But no, it is just as you next said, It is bad news to those who don't want to flee, for it assures them that the Wrath is coming. And they would have to give up this and that to do it. Not that God tailored either they or the message to be at odds.

Utterly wrong, Eric. The Word preached in the OT times was the gospel, just was surely as that preached by John the Baptist and our Lord Himself, and that preached by the apostles and the church since. The later contained much more of the glorious detail, but the former had all the essentials. Your defination of the gospel is faulty.

Yes, all the essentials were there, but what I meant was that they did not have the name, Jesus, (or the details of Him) which many see as THE essential, based on Acts 4:12.

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Why do you think he couldn't be refering to a group making their election sure? Think about it, many people were doubting the validity of a Gentile church in those days simply because they had Gentiles. Why did they doubt it? Because they doubted that God would choose or "elect" a group of dirty Gentiles. So Peter's instruction to make their election sure would have been a challenge to them to show themselves and those around them that their faith is geniune and thus their calling is too. The measure of ones calling was the change of lifestyle and the fruit that came. To show the world that they were called and truely elected as a people they couldn't "fall" back into their old way of life.

'Your' call and election - if this refers to the group 'believing Gentiles', then no individual can make the group's condition sure. Individuals can do so only for themselves. Moreover, if it is the group, then this verse admits of the possibility that no Gentiles will end up saved: the group may fall, and with it the Word of God.

So it must speak of individual Gentiles - individual Gentiles may delude themselves and fall from their profession. Individuals may apostasise but the group of Gentiles God has had mercy on cannot apostasise.


Notice that he does speak of falling in that passage which wouldn't happen to the elect of Calvinistic dogma, so why does Peter warn against it?

Peter warns against it to keep the elect fighting the good fight. The warnings of Scripture are the means God uses to accomplish His ends. The elect giving heed to the warnings results in their perseverance the the faith, their 'enduring to the end', the very thing God predestined them to do.

A further purpose is to cause false professors to find their true state and so repent.

Second, isn't it possible for God to have chosen that a group of people would be granted entrance into the covenant through without individually selecting people from that group to receive faith to the neglect of the rest? I think you must admit its possible.

No, it is not possible, since enterance to the covenant is by God's putting his Law into their hearts and minds - He gives the desire to obey and love Him, and He gives it to the elect alone, as it is evident that most men do not love or obey Him.

Nothing new must be "invented," you just must understand what exists. Who was known at that time as being the "weak" and "despised" of that day? Was it not the Gentile people? Jews throught of them like trash and indeed it was these people God has chosen to shame them. It fits perfectly into the idea of God electing or choosing the Getiles as a group.

I believe the weak, etc. refer to those of all nations, including the Jews. However, if I allow your interpretation to stand, it does not fit the whole passage - for the passage asserts not only that God has chosen the weak/base/foolish but that He has chosen that they shall vastly outnumber the strong/noble/wise. That requires individual election.


BTW, we are not one flock, but two. Remember Jesus' teaching in John 10 when he speaks of the first flock and then the second flock that must be brought in? The first are the remnant of Jews selected to take the message to the world and the second flock were those who believed in Christ through their message, which mostly consisted of Gentiles.

Not so. We are all one flock. We started out in different folds - 'this fold' is the Jewish believers, the others are the Gentile believers - but we ended up in one flock. John 10:16And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

[Re:Rom.8:28-30] Where does faith fit into that unbroken chain? Paul doesn't address it does he? Does that mean it doesn't have a place in the process? Or could it be that it is assumed?

It certainly is assumed: right there alongside 'called'. All the called become justified - how? - by faith.

We have no idea whether he assumed it as being effectually given to all God foreknew and predestined or if Paul was speaking about groups in general once again meaning..."And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose [from the Jews and also the Gentiles]. 29For whom He foreknew [yes even Gentiles were foreknown], 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 [who responded in faith], these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified

Yes, I see the lengths you must go to avoid seeing individual election here. Group foreknowledge; group predestination; group calling; [group response by faith]; group justification; group glorification.

Notice that I said those called "who responded in faith" these he also justified. Now you may repell that statement at first glace but to be honest you have to accept it if you truely affirm salvation is by grace through faith. These leaves the question unanswered as to the effectual cause of man's response but this passage doesn't address it and can't be used as some kind of an "end all debate" passage.

No, it does not leave the question unanswered. It plainly asserts that ALL who were called believed (hence became justified). Of course, one could say that it was not an effectual call that caused the individual to believe, it was free-will in the Arminian sense, and it just so happened that ALL who were called believed. Wildly improbable, to say the least. Irresistable grace, effectual call is a perfect fit.

Yes it is the same God but its not the same work. Notice the passages you selected never speak of the individual being set apart from birth, they may have been set apart after their faith (sanctified) but nothing is said about their being individually chosen or effectually called to sainthood.

OK, here's it in eternal perspective; 2 Tim.1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

And just to show it is not a 'group' thing, here's what Paul says to Timothy personally; 1Tim.6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
'Your' call and election - if this refers to the group 'believing Gentiles', then no individual can make the group's condition sure. Individuals can do so only for themselves. Moreover, if it is the group, then this verse admits of the possibility that no Gentiles will end up saved: the group may fall, and with it the Word of God.

You are correct in that an individual can only be responsible for his or her own behavior but we are speaking about the intent of the author who is speaking to them as a group. Think about it this way. A football coach might say, "Make sure you leave everything out on that field tonight because that is what a Warrior does!" Now, we understand that each player is responsible for his own efforts but they all represent the larger group. In the same way each Gentile is responsible for his or her own behavior but they represent the group, which the apostle is addressing in general terms but it applies to each of them individually less one of them fall away from the group. Just like an individual on a football team may lose his focus and let the team down and "fall away" from his duties. It doesn't mean the whole team would surely fail but it would give a critic reason to bring doubt to their abilities. In the same way when even one Gentile fell away it gave fuel to the fire of the Judizers who didn't want the inclusion of the Gentiles in the first place and who were teaching that God had never chosen them as a people. They might say, "See look at that guy he is living like a heathen and you think God chose for you Gentiles to be one of us, no way!" Paul is calling them as a group to make their calling known to the critics by their behavior because the proof is in the puddin.

Me: Notice that he does speak of falling in that passage which wouldn't happen to the elect of Calvinistic dogma, so why does Peter warn against it?

Peter warns against it to keep the elect fighting the good fight. The warnings of Scripture are the means God uses to accomplish His ends. The elect giving heed to the warnings results in their perseverance the the faith, their 'enduring to the end', the very thing God predestined them to do.

So, its a empty warning. Its Peter warning them about something he fully believes cannot happen? Interesting. So, how can you tell when the scripture is making an empty warning and and real warning? When should we fear and heed the warnings of our Lord and when should we assume they really can't happen because they are merely God's means to motivate endurance? Tell me, will the elect endure no matter what? Or do they need these empty threats and meaningless warning as a means to endure? What about the elect person who doesn't read this text? Will they not endure because God's means wasn't applied? This needs some work.

A further purpose is to cause false professors to find their true state and so repent.

How can that be? How do you fall away from something if you were never on it? If someone is a false professor then wouldn't Peter warn him that they may have never been saved and not that they might fall away from it?

Me: Second, isn't it possible for God to have chosen that a group of people would be granted entrance into the covenant through without individually selecting people from that group to receive faith to the neglect of the rest? I think you must admit its possible.

No, it is not possible,

Oh, its not possible. So there is something God couldn't do. He couldn't have created a world where men make a soteriological decision. You've got to be kidding. With God all things are possible, if you can't admit that God could have meant for salvation to be by man's free choice then you have to admit God is not all powerful.

...since enterance to the covenant is by God's putting his Law into their hearts and minds - He gives the desire to obey and love Him, and He gives it to the elect alone, as it is evident that most men do not love or obey Him.

Here are some questions that are unanswered but that you apparently assume you know the answers to: 1. How does God put his law into their hearts and minds? (What are the means?) 2. Are those means available or presented to only certain people? 3. Can men resist and subvert those means? 4. Do those who don't love and obey God remain rebellious because God doesn't love and desire their salvation or because they are stubborn and hardened in their own sinfulness?

I believe the weak, etc. refer to those of all nations, including the Jews. However, if I allow your interpretation to stand, it does not fit the whole passage - for the passage asserts not only that God has chosen the weak/base/foolish but that He has chosen that they shall vastly outnumber the strong/noble/wise. That requires individual election.

Do not the Gentiles vastly outnumber the Jews in salvation? This could be general terms, in fact it makes much more since. Think about it. Remember the story of the Rich Ruler? Following that story Christ teaches that its almost impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why is that? Can't the effectual call just as easily persuade a rich man as it does a poor man? The reason is man's desire or devotion. If money is in the way it will often distract and destort man's will and affect God's call to repentance a faith. Your system doesn't leave room for that.

[Re:Rom.8:28-30] Me: Where does faith fit into that unbroken chain? Paul doesn't address it does he? Does that mean it doesn't have a place in the process? Or could it be that it is assumed?

It certainly is assumed: right there alongside 'called'. All the called become justified - how? - by faith.

How can you be certain that Paul is speaking about those who choose to have faith. You assume that he is speaking about those who God irresistably gives faith, why can't I just as easily assume that its those who freely choose faith?

You assume that just because it says "and those he called, he justified" that it must mean only those who were justified were called, but we know from other texts that "many are called but few are chosen."

It could just as easily be assumed in this text that Paul means, "and those he called [who responded in faith], he justified. Now, before you criticize my use of hermenuetics just think about what Calvinists do when they are faced with the words "all" or the "world". You add the phrase all [of the elect] or [people from all tribes and nations] in the world. Why is it now wrong for Arminians to simply add the words [who respond in faith]? Afterall you have to agree that those who are called and who are justified did in fact respond in faith. Therefore the question remains, is that response caused by a irresistable force from God working internally within select people? I think not, but this verse doesn't go there and it proves nothing.

Yes, I see the lengths you must go to avoid seeing individual election here. Group foreknowledge; group predestination; group calling; [group response by faith]; group justification; group glorification.

I could say the same about your textual maneuverings when dealing with John 3:16, Peter 3:9; Tim 2:4 and others like them. But if you were able to leave your dogma aside for a moment and view the verse objectively you could see that Paul is speaking in general terms about all those who love God and not about select individuals to the neglect of all others.

And just to show it is not a 'group' thing, here's what Paul says to Timothy personally; 1Tim.6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

You still seem to think that I don't believe these verses apply to the individual. A person can address a group of people in general but be giving instruction to each individual. The coach analogy is a good one to help see this. Read these with the idea that a coach is talking to a large group of people who are on a team. The question is was the team arbitarily selected and irresistable made to play on the team by the head coach or did the individuals have a choice to join the team? Depending upon which perspective you come at the text will determine how you interpret it. I've seen it from the Calvinistic perspective because I used to hold to that belief and for years I couldn't see it any other way, but since then I back away from my perspective and viewed it from the other perspective which now, because of all the evidence I have come across, have adopted as being the most realistic and truthful. I pray that you will at least look at it from the other side and you can't do that if your not open to its possiblity. I know that appears to you to be a weakness, but its actually a strength to take on the other view. I admit that your intepretation "could" be accurate because I've seen it that way, but your not willing to even say that any other possible interpretation could be applied...its almost as if you care more about winning a debate than you do about discovering truth. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with me, just be open to other possiblities and lets learn together.

 

[Smoky]

Scandelon, Your posts have been a great help to me. My questions is, what do you think was the fate of some of those temporarily hardened Jews, if they died before the hardening was lifted?
God's blessings.

 

[Skandelon]

Smoky,

What will happen to those who died while temporarily hardened?

Eternal death. But keep in mind it was deserved. Why?

Because they were born hardened due to Adam's sin and the fall of mankind as Total Depravity suggests???
NO!

Because God had held out his hands to them patiently (Romans 10:21) and had longed to gather them under his saving wings (Matt 23:37) but they had refused time and time again. Their hardening was deserved. They fitted themselves for destruction inspite of God's patient longsuffering (Romans 9:22).

Was their judicial hardening unto certain condemnation?

NO!

Romans 11 clearly states in verse 14 that some of those who are hardened may be saved after being provoked to jealousy. So, God is even being merciful in his act of hardening Israel (Rom. 10:19) because in doing so he makes a way for the ingrafting of the Gentiles (Acts 28:28) and seeks to provoke the will of the stubborn Jews so that they too might "leave their unbelief (Rom. 11:23) and be saved (vs 14).

If Jews died before the hardening was lifted they will stand justly condemned before the Father as ones "without excuse." Why? Because they "clearly saw" and "understood the divine attributes and eternal nature of their God but refused to acknowledge him as God" (Romans 1). Just because God "gives them over" or even seals them in their unbelief (hardening) they are responsible because they were given all that they needed to follow and obey God and they, by their own will and despite God's self revelations, refused.

 

[Eric B]

Peter warns against it to keep the elect fighting the good fight. The warnings of Scripture are the means God uses to accomplish His ends. The elect giving heed to the warnings results in their perseverance the the faith, their 'enduring to the end', the very thing God predestined them to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, its a empty warning. Its Peter warning them about something he fully believes cannot happen? Interesting. So, how can you tell when the scripture is making an empty warning and and real warning? When should we fear and heed the warnings of our Lord and when should we assume they really can't happen because they are merely God's means to motivate endurance? Tell me, will the elect endure no matter what? Or do they need these empty threats and meaningless warning as a means to endure?
What about the elect person who doesn't read this text? Will they not endure because God's means wasn't applied? This needs some work.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A further purpose is to cause false professors to find their true state and so repent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can that be? How do you fall away from something if you were never on it? If someone is a false professor then wouldn't Peter warn him that they may have never been saved and not that they might fall away from it?

Think of it this way. God wrote that the person would be motivated to persevere by reading such passages. The only way that person would have not read this and slide off to perdition would be if God didn't elect him. So it's a world that looks "open", but is really a "script" as I call it.
Peter does not know who the "elect" are, so he must write this in order to fit God's plan that He would write the elect to read it and persevere. If he didn't write it, he would be "disobedient", but then God woulf have preordained that he didn't write it, and either use other means to keep the elect, or if any perish because they didn't get to read it, that would have been what God ordained anyway.

 

[Ian Major]

Eric said
But according to you, believing on Christ and having faith or receiving that good news is just as much a case of "do this and live" that man is utterly unable to do. THIS was the basis of my original claim that the NC to you winds up no better than the OC. Then yes, the only benefit now is that it is spread to select [relative] few over a broader area.

The difference between the covenants it that NNE kept the Old, but MILLIONS keep the New. The OC was based on man's free-will, the NC is based on God's free-will. In the NC God sovereignly causes men to have a new heart, to love His Law and to walk in His way. In ADDITION to this new aspect, He also brings His salvation to a vastly greater group than He did before. Very different covenants!

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
So, its a empty warning. Its Peter warning them about something he fully believes cannot happen? Interesting. So, how can you tell when the scripture is making an empty warning and and real warning? When should we fear and heed the warnings of our Lord and when should we assume they really can't happen because they are merely God's means to motivate endurance? Tell me, will the elect endure no matter what? Or do they need these empty threats and meaningless warning as a means to endure? What about the elect person who doesn't read this text? Will they not endure because God's means wasn't applied? This needs some work.

ALL the warnings of Scripture are real. It is your failure to see the use of means to accomplish predetermined ends that confuses you. So you ask, 'Tell me, will the elect endure no matter what? The answer is, Yes, no matter what they face. But not, no matter what an individual does. Repudiation of the gospel is one example of NOT enduring to the end. So it can be said of the elect that they will not end up faithless. If an individual fails to persevere to the end, that individual is not, never has been, one of the elect. The elect will be kept by God's own hand, Rom.14:4. God uses many means to accomplish that, including the warning texts of Scripture. If an elect one never gets to hear those texts, he will be kept from falling by other means. God uses means to accomplish His ends. Repeat 100 times after class!

How can that be? How do you fall away from something if you were never on it? If someone is a false professor then wouldn't Peter warn him that they may have never been saved and not that they might fall away from it?

For a text to address both true and false believers, that would be a bit pedantic. As to falling away, it is the assumed position one would fall from, the 'professed' position. So with the apostate of Heb.6:4, and those who 'fall away' at the revelation of Antichrist, 2Thess.2:3.

Oh, its not possible. So there is something God couldn't do. He couldn't have created a world where men make a soteriological decision. You've got to be kidding. With God all things are possible, if you can't admit that God could have meant for salvation to be by man's free choice then you have to admit God is not all powerful.

Yes, God can't do many things, like breaking His word. But we may be talknig about different things: I understood from your comment ' entrance into the covenant' that you were asking if I thought God could not ACTUALLY have done it with regard to the New Covenant. If you are asking if I think God could have done so had He wanted to, that is different. To this question I say, Yes, IF it was consistent with His character and glory. Free-will salvation might not be so, as 1 Cor.26-29 strongly indicates, 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.

Here are some questions that are unanswered but that you apparently assume you know the answers to: 1. How does God put his law into their hearts and minds? (What are the means?) 2. Are those means available or presented to only certain people? 3. Can men resist and subvert those means? 4. Do those who don't love and obey God remain rebellious because God doesn't love and desire their salvation or because they are stubborn and hardened in their own sinfulness?

1. His Spirit, accompanying His gospel.
2. Only the elect experience this sovereign work. Non-elect may experience much work of conviction by the Spirit, but not of regeneration, the giving of a new heart. Heb. 6:4 again as an example.
3. Not this sovereign work, otherwise the NC would end up as futile as the OC - this is the reason God promised the NC.
4. The latter is certainly true. The former may be true, depending on what is meant by 'love' and 'desire their salvation'. If you suggest God loves everyone equally, then I deny that. If you suggest He loves everyone as His creatures, but some as his special people, then I agree.

Do not the Gentiles vastly outnumber the Jews in salvation? This could be general terms, in fact it makes much more since. Think about it. Remember the story of the Rich Ruler? Following that story Christ teaches that its almost impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why is that? Can't the effectual call just as easily persuade a rich man as it does a poor man? The reason is man's desire or devotion. If money is in the way it will often distract and destort man's will and affect God's call to repentance a faith. Your system doesn't leave room for that.

It still would not solve the problem for free-willism, that God's purpose could be frustrated by the wise, etc. obeying in greater numbers than the foolish.

But you then ask if effectual call can't as easily persuade the rich as the poor. Yes, it can. Precisely my point. God can save whomever He will. He has chosen to save more poor people than rich.

Now to the difficulty of the rich being saved: Christ was pointing out the human difficulties, the relative wickedness of human hearts. All men are not equally wicked or stand to lose the same as others if they repent. So in human terms it is very hard for a rich man to be saved as compared to a poor man. As you say, their love of money affects their will and strongly opposes them being saved. But with God all things are possible. Pharisees and prostitutes were saved.

But here is a great objection, not to Calvinism, but to Free-wilism. Being born in prosperity is a great handicap to being saved, so in the day of Judgement free-willers can object that they did not get the same opportunites as others to be saved. What love is this, that God saves many who were not entangled by riches - due to their birth - but allows others to go to hell just because of their class and culture? The God of Free-willism will sure have some explaining to do! All the criticism that is voiced on Calvinism's God of sovereign grace, the One who saves sinners based merely on His choice, properly applies to this false god of free-willism. Men free to choose, but some strangled by their circumstances so that their will is bent - forced? - to oppose the gospel? What an unjust, cruel god. We would at least think he would compensate the rich by other grace so that they had an equal chance of repenting as the poor.

How can you be certain that Paul is speaking about those who choose to have faith. You assume that he is speaking about those who God irresistably gives faith, why can't I just as easily assume that its those who freely choose faith?

Because in your system the call is not effectual, yet here the called are justified.

You assume that just because it says "and those he called, he justified" that it must mean only those who were justified were called, but we know from other texts that "many are called but few are chosen."

I let the text speak for itself - 'those He called, He justified'. To introduce the general call of the gospel is to ignore the specific use of call here, and the results that flow from it.

It could just as easily be assumed in this text that Paul means, "and those he called [who responded in faith], he justified. Now, before you criticize my use of hermenuetics just think about what Calvinists do when they are faced with the words "all" or the "world". You add the phrase all [of the elect] or [people from all tribes and nations] in the world. Why is it now wrong for Arminians to simply add the words [who respond in faith]? Afterall you have to agree that those who are called and who are justified did in fact respond in faith. Therefore the question remains, is that response caused by a irresistable force from God working internally within select people? I think not, but this verse doesn't go there and it proves nothing.

The difference in our defining the meaning of 'all' in a particular context and your introducing a qualifying clause to 'called' is that 'all' can have various meanings, depending on context. 'Called' here is qualified by the chain that preceeds and follows: particular ones were foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified. To insert words that mean only some of the called are in view, is to miss the point. It may as well be read as some of the foreknown, or predestined, or justified are to be glorifed.

So the response is caused by the irresistable force of God's predestinating grace.

I could say the same about your textual maneuverings when dealing with John 3:16, Peter 3:9; Tim 2:4 and others like them. But if you were able to leave your dogma aside for a moment and view the verse objectively you could see that Paul is speaking in general terms about all those who love God and not about select individuals to the neglect of all others.

We agree that Paul is speaking about those who love God - but that is the elect! Are you saying others than the elect love God?

I pray that you will at least look at it from the other side and you can't do that if your not open to its possiblity. I know that appears to you to be a weakness, but its actually a strength to take on the other view. I admit that your intepretation "could" be accurate because I've seen it that way, but your not willing to even say that any other possible interpretation could be applied...its almost as if you care more about winning a debate than you do about discovering truth. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with me, just be open to other possiblities and lets learn together.

I have no problem looking at it from the free-will side. I've done that many times. I find it so depressing, once I go beyond the initial feel-good of everyone starting with a 'real' chance to to be saved. It's when it comes to face the Biblical picture of man and the actual reality of man around me that confirms that dark picture, that I despair of free-willism. It is evident that most go through this life without any real knowledge of the gospel, many imprisoned by their sins and ignorance. Where is the love of God in this, if man is the free-will creature you depict? No, only the love of God for His elect, a love that reaches them wherever they are and however they are, that breaks their evil will and changes it to love Him and have eternal life - that is the sovereign God I love and see declared in the Scriptures.

I have no desire to win any debate - the truth must prevail, whether it means I must rethink or not. I am sure I get some of my reasoning wrong, and am grateful to you and others who bring me to see that. I have never felt Calvinism under threat from anything I've encountered, but I have regarding some of my defences of it.

In Him

Ian

 

[npetreley]

Amen, Ian Major. Said far better than I could have responded.