God's election

[webdog]

This distinction is made very clear by the Pharisees. By your interpretation, they did not reject the fact that there was a God. But still, they "could not hear" because they were not Christ's Sheep.

No, they exchanged the truth for a lie and "became fools".

Only those whom he chose, out of his own grace and mercy, to enlighten with the Holy Spirit, can "hear" the Gospel, and respond. The rest remain in their self imposed "given up" state.

I know this is what your theology teaches, but it is not what Scripture teaches, particularly Acts 17.

Actually, this does not hold water: many Greek scholars will tell you that "gift" refers to the whole package: grace distributed by faith given. Bill Mounce, I believe, is one of them.

It actually holds quite a bit of water with reformed and non alike. The minority holds to "that" referring back to faith.

Also, your problem extends further: for their are other verses which speak of God giving faith, which do not allow for such escapes. Scripture clearly states that we are to "think" according to the amount of faith which God has given us, that we are "given ears to hear", etc. This is not some lone verse, but is taught throughout scripture.

Quite a bit here to dissect, but it's getting late. I believe you have let your position interpret Scripture on quite a bit here.

 

[webdog]

The object of the faith of Muslims is Allah. Do you believe that allah saves? No. So not only did I understand you, I showed you that you were wrong.

It's fruitless debating anything with you as you hear what you want to hear. By the "object of one's faith that saves" I was clearly referring to Christ. Don't know why that was so hard for you to understand...

 

[Carico]

It's fruitless debating anything with you as you hear what you want to hear. By the "object of one's faith that saves" I was clearly referring to Christ. Don't know why that was so hard for you to understand...

And I was saying that you are wrong because only those who believe in Jesus are saved as John 3:16-18 explains. But I do agree, that it's no use debating with you since your posts are full of contradictions. So you and I will never agree.

 

[BaptistBob]

Actually, this does not hold water: many Greek scholars will tell you that "gift" refers to the whole package: grace distributed by faith given. Bill Mounce, I believe, is one of them.

Also, your problem extends further: for their are other verses which speak of God giving faith, which do not allow for such escapes. Scripture clearly states that we are to "think" according to the amount of faith which God has given us, that we are "given ears to hear", etc. This is not some lone verse, but is taught throughout scripture.

The neuter takes a conceptual referant as to they type of salvation (grace-received-through-faith salvation).As explained in Daniel Wallace's Greel Grammar Beyond the Basics, wherein he confirms the non-Calvinist explanation as being the correct one. Daniel Wallace is a Calvinist.

 

[Havensdad]

The neuter takes a conceptual referant as to they type of salvation (grace-received-through-faith salvation).
As explained in Daniel Wallace's Greel Grammar Beyond the Basics,[ wherein he confirms the non-Calvinist explanation as being the correct one.

So? Their are are MANY who disagree with him, and quite frankly it is up to interpretation. However, as I already pointed out, there are other verses besides this one that speak of faith and repentance being "given", "distributed" etc.

Daniel Wallace is a Calvinist.

Again, this is a logical fallacy. You can always find a person that supports a teaching, that does not necessarily believe a particular verse is teaching it. You can NEVER find a person that believes the Bible to be infallible, that believes a verse is clearly teaching a particular position, yet believes the opposite.

So again, the clarification that he is a Calvinist, means nothing, since it would be conceptually impossible to find an Arminian that believes it IS teaching this, even if it is.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by webdog
We are to be totally and completely separated to sin, in the same way "dead in sin" means we are totally and completely separated from God due to sin.

Then I don't see why you have a problem with what I have written related to either dead in sin or dead to sin.

Webdog

Did I overlook your response to my concern expressed above. I see you have been busy entertaining Carico but I am curious as to why you accuse me of lack of consistency on more than one occasion. Is it possible you are just being contrary?

 

[sag38]

Now OldRegular, you are accusing someone of being contrary? Now, that's funny!!! No offense because I agree with you most times except on music and Calvinism but you are the king of contrary and sarcasm whether your pointing out the ills of the Obama administration or telling us why CCM is bad.

 

[webdog]

Webdog

Did I overlook your response to my concern expressed above. I see you have been busy entertaining Carico but I am curious as to why you accuse me of lack of consistency on more than one occasion. Is it possible you are just being contrary?

This should about sum it up...
Winman

You have to make up your mind and not waffle. Dead men can't do anything. Spiritually dead men can do nothing to change their state. It takes the intervention of GOD the Holy Spirit which you so eloquently stated in your previous post. The opening verses of Chapter 2 very accurately state the initial events in salvation. We were spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins and GOD made us spiritually alive. How wonderful that while we were dead in sin GOD loved us and made us spiritually alive and then HE gave us the faith to believe the Gospel Call which for us became the Effectual Call.

The above bolded is not consistent with what spiritual death actually means. We don't pass from spiritual death to life IN ORDER to have faith in Christ, faith in Christ brings the new life.

 

[OldRegular]

This should about sum it up...
Winman

The above bolded is not consistent with what spiritual death actually means. We don't pass from spiritual death to life IN ORDER to have faith in Christ, faith in Christ brings the new life.

Guess I will have to be contumacious as sag38 stated; you are simply incorrect but what else is new.

 

[OldRegular]

Now OldRegular, you are accusing someone of being contrary? Now, that's funny!!! No offense because I agree with you most times except on music and Calvinism but you are the king of contrary and sarcasm whether your pointing out the ills of the Obama administration or telling us why CCM is bad.

I don't know why you would disagree with me on Calvinism. I disagree with Calvin on a number of issues, at least I think I do since I have never read anything he wrote. In fact you may recall that I have tried to get Baptists to quit using that name since there is so much bias against it.

That being said Calvin was correct on one aspect of Biblical doctrine. God did choose certain to salvation in Jesus Christ to the exclusion of others. As Scripture tells us in Acts 13:48.[KJV] And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

If you don't agree with that translation of the Greek we can try a few others:

Acts 13:48.[NKJV] Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 13:48.[NASB] And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.


Acts 13:48.[NIV] When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

 

[Carico]

OldRegular, Do you know how many years I've been explaining the verses you explained to the same people and they still disagree with them? Years. So how long do we engage in quarrels? Paul tells us to avoid them with people who continue to keep their beliefs regardless of how much scripture we show them. So we have to be discerning about who is open to the truth of the bible and who simply doesn't want to admit he's wrong regardless of how much scripture he ignores or contradicts.

 

[Havensdad]

No, they exchanged the truth for a lie and "became fools".

No, not "they"; WE. WE exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and became fools. "We practice the very same things."

Then, out of those who "exchanged the truth for a lie" (every single person who has ever lived), whom God "gave up" to spiritual death, He chose a group to shower His undeserved mercy upon; he changed their mind (gave them repentance: 2 Timothy 2:25) and He distributed faith to them (Romans 12:3). He gave them eyes to "see" and ears to "hear" (Mark 4:23). To those not chosen, God left them with the eyes and ears he had already given them, "eyes that could not see" and "ears that could not see". "Given up" eyes and ears..(Romans 11:8).

I know this is what your theology teaches, but it is not what Scripture teaches, particularly Acts 17.

It is very much what scripture teaches. "That may give them repentance", "think with sober judgment, in accordance with the amount of faith you have been distributed."

Nothing in Acts 17 contradicts this.

Quite a bit here to dissect, but it's getting late. I believe you have let your position interpret Scripture on quite a bit here.

I believe the opposite is true. I believe you are letting your personal feelings dictate how you should interpret scripture, rather than reading it as it is written. Simply accepting the statements of scripture, that God gives repentance, and God "distributes" faith, is what is called "literal" interpretation. You are trying to change that, with some kind of allegorical/non literal meaning, to show what you say is the "true" meaning of the text.

I am just taking what is written, and you are not.

 

[webdog]

No, not "they"; WE. WE exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and became fools. "We practice the very same things."

Then, out of those who "exchanged the truth for a lie" (every single person who has ever lived), whom God "gave up" to spiritual death, He chose a group to shower His undeserved mercy upon; he changed their mind (gave them repentance: 2 Timothy 2:25) and He distributed faith to them (Romans 12:3). He gave them eyes to "see" and ears to "hear" (Mark 4:23). To those not chosen, God left them with the eyes and ears he had already given them, "eyes that could not see" and "ears that could not see". "Given up" eyes and ears..(Romans 11:8).

The context of Romans 1 is in reference to the gentiles of the day, as evidenced by the sins Paul categorically quotes. Chapter 2 contrasts the Jews to this group, as is seen in chapter 3:9...so this is speaking of the one who has rejected truth, not all mankind. The fact you and I are believers proves the notion we didn't reject the truth. Nature is not the only thing given to man to seek Him, we also have a conscience and the desire to be immortal, not to mention being placed in the perfect place, location and time to seek Him.

It is very much what scripture teaches. "That may give them repentance", "think with sober judgment, in accordance with the amount of faith you have been distributed."

Nothing in Acts 17 contradicts this.

Really?
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

[Carico]

This thread proves the bible true that one cannot freely choose to believe something he doesn't believe. Those arguing against Calvinism cannot freely choose to believe Calvinism and those arguing for Calvinism cannot freely choose to oppose Calvinism. That's because as 2 Peter 2:19 says; "for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

Point-proven by this thread alone that man does not have free will.

 

[Havensdad]

The context of Romans 1 is in reference to the gentiles of the day, as evidenced by the sins Paul categorically quotes.

Not so. The sins Paul quotes are the universal sins seen in every society. Paul is not picking specific sins just of Rome. Look:

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Compare this list, with the list of sins given for ALL of those who are of the flesh, rather than Christ...

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

As He states in Verse 1 of Romans...

Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
Rom 2:2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.

Paul is describing the Gospel throughout Romans: Chapter 1 is showing that all men have rejected God, that we are all are equally guilty.

Chapter 2 contrasts the Jews to this group, as is seen in chapter 3:9...so this is speaking of the one who has rejected truth, not all mankind.

Actually not. He is pointing back to Romans 1 saying , "Jews are no better off, for I already told you that everyone practices these very same things, and is bound to sin."

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

The fact you and I are believers proves the notion we didn't reject the truth.

Not so. We DID reject God. We DID reject the truth, until God changed us.

Tit 3:3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,


All I can say is wow. God is merciful.:tear:

Nature is not the only thing given to man to seek Him, we also have a conscience and the desire to be immortal, not to mention being placed in the perfect place, location and time to seek Him.

No verse says we are put in the perfect place to seek him. I am going to address this verse, below.

Really?
26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

I am not sure what version you are using. But you are not taking Romans 1 into account when you read this. Paul is not talking about post Crucifixion salvation, he is referencing the pre-salvation rejection of God, noted in Romans 1.

Let's look. God did this...

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.

Then Mankind did this...

they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

To which God replied with this...

Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,


And since men are slaves to their own evil passions, and continue to reject him, he does this...

"God ... give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

So that

as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.

 

[Amy.G]

Point-proven by this thread alone that man does not have free will.

So, everything you have said in your time on this board was not really said of your own free will? Did God make you type all those posts?

 

[Havensdad]

This thread proves the bible true that one cannot freely choose to believe something he doesn't believe. Those arguing against Calvinism cannot freely choose to believe Calvinism and those arguing for Calvinism cannot freely choose to oppose Calvinism. That's because as 2 Peter 2:19 says; "for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

Point-proven by this thread alone that man does not have free will.

Man DOES have free will. Just not Libertarian free will.

I just finished a paper on this, so I am kinda burned out on the discussion. But something that I think needs to be understood, is that NOT EVEN GOD has free will, in the sense of being able to choose contrary to His nature. God CANNOT choose to sin. The scriptures declare in multiple places, that he is unable to.

So He is bound by His righteous nature. He IS Holy, so He CHOOSES Holy things.

We are the same. Yet we are unrighteous, so we FREELY CHOOSE unrighteous things.

I like what Joshua said to the Israelites: He said "If it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord.." Even Joshua recognized the concept.

 

[Carico]

Man DOES have free will. Just not Libertarian free will.

I just finished a paper on this, so I am kinda burned out on the discussion. But something that I think needs to be understood, is that NOT EVEN GOD has free will, in the sense of being able to choose contrary to His nature. God CANNOT choose to sin. The scriptures declare in multiple places, that he is unable to.

So He is bound by His righteous nature. He IS Holy, so He CHOOSES Holy things.

We are the same. Yet we are unrighteous, so we FREELY CHOOSE unrighteous things.

I like what Joshua said to the Israelites: He said "If it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord.." Even Joshua recognized the concept.

Man's will is not free; He is ruled either by the sinful nature or the Holy Spirit as romans 8:8-9 explains. 2 Peter 2"19, "for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

We are all in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves which is precisely why we need a savior.

No one chooses;

1) to be born
2) His genes
3) The family in which he is born
4) The times in which he is born
5) the prevailing beliefs during the time he lives
6) the number of his days
7) Whether his name was written in the Book of Life before the creation of the world
8) His personality traits
9) His physical strengths and weaknesses
10 When he will die
11) His place in heaven
12)His calling
13) What he was taught by his family and those around him

And many, many more things. we all respond out of the above so our "choices" are not free; they come from our least stressful option. Thus, a greedy man cannot choose not to be greedy unless the pain of his wealth surpasses the pain of poverty. Thus since we are in bondage to sin we cannot choose not to sin which again is why we need the cross.

We are thus instruments that God uses for His purposes; clay in the hands of the potter. Instruments have zero power over their masters and can only do what their masters make them do.

But this is solid food, not milk. Only after studying the bible incessantly and studying human nature can one have the knowledge to talk about this.

 

[Amy.G]

But this is solid food, not milk. Only after studying the bible incessantly and studying human nature can one have the knowledge to talk about this.

Yea Havensdad, you're still on milk. You're not qualified to talk about this like Carico is. :laugh::laugh:

 

[Carico]

Yea Havensdad, you're still on milk. You're not qualified to talk about this like Carico is. :laugh::laugh:

Good heavens! We can't have anyone on solid food here. Then some people might be jealous. So we all have to be on milk so some people won't be jealous of the faith of others. I know it would make you happy Amy, if I had less faith. but of course, that isn't love at all.

So since the only responses you make to my posts are personal attacks, they're not worth responding to any more.