I believe in predestination and free will.....??

[webdog]

That is what the "arminian" (and yes, you are, at least on this point "arminian") doesn't get: we have all ALREADY MADE the choice to which you refer: and we all chose to reject God. God now chooses whom He will save ANYWAY; which is why the doctrines of Grace are CALLED the "doctrines of grace": it is all about His grace, not our wise decision.

How? Through faith. I hold to the "doctrines of grace and faith"

Again, you give us a freedom of choice not even God Himself has: the ability to choose something we do not want, that goes against our natures. You exalt man's will to be greater than God's.

No biblical basis for any of this. No scripture states we only choose that which is in our nature to choose, this is a calvinist presupposition only.

 

[MB]

yes....but i'm sure you will not change to a Calvinist because I show you.

You got that one right. I most likely will not but then you're not likely to either.

BUT....For starters Eph 1.

In Eph 2:11-13, Paul says that his readers were "gentiles by birth" (2:11) and, therefore, considered by Jews to be "strangers to the covenants of promise" (2:12).

In Eph 3-1, Paul says to his readers that he is a prisoner on behalf of you gentiles.

Paul tells his readers not to live as gentiles, that is, as they used to live Eph 4.

Back to Eph 1...

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

What does the words "IN HIM" mean to you".
This to me means that We are chosen only if we are "in Him". It places condition on our election.
The next verse reads as this;
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Together these two say we are chosen IN HIM as I said above and predestinated because of God's choice to be His children. I believe we aren't His until we are. We can't be until we believe.
MB

 

[Jarthur001]

God's love is also just. Man cannot love another more than God. "For God so loved"...

Let me ask you this.

with this post you seem to be saying Gods love is pure...100%.

Maybe I'm wrong, but yoy sure seem to be saying that

 

[webdog]

Let me ask you this.

with this post you seem to be saying Gods love is pure...100%.

Maybe I'm wrong, but yoy sure seem to be saying that

How can you say it's impure, or imperfect

 

[Jarthur001]

You got that one right. I most likely will not but then you're not likely to either.

Then we agree. humm.

What does the words "IN HIM" mean to you".
This to me means that We are chosen only if we are "in Him". It places condition on our election.

Rather than give you what I think it means lets stick to the subject.

Does not this PROVE that both the Jew and gentiles are the elect?

 

[Jarthur001]

How can you say it's impure, or imperfect

I didn't say that. I'm just seeing if I understand you.

So Gods love is pure? Perfect?

humm

 

[Havensdad]

It isn't my perception of what appointed means but how it is applied in scripture. We were not appointed to believe as you would have. That I have already proven that but we were appointed to eternal life because we believe.

Even in the version you quoted it does not say that. Why would you make arguments from the Greek, when apparently you have no knowledge of it?

The passive voice, means that it is NOT something we do, or bring upon ourselves, but rather something completely done to us. Also, if you will note the connection of verbs and nouns in the sentence, you will notice that interpretation of the text is impossible. Just because you are looking at an interlinear Bible, which shows the actual order of the words, does NOT mean they are to be read in that order: this is ridiculous. Greek words are not connected that way: order in nearly all cases is irrelevant.

If so where is your self control? Why are you making accussations instead of getting into the word and proving what you claim is true.
All I see is false accussations from you.
MB

No anger. The fact is, I HAVE shown it from scripture: which is why people who hold to the Doctrines of Grace get so frustrated with those who deny them: you have attempted to explain away, with little apparent knowledge of the Greek language, a verse that conclusively proves the Reformed position.

BTW, could you please cite ONE reputable Greek scholar, (with citation) who holds to your view of this verse? I have Logos Library Gold (which is quite extensive) as well as various other commentaries, much of which were written by Non-Cals...not ONE of them make your argument... in fact, many of them emphasize the that the Greek in this passage insists upon the interpretation I have presented.

 

[webdog]

Greek words are not connected that way: order in nearly all cases is irrelevant.

Unless here, of course

Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

:laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

How can you say it's impure, or imperfect

OK...well....I need to go, so I will not be able to address this later.

Therefore the problem as I see it. We have heard that Gods love is greater than all others. Gods love is pure.

This is becomes a major problem for free-willers. If this be true, and BTW I agree it is true, being that Gods love is 100 pure, this means there is nothing we can add to it, in order to make it better. There is no power that we can hand over to God to make his love at a higher level, for God is at the highest level of love. In fact God is not only pure love, God is the very essence of love. If it were not for God, we would have no love nor even know of it.

This type of love only works within a Calvinist view point. The Free-willism side damages the love of God.


Now why is this?

The atonement is a love act. If God places his love on it, it is pure love. This means the reason for the atonement...the only reason given for it, is love.

This love was set-out to do something. That something was to save sinners.

Greater love has no man......then that he would lay down his life for a friend.

This was the very goal of the atonement. It was to redeem the sinner. Nothing could be added to the love to make it better. It was pure. What it set out to do...it did.

After all.....

Love never fails.

I cor 13

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

that is...pure love never fails


Did God's love fail and not save some people?

Does man need to love God back before Gods love will work?

I think not.

See you guys tomorrow....

 

[saturneptune]

I have Logos Library Gold (which is quite extensive) as well as various other commentaries,

Whoop-tee-do.

 

[MB]

Then we agree. humm.



Rather than give you what I think it means lets stick to the subject.

Does not this PROVE that both the Jew and gentiles are the elect?

Actually no it isn't a matter of Jews and Gentiles but a matter of whether or not we have accepted Christ as our Savior.
The "IN HIM" I believe is specific. Those who are saved are in Him and those who aren't saved, are not. There is more than one choosing all of them by God. We are first chosen for Christ to die for. Then if we accept Christ we are chosen to Salvation. This is why the "IN HIM "... Once "IN HIM" we are then predestinated and conformed to the likeness of Christ.
The only election I know of that was particular was the election of the Jews to be a people of God. We Gentiles also become a people of God but ours is by faith in Jesus Christ.
MB
MB

 

[webdog]

The atonement is a love act. If God places his love on it, it is pure love. This means the reason for the atonement...the only reason given for it, is love.

This love was set-out to do something. That something was to save sinners.

Very good. This is what John 3:16 states.

Greater love has no man......then that he would lay down his life for a friend.

This was the very goal of the atonement. It was to redeem the sinner. Nothing could be added to the love to make it better. It was pure. What it set out to do...it did.

Now we are mixing passges. Jesus's statement in context of verse 12 is speaking of love between one another, not for God to man. The goal for the atonement was to pay the legal penalty of sin. Faith in the finished work of the work of Christ is the goal to save sinners! No wonder you are having such a hard time with this...

Did God's love fail and not save some people?

No, He saved everyone He said He would.

Does man need to love God back before Gods love will work?

No, and I don't think anyone has ever said this.

This is becomes a major problem for free-willers.

See, no problems here

 

[Havensdad]

Whoop-tee-do.

My point was not to brag: only to point out that no one who can actually read Greek agrees with his assessment: not even those who agree with his theology.

 

[Havensdad]

Unless here, of course

Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

:laugh:

Not sure I follow: the words are connected that way because of connecting verb and noun tenses, not because that was just the order they were written in...

 

[OldRegular]

John Dagg in his Manual of Theology writes [page 322], as follows:

Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.

Anyone of adult mind and reasonable comprehension of their own nature knows this to be true.

 

[Jarthur001]

Very good. This is what John 3:16 states.

hummm

Now we are mixing passges. Jesus's statement in context of verse 12 is speaking of love between one another, not for God to man.

not for God to man????

You somehow never seem to amaze me with your logic. I think your bias causes you to make statements like this. For 2 pages you said no love is greater than God. You said it again by agreeing with my post on your last reply.

Now we come to a passage that puts damage in your doctrine if you do believe Gods love is pure, and you say it does not apply to God. hahaha

Lets look at the passage...

13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends

.

The subject...Love
Title....What is the GREATEST love. None higher then this. This is at the top of the list.

What is this "greatest love"? "That one lay down his life for his friends"

Please do not rob Christ his glory and say this does not apply to him when it clearly does. No love is greater than this love...and you say it does not include Christ? If it does not include Christ, it is MAN that can have a higher love than God. That is hogwash.

But you are bent in your ways ...and will change anything that does not agree with your doctrine. Even the clear teaching of the Bible.

But that is not all. You said context... I agree we need to see context. If you had done this you would not have shown your folly.

Does context tell us this includes Christ?

Verse 12..
12"This is My commandment, that you love one another

Oh my..you are right. Context does just say it is to us. It is clear by this you are righ.......

wait

hold on...hold the phones

I just saw something.

There is more to the verse..

12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

The "I" here in the CONTEXT is Christ.

That seems pretty clear to me web.

You said...not for God to man.

I really don't see the need to guess at this one Web. maybe we should just believe the Bible. What do you say??

 

[Spinach]

After a semi-refreshing night's sleep, I changed my mind and came back to this thread.

I find it insulting to presume that one group here is the only one following the Bible. Every previous poster has offered some type of scriptural proof of their beliefs. I find that attitude to be arrogant and not charitable.

I could go on and on with scripture as well, but it would fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid. I don't suppose any of us came to this thread with an open-mind and an open-heart, allowing the Lord to speak to us and teach us. We came to it with our minds made up and scripture to back it up. We set out to disagree, though we know no good will come of it. Why do we do this? Entertainment? Conversation? Venting frustrations?

I do have an honest to goodness question-----If God decided before the world began who would be saved and who would go to Hell, then why the need for missionaries? Why the need for evangelists? Why the need for Paul?

No, dear brethren, God didn't cast any one away. He will love all but not force Himself on any. He will call to all, just as the parable where they were bidden to the wedding. Some will reject, sadly. He still keeps bidding. Come. Come. Come. What a merciful Father!

 

[Spinach]

Adding now that Christ died once, and for ALL!

 

[Jarthur001]

After a semi-refreshing night's sleep, I changed my mind and came back to this thread.

I have done that before.

Welcome back to the thread that draws you back.

I find it insulting to presume that one group here is the only one following the Bible.

Lets hope at least one group is following the Bible. If you will allow me to speak truthfully, I would say that you are insulted and therefore ran off to cool down, because others didn't agree with you.

Every previous poster has offered some type of scriptural proof of their beliefs.

I wouldn't say every poster has done this, but I understand your point. Most feel like they have the backing of scripture. However, some will post things they have heard and felt are right. They may have that feeling because their pastor has said it, or maybe its a line they have always heard and felt it must be right, because it is heard so much. Like..."God helps those that help themselves". That line is said by Hollywood all the time in movies. When I point out to people that this line is not in the Bible, they do not believe me. But, really it is not.

I find that attitude to be arrogant and not charitable.

It would seem to me that you see charity as getting what you want. You said you have kids. If they wanted to play in a busy highway, would you let them do it in order to be charitable? Love is not getting what you want, but correcting others when they are wrong, even if they get mad and run off into their room, slam the door and not speak to you for a week. They may even say they hate you. Still, you know that your for them is pure and you did the right thing. Was you arrogant when you made that call? I'm sure you child was thinking that. Maybe you were, but it was still right.

I could go on and on with scripture as well, but it would fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid

.
There is nothing to fear. In fact most of us would rather see verses than another's ideas. Verses speak louder than human logic.

I don't suppose any of us came to this thread with an open-mind and an open-heart, allowing the Lord to speak to us and teach us. We came to it with our minds made up and scripture to back it up. We set out to disagree, though we know no good will come of it. Why do we do this? Entertainment? Conversation? Venting frustrations?

Why do we do this? Some for all the reasons you just gave, and more. You may not have seen this, but you are in the "debate form". Some come here just for that reason. Debate forces you to KNOW what you believe. You will grow in the end. Few change their views. There have been around 5 that have left the free-will camp in the 4-5 years i have been here. That is not really that many. But the free-will side and the doctrines of grace side, both grow because they dig in scripture.

I do have an honest to goodness question-----If God decided before the world began who would be saved and who would go to Hell, then why the need for missionaries? Why the need for evangelists? Why the need for Paul?

Many reasons for this. This rejection is based on a fear. Many non-Calvinist think that if the doctrines are right, this means whats the use. Things happen...we are but robots.....no need to worry, just do what you will, for you are programmed to do so.

I don't have the time to address this in detail this morning, but would like to say, your fears should not have anything to do with you rejecting the doctrines. I mean, even if your fears are true and I could show you that this were the case just as you feared, and BTW your fears have no base, than you must take the doctrines based on the truth, not your fears. In others words, you must change, not the Bible.

Again I must say your fears have no base to stand on. I'm sure others will address why.

No, dear brethren, God didn't cast any one away.

no one goes to hell?

He will love all but not force Himself on any.

No one forces any one. But God does change the will. Have you ever heard of the salvation of Paul?

He will call to all, just as the parable where they were bidden to the wedding.

Yes...and this is what Calvinism believes.

Some will reject, sadly.

All reject sadly. Than he goes out and draws them in

What a merciful Father!

Indeed. Not based on that you are smarter than those that are non-believers, but based on Gods grace and grace alone. You too rejected God till God opened your eyes to the truth. Are you not glad that God didn't just leave you in your will to sin, but changed your heart? A new birth...A new life.

 

[Spinach]

I was not personally insulted and felt no personal attacks. I did feel frustrated. I also felt that it was unproductive to continue such debate. I still feel that way.

As many before me have said, I'm sure, "We'll just have to agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

Pancake night is calling...