If you are not a Calvinist or an Arminian ...

[absturzen]

Actually the Doctrines of Grace never say that people are elected to hell only that the elect are saved from their just condemnation and the rest are left to their just condemnation.

stevie

 

[TomMann]

John 6:65-68 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Jesus plainly stated the truth of the Word of God, that no man cometh to Him unless it was given him of the Father.
Many of his disciples couldn't handle that saying and because of it... (from that time) many went back and walked no more with him....
It isn't liked anymore when it is said today than it was when He said it so many years ago. But still it is the Word of God. And every word of God is pure, a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
When asked if I will go away also my reply must be.... where would I go for thou hast the words of eternal life......
My prayer for all who cannot see the truth of these words comes from 2 Kings 6:17
And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Ken Hamilton,

Jacob was repeatedly a 'deceiver.' Why did you elect to put Esau in Hell and Jacob in Heaven?
Let me guess. Are you still having problems with Romans 9?

 

[Eric B]

Jesus plainly stated the truth of the Word of God, that no man cometh to Him unless it was given him of the Father.
Many of his disciples couldn't handle that saying and because of it... (from that time) many went back and walked no more with him....
It isn't liked anymore when it is said today than it was when He said it so many years ago. But still it is the Word of God.

CONTEXT!!! Jesus had just told the people about "eating His flesh and drinking His blood", which knocked everyone for a loop. (They didn't understand spiritual concepts like that and took it literally). Also him "going up where He was before", which pointed to His divine preexistence, which they also had problems with.
This was before the crucifixion and outpouring of the Spirit. 6:45 gives us the reference to several Old Testament passages prophesying God's outpouring of His Spirit on "all flesh" (Is.54:13, Jer.31:34, Micah 4:2). Before, God had only called Israel, and only the prophets had the Spirit. But now, Israel was "hardened" as Romans 9 teaches, so that's why they (who should have been first in heralding the Messiah) were not being called then. (It seems once you understand Romans 9 properly, the rest of these scriptures fall into place). Christ was beginning His following with the disciples, and no one could become apart of this group unless called, but this doesn't say that only certain people would ever be called when salvation was opened up after His death and resurrection. The Father would be calling everyone then, as His convicting Spirit would be poured out on all.
Boy, it seems like every passage where someone is offended by a teaching is to be taken as a proof text for reprobation.

 

[Ray Berrian]

absturzen,

Do not wrongfully say that "Unconditional Election" is a doctrine of grace. This view is blessed by the evil one who would like more people to believe that their chances of living in Heaven are minimal at best. It is a disgrace to Christian belief to even entertain the thought that God loves only some and hates, eternally all the rest of human beings.

A doctrine of grace is the second point of Arminism. "Election conditioned by faith in Jesus Christ." The call is offered to all human beings. God rejects no one. 'I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger and He that believeth on Me shall never thirst.' [John 6:35]

In John 6:35 we learn that all that will have received Christ were given to the Father and 'he who comes to Jesus will in no wise be cast out.' Notice in both verse God is not picking and choosing, but ordained the responsibility of salvation, to rest on the human and spiritual cognition of faith in Him.

Both of these verbs--'cometh' are {present middle} which means that God is in the eternal present and anyone who ever desires to come at any time is welcomed. Let's stay with the correct grammar and exegetical interpretation.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Do not wrongfully say that "Unconditional Election" is a doctrine of grace. This view is blessed by the evil one who would like more people to believe that their chances of living in Heaven are minimal at best.

Do not wrongfully say that people must depend on themselves for salvation, that they have to pull themselves up by their own spiritual bootstraps to enter into the fold. That they have to rely on their corrupted will and flesh to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to hear just the right word to motivate themselves to repent and believe - to go totally against their own flesh.

No, instead tell them to cry to God for mercy as He is the only One that can work the miracle of salvation. Tell them to place themselves in God's hands to do with them as He will.

Maintaining the honor of God's Word,

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 03, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
No, instead tell them to cry to God for mercy as He is the only One that can work the miracle of salvation. Tell them to place themselves in God's hands to do with them as He will.

Why? If we do not tell them, is there a chance they'll NOT cry out for mercy? There's no incentive there - they'll cry to God whether I say anything or not...isn't THAT what election is? They'll be saved regardless of what man does?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
There's no incentive there - they'll cry to God whether I say anything or not...isn't THAT what election is? They'll be saved regardless of what man does?

Nope, that is not what election means as God uses means to bring in His elect and to bring to fulfillment His purposes. How wonderful that He condescends to use even us - fleshpots of sin.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Nope, that is not what election means as God uses means to bring in His elect and to bring to fulfillment His purposes. How wonderful that He condescends to use even us - fleshpots of sin.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org[/QB]

But does the point stand? Will man be saved regardless of what happens?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Will man be saved regardless of what happens?

Nope.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.com

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Jacob was repeatedly a 'deceiver.' Why did you elect to put Esau in Hell and Jacob in Heaven?
Let me guess. Are you still having problems with Romans 9?

1) We are all sinners. So what's your point?

2) I didn't elect anybody to heaven or hell. Regardless of our Spurgeonism/non-Spurgeonism debate, the Bible tells us that Jacob was saved and Esau was lost.

3) Nope. I have a pretty good understanding of Romans 9. Gods saves man, man damns himself.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

[Ray Berrian]

I was just wondering if there are any more saints that you wish to take off the list of God's heroes of faith other than Esau. The reference is Hebrews 11:4 starting with Abel and ending with Samuel and the prophets in vs. 32.

And if you think Esau was escorted to Hell, try researching 'Jephthae' in verse 32. He was also a sinning saint and yet he is listed on the rolls of Heaven, and indeed is in Heaven.

Vs. 20 indicates that Isaac believed that both of his sons would be in Heaven otherwise he would not have spoken to them ' . . . concerning things to come.'

Let me know why you personally have taken Esau off the list of those who were the O. T. fathers of the faith.

One reason is because you have an erring interpretation of Romans 9, you know the Calvinists main-stay on which to build their theology.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Will man be saved regardless of what happens?

Nope.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.com</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, really? So there is conditional election? I always thought in the Calvinistic mode of thought, one is either saved from the beginning or is not saved from the beginning. Where does this thought come from within TULIP or Spurgeon?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I was just wondering if there are any more saints that you wish to take off the list of God's heroes of faith other than Esau. The reference is Hebrews 11:4 starting with Abel and ending with Samuel and the prophets in vs. 32.

If a Calvinist could see that Esau, the person, was not hated by God (but Edom was alternatively), I believe their understanding of Romans 9 would be changed in a mighty and powerful way.

 

[Ray Berrian]

'If a Calvinist could see that God did not hate Esau . . .'

You are exactly correct. Their Calvinism would have to be trashed rather than recycled.

 

[KenH]

My understanding that Esau was lost has nothing to do with Romans chapter 9. It has to do with:

(Heb 12:16 NKJV) lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.

It sounds like ya'll's anti-Spurgeonism is hinging on Esau being saved to defend your view of Romans chapter 9. Is that it? Otherwise I really don't understand your defense of Esau.

Spurgeonites(Calvinists) always teach that God uses means to carry out His purposes. I think this is another area where you expect me to defend a view I do not hold(previously it was double predestination). For the non-means viewpoint you will have to find a hyper-Calvinist to argue with.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ray,

Please quote the part of Hebrews 11 where it says that Esau had faith. Make sure you don't confuse it with the part it says that Esau's father had faith.

This is s point you just will not submit to Scripture on. There is no place in Heb 11 where Esau is listed as a man of faith. His name is mentioned as the son of a father who had faith. Esau in Heb 12 is called a fornicator. When you read Scripture, you find that fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God. You must submit your own theology to Scripture. You have a set of ideas in your head that you refuse, for some reason, to acknowledge the revelation of God on. That is disappointing.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Ray and Scott:

Here are three posts from 1 Arminian and 1 Electionist for your benefit concerning Romans
9:13

Matthew Henry (Arminian)(But I'm not really that familiar with Henry's Theological leanings, so if I am wrong, I apologize).

The rejection of the Jews by the gospel dispensation, did not break God's promise to the patriarchs. The promises and threatenings shall be fulfilled. Grace does not run in the blood; nor are saving benefits always found with outward church privileges. Not only some of Abraham's seed were chosen, and others not, but God therein wrought according to the counsel of his own will. God foresaw both Esau and Jacob as born in sin, by nature children of wrath even as others. If left to themselves they would have continued in sin through life; but for wise and holy reasons, not made known to us, he purposed to change Jacob's heart, and to leave Esau to his perverseness. This instance of Esau and Jacob throws light upon the Divine conduct to the fallen race of man. The whole Scripture shows the difference between the professed Christian and the real believer. Outward privileges are bestowed on many who are not the children of God. There is, however, full encouragement to diligent use of the means of grace which God has appointed

John Gill

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
These words are explanative of the former; they are of like import, and the one interpret the other; and show, that the former are to be understood in a spiritual, and not in a temporal sense, and of the persons, and not the posterity of Jacob and Esau; for though Malachi prophesied long after Jacob and Esau were personally dead, yet the Lord in that prophecy manifestly directs the murmuring Jews to the personal regard he had had to Jacob and Esau, and which had continued in numberless instances to their respective posterities, in order to stop their mouths, and reprove their ingratitude; and though he speaks of the nation of the Edomites, and to the posterity of Israel, yet it is evident, that he has a respect to the persons of Jacob and Esau, from whence they sprung, when he says, "was not Esau Jacob's brother?" (Malachi 1:2) , now though an Edomite may be said to be brother to an Israelite, yet Esau is never said, nor can he with any propriety be said to be the brother of Jacob's posterity: it remains, that these words regard their persons, and express the true spring and source of the choice of the one, and the rejection of the other; and which holds true of all the instances of either kind: everlasting and unchangeable love is the true cause and spring of the choice of particular persons to eternal salvation; and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others; so the word "hate" is used for neglect, taking no notice, where positive hatred cannot be thought to take place, in (Luke 14:26) .

 

[Eric B]

and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others;

But since the rationale used is that "they were sinners and

going the way they want (sin) and only getting what they deserved", then it is positive hatred.​

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> and hatred is the cause of rejection, by which is meant not positive hatred, which can only have for its object sin and sinners, or persons so considered; but negative hatred, which is God's will, not to give eternal life to some persons; and shows itself by a neglect of them, taking no notice of them, passing them by, when he chose others;

But since the rationale used is that "they were sinners and

going the way they want (sin) and only getting what they deserved", then it is positive hatred.​

</font>[/QUOTE]You aren't trying to force a position on someone are you?? Did you read the above?? It clearly says "by which is meant not positive hatred." You do not have the option to change the author's words. He said that is not what he meant. Therefore, regardless of what you might think, it is not positive hatred to him. And by the way, he is right so far as there is a distinction between positive and negative. Whatever the point, it is a wellbased hatred because it is God's constitutional reaction against that which is not like him.​