middle ground

[Lazarus]

Where is the middle ground between unconditonal and not unconditional election?

Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[Amy.G]

Doesn't God really elect those who will come? Those that won't come aren't elected. Doesn't God know from the beginning of creation (or before) who will and who won't come to Him? Those He forsees will come to Him, He sends His Spirit to draw them.

Sometimes I think neither side adds up. :laugh:

I think I'll just thank God that He called me and I responded, regardless if I can explain it or not.

 

[npetreley]

I think the better question would be "Is a gift a gift if everyone is entitled to it? Does is not become an entitlement?"

Exactly. In the free-will "fairness" scenario, God is obligated to "offer" salvation to everyone. But if God is under such obligation, the so-called "gift" is no longer a gift, and grace is no longer grace. As you quoted later, He will have mercy on whom He has mercy. That's all there is to it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

PL!! I been wonderin' where you bean!

I have an actual life. Unfortunately it has recently involved a herniated disk in my back that has me flat on my back and unable to do much. Plus my renewed dedication to worthwhile acccomplishment at my current stage of life and ministry has caused me to cut back on the amount of time I spend here.

There is "middle ground," Lar.

So where is the middle ground between God unconditionally chooses individuals to salvation and God doesn't unconditionally choose individuals to salvation?

God "unconditionally elects" those whom He "conditionally chooses!" Do you get that?

That's incoherent. To "elect" is to "choose." (Look it up.) It is not both unconditional and conditional. This is one reason why I don't spend much time in here recently. We have people who don't even know the meaning of words.

God has a plan for the life of those who believe and that they could not even remotely prepare themselves for!

This is pure Calvinism.

 

[npetreley]

Doesn't God really elect those who will come? Those that won't come aren't elected.

No, that's not what the Bible says.

All the Father gives Me will come to Me. It doesn't say, "may come to me if they so decide", after which I'll call them the elect/chosen. We WILL come. And we come because we have been chosen and given to Him.

 

[Amy.G]

No, that's not what the Bible says.

All the Father gives Me will come to Me. It doesn't say, "may come to me if they so decide", after which I'll call them the elect/chosen. We WILL come. And we come because we have been chosen and given to Him.

Hi NP,
Maybe the Father only gives to Jesus those He forsaw (is that a word? :laugh: )would say yes?

 

[Lazarus]

Doesn't God really elect those who will come?

These are who God has called,

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

If God called me because He knew I would except, would'nt I then be able to brag about it?

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

God doesn't say anything about knowing who will except. God calls according to His will.

 

[russell55]

So which is the defining point: Total Depravity or Unconditional/Conditional Election?

I think it's unconditional/conditional election.

I believe I understand Total Depravity, but where is the line drawn betweem conditional election and unconditional?

It comes down to the question of how God chooses (elects) those whom he will bring to salvation. Does he choose based on something within them (like his forseeing that they will come to faith), or not?

The problem with calling non Calvinists, Arminians, is that many like myself don't believe in a fall from grace. That is, once one accepts Christ it is impossible to lose or forsake one's salvation.

But the five points of Arminianism don't preclude a belief in eternal security. Here's a comparision chart, and you'll see that

All Arminians have not been agreed on [whether a believer can lose their salvation]; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ--that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

and the original Remonstrants (those who developed the five points of Arminianism) left the question of whether believers are capable of falling from grace open.

But whether [believers] are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

So believing in eternal security doesn't mean someone is not Arminian.

 

[npetreley]

Hi NP,
Maybe the Father only gives to Jesus those He forsaw (is that a word? :laugh: )would say yes?

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.

If the bold part meant "whom He foreknew would say yes", it would have to be a different Greek word than proginosko. The Greek word there means "knew beforehand intimately". Some free willers claim, "same diff - if He knew us intimately, that also means He knew what we'd choose".

However, this presents problems in the context. "whom He foreknew" is as opposed to "whom He did NOT foreknow". The opposite is depicted by Jesus saying, "I never knew you". In fact, that word "knew" is ginosko - the same word in "foreknew".

But if you change it to mean "knew beforehand would say yes", then that would be as opposed to "I never knew what you would say". Obviously, it cannot be true that Jesus never knew what we'd choose.

So it does violence to the text to try to make "foreknow" mean that.

 

[russell55]

Doesn't God really elect those who will come? Those that won't come aren't elected. Doesn't God know from the beginning of creation (or before) who will and who won't come to Him? Those He forsees will come to Him, He sends His Spirit to draw them.

Everyone, on both sides agrees that God foresees who will come to him. The question is: Does God elect (or choose) them because he foresees they will come? Is their foreseen choice to come the determining factor in God's choice of them? Or is God's choice of them the determining factor in their being willing to come?

Or to put it in a slightly different way: Did God foresee them coming because he chose to bring them to salvation, or did he choose to bring them to salvation because he foresees them coming?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ya'll don't go to fast, I have supper to fix!

So how can that be middle ground between the two sides if both sides affirm it?

I'm thinking anything that both sides agree on is middle ground!

The reason it's a gift is because it's given to someone who God has chosen and does not deserve it. Would anyone who understood the true value of a gift really refuse it? I don't think so, and as far a repentance goes, anyone who ever stood in the presence of God fell to their knees and even their face's. When God's touches a heart that person knows the holiness of God and they know their own sinfulness. This contrast is so strong that they need God to forgive them. Eventually, everyone who is called falls to their knees, not because it's not a choice but because the choice not to is not an option.

I highlighted in different colors for clarity.

Red: It's a gift because it is being offered free of charge (for lack of a better expression). It can't be a gift until it is both offered and recieved. It doesn't matter if one deserves it or not, only that one has not worked for it.

Blue: Really now, there are all sorts of reasons why one might turn down a gift they know is valuable. It might not be a wise thing to do, or even a logical thing to do, but people are stubborn and have all sorts of reasons for not doing that which they know is right and will gain them (fill in the blank).

Purple: Umm, do we have an example in scripture of someone who was not already a believer standing in the prescence of God? We know Lucifer did and didn't repent. But let's think about humans. EVERY knee won't bow for quite a while. However this is a wild hare and gets us no closer to the info I'm looking for.

Green: This goes back to the purple comments. EVERY knee will eventually bow. NOT every knee will accept willingly and this is where I'm having a snag. God can and will force everyone to submit to His will in the end. What makes the difference between those who accept the fact of His Godhead on judgement day and those who accept it while they live on earth?

Lazurus' post is as far as I can get until I feed the family. I'll be back in a bit.

 

[Amy.G]

Green: This goes back to the purple comments. EVERY knee will eventually bow. NOT every knee will accept willingly and this is where I'm having a snag. God can and will force everyone to submit to His will in the end. What makes the difference between those who accept the fact of His Godhead on judgement day and those who accept it while they live on earth?

Ya'll are making my brain hurt! :laugh:

Good point MK!

Looking forward to the responses.

 

[Lazarus]

Blue: Really now, there are all sorts of reasons why one might turn down a gift they know is valuable.

If I walk into a room filled with people and offer $100.00 to anyone who excepts, I guarantee there will be a stampede. At least in my circle of friends. :thumbs:

Now to assume that God will call anyone who he foreknew would except, would mean everyone would except. Why? because He would need to regenerate everyone in order for everyone to understand what they are accepting. To assume that anyone who knew the choice, Heaven or Hell would except Hell is not being realistic. That's the value of the gift I'm talking about.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nobody, called or not understands what is being offered until God touches that heart. Unless somehow a person would be willing to go to HELL then God choosing because of foreknowledge will not work.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Yeah, I was drafted without any choice in the same way I might have been forced to enjoy a free all-expenses paid no-limits vacation on a tropical island with a Shania Twain look-alike. Oh, how cruel a God to force me to endure such a thing as salvation!!!

Cute, but it since I don't happen think Shania Twain is all that, being forced to endure spending time with someone who only looks like her, doesn't appeal to me. Find a better way to explain why God wants to force us to accept Him, when He didn't bother to force Adam to obey.

Ro 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2pe 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Please, let's not play dueling scriptures. I play all too well, as do others on this board. For every scripture you post that supports your view, there is a equal scripture that supports the other side. That's why there is an arguement! Instead, what can we do to figure out how these scriptures compliment each other since it is not possible that they contradict each other?

Doesn't God really elect those who will come? Those that won't come aren't elected.

This seems to be the heart of the argument.

If God called me because He knew I would except, would'nt I then be able to brag about it?

Would you? David was called "a man after God's own heart", do you find that he bragged about his own acceptance of God's grace?

Here's another question I have:

If it took action by man to separate us from God, why do you think it wouldn't take an action by man to reunite us with God? Lest anyone get the wrong idea of what I'm thinking, let me restate it another way:

If it took disobedience by Adam (ie he chose to disobey) for us to experience spiritual death, why would it then not take obedience on our part (chose to obey the step God has set forth) in order to experience spiritual life.

Spritual life meaning union with God, spritual death meaning separation from God.

 

[Lazarus]

God can and will force everyone to submit to His will in the end

In the end, God will force everyone to submit. But the key word here is force. When a man is saved, he is not forced to his knees. He is brought to his knees because of sin and his need to repent. God's holiness in contrast to a man's sin is profound. If anyone says they are saved and have never experienced that gut wrenching guilt which conviction brings then they should re-examine their relationship with God.

 

[Lazarus]

2pe 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2pe 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all (who were called) should come to repentance.

If God is unwilling that any should perish, but because many do perish, doesn't that diminish God's power. A holy and sovereign God will not have His will come to naught. So, the all can only be those who He called and not everyone in the world.

 

[menageriekeeper]

If I walk into a room filled with people and offer $100.00 to anyone who excepts, I guarantee there will be a stampede. At least in my circle of friends. :thumbs:

You have a different circle of friends than I do. My friends would a) wonder if they were being offered charity, b) decline because they have plenty, or c) think the person offering needed a doctor's visit! :laugh:

Russel, thanks for the links, I'm looking at them now.

 

[Lazarus]

You have a different circle of friends than I do

In that case just keep adding 0s. Sooner or later you will reach that magic number.

 

[menageriekeeper]

In the end, God will force everyone to submit. But the key word here is force. When a man is saved, he is not forced to his knees. He is brought to his knees because of sin and his need to repent. God's holiness in contrast to a man's sin is profound. If anyone says they are saved and have never experienced that gut wrenching guilt which conviction brings then they should re-examine their relationship with God.

Look, look, look! Middle ground!!!!! We found some.

2pe 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all (who were called) should come to repentance.

You are NOT allowed to add words to the scripture, in this discussion, unless you can quote the context from which you derived them. In this case you have no context and the scripture does NOT contain the words "(all who were called)"

In this case you have no context as Peter is explaining why the Lord hasn't reappeared yet. Find some context and try again.

 

[Lazarus]

The added words were for clarity since God's Will and Power were being called into question.