New meaning for old verses

[TCGreek]

Having said that, you then proceed to write a diatribe on why she should think your way.

You guys crack me up.

npetreley,

You deserve a medal for your keen observation. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Having said that, you then proceed to write a diatribe on why she should think your way.

You guys crack me up.

ad hominens , dont you guy know any other way to respond.

So having said what I said, I told her this is how I saw the very scripture SHE stated were 'elusive to her' unitl she began looking at another view. Try reading.

She set them forth to be talked about, and I have done so, WITH the admonition to search out both sides and come to her own conclusion.

However, in respose to your inane comment about a diatribe - there was nothing bitter or sharply abusive in what I stated, nor was it an attack against anyone, nor was it a critisism of her or her beliefs. But of course you only used the word because it sounded religiously intellegent. Now you can say THAT was a diatribe :laugh:


It is you who crack me up.

 

[Allan]

npetreley,

You deserve a medal for your keen observation. :thumbs:

And your staying up so late is messing with your observation skills :laugh:

 

[TCGreek]

And your staying up so late is messing with your observation skills :laugh:

Don't you just love it! :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Don't you just love it! :laugh:

Actually, I sitting here at work and just took a drink of my tea as I read the comment above and almost spued it, then choked on it, from laughing. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Okay Amy, I think maybe you ought to read these passages again. Nowhere does it say that that God sent no one to Tyre, Sidon or Sodom. Sodon at least had the influence of Lot and Abram. The plain sense of these verses is that God had a special reason for the miracles shown in Chorizan, Bethsaida and Capernaum, namely to give Isreal one last chance as a nation to accept the Messiah. It says nothing about the other cities not having the message to repent brought to them. It says everything about how hardhearted the nation of Isreal had become to the Word of God.

You should notice that Chorizan, Bethsaida and Capernaum all refer to Jewish settlement while the other cities are all Gentile/heathen cities. Jesus is in essence saying that if He had chosen any from the Gentiles to show His works to(as He did throughout the history of Isreal) those people would have already repented!

Sorry, but this can't be twisted into election. The nation of Isreal was elected. To what purpose? Only their own salvation? Uh huh. Look it up. The nation of Isreal was elected to bless the nations of the world because through this people would come the salvation of that world (not just the Jewish people!).



Npet, I'm reposting you scripture but I'm going to add a few highlights of my own in blue. Did Christ just contradict himself? Or are those that the Father gives to the Son "everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him"?

Well said.

 

[David Lamb]

You have just espoused fatalism.

I thought that was Skypair's rallying cry? (No offence intended, SP. )

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Amy,

I just read through all the posts. I rejoice in God our Saviour who has revealed such truth to you. While the detractors will make their arguments against such doctrines, I wanted to write a note of encouragement.

I think you will find the doctrine of election and predestination to be one of the sweetest most profound truths of Scripture to your soul. It has been for me. The effect of such understanding leads to an exalted view of Almighty God, reverance and awe for His Majesty, an abiding thankfulness and praise from the heart for His undeserved lovingkindness, and a fresh illumination of the height, depth, bredth, of the love of God the Father in Christ Jesus.

Understanding the absolute sovereignty of God over all things brings peace beyond understanding, perseverance under many trials, calmness in storms, and rest to the soul. The doctrine of election invigorates evangelism and provides an endurance and perseverance in it that is unshakeable. I pray you find an abiding confidence to preach the Gospel to every creature under heaven KNOWING your labor is not in vain.

I also pray that those who seek to dislodge you from your growing conviction in the Word of God on this matter will be to you hammers to drive the nails of truth firmly in your heart.

May the grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you abundantly today.

RB

 

[Debby in Philly]

Whether all this is true or not, it does not make any difference in what we are supposed to do as believers. And that is, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature."

God may know who the elect are (if there is an elect), but we are not privy to the list. So we have to give the Gospel to everyone, and see who the Holy Spirit convicts. Election has been used in the past as a excuse for not preaching the Gospel, since it was believed those "who will be saved will be saved," with or without our help.

So why waste time debating it? Get out there and preach the Gospelto all, and let God sort 'em out!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Whether all this is true or not, it does not make any difference in what we are supposed to do as believers. And that is, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature."

God may know who the elect are (if there is an elect), but we are not privy to the list. So we have to give the Gospel to everyone, and see who the Holy Spirit convicts. Election has been used in the past as a excuse for not preaching the Gospel, since it was believed those "who will be saved will be saved," with or without our help.

So why waste time debating it? Get out there and preach the Gospelto all, and let God sort 'em out!

There is a sense in which I could agree with this Debby, but another sense which I cannot. The Scripture teaches election, predestination, atonement, et. Therefore, the doctrines are important. If they were marginal, then why would the Lord give so much attention to them in Holy Scripture?

THe doctrines are profitable to every believer and should be taught frequently.

 

[Amy.G]

I ENCOURAGE you to look at BOTH sides of the coin. If you are studying some verses that are somewhat elusive, then look at what BOTH camps say about it. Then do you own research and believe what you then understand as truth. But don't be so resolute that you will not have a teachable heart even after you have come to an understanding. Let God lead you into truth, and let the rest of us bark :laugh: .

Allan, if I didn't have a teachable heart, I wouldn't even be looking into this. I would just stay put on the free-will side.
I have already been on one side of the coin for my entire Christian life. I am now exploring the other side.


Your post shows many elements of election

This is part of the problem found with John 6 issue of the 'Father drawing' because it is specific to Israel here.
Why? Becuase Israel (The Fathers Wife and chosen People unto Himself) was under a curse (blindness) for disobedience and rebellion therefore not all of Israel (in the National sense) was 'permitted' to come to Christ. This is why the term 'draw' is in the subjunctive mood and is why God was not 'drawing' them all.

Because the promise was to exend beyond the Jewish Nation (Gods people and wife, whom God set aside for time that Christ might make for Himself a Bride using part of His own) to those outside its ethnic and religous boundries (Gentile followers of Jewish beliefs).

Also about those whom Jesus is speaking to in John 6 is that though Jesus declares they do not believe, even though They Have Seen Him (remember this part for context in a minute) He also declares He is the Bread GIVEN FOR THEM.

Do we or do we not see God giving Christ (who gives life) to those who will reject Him? Yep and it is mirrored in vs 33:
So we see Christ has been given to them by the Father but look at verse 36 for the context of passage you find elusive:

Actually what I see is those that did not believe were not given to Christ by the Father. (vs. 37)

 

[reformedbeliever]

Hey Amy. I pray that the revelation of truth does to you what it did for me. The Bible came together in such a cohesive manner ... and His truth came across like never before. The Bible now reads upon my heart in a way that it never could when I believed in "free will." To understand that God loved me just as I am, and sent His Son to die for me... not because of anything or any decision I made... but by His mercy and grace... set me free. Praise God!

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Hi Amy,
I just wanted to ask you what you are currently defining as "free-will"?
You said this in a post to Webdog and he then agreed with you in his next post.

I have said for a long time that I see both predestination and free will in the pages of God's word. I can't explain how they both work together because they seem to oppose one another, but they are definitely there and both are true

.
Do you think his idea of "free-will" and your current understanding of "free-will" are one and the same?

Calvinists will affirm that humans do have a free will. But we define it differently than the non-Calvinists.
Jonathan Edwards in his book The Freedom of the Will is often credited with establishing the definition Calvinists use.
If you are already familar with this defintion, I won't belabor the differences to you.
But be aware, that the non-Calvinist's use of "free-will" does not work alongside of election or predestination.
Non-Calvinists assume that the terms "human responsibility" and "free-will" are synonyms of each other for both sides. I don't believe they are. I prefer to say that man is "accountable/responsible' before God yet does not have the "free-will" that non-Calvinists ascribe to.

I hope I haven't confused you with all this stuff.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Amy,
I just wanted to ask you what you are currently defining as "free-will"?
You said this in a post to Webdog and he then agreed with you in his next post.
.
Do you think his idea of "free-will" and your current understanding of "free-will" are one and the same?

Calvinists will affirm that humans do have a free will. But we define it differently than the non-Calvinists.
Jonathan Edwards in his book The Freedom of the Will is often credited with establishing the definition Calvinists use.
If you are already familar with this defintion, I won't belabor the differences to you.
But be aware, that the non-Calvinist's use of "free-will" does not work alongside of election or predestination.
Non-Calvinists assume that the terms "human responsibility" and "free-will" are synonyms of each other for both sides. I don't believe they are. I prefer to say that man is "accountable/responsible' before God yet does not have the "free-will" that non-Calvinists ascribe to.

I hope I haven't confused you with all this stuff.

I can't speak to what WD views as free will, but I what I meant was that free will exists and predistination exists. Predestination implies that God's will must override man's will, yet we still have a free will. I cannot explain how this works, yet it's clear in God's word that they are both at work.

I do not know the definition of free will according to Jonathan Edwards.

Me confused?? :laugh:

 

[webdog]

She is letting Scripture talk for itself. But you want Webdog to explain Scripture.....then you will be happy.

Thanks for another worthless post, James.

 

[webdog]

Hi Amy,
I just wanted to ask you what you are currently defining as "free-will"?
You said this in a post to Webdog and he then agreed with you in his next post.
.
Do you think his idea of "free-will" and your current understanding of "free-will" are one and the same?

Calvinists will affirm that humans do have a free will. But we define it differently than the non-Calvinists.
Jonathan Edwards in his book The Freedom of the Will is often credited with establishing the definition Calvinists use.
If you are already familar with this defintion, I won't belabor the differences to you.
But be aware, that the non-Calvinist's use of "free-will" does not work alongside of election or predestination.
Non-Calvinists assume that the terms "human responsibility" and "free-will" are synonyms of each other for both sides. I don't believe they are. I prefer to say that man is "accountable/responsible' before God yet does not have the "free-will" that non-Calvinists ascribe to.

I hope I haven't confused you with all this stuff.

I still don't understand how you guys can claim to believe in "free will" when the will has been determined by God. A choice of one thing, and one thing only is not a choice. A choice consists of the abiltiy to chose between TWO or more things. If you believe in "free will" the will can choose freely.

 

[webdog]

Hey Amy. I pray that the revelation of truth does to you what it did for me. The Bible came together in such a cohesive manner ... and His truth came across like never before. The Bible now reads upon my heart in a way that it never could when I believed in "free will." To understand that God loved me just as I am, and sent His Son to die for me... not because of anything or any decision I made... but by His mercy and grace... set me free. Praise God!

Strange...because this is how I see it, too. Your camp does not hold the claim to "truth"

 

[webdog]

Amy,

I just read through all the posts. I rejoice in God our Saviour who has revealed such truth to you. While the detractors will make their arguments against such doctrines, I wanted to write a note of encouragement.

I think you will find the doctrine of election and predestination to be one of the sweetest most profound truths of Scripture to your soul. It has been for me. The effect of such understanding leads to an exalted view of Almighty God, reverance and awe for His Majesty, an abiding thankfulness and praise from the heart for His undeserved lovingkindness, and a fresh illumination of the height, depth, bredth, of the love of God the Father in Christ Jesus.

Understanding the absolute sovereignty of God over all things brings peace beyond understanding, perseverance under many trials, calmness in storms, and rest to the soul. The doctrine of election invigorates evangelism and provides an endurance and perseverance in it that is unshakeable. I pray you find an abiding confidence to preach the Gospel to every creature under heaven KNOWING your labor is not in vain.

I also pray that those who seek to dislodge you from your growing conviction in the Word of God on this matter will be to you hammers to drive the nails of truth firmly in your heart.

May the grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you abundantly today.

RB

Npet...does your claim apply to RB's post, too?

Having said that, you then proceed to write a diatribe on why she should think your way.

You guys crack me up.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I still don't understand how you guys can claim to believe in "free will" when the will has been determined by God. A choice of one thing, and one thing only is not a choice. A choice consists of the abiltiy to chose between TWO or more things. If you believe in "free will" the will can choose freely.

Still? It has been explained to you enough. You should at least have an understanding of what we believe, even if you do not believe it yourself. I'll explain to you again. We act according to our nature or will. We are free to act within the bounds of our nature. God is free to act within the bounds of His nature. Its that simple web. It has been explained to you before. Of course you may argue that our will is not our nature....

 

[webdog]

Still? It has been explained to you enough. You should at least have an understanding of what we believe, even if you do not believe it yourself. I'll explain to you again. We act according to our nature or will. We are free to act within the bounds of our nature. God is free to act within the bounds of His nature. Its that simple web. It has been explained to you before. Of course you may argue that our will is not our nature....

There is no Scripture that supports your notion we only act according to our nature. That is man made false premise that calvinism needs for it to work.

You still did not explain how a will is truly "free", btw. You claimed to...but didn't. A "free will" in bondage is an oxymoron.