New meaning for old verses

[Allan]

Which is that God elected me because I chose Him through my belief. That's what you're arguing that the Bible tells us right? Belief was the criteria.

God was sovereign in choosing the criteria which was belief to elect His people. Then in His foreknowledge He became knowledgable of who would believe, so then He could say, "I elected them".
Is that how you would explain how God's sovereignty in His election?
He had to pick the criteria before He knew who the believers were otherwise His choice would no longer be sovereign but based on people's belief.

Is there an order to God's knowledge?
Can God separate Himself from His Omniscience at any given time and thus know one thing first and then another?
Because that's what you're position seems to require.
God must have known the criteria first, then secondly He knew the people who matched that criteria. If He knew both simultaneously then one would influence the other, would it not?
His choice of the criteria would be influenced by His knowledge of the believers. So He would already know who they were when He picked the criteria and thus not absolutely sovereign because He could not not pick a believer. That had to be part of the criteria. Belief.
I believe that God elected people based on His love for them. And taking it back a step further, what was His loved for them based on? His love.
Just like He told the Israelites in Deut. 7: 8 and 10:15.
He loved them because He loved them.

Some might not like talking about God's knowledge this way, but our beliefs have consequences and we do need to think about those consequences to the best of our abilities. And this next part discusses those consequences.
I don't know how your position absolves God of damning people which is often the charge leveled at Calvinism.
Unconditional election shows God to pick some and not pick others for salvation. How then can man be responsible if he had no choice at all? His damning is not his fault, so the argument goes.
But how does your position absolve God either? No matter which way you look at it, God created people with the knowledge that they would be damned.
When He actualized this world, He did so with the knowledge that the unbeliever would be damned. His criteria, according to you was belief( unless I completely missed your point above). If He was not willing that any should perish, then He could have a created a world in which everyone believed. Or He could have created a world in which the criteria was humanness. You had to be a human. Or maybe no criteria at all. Or whatever other sovereign choices you want to give God. Just create people to fill up heaven.

But even in your system God is the ultimate cause behind an unbeliever's damnation. Either He selected the criteria then He became knowledgeable of those who would not believe that He had created. Or He selected the criteria all the while knowing that there would be many who would not match that criteria and would be damned.
So again, it seems no matter how you want to play it, God is the ultimate reason for creating damned souls.
His exhaustive foreknowledge is a problem for us if we are trying to absolve God of souls lost in hell, unless we acknowledge that God has a God-glorifying purpose in creating a hell.

I will try to deal with all of the myths and misunderstandings in the above later tonight. (which is practically the entire post)

But in reading this, I would encourage you to actually READ UP on what Non-Cals ACTAULLY believe because you have are so off base most would even want to. It is comparable to telling a Catholic salvation is by grace and not of works. Unless they really want to know they will believe what they want.

 

[Allan]

Which is that God elected me because I chose Him through my belief. That's what you're arguing that the Bible tells us right? Belief was the criteria.

No, not that belief WAS the criteria (as though it was the whole of it) but that belief was a part of the criteria in God's Choosing (there might have been more but scripture only tells us of this and the work of the Holy Spirit) , and that the Non-Cals believe He reveals it as such in scripture.
But maybe you know more than me on this since I'm no genius so I'll ask you.

Why did God choose you?
Or
Did God just arbitrarily choose?
If not, then upon what basis was His choice made?

God was sovereign in choosing the criteria which was belief to elect His people. Then in His foreknowledge He became knowledgable of who would believe, so then He could say, "I elected them".

Completely WRONG but also regarding knowledge.
God doesn't 'look down time' or 'see into time' He knows all things at once as though it is present (now).
So when God in His soveriegnty determined to save a people by His grace through faith, He ALREADY knew all things.

Yet here is the kicker, beyond knowing that God intended to save those of faith and that those of faith were part of His knowledge regarding His plan, we KNOW nothing more. We don't know what God thought or knew or much less even HOW God thinks. You don't know if God planned and then He knew (which is ridiculous IMO) or If in Gods knowledge (however it transpires) planned. Your group trys to center a portion of its theology upon a postulation that God must first decree and only THEN He knows what He knows. However, NO WHERE is this evidenced in scripture or supported in ANY way there in. But it is at the very heart of your understanding. The Non-Cals merely state that God planned and Knew simultaniously since we can get no other rendering from scripture.

I would encourage you to study up on 'election' both currently and historically regarding it's purpose and functionality through out culture.

Is that how you would explain how God's sovereignty in His election?
He had to pick the criteria before He knew who the believers were otherwise His choice would no longer be sovereign but based on people's belief.

Again wrong presumption.

But let me ask you this. Did God first determine to Kill His Son, and then decided He would make mankind fall into sin?

Is there an order to God's knowledge?
Can God separate Himself from His Omniscience at any given time and thus know one thing first and then another?
Because that's what you're position seems to require.

Again, you lack even the most basic of understand regarding my view to make this assumption.

Is there an order to Gods knowledge. Nothing in scripture declares anthing about it. There is an order to Gods plan, but His knowledge?
In Gods Ominiscience can He know all things of any order He chose to consider, if in fact He needs to?
I personally can not speak for the mind and knowledge of God, but I am assuming you think you can? Am I correct?

God must have known the criteria first, then secondly He knew the people who matched that criteria. If He knew both simultaneously then one would influence the other, would it not?

Again, postulation at it's worst.
Are you saying that God's knowledge has no influence on His pleasure, purpose and plan?
You ascribe God as not thinking first but simply declaring a thing, and yet to have a plan or purpose one must have thought it out in some measure to determine how it all comes together from the smallest organism to His second Coming. God is a God of order and not chaos though assumption is brought to bare here on my part, it is hard to think of God not thinking but blindly stating something and then aquiring a knowledge of it as He states it or 'makes it be'.

His choice of the criteria would be influenced by His knowledge of the believers.

Is it not God who can determine if the saved will all be blonde haired and blue eyed, or those of faith? Is that not His soveriegn right to decide how and what He will do, or am I wrong here? I though God could do as He wished?

So He would already know who they were when He picked the criteria and thus not absolutely sovereign because He could not not pick a believer. That had to be part of the criteria. Belief.

Apparently you don't understand soveriegnty.
He was not bound to choose those of faith to receive His grace, He, in His sovereignty chose it to be THAT WAY. Guess what - Even if there would never be a person on the planet who would be of faith it was still Gods soveriegn right to choose and it pleased Him. And He chose to save us by His grace through faith.

I believe that God elected people based on His love for them. And taking it back a step further, what was His loved for them based on? His love.
Just like He told the Israelites in Deut. 7: 8 and 10:15.
He loved them because He loved them.

Ok, first - this makes NO sense. He loved Israel because He loved Israel.
Second - While Duet 7:8 states God loves them (and I have no problem with that), 10:15 states God 'set his heart in love on your fathers' and chose their offspring after them... This does not say what you just ascibed it.
Of course God loves or will set His desires upon those who will believe, why wouldn't He. BUT Gods love for His creation gave rise to His mercy through grace was given.

Some might not like talking about God's knowledge this way, but our beliefs have consequences and we do need to think about those consequences to the best of our abilities.

I agree. Yet so far you have not even remotely expressed the Non-Cals version even adiquately.

I don't know how your position absolves God of damning people which is often the charge leveled at Calvinism.
Unconditional election shows God to pick some and not pick others for salvation. How then can man be responsible if he had no choice at all? His damning is not his fault, so the argument goes.

Again, you are incorrect in your summation of what the other side says or believes.
The Non-Cals ALL agree Man is damned based upon his sinnful rebellion. Being damned is exactly Mans fault. What is argued is that God determinded to save some and damn others before they did anything - as in - before sin was an issue.
This is why arguement must carefully understood in light that some say God damned a people to hell before God in His foreknowledge place them in sin.

But how does your position absolve God either? No matter which way you look at it, God created people with the knowledge that they would be damned.

Yes, He did and both groups are allowed into being that He might be glorified.
But what 'we' do not see scripture contending is that God decreed some for Hell not based on their choice. There are two groups of Calvinist on this issue to, you know. Most will say as the Non-Cal does - that man chose rebellion, sin, and thus eternal seperation of and from God. But not that this choice was outside the full and eternal knowledge of God, as though it snuck up on Him.

When He actualized this world, He did so with the knowledge that the unbeliever would be damned.

Yes, and no Non-Cal disagrees.

His criteria, according to you was belief( unless I completely missed your point above). If He was not willing that any should perish, then He could have a created a world in which everyone believed.

Yes, He could have if He so chose. But God wanted a humble and contrite heart not a robot. And God doesn't desire that any perish but that all SHOULD come to repentence. Is this not the God who commands all to repent? Why should He do that if He doesn't desire that they repent. Otherwise He would take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but we know scripture states He does not.

Or He could have created a world in which the criteria was humanness. You had to be a human. Or maybe no criteria at all. Or whatever other sovereign choices you want to give God. Just create people to fill up heaven.

Very true, but He had a purpose and a plan in which those things did not fit to His pleasure.

But even in your system God is the ultimate cause behind an unbeliever's damnation.

Nope. There aren't many Calvinists who would agree either. Man is the ultimate cause of mans damnation.

part one ended:...

 

[Allan]

Part two:

Either He selected the criteria then He became knowledgeable of those who would not believe that He had created. Or He selected the criteria all the while knowing that there would be many who would not match that criteria and would be damned.

Again, you have presumed incorrectly. Why did man need saving, if God did not already know that man would fall??
In the knowledge of God, He knew man if left to himself would fall and thus be under Gods condenation, but God gave man that choice. And at the same time gave him the truth that could save him. But man left to himself will seek after the flesh even in innocence (Adam and Eve). So God determining in His mind a criteria (or one of the criteria that we are privy to) is for the sake of saving those whom God desired in the first place - humble and contrite -

So again, it seems no matter how you want to play it, God is the ultimate reason for creating damned souls.

Yes, God created man who would condemn himself first in action through Adam and Eve, and then condemn himself by not rejecting the truth so as to save him.

But God did not damn man and then choose the means through which that damnation would come - sin.

His exhaustive foreknowledge is a problem for us if we are trying to absolve God of souls lost in hell, unless we acknowledge that God has a God-glorifying purpose in creating a hell.

Of course God has a glorifying purpose for creating hell. But it is only you who are ascribing to God that He is the first cause of sin in man and thus man is damned for what God has done. This is a hyper-Cals view, and not one accepted amounst the Majority of Cals.

This is why you need to read up on what the Non-Cals believes. Try asking what we mean, define certain things, and expound certain views.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Allan,
I read both you're both posts, but I don't think I can really respond to anything you've said.
You're bent on ignoring the consequences that your views on God's omniscience require of you.
Your consistent use of sarcasm is duly noted and I doubt I will really ever be able to have an edifying discussion with you.
And just for the record:
Deut 4:37

Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength,

Deut. 7:7,8

The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deut. 10:15

Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.

 

[webdog]

Allan,
I read both you're both posts, but I don't think I can really respond to anything you've said.
You're bent on ignoring the consequences that your views on God's omniscience require of you.
Your consistent use of sarcasm is duly noted and I doubt I will really ever be able to have an edifying discussion with you.

Nothing to respond to?!?!

At least show where Allan "ignored the consequences...that God's omniscience requires..."

Also:

Why did God choose you?
Or
Did God just arbitrarily choose?
If not, then upon what basis was His choice made?

...seems like one that could be answered...

Translation (IMO): I have nothing to say that can refute the truth.

Great posts, Allan! I'm glad there is someone on the BB that can so eloquently say what I am thinking, particlularly...

Yet here is the kicker, beyond knowing that God intended to save those of faith and that those of faith were part of His knowledge regarding His plan, we KNOW nothing more. We don't know what God thought or knew or much less even HOW God thinks. You don't know if God planned and then He knew (which is ridiculous IMO) or If in Gods knowledge (however it transpires) planned. Your group trys to center a portion of its theology upon a postulation that God must first decree and only THEN He knows what He knows. However, NO WHERE is this evidenced in scripture or supported in ANY way there in. But it is at the very heart of your understanding. The Non-Cals merely state that God planned and Knew simultaniously since we can get no other rendering from scripture.

 

[donnA]

Amy, I am not sure how you reconcile those verses that show election, and free will. But I think they are both true. The Father does give men to Jesus, but the men have to come.

But the verse says all the Father give will come, not might come, not have to chose to come, but WILL come to Jesus. No free will involved in that.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Wrong yet again James. God has ALREADY set forth truth to man in nature and his conscience. Your anology isn't even comparable.



But it is lacking.

AND You and Calvinsim believe that though all men have the resposibility to believe the gospel to be saved not all men have the ability to respond in a positive manner.

We also do not believe all men are given the Gospel. There are many who (despite webdog saying there are not) never get to hear the Gospel. We have their survivors witness that they never heard the Gospel. This is your major stumbling block Allan. Yeah, you can say (as Webdog does) how can you prove this? By the testimony of those who were closest to them.... their family or thier survivors. NOT everyone is given "prevenient grace." As a matter of fact.... there is no such thing. Men are dead in their trespasses and sins.

 

[webdog]

We also do not believe all men are given the Gospel. There are many who (despite webdog saying there are not) never get to hear the Gospel. We have their survivors witness that they never heard the Gospel. This is your major stumbling block Allan. Yeah, you can say (as Webdog does) how can you prove this? By the testimony of those who were closest to them.... their family or thier survivors. NOT everyone is given "prevenient grace." As a matter of fact.... there is no such thing. Men are dead in their trespasses and sins.

I think it has already been pointed out there is no way to prove everyone has not heard. Family of survivors are not credible, as that is a still a second hand point of view.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I think it has already been pointed out there is no way to prove everyone has not heard. Family of survivors are not credible, as that is a still a second hand point of view.

Well when they are on their deathbed and the family is surrounding them, knowing they had never heard any such thing as a "Gospel", and then they die....... that is pretty good proof. Prove they don't know Webdog. Pretty lame..... lol.

 

[webdog]

Well when they are on their deathbed and the family is surrounding them, knowing they had never heard any such thing as a "Gospel", and then they die....... that is pretty good proof. Prove they don't know Webdog. Pretty lame..... lol.

It really makes no difference who surrounds who on their death bed. Nobody is inside anybody's mind...is with them 24 hours a day, etc. There is no way another human being can state 100% factually what somebody else has witnessed in their lifetime. Your rendition sounds almost psychic.

I don't have to prove a negative...it's a given. I know for a fact no human being knows for certain what is in another human being mind. If they did, they would be God.

 

[Amy.G]

But the verse says all the Father give will come, not might come, not have to chose to come, but WILL come to Jesus. No free will involved in that.

Donna, I will have to disagree with you about the lack of free will. I believe that when God reveals Himself, we still have a choice. But when faced with the choice between the revealed God and His goodness and the misery that we are in, we will choose God. In a sense, you might say it is the only choice, but a choice none the less. A choice between the glorious God and a life filled with pain and misery. But God must reveal Himself in order to have this choice to begin with.

Does that make any sense?

 

[npetreley]

Donna, I will have to disagree with you about the lack of free will. I believe that when God reveals Himself, we still have a choice. But when faced with the choice between the revealed God and His goodness and the misery that we are in, we will choose God. In a sense, you might say it is the only choice, but a choice none the less. A choice between the glorious God and a life filled with pain and misery. But God must reveal Himself in order to have this choice to begin with.

Does that make any sense?

Yes. This is how I see it, too.

 

[webdog]

John 12:32 says Chrsist draws all men. Why aren't all men saved, then?

However you want to cut it, it is not a true choice by definition. If something is an "only choice"...it's a non choice.

 

[Amy.G]

John 12:32 says Chrsist draws all men. Why aren't all men saved, then?

However you want to cut it, it is not a true choice by definition. If something is an "only choice"...it's a non choice.

That's not true. If you had a choice between sending your son to a crime infested school or a well respected Christian school, which would you choose? Of course you'd choose the Christian school. Even though it may seem like the only logical choice, you still had a choice, of your own free will, without force or coersion.

 

[npetreley]

John 12:32 says Chrsist draws all men. Why aren't all men saved, then?

Because "all men" means "all men without distinction", not "all men without exception".

 

[webdog]

That's not true. If you had a choice between sending your son to a crime infested school or a well respected Christian school, which would you choose? Of course you'd choose the Christian school. Even though it may seem like the only logical choice, you still had a choice, of your own free will, without force or coersion.

The choice would depend if financially it could become a reality,or if I wanted to part ways with my money. Since the "love of money" (selfishness) is the root of all evil, many when presented between God and self choose self.

What choice do those get who have a choice between a crime infested school...and a crime infested school? A choice demands two options for it to be a choice. If God does not present the option of truly coming to Him, there is no choice.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The choice would depend if financially it could become a reality,or if I wanted to part ways with my money. Since the "love of money" (selfishness) is the root of all evil, many when presented between God and self choose self.

What choice do those get who have a choice between a crime infested school...and a crime infested school? A choice demands two options for it to be a choice. If God does not present the option of truly coming to Him, there is no choice.

God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel.

 

[J.D.]

Donna, I will have to disagree with you about the lack of free will. I believe that when God reveals Himself, we still have a choice. But when faced with the choice between the revealed God and His goodness and the misery that we are in, we will choose God. In a sense, you might say it is the only choice, but a choice none the less. A choice between the glorious God and a life filled with pain and misery. But God must reveal Himself in order to have this choice to begin with.

Does that make any sense?

Amy, both you and DonnA are right. I think Donna is looking at the relationship of free will to salvation through the telescope, and you're looking at it through the microscope. In a broad sense, salvation has nothing to the free will of man, but in a closer look, we see that man, as you said, "when faced with the choice between the revealed God and His goodness and the misery that we are in, we will choose God."

God changes man's nature, which changes his will, and affects his choices. That's how it works, all to His Glory!

 

[Allan]

Amy, both you and DonnA are right. I think Donna is looking at the relationship of free will to salvation through the telescope, and you're looking at it through the microscope. In a broad sense, salvation has nothing to the free will of man, but in a closer look, we see that man, as you said, "when faced with the choice between the revealed God and His goodness and the misery that we are in, we will choose God."

God changes man's nature, which changes his will, and affects his choices. That's how it works, all to His Glory!

So then how do you reconcile that with those who see and know God's glory, majesty(Godhead), KNOW the TRUTH, and even KNOW the Judgment of God which is coming but still WILL NOT choose God. Scripture states they see the 'revealed God' and 'His goodness' and 'Holiness' and even 'His Judgment to come' and STILL will NOT choose God.

Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
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

Or these who KNOW the truth but reject it.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Notice please they were not damned until AFTER they reject the truth God revealed TO THEM, and it is the same in Rom 1.
Another is below:

4 Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, restraint, and patience, not recognizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
5 But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment is revealed.
6 He will repay each one according to his works :
7 eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth, but are obeying unrighteousness;
9 affliction and distress for every human being who does evil, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek;
10 but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.
11 There is no favoritism with God.

We are accountable for what we do with the Truth that God reveals to us. We can accept it or reject it according to the word of God. God does not turn us over to ourselves (our own choice) until we have rejected the truth He has given whether in nature/conscience or the fulness of that truth Christ Himself. God hardens our hearts after rejection because it is for THAT CAUSE He will send forth a strong delusion to believe the lie that we might be damned who believed not/rejected the truth.

Many more can be cited in accordance with the above but one more scripture also states in Heb 3:15-

15 As it is said: Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.
16 For who heard and rebelled? Wasn't it really all who came out of Egypt under Moses?
17 And with whom was He "provoked for 40 years"? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?
18 And to whom did He "swear that they would not enter His rest," if not those who disobeyed?
19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

We see the call (so to speak) went out to ALL Israel for ALL to partake in, but NOT all believed for some hardened their hearts to the truth. The same with now.

 

[Allan]

That's not true. If you had a choice between sending your son to a crime infested school or a well respected Christian school, which would you choose? Of course you'd choose the Christian school. Even though it may seem like the only logical choice, you still had a choice, of your own free will, without force or coersion.

Yet Amy not all will believe that which God reveals. Read my previous post to JD showing this.