Newbie Questions

What about the following quote does not make sense?

"Ephesians
1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
8which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
10that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth--in Him.
11In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
12that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."

It says we trust and that we believe... but it says nothing about choosing. In fact, John 15:16 says explicitly that we are the chosen not the choosers. Do you have a passage of scripture that says we "choose" Him? BTW, believing and trusting do not mean nor imply choosing.

 

I beleive in the Doctrines of Grace because Calvinism's "problem passages" are open to interpretation. The definitions of the words in those passages allow for an interpretation consistent with TULIP. Meanwhile the "problem passages" for non-calvinists (such as Romans 3:10-13, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1) amount to a clear refutation when read normally in context.

 

Hi hard seller;
No it doesn't stand, it's just ignored.
I didn't volenteer to play your game. If you have something to debate then by all means do so. Besides I never play another mans game without knowing the rules.
Romanbear
Peace

[ December 03, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

Okay, so what is an Arminian? I had a girlfriend who was Arminian and it had nothing to do with her religion and more to do with her native country. So...this term has me confused.

 

Hi Scott;
This first phrase in the verse you posted does imply we chose to trust.It says "that we who first trusted in"
"12that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory."

Don't you believe what you are quoting. This verse clearly implies "that we first trusted" That means we chose to trust Jesus Christ.It doesn't say He first trusted in us.It's right there in Black and white, but yet you say "trust doesn't mean chose". When I say I trust in the Lord what am I really saying? aren't I saying I believe in the Lord and am choosing to trust that He will see me through everything He said He would .Aren't I saying that I believe what He promised me for believing in Him .To trust someone is putting your faith in them.To trust someone is believing in them. this is what my dictionary says about trust.

TRUST, v.t. To place confidence in; to rely on. We cannot trust those who have deceived us.

He that trusts every one without reserve, will at last be deceived.

1. To believe; to credit.

Trust me, you look well.

2. To commit to the care of, in confidence. Trust your Maker with yourself and all your concerns.

What else can I say.Trust is believing and we first trusted and we chose to believe this is free will my friend.I liked your post, well thought out! .My point is that all scripture is not to be just scanned but read word for word each little period is important.
May God bless you

Romanbear

Peace

[ December 04, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

Hi wisdomseeker;
My first post on page 3 is my interpetation of Calvinist And Arminians. Armenians are a people, notice the difference in spelling.Arminianism is a view of James Arminius (if I spelled his name right)hehehe
May God bless you
Romanbear
Peace

[ December 03, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

Dear Romancub,

Notice your changed name. This is in response to your changing of my name in two posts which indicates that you do not read carefully or else you have the sly habit of insinuating more than you let on.

The Rules I play by are very simple. I made a statement.

"If I could have refused God's Salvation in Jesus Christ, I would have"

Either I'm lying or I'm telling the truth.

Romanbear, (and I'll promote you back from cub to bear, because I'm sure you just made an innocent mistake) I'm just a sinner saved by grace - I was not looking for Christ when He found me - I was not seeking Him when He sought me. At His initiative, Jesus saved my soul. When His Holy Spirit revealed His Grace, Love and Mercy toward me to me - how could I refuse such a Salvation? I could not refuse him or else I would have.

See, It's really simple.

 

My guess it that your girlfriend was "Armenian" as in someone from Armenia.

By contrast - we have an Arminian - one who identifies with one or more of the teachings of Arminius.

For example - in the Arminian view of the future - where you go to heaven as one of the "FEW" and find that your precious child was one of the "MANY" of Matt 7 - we have the following scenario that you might "expect" if the doctrines of Grace as seen in the Arminian teachings are true...

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 03, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Matt 18 - Forgiveness revoked

Christ said that the Kingdome of heaven is like the parable of the man who owed a huge debt to the king and the King forgave him all that he owed.

The argument was that since he was forgiven that huge debt he should have been willing to forgive the very small debt of his fellow servant - that was owed to him. But since he refused to forgive - even after he was already forgiven so much - all that had been forgiven was put back on him - his prior forgiveness was revoked - he now owed the massive debt once again according to the text.

It is true that complete and full payment will be required as the text says. And it also means that complete and full payment is completed. Rev 20 calls that debt - the "second death".

Romans 6 says the "wages of sin is death".

The second death is the payment for the debt that we owe. We can be forgiven through the blood of Christ alone.

But as the parable teaches - forgiveness can also be revoked if we do not act in keeping with the forgiveness received.

"So shall my heavenly Father do to each of you if you do not..."

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 04, 2002, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Hi Bob;
I understand your reasoning on Mathew 18. This scripture is also backed up by other scripture,Mark 11:26 and James 2:13. If Gods word said it, then it must be so. I find that this scripture supports the Arminian view of loosing your salvation.I can't even argue that this scripture isn't saying exactly what it is saying. Being unforgiving in my mind would be hanging on to sin.Not repenting, which makes it all the more important to die daily as Paul said in his ministry.Thankyou for pointing this out,somehow I've overlooked it.
Romanbear
Peace

 

No, it doesn't. The implications are established by the context which is why I quoted the whole section and not just the parts that would suit me best outside of the context. If God had wished to say that we "chose" Him or "chose" to trust Him, He would have... but He didn't. He put our trusting and believing right in the middle of a passage that clearly says we were chosen and redeemed by Him. It is not ambiguous. Our trusting and believing are an result of His choosing.

I most certainly do. But I believe it in context.

No. It does not. Look at verse 13. In verse twelve Paul is comparing those who believed before to those who believed after.

I say it means what it means... but you cannot drop a phrase out of the context of its sentence and use it to establish a premise for your argument.

I think it is here that we get to the subtle difference between trust/believe and choose. Trusting or believing are acts of recognizing the qualities of another. Choosing is an act of will. This is why I believe that neither this passage nor any other that I am aware of uses the word "choose" to describe our salvation.

Even your own definitions do not say nor even imply choice... They are still the recognition of something in others, not an act of "free will."

Once again, this is why I posted a whole passage and accepted it not only word for word and phrase for phrase but also in its entire context. You pulled one verse out and tried to use it to establish something that it does not.

God Bless You as well. I hope you understand that I am debating with your belief and not with you. Posts often appear more harsh than intended.

 

Hi scott; I will say this you have a lot of zeal for what you believe . Knowing that he forknew us because He created us and predestined us does not mean that we have no free will.What it means to me is that we were predestined in Gods eyes, because He knows the out come before the beginning. He's looking at the world past present and future all at once,He is out side of our realm of exisistance, looking in. He literally see's everything at once. He knows everything at once because, He created all this for his pleasure.This includes all our lives from the first one to the last.
It's like saying what is going on in the world right now is already happened in His mind.This does not mean that we have no free will or that we don't choose.If we were all going to be saved because God chose it to be that way why not choose to win all for Christ.Why just some and not others. God is not a respector of men.Don't you agree?To understand what you believe that we are made to Love Christ if this is so then I have nothing to worry about because it's not against my will.I clearly see the need of my Lord and savior in my Life.I love Him.
But Christ would have no real Love if He forced me and you to Love him.
You know truth be told I don't see what the urgency of believing such a thing will accomplish will it keep me from loosing my salvation?I don't think so.Will it insure anything of great value? I don't think so.Am I going to Hell because I don't believe your view of it. I don't think so.
On the other hand if you believe that you are chosen and you don't have to do a thing but live your life uncaringly till you die and you'll be saved anyway, I think maybe you had better reconsider your position. This I know to be so, if you're not willing to be the Lords you won't be.If you choose to follow Satin and live in sin you will pay for it.Now if He made you to Love Him why didn't He make you obey him too.Because my friend He will not interfear with our free will.Even though you may be saved you still sin don't we.We would have no righteousness if it weren't for Christ.We still have to repent daily for our sins.There is no grace for you, without repentence.And we have to decide to repent.That's our decision our convictions are of the Holy Spirit but, we don't always respond to our convictions. I don't think for a minute that you don't believe in Christ you have shown that simply in you conversations but, this doesn't make you right about being chosen.
Have to go untill tommorro.Please see next post.
May God bless you.
Romanbear
Peace

[ December 04, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: romanbear ]

 

Indeed - Christ Himself has no free will by that argument since scripture also declares that Christ was foreknown and of course God knows all about the future - even all about the actions of Christ.

Adam and Lucifer would also not have had free will before their fall - since even then - God knew all about all that they would ever do.

Simply appealing to our own understanding of the infinite God-attribute of foreknowledge as "proof" that no one has free will - voids free will for God Himself. But the point is more accurately an indicator of our own lack of comprehension of the infinite attribute of God being "all-knowing".

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 13, 2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Hi Scott;
Forgive me for my not giving this the proper attention that I should have.
It's not just one phrase that dispells your version of Eph.1
If you'll look at verse 4
"4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,"
The first part of the verse says "just as he chose us----------(in him")We are in Him when He chooses us.
Then in verse 12
"12(that we who first trusted)--------- in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. "
The Bible is full of stories of Choice.These examples wouldn't be there if we didn't have a choice.
Mathew 19:16-25, a story of a richman that made a choice Act 5:1-10,Ananias and his wife made a choice and it cost them dearly.
The story of Jonah.
The ten comandments are there because we have choice.
The theif on the cross made a choice.
Nicodemus asked Christ about his choices.Peter made a choice to denigh Christ.even after Christ warned him of what he would do.
Judas made a choice.
Mary Magnaline made a choice.
The woman at the well made a judgement call, again a choice.
David made a choice to trust that God would give him the strength to fight Goliath.
Actually If I tried I could probably find the choices of all the prophets.
Seeing as how there are so many choices that people have made that are recorded in the Bible over the centuries. I don't see how you could question
that we have choices to make and it's because of free will.
God created us and He can look at our lives as a whole. Like I said He knows the out come of all events from the beginning of time .But the key just maybe that we don't know the outcome, this is why we have the choice to make.We are unaware of the future . God isn't. It's my hope that all would choose Christ.I set my hopes as high as I can get them, that way there is lot's of room for over achivement.
May God Bless you
Romanbear
Peace

 

This is a subject that I still havent decided where I stand on.

To be perfectly honest, I dont like Calvinism and I dont want to believe it. But if its the truth I want to find out. My biggest problem with it and I want to clarify this with a Calvinist is:

God creates some vessels (people) for the sole purpose of being sinners and being sent to hell to show the Elect His mercy on them (the Elect).

That would mean that He creates a person who by their nature cannot help but sin, then denies them His revelation, then makes them suffer for eternity for something they could not help but do.

If that sounded sarcastic, i'm not trying to be I just wanted to get to the bare bones of this particular point. Thanks for any help.

[ December 05, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Travis1980 ]

 

One minor ... oh so minor point. You have changed what the text says. It says he chose us before the foundation of the world. There is no way we could be "in him" before the foundation of the world becuase we are in fact not in him until we believe. You cannot deal so lightly with the text.

But as we have said many times, we (most of us) are not denying that man has a choice. We are operating from the biblical teaching that the choice is 1) always in accordance with the depraved nature; and 2) will always be exercised against God.

and it is here precisely where you run into a big problem. If God knows it, what kind of choice is it. If God knows it, there is no other possibility, and remember, when there is no other possibility, there can't really be choice. At least, that's what you guys keep on saying. Actually, you sound very much like a calvinist when you say this ... something which I am sure has just ruined your day.

 

I don't question this at all. As Pastor Larry said, we do have free will but when it is exercised according to our sin nature it results in rebellion against God. We cannot know nor submit to God's will until He makes us a new creature.

Right... so unless you reject either man's sinfulness or God's omnipotence or both, you should agree with us that it requires a direct act of God for us to experience spiritual re-birth.

Did we choose to be physically born? Why would Christ choose birth as an example of regeneration in John 3 if we were able to choose? I submit that when Christ said "ye must be born again" and discussed it in vss 3-14, He establishes who the believers (the whosoevers) would be in vss. 15-18.

[ December 05, 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Your negative examples demonstrate my point that man acting on his own will chooses against God. In the positive examples, you still confuse the acts of trusting and believing with choice.

For instance, the woman at the well did not go to the well seeking Christ nor did she seek Him in their conversation. She wasn't trying to determine what her choices were and choose the most holy one. She had chosen. She was an adultress several times over. He went to her. He confronted her. Jesus revealed Himself to her and she recognized/perceived that He was not a normal man.

[ December 05, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Well, this isn't exactly what most Calvinists believe. The fact that people are born sinners with a nature that rejects God is not because God creates them that way, but because of the fall. And the reason God sends sinners to hell has to do with His righteous (or just) wrath against sin. It is a demonstration of His justice.

Well, as I wrote above, God does not create people who by nature cannot help but sin. That is a consequence of the fall and the bondage to sin that resulted from that.

And He doesn't deny them revelation. The revelation is there: In creation everyone can see something about the nature of the God that is, and deep down they know they ought to worship Him; and the general call of the gospel goes out indiscriminately to all.

The problem is that men in their natural state (a natural state acquired at the fall) invariably reject the revelation they have. They know some things of God, but they don't like to keep that knowledge, so they purposefully "forget" and choose to worship things more creaturelike than the Creator God that is.

The "could not help but do" is true in this sense: natural men are obstinately opposed to God. That obstinance is where the "cannot" comes from. They cannot because they will not. Their is nothing keeping them from responding positively to God but their own hostility to God. God invites them to come. God puts no barriers in their way. But they cannot come because they don't want to come.

I hope this helps clear up what it is Calvinists really believe.

[ December 05, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

I agree but we are not able to submit to His will until He changes us. I would never presume that human will is complementary to God's will... The Bible teaches and praises our submission to His divine will. I cannot for the life of me see what is so attractive to other Christians about the unbiblical concept of retaining and exalting our free will. The only genuine good in all of human experience comes not from exercising free will but from denying our will in favor of God's.

Yes. But Romans 9 also says "shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, 'Why hast thou made me thus?'

But why do you think this was when you were lost? Because you're better? Smarter? More discerning?.... I don't think scripture supports the merit of any person being a factor in their salvation. Your system requires that we have some merit of our own.