No Choice

[Victorious]

Why? What scripture causes you to believe this? I believe we are born sinners and thus need a Saviour from birth, even from conception.

Why what? Believe what?


Jesus said ALL men would be drawn. He said MANY are CALLED but FEW CHOSEN.

Many - not ALL

I believe I siad as much. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ. Will all hear the gospel in some way other than through a preacher? I don't know, I heard of testimonies of Jesus Himself or angels of God appearing to men in remote countries of the world. Is it true? Not sure I want to be the one quenching the Holy Spirit.

"Faith comes through hearing and hearing by the Word of God." The gospel of Jesus Christ is the vehicle God uses to bring men to salvation. Scripture speaks of no other way. We have one shot at it to get it right. I can't speak about the "appearances" but if an angel appeared to anyone, they would not be leading a man to find golden tablets - it would be the gospel.

I gotta go, I will get back to the foreknowledge question....

:jesus:

Have a blessed night.

 

[steaver]

Vic;
Why what? Believe what?

You said....

Vic; I do take the position of an age of accountability

Why do you take this position, what scripture causes you to believe this?

Vic;
"Faith comes through hearing and hearing by the Word of God." The gospel of Jesus Christ is the vehicle God uses to bring men to salvation. Scripture speaks of no other way. We have one shot at it to get it right. I can't speak about the "appearances" but if an angel appeared to anyone, they would not be leading a man to find golden tablets - it would be the gospel.

Very well, what about the babies and the mentally challenged? Are all these lost because they did not hear?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

But what we do know is that "It is appointed unto man to die once, then the judgement." Hebrews 9:27

WHich judgment is the writer speaking of here? Judgment seat of Christ or the Great white throne judgment? When the writer says "then" does he mean immediately or just sometime after death? And how do you know from scripture?

:jesus:

 

[Victorious]

You said....



Why do you take this position, what scripture causes you to believe this?



Very well, what about the babies and the mentally challenged? Are all these lost because they did not hear?

:jesus:

Simply put ~ they are elect of God. Not only infants, but those who enter as children. More aptly put ~ I believe Spurgeons view:

"Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;" nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, "well" eternally. Perhaps you will say, "What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?" Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

And there is much more here if you are really interested. He speaks better than I ever could:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0411.htm

 

[steaver]

Yes, elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Whom He foreknew... What does that mean to you? It does not mean that God looked ahead and saw what we would do and then chose us based upon our choice of Him. Our salvation is not dependent upon our own righteousness. That would make man responsible for saving himself!

Foreknowledge simply means God knew His elect from the foundation of the world because He created them for glory in Jesus Christ.

That is your opinion, however it is just an opinion based on your pov concerning "no choice".

I say God gives us a choice, I believe the scriptures offer choices over and over to the people. Therefore, God would have foreknowledge of people's choices.

"foreknowledge"....knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience:

The definition of foreknowledge does not exempt knowing choices to be made.

"Foreknowledge" is not defined as "causing something to happen". It is knowing what will happen. God knowing who will choose Him and who will not does no way equate to one saving themselves. That is just way off the definition of the word.


:jesus:

 

[EdSutton]

Here is what bothers me about this pov;

How can I view God as rich in mercy and love if I must view God as predetermining, without any input from the person He created, the eternal destiny of each person.

It would be like me saying to my two children; You I choose to torture for eternity and you I choose to love for eternity. WITHOUT any reason whatsoever to do so!

God did say that... to Jacob and Esau...the problem with your POV is that you are expecting God to act as you would. God is full of love and mercy it is throughout the Bible. You have to look outside the "God is only love and mercy" box to truly see and understand. God is not just love and mercy he is wrath and condemnation as well.

I'm pretty sure that that was not what God said to either Jacob or Esau, or even about them some 400-odd years later, in Malachi, for that matter. You might wanna' study that a were bit more, and then get back to me, on it.

Ed

 

[steaver]

Simply put ~ they are elect of God. Not only infants, but those who enter as children. More aptly put ~ I believe Spurgeons view:

"Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;" nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, "well" eternally. Perhaps you will say, "What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?" Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

And there is much more here if you are really interested. He speaks better than I ever could:

You posted a man's opinion who gives no scripture to support his pov.

My point is that you say one must hear the gospel to be saved, that there is no other way. And then you say, well, babies don't have to hear. Now which way do you want it?

:jesus:

 

[Victorious]

That is your opinion, however it is just an opinion based on your pov concerning "no choice".

I say God gives us a choice, I believe the scriptures offer choices over and over to the people.

Yes, EXCEPT the choice of salvation. Can it get any clearer than the words of Jesus Himself?

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
(John 15:16 NASB)

To say that this applied only to the apostles would be to disregard scripture. God does not show partiality. There are none that can claim to be righteous. The reason for God's choice is His only to know.

Therefore, God would have foreknowledge of people's choices.

Yes... a choice between good and evil - not a choice between life and death. As Nicodemas said, "A man can't go back in the womb and be born again, can he?" Spiritual life is a gift by grace alone - He will be merciful upon whom He has mercy. It's His choice - not ours, and it is unmerited.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6 NASB)

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8 NASB)

"foreknowledge"....knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience:

According to Strongs, it also means:

G4267
προγινώσκω
proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

Yes, God knew His elect beforehand - has nothing to do with choice other than His choice of them (and I would like you to give us a scripture verse to show WHY He chose the elect.

Guess what? The same word for forknown, foreknew, foreknowledge, is the same word in this sentence:

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, (exactly as God describes His elect) but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" (1 Peter 1:20 NASB)

Was Christ chosen because God saw what He would do? Or was He always known by God? Your definition is faulty, I'm afraid.

The definition of foreknowledge does not exempt knowing choices to be made.

"Foreknowledge" is not defined as "causing something to happen". It is knowing what will happen. God knowing who will choose Him and who will not does no way equate to one saving themselves. That is just way off the definition of the word.

I don't think so....


:jesus:

And yes, it's my opinion, and Spurgeon's opinion, and George Whitefields opinion, and Jonathan Edwards opinion, and John McCarthur's opinion and......and....and....based on scripture, although you will never accept that. This debate has raged for a couple of centuries now and it will continue until we are bowing at His feet, the Sovereign Lord of all.

 

[EdSutton]

Perhaps it would be wise to dispense with the human equations and stick with the whole of scripture.

Scripture?? As opposed to someone's theology??

Then we might not have anything left over which to argue!

Ed

 

[BD17]

I'm pretty sure that that was not what God said to either Jacob or Esau, or even about them some 400-odd years later, in Malachi, for that matter. You might wanna' study that a were bit more, and then get back to me, on it.

Ed

Here you go Ed Romans 9:9-13

9For this is what the promise saidR) "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but(S) also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of(T) him who calls— 12she was told,(U) "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written,(V) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."



So was Paul misinformed about what God said about Jacob and Esau?

Why don't you go study that one and get back to me.

 

[EdSutton]

Here you go Ed Romans 9:9-13

9For this is what the promise saidR) "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but(S) also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of(T) him who calls— 12she was told,(U) "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written,(V) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."



So was Paul misinformed about what God said about Jacob and Esau?

Why don't you go study that one and get back to me.

Not at all was Paul misinformed. "The elder shall serve the younger" was prophesied to Sarah, before the children were born, and is recorded in Genesis; However, the words "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" were spoken much later, by the Lord to Malachi, hence, the words of Paul that "as It is Written!"

Hmmm.

Those last three words would make a good lead-in for a TV program, sometime.

However, God never said (as was implied) to either Jacob or Esau or Sarah or Malachi or Paul, for that matter, the words that were attempted to be put into His mouth namely that -

You I choose to torture for eternity and you I choose to love for eternity. WITHOUT any reason whatsoever to do so!

As it has been said, "A text (or part of a text) apart from the context (and specifically the whole context of Scripture) is a pretext to a proof-text.

I submit this misreading of the verse in Romans is "Exhibit 'A'" in that regard.

Ed

 

[webdog]

Allan

You are incorrect as usual. This Scripture teaches, to all but those who fail to see, that God gives spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead and then gives the gift of faith through man is enabled to respond to the work of God in regeneration.

Then tell me how a spiritually dead person (lacking any life and ability according to your usage of the phrase) can reject the truth (Rom. 1)?

 

[webdog]

But what we do know is that "It is appointed unto man to die once, then the judgement." Hebrews 9:27

Yes, ONCE to die. It has been appointed to all men to die physically.

 

[webdog]

Here you go Ed Romans 9:9-13

9For this is what the promise saidR) "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but(S) also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of(T) him who calls— 12she was told,(U) "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written,(V) "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."



So was Paul misinformed about what God said about Jacob and Esau?

Why don't you go study that one and get back to me.

Since Romans 9 has nothing to do with either individual, it is you that is misinformed, not Paul. Provide one instance where Esau ever served Jacob as individuals...just one.

 

[steaver]

Yes, EXCEPT the choice of salvation. Can it get any clearer than the words of Jesus Himself?

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
(John 15:16 NASB)

To say that this applied only to the apostles would be to disregard scripture. God does not show partiality. There are none that can claim to be righteous. The reason for God's choice is His only to know.

Well then, you have opened up quite a can of worms to deal with in this opinion of scripture. Here is a question raised in your pov here...

1) In this verse you posted, does "I chose you" equal "born again"?

2) If "yes", then you must believe Judas was "born again" as well and yet remained a devil....Jhn 6:70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?


3) Since Judas was "chosen" (born again, according to you) and then lost his eternal life, your pov has a problem.

You know what? I bet you will be making Judas an "exception" to your rule. Right? That would be convienent. Like God gives choice EXCEPT for salvation.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Yes... a choice between good and evil - not a choice between life and death.

I suppose Adam and Eve are "exceptions" to your pov as well?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Christians are called the bride of Christ. Was it customary throughout the OT history that a bride had no choice but to marry the man who came calling on her? I believe a marriage takes two willing people.

I find it odd that God would liken us in Christ to a marriage when a marriage is made up of two people saying yes to one another. Why wouldn't God have called us His puppets instead if we had no choice in the matter?

:jesus:

 

[Victorious]

Well then, you have opened up quite a can of worms to deal with in this opinion of scripture. Here is a question raised in your pov here...

1) In this verse you posted, does "I chose you" equal "born again"?

2) If "yes", then you must believe Judas was "born again" as well and yet remained a devil....Jhn 6:70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

No, I don't mean born again. It was one example of many that refers to God's choice but the list is extensive. "We love Him because He first loved us" is another. God's choice of Jacob over Esau (which for some reason you reject), "chosen in Him" etc....etc....etc... I will again, as others did, refer you back to Romans 9.

3) Since Judas was "chosen" (born again, according to you) and then lost his eternal life, your pov has a problem.

It isn't my pov (whatever that is). Obviously chosen and ordained to be the "son of perdition" but not saved. You "choose" not to see God's sovereignty and therefore cannot understand that man is the creation, not the Creator. God created a people for His own whose names were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, but you've heard all these arguments. You have conveniently decided not to address the definition of "foreknowledge" and the fact that Jesus was foreknown as well.

You know what? I bet you will be making Judas an "exception" to your rule. Right? That would be convienent. Like God gives choice EXCEPT for salvation.

And you know what? You will probably make the Apostle Paul an exception to your man-centered theology. After all, it is difficult for me to believe Paul had much of a choice when he was knocked off his horse! He also states he was set aside from his mother's womb for the ministry. He must have been a very intelligent fetus to choose God in the womb!

Judas is not an exception obviously - he was chosen to fulfill prophecy. And herein lies the key to the fall of man. Although you've heard it all before and I am convinced that nothing short of a spiritual awakening will allow you to understand that man is NOT in charge of his own salvation (whether you see it that way or not), I'll go through the basics and, because of lack of time, summarize a host of scripture just for the sake of arugment:

All are sinners - all fall short of the glory of God, all are on their way to hell Adam's transgression brought sin into the world and all are spiritually dead, unable to come to Christ unless it is granted them by the mercy of God. His sheep will follow Him. All that the Father gives Him will come to Him (not all are given to Him because not all come to Him.) Only HIS SHEEP will hear His voice and anyone who denies Him is obviously NOT the elect. The elect WILL be saved because they receive Him with a good and honest heart - all others are professors only. How do they recieve Him? It is a gift of God lest any man should boast. It is He who opens hearts to believe because of His great love and mercy for His elect- others he allows to continue in the natural condition of their hearts, which is unbelieving and unregenerate, in fact, he gives some over to their own lusts. Simply put - he allows justice to be done. Salvation is when justice is thwarted by God's mercy and grace that is unmerited. Why does God choose to save some and not others? I don't know nor do I ask -

"...The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" (Romans 9:20-21 NASB)

But one thing is certain - it is not because of our own choice of Him. God's eternal gospel plan of salvation was never planned according to our choices. In fact, the plan was only for the purpose of bringing glory to God through His Son. It is an impossibility for a natural man to know the things of the Spirit. The dead have no inclination toward seeking God. He and He alone brings us out of the grave.

God allows us to choose to obey or not to obey but not to be born. Adam and Eve did not create themselves, did they?

I have answered your questions - maybe I missed your answer to my foreknowledge question.



:jesus:

I have had many debates with Arminians and have always cited the scriptures. For those knowledgeable in the Word, you will know what they are when you read the summary. Just pressed for time, sorry.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Allan

You are incorrect as usual. This Scripture teaches, to all but those who fail to see, that God gives spiritual life to those who are spiritually dead and then gives the gift of faith through man is enabled to respond to the work of God in regeneration.

Response Posted by webdog
Then tell me how a spiritually dead person (lacking any life and ability according to your usage of the phrase) can reject the truth (Rom. 1)?

It is not what I say it is what Scripture says.

1Corinthians 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.

The natural man is the unsaved man, the man who is spiritually dead.

John Gill, perhaps the greatest of Baptist expositors states of this passage:

Ver. 14. But the natural man, &c.] Not a babe in Christ, one that is newly born again, for though such have but little knowledge of spiritual things, yet they have a taste, and do relish and desire, and receive the sincere milk of the word, and grow thereby; but an unregenerate man, that has no knowledge at all of such things; not an unregenerate man only, who is openly and notoriously profane, abandoned to sensual lusts and pleasures; though such a man being sensual, and not having the Spirit, must be a natural man; but rather the wise philosopher, the Scribe, the disputer of this world; the rationalist, the man of the highest attainments in nature, in whom reason is wrought up to its highest pitch; the man of the greatest natural parts and abilities, yet without the Spirit and grace of God, mentioned 1Co 1:20 and who all along, both in that chapter and in this, quite down to this passage, is had in view: indeed, every man in a state of nature, who is as he was born, whatever may be the inward furniture of his mind, or his outward conduct of life, is but a natural man, and such an one

receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: not the things relating to the deity, personality, and perfections of the Holy Spirit, though these the natural man knows not, nor receives; nor the things done by him, particularly the operations of his grace on the souls of men in regeneration, concerning which he says, as Nicodemus did, "how can these things be?" but the truths of the Gospel before spoken of; so called, because they are contained in the Scriptures edited by the Spirit of God, are the deep things of God, which he searches into and reveals; and because they are made known by him, who is given and received for that end and purpose, that the saints might know them; and because they are delivered by the preachers of the Gospel, in words which he teacheth; now these the natural man receives not in the love of them, so as to approve of and like them, truly to believe them, cordially embrace them, and heartily be subject to them, profess and obey them, but on the contrary abhors and rejects them:

for they are foolishness unto him; they are looked upon by him as absurd, and contrary to reason; they do not agree with his taste, he disrelishes and rejects them as things insipid and distasteful; he regards them as the effects of a crazy brain, and the reveries of a distempered head, and are with him the subject of banter and ridicule:

neither can he know them: as a natural man, and whilst he is such, nor by the help and mere light of nature only; his understanding, which is shut unto them, must be opened by a divine power, and a superior spiritual light must be thrown into it; at most he can only know the literal and grammatical sense of them, or only in the theory, notionally and speculatively, not experimentally, spiritually, and savingly:

because they are spiritually discerned; in a spiritual manner, by a spiritual light, and under the influence, and by the assistance of the Spirit of God. There must be a natural visive discerning faculty, suited to the object; as there must be a natural visive faculty to see and discern natural things, so there must be a spiritual one, to see, discern, judge, and approve of spiritual things; and which only a spiritual, and not a natural man has.
__________

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Whom He foreknew... What does that mean to you? It does not mean that God looked ahead and saw what we would do and then chose us based upon our choice of Him. Our salvation is not dependent upon our own righteousness. That would make man responsible for saving himself!

Foreknowledge simply means God knew His elect from the foundation of the world because He created them for glory in Jesus Christ.

Good explanation of foreknowledge Victorious!:thumbs: