No Choice

[Victorious]

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

I agree that this refers to physical death and then the judgment. What is your point? To what post are you referring to?

 

[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.



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

But what does that "all" mean to you? Obviously, it doesn't mean all in the sense that every individual would be drawn to Christ, because it is evident they are not. All of the ELECT will be drawn to Christ and it is the Father who has given them to Him. Christ died for His church (Acts 20:28)

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.

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

:jesus:

Did you get back to the "foreknowledge" question? I didn't see it. May I ask again? What does this passage mean to you:

"For He (Jesus) was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you..." (1 Peter 1:20 NASB)

 

[Victorious]

Juxtaposition?

Amy, where does it say man must choose to believe? One must believe to be saved, yes, but where is the word "choose"?

 

[Allan]

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.

Yes, man of and by himself can not know anything spiritual. He can not aquire this knowledge by himself through study nor does he intrisically know this due to himself. No one disagrees here. God must reveal spiritual truths to man.

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.
__________

First, if it is what scripture says then why bring John Gill into this?

Second, though John Gill was a great man, he is also greatly mistaken here regarding the meaning of the what is being said. He fails to see that just as his last portion speaking of being "spiritually discerned" is exactly what all Arminians and Non-Cals state. God must reveal them to men and in doing so, man can accept God's word as truth or reject it. Why must God do this? Because man can not know anything spiritual of or by himself. God must intervene.

 

[Allan]

Amy, where does it say man must choose to believe? One must believe to be saved, yes, but where is the word "choose"?

In order to believe one must choose. You must accept what God says as truth, that is a choice. Even the ardent Calvinist/Reformed person agrees man must choose.

But Duet 30 states this plainly about a choice being given - to choose life or death. And everything pertaining to the choice is the same thing we see in salvation.

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Notice very plainly that it is after we choose life that we may love God, obey God, cleave to Him for He is life, ect...


Paul even states

Hbr 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

Paul is speaking specifically of a choice. To harden or to accept. Notice particularly that it states "if you will hear his voice do not harden your heart"

 

[Victorious]

I know why God has a limit on it, God has foreknowledge as to whom so ever will come. WE don't.

:godisgood:

So here is the million dollar question:

You maintain that we must choose God to be saved and that God looked ahead through His foreknowledge to see what we would do and then chose us. So if we chose to believe (which I can't even see is possible)...do we or do we not, in your opinion, have a part in our salvation?

 

[Allan]

So here is the million dollar question:

You maintain that we must choose God to be saved and that God looked ahead through His foreknowledge to see what we would do and then chose us. So if we chose to believe (which I can't even see is possible)...do we or do we not, in your opinion, have a part in our salvation?

I'm not Stever but..
Do you believe that you are saved prior to faith?

OR

Do you believe that a person is saved by faith?

Now if the later, then you do have a part to play in your salvation. The only way you would not is if God saved you apart from faith. You must excersize your faith (whether or not you hold that God must give it to you) in order to be saved. Is not the fact of the matter this, "believe and you will be saved?"

 

[Victorious]

I'm not Stever but..
Do you believe that you are saved prior to faith?

OR

Do you believe that a person is saved by faith?

Now if the later, then you do have a part to play in your salvation. The only way you would not is if God saved you apart from faith. You must excersize your faith (whether or not you hold that God must give it to you) in order to be saved. Is not the fact of the matter this, "believe and you will be saved?"

Could you answer my question first? Do you feel you have a part to play in your salvation. Then I will be happy to answer your questions.

 

[webdog]

Could you answer my question first? Do you feel you have a part to play in your salvation. Then I will be happy to answer your questions.

If there is no part to play, then how can it be our salvation?

 

[webdog]

I agree that this refers to physical death and then the judgment. What is your point? To what post are you referring to?

Yours. I the calvinist model of election is true, it would have been appointed for the un-elect man twice to die.

 

[Allan]

Could you answer my question first? Do you feel you have a part to play in your salvation. Then I will be happy to answer your questions.

Does not my question answer yours?

If you have no part to play in your salvation then faith in salvation has no import. Indeed it is as useless as a man's works to gain favor with God.

 

[steaver]

"...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)

Finish the passage and you will discover WHY God makes people as He will....

Rom 9:22[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

After a person rejects God over and over and over again, God, at His own choosing, will turn them over to their own destruction and wrath. After enduring with much longsuffering, giving them every chance that they would listen to Him, He then basically says "have it your way" and they become an object of His wrath. This is why the thing has no charge to lay at the Creator's feet.

Now God already knows (foreknowledge) those who will listen and those who will not. Those who listen are called the "elect" because God knows, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God".

Pharaoh is an example of this. God knew Pharaoh would not listen to Him and let the people go. God gave Pharaoh opportunities to make the right choice. Pharaoh would say ok and then harden his heart himself and change his mind. After this back and forth of God hardening Pharaoh's heart and then God backing off and allowing Pharaoh a chance to do the right thing, God finally hardened Pharaoh's heart for good. Thus the scripture..."
[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

God chose Judas as well, giving Judas an exceptional opportunity! Judas was right there with the others seeing all of the miracles performed by Jesus. But God in His foreknowledge knew that Judas would reject Jesus.

Actually, Judas is the perfect example of how God chooses us first and then we must choose Him back (just like marriage). Thus the perfect word of God. God in His foreknowledge knew that there would be those come along and preach no choice (like Calvin), so He put things like this in His scripture to prove them in error and keep the mainstream sheep on track. Praise Him!

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

No, I don't mean born again. It was one example of many that refers to God's choice but the list is extensive.

Then your post is moot. We are discussing salvation here. Your posted references need to be about salvation choices. You posted the passage in support of God choosing us for salvation and we not choosing Him. THe passage won't work either way for you because of Judas. :thumbsup:

 

[BD17]

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 -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

Once again you are reading into it your presupposed beliefs...and is a pretext to a proof text...Esau never saw the promise, Jacob did, Esau had it hard, Jacob did not, look at what happened to Esau and what did not happen to Jacob...this was decided "before they were born, before either had done good or bad" so that election may stand, the promise in this story directly correlated to salvation, Gods people went through Jacob not Esau.

 

[webdog]

Esau had it hard, Jacob did not

Where do you get this from?

Again, the story is NOT about salvation, but God's purpose according to electing a people sovereignly! If we can't get this correct from applying the context, nothing else will flow right.

I'll ask again...when did the older ever serve the younger?

 

[BD17]

Where do you get this from?

Again, the story is NOT about salvation, but God's purpose according to electing a people sovereignly! If we can't get this correct from applying the context, nothing else will flow right.

I'll ask again...when did the older ever serve the younger?

What did He elect them too Webdog? Being the ones who get a blue star on their robe? He elected them as His people, what did it mean to be His people. Were they set apart from the other nations? Yes they were what does that correlate to in the New Testament. Context is everything.

 

[Martin Luther]

I want to start a new thread concerning something OldRegular said in another thread. Does man have any choice in the matter of salvation?

From OldRegular;

I am not sure what your OP is trying to establish. You really never say but apparently you are trying to prove that water baptism is essential to salvation. The only truth that is essential to salvation, given the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the election to Salvation in Jesus Christ by God before the foundation of the world.

Jesus Christ tells us in John 6:37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Only the elect, those given to Jesus Christ by the Father, will come to Him for Salvation.

Jesus Christ tells us in John 3:3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Regeneration, being born again or born from above, is required for salvation.

We read in Ephesians 2:1-8 the manner in which God causes this to occur:

1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, [by grace ye are saved;]
6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

We see from the above passage that it is God who makes us alive while we are spiritually dead in sin and then He gives us the faith that we may believe in the work that He has done.

God has 100% decided who will be saved.

Man has 100% power of choice over his salvation.

Both of these statements are true

 

[webdog]

What did He elect them too Webdog? Being the ones who get a blue star on their robe? He elected them as His people, what did it mean to be His people. Were they set apart from the other nations? Yes they were what does that correlate to in the New Testament. Context is everything.

I asked first, btw.

So...applying your use of election unto salvation, you must hold that all Israel had salvation, is that correct?

 

[Victorious]

Yours. I the calvinist model of election is true, it would have been appointed for the un-elect man twice to die.

Wrong. You are really twising scripture out of context to try to make your point. Obviously, this passage is only referring to the physical. Do you really believe this means spiritual and physical death?

 

[Victorious]

God has 100% decided who will be saved.

Man has 100% power of choice over his salvation.

Both of these statements are true

And that is your very dogmatic OPINION.