No Choice

[webdog]

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?

Were the un-elect appointed to spiritual death or not in the calvinist model? I haven't twisted anything, I made an observation from It.

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Not so, my friend.

I have read nothing into any text, here. (You did, however.)

I have suggested neither exegesis of a verse or any eisegesis of any verse. (You did, however.)

Nor did I even offer an attempt at any interpretation. (You did, however.)

I merely made the observation that the words ascribed are stated in Scripture at different times, in my post # 71.

And I merely previously challenged in my post # 66 that God ever said anything either to or about Jacob and Esau such as what you attempted to ascribe to God as saying, in post # 5.

Perhaps the reason I did not offer any particular interpretation of the passages in question, is that unlike a couple of the posters on record, on this thread that they understand everything about a couple of things, is that I admit that I don't understand everything, by any stretch.

But I will offer that I'm pretty sure that I do understand enough to recognize that, in the final analysis, there is no difference between 'Calvinism' and 'Arminianism' as both these systems of theology eventually wind up at the same place, a denial and opposing of the grace of God.

(I'll bet that statement gets a couple or three posters a mite perturbed. Heh! Heh!)

Ed

 

[Victorious]

Were the un-elect appointed to spiritual death or not in the calvinist model? I haven't twisted anything, I made an observation from It.

(First of all, I agree with Ed that Calvinism/Arminianism is just a word. I don't know about "the Calvinist mode". We use these terms to identify a form of theology within a broad spectrum. Missionary Paul Washer calls himself a "Spurgeonist" (as I do) and Jonathan Edwards preferred "The Doctrines of Grace." I don't agree with everything Calvin taught, but I know what I believe is compatible with his view of God's sovereignty and man's will. And I don't claim to know it all, but I claim to know some things, just as you do. Being right is not the issue. It really is how we divide the Word of God. He is right, we can only study to show ourselves approved.)

To your question: The unelected appointed to spiritual death? ALL MANKIND came under God's judgement after the Fall. We are ALL spiritually dead and unless chosen to receive salvation have been since then. He didn't "appoint" the non-elect to spiritual death, but He did appoint some (not all) to spiritual life. By His mercy and grace, some He would rescue from their own transgressions, destroying the sentence rightfully imposed. Some would be prepared for life eternal, set aside from the womb, destined for glory, escaping the sentence of death. He set aside for Himself a people of His own choosing. They would not be condemned. Some would be written in the Lambs Bood of Life from the foundation of the world and they were "appointed to eternal life."

"Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Titus 2:14 KJVA)

Who did He redeem? Whom did He purilfy?

Only by the work of the Holy Spirt can we believe in Jesus Christ. Only He can prepare the soil for the the Word to be sown (Luke 8:15). Only He can change a man's heart from stone to flesh (and only He can open that heart to respond to the gospel message. All men are not given these gifts because they are not of His sheep, nor the "other fold" that Jesus spoke of. We have no idea whom the Holy Spirit will resurrect from spiritual death or when, because it is God's work alone (John 6:29).

"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)

Adam and Eve chose to sin and as a result, all mankind mankind became separated from God:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--"
(Romans 5:12 NASB)

"When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions," (Colossians 2:13 NASB)

"The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification." (Romans 5:16 NASB)

So God did not "appoint" anyone to spiritual death. He simply allowed man to follow His own nature and man then did what came naturally. God is responsible for NOT creating robots, interestingly, the charge made against those who magnify God's sovereignty over man's will.

Was Judas "appointed" to his office? Yes, as an apostle. Was Judas saved? No. Were the other apostles saved? Yes. Did God create Judas for the purpose of destruction? He didn't need to do so. Judas was no exception as far as sinful man. I don't see God appointing him to destruction. God used Judas' own sinfullness for His purpose. It was no accident that Jesus chose Judas whom he knew was "a devil". Satan was given permission to inhabit Judas, tempting him to perform the works of "his father." However, God was in charge of it all, but man himself was responsible. Judas' own nature was his downfall. God does raise up and bring down as He chooses.

 

[webdog]

To your question: The unelected appointed to spiritual death? ALL MANKIND came under God's judgement after the Fall. We are ALL spiritually dead and unless chosen to receive salvation have been since then.

Then it was appointed unto man twice to die? I disagree with Augustinian original sin, btw. We die spiritually when we sin, we don't die spiritually in Adam. We are cursed with a sin nature as a result of the fall, and yes all will sin if we live long enough to (like standing upright, walking and talking), but we are not born "dead". That in itself makes no sense, and is an oxymoron. Death is the ceasing or ending of life. To be spiritually dead (separation) would mean there would have had to be spiritual union at some point with God. The soul that sins shall surely die. That's why being appointed once to die is just that, and should be taken at face value.

 

[Victorious]

Then it was appointed unto man twice to die? I disagree with Augustinian original sin, btw. We die spiritually when we sin, we don't die spiritually in Adam. We are cursed with a sin nature as a result of the fall, and yes all will sin if we live long enough to (like standing upright, walking and talking), but we are not born "dead".

On this (sin and death) I can actually agree with you. You are correct - we are cursed with a sin nature and separated from God. We don't die for the sin of Adam, we die for our own sins, and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It doesn't take long for us to exercise our natures! All are in need of a Savior. Are we "born dead"? No, we are born condemned (Romans 5:18).

That in itself makes no sense, and is an oxymoron. Death is the ceasing or ending of life. To be spiritually dead (separation) would mean there would have had to be spiritual union at some point with God. The soul that sins shall surely die. That's why being appointed once to die is just that, and should be taken at face value.

On this I still disagree. There is a difference between spiritual and physical death and the scripture should be regarded in the context it is rendered.

Good job! Got me to thinking. :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

(First of all, I agree with Ed that Calvinism/Arminianism is just a word.

With all respect, if you think I merely see these two theological systems as simply a word, you have no concept of what I am referring to. Here is the briefest of primers:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1104115&postcount=24

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1134744&postcount=186

Hopefully, that helps.

Ed

 

[OldRegular]

Then it was appointed unto man twice to die? I disagree with Augustinian original sin, btw. We die spiritually when we sin, we don't die spiritually in Adam. We are cursed with a sin nature as a result of the fall, and yes all will sin if we live long enough to (like standing upright, walking and talking), but we are not born "dead". That in itself makes no sense, and is an oxymoron. Death is the ceasing or ending of life. To be spiritually dead (separation) would mean there would have had to be spiritual union at some point with God. The soul that sins shall surely die. That's why being appointed once to die is just that, and should be taken at face value.

It seems to me that you are getting hung up on the term spiritual death or spiritually dead. Examine the passage I have posted before:

Ephesians 2:1-10, KJV
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:
9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

From this passage we note seven significant Biblical truths:

1. Unregenerate man is dead in trespass and sins. Now this person is not physically dead; then in what way he is dead? Since man is both physical and spiritual we must assume that unregenerate man is spiritually dead, separated from God.

2. Man who is dead in trespass and sin is given spiritual life through no merit of his own or through any effort on his part. [Colossians 2:13]

3. God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, effects this change as an act of His love and mercy toward those He has chosen unto salvation.[Ephesians 1:3-7]

4. Man, being regenerated or born again, is united with, or enters into a union, with Jesus Christ. [John 17:21-23]

5. We are raised from spiritual death and sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That is we have been delivered .. from the power of darkness, and .. translated .. into the kingdom of his dear Son, Jesus Christ [Colossians 1:13, KJV].

6. The regenerate man receives the gift of faith by which the ‘gospel call’ becomes effective.

7. Having been given the gift of salvation we become His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.

We can then say that the initial event in salvation is regeneration, the theological term synonymous with ‘rebirth’ or ‘being born again’. Regeneration is solely the work of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whereby those who are spiritually dead in trespass and sin are made spiritual alive and are brought into union with Jesus Christ. Whereas the unregenerate person has no disposition, interest, or desire for the things of God the regenerate person is a new creation and is now receptive to the ‘effectual call’ of the Holy Spirit.

Following regeneration man undergoes conversion. Conversion is the result of a conscious act of a regenerate person in which he responds to the ‘effectual call’ and turns to God in faith and repentance. Conversion is in reality an acknowledgment that one has experienced regeneration, justification, adoption, and pardon. As the believer grows in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [2 Peter 3:18] he will come to more fully understand these graces and, though they are freely bestowed, the extent of the actual cost. It is important to realize that conversion is a personal transaction between God and man. Therefore, since no two people are alike we should not expect that they will have the same conversion experience. God saves people one at a time! Jesus Christ explains conversion in the following manner:

John 3:16, KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Dr.Day]

With all respect, if you think I merely see these two theological systems as simply a word, you have no concept of what I am referring to. Here is the briefest of primers:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1104115&postcount=24

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1134744&postcount=186

Hopefully, that helps.

Ed

Maybe I did misunderstand you. I know very well the difference between the two, but there are many shades to both. Calvinism, hypercalvinism, four point, five point, Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism.

What I was saying is that we should look at the Word of God alone and determine what He is actually saying. The title simply conveys the flavor, but not the substance.

 

[Dr.Day]

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.

Actually? That was sometimes the case.

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:

God gives us many choices. Choosing to be born again is not one of them - that's His choice.

 

[Victorious]

Maybe I did misunderstand you. I know very well the difference between the two, but there are many shades to both. Calvinism, hypercalvinism, four point, five point, Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism.

What I was saying is that we should look at the Word of God alone and determine what He is actually saying. The title simply conveys the flavor, but not the substance.

Sorry Ed...my husband logged in and replied to a post...the above reply was mine to you, not his. Argggghhh.... I'll have to do another post on what "one flesh" means when two people share a computer and forget to log out!

 

[webdog]

God gives us many choices. Choosing to be born again is not one of them - that's His choice.

...then you must discount much of Scripture, because it says just that.

 

[Allan]

...then you must discount much of Scripture, because it says just that.

Well.. not really.

We do choose to repent and believe but we do not choose to be born again. It is not our choice to be saved or not, it is God's choice to save or not.
We know (prior to salvation) that God honors His word and thus those who repent and believe will be born again and thus we have that 'looking forward to' in our belief. But we do not choose (IOW- decide) to be born again. That is an act of God toward us. It sounds sort of semantical but it is distinctly not. We are not actaully choosing to be born again but choosing to believe God and that His promises are true that we shall be born-again/saved.

IOW - Our choice is not to be saved or not but to believe or not. In that belief we are trusting God to be faithful to His Word that whosoever believes will be saved. Thus our salvation/born-again is something God decides to do and so we place our hopes and trust in His gracious decision, to act according to His word, in a positive manner toward us who have believed.

 

[webdog]

That's acturally what I meant, but thanks for the clarification.

 

[OldRegular]

I would be interested in someone explaining to me how a person who is dead in trespasses and sins can save himself; particularly when the Apostle Paul tells us:

Romans 3:11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

[JSM17]

I would be interested in someone explaining to me how a person who is dead in trespasses and sins can save himself; particularly when the Apostle Paul tells us:

Romans 3:11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Acts 10:1-2
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,

2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
NASU

Here's a man who still had not even heard the Gospel from Peter, does he fit your discription of your application of Rom. 3:11?

 

[OldRegular]

Original post by OldRegular
I would be interested in someone explaining to me how a person who is dead in trespasses and sins can save himself; particularly when the Apostle Paul tells us:

Romans 3:11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Response by JSM17
Acts 10:1-2
Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,

2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
NASU

Here's a man who still had not even heard the Gospel from Peter, does he fit your discription of your application of Rom. 3:11?

The question must be: why was this man devout and why did he fear God? The Bible does not contradict itself in spite of what some claim. Therefore, consistent with Paul's statement and numerous others it is clear that this man was influenced by God. This is clearly shown in Acts 10:3-5:

1. There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2. A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5. And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

We have shown here a vivid illustration of the teaching of Jesus Christ:

John 6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The remainder of the account shows how God brings His elect to salvation. The message is read and understand!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

OR: John 6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The remainder of the account shows how God brings His elect to salvation. The message is read and understand!

HP: I was wondering something. In your estimation does this verse in John 6:44 establish the “I” in TUL’I’P? Does this verse establish the notion that Christ draws only the elect and that irresistibly established by the last half of the verse that states “He will raise him up in the last day?”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: I think the answer is yes.

Otherwise, one must take the position that everyone, everywhere, has heard the gospel. And, in fact, some do take that position, holding that somehow God had revealed the gospel and revealed Jesus Christ in some mysterious way, thus all are accountable.

If that's the case, then let's bring all our missionaries home, since we don't need them to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. God has other ways.

But what if it's true that there have existed and do exist people who have never heard of Jesus? How can they be judged? Will God just cut them some slack?

The answer is found in Romans 2, where Paul says that those who are without the law are a law unto themselves. I take that to mean that everyone has developed some sort of moral code by which they live. The condemnation comes because they cannot even live up to their own moral code.

We who find ourselves blessed by having heard the gospel are in the same boat. If we could live up to the Law, we could get into heaven. If they could live up to their own moral code, so could they. But they can't, just as we can't perfectly obey the Law.

HP: A very interesting post indeed.:thumbs: As I read it I was it was yea and amen all the way down to just before the last sentence. That is where this question entered my mind. Just suppose for a moment that we would to die to self and become alive in Christ, to the point where it was no longer ‘us’ that were alive but rather Christ in us. What then Tom?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Man of his own choice will not seek God, this is true. However this gives you nothing. The scripture is clear that God seeks man, draws man to Jesus. Man cannot believe without God, but man is presented with a choice. Drawing a man to believe is not salvation. When the man chooses to receive the call, then he is chosen/elect/saved/born of God.

HP: Well said Steaver:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: ..I am convinced that He will deal justly in all things. Creating a soul to live for eternity and condemning that soul to hell for committing sin, which that soul has no way of overcoming, is nowhere near the character of Love.

HP: Could not agree with you more.:thumbsup: That is certainly one reason why I do not believe in original sin.

Steaver: Scripture says God is Love. Love gives Justice, Love is fair. Love offers Mercy.

HP: Here is where I might differ. God is love and He has shown mercy, but could He be love and not show mercy? I believe He can and He will. Even now God is not showing mercy towards the angels that have fell, or so it would seem. There is coming a time when His mercy will not be extended to man., Will He cease to love them? I think not. Love does not necessitate mercy. It may be an excellent way for sentient beings to see a side of love that otherwise could not have been seen, but nothing necessitates mercy that I can see. All that is necessitated is that if God is going to blame and punish man for sin, He in justice must give them an opportunity at some point in time to be able to do something other than what they do in th every same set of circumstance. Man must have a choice in determining the intent if he is to be blamed and punished. If man was created a sinner, no choice could be evident and as such no just blame for one choosing sin. Once choice is granted, and man voluntarily chooses sin, love does not necessitate any second chance. If one is given it is in mercy, but again mercy is not necessitated by love.

God’s Spirit will not always strive with man. Another indication that today is the day of mercy if one will harden not his heart. Mercy shown will not always be the case for man, but God will still be love.