predestination can not be denied

Both positions are supported by the Bible. Both, even though seemingly contradictory, are true. All Calvinists except Hyper-Calvinists believe that the Elect must hear the word preached in order to be saved. Since we don't know who are among the elect we must act as if our free will makes the difference.

Bottom line, it doesn't make any difference.

 

It does matter, because scripture is consistant with the usage of the term 'predestined' is with regard toward actions or means. The usage of 'election' is of people not of actions or means.

Who, James, WHO has disputed that it is NOT God who decides who is in this group?

Answer: No one.

It is the question with regard to the mechanics of 'WHY' that there is a distinction. The Calvinist admits that he doesn't know the answer to the 'why', but the Non-Cal states the scriptures do tell us something about 'why'. But BOTH agree that it is God who decided who would be His.

 

No sir, the anology was yours and yours alone because you did not just say "God’s sovereign choice of Abraham" but in fact stated "God’s sovereign choice of Abraham and, therefore, Israel, by definition excludes all other nations". It was to the full measure of your quote AND the context of your previous post that I was responding to.

To put you previous post in context would be better to add you next line:

It is obvious that you contention is that God choice of Israel was directly related to salvation based upon your next comment of God choosing Israel, then why can't He choose His Church. Thus MY response that your contention 'by definition' MUST exclude everyone NOT a Jew and mandate that everyone who IS a Jew is automatically saved.

Now if I was wrong it was due to my misunderstanding of what you were contending and therefore it was from the above where the misunderstanding derrived.

God's election of the Nation of Israel, yes, was to bring forth the blessing to earth -That blessing being Jesus. But Gods election of the Nation of Israel was not to save all those in that Nation, even though all those in that Nation were the elect of God. This election was not the same type of election as that of the Church. The election of Israel was for God's purpose and not specifically for eternal salvation. The election of His Church according Rom 11 is called the election of grace and is different from the election of Israel as a Nation because it is specifcally about eternal salvation.

Yes, I agree that God choose Israel and excluded the other nations with regard to His election of purpose. But what you have seemingly failed to realize is that the choosing of the Nation was to BRING FORTH 'the salvation of Nations' - Jesus Christ. They were not chosen to be eternally saved to the exclusion of other Nations but were elect according to Gods purpose and work of bringing forth His word and the Saviour.

It does in the full context of 'your' post as seen here:

You are conflating the election of Israel to purpose that of the Church to salvation. All those in the 'election of grace' (the Church) are saved, but not all those of the elect Nation of Israel are saved.

While many do not agree with your particular interepretation of Rom 9, I will say this with due regard to your accerterion -
Please take note that every person of the Nation of Israel is elect and thus the people who make up that ethnic group we call a Nation is (as a Nation) elect of God. Now question must be answered : Are they specifically elected to salvation (election of grace - Rom 11:5) or something else?

I agree with the beginning but you left me at what 'appears' to be in your argument a presupposition of the text. You state (if I am paraphasing you rightly) it is God's sovereign choice to make some people be faithful. But the fact is God KEPT them who were faithful ALREADY and not bowed their knee. You appear to be trying to make the text say something it does not. Notice your vs of 1 Kings states He will leave..all the knees that have not bowed...
Like I said you keep trying (and it is a good attempt) to conflate the election of the Nation of Israel into something it is not.

 

Hello Allan. Again, thank you for your excellent post.

You Wrote:

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying and perhaps I was not clear enough. My point was this: God, in choosing Israel, did not consider choosing the other nations of the earth. God’s election of Israel was not due to a blanket offer to all the nations of the world and Israel was the only one to respond.
So, when I said God’s election of Israel (regardless of the purpose of that election), by definition, excluded the other nations (Egypt, Amorites, Philistines, etc.) because God did not approach those nations to offer them anything. I hope that makes things more clear.

You continued:

Certainly not all Israel was saved. But the purpose of the election was more than pointing to Christ. Israel was to be a shining example to the nations of the world (at that time). They were to be missionaries, of a kind, showing Yahweh to the world. In that way, Israel was a type of Christ but Israel’s mission to reveal God and bless all the nations was ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

You continue:

The Nation as a whole was “Elect” which is to say that every member of the Nation was a beneficiary of God’s election. But, as the scripture clarifies for us, not every member of that Nation was a true believer.

I think the analogy scripture makes between Israel and the Church is important, but the analogy is not without its challenges (mostly because the true believers—the elect—are supposed to be everything National Israel proved themselves not to be.

You continued:

No. The passage (I Kings 19:18) begins, as does most Hebrew sentences, with the verb. The verb in this case is a 1st person, perfect (which, in Heb., usually means past tense), and it is Hiphil—all this means this: God kept for Himself the remnant. It is not that the remnant kept themselves, the Hebrew text will not allow for that interpretation.

We have chased quite a few rabbits. Thank you for the stimulating discussion. My main argument and my main point is still a simple one: Israel, not the other nations, was elected by God. The other nations were not given an opportunity to be God’s chosen.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

If you don't know, who is elect. Then How do you know, you're not just fooling your self?
Both election and predestination is as real as it can get. It's the interpretations that Refomers use that makes them impossible.
I know who is elect and there isn't a nonelect because, the Son of God died for the sins of the whole world. This doesn't mean everyone will accept Salvation because, most won't come to the light. You may ask why?. It's because their deeds are evil, and they don't want their deeds exposed. Everyone's deeds are evil but those who are humble aren't thinking of their deeds being exposed. Pride of self is why they won't come to the light.
The things Peter speaks of are what makes our calling and election sure
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

The thing's Peter speaks of before this verse are part of the fruits of the Spirit they are not works but are the change of our Heart.

MB

 

It can be denied but it wouldn't be Biblical to do so.

 

Predestination is never denied...rather many may deny your definition of it in its biblical context.

I'm not saying I do or don't. What I'm saying is you are wasting your time and energy in extended efforts to convince people of your perception of it. It is more important that people are saved...and that has nothing to do with how they define predestination.

 

It isn't my perception of it that counts but what scripture actually says about it as a whole. What it says about it is what I believe. I believe it because it's the precept taught in scripture and it couldn't be more clear. The problem reformers have is that they do not allow scripture to interpret scripture. They go off on some dead guys interpretation.
MB

 

Anyone ever notice the Scriptures around Acts 4:27? It seems God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate and others to be the instruments with which to send His son to the Cross to redeem our sins. You'd think if He would predestine that to His own Son, He could predestine anything He wants. Including who He wanted to save. Just thinking out loud here, I am definitely no scholar for either side of the coin. I never really thought about it. Either way, whether it was by my asking or His predestination, I'm just glad he saved me.


Act 4:27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

 

The problem is your concern for how someone defines the process of salvation as opposed to someone actually being saved.

It is sad to you because you feel uncomfortable when people don't agree with you.

Don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

You gettin' now why I said predestination can be denied, Scotthines ?
Like Arthur said, stick around and you'll find that hell can be denied, heaven can be denied, grace can be denied, anything can be denied on this board.
And the Bible will be used to deny these things, too.
They'll also deny that they deny, did you know ?
Heck, it can even be denied that they exist, or you exist.
Have fun !!:wavey:

 

Predestianation does not mean predertermination. That is what is being denied.

 

Now, if predestination is not predetermination, then what is predetermination versus predestination ?

I did a dictionary search on both words and they have one thing in common: decide in advance.

 

My point is, why is it so huge for people that this must be agreed upon?

 

Paul's explanation is not what Reformers teach it is. If the reformed view of Salvation is right then show proof of it with scripture. I don't mean some verse taken out of context with a reformed view to explain it. Scripture explains it's self it doesn't need man's interpretations to explain it.

.

I don't have any such notions. God chooses man, man does not choose God.
Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
What really upsets the cart with me about reformers is that they believe election is particular. This makes God out to be a respecter of man. God doesn't respect man nor is there anything in man that He should respect. All men are elect because Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
You talk like you know the will of God if so you'll agree with these verses.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
But then reformers wants to say but "the natural man is disabled and unable to respond to the gospel because he can't hear it unless he is elect" Scripture never ever said this in fact scripture says.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Obviously this last verse is misunderstood by reformers because the Jew resisted God in the wilderness for over 40 years and not only that when their messiah came to give them Salvation they rejected Him.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Every reformer quotes Romans 9 and every word of Romans 9 is true but the reformers interpretation isn't. In order to understand this you have to study scripture as a whole. and consider what other scriptures say about the same subjects.
Take verse 22 for instance. Why do you take an illustration starting off as a possibility as absolute. Can't you see it says "WHAT IF GOD"

Man doesn't choose God, God chooses men. When man hears the gospel he is being shown the light. Some men won't come to the light because their deeds are evil and they don't want them exposed. This is self pride. Only the humble really come to the light simply because they aren't prideful. They're not saying I'm to Good to sin. When man hears the gospel, man does have a choice but, it isn't God he can choose. Man's only choice is to rebel or, not to rebel against God and His Word. If the man doesn't rebel, then the man can be saved. Man isn't saved because the man did anything, God does all of it from the call to the drawing, to the convincing of and giving of faith, and to the conviction, and granting repentance.
Every man is dealt a measure of faith Romans 12:3 with this faith man can believe but it isn't mans belief that saves man. We are saved by the faith of Christ.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
We believe that we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, because mans faith doesn't qualify. The faith that man has is a gift as well as the faith of Christ. The reason we need the faith of Christ is because Salvation takes a perfect faith and ours isn't even close.
MB

 

Seems your in denial of the truth. How can a man define what was originally written in acient Greek with a modern English dictionary? Neither perdestination or predetermination in ancient Greek is ever defined as unalterable. If there is anything unalterable, then all things are not possible with God.
MB

 

Adhering to a Calvinist's view of soteriology is not equivolent to knowing God more, or digging deeper in the scripture.