Predestination: Meaning and Application

BTW...still not word on this post...john 8.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=829815&postcount=409


Maybe others are starting to believe Gods Word and not mans Logic. This always happens when we stick to context.

Sola Gratia​

And all the people said.......amen.

 

Ben will have to speak for himself but I think he was saying the Scripture you were using
1 Corth 2:14 was not saying the unsaved could not believe.
The context is not suggesting that the natural man is unable to receive the Grace of God as referred to by the first letter in TULIP "Total depravity", but that the natural man being (unsaved) does not have the wisdom of God but only human wisdom not being in the spirit of faith. Placing this verse into context we see it clearly does not support the notion of the none existence of "synergy" (the doctrine that human will cooperates with Devine grace in regeneration) this is also clearly in light when Paul speaking to his brothers (the saved) said in verse 1:26

Maybe I misread Benjamin but don’t think so.

Keep calm James; You know how these things work. I am all alone right now but they will be back and you have a couple helping you but you still are only using the verses you like to fit your theory. You still have trouble with the words of Jesus. "you must believe that I am He". Repent ye for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Jesus told man to repent and you say he can't and your new friends. peace

 

Oh no BP/T;
You give answer for my Scriptures first then we work on yours.

You can start with these and I will give you the rest.

KJMatt.03
"6": And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

"7": But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

"8": Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Acts, chapter 26
"20": But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

"21": For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

"22": Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

"23": That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles

John, chapter 1
"7": The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

"8": He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

"9": That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

John, chapter 3

"18": He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

"19": And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

"20": For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

"21": But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Acts, chapter 16
"27": And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

"28": But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

"29": Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

"30": And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

"31": And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.




Is calling a Work?

Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

John 3:16 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.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

 

is cool as can be...tis hot outside.

I think you do understand ben. But again bens point proves Pauls point.

You cannot change the outcome on this. Tis the wording. Tis context. done deal.

Wisdom for understand man does not have in his natural state. It must be given by the Spirit of God. NO?


BTW..this is page 45. Still waiting on a page 41 reply to post 409.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=829815&postcount=409

 

I will address these. Read over each of them. This is talking about Gods great love. The subject we were on...MAN IS DEAD in his sins. These verses say NOTHING about the state of mans will or nature. Face it, that is what the Bible says.

 

Bob,

Of all the doctrines of Grace this is by far the easist to prove. This is addressed in every book of the Bible in some way. There are 100s more verse on "Man is dead and can not come to God" then verses on OSAS. OSAS is much harded to prove. Now..I hold to both. You in holding to OSAS surly can see the overall state of man showen in the Bible. That being this..."Man is DEAD and can not respond on his own".
Please tell me you see this.

 

BP/T
So what do you call it when you suggest that someone can be saved through general revelation? I call that being saved apart from the gospel. If if you suggest that God can send angels to preach to the pagans that is almost as far out there. In terms of the system that God instituted there is a need for a human being to share with another human being the gospel. That human being that hears the gospel must respond in faith.

So, why are you trying to twist the meaning of what is the plain and simple reading of Romans 10?

Bob, I will just say that your interpretation of the Bible is very creative and smacks of desparation.... You're reaching pal!

If you suggest that was preached to every creature which is under heaven means every human being then why not every animal as well. Aren't monkeys creatures which are under heaven. If you want to take everything to be so literal, then that would not be absurd. Of course I do not believe that to be the case, but I find what you teach from these passages to be equally absurd.

You are a stubborn man. You keep beating that same old drum. I do not dispute they have heard but the substance of what they have heard is in question. The Bible presents the idea that all people are exposed to general revelation, which is sufficient to condemn but not save. The Bible also presents the idea that special revelation is needed in order to be saved. Therefore the idea of sharing the Gospel is presented with the intention of revealing something that was previously not known. The general revelation which all people have lets them know they are lost. The Gospel or special revelation gives people the "Good News" so they can know they may be saved. 1 + 1 = 2


So, infants are saved without the preacher and Apostle Paul was saved without the preacher and the whole world has heard enough to be condemned but not saved. Is that where we are at now? From verse 18 of Romans: 10 they did hear but only to condemn them?

This is when you started getting off track Bob. You started arguing that all had heard the gospel. By your definition having heard the gospel would mean that all have the power of God unto salvation, which I have shown you to be false. While all people have general revelation which is enough to condemn them they do not have special revelation which is the power of God unto salvation as you put it.


Originally Posted by Brother Bob
But being you posted it what if some of the "elect" is mixed among all those people you are talking about under the "General Revelation".

BP/T

Yet even the example you give of the missionaries who encountered strange things in the jungles does not contradict my view which is that the gospel has to go out in order for people to believe. Even the natives where without understanding because they said "So that is what they were talking about." No account that I have heard that is credible states that natives converted apart from missionary work. They may have had the ground work laid for the gospel to be received but they were not converted.

Earlier by BP/T
I have used the word normative to describe the typical way the gospel is proclaimed through preaching, the illustrations that you have listed of missionaries in the jungles may describe exceptional cases where the 'elect' are brought to saving faith but the method would not contradict the need for a gospel presentation. In this case it literally could be angels, while certainly not the one referred to in Rev. 14:6. The word angel in Greek means messenger.

 

BP/T;
I will get to them later, have to nap now. cya later.

 

One quick answer for all of them but haven't read them yet but "time and chance has happened unto all".

 

I deleted my post.

 

I deleted my reply to your deleted post because I didn't read it in time and I have no idea what you said.

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

As I see it and as it has been presented to us Calvinism argues 'unconditional election'. The unconditional election taught in Calvinism seems to rest on three basic assumptions:

1. That the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election.
2. That total depravity precludes the response of faith from a sinner unless he is first regenerated by the Holy Ghost.
3. That salvation is free precludes conditional election.

If these three assumptions are true, then Calvinism has made its case. If these three assumptions are not true, then Calvinism is in trouble.

The first and probably the most foundational of these assumptions of Calvinism is: That the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election. Calvinistic thought rests on two great pillars in the history of theological thought: that of Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin. It appears to me that Augustine's doctrine grew out of his thought that depravity was so strong it could only be dealt with by unconditional election. It appears that Calvin's view grows more out of the idea that unconditional election is the only view of election that is consistent with the sovereignty of God.

In Calvinism, the central truth to be reckoned with is that everything elese must harmonize with the sovereignty of God. The Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God, as I see it, is developed along the lines of cause and effect. This is why some Calvinists on this board appear to be unlimited determinists. This stress on a cause and effect approach to matters relating to salvation when discussing theology on its broader points sound like they are unlimited determinists. In fact, I've found it hard to find out where many Calvinists stand on whether determinism is unlimited or limited because of this point.

The answer to Calvinism's assumption that the sovereignty of God requires unconditional election and thus precludes conditional election will be lengthy. It must deal with the following concerns:

1. Influence and response vs. cause and effect
2. The meaning of freedom of will
3. The need of a theology of personality
4. The question of divine determinism
5. The question of foreknowledge of God in relation to the free acts of human beings

Addressing the first point of cause and effect Calvinism has oversimpliefied the way God carries out HIs sovereignty. In so doing they have oversimplified the relationship of God to man in the application of redemption. As I see it, it is very important to distinguish between cause and effect relationships and influence and response relationships.

In the relationship of the physical to the physical, or the relationship of the parts of a machine to one another, we are dealing with cause and effect relationships. The concepts of active and passive apply in their simple meaning. When a hammer hits a nail, the hammer is active and the nail is passive. The hammer causes the nail to be driven into the wood. The anil had no choice. A fouce outside the nail caused the anil to be driven into the wood.

Interpersonal relationships do not submit to such a simple analysis. Influence and response provide more approprate terms. A person is one who thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will. In the simple sense of the terms cause and effect, one person cannot cause another person to do anything. This does not depend upon the lack of ability that one person has to influence another. Rather, the inability of one person to cause another person to do something grows out of the nature of what it means to be a person. When an appeal is made to a person, it is inherent within the nature of a person to consider the appeal and then make a decision. There is no such thng as a person doing or not doing something without having made a decision. This is true regardless of how strong the influence may be upon him or her.

Calvinsim's approach to irresistable grace (or effectual call) sound more like cause and effect than influence and response. When the appropriate time comes with regard to the elect, God regenerates him or her. As a regenerated person, he or shi is cuased by God to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. In such a view, faith is considered to be a gift. It is problematic for faith to be consdered his choice, his act, or his response. The possbility of a negative response does not exist. It was a guaranteed response. The fact that it was guaranteed makes the terms cause and effect appropriate. All of this is consdiered by Calvinism to be necessary if salvation is to be a gift.

In explaining the gift of faith that way, the Calvinist is thinking along the lines of cause and effect. The only problem is that if being a person means anything beyond being a smoothy operating puppet with conscious awareness, it is impossible to describe the experience of a person in such a manner. We must keep in mind that a human being is a personal being because God has made him or her that way. This is necessary to the very notion of being made in the image of God. Can anyone really deny that faith is a personal response to the working of God with that individual? At least in some sense, the response of faith is a decision in which the person who believes actively participates. Even Calvinism should admit this.

In my opinion, it has been a mistake over the centuries to focus the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians on whether fallen or redeemed amn has a free will. The real question is: Is fallen man a personal being, or is he sub-personal? (The same question can also be asked concerning redeemed man.) Does God deal with fallen man as a person? If He does, He deals with him as one who thinks, feels, and acts. To do otherwise undercuts the personhood of man. This, God will not do; not becuase somethng is being imposed on God to which He must submit, but because God desinged the relationship to be a relationship between personal beings. Human beings are personal being by God's design and were made for a personal relationship with a personal God. God will not violate HIs own plan. The nature of the case does not demand that God work in a cause and effect relationship with human beings.

We dare not take the position that God is unable to work with human beings with the framework of influence and response. Are we going to settle for the thinking that the inability of fallen man results in the inability of God, i.e. the inability of God to work with fallen man and redeemed man in an influence and resposne relationship? I hope not!

I am sure that Calvinists would want to say that they do not believe in "mechanical" cause and effect as it relates to the way God deals with human beings. While they would object to th word "mechanical," if they opt for any form of determinism they cannot successfully reject the words cause and effect. My readings of Calvinist writings suggest that a Classical Calvinist would not object to these terms. If anyone doubts this observations, I would suggest taking another look at Loraine Boettner and John S. Feinberg. I think the description of God's relationship to man that Calvinsits would give would be much like my description of influence and response. However, the result is thought to be guaranteed. When the result is guarantted, they would simply have a softened form of caue and effect. Any time the result is guaranteed, we are dealing with cause and effect. When the guarantee is gone, Calvinism is gone.

From a Calvinist viewpoint, it will not do to say that cause and effect describes God's relationship to us, but influence and response describes our relationship to one another. The entirety of that which falls within the scope of determinism falls within the scope of cause and effect. There is no influence and response. Yet, I get the impression when I read Calvinistic writings that they are trying to ersuad me. Persuasion is a form of influence. I get the impression that they think I could and should agree. I do not think they have any different idea about persuasion than I do. I have a statment that make sometimes, "Calvinists are Arminian except when they are making Calvinsitic statements." :tongue3:

I need to point out that in common speech, we frequently tend to use influence and response and cause and effect somewhat interchangeably. We may say, "He cuaed me to do it." To be technical, we should say, "He influenced me to do it, and I chose to do it." Though the terms may be to a certain extent interchangeable in common speech, I do not believe any confusion will develop from my using them the way I do here.

Peace and God Bless.

 

Grace and Peace Jarthur001,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this till now but I've been busy at work and just haven't had to time to give it any reflection until now.

The post on cause and effect and influence and response sets the stage for a discussion of the meaning of the freedom of the will.

The New Testament does not use the noun form of "will" to refer to the faculty or organ of choice in man. Instead, the verb form (thelo) is used (Mt. 16:24; 21:29; 23:37; Mk. 8:34; Jn. 7:17; Rev. 22:17; and others). By "will" we mean power of choice. Every command, every prohibition, every exhortation, and every entreaty made in the Bible to human beings persupposes that they are capable of making choices.

Whether we want to think of the act of willing as the function of a faculty of the person or simply the person making a choice, the fact remains that the ability of choice is part of being a person. that ability of choice we call will. In his totality, man is a thinking, felling, acting being. He thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will.

Let us make a few things clear about what is and is not meant by freedom of will. The freedom of the will does not mean that forces or influences cannot be brought to bear upon the will. In fact, the very nature of freedom of the will means that forces or influences will be brought to bear upon the will. It does not mean that these forces cannot be a contributing factor in the exercise of the will. It does mean that these influences or forces cannot guarantee or determine the action of the will. We are dealing with influence and response, not cause and effect.

In regard to your assumption that any freedom of will must be absolute freewill...

Freedom of will is a freedom within a framework of possibilities. It is not absolute freedom. We cannot be God. We cannot be an angel and we cannot be Brad Pitt. :tongue3:

The freedom of a human being is in the famework of the possiblities provided by human nature. Also, the influences brought to bear on the will have a bearing on the framework of possibilities.

Before Adam and Eve sinned, it was in the framework of possibilities within which they operated to remain in the practice of complete righteousness, or to commit sin. After they sinned, it no longer remained within the framework of possibilities for them to practice uninterrupted righteousness. The same is true for fallen man now (Rom. 8:7-8). If anyone reads the meaning of freedom of will to mean that an unconverted person could practice righteousness and not sin, he misunderstands the meaning of freedom of will for fallen human beings. Romans 8:7-8 makes it clear that Scripture does not teach this.

Jesus makes it clear that it does not fall with the framework of possibilities for a sinner to respond to the gospel unless he or she is drawn by the Holy Ghost (Jn. 6:44). The influence of the Holy Ghost working in the heart of the person who hears the gospel makes possible a framework of possibilities in which a person can say yes or no to the gospel. If he says, "yes," it is his choice. If he says, "no," it is his choice. To say less than that is to raise serious questions about the existence of real personhood after the fall. If a human being is not in some sense a self-directed being, he or she is not a person. The self-direction may have a high degree of dependence at times, but it is still self-direction. As has already been made clear, I am not suggesting that fallen man can choose Christ without the aid of the Holy Ghost. In fact, I strongly reject such an idea. I am saying, however, that no matter how much or how strong the aid of the Holy Ghost may be, the "yes" decision is still a decision that can rightly be called the person's decision. Also, he could have said no.

When I say that human beings have a free will, I eman that they can rationally consider a matter and make a choice. In bringing a person to the point of saving faith, the Holy Ghost can be resisted. The person can say no. What puts Arminians at odds with Calvinists is that in Calvinism when God works with a person to bring him to faith, he or she cannot say no. Yes is the only answer he can give. Calvinists believe that apart from irresistible grace nobody could be saved. Irresistible grace is not simply the way God chooses to work in saving people, it is the only option open to God to save lost people. Total depravity, according to Calvinism makes it impossible for a human being to respond apart from irresistible grace. The sovereignty of God, as viewed by Calvinism, is incompatible with a no answer. Thus, resistible grace, according to Calvinism, is ruled out.

I continue to believe this is a grave error and generally an oversimplification of the relationship between God and man. I believe to Calvinism that this conclusion is drawn because of the apparent contradiction between God's Foreknowledge and man's free acts of choice. I could argue that the contradiction is apparent and not beyond explanation.

Peace and God Bless.

 

So, bound;
Those who are saved are the "nail" according to the beliefs put forward on this board, if I understand your posts. God is the "cause" or hammer and we as the nail have not choice what so ever but after being "hit" by God we are drove into the wood or "saved".

Now as I see it we the non-calvinist are "influenced" by God through the Holy Spirit to serve Him but we can consider the idea and make a choice whether we want to serve Him or not. In other words we can reject the Grace or we can through faith receive the Grace.

Now if I have understood your post you have hit it right on the head and is what we have said all along. God influences all men for they are all His creation and created in the same manner, none were created with more choice than another or more ability to reject than the other but the same. The influence is the same but it interacts with the person of who God in His Sovereignty made us that way. In our reaction to His influence we either choose to believe Him or we do not. If that is what you have just said then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

May God continue to Bless you bound. I have never heard the abilities of man and the influence of God put so simple and beautiful. I thank God for that response. If you don't mind I will copy and keep both of your last two posts for they are exactly what I have always believed but could never have the ability to put it in such a clear and simple understanding so that all men should see the meaning of it. Bless,

 

BP/T;

1 Peter, chapter 2
8: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed

He was talking about Jesus coming to His own but His own receiving Him not. This is more in line with what I am saying than what you are saying. They chose not to receive Jesus but guess what the door is still open for them if they will have faith. Its all about "faith". This flys flat in the face of what you and him said.
They stumbled because they had not faith. If it were necessary I would go get Scriptures but you already know they are there. It is where He told us not to boast for the original branch is much easier to graft back in than the wild olive branch, of which we are.
Are the rest like this one and if so it’s a waste of my time.

I can't believe you would ask me to answer this one as being someone who had not choice. As I said "time and chance has happened to all" and those are the words of the Lord, not mine. This is Sodom and Gomorrah. man oh man!!!
These people where homosexuals of which had turned from the natural use of the opposite sex and turned to their own and found pleasure in doing so so God hardened their hearts. Jeepers, is this the kind of Scriptures that bound used to defend his point of having no choice? Are you sure you want to defend this post?

 

LOL... after I posted it I had no idea what I said either. It was messed up.