Featured Predestination

Excellent list of verses showing that man is evil in nature.
Poor list of verses to show that man cannot of his own free will receive the gospel after that the Holy Spirit has first convicted him of sin.
You're making a huge jump from "man is evil" to "man has no free will to believe the gospel" especially when the scriptures plainly and often lay the responsibility at man's door step.
Because you also need to deal with verses like:
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

not understanding this argument. If A is before B and B is before C, then A is before C. Why is predestination unto glorification a problem for Romans 8:29-30?

 

Fair question. The answer is because of what that predestination is unto (and it's not salvation, according to Paul himself).

Let’s list the things Paul mentions in the order of mention:
1) Foreknow (v.29)
2) Predestinate (v.30)
3) Called (v.30)
4) Justified (v.30)
5) Glorified (v.30)

But Paul specifies that #2 is a predestination unto a Christ-like resurrection body.

So if #3 is call unto gospel salvation, then Paul placed predestination unto a Christ-like resurrection body before the gospel call [#3] and also before justification [#4], which makes no sense if Paul were laying out an ordo salutis, as @atpollard rightly points out.

That’s another reason why Paul can’t be giving a salvation order here.

Note that the calling [#3] was technically first mentioned before anything else back in v.28 them who are called according to his purpose. Paul is reassuring Christians, not laying out an ordo salutis.

 

Several of those verses said just that. There is none righteous, none who search for truth. That takes some hubris to deny. Just as it take hubris to deny the explicit order in 29-30. I'd very very careful walking this line.

 

I'm still not getting the logic of this argument. A is before B (and C for that matter) B is before C, therefore A is before C.

Tell me why this argument doesn't follow?

And why does this mandate Paul was not saying what he was explicitly saying in a specific order?

Curious George (no pun), are these your own ideas, or did they come from somewhere?

 

How about you keep sharpening my iron with the word and not jump to judging my heart, yes?

I tacitly acknowledged Romans 3:11 when I specified "after that the Holy Spirit has first convicted him of sin."
It's really odd that you judged me concerning the one verse I actually acknowledged in my answer.
But that's what haste unto judgment causes.

Man naturally does not seek God. But God initiates conviction in man and at that point, man is free to accept or reject that conviction.

 

I just did, and I don't know how to better explain it brother.
@atpollard disagrees with me but he understood the point enough to raise it of his own.
Plus, see post #134 where I lay out my case.

 

Fair enough, but you do seem to be flagrantly denying the explicit meaning of a passage to fit your theology. Scripture talks about a stricter judgment for teachers. I don't feel I'm out of bounds.

I see you're not against judgment at all. No martyrs here.

Much better. I believe something similar. So we agree, the natural man is unregenerate, and one not yet drawn to the Father?

 

Suit yourself. Yes, I agree, I don't believe it can be explained better.

 

Followed by:

So, you were out of bounds.

In fairness though, I have often been out of bounds too with Christians.

 

Do you still deny total depravity and deny the order of Romans 8:29-30?

 

what term would use to describe your theology on salvation? obviously not calvinist or arminian.

 

I've never thought of that. Not sure how to do that. What term would you use for yours?

 

Don't think my post was as clear as it could be. The common groups would be Calvinism, and Arminianism with Traditionalism/Provisionalism( i understand they to be the same term for the same position) seemingly popular in America. there are of course more.

i would consider myself a Calvinist.

 

I do not think that it is safe to use a Hebrew word to determine the exact meaning of a Greek word.

As far as the English verb “to draw” goes, is anything described as “drawn” if it does not come, or does “drawing” assume success in the innate meaning of the word.

• “I drew a sword.” - If the sword remains in the sheath, then it was NOT DRAWN.
• “The fisherman draws the fish in the net.” - If the fish remain in the water and are not compelled to come by the net, then they were NOT DRAWN.

So where is an example of a thing being “drawn” but not coming?
It does not appear in any other use of the Greek word except where it describes so many fish in the net that they could NOT DRAW them into the boat.

I am unfamiliar with the details behind that portion of Hosea, but if they were drawn, but refused to come, then they were not actually drawn, were they.

“I drew the water from the well, but got only an empty bucket.”
Did I draw water from the well, or not?

 

George,
Romans 8:29-30 is very straight-forward as it is laid out:

1) Foreknown.
2) Predestinated conformed to the image of Christ.
3) The predestinated were called.
4) The called were justified.
5) The justified were glorified.

It's all a done deal and all from God's perspective, qualified by the statement, "For whom He foreknew..."
It's also not so much an order, but a chain of "links" that cannot be broken.
It's an "all-in-one" statement.
For example, one cannot be justified by the blood of Christ without all the rest being equally true.

They all inter-rely on one another.

I agree...
Paul is reassuring Christians, for that is who God has him writing to in Romans 1:1-7.
They are the ones that are "the called" according to His purpose.

The ones that love Him...
Not unbelievers who do not.

 

" 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." ( John 6:44 ).

No man can come to Christ except the Father draw them.
Those that are drawn will be raised up.
All of them.

Therefore,
Those that are not drawn, will not be raised up.
I'd say that that is "irresistible", in that all who are drawn are unerringly raised up.

The same with the statement,
" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." ( John 6:37 ).

All that the Father has given to Jesus, shall come to Him.
No one outside of that process will come to Christ.

 

I am commanded by the scriptures to compare scriptures with scriptures for interpretation, which is what I did.
The idea of going back to Greek and Hebrew (which is often, though not always, a cop-out) though rational, is a humanistic approach to the word of God, not a spiritual one, nor a scriptural one.
It's also an "anything goes" approach because every one has their pet Hebrew or Greek text which they "prefer" (read "manipulate") to prove their doctrine.

 

Ah ok, got you. I'm not Calvinist because I reject all 5 points of the Tulip (the 5th because it's framed as "perseverance" of the saints rather than "preservation", otherwise I would accept that one point) but I also reject the Arminian notion that a man can lose his salvation (although historically, Arminius never taught that) because the scriptures teach that a man cannot lose his salvation during the church age (although in other ages/dispensations salvation can be lost, hence the confusion in people's mind).

 

Did you read posts #134 & 203? Because it seems you just laid your case out without even addressing the things I've mentioned.