Reconciling Two

[Van]

Van, how would you answer these verses?

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1 Peter 1:20 (KJV) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Blank, why not address my post, why move on to other verses without acknowledging the fact 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes an individual election of individuals before creation.

1) No human was chosen for salvation, or to be a people for God's own possession before they existed "not as a people" who had not "obtained mercy." Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen "in Him" meaning when He was chosen individually as God's Lamb, Redeemer, we were chosen corporately as the target group, those believers to be redeemed by God's individual election. From post #17

2) 1Peter 1:20 NASB
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
This verse teaches Logos was chosen before creation to be our Redeemer, because He was known beforehand (actual meaning of foreknown as used in scripture) as the Lamb of God. Thus God had His Redeemer and His Redemption plan before Adam sinned.

 

[Blank]

Blank, why not address my post, why move on to other verses without acknowledging the fact 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes an individual election of individuals before creation.

I did address your post by bringing up 2 scriptures that contradicted what you were trying to say. You can address them now.

2) 1Peter 1:20 NASB
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
This verse teaches Logos was chosen before creation to be our Redeemer, because He was known beforehand (actual meaning of foreknown as used in scripture) as the Lamb of God. Thus God had His Redeemer and His Redemption plan before Adam sinned.

Thank you for that, can you now address Ephesians 1:4 similarly?

 

[Van]

I did address your post by bringing up 2 scriptures that contradicted what you were trying to say. You can address them now.

Thank you for that, can you now address Ephesians 1:4 similarly?

No, you did not. 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes an individual election of individuals before creation. You did not address this fact.
Neither of the verses you cited even addressed the issue.

And then you ignore "Ephesians 1:4 says we were chosen "in Him" meaning when He was chosen individually as God's Lamb, Redeemer, we were chosen corporately as the target group, those believers to be redeemed by God's individual election.

We are done, Sir.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I want to temper "warrant" and "invitation", by wrappinging it in the words of Gill here, below *,
where he specifies the "restriction" that is placed upon all who actually do "come unto Me", as Jesus says.

I don't know what foreshortened and truncated conclusion you insist on where Jesus was saying,

Matthew 11:28;
"Come unto Me,

however, the verse before it,

Matthew 11:27;
"All things are Delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,

and he to whomsoever the Son Will Reveal Him.

says there, in the last 8 or 9 words, "and he to whomsoever the Son Will Reveal Him."

"no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,

and he to whomsoever the Son Will Reveal Him."

and the rest of the verse, after Jesus said, "Come unto Me",
IS WHAT STATES THE RESTRICTION THAT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF PLACED ON THOSE WHO COME UNTO HIM.

"all ye that labour, and are heavy laden";

THE RESTRICTION JESUS HAS FOR COING TO HIM
IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S SOUL MUST BE CHARACTERIZED
AS BEING ONE WHO IS AMONG THOSE WHO ARE INCLUDED IN
WHO JESUS SAYS ARE:
"all ye that labour and are heavy laden'

JESUS IS SAYING THAT THERE IS NO INVITATION GIVEN TO, OR APPLICABLE,
to these who are laboring in the service of sin,
these who are laboring in the service of Satan,
these who are laden with iniquity,
and these who are insensible of their sins and iniquity:
and these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with their sins and iniquity;
nor do they want any rest for their souls;
or desire any rest for their souls;

meaning, not these who are labouring in the service of sin and Satan, are laden with iniquity, and insensible of it:

these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with it;

"nor do they want or desire any rest for their souls;

Jesus' "Invitation" is all those who;
groan, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences,
and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law,
and the load of human traditions;
"and have been laboring till they are weary,
in order to obtain peace of conscience,
and rest for their souls,
by the observance of these things, but in vain.

JESUS IS TALKING TO THEM, WHEN HE SAYS, "COME UNTO ME".

such who groan, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences,
and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law, and the load of human traditions;

"and have been laboring till they are weary, in order to obtain peace of conscience, and rest for their souls,
by the observance of these things, but in vain.

II Peter 3:9 says, "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."

So, while you seem to think that it is alright to rewrite the Bible and try to make it say something it doesn't,
by not only not comparing scripture with scripture, but by not even reading, or including, THE WORDS IN THE VERY VERSE, ITSELF,
like the below;

So the statement "that God is not willing that any should perish" is addressed to everyone that hears it.

then, I seem to like supplying the antecedents of "any" and "all", in that very verse, with who God is talking to and about;

"The Lord is not slack concerning His Promise, as some men count slackness;
but is Longsuffering", "beloved, I now write unto you", II PETER 3:1, "to us-ward",
not willing", "beloved, I now write unto you", II PETER 3:1, "that any" "of us-ward" "should perish,
but", "beloved, I now write unto you", II PETER 3:1, "that all "of us-ward", "should come to Repentance."

"God is not willing that any should perish", is a false man-made philosophy.

"God is not willing that any should perish", is a lie of the Devil.

To profess, "God is not willing that any should perish", playing into the hands of Satan.

"God is not willing that any should perish", is not stated, or taught, anywhere in The Bible.

To attribute, "everyone", as having anything to do with any portion of II Peter 3:9,
is to do something that The Author of The Bible DID NOT CALL ANYONE TO DO.

Of course, those who respond are elect, but the warning/invitation was general and to everyone.

No one is talking to, about, or dreaming of "everyone" and neither should you be,
if you'd wait until you read what the whole verse is saying,
so you'll be able to see what it it not saying,
before you decide what it is saying, or going to say, when you are through editing it.

So why would you want to temper warrant and invitation if found in scripture by the words of Gill?

Because, Gill includes the contents of the verse, itself, and interprets its meaning,
in II Peter 3:9 and Matthew 11:28.

 

[DaveXR650]

Here are two passages I have trouble with, how would you reconcile them?

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV) 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.

Matthew 11:25 (KJV) At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

If God is not willing that any perish, why does He hide certain things from certain people?
What is the best explanation without there being a contradiction on God's part?

Blank. You should keep in mind that the best Calvinist theologians agree that there are often 2 truths that cannot be reconciled. If you don't understand this you will be forced to do like you see on these 8 pages - assert one truth at the expense of the other.

God truly is longsuffering to all of us and is not wanting anyone to perish. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would rather they repent. There is also a thing called "election" and it appears to be speaking of individuals, not of a method of salvation. Everyone who does respond to the gospel message is of the elect and it was predestined that they do so. Yet it is necessary that they do respond by faith and repentance. Everyone who is elect must strive to live a holy life and not try to hold on to even one sin - yet the elect will indeed do so. The regenerate or born again ones are the ones who believe and yet there is pretty good scriptural evidence that in some sense this saving faith comes from our regeneration. If it sounds confusing that's too bad. Many people won't accept not being able to reconcile all this in their own minds to their satisfaction. So they do one of two things:

1. They view salvation as God providing the necessary means and knowledge of the facts of what it is that we need to do to be saved, and then
leaves it to man to choose to ascribe to the propositions set before us or to refuse the offer.

2. They view salvation as being "all of God" , which while true, they feel they are logically required to conversely put damnation as being all of
God because to allow the free will of man to play a part in one it has to play a part in the other and they cannot accept both as being true.

Bottom line is you end up with people who believe Jesus has died and now God is waiting to see who all accepts this as true. And you end up people who slander God's nature by saying that the offer of salvation is not truly open to anyone who will take it, even though you have express promises from scripture that this is true. The funny and almost tragic thing is that both of these groups are alike in one very important way. They deny that two teachings may be true at the same time.

Who says what? The Calvinists I'm talking about who hold both can be true would include the Puritans, including high-Calvinist theologians like John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, J.C. Ryle, Horatius Bonar, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur. I hope that helps.

 

[Blank]

Blank. You should keep in mind that the best Calvinist theologians agree that there are often 2 truths that cannot be reconciled. If you don't understand this you will be forced to do like you see on these 8 pages - assert one truth at the expense of the other.

Who knows, maybe we can surpass the 'best Calvinist theologians' on this forum. lol

Everyone who does respond to the gospel message is of the elect and it was predestined that they do so.

That's the other snag, 'if God is not willing that any should perish, why didn't he predestine all?
I'll leave it at that, and quit snooping behind the hidden God

 

[Van]

2 Peter 3:9 NASB
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

God does not want anyone to perish, but for all "to come" into repentance. God wants the fallen lost sinner to turn from going his or her way, and to embrace going in God's way. The idea is not that God is willing to compel everyone to be saved, but to be saved according to God's redemption plan, which is to save those whose faith He credits as righteousness.

The earmark of false doctrine is it does not fit with all scripture, it creates the need to nullify one or more verses.

Note how a Calvinist might rewrite the verse, "...but for all to be compelled to repentance." Not how it reads and not God's redemption plan.

 

[DaveXR650]

Who knows, maybe we can surpass the 'best Calvinist theologians' on this forum. lol

Honestly, many people on this forum haven't read them, which is no problem. Nobody gets to everything, especially if you are still working. I haven't read much of Gill. But at least they should leave open the possibility that there is still more to learn. The more you read them the more it comes together and makes sense. For instance, you learn that the Holy Spirit acts upon our wills, antecedent logically, but at the same instance in time as our wills are acting. Thus it is quite right that a perception of coming to Christ or "deciding" for Christ is properly called an act of your will. That's why you don't assume someone who just perceives that they heard the gospel and decided it was true is a false Christian. Spurgeon himself describes how he was saved in just that manner and only later realized the role of the Holy Spirit in his salvation.

That's the other snag, 'if God is not willing that any should perish, why didn't he predestine all?
I'll leave it at that, and quit snooping behind the hidden God

That's a good question, and your answer is probably the right one. There is a fine line between a hunger for knowledge and presumptuous snooping.

 

[Blank]

That's why you don't assume someone who just perceives that they heard the gospel and decided it was true is a false Christian.

I used to help out at a halfway house and it quickly became quite apparent that that is true. There are a lot of gamers out there.

That's a good question, and your answer is probably the right one.

Honestly, I really don't have an answer as to 'why He didn't predestine all if He's not willing that any should perish'.

 

[DaveXR650]

No one is talking to, about, or dreaming of "everyone" and neither should you be,
if you'd wait until you read what the whole verse is saying,
so you'll be able to see what it it not saying,
before you decide what it is saying, or going to say, when you are through editing it.

The specific group of people Peter was addressing there were already saved also. They had already come to repentance. They were wondering why the end is not at hand. I agree that everyone still to be saved, now and from the day 2 Peter was written till now are indeed elect, but they are also lost until they are saved. It makes no sense to try to make Peter's words only apply to those who are already saved or only to the elect (to the extent of making the separation of the elect and non-elect the main point of the passage). That's classic eisegesis. It makes no sense to bring that up at all if it is only referring to those already saved believers reading the letter. And it is also a big problem to view scripture that way and needlessly try to knock out people who may benefit from seeing the scripture. The people who might benefit from reading that passage may be lost when they read it. Even if they are elect they would read it and benefit from it as a lost person.

You should be careful. It's one thing to have different theological views but these kind of statements:

"God is not willing that any should perish", is a false man-made philosophy.

"God is not willing that any should perish", is a lie of the Devil.

To profess, "God is not willing that any should perish", playing into the hands of Satan.

"God is not willing that any should perish", is not stated, or taught, anywhere in The Bible.

Borders on blasphemy. At best, I hope no one takes this as the official view of Calvinism. No wonder people hate it and think it slanders God.

 

[Blank]

The earmark of false doctrine is it does not fit with all scripture, it creates the need to nullify one or more verses.

Would your true doctrine be able answer this?..."if God is not willing that any should perish, why didn't he predestine all?"

 

[DaveXR650]

Honestly, I really don't have an answer as to 'why He didn't predestine all if He's not willing that any should perish'.

Once again. If you can't get your head around the fact that both are true, and it bothers you, then stay away from the Calvinism, at least for now. It is more important to have a correct view of God and his nature than to go into what some are putting forth as Calvinism on here. I don't feel that need be the case if you read some Ryle, or Bonar, or Spurgeon, but leave off the Calvinism until you do that.

 

[JesusFan]

Once again. If you can't get your head around the fact that both are true, and it bothers you, then stay away from the Calvinism, at least for now. It is more important to have a correct view of God and his nature than to go into what some are putting forth as Calvinism on here. I don't feel that need be the case if you read some Ryle, or Bonar, or Spurgeon, but leave off the Calvinism until you do that.

Our friend Van here though just keeps railing against Calvinism and Calvinists, yet misunderstands much of what we believe, and fights against his own strawman

 

[Van]

Would your true doctrine be able answer this?..."if God is not willing that any should perish, why didn't he predestine all?"

Did you read my post #147?

 

[Blank]

Did you read my post #147?

Yes I did, but it never considers 'predestination'.