Romans 9

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

EricB: For in the Calvinist scheme, even man's Fall was a deliberate decree of God's, since it was necessary to give those predetermined elect something to be saved from (and glorify Him) in the first place.

HP: Precisely. One can only conclude, coming from a Calvinistic approach, God indeed had to have put it into Adam’s heart to sin. God had to program him, necessitate him, create within him a nature of compulsion to sin. I have had more than one personal conversation with a Baptist minister of a large local congregation over his well known stated position affirming that very absurd, but widespread, false notion.

The only option would be to believe that God did not elect Adam period. If Adam became one of the elect God that did not elect, God could not be omniscient having failed to know that Adam would be of the elect not having elected him.

If that sounds funny, remember the confusion is not the results of what I believe but part and parcel to the maelstrom of confusion that exists in a Calvinistic world view.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The potter does not create clay, he takes preexistent clay and forms it into a vessel. The clay God takes and forms into vessels is the fallen lump of humanity in Adam. Election is God's purpose before the clay was created and election anticipates the fall because we are chosen "to" salvation. Unfallen man does not need to be chosen "to" salvation as there is nothing lost as it is unfallen.

Try using what is between your ears for a change and you might understand what you read.

HP: DW is not even giving his unsupported notions careful thought. What does he mean ‘if???” Election, as he supposes is true, takes place long before the clay is even literally formed. God is doing the forming according to this passage. His argument would have to conclude that man is fallen before he is even formed in this world period. He makes something other than God the author of the spirit of man and his election to good or evil, or God is indeed the author of sin, forming sinful spirits and whatever else God forms into man.





HP: Are you even reading the Scriptures DW??? God is the one forming the clay, no one else is involved. There is absolutely no other conclusion to draw from your argument that indeed God is the author of all sin. If He forms the clay, and forms it in a sinful fashion, He alone is the author of sin. You indeed paint a horrible blight on the character of a Holy and Just God!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The potter does not create clay,

HP: Now that is an interesting thought. Hmmmm. Who else is out there before the worlds are formed and is the author of this clay???????

DW: he takes preexistent clay and forms it into a vessel.

HP: Maybe you believe, in the beginning there was clay???????

DW: The clay God takes and forms into vessels is the fallen lump of humanity in Adam.

HP: But tell us Doctor, who made the clay?????

DW: Election is God's purpose before the clay was created

HP: So now you have something other than God making the clay, then God taking that clay made by someone(?) else and forming it, yet electing the product He makes with the clay before the clay was created.

Me thinks you need a course on logical progression. :thumbs:

DW: and election anticipates the fall because we are chosen "to" salvation.

HP: And here DW has God, anticipation the fall of what He is going to create from clay He did not make but only formed, ANTECEDENT to even forming it. Interesting.

DW: Unfallen man does not need to be chosen "to" salvation as there is nothing lost as it is unfallen.

HP: Maybe God just doesn’t know yet what this clay He is about to form is going to do. I wonder if that could be said about right choices as well????... placing us in the logical quandary of Him knowing that we will be needing His chosen election, which brings us full circle back to Him needing to predestine our fall so as to need His predestined salvation, which again leads us directly back to God as the author of all evil.

Not good DW, not good. You might consider taking your last post back to the drawing board. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have never dealt with such gross ignorance in all my born days. This is an analogy to prove a point. It is not an analogy to teach about God as CREATOR but about God's purpose in having mercy on some and hardening others - Look at the statement and objection that introduces this analogy:

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Paul did not speak about the CREATION of man but the USE of fallen man like PHAROAH to accomplish His purposes. If he wanted to speak about the CREATION of man he would have used Adam instead of Pharoah!!!

The fact that verse 20 declares God has the right to vent his WRATH upon those he hardens demonstrates they are being considered just like Pharoah - FALLEN humanity already predisposed to sin and therefore JUST objects of God's wrath:

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Are you so ignorant that you will argue that UNFALLEN mankind are just objects of God's wrath and destruction??????

That is exactly the position you are FORCED to take if you apply this to UNFALLEN mankind.

HP: Now that is an interesting thought. Hmmmm. Who else is out there before the worlds are formed and is the author of this clay???????




HP: Maybe you believe, in the beginning there was clay???????

HP: But tell us Doctor, who made the clay?????


HP: So now you have something other than God making the clay, then God taking that clay made by someone(?) else and forming it, yet electing the product He makes with the clay before the clay was created.

Me thinks you need a course on logical progression. :thumbs:

HP: And here DW has God, anticipation the fall of what He is going to create from clay He did not make but only formed, ANTECEDENT to even forming it. Interesting.


HP: Maybe God just doesn’t know yet what this clay He is about to form is going to do. I wonder if that could be said about right choices as well????... placing us in the logical quandary of Him knowing that we will be needing His chosen election, which brings us full circle back to Him needing to predestine our fall so as to need His predestined salvation, which again leads us directly back to God as the author of all evil.

Not good DW, not good. You might consider taking your last post back to the drawing board. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The potter does not create clay, he takes preexistent clay and forms it into a vessel.

HP: We are speaking of God and election in case you have forgotten. God is the potter DW of Romans 9. He makes the clay…. But of course if once again you desire to believe, ‘in the beginning was clay’ you are free to do so. I just must have missed that verse.

DW: The clay God takes and forms into vessels is the fallen lump of humanity in Adam. Election is God's purpose before the clay was created and election anticipates the fall because we are chosen "to" salvation. Unfallen man does not need to be chosen "to" salvation as there is nothing lost as it is unfallen.

HP: You are being conveniently inconsistent. You tell us you believe in unconditional election, then you deny double predestination. You tell us that God elects some to salvation based on nothing said or done subsequent to this world’s existence or having done good or evil. If that is true, the same is true of the damned. If the saved are predestined to salvation (via election) before they do any good or bad, the same of necessity must be true for those not chosen. They had to have their fate sealed in the very same manner you say the elect has theirs sealed, their fate being sealed before they ever have the opportunity to do good or bad. (Axe the choice nonsense)


All you have to do is either listen to Steaver and accept what he has to offer, of come to the reality that if you accept unconditional election as you have stated you do, double predestination is unavoidable and Steaver is justified.

I would like for you to set Steaver straight if he is wrong. I’ll tell you right now that I bet Steaver will expose your error most likely far better than I have. Try debating him for a while. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Are you so ignorant that you will argue that UNFALLEN mankind are just objects of God's wrath and destruction??????

HP: No I am not that ignorant, but the notion you hold to, i.e., unconditional election, logically lands you in that ignorance and that without fail.

Listen, I am glad you see the error of such nonsense, but again unconditional election necessities such an illogical end. I DO NOT fault you for pointing out what you call ignorance, I fault you for that which logically necessitates such ignorance, i.e. unconditional election. Your views on unconditional election are not taught or implied by Romans 9 or any other passage for that matter and they do in fact necessitate double predestination.

If you do not believe in double predestination and see the absurdity of it, you are in need of re-examining your position concerning that which necessites such absurdity, i.e., unconditional election.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Unconditional election has NOTHING to do with creation, with the fall of man or with God as the CREATOR of clay. Jeremiah went to a potters shop and watched the potter fashion clay into vessels. He did not watch the potter CREATE clay.

You purposely avoided the contextual evidence I placed before you? You purposely avoided the challenge I made to you. You are not interested in truth but in arguing just to argue and that is why you don't care what a person really believes or what a Biblical text really teaches but only in what you want to believe and want others to think.

Again, the immediate context as well as verse 22 proves this clay is FALLEN MANKIND. Verse 22 answers the objector to Paul's statement in verse 18 that whom God wills to harden he hardeneth. Is there a just basis for God to harden UNFALLEN mankind? Is there a just basis for God to shew his wrath upon UNFALLEN mankind?

This is your dilemma as long as you contend that the clay represents UNFALLEN mankind.

Come on and man up and deal with this issue or stop asserting that the clay represents UNFALLEN mankind.

HP: We are speaking of God and election in case you have forgotten. God is the potter DW of Romans 9. He makes the clay…. But of course if once again you desire to believe, ‘in the beginning was clay’ you are free to do so. I just must have missed that verse.

HP: You are being conveniently inconsistent. You tell us you believe in unconditional election, then you deny double predestination. You tell us that God elects some to salvation based on nothing said or done subsequent to this world’s existence or having done good or evil. If that is true, the same is true of the damned. If the saved are predestined to salvation (via election) before they do any good or bad, the same of necessity must be true for those not chosen. They had to have their fate sealed in the very same manner you say the elect has theirs sealed, their fate being sealed before they ever have the opportunity to do good or bad. (Axe the choice nonsense)


All you have to do is either listen to Steaver and accept what he has to offer, of come to the reality that if you accept unconditional election as you have stated you do, double predestination is unavoidable and Steaver is justified.

I would like for you to set Steaver straight if he is wrong. I’ll tell you right now that I bet Steaver will expose your error most likely far better than I have. Try debating him for a while. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, will you do the list a favor? Debate Steaver on the position you call ignorant. I would like to see if he will rub your nose in the so-called 'iron clad logic of Calvinsim' for a while. It might have a needed effect.:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, will you do the list a favor? Debate Steaver on the position you call ignorant. I would like to see if he will rub your nose in the so-called 'iron clad logic of Calvinsim' for a while. It might have a needed effect.:thumbs:

Let's start at square one.

1. Election is taught in the Scripture.

2. The term is used in regard to person individual salvation (Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:32).

Now, there are only two possible options:

1. Election is conditional
2. Election is unconditional

If you take the position that election is conditional, then you are saying that before the world began God chose a people "in him" (Eph. 1:4) based on something foreseen in them that he did not see in others - actions, willingness, etc.

If you take the position that election is unconditional, then you are saying that before the world began God chose a people without any basis in them, foreseen or otherwise, but according to His own good pleasure.

Which is it?

Obviously, you will most likely take the conditional election view. However, to do so, you must prove that election was based upon the foreseen actions of those whom God elected. In other words, before the world began, He foresaw something in some that he didn't in others (e.g. their choice of him, their good works, etc.) that was the basis for choosing them over others.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Romans 9 Paul teaches that four primary characteristics are true of all the promised seed or those called "the children of God." Indeed, these same four primary characteristics are inferred in the very descriptions of "promised seed" and "children of God."

1. They are supernaturally born as was Isaac rather than mere natural birth as were the other seven sons of Abraham. In Galatians within the context of the birth of Isaac Paul says the following in regard to every true child of God:

Rom. 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Gal. 4:18 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Ga. 5:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


2. Like Jacob, they are chosen objects of redemptive love before the world began. Paul tells the Thessalonicans:

Rom. 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth


3. They are objects of God's Sovereign mercy:

Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy....18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Tit. 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


4. They are prepared in advance for glory:

Rom. 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now there is only one thing left for you to do. Be intellectually honest and admit plainly that you in fact do believe in double predestination. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Here are some direct questions for you DW.

• Can any be saved that God foreknows are to be lost? Can any be lost that God foreknows to be saved?
• Is it not true that in order for any to be saved God must have elected them to salvation and provided the means to accomplish His election?
• Is it not true as well that God of necessity must withhold the means of salvation from those He foreknows are to be damned?
• If God has elected to grant the means of salvation to some and withhold the means to others, that there is absolutely no possibility that the saved could be anything other than what they are and the same for those damned?
• Does not logic demand the conclusion that if God withholds the menas of salvation to some, before they ever did good or evil, that their destiny was sealed and their fate settled before they ever did good or evil in precisely the same manner the fate of those chosen to salvation is sealed?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now there is only one thing I would desire for you to do. Be intellectually honest and admit plainly that you in fact do believe in double predestination. :thumbs:

You are fighting a High Calivinist, I am not a High Calvinist or even a Calvinist.

Double predestination is the doctrine of a supralapsarian not a sublapsarian and I am a sublapsarian.

I do not believe that God elects people to hell. I do not believe that God is the author of sin in the sense of God being responsible for the choice or action of Satan or Adam to sin.

I have defended my position with SCRIPTURES ONLY. You are building a straw man and burning it. You have misrepresented my position over and over again. You think you have the right to tell me what I believe when I do not belive what you attribute to me.

Your problem is that you are fighting classic high Calvinism and what you say is true of claiss high Calvinism BUT I do not hold to that system of logic simply because the scriptures in my opinion do not support it.

I will present the problem to you again.

God knew in advance to creating either Satan or Adam that they would sin and yet he intentionally created them knowing full well that their sin would bring complete havoc to His creation. However, He intentionally proceeded to creat Lucifer and Adam. Hence, how can you deny God purposely permitted sin to occur?

I don't think you can believe God was caught by surpise by sin or did not know sin would occur if He created Lucifer and Adam. Therefore, I don't think you can honestly deny God purposely created Lucifer and Adam with full knowledge that in doing so He was giving permission for the existence of and the consequences of sin in His creation.

If a good God knowingly and thus purposely permitted sin to occur with all of its consequences, it can only be in keeping with His eternal purpose to ultimately restrain and overule sin for the ultimate good of His people and for his glory.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here are some direct questions for you DW.

• Can any be saved that God foreknows are to be lost? Can any be lost that God foreknows to be saved?

• 
  
  This is a trick question. Your questions are equal to "have you stopped beating your wife" as any yes or no answer incriminates you.
  If you would have asked "Can any be saved that God foreknows ARE lost" that would be in keeping with reality as that would permit at least salvation of some of the lost. Your second question is also a trick question. If you would have asked "Can any of the lost be saved that God foreknows WILL BE saved" that would be in keeping with reality.
  
  However, your questions deny your own position. Do you believe any can be saved that God foreknows are to be lost? If God foreknows they "are to be" lost then the only way they can be saved is if God's foreknowlege is wrong.
  
  Do you believe can any be lost that God foreknows are to be saved? If God foreknows they are to be saved and then the only way they "are to be lost" is if God's foreknowledge is in error.
  
  Your questions are irrational as you cannot answer them without contradicting both God and your own position.
  
  
  

  [*]Is it not true that in order for any to be saved God must have elected them to salvation and provided the means to accomplish His election?

  
  No, this is not true. Election is based soley upon the good pleasure of His will in regard to those who deserve nothing but His wrath. It is true that for all God elected He also elected the means to accomplish their SALVATION (2 Thes. 2:13) not their "election" as there is no means for election except the soverign good pleasure of God.
  
  

  [*]Is it not true as well that God of necessity must withhold the means of salvation from those He foreknows are to be damned?

  
  No, this is not true either as their damnation is accomplished already by their own union in Adam and in addition by their own choices and actions. God merely leaves them to their own choices while presenting them with their responsibility to repent and believe the gospel. Their inability is of their own making and their damnation is of their own doing.
  
  
  

  [*]If God has elected to grant the means of salvation to some and withhold the means to others, that there is absolutely no possibility that the saved could be anything other than what they are and the same for those damned?

  
  Election is "to" salvation "through" elected salvation means (2 Thes. 2:13). Damnation is merely allowing the free agency of man the freedom to continue in their rejection of God. Nothing prevents the salvation of any sinner but their own free choice to resist and reject the goodness of God presented in creation, in providence, in conscience and in the preaching of His word and nothing obtains the salvation of the elect but God's free grace bestowed upon them due only to the good pleasure of God's will without any regard to what they deserve by their actions.
  
  

  [*]Does not logic demand the conclusion that if God withholds the menas of salvation to some, before they ever did good or evil, that their destiny was sealed and their fate settled before they ever did good or evil in precisely the same manner the fate of the elects is sealed?

The fallen condition of man was not determined by their own personal actions after birth. Hence, neither damnation or election was determined by such personal post-birth actions. The fall of man was accomplised by their representative union in THE ACT of ONE MAN (Rom. 5:12, 17-19) and their post-birth actions simply manifested their fallen condition rather than produced it.

So, the answer is no! Nothing is witheld from the non-elect because election to salvation was never intended or designed for the non-elect. The non-elect receive EVERYTHING THEY DESERVE - JUSTICE. The non-elect are simply left to their own free will to do as they please and ONLY AS THEY PLEASE (Jn. 3:19-20).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: God knew in advance to creating either Satan or Adam that they would sin and yet he intentionally created them knowing full well that their sin would bring complete havoc to His creation.

HP: Sin has not bought complete havoc nor will it. Certainly it has had tremendous evil consequences but God will stop it short of complete havoc.

DW: However, He intentionally proceeded to creat Lucifer and Adam. Hence, how can you deny God purposely permitted sin to occur?

HP: Sin is not within the purposes of God period. It is the results of selfishness in His creation, but sin was not now or ever His purpose. We were created for the purpose of worshipping Him. Because sin transpires as free moral agents will in a selfish manner, does not indicate that such was the ‘purpose’ of God by any stretch of the imagination. You need to get a grasp on what it meant for God to create a first cause. Sin lies not in the flesh of man, but in the will of man via his choices. Sinful man purposed to sin, not God. You have your focus on the outcome of the choices of sentient moral beings, instead of where God focus on creating beings with freedom. It was the freedom in which love can exist that God purposed to allow.

Sin is evil and wicked. God is Just and Holy. A Holy God does not purpose sin or evil. Sin and evil are not caused in any fashion whatsoever by God. His allowing for freedom does not mandate that He purposed evil by any means. Evil was the creation of selfish sentient beings period. If it is as you say, and God purposed for us to do evil, He would be the originator of it, not us. Whoever purposes evil is the cause of it and as such the one responsible for it.

DW: I don't think you can believe God was caught by surpise by sin or did not know sin would occur if He created Lucifer and Adam. Therefore, I don't think you can honestly deny God purposely created Lucifer and Adam with full knowledge that in doing so He was giving permission for the existence of and the consequences of sin in His creation.

HP: God never once gave his permission for evil. Allowing free moral agents to chose is not synonymous with giving ‘His permission’ for the existence of sin. Nothing about His character gives permission to sin. Sin is not the results of God’s permission, it is the chosen end of sentient beings. God created responsible first causes with a choice. They of necessity had to make a choice as first causes, but were never granted permission to choose evil. They did that of their own accord, being the first cause of evil.

DW: If a good God knowingly and thus purposely permitted sin to occur with all of its consequences, it can only be in keeping with His eternal purpose to ultimately restrain and overule sin for the ultimate good of His people and for his glory.

HP: You are reasoning from a position that is unfounded in Scripture or reason. You have your consequences of the choices of sentient beings confused with the Holy Character of a Just God. God allowed men the right to be the first cause of their intents, and man chose evil as opposed to good without force or coercion. That is what makes sin sinful and punishments for sin just. You should forget the notion of God granting permission for sin, for that is an absurd deduction.

Certainly God has purposed to restrain evil for the ultimate good of all sentient beings, but if one follows out your logic to its end, sin allows for the ’greater good’ which makes sin a condition of that good. One can only conclude, good can only increase as sin does, or the more one sins the greater the good realized, or sin is the very catalyst of good which again is absurdity. It would appear to this reader that the greater good your philosophy imbibes places a premium on sin for it allows for a greater good. It would almost be sin not to allow sin, for sin promotes a greater good according to your philosophy. Why is not God wicked for attempting to limit sin, again if sin brings about a greater good? Seems to me that if your philosophical approach is on target, the more sin the more good.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It was the freedom in which love can exist that God purposed to allow. [/FONT][/COLOR]

His allowing for freedom does not mandate that He purposed evil by any means.

Allowing free moral agents to chose is not synonymous with giving ‘His permission’ for the existence of sin.

Certainly God has purposed to restrain evil for the ultimate good of all sentient beings, [/SIZE]

Notice that I have placed in bold red the word "allow" in your responses above. By "permission" that is exactly what I meant. I did not mean APPROVAL by the term "permission" but the allowance for sin. You agree with this.

You also agree that God allowed it but with intent to overrule and finally conqueror it and work it for the good of His people and for His ultimate glory. Hence, do you think this was by design or by accident that he allowed it and overrules it and works it for the ultimate good of his people (Rom. 8:28) and his own ultimate glory (Psa. 76:10).

If you read my recent past posts you will see that I repeatedly state that God NEVER APPROVES of sin but permits it (allows it). I also stated that in the very act of creating free will is permission (allowance) for sin or else there is no free will given at all.

In a previous post, I devoted the whole Post to the fact that God is good and holy and that no sin or approval of sin exists within his being. Everything was created good by God. Hence, sin arose from the misuse of good because everything God created was "good."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1580728#post1580728
Here are some direct questions for you DW.

• Can any be saved that God foreknows are to be lost? Can any be lost that God foreknows to be saved?

• [*]DW: This is a trick question. Your questions are equal to "have you stopped beating your wife" as any yes or no answer incriminates you.
  [*]

HP: There is no such just comparison. The question I asked does not imply anything untrue or unproven as the question concerning if one has stopped beating ones wife yet. Why did you not simply answer that question? Is it too hard for you or too revealing of your true sentiments?

DW: If you would have asked "Can any be saved that God foreknows ARE lost" that would be in keeping with reality as that would permit at least salvation of some of the lost.

HP: Fine I will reword the question. Now see if you can give us a direct answer for a change. Can any be saved that God foreknows ARE lost?

DW: Your second question is also a trick question. If you would have asked "Can any of the lost be saved that God foreknows WILL BE saved" that would be in keeping with reality.

HP: Have it your way. I will ask you again like you so desire. The question remains, will you even answer it directly? Can any of the lost be saved that God foreknows WILL be saved?

DW: Do you believe any can be saved that God foreknows are to be lost?

HP: Absolutely, the 'possibility' existed. Foreknowledge does not necessitate the outcome as you falsely assume in lock step with every Calvinists I have met or read. The philosophical position you take on foreknowledge is peculiar to that system of thought. One more often than not ends up with nonsense when the dissallow for 'possibilities.'

DW: If God foreknows they "are to be" lost then the only way they can be saved is if God's foreknowlege is wrong.

HP: False again. Every time you speak you philosophically assume that foreknowledge necessitates the outcome which simply is not true in the case of God’sforeknowledge. Do you desire evidence? God punishes and praises men for their moral intents. Holding man accountable in a system of necessity as you hold to is absurd and wicked. You are limiting a Omnipotent God to foreknowledge like unto finite man, whose foreknowledge is limited to things of necessity. Why do you limit God in such a manner? Can you even for a minute broaden the scope of possibilities and understand that God just might possibly be able to foreknow in a manner greater than ours, and foreknow matters of perfect choice without being the cause of such choices, nor His foreknowledge necessitating the ends chosen?

DW: Do you believe can any be lost that God foreknows are to be saved?

HP: Absolutely not, but neither do I believe such foreknowledge necessitates the outcomes. You might need to try and think outside of the Calvinistic box for a moment.

DW: If God foreknows they are to be saved and then the only way they "are to be lost" is if God's foreknowledge is in error

.

HP: No, I do not believe that. If they are to be lost it is due to their personal choices of sin and or a refusal to fulfill the conditions for salvation God has mandated to receive salvation. No man goes to hell because God foreknew they would. They go to hell because of their own sinful wills.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1580728#post1580728
· Is it not true that in order for any to be saved God must have elected them to salvation and provided the means to accomplish His election?

DW: No, this is not true. Election is based soley upon the good pleasure of His will in regard to those who deserve nothing but His wrath. It is true that for all God elected He also elected the means to accomplish their SALVATION (2 Thes. 2:13) not their "election" as there is no means for election except the soverign good pleasure of God.

HP: You have, as always, confused the manner of how God has selected to treat some nations with certain grace, mercy, promises, etc, with the manner He has chosen to secure their individual salvation. There may be no conditions for certain benefits bestowed on a nation at least for a period of time, but individual salvation has clear mandated conditions, without which none will be saved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1580728#post1580728
· Is it not true as well that God of necessity must withhold the means of salvation from those He foreknows are to be damned?

DW: No, this is not true either as their damnation is accomplished already by their own union in Adam and in addition by their own choices and actions. God merely leaves them to their own choices while presenting them with their responsibility to repent and believe the gospel. Their inability is of their own making and their damnation is of their own doing.

HP: No one goes to hell because of Adam's sin. Every man according to Scripture is accountable for his own sin, not that of another. God is Just and you would do well to recognize that fact. Justice is not anything your philosophical position might desire it to be. Justice has clear intuitive guidelines which God grants to men to use for something other than refuse in ones philosophical /theological conclusions.

 

[quantumfaith]

Let's start at square one.

1. Election is taught in the Scripture.

2. The term is used in regard to person individual salvation (Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:32).

Now, there are only two possible options:

1. Election is conditional
2. Election is unconditional

If you take the position that election is conditional, then you are saying that before the world began God chose a people "in him" (Eph. 1:4) based on something foreseen in them that he did not see in others - actions, willingness, etc.

If you take the position that election is unconditional, then you are saying that before the world began God chose a people without any basis in them, foreseen or otherwise, but according to His own good pleasure.

Which is it?

Obviously, you will most likely take the conditional election view. However, to do so, you must prove that election was based upon the foreseen actions of those whom God elected. In other words, before the world began, He foresaw something in some that he didn't in others (e.g. their choice of him, their good works, etc.) that was the basis for choosing them over others.

I humbly choose conditional.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP you don't even understand the nature of your own question. I have repeatedly said that foreknowledge if considered as simply advanced knowledge of future events has no causal effect upon that event - it does not necessitate that event to be so - it merely reveals it to be so.

However, you are asking me if God's foreknowlege of a future event can be wrong? If I say yes, then I am denying the accuracy of God's foreknowlege of a future event. Thus calling God a liar. If I say no, then I am denying any foreknown lost person can be saved thus denying the scriptures as foreknown lost people can be and are being saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1580728#post1580728
Here are some direct questions for you DW.

• Can any be saved that God foreknows are to be lost? Can any be lost that God foreknows to be saved?

HP: There is no such just comparison. The question I asked does not imply anything untrue or unproven as the question concerning if one has stopped beating ones wife yet. Why did you not simply answer that question? Is it too hard for you or too revealing of your true sentiments?


HP: Fine I will reword the question. Now see if you can give us a direct answer for a change. Can any be saved that God foreknows ARE lost?

If we define "foreknowledge" as simply prescience or God's omnicience of future events, then of course some of whom God forknew would be lost can be saved.

However, if we define "foreknowlege" as revelation of God's prior eternal purpose then we are talking about what God predetermines to come to pass. Election according to this definition of forknowledge is God's predetermined purpose to save some of Adam's fallen race (the elect) while purposely leaving the rest to their own free choice.

HP: False again. Every time you speak you philosophically assume that foreknowledge necessitates the outcome which simply is not true in the case of God’sforeknowledge. Do you desire evidence? God punishes and praises men for their moral intents. Holding man accountable in a system of necessity as you hold to is absurd and wicked. You are limiting a Omnipotent God to foreknowledge like unto finite man, whose foreknowledge is limited to things of necessity. Why do you limit God in such a manner? Can you even for a minute broaden the scope of possibilities and understand that God just might possibly be able to foreknow in a manner greater than ours, and foreknow matters of perfect choice without being the cause of such choices, nor His foreknowledge necessitating the ends chosen?

Election according to God's foreknowledge in the sense of revelation based upon God's eternal purpose (Rom. 8:28-29) does not elect any human being to sin as election is strictly a postive action by God in the choice of some "to" salvation not to sin or damnation.


Sin is not authored by God but allowed by God and the non-elect are simply allowed by God not only to sin as the elect also were allowed to sin but they are in addition allowed to freely continue in sin by God's predestinated purpose for them.

HP: No, I do not believe that. If they are to be lost it is due to their personal choices of sin and or a refusal to fulfill the conditions for salvation God has mandated to receive salvation. No man goes to hell because God foreknew they would. They go to hell because of their own sinful wills.

Agreed! God does not need to elect man to sin as that is their own free choice. God does not need to predestinate sinners to reject and resist God and the gospel as God has predestinated their complete freedom to do so in keeping with their own nature and choice.

Is it not true that in order for any to be saved God must have elected them to salvation and provided the means to accomplish His election?

Only your last statement is true "provided the means to accomplish His election" as no such means is provided because He election is a Sovereign act of God based upon His own good pleasure. However, the Scripture clearly states that the elect are those whom God has chosen "to" salvation "through" elected SALVATION means:

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

HP: No one goes to hell because of Adam's sin. Every man according to Scripture is accountable for his own sin, not that of another. God is Just and you would do well to recognize that fact. Justice is not anything your philosophical position might desire it to be. Justice has clear intuitive guidelines which God grants to men to use for something other than refuse in ones philosophical /theological conclusions. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Agreed! No one goes to hell for Adam's sin! However, all mankind are MADE SINNERS by one man's act - Adam' sin (Rom. 5:12,17-19)! Hence, they are born with a sinful nature, condemned to death by "one man's act of disobedience" and when they come to personal individual choice and choose sin they will go to hell if they do not repent and believe the gospel.

They are born sinners and condemned to death because they sinned "in Adam" when Adam sinned. The whole human nature was "in Adam" when Adam sinned, the whole human race acted in Adam and the proof is that infants suffer the consequence of sin (death) EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NOT INDIVIDUALLY and SEPARATELY WILLFULLY SINNED. Infants die because all men die due to sinning in Adam. Physcial death proves all sinned in Adam because ALL DIE physically.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:....15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I humbly choose conditional.

Well, at least you see there are only two possible choices as there is no middle ground between conditional and unconditional.

I respect your right to choose the position you think best suits what you believe the Bible teaches.

I humbly disagree with your choice as I believe it does not harmonize with explicit teachings of the scripture in regard to election but promotes pride rather than humility (1 Cor. 1:26-31).