Single Predestination

[ivdavid]

Yes, faith is a gift that God gives.
The non elect simply don't have a genuine faith,

I agree. Genuine faith is proven to be so only when God works it out in His elect. The non-elect never persevere in true faith - but was nothing good worked out in them by God to begin with? Wasn't king saul anointed king and didn't he walk in obedience for a time until he fell away?

Jude
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

This is precisely the sentiment I'm conveying with the conditional offer of salvation to the non-elect. There were many for whom the passover was applied, many who were baptized unto moses under the sea and many who ate of the spiritual bread and drank of the spiritual water which was Christ - these were saved from the land of slavery but were afterward destroyed because of their unbelief. Looking to the spiritual equivalents that these foreshadow, there are many who are renewed unto repentance being saved from their hardened states but who are afterwards destroyed because of their unbelief. This is exactly what's warned against in Heb 3:12-14.

 

[ivdavid]

You once again ignore grace. Why is that?

Is this some kind of joke? I was asking questions on your quote "Your emphasis on mercy belies your dependence on human works to continually receive mercy." - if your quote has the term mercy and I have questions on that, how do you expect me to somehow reference grace in it?

To your point. God is merciful to even the wicked. He chooses not to immediately judge.

To which point of mine? You haven't responded to any of my questions in the post you've quoted.
Anyway, would you describe God as then being merciful to Pharaoh in Rom 9 since God is still waiting until Judgement Day to judge Pharaoh? Because I thought we were discussing regenerative mercy which is quite visible and evident in the here and now.

Grace is the means of salvation. Why do you ignore it?

I responded to this loaded question in Post #120.

Sure, I get how this works - and don't worry, I have nothing but goodwill for you. I'd rather be wronged by you than to gain an upper hand. I've come in peace to engage in a discussion of what I believe is an important topic. If you believe the same, kindly respond to the many questions that have gone without response so far. On the other hand, if you want to simply taunt and play, I'll bow out of the dialogue first and simply continue on the thread with anyone else who's interested in an equal sharing of persuasions.

 

[37818]

Your quoting John 3:3 implies these children must be born again to not go to hell, . .

When little children are no longer little childern.

 

[Particular]

Is this some kind of joke? I was asking questions on your quote "Your emphasis on mercy belies your dependence on human works to continually receive mercy." - if your quote has the term mercy and I have questions on that, how do you expect me to somehow reference grace in it?


To which point of mine? You haven't responded to any of my questions in the post you've quoted.
Anyway, would you describe God as then being merciful to Pharaoh in Rom 9 since God is still waiting until Judgement Day to judge Pharaoh? Because I thought we were discussing regenerative mercy which is quite visible and evident in the here and now.


I responded to this loaded question in Post #120.

Sure, I get how this works - and don't worry, I have nothing but goodwill for you. I'd rather be wronged by you than to gain an upper hand. I've come in peace to engage in a discussion of what I believe is an important topic. If you believe the same, kindly respond to the many questions that have gone without response so far. On the other hand, if you want to simply taunt and play, I'll bow out of the dialogue first and simply continue on the thread with anyone else who's interested in an equal sharing of persuasions.

Please. Enough with the faux outrage.
When we are addressing predestination we are addressing those to whom grace is extended and those to whom no grace is extended. Your focus on mercy is of no value to the topic of predestination and saving grace. Thus, there is no purpose in answering your misguided questions about mercy. God has mercy on whom he wills, but mercy is not the means by which a person is saved.

 

[JonC]

In the forum rules . . .

Clarification @Particular (and anyone else):

It is fair to offer what you see as a logical conclusion (example, Calvinistic theology logically concludes no believer today was ever born needing to be forgiven of sin).

It is not fair or allowed to prescribe for other people their beliefs (example, Calvinists believe none of the elect have ever needed forgiveness).

Beliefs do not have to follow even correct logic, much less the "logic" of others to include the one holding that belief.

 

[ivdavid]

mercy is not the means by which a person is saved.

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;

 

[Particular]

Clarification @Particular (and anyone else):

It is fair to offer what you see as a logical conclusion (example, Calvinistic theology logically concludes no believer today was ever born needing to be forgiven of sin).

It is not fair or allowed to prescribe for other people their beliefs (example, Calvinists believe none of the elect have ever needed forgiveness).

Beliefs do not have to follow even correct logic, much less the "logic" of others to include the one holding that belief.

I do not understand how this applies to the debate we are having. There is one poster who has presented Pelagian theology and I have addressed the wrongness of the theology. There is another who is presenting predestination via mercy, not grace. I am addressing the wrong thinking of this position. In both cases the issue is wrong theology. This is what is being addressed.

Are you saying that a person cannot call out another person's argument by a specific theological position and label it as such?

The arguments of the two people in this discussion have been made. I have expressed how their arguments fall into specific categories. How does that break any rules? Is it possible that I have not broken a rule at all? Is it possible I have simply offended a person who does not appreciate their position being labeled under the categories of theology in which I have labeled them? Is that against the forum rules? Please direct me to the exact rule I may have violated so I can review it. I will apologize if I have openly broken a rule.

 

[Particular]

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;

Certainly God was merciful. Certainly God saved us. Certainly we are saved by grace.

Ephesians 2:4-5 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Perhaps you missed verse seven.

Titus 3:3-7 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Mercy is God not giving us what we deserve. It is granted for a season. If grace is not extended, the judgment of God's full wrath falls upon the recipient.

Grace is God giving us what we do not deserve. It is granted to the elect by predestination. When it is extended, the judgment of God's full wrath falls upon our substitutionary atoner, our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, whom God sees in our place.

Therefore, predestination is about God's willful choice to extend grace to whom He has predestined to receive grace.

 

[JonC]

I do not understand how this applies to the debate we are having. There is one poster who has presented Pelagian theology and I have addressed the wrongness of the theology. There is another who is presenting predestination via mercy, not grace. I am addressing the wrong thinking of this position. In both cases the issue is wrong theology. This is what is being addressed.

Are you saying that a person cannot call out another person's argument by a specific theological position and label it as such?

The arguments of the two people in this discussion have been made. I have expressed how their arguments fall into specific categories. How does that break any rules? Is it possible that I have not broken a rule at all? Is it possible I have simply offended a person who does not appreciate their position being labeled under the categories of theology in which I have labeled them? Is that against the forum rules? Please direct me to the exact rule I may have violated so I can review it. I will apologize if I have openly broken a rule.

I am saying you can state what you see as a logical conclusion and you can ask others what they believe and how that differs from what you think they may believe. But you cannot tell someone they hold a position they deny holding.

 

[Particular]

I am saying you can state what you see as a logical conclusion and you can ask others what they believe and how that differs from what you think they may believe. But you cannot tell someone they hold a position they deny holding.

So if I say "The position you are espousing is Pelagianism" is that a logical conclusion or telling them what they believe? I see it as the former not the latter.

 

[JonC]

So if I say "The position you are espousing is Pelagianism" is that a logical conclusion or telling them what they believe? I see it as the former not the latter.

Say what you can defend.

Example - "You said [ insert quote ]. I understand this to mean [ your understanding of his belief ]. If I understand you correctly how is this not Pelagianism?"

 

[Particular]

Say what you can defend.

Example - "You said [ insert quote ]. I understand this to mean [ your understanding of his belief ]. If I understand you correctly how is this not Pelagianism?"

Thank you. Please feel free to correct me on this as I am quite certain I don't fully grasp the nuance you are looking for. I suspect I will struggle with this as I do not fully see the difference. I appreciate your efforts to clarify.

 

[ivdavid]

Mercy is God not giving us what we deserve.
Grace is God giving us what we do not deserve.

These serve as working definitions which I do agree with.

So speaking of us believers,
We do not deserve eternal life - God gives us eternal life - we receive eternal life by the grace of God, yes?
We deserve eternal condemnation - God does not give us eternal condemnation - we do not receive eternal death by the mercy of God, yes?

Aren't these both sides of the same coin? And if not, where lies the difference?

Again please note, I don't distinguish particularly between grace and mercy. Nor do I believe man is saved by mercy alone to the exclusion of grace - in fact, that wouldn't be my language at all...it's simply to clarify it in your words. I simply happen to use the word mercy because that's what Scriptures makes use of in the passages I'm referencing. For instance, if Rom 9:15-16 had used the word grace, I would've gladly used it too. I'm simply quoting passages here - unlike you, I do not have different theological concepts based on grace and mercy respectively. To me, a person is saved by the grace and mercy of God, both necessary and both complementary.

Mercy is God not giving us what we deserve. It is granted for a season.

I guess you see this season of mercy as the time period for an elect until he is reborn after which grace takes over? Is that a fair read of your beliefs on this?

If so, how long does the season last for the non-elect then?
And how do you reconcile passages that talk about the everlasting sure mercies of God which obviously isn't for a season - Psa 103:17, Isa 55:3?

And finally, what happens to a believer under grace - is he still dependent on the mercy of God or does he no longer need it? He still commits sin and deserves condemnation which he believes in Christ to take away and preserve from - isn't that still God's mercy (Psa 51:1) ?

Certainly God was merciful. Certainly God saved us. Certainly we are saved by grace.

Given Tit 3:5, are you still hesitant to say - Certainly we are saved by mercy too? That's just direct word for word Scriptures right?

These questions are to show the inconsistency of reading mercy as unnecessary after a season and making it mutually exclusive to grace when they're both complementary - so please answer the questions to show how you reconcile them or acknowledge a consideration to change your position. We could then resume our discussion on regeneration.

 

[MB]

That's where your hatred of God is noted. You don't want a Creator who is in control of all that He has created. You want a God who places you in the driver's seat and leaves you alone.

Sorry but my God never leaves me nor forsakes me. I surrendered to my God because I want to do His will He doesn't have to make me I'm willing to. and I do
MB

 

[atpollard]

Sorry but my God never leaves me nor forsakes me. I surrendered to my God because I want to do His will He doesn't have to make me I'm willing to. and I do
MB

So what do you do with all of the verses about the unsaved? What made you first "want to" while most never "want to"?

• [Romans 1:18-21 NIV] 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
• [1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV] 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
• [1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
• [2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV] 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[Particular]

These serve as working definitions which I do agree with.

So speaking of us believers,
We do not deserve eternal life - God gives us eternal life - we receive eternal life by the grace of God, yes?
We deserve eternal condemnation - God does not give us eternal condemnation - we do not receive eternal death by the mercy of God, yes?

Yes

Aren't these both sides of the same coin? And if not, where lies the difference?

The difference is that God does not continue in mercy to those for whom their sins must be brought to account.

For those whose sins were brought to account by Jesus and are redeemed, God graciously sees them in Christ. Does Christ Jesus need to be shown mercy? No. Therefore God does not continue to display mercy to the elect forever. God sees the elect as being seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus. We are the body of Christ. This happens by grace, not by mercy.

Again please note, I don't distinguish particularly between grace and mercy. Nor do I believe man is saved by mercy alone to the exclusion of grace - in fact, that wouldn't be my language at all...it's simply to clarify it in your words. I simply happen to use the word mercy because that's what Scriptures makes use of in the passages I'm referencing. For instance, if Rom 9:15-16 had used the word grace, I would've gladly used it too. I'm simply quoting passages here - unlike you, I do not have different theological concepts based on grace and mercy respectively. To me, a person is saved by the grace and mercy of God, both necessary and both complementary.

All humans are spared their just judgment by the mercy of God. If God did not show you or me mercy, we could never have been shown grace. So, in that light, mercy is instrumental in our redemption. Yet, it isn't mercy that saved us. If it was, then people of every faith would have hope in the mercy of the Creator to save them from judgment. There would be no need to be made alive with Christ. God would simply hold off on His judgment for eternity. Justice would never be meted out, but mercy would keep you as long as God decided to hold off on His judgment.

But, grace is needed. God must choose to place his wrath toward our sin upon the substitutionary death of Christ Jesus. In so doing, his mercy comes to an end upon Christ and His grace is poured out upon us through Christ. It is by grace you have been saved and that not of yourselves...

I guess you see this season of mercy as the time period for an elect until he is reborn after which grace takes over? Is that a fair read of your beliefs on this?

Yes

If so, how long does the season last for the non-elect then?

Until God's day of judgment.

And how do you reconcile passages that talk about the everlasting sure mercies of God which obviously isn't for a season - Psa 103:17, Isa 55:3?

Where is the conflict?

Psalm 103:17 But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children.

Isaiah 55:3 Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.

And finally, what happens to a believer under grace - is he still dependent on the mercy of God or does he no longer need it? He still commits sin and deserves condemnation which he believes in Christ to take away and preserve from - isn't that still God's mercy (Psa 51:1) ?

Romans 6 is a wonderful passage about grace and how we should not sin so that grace would abound.

It is God's grace that saves us.

Given Tit 3:5, are you still hesitant to say - Certainly we are saved by mercy too? That's just direct word for word Scriptures right?

I provided the answer above.
Without God's mercy, we could never know His grace.
Those who perish in their sins know God's mercy for a season, but never receive God's grace. They die under the full wrath of God.

These questions are to show the inconsistency of reading mercy as unnecessary after a season and making it mutually exclusive to grace when they're both complementary - so please answer the questions to show how you reconcile them or acknowledge a consideration to change your position. We could then resume our discussion on regeneration.

Hopefully you recognize that I have responded to your questions. Hopefully you see how I understand mercy and grace as they relate to each other.
You may not agree ( that's fine), but at least you see how I differentiate between mercy and grace.

 

[Particular]

Sorry but my God never leaves me nor forsakes me. I surrendered to my God because I want to do His will He doesn't have to make me I'm willing to. and I do
MB

What happens when you, like I, fail to do his will. When you refuse to surrender because you love your sin and don't want to let it go?
Your sentiment is nice, but the proof is in the pudding. Like all humanity, you sin on a daily basis. Like Paul, you can say "the things I want to do, I do not do and the things I don't want to do, I do. Who will deliver me from this body of sin?"

In your position, where you choose God, it must equally be that you can unchoose God at any time. Your salvation is then dependent upon your attitude at any given moment.
This, by the way, is a Nazarene and Weslyan view so you wouldn't be the only one with that position.

 

[MB]

So what do you do with all of the verses about the unsaved? What made you first "want to" while most never "want to"?

• [Romans 1:18-21 NIV] 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
• [1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV] 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
• [1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
• [2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV] 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Conviction is the most motivating thing in the world. I was convicted of my sins and there was nothing I could do about it. I asked the Lord to save me from my self. He did
Luk_11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Calvinist claim this is saving myself. Yet my asking is scriptural. Asking is not saving my self being willing is simply leaving up to God.
MB

 

[atpollard]

Conviction is the most motivating thing in the world. I was convicted of my sins and there was nothing I could do about it. I asked the Lord to save me from my self. He did
Luk_11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Calvinist claim this is saving myself. Yet my asking is scriptural. Asking is not saving my self being willing is simply leaving up to God.
MB

No claim from THIS Calvinist that "asking is saving yourself" (that argument fails the "smell test").
I wonder if you have any speculations on why YOU were convicted of your sins when you heard the Word and so many are not? Or why you were convicted WHEN you were convicted and not any of the previous times sin was discussed with you?

I am only interested in your opinions, I think the ultimate answer to this question belongs to God.
(although I can't promise that others will not tell you that you are wrong, whatever opinion you hold)

 

[MB]

No claim from THIS Calvinist that "asking is saving yourself" (that argument fails the "smell test").
I wonder if you have any speculations on why YOU were convicted of your sins when you heard the Word and so many are not? Or why you were convicted WHEN you were convicted and not any of the previous times sin was discussed with you?

I am only interested in your opinions, I think the ultimate answer to this question belongs to God.
(although I can't promise that others will not tell you that you are wrong, whatever opinion you hold)

I've heard this before yet You don't know what is going on inside of a person to know if they are convicted or not. You simply cannot know this unless of course you have ESP and can read minds. I had been convicted many times before I was saved, I just did not respond. My conviction was not complete the first few times. Some times a person is convicted many times before they seek God's help

Have you ever been convicted of your sins? If I hadn't been convicted I would not have been saved and you can't be forgiven of your sins with out confessing them. Confession does not come with out conviction first.
MB