T.u.l.i.p

[Luke2427]

Problem the first, try these on for size:

I do not see what these verses have to do with anything I said in my first objection to the analogy.

Problem the second, I acknowledge and agree with this statement - it does nothing to change the dynamic of the allegory.

Yea it does. The man in the boat doesn;t get to represent God saying I'll save you, no strings attached. God expects some things.

Problem the fourth, seeking after God is not in the allegory - nor in life - what is in view, is the acceptance of the free gift of God, that is not of ourselves, and not a work, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8,9).

It assumes the man in the ocean has any desire to be in the boat with the Savior. He does not. He hates him. He despises him. All sinners hate God and love to swim in their sin.

Problem the fifth, HUH?

According to your theology, or what seems to be your theology, some men go to heaven and others go to hell based on their acceptance or refusal of the offer of salvation from God. Why do some accept and others reject? Is it that some are smarter than others? How did they get smarter? Were they born into some advantage that the others did not have? Wouldn't that make God unjust in your theology to allow some to born into circumstances where they can get saved and others born into circumstances where they probably would not?

Or is it that some are less depraved than others?

Why is it some perish and others are saved? What medal can we pin on those smart more moral people who got saved on crowning day?

 

[webdog]

1. It assumes something the Bible never teaches. That all men have value. I hear the shock. I smell the matches lighting the torches and hear the brandishing of the pitch forks. But where did God ever say that men have intrinsic value? This is more humanism than Soteriologically accurate.

I think the Bible says that man is made in God's image and God gave up His own Son for His image bearers. I think it's pretty evident in God's eye man has value. You tread on dangerous ground here...

2. There are strings attached. Jesus came to be the Lord of them that believe. The strings are that Jesus demands repentance, a complete overhaul in philosophy from one that is mindful of self to him being mindful of honoring the Sovereign God.

So He demands a dead man who cannot repent nor will He regenerate to repent...to repent. That defies any kind of logic whatsoever.

3. The man would not have to reach at all if you were God trying to save him. If you were God wanting to save him your arm would not be short that it could not save. His reaching would not be necessary. And if you willed for him to reach then you could command the fibers of his arm and make them reach. And if you were not willing to save him until he was willing you could make him willing.

What does a corpse need saving from?!? How many ocean rescues do you see the rescuer reach out to a decomposed body to "save" him? If He created them that way and cannot be any other way as He will not make them any other way, what exactly are they held accountable for being? More theology based on nonsense.

4. All men had rather perish than to turn to God. There is none that seeketh after God.

...yet God has put His law into the hearts of all men, placed them in the exact location and time in history to seek Him, and place the desire to live forever in them. That doesn't exactly sound like the desire to perish. Without God having done the aforementioned and taken the first step man would be hopeless in THEIR sin.

"There is none reformed who putteth that verse in it's context".

5. It assumes that those who go to heaven are just smarter than those who go to hell. They had more sense. So stupid people all go to hell and smart people all go to heaven. Of course this is ridiculous because none understandeth and they CANNNOT know these things because they are spiritually discerned.

You know what this is called? A strawman. Of course strawmen are ridiculous.

 

[Iconoclast]

3.Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
Numbers 23:18-20 (in Context) Numbers 23 (Whole Chapter)
4.1 Samuel 15:29
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
James 1:17 (English Standard Version)
17(A) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from(B) the Father of lights(C) with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.[a]
The God of the bible never changes,He has no need to change as He is perfect

 

[Luke2427]

I think the Bible says that man is made in God's image and God gave up His own Son for His image bearers. I think it's pretty evident in God's eye man has value. You tread on dangerous ground here...
So He demands a dead man who cannot repent nor will He regenerate to repent...to repent. That defies any kind of logic whatsoever.
What does a corpse need saving from?!? How many ocean rescues do you see the rescuer reach out to a decomposed body to "save" him? If He created them that way and cannot be any other way as He will not make them any other way, what exactly are they held accountable for being? More theology based on nonsense.
...yet God has put His law into the hearts of all men, placed them in the exact location and time in history to seek Him, and place the desire to live forever in them. That doesn't exactly sound like the desire to perish. Without God having done the aforementioned and taken the first step man would be hopeless in THEIR sin.

"There is none reformed who putteth that verse in it's context".
You know what this is called? A strawman. Of course strawmen are ridiculous.

I'm reformed webdog. All of the above arguments do not apply to me. They tend to be arguments against Arminians which I am not.

Especially the whole corpse thing. I agree.

The only thing that you really challenge is my statement about intrinsic worth.

The only worth of anything in the universe is how it brings glory to God. In that sense it all has worth for of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be glory forever and ever.

But to say that all men SHOULD be saved because they are that valuable- not biblical.

 

[Eagle]

Are you calling it eisegesis because it disagrees with your position? "To find favor in the eyes..." is a Hebrew idiom. That's not my take on the phrase, it is known fact. The idiom itself means that the reason Noah was righteous and blameless (as opposed to the rest of humanity) was because God set His favor on him.

That's what it is. If you'd like to disprove what I am saying, try working with the Hebrew to show me I'm wrong. Otherwise, your errant charges of eisegesis are more akin to a liar-liar-pants-on-fire than that of any serious discussion.



Perhaps you didn't say these things, but these things are the logical outcome of what you did say. But, I will try to be exacting in my quotes from now on.



Even this paragraph (like the one before it) shows that you think man is neutral. Noah was preserved by God before Noah responded to and then walked with God. That is what the text means.

When you say "responded and accepted the free gift - the others did not" is saying that Noah was himself better than the rest of humanity. When you juxtapose Noah's response to God and the non-response of everyone else (especially when you did say "And, of course God drew (we could even say wooed) Noah - just the same as everyone else - the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not.") you are saying that Noah had merit the others didn't.

But, again, the Hebrew idiom "found favor in the eyes of..." settles the debate. It shows the reason for Noah's being found faithful--it is God's work, primarily, not Noah's.

The Archangel

Once again, the eisegesis is what you add to the idiom. You force it to be God's regenerating Noah - you can't prove this from the text. Noah "found favor" - whatever the criterion was/is.

I reiterate: "When I say that (I quote myself from that post), "the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not" I am of course, referring to Eph. 2:8,9. Noah's mere acceptance of God's gift is NOT anything inherently,endemically, or otherwise "good" on Noah's part. It is not of Noah! It is not meritorious! It is not a work, lest any man should boast! The same holds true for us today."

God's Word says, and I agree with it , that accepting God's grace is NOT meritorious. Noah did nothing meritorious when he believed. Why do you reject this?

 

[webdog]

I'm reformed webdog. All of the above arguments do not apply to me. They tend to be arguments against Arminians which I am not.

Actually they are against the reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. Arminians do not hold to "corpse" theology.

The only worth of anything in the universe is how it brings glory to God. In that sense it all has worth for of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be glory forever and ever.

I agree. It brought glory to God to create man in His image.

But to say that all men SHOULD be saved because they are that valuable- not biblical.

I agree that man should not be saved due to having value, they have value in God's eye and that is why He provided a way to be saved. He does desire that all men repent and turn to Him even though all men do not do it. God's will is more than what He declares and decrees as His permissive will is interwoven in His perfect will.

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually they are against the reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. Arminians do not hold to "corpse" theology.
I agree. It brought glory to God to create man in His image.
I agree that man should not be saved due to having value, they have value in God's eye and that is why He provided a way to be saved. He does desire that all men repent and turn to Him even though all men do not do it. God's will is more than what He declares and decrees as His permissive will is interwoven in His perfect will.

Webdog, for all of our disagreements (somtime way back) on issues regarding creation, I am completely in line with you on theology and soteriology. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Webdog, for all of our disagreements (somtime way back) on issues regarding creation, I am completely in line with you on theology and soteriology. :thumbs::thumbs:

That's what is most important, no?

While I think we will have to give an account for everything we believe, the most important question He will ask me is "what did you do with My Son?"

 

[quantumfaith]

That's what is most important, no?

While I think we will have to give an account for everything we believe, the most important question He will ask me is "what did you do with My Son?"

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Amy.G]

Webdog, for all of our disagreements (somtime way back) on issues regarding creation, I am completely in line with you on theology and soteriology. :thumbs::thumbs:

In spite of all his toughness, WD really is a nice guy!

And fairly knowledgeable in the scriptures.:laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

In spite of all his toughness, WD really is a nice guy!

And fairly knowledgeable in the scriptures.:laugh:

I do in fact concur.

 

[webdog]

In spite of all his toughness, WD really is a nice guy!

And fairly knowledgeable in the scriptures.:laugh:

Hey now...don't you guys get all soft on me

 

[The Archangel]

Once again, the eisegesis is what you add to the idiom. You force it to be God's regenerating Noah - you can't prove this from the text. Noah "found favor" - whatever the criterion was/is.

I reiterate: "When I say that (I quote myself from that post), "the difference being that Noah responded and "accepted" the free gift - the others did not" I am of course, referring to Eph. 2:8,9. Noah's mere acceptance of God's gift is NOT anything inherently,endemically, or otherwise "good" on Noah's part. It is not of Noah! It is not meritorious! It is not a work, lest any man should boast! The same holds true for us today."

God's Word says, and I agree with it , that accepting God's grace is NOT meritorious. Noah did nothing meritorious when he believed. Why do you reject this?

Again, we get nothing other than a "liar-liar-pants-on-fire" response. You have not interacted with the Hebrew text. You have not explained to me how the idiom does not mean that Noah was "regenerated" (your words). Instead, you make a huge leap to Ephesians--facts not in evidence.

First of all the Hebrew word חֵן means grace. So Noah is finding grace in God's eyes. When the contrast is made between the state of man (5-7) and the state of Noah (Having found favor in the eyes of God) it is clear that God has done this. Note the conjunctive וְ at the beginning of verse 8. The וְ can be used as "and" or "but." In this case it is clearly being used in the adversative sense so the translation should be "But Noah..."

When this is considered (along with the idiom about God bestowing His grace) it is clear that the state of all mankind is so horrible that God decides to wipe the planet clean (and that statement in Genesis 6:5 is a universal statement). So, the reader has to ask: "What makes Noah so different?" God's bestowing His grace on Him.

As for the idiom itself. It is used 40 times (by my count) in the Old Testament--26 times of finding grace in the eyes of men and 14 times of finding grace in the eyes of God.

It means what it means. There was divine intervention in the life of Noah that caused him to be different from the rest of mankind.

What I have demonstrated is the nature of exegesis: Seeing how the (original) language is used in other places, seeing how the language of a particular passage fits together, and coming to a conclusion based on the facts of the text itself.

Now, I'm sure this makes you uncomfortable because if rails against your understanding of how God does things. Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable because you are either unwilling or unable to engage in a discussion of what the Hebrew text actually says (probably the latter).

Be that as it may, your uncomfortability with proper exegesis is neither my problem nor a cause for you to charge me with eisegesis when you clearly cannot get into the text for yourself and engage me on a similar level of discussion. Instead, you resort to false, baseless charges, though you have no understanding (and therefore no standing) to properly make, and you engage in an "I-disagree-with-you-and-therefore-you-must-be-wrong" argument which is far beneath any serious student of the Bible.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

As for the idiom itself. It is used 40 times (by my count) in the Old Testament--26 times of finding grace in the eyes of men and 14 times of finding grace in the eyes of God.

It is amazing how something can be right in front of you and yet you fail to see it. In all of these examples it says "in the eyes". Whether speaking of God or others, this is saying these persons found favor because of something seen in them.

Noah found grace in God's eyes because God saw something in Noah he did not see in others, faith. This is shown in Hebrews 11.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Noah wasn't simply building the ark during the 120 years when he received the warning from God until the flood came. He was also preaching to the world of this impending flood, but they would not listen.

1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

God showed grace to those evil men before the flood, Noah preached to them but they would not listen.

But going back, in almost every instance where grace is mentioned in the OT, it also includes the phrase "in the eyes".

Gen 50:4 And when the days of his mourning were past, Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh, saying, If now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying,

Pharaoh didn't just look around and randomly choose to show grace to Joseph. No, Joseph had shown himself to be wise, he had interpreted Pharaoh's dreams, and Joseph had shown himself to be faithful, Pharaoh placing him 2nd in his kingdom.

Gen 41:39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.

Pharaoh did not show grace to Joseph without reason.

God showed grace to Noah because he saw Noah's faith.

God does not show grace or favor unless you have faith.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Grace is just another way of saying favor. You cannot have favor, you cannot please God unless you have faith, it is impossible.

 

[psalms109:31]

Christ Jesus

There is a line of people God chose to bring our Lord Jesus Christ This line I can't deny. Prophets chosen in the womb to prepare the way for Christ and chosen prophets to fortell His comming. This Jesus who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Paul was not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

God has included us when we heard the Gospel of our salvation having believed.

I believe in the elect right down to the chosen disciple's that was chosen by Christ while He was on earth. I also do not disagree with those who was included either, when they heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed

 

[Winman]

There is a line of people God chose to bring our Lord Jesus Christ This line I can't deny. Prophets chosen in the womb to prepare the way for Christ and chosen prophets to fortell His comming. This Jesus who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Paul was not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

God has included us when we heard the Gospel of our salvation having believed.

I believe in the elect right down to the chosen disciple's that was chosen by Christ while He was on earth. I also do not disagree with those who was included either, when they heard the Gospel of their salvation having believed

Yes, but election is based on foreknowledge. The scriptures say Jesus knew ahead of time who would believe and who would not. When Jesus chose the 12 disciples, he knew 11 would believe but that Judas would not and would betray him.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Jesus chose Judas because he knew Judas would betray him and fulfill the scriptures.

In John 6 it says that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would believe not. Therefore he also knows who will believe from the beginning.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

God did choose Jeremiah before he was born, because he already knew Jeremiah would believe his words when he heard them.

The scriptures say election is according to foreknowledge, and gives several examples as in the case of the disciples. I cannot understand why people cannot accept this.

 

[psalms109:31]

Calvinist

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition of which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: "For he chose us (not because we were, but) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." (Eph 1:4).

They do not see forkowledge as some do. I do believe that God did choose men for His purpose and had nothing to do with forseen faith, but did what God prepared for them in advance to do.

Jesus does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and there had to be a select group to prepare the way. When anyone listens and learns from the Father, trust in Lord not their own understanding, for God did hide the truth from the wise learned. They will come and Jesus will in no wise cast them out. Though Christ does want all men to be saved, but only those who trust in the Lord are the one's who He will keep.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree that man should not be saved due to having value, they have value in God's eye.

What does this mean? Men have no value but they have value??

Their value is only in the purpose for which God intends to use them for his own glory. In that sense the Devil has value.

If men have any other kind of value- it is not of grace. It is either something intrinsic in man that makes him worth saving, or God saves him totally based on His UNmerited favor. Which is it, Webdog?

 

[The Archangel]

It is amazing how something can be right in front of you and yet you fail to see it. In all of these examples it says "in the eyes". Whether speaking of God or others, this is saying these persons found favor because of something seen in them.

Noah found grace in God's eyes because God saw something in Noah he did not see in others, faith. This is shown in Hebrews 11.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Noah wasn't simply building the ark during the 120 years when he received the warning from God until the flood came. He was also preaching to the world of this impending flood, but they would not listen.

It really is a shame...all the kicking against the goads that you do, but I digress.

First, you have not interacted with the Hebrew text of Genesis 6:8. Second, the passage in Hebrews is not referring to God's initial calling of Noah. The Hebrews passage, rather, is talking about the command of God to build an Ark. It is this command in which the author of Hebrews is showing a demonstration of Noah's faith. So, it is not germane to the discussion of Genes 6:8

You would have us believe that God told everyone to build and Ark and Noah was the only one to respond. That is not what the text says. Certainly Noah preached to the rest of the world; certainly they didn't listen. But, this just served to heap judgment upon them. Notice, however, Noah's preaching was after he began building the Ark which was based on following the clear, revealed command of God--all of which follows God setting His favor on Noah.

God showed grace to those evil men before the flood, Noah preached to them but they would not listen.

In what way?

But going back, in almost every instance where grace is mentioned in the OT, it also includes the phrase "in the eyes".

Gen 50:4 And when the days of his mourning were past, Joseph spake unto the house of Pharaoh, saying, If now I have found grace in your eyes, speak, I pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying,

Pharaoh didn't just look around and randomly choose to show grace to Joseph. No, Joseph had shown himself to be wise, he had interpreted Pharaoh's dreams, and Joseph had shown himself to be faithful, Pharaoh placing him 2nd in his kingdom.

You are not correct. Way back in Genesis 39:21 we see the reason for Joseph's success: God gave him favor in the sight of the prison keeper. So, his rise in Egypt was Yahweh-directed at every turn.

Also, the "in your eyes" phrase is part of the idiom "Finding favor in one's eyes." When this is applied to Yahweh, it is understood (textually) to be referring to God's bestowing of His grace at His will, not to finding some kernel of good in a person in an otherwise evil world.

But as I clearly pointed out the "idiom" is used in relation to man and God. The idiom is the same, the force or meaning is not. In many cases a person will say to God "If I have found favor in your sight..." which means they have already found favor.

Be that as it may, the statement in Genesis 6:8 is very clear: God preemptively and purposefully set His favor on Noah.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Grace is just another way of saying favor. You cannot have favor, you cannot please God unless you have faith, it is impossible.

First off here...you would have us believe God's grace is a reward for our faith. In the past you have called grace "merited favor." This is a heresy.

Second, how can man "diligently seek" God when Romans 3 says "no one seeks after God?"

The Archangel

 

[psalms109:31]

Tust

Trust in the Lord is entering in God's unmerited favor, even over our own understanding and beliefs. In which it doesn't come from ourselves but the Lord.

No matter how much men try to fight the truth, trust is not at all work to God from us.
Faith a noun is what comes from God through His word.