Those who have never heard the gospel?

And thus you have arrived at the principal difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

Calvinists hold that God's foreknowledge is based on his decrees. That is, God knows all because he has decreed those things to come to pass. That's why God is able to make promises and keep them.

Non-Cals hold that his decrees are based on his foreknowledge. God is reactive, not proactive.

 

Tom

Tom,

Also remember that God's ways are not our ways. It is God's sovereign right to deal with His creation in either manner, proactive or reactive. The ultimate judge of accuracy is what God has stated in His word. One Calvinist brother told me that he cannot believe in a God who surrenders His sovereignty to the creature, man. This, I felt, was a dangerous theological line to draw in the sand, when we know full well that God does things that are not necessarily in accordance of the way in which we might expect.

 

Amen Tom . God does not merely respond to what man will do . Some god that ! The Lord is the orchestrator of everything . He ordains . In Acts 13:48 it refers to the Lord ordaining all who will believe . The ordination of course preceding the belief . I have quoted a famous remark by Benjamin Warfield before , but it bears repeating . This is from my memory ( faulty sometimes ) : "Whosoever will ? This is a universe of whosoever won't ." I do better with C.S. Lewis quotes from memory . Anyway , the point being -- no one will come to a saving knowledge of the lord unless the Lord opens the heart/mind of an individual . The person He has elected from eternity past ( bear with me ) will be brought to the Lord -- effectually-so . The drawing is always complete . He does not attract partly -- His drawing is ALWAYS to a saving end .

Permit me to quote some verses which show it is up to the Lord to bring us to spiritual birth . He is the agent of changing our hearts -- not us in the least .

John 1:13 children born not of natural descent , nor of human decision or a husband's will , but born of God [ many non-Cals do not reference this verse just the preceding one ]

James 1:18 He chose to give us birth [ speaking of spiritual birth -- the rebirth ]

Romans 9:16 It does not , therefore , depend on human desire or effort , but on God's mercy

( The last three verses are from the TNIV )

 

Quote:
What is the "factor" in God's choosing of who will be saved?
-----------------------------------------------

If I knew that, I would be God. he chooses whomsoever He wills, and why He wills is beyond me or anyone.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim

Jim,

Check Ephesians 1:4, and tell me who it says that God chooses.

 

Basic...As He has chosen us in Him........having predestinated us unto the adoption..........He adopted me.......thankfully.according to the pleasure of His good will...........

No problem there.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim

Hey Jim,

"...which He freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved."

There are two factors here, "us" and "in Christ." James White explains: "He chose us in union with Jesus Christ."

It troubles me when I hear people say, "I don't know why God chose me, but He did." The reason why is right there in Ephesians. He chose you in Christ.

God does not predestine people to become Christians. God predestines Christians to become like Jesus.

 

Brother,

You have been shown, and you admit that "in Christ" means saved. So by placing "in Christ" in quotes and poniting it out each time it is printed in the Bible, changes nothing.
We are choosen in Christ..
We are choosen to be saved....

No mattle how you want to say it...it means the same thing.

Please don't tell God He can't do this, when the Bible says God can and does.


Go read Eph 1..

Who does the chosing?
When was the chosing done?

 

Some young pups think some of us were born yesterday and never read a Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I agree in principle.

But when it comes to election, God chooses to be proactive.

Arminians must philosophically require God to reactive, as in their foreseen faith view of election.

 

Did you see where I said "seriously?"

 

James

James,

I'll copy this post over into the other thread.

We are chosen in Christ. (yes)
We are chosen to be saved (no)

The only reason why I say "no" is because when you take half of the truth, and make that half of the truth, the whole truth, it no longer becomes the truth. Let me elaborate....

---We are chosen in Christ to be made holy---- Eph 1:4

God's Election is to take those who are sealed in Christ (Eph 1:13) and to make them holy, and to conform them to the image of His Son. (Romans 8:29) These who are in Christ, were foreknown in Christ, and hence predestined for all that God the Father has in store for them. This is why I believe that Paul went to such great pains to say what you have in Christ, mentioning it 11 times in the first 13 verse of Ephesians chapter 1. It's not about what you had in yourself, or what you had in the Father, but about what you have in Christ. The apostle Paul is so consistent with this. Check 2nd Timothy 1:9. Same thing.

People are getting the idea that Election is that when God sought a place for His grace, He found US. But that's not the whole truth. When you take the US and cut it off from the "in Him" then you undermine the basis of Election. Rather, speaking figuratively, when God sought a place for His grace, He found His Son, and all who become enjoined to His Body as "one spirit" (1Cor 6:16-17), share in His grace.

To summarize: On the basis of our position in His Son, we have the privilege of adoption in the Father as a child of God.

Some will say that I am splitting hairs. Ok, allow me to give you a quote from John MacArthur, and I'll show you the impact of lopping off "in Christ" at Eph 1:4 has on Election:

MacArthur, writes: “I’m a Christian today because before the foundation of the world from all eternity past, God chose to set His love on John MacArthur and to give him the faith to believe at the moment that God wanted him to believe. He chose us.” (Understanding Election, emphasis mine)

MacArthur adds: “We are chosen unto salvation. We are chosen to belong to Him. When you look at your salvation, then thank God. Thank God! Because you are a Christian because He chose you. I don’t understand the mystery of that. That’s just what the word of God teaches. That is the most humbling doctrine in all of Scripture. I take no credit, not even credit for my faith. It all came from Him. He chose me. He selected people to be made holy in order to be with Him forever. Why he selected me, I will never know. I’m no better than anyone else. I’m worse than many. But He chose me.” (Understanding Election, emphasis mine)

MacArthur asks: “To whom do you owe your salvation? You owe it to the God who chose you. You owe it to the God who predestined you. You owe it to the God who redeemed you, the God who forgave you, the God who wanted you to be His own because He wanted you to be His own. It doesn’t give any other reason, even though we are so unworthy, so unworthy.” (Understanding Election, emphasis mine)

What's missing?

 

James

James, I'm copying my post over into the other thread, and feedback is welcome.

 

If you're going to quote me, please do it correctly. What I said was that "God would not condemn those who have never had the opportunity to know Him." However, He will not let anyone perish without having had the opportunity. He can make that possible any way He chooses. Jer. 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?

 

You are correct, I did not quote you directly. And there is a subtle difference, I suppose, between not ever hearing the gospel and not ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Your citation of Jeremiah 32:27 does nothing to support your point.

What I want to know is exactly how does God give everyone the opportunity to hear the gospel? What method does he use? One would think for such an assertion, one would be able to provide some tangible evidence to support it, beyond "somehow."

How did the people of India hear the gospel before William Carey arrived? What about the Burmese prior to the Judsons? Why did Paul bother to go to Mars Hill to educate them about the "unknown God" who has a Son who died for sinners?

In his sermon he mentioned their "ignorance" (Acts 17:30) and relayed God's command for them to repent. This was new to them. In fact, the philosophers invited him to Mars Hill precisely because it was new to them. They had never heard this stuff before.

In fact, if your view is correct, missions and evangelism are unnecessary.

I have given you evidence for my view. I await the evidence you have for yours.

 

They knew at some point the truth.

Just as those from Adam had heard.
Just as those from Noah had heard.

For it was from them to their descendents the word was spoken, and apparently also from the Jews themselves and those who knew of them according to Paul.

But they did not accept that truth and we know therefore they did not continue in that truth either.

Then you also have their conscience and Nature itself bearing witness to the elemental truths of God. These will not save you since it is only the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ that in hearing brings forth faith, but if they will believe even these most basic truths then God will send someone who will reveal The Truth (Jesus) to them. Did God not say "those who seek me shall find me" and "those who diligently seek me shall be found of me". Once God reveals even those most basic truths that person still has the resposibility to accept or reject that truth.

 

Allen, I think I agree with just about all of your comment.

In fact, I think I said the same thing in a previous post, agreeing with both you and Jon-Marc that if they will follow the light they have, God will give them more light.

Where I get hung up is in a couple of places. If they reject even the basic truth revealed in creation, will God give them more light, anyway? He's certainly not obligated to do so. Will God reveal the gospel to those who have turned away from that first light? Consistency requires you to say yes, and that's where we part company.

The other problem I have is the universal revelation of Jesus to every human being of all time. The Greek philosophers on Mars Hill heard the gospel apparently for the first time, and some repented, others not. But what about their parents and grandparents? Jon-Marc says "somehow" they heard. But you understand how weak an argument from silence is. To move me to your view requires something more than that, for me.

 

By the way, brother, welcome. Haven't heard from you for a while. Do you have any thoughts about your own OP?

You should feel free to ask questions. The participants in this thread have all the answers. We know everything.

Well, maybe not. But I think most of us fall into this category: We may be wrong but we're never in doubt.

 

I to hold with yours but let me clarify somethings...

Consistancy does NOT require that God Keep reaching out to those who have rejected. God in the first was not obligated to offer but did so from His benevolence as Calvin states (and I agree there...imagine that ) But once offered NO WHERE in scripture does it say that God must continue to do so. I find scripture states the only people that God is long suffering toward (continuing to call out to) are those who will be His. Now God may even do such to some sinners repeatedly who will not repent. I can not say He does or doesn't. But Woe to them who reject His plea for on that day of judgment whereby they must give an account it will testify most vehemintly against them. As says the scriptures: when much is given, much is required. Did they frustrate God? Absolutely not, for God knows those who will be/are His. But as my view maintains He still wants/desires ALL men to come to repentance.

I already quoted a verse from the scriptures that states the Word did go forth into ALL the world that was necessary to the work that God intended it to do with regard to revelation of Truth. For Paul himself states - Have they not heard? OH YES, for it sounded forth...to the ends of the World. Now what the exactly entailed, I don't know but God said it was done and I wont agrue with that plain a text. Would you?
The parts concerning revelation of truth to all cultures before Christ (not people as in individuals) we see Adam would have trained up his children and his children would have at least told their children because Grandpa Adam would be coming round at some point to say hello. (or maybe they would go see Adam and Eve) The same with Noah and his children. And their childrens children... The nations were responsible for their teachings of those who lived there in. This is why God judged Nations in the OT for not repenting rather than the unjust or ungodly only. Contrary to what some may think, Lot was the witness in Sodom and Gamorah to see the truth. And they rejected it and that nation was judged. (just a thought - why do we always forget the OTHER cities that we involved in that judgment of God. It was all the surounding and out lying town of that provience. - Just a side thought - sorry)

However I do agree that the agument from silence can only get silence in return.

So, what do you think?