Unconditional Election

[The Biblicist]

The all refers to all those given to Christ, they all arrive in Christ and are not cast out. Again this is obvious.

Again, the word "come" grammatically refers to the actions of those begin given rather than God's action. Placing someone in Christ is an action NEVER attributed to any man and cannot possibly be attributed to any man because it occurred before any man existed (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9) and because it is a CREATIVE act (Eph. 2:10). You are simply choosing to ignore the grammar and rewrite it to suite yourself.

Of course your false doctrine FORCES you to ignore, rewrite, redefine scripture to make it fit to your specifications.

 

[The Biblicist]

More misrepresentation. The traveled to the proximity of Jesus to see Jesus and hear His message. Some did not believe. Verse 36, some came and saw Jesus but did not believe. This is obvious.

However, Nothing is said in verse 36 about their traveling actions and more importantly Jesus never used the word "come" in verse 36 to describe any kind of traveling action. Therefore you cannot base your whole definition of "come" in verse 36 when it is not even found there or used there. This is your own complete fabrication in order to redefine the use of "come" by Jesus.

Secondly, those in verse 36 had not "come to me" in the sense Jesus used the term "come" in verses 36-65 or there would be no contrast provided and Jesus is providing a contrast between those in verse 36 and "all" described in verses 37-40 just as he is obviously contrasting those in verse 64 with "come to me" in verse 65 and in both cases the stated contrast is between them that "believed not" and him that "come to me"!

Can't get it any plainer!

 

[The Biblicist]

More assertions of obviously mistaken views. We have have what scripture says, All the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, with the word translated come meaning to arrive in. And this must be the correct view, because only if a person had arrived in Jesus, could they be cast out of Jesus. This is inescapable.

So are you saying that one can arrive in Christ BEFORE they believe as that is how you are defining "shall come" in verse 37??

If not, then when do they believe in verse 37? Is coming to faith in Christ found in the Father giving or in them coming?

You cannot reverse the stated cause and effect as giving precedes future tense "shall come to me." Hence, if arrival at faith in Christ is not found in the term "come" it must be found in the term "give" which PRECEDES coming so which is it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Here we have the denial that the people in verse 24 came to Jesus to see Him. Talk about fiction.

Verse 24 uses the term "came" in a geographical context but verses 37-44 and verses 64-65 use it in a faith context. Verse 24 uses it in a context of what any physically fit man can do but verses 37-44 and 65 deny that any man "can" come in the sense Jesus uses it in these verses.

You are simply being dishonest with context. This is apples versus oranges and you are attempting to deny any contextual differences. This is your modus operandi and must be in order to defend a false doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

I say come to me means come to me,

No you don't!

1. You have said "come to me" equates to "see" me.
2. You have said "come to me" means "arrived IN me"

and Calvinism says no it means come to faith. They remove me and insert faith. Then they charge me with inserting words. Go figure.

No, "come to me" means "come to me in faith" as "me" is the object of faith which without there is no object of faith.

You have not yet denied that is exactly what it means in the following uses:

Mt. 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

1. Those he speaks to already do "see" him.
2. Those he speaks to have already arrived geographically in his presence as they are the audiance in his presence.

He is talking about coming to him in faith!

This is a Biblical and METAPHORICAL use for "come to me" and thus my interpetation is squarely based upon Biblical usage and in John 6:36-44, 64-65 the clear contrast between "come to me" is "believed not."

Two different Greek words are translated "come" in verse 37. Folks, look it up in an interlinear. Calvinism is based on shoddy bible study.

Already dealt with these two words and how they contradict your forced meaning on the word "come." The first term translated "shall come" proves it is the result/consequence of being given by the Father first rather than how you reverse it and make coming the cause for being given. The second term translated "cometh" is present tense and contradicts your interpretation that it means to be "in Christ" as that is never present tense but always a completed action and never attributed to any action by man but always an action that God ALONE can do (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 1:30) and did before they were ever born (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13).

 

[Van]

Four copy and past posts will nothing that has not be refuted before. Waste of time with an avalanche of verbiage, typical defense of Calvinism.

1) coming to Christ does not say coming to faith. This assertion is simply a rewrite that is repeated ad nauseam.

2) After God puts us spiritually in Christ is when we are justified, not before. Therefore coming to (arriving in) Christ occurs before justification.

3) Read Romans 4:4-5, it says Abraham's faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness, it does not say Abraham was justified.

4) The idea that justification is a legal term and not an action of God to forgive our sins and remember them no more forever is typical nonsense.

5)Come is not used to describe a change in physical location in the passage. Nonsense, verse 24, they came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. In verse 38 Jesus came down from heaven. Change in location is always in view.
But as I said, the phrase come to (arrive in) Me refers to God transferring a person spiritually, not physically into Christ, thus they shall not be cast out.

6) God's actions are describes using various verbs in the passage (John 6). To claim there are only two verbs is just nonsense times two.

7 Come to Jesus refers to physically coming to the proximity of Jesus to see and hear Him. To come to Jesus spiritually means for God to transfer the believer from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

8) The difference between verse 36, those who came physically to see, but did not believe, and verse 40, God's will is that those who behold, i.e. see Jesus will also believe, and if they do then God will give them to Jesus (place them spiritually in Jesus) and they will not be cast out, but will be resurrected physically on the last day.

9) The father gives, first, and all He gives arrives in Christ, second. This is the order. Duh

10) Your use of tense in John 6:37 is silly. God is giving in the present, and those He is giving arrive in Jesus after the giving, i.e. in the future from the time of the giving. Then the future arrival is said to be in the past. Utter nonsense violating the syntax.

11) All those the Father gives to Jesus will arrive in Jesus, all of them.

12) Next you repeat the misrepresentation that I have addressed three time. Only God puts us in Christ.

13) Now we get the full shuck and jive, I address one verse, and the Calvinist responds as if I was talking about another verse. I address physically coming to see Jesus and hear, and believe or not, and he responds that I am saying they arrived spiritually in Christ. Utter nonsense, simply one falsehood after another in an avalanche of verbiage to derail the thread and a discussion of Conditional Election.

14) Come to me physically means come to my physically, and come to me spiritually means come to me spiritually. Biblicist is simply throwing up a smokescreen to derail discussion of Conditional election.

 

[The Biblicist]

Four copy and past posts will nothing that has not be refuted before. Waste of time with an avalanche of verbiage, typical defense of Calvinism.

Thank you for publicly acknowledging you are incapable of dealing with the specific contextual based biblical arguments that I have presented but you are forced to repetitious generalizations as the only escape from the specific and technical contextual based data I have provided.

Our readers can understand why you have chosen this method simply becuase you are incapable of dealing with specifics. Hence, your safety net is to remain within generalities and vain repetitions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Four copy and past posts will nothing that has not be refuted before. Waste of time with an avalanche of verbiage, typical defense of Calvinism.

1) coming to Christ does not say coming to faith. This assertion is simply a rewrite that is repeated ad nauseam.

the ones who come to Christ are the Ones elected beforehand by the Father and preordained to come to Christ to be saved!

2) After God puts us spiritually in Christ is when we are justified, not before. Therefore coming to (arriving in) Christ occurs before justification.

Being Justified before/by God means that we are in christ! can't divide one here, as BOTH are true!

3) Read Romans 4:4-5, it says Abraham's faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness, it does not say Abraham was justified.

Apostle paul used an example though of One justified before God NOT due tohis good works, but thru faith in God and His promises!

4) The idea that justification is a legal term and not an action of God to forgive our sins and remember them no more forever is typical nonsense.

God still knows that we are sinners, he remembers all and every thing ever done by us, for he will judge our good works for quality, but He has chosen to see those sins thru jesus, so he "sees them no more", for he sees us clothed in rightiousness of Christ!

5)Come is not used to describe a change in physical location in the passage. Nonsense, verse 24, they came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. In verse 38 Jesus came down from heaven. Change in location is always in view.
But as I said, the phrase come to (arrive in) Me refers to God transferring a person spiritually, not physically into Christ, thus they shall not be cast out.

They all physically came to jesus, in order to be spiritually saved by him!

6) God's actions are describes using various verbs in the passage (John 6). To claim there are only two verbs is just nonsense times two.

7 Come to Jesus refers to physically coming to the proximity of Jesus to see and hear Him. To come to Jesus spiritually means for God to transfer the believer from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

8) The difference between verse 36, those who came physically to see, but did not believe, and verse 40, God's will is that those who behold, i.e. see Jesus will also believe, and if they do then God will give them to Jesus (place them spiritually in Jesus) and they will not be cast out, but will be resurrected physically on the last day.

it is the Will of the Father that ALL those He gave to jesus shall be raised up . and that none shall be lost! God gave them to His Son, and they are the Ones that will be enabled by the Sprit to come to jesus and be able to receive him and get saved!

9) The father gives, first, and all He gives arrives in Christ, second. This is the order. Duh

10) Your use of tense in John 6:37 is silly. God is giving in the present, and those He is giving arrive in Jesus after the giving, i.e. in the future from the time of the giving. Then the future arrival is said to be in the past. Utter nonsense violating the syntax.

11) All those the Father gives to Jesus will arrive in Jesus, all of them.

They are given to jesus by the father BEFORE they came to faith in jesus, their faith is what the Lord used to grant them their promised salvation!

12) Next you repeat the misrepresentation that I have addressed three time. Only God puts us in Christ.

13) Now we get the full shuck and jive, I address one verse, and the Calvinist responds as if I was talking about another verse. I address physically coming to see Jesus and hear, and believe or not, and he responds that I am saying they arrived spiritually in Christ. Utter nonsense, simply one falsehood after another in an avalanche of verbiage to derail the thread and a discussion of Conditional Election.

14) Come to me physically means come to my physically, and come to me spiritually means come to me spiritually. Biblicist is simply throwing up a smokescreen to derail discussion of Conditional election.

No, the real truth here in all of this is that the Will of God is what determines who will getting saved by the lord jesus, and that this election is due to God ALONE, and is on an indiviual basis!

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Thank you for publicly acknowledging you are incapable of dealing with the specific contextual based biblical arguments that I have presented but you are forced to repetitious generalizations as the only escape from the specific and technical contextual based data I have provided.

Our readers can understand why you have chosen this method simply becuase you are incapable of dealing with specifics. Hence, your safety net is to remain within generalities and vain repetitions.

This post is devoid of content, but continues non-stop the personal attacks which are logical fallacies. That is all Calvinism can offer, stonewalling, repetition and personal attacks.

Biblicist said "Come to Me" really means come to have faith in Jesus. Utter rewrite. Come means come, to change location toward something or someone. It can be physical or spiritual. In the case of John 6:37, the spiritual transfer of a person by God into Christ is in view, because only after a person is placed in Christ can they not be cast out. Inescapable.

Unconditional Election has been shown to be a mistaken doctrine but conditional election for salvation through faith in the truth has been shown to be scriptural, i.e. 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

No, the real truth here in all of this is that the Will of God is what determines who will getting saved by the lord jesus, and that this election is due to God ALONE, and is on an indiviual basis!

I think this post has a typo, it should read "Yes, the real truth here is all of this is that the will of God is what determines who will be getting saved by the Lord Jesus, and that this election is due to God alone and is on an individual basis. It is disconcerting to have someone agree with me while claiming to disagree. Go figure.

 

[The Biblicist]

This post is devoid of content.

Not true! That post pointed out that you cannot respond to specific arguments that I have posted but have chosen to simply retreat to generalizations which have been disproven by specifics. I have placed posts on this thread that totally dismantle your arguments and YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM simply becuase you cannot honestly deal with them as they completley dismantle your unbiblical theory.

Your generalizations are a white flag of surrender because you are running from responding to specific contextual based arguments that have already disproven your generalizations.

Everyone on this thread can read my recent posts whicy you avoid and know you are avoiding them. Your only other alternative is returning to disproven generalizations or ridicule which are weapons of those who have been proven to be wrong.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The OC did not contain regeneration.

Well Jesus said are you a teacher of Israel and not know these things? He was talking about being born again! I believe scriptures echos regeneration in the OT! Would a man even desire the things of God unless the spirit of Christ was in them? 1 Peter 1:11

 

[Van]

Well Jesus said are you a teacher of Israel and not know these things? He was talking about being born again! I believe scriptures echos regeneration in the OT! Would a man even desire the things of God unless the spirit of Christ was in them? 1 Peter 1:11

Thanks for the excellent post, asserting folks were regenerated, made alive, born again under the Old Covenant of the Law. Now by the Law no flesh was justified, Romans 3:20. They were not made perfect, they had to wait and be made perfect under the New Covenant. Hebrews 11:39-40.

But lets consider 1 Peter 1:11, "seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow." The assertion is that this refers to the indwelling of the Spirit as per the New Covenant, rather than just the Holy Spirit coming upon and speaking within them concerning the foretelling of Christ. However many OT references indicate the Holy Spirit "came upon" the prophets and was "in them", i.e. David said God's word was in his tongue. Thus 1 Peter 1:11 refers to the prophets being inspired from within by the Holy Spirit, and does not refer to their regeneration in Christ and being sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever. Note that Saul had the Holy Spirit come upon him, and he prophesied, yet later the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from him. Hard to maintain Saul was born again, regenerated, then lost it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for the excellent post, asserting folks were regenerated, made alive, born again under the Old Covenant of the Law. Now by the Law no flesh was justified, Romans 3:20. They were not made perfect, they had to wait and be made perfect under the New Covenant. Hebrews 11:39-40.

But lets consider 1 Peter 1:11, "seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow." The assertion is that this refers to the indwelling of the Spirit as per the New Covenant, rather than just the Holy Spirit coming upon and speaking within them concerning the foretelling of Christ. However many OT references indicate the Holy Spirit "came upon" the prophets and was "in them", i.e. David said God's word was in his tongue. Thus 1 Peter 1:11 refers to the prophets being inspired from within by the Holy Spirit, and does not refer to their regeneration in Christ and being sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever. Note that Saul had the Holy Spirit come upon him, and he prophesied, yet later the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from him. Hard to maintain Saul was born again, regenerated, then lost it.

You can't discern the difference between the administration of the New Covenant and the public ratification of the New Covenant! The new covenant is the "everlasting" covenant as no other covenant is ratified "by the blood" of Jesus Christ other than the "EVERLASTING covenant"

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep,through the blood of the everlasting covenant

The public ratification of the "everlasting covenant" by the blood of Christ was in time but the administration of this covenant is "everlasting" and the only basis for salvation for anyone at anytime. It is the only basis for justification by faith (Rom. 4:1-23) at any time.

I have thoroughly exposed your misinterpretation of Hebrews 11:39 by the very context. They will not be glorified in the body and enter the new Jerusalem on earth "without us" but they were saved, justified, sins remitted just as we are by the very same gospel by faith looking forward as we look back by faith.

Heb. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness......
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

De 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Just a chapter previous to the above statement God speaks to the rebellous among them and says:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

In both Deuteronomy 30:6 and 29:4 there can be no love for God, no obedience, no spiritual discernment unless God circumcises their heart. All the saints in the Old Testament loved God, obeyed God, spiritual discerned the things of God and Hebrews 11 proves that.

Jn. 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Like Niocdemus you are a Bible teacher who is ignorant of the simplest truth of the new birth/ circumcised heart throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.

 

[steaver]

Well Jesus said are you a teacher of Israel and not know these things? He was talking about being born again! I believe scriptures echos regeneration in the OT! Would a man even desire the things of God unless the spirit of Christ was in them? 1 Peter 1:11

Hi brother, I have another thread called Calvin on regeneration. Can you go there and shed some light on this issue. I have a Calvinist friend who is telling me that the OT saints did NOT have the rebirth. Is there a disagreement between TULIP believers on this issue?? And does TULIP give a definition of regeneration within its' definitions?? PLease answer in the other thread if you will. I haven't had much input from our Calvinist friends on this.

 

[Van]

Hi Biblicist, why bother posting nonsense, and then claiming the assertions were valid?

No mention of the public ratification of the New Covenant is found in scripture. Thus simply nonsensical verbiage.

When was the New Covenant inaugurated? When Christ died and not before. No one was made perfect spiritually before Christ died.

Next a repeat of what I posted before, the New Covenant is one of the Everlasting Covenants. So verbiage without purpose.

Next, the claim is made that someone else said folks were made perfect in some other way before Christ died. Not what was said. So more nonsense.

You claimed Hebrews 11:39-40 referred to our physical adoption as sons at Christ's second coming, and I showed, Hebrews 12:22, that the spirits of righteous men, i.e. those born again, have, past tense, been made perfect. So yet another mistaken assertion.

Hebrews 4:2 is non-germane to the topic, all the people in view are under the new Covenant.

Acts 10:43 is simply one of many scriptures that say the OT prophets foretold the coming of the New Covenant in the blood of the Lamb. It does not say anyone was justified by the works of the Law.

Next, we get yet another repeat, probably the third or fourth, of the claim Abraham was justified, when his faith was credited as righteousness, but He was not made perfect spiritually. He had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made righteous under the New Covenant in His blood.

In both Deuteronomy 30:6 and 29:4 there can be no love for God, no obedience, no spiritual discernment unless God circumcises their heart. All the saints in the Old Testament loved God, obeyed God, spiritual discerned the things of God and Hebrews 11 proves that.

Neither verse says any of that nonsense. Read Deuteronomy 30:15-17 clearly teaches those entering the promised land could love God or not. Calvinism is mistaken concerning our limited spiritual ability, claiming we have none.

Nicodemus thought his physical birth got him entry into heaven, not knowing he must believe and then God must cause him to be born again, in order to enter heaven. Calvinism also denies the need to autonomously believe, claiming we must be compelled by irresistible grace in order to believe. Same mistaken doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist, why bother posting

If I were posting for your benefit it would be a waste of time because you are not an objective Bible student. Anything that does not fit your bias you simply ignore, dismiss or ridicule. However, there are those on this forum who are objective Bible students and really are concerned with truth not with simply defending nonsense and what you believe is nonsense.

1. Paul explicitly says that Pre-cross saints were saved by grace exactly as we are except their faith looked forward to the promise of the cross and He justified, sanctified, regenerated, saved them on the basis that His promise was sure:

Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

This means the actual provisions of the blood of Christ yet to be shed in the future were actually applied to them so they received remission of sins and imputed righteousness and Abraham and David are set forth as examples by Paul

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Again, Paul claims that there is NOTHING different in their salvation and the salvation he preached except the promise had been fulfilled in the cross:


Acts 26: 22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Peter Confirms this also:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

These prophets were preaching the remission of sins through faith in Christ obtained then and there at the point of faith just as Paul says in Romans 4:6-8.

The writer of hebrews teaches the very same thing:

Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it

You minimalize this text because it contradicts your false narrative. However, the fact is it is the SAME GOSPEL preached to them as unto us providing the same remission of sins through faith. The same justification by faith as proven in Romans 4. The same sanctification by faith as proven by Hebrews 11.

In Hebrews 11:39-40 what they did not receive was something that HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED and won't receive "WITHOUT US" and Hebrews was written well after the cross. So your interpretation of Hebrews 11:39-40 is manifestly false. What they will not receive "without us" is exactly the promise they all looked for and that is the heavenly city ON EARTH:

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city................39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Note at the time of writing they had still not received the promise but your theory demands they received it at the resurrection. Note verse 13 states they died not receiving the promises and then verse 14-16 spell out those promises they had not received at death, not received at the time of writing Hebrews and will not ever receive "WITHOUT US" and we have not yet received these promises either because the New Jerusalem has not yet come down on earth.

However, there is no rational basis to discuss anything with you because you make up your mind what you will believe and will not believe in spite of what scripture says. So it is futile to discuss anything with you. For example, Hebrews 13:20 does not use the plural term "covenants" and the scriptures never refer to plural "everlasting covenantS"! That is your escape mentality that grasps at the rediculous to escape truth. The new covenant is the ONLY everlasting covenant and the ONLY way of salvation for anyone at anytime anywhere on planet earth. There is but ONE way before the cross for all mankind (Jn. 14:6; Mt. 7:13-14) and it is the very same way after the cross for all mankind under heaven (Acts 4:12) and there is no difference between them before and after the cross (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 3:25-26; Rom. 10:16-17; etc.).

Regeneration is called "circumcision of the heart" before the cross as well as after the cross (Col. 2:11-14).

 

[The Biblicist]

If I were posting for your benefit it would be a waste of time because you are not an objective Bible student. Anything that does not fit your bias you simply ignore, dismiss or ridicule. However, there are those on this forum who are objective Bible students and really are concerned with truth not with simply defending nonsense and what you believe is nonsense.

1. Paul explicitly says that Pre-cross saints were saved by grace exactly as we are except their faith looked forward to the promise of the cross and He justified, sanctified, regenerated, saved them on the basis that His promise was sure:

Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

This means the actual provisions of the blood of Christ yet to be shed in the future were actually applied to them so they received remission of sins and imputed righteousness and Abraham and David are set forth as examples by Paul

Rom. 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Again, Paul claims that there is NOTHING different in their salvation and the salvation he preached except the promise had been fulfilled in the cross:


Acts 26: 22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Peter Confirms this also:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

These prophets were preaching the remission of sins through faith in Christ obtained then and there at the point of faith just as Paul says in Romans 4:6-8.

The writer of hebrews teaches the very same thing:

Hebrews 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it

You minimalize this text because it contradicts your false narrative. However, the fact is it is the SAME GOSPEL preached to them as unto us providing the same remission of sins through faith. The same justification by faith as proven in Romans 4. The same sanctification by faith as proven by Hebrews 11.

In Hebrews 11:39-40 what they did not receive was something that HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED and won't receive "WITHOUT US" and Hebrews was written well after the cross. So your interpretation of Hebrews 11:39-40 is manifestly false. What they will not receive "without us" is exactly the promise they all looked for and that is the heavenly city ON EARTH:

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city................39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Note at the time of writing they had still not received the promise but your theory demands they received it at the resurrection. Note verse 13 states they died not receiving the promises and then verse 14-16 spell out those promises they had not received at death, not received at the time of writing Hebrews and will not ever receive "WITHOUT US" and we have not yet received these promises either because the New Jerusalem has not yet come down on earth.

However, there is no rational basis to discuss anything with you because you make up your mind what you will believe and will not believe in spite of what scripture says. So it is futile to discuss anything with you. For example, Hebrews 13:20 does not use the plural term "covenants" and the scriptures never refer to plural "everlasting covenantS"! That is your escape mentality that grasps at the rediculous to escape truth. The new covenant is the ONLY everlasting covenant and the ONLY way of salvation for anyone at anytime anywhere on planet earth. There is but ONE way before the cross for all mankind (Jn. 14:6; Mt. 7:13-14) and it is the very same way after the cross for all mankind under heaven (Acts 4:12) and there is no difference between them before and after the cross (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 3:25-26; Rom. 10:16-17; etc.).

Regeneration is called "circumcision of the heart" before the cross as well as after the cross (Col. 2:11-14).

Jesus did not tell Nicodemus "except a man be born again AFTER PENTECOST he cannot see the kingdom of God.

What you fail to grasp is the nature of spiritual death and spiritual life. God told Adam that "in the day" he ate he would die and he did die in that very day - SPIRITUAL DEATH. Spiritual death is SEPARATION from God spiritually.

Quickening = regeneration = made alive spiritually = spiritual union with God.

Death = separation = spiritual separation which results in physical separation from the human spirt = physical death and then eternal separation = second death.

All humans who have sinned are SEPARATED spiritually from God and therefore SPIRITUALLY DEAD and need to be brought into spiritual union to have spiritual life.

This is true as much for Adam as it is for you. You don't have different human natures. You don't have a different sin problem. There is not a different solution for your sin problem.

Jesus said "except a man"! He did not say "except post-cross living men".

There are only two kinds of humans on earth:

1. saved or lost
2. Spiritually dead or spiritually alive
3. Those in the flesh versus those in the Spirit
4. Unregenerate or regenerate
5. Those who have Satan as father or those who have God as Father
6. Those in the kingdom of darkness or those in the kingdom of God
7. Those who are children of Satan or those who are children of God

And this is true from Genesis to Revelation becuase all men sinned in Adam and all who are saved are saved IN CHRIST as there is no salvation for any human being OUTSIDE OF CHRIST and that is precisely what you are teaching.

What you don't understand is that the new birth is simply being given spiritual life or being quickened by the Spirit or made spiritually alive by the Spirit. Regeneration is simply SPIRITUAL UNION with God.

Spiritual death is SEPARATION from spiritual union with God and in the day that Adam ate he suffered immediate SPIRITUAL DEATH/SEPARATION because of sin.

All humans have sinned and thus all are SEPARATED from God spiritually by sin. Where there is no QUICKENING there is only death.lll

 

[Van]

Hi Biblicist,

1) You start out disparaging me, saying I am biased, not objective, and simply dismiss, ignore or ridicule. Next you will claim I kick my dog.

2) Then you claim Romans 3:25 is explaining how the OT saints were made perfect before Christ died. Utter nonsense, the verse is completely non-germane.

3) Next you make the nonsensical argument that because the OT saints were indeed saved, that somehow shows they were saved according to your unbiblical view. LOL

4) Then you simply repeat your arguments already shown to be nonsense. No flesh was justified by the works of the Law. No flesh was justified based on the Old Covenant. No one ascended to heaven under the Old Covenant. But the OT saints did obtain approval through faith, and did receive the promises of the New Covenant after Christ died.

5) Next, you claim being set aside through faith means being made perfect, born again in Christ, etc, etc. Nonsense. Under the new covenant we are the circumcision, those set aside in Christ, those who have undergone the circumcision done without hands, the circumcision where our body of flesh is removed.

6) Next a repeat of the denial of Hebrews 11:39-40, the OT saints did not receive the promise, but had to wait until they received it together will us, so the delay was in the past, i.e. between their death, and Christ's future death. This is the period they waited in Abraham's bosom. Thus they died, not having received the promise of being made perfect, Hebrews 11:13.

7) Next you deny that scripture mentions more than one everlasting covenant, such as the rainbow is a symbol of God's everlasting covenant to never destroy the whole earth with flood again.

8) Next you say what Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, as if I had asserted it. Pure fiction, my quote will stand for itself.

Nicodemus thought his physical birth got him entry into heaven, not knowing he must believe and then God must cause him to be born again, in order to enter heaven. Calvinism also denies the need to autonomously believe, claiming we must be compelled by irresistible grace in order to believe. Same mistaken doctrine.

No mention of Pentecost, so yet another demonstration of misrepresentation.

9) Regeneration does refer to being born anew in Christ Jesus, not outside of Christ. So it occurs when we are put in Christ by God, not before we are placed in Christ. In Christ we are made alive, quickened and outside of Christ we are spiritually dead. This is not rocket science.

10) It is not all humans "who have sinned" it is all humans have been made sinners by the transgression of the one. Yet another mistaken view, now numbering more than two dozen.

11) Lets close with this quote where you managed it seems to actually say something biblical for a change.

There are only two kinds of humans on earth:

1. saved or lost
2. Spiritually dead or spiritually alive
3. Those in the flesh versus those in the Spirit
4. Unregenerate or regenerate
5. Those who have Satan as father or those who have God as Father
6. Those in the kingdom of darkness or those in the kingdom of God
7. Those who are children of Satan or those who are children of God

 

[Van]

Unconditional Election

Paul taught that we are saved by grace through faith. John Calvin's view is that Paul did not mean what he said. According the Calvinist view, what Paul meant was that we are saved by election through the secret council of His will.

Paul says God passed over our sins previously committed in forbearance that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith Jesus (Romans 3:23-26). This is the grace by which we are saved.

On the other hand, the Calvinist view is God chose us before we existed as foreseen individuals who had not yet sinned, picking unconditionally some and rejecting others with no regard for our characteristics including our faith. Clearly this tenet of Calvinism is a false doctrine for it makes a mockery of grace and faith.

Lets look at this logically. The underlying exegetical mistake is the idea that foreknowledge means God knew before the foundation of the world who He would save as foreseen specific individuals. If this is true, then much of the New Testament is misleading. Jesus said whoever believes shall not perish, but what He meant according the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism is that most of you are doomed to perish because you cannot believe. Jesus taught opportunity, Calvinism teaches hopelessness.

Lets focus for the time being on this one issue and not go into the supporting constructs (irresistible grace, total depravity, and limited atonement). Lets stick with unconditional election.

I will stipulate that the Bible teaches that God chose Christ before the foundation of the world. I will stipulate that when God chose His redeemer, He also chose corporately all those His Redeemer would redeem as the target group of His redemption plan, thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I will stipulate that the Bible abounds in examples of God choosing individuals from the womb to be part of God's plan of salvation as prophets and apostles. I will stipulate that God chooses some individuals or groups of people to oppose God's will in order to facilitate or make more glorious God's plan of redemption.

What I do not stipulate to are two errors: That it is logical or necessary to extrapolate God's individual selection of some people like Paul or David, and say God does this and exerts this much influence and control over all people. And the second error is to say that when scripture says that God "grants" salvation it means He is exerting controlling and unconditional influence. In other words, when God chooses us individually for salvation he does this I believe based on accepting our heartfelt faith. Ignore the Calvinist contention that God gives us the faith - that comes after individual election in the Calvinist view. The Biblical view, I believe is Conditional Election through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13

I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I do not think the bible teaches God's election of foreseen individuals unconditionally (Calvinist position) or God's election based on the foreseen faith of foreseen individuals (Arminian position). My position is that God's election before the foundation of the world was Christ and corporately as a target group - those whose faith God would credit as righteousness. So God's election before the foundation of the world was to a foreseen kind of folks - the target group, believers in Christ, who would share a common characteristic, but not any specific individuals.

And finally, lest you think my position is just another way to skin the Arminian cat, I believe God chooses us individually during our lifetime based on accepting our faith and then the Holy Spirit spiritually baptizes us into the body of Christ. So we do not self select ourselves for salvation by willing our salvation, for it does not depend on the man that wills or the man that runs but upon God who chooses us based on His granting us grace through faith in God and His Christ.

In summary, rather than unconditional election, I believe God’s election of individuals is conditional, He elects believers in Christ, and rather than God electing specific foreseen individuals from all eternity, I believe He simply formulated a plan to save believers in Christ, and hence the election from all eternity was His choice to save those whose heartfelt faith in Christ was credited during their lifetime as righteousness. That is why scripture says we were elected “in Him.” We were chosen as the target group of the redemption plan, God chose His Redeemer and chose corporately folks who would trust in His redeemer. Scripture indicates when God formulates a plan; the result of the plan is predestined, for no plan of God can be thwarted. Similarly when scripture says we were chosen in Him, all that is being said is God planned to save believers in Christ when God chose Christ to be the Lamb of God.

James 2:5 indicates God chose believers willing to turn everything over to God, and that this resulted in God choosing folks who were poor to the world but rich in faith and heirs to promise to those who love God. God's choice was not unconditional, He chose (1) people poor to the world, (2) rich in faith, (3) those that love God.

Similarly Romans 11:5 demonstrates election during the lifetime of the chosen individuals. What was Israel seeking? According to Romans 9:30-33, a righteous relationship with God. Paul and other Jews of similar belief had not been rejected, but had been chosen. Just as God kept for Himself 7000 that trusted in God and therefore did not bend their knee to Baal (verse 4), God chose for Himself a remnant out of the Jews living in Paul’s time based on their belief in Christ. And the non-believing Jews were hardened temporarily for God’s purpose of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. I think it is a straightforward inference to conclude that those who were hardened were hardened so they would not believe, in contrast to those chosen who believed before they were chosen individually. God chose the individual believers and hardened the rest. As an aside, if total depravity were a valid doctrine, God would not have needed to harden the hearts of the non-believing Jews in order to sent the gospel to the Gentiles. Scripture would instead say God softened the hearts of the Gentiles, but of course that is never found in God’s word, only in the tradition of the Calvinists.

Now what about looking at it with the idea that God chose from non-believing Jews living at the time, those He had elected before the world began, and via irresistible grace, made them believers? Because this chronology is inconsistent with the model presented by Paul. In 1 Kings 19:18, God spares the 7000 that have not bended their knee, He does not choose 7000 and give them the fortitude to not bend their knee.

In summary, Conditional Election based on accepting the believer’s faith as heart-felt, is the true gospel; Unconditional Election of specific foreseen individuals (before creation) is a mistaken view that is refuted by a straightforward acceptance of scripture.