What do you believe is required for Salvation?

[glfredrick]

You can come to no other conclusion with this view of election. In it we are told
1) God Elected those who would be saved from before the creation
2) God does not decide on who is elected based on any Merit or Character attribute the chosen person has
3)God has chosen these people according to his will.
4) God's will is determined by his good pleasure.
5) God is also said not to have provided Salvation for the whole world but that Jesus only died for the elect.

Therefore certain things follow from this progression.
1) by electing those to be saved God necissarily chose not to elect those who are not saved. Knowing (omniscient) his wrath would be satiated in condemning the world God knowingly created men to be destroyed knowing he did not elect them. Thus the majority of humanity was created for one purpose - condemnation and destruction in hell.
2)and 3) Since there is no litmus test that God uses to determine the those he choose apart from his good pleasure we note that the selection process is arbitrary. Because if God elected those who would choose him that places a merit on the individual because God Foreknew those who would choose him. So then it the human ability to choose correctly that saves him which places the human in a merited catagory. If God chose people he knew would have a character of righteousness and intuitive sense of justice God is choosing based on how he created the person or the character of that person and election is then based on the persons character. But we have been told this is not the case. thus the dicision is an arbitrary one.
4) His good pleasure does no more to detract from the abritary sence. God felt like saving so and so.
5)The scripture text "for God so love the world" must not be taken literally. Because it means that "God loved certain selected people from all over the world" Thus those not selected God necissarily Hates as is Shown in Genesis by the Jacob and Essau story. "Jacob he loved and Essau He hated".

This it goes to the very question of God's character.

I said exactly the opposite of your point #5. The Bible clearly says that Christ died for all. The effects of His atonement, however, will apply only to those who are among the elect.

First, why do you hate and rebel against God? You seem to fight against our Lord at every turn. As one who is "in Christ" I ask you to search yourself to discover why you wish to elevate your humanity above our great and glorious God; and ask why you attribute evil to our God. Is God "arbitrary" or is that an aspect of your rebellion against the King of all kings?

Second, You have set up a strawman, and are attacking something that is not true. You are also missing a huge point that Dr. Walter brought out very nicely and which I have been saying all along -- we humans are culpable for our sin. In other words, we did it, we pay -- period. We dare not pin that evil on God. For the greatest possible Good, God chose (yes, He can exercise His will and the Bible says that He did so before time began) to allow His creation to have a limited exercise of their wills, they being created in His image. That exercise -- before the fall -- was whether to obey God or not -- at that point we were not slaves of God or sin. After the fall, our limits of free exercise of our will is radically curtailed.

Also, see my post on human logic above.

 

[Matt Black]

If you will take note, I have not mentioned TULIP, nor am I a big fan of Calvin.

Alright, but do you not accept that TULIP does effectively ascribe evil to God and therefore must be heretical?

 

[webdog]

I agree that no one from the "non-cal" side has said such, but that is indeed the implication, is it not?

No.

How is it that THIS human instead of THAT human has the ability to respond to God?

The did not reject the truths presented to them which are given to all men (creation, conscience, desire to live eternally)

Are they smarter, more well informed, in the right time and place to hear the message? What is it? And, how much of that is God-ordained?

Smarter, no. Well informed, no. Right place at the right time to hear the message? That's what Acts 17:26-27 tells us. How much has God ordained? Depends on your definition of "ordained".

You are speaking of one regenerated, when we are no longer dead in our sins. As justified, regenerated persons of faith, we have been forgiven and given a new birth. That is the gospel!

Not sure what this is in response to.

How does that enact with the person who is yet regenerated or justified? Somehow, you need a scheme of some sort to have those people who are not able to respond to God do so as if they are made alive -- yet before they are made alive. It just does not compute... Please help me understand how this can be. If you cite previnient grace, be prepared to back that up with solid Scripture evidence.

If you start with a false presupposition (dead means inability to respond) of course it will not compute. How did Lazarus respond? Was he made alive in order to respond to Christ, or did he respond to the word of Christ? You seem to imply the former, and in doing so completely strip Christ of any power as His command was not enough, he needed to be made alive to respond. My Christ is all powerful.

Oh, and I'd also suggest doing a study of the Scriptures on the topic "human free will." It is a very interesting topic to delve into.

You assume I haven't. At one point in time I sat more on your side of the fence then mine.

 

[RAdam]

Indeed....which is why TULIP is heresy.

How does TULIP attribute evil to God? I'd like to find this out.

 

[RAdam]

Yes every one of those choices were arbitrarily based. Note DHK said any virgin would do so Mary was definately arbitrary. The jury's out on Solomon because of his sinful choices however which way things go for him burning or heaven God still made the choice.

So you think God had absolutely no reason for choosing Paul to be His vessel to carry the gospel far unto the Gentiles? Really?

You remember the old Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the others?" Well, let's apply that to the apostles. All of the apostles were Gallileans who were ignorant by the standards of the Jewish religious leaders but one. None of them had been given a top flight Jewish education. None of them had studied Greek philosophy and Greek and Roman religion but one. It's pretty simple to figure out why the one highly educated man He called to be an apostle was the specially chosen vessel to take the gospel far unto the Gentiles - because of his education. Paul specifically stated that he didn't need his education to preach the gospel and intentionally did not use words of man's wisdom. But he did need his education to be able to understand how to argue against the pagan religions and the ungodly philosophies of the Gentiles he was chosen to preach to and convert. God wasn't arbitrary in choosing Paul. God had a very good reason. God doesn't act in an arbitrary manner and never has.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I said exactly the opposite of your point #5. The Bible clearly says that Christ died for all. The effects of His atonement, however, will apply only to those who are among the elect.

You may not have said it but RAdam certainly did. And based on his points of election I find God's character comes into question. You and I agree that God Loves the entire world and "theoretically" if the whole world assented to his salvation it would be saved. However, this is not what RAdam proposed. He specifically said that God did not come to save the world but only the elect and Jesus sacrifice could not "theorectically" save the whole world if it chose to believe in God because his sacrifice is limited only to the elect.

First, why do you hate and rebel against God? You seem to fight against our Lord at every turn. As one who is "in Christ" I ask you to search yourself to discover why you wish to elevate your humanity above our great and glorious God; and ask why you attribute evil to our God. Is God "arbitrary" or is that an aspect of your rebellion against the King of all kings?

I'm sorry I laughed out loud. I'm not rebelling against God! I'm discenting with this view of election. To equate your particular Brand of Election with God is saying that you're view is God's and it may not be so. I'm sorry you are probably a great person but you aren't God.

Second, You have set up a strawman, and are attacking something that is not true.

How so? I've based the points I made as RAdam explained them. Take it up with him.

You are also missing a huge point that Dr. Walter brought out very nicely and which I have been saying all along -- we humans are culpable for our sin.

I never said otherwize. However, I also suggested that God has a responsibility to his creation. This view of Election denies that aspect.

In other words, we did it, we pay -- period.

Not all of us did it! And you miss Dr. Walters Point he sees all man as Adam thus we made the choice he did because he did it. However, I suggest that unborn babies have not willingly disobeyed God. Yet from Walter's view they are just as guilty because of birth. Thus they are elected for torment.

We dare not pin that evil on God.

I don't. I'm saying this view of election ultimately does.

For the greatest possible Good, God chose (yes, He can exercise His will and the Bible says that He did so before time began)

Scripture verse please. How do you know with this version of election that it was for the greatest possible good? Its certainly based on God's good pleasure which is arbitrary.

to allow His creation to have a limited exercise of their wills, they being created in His image.

In this view of election there is no excersice of their wills. You and I may believe it but not as RAdam proposed it.

That exercise -- before the fall -- was whether to obey God or not -- at that point we were not slaves of God or sin. After the fall, our limits of free exercise of our will is radically curtailed.

Do we have the propensity for sinful decision or the inevitability?

Also, see my post on human logic above.

Irrelevant.

 

[Matt Black]

How does TULIP attribute evil to God? I'd like to find this out.

Because, if I understand TULIP correctly, TULIP says - and you can't get away from this, however you slice it or dice it or whatever form of logical and mental gymnastics you care to essay - that God creates some people for the purpose of destruction and eternal damnation. Such an act would be evil; therefore TULIP must be heretical.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you think God had absolutely no reason for choosing Paul to be His vessel to carry the gospel far unto the Gentiles? Really?

No. Election suggested that God chose Paul based on his will which is based arbitrarily on his good pleasure. It could have been very easily another pharisee in training that God chose.

You remember the old Sesame Street "one of these things is not like the others?" Well, let's apply that to the apostles. All of the apostles were Gallileans who were ignorant by the standards of the Jewish religious leaders but one. None of them had been given a top flight Jewish education. None of them had studied Greek philosophy and Greek and Roman religion but one. It's pretty simple to figure out why the one highly educated man He called to be an apostle was the specially chosen vessel to take the gospel far unto the Gentiles - because of his education.

First of all how many educated people statistically existed at that time? Compared to the non educated. Simple math provides that a random sampling would have selected more uneducated people that educated people. It also didn't have to be Paul it could have been Gamaliel. It could have been Hillel. It could have been many others but Paul was chosen and a strange choice to since he was primarily from Turkey rather than Judea. And he was a low level Pharisee.

Paul specifically stated that he didn't need his education to preach the gospel and intentionally did not use words of man's wisdom.

How much education do you really need to preach a gospel that says "God chose you but not you"? None I would gather.

But he did need his education to be able to understand how to argue against the pagan religions and the ungodly philosophies of the Gentiles he was chosen to preach to and convert.

He didn't need anything of the sort. God's election is such that all Paul needed to do was tell someone the Gospel message and irresistable grace kicks in to the hearers and they will accept God. No need for arguing.

God wasn't arbitrary in choosing Paul.

According to this view of election he certainly was.

God had a very good reason.

Yes because he wanted to it was his will after all.

God doesn't act in an arbitrary manner and never has.

You still haven't proved this point in your view of election.

 

[RAdam]

You can come to no other conclusion with this view of election. In it we are told
1) God Elected those who would be saved from before the creation
2) God does not decide on who is elected based on any Merit or Character attribute the chosen person has
3)God has chosen these people according to his will.
4) God's will is determined by his good pleasure.
5) God is also said not to have provided Salvation for the whole world but that Jesus only died for the elect.

Therefore certain things follow from this progression.
1) by electing those to be saved God necissarily chose not to elect those who are not saved. Knowing (omniscient) his wrath would be satiated in condemning the world God knowingly created men to be destroyed knowing he did not elect them. Thus the majority of humanity was created for one purpose - condemnation and destruction in hell.
2)and 3) Since there is no litmus test that God uses to determine the those he choose apart from his good pleasure we note that the selection process is arbitrary. Because if God elected those who would choose him that places a merit on the individual because God Foreknew those who would choose him. So then it the human ability to choose correctly that saves him which places the human in a merited catagory. If God chose people he knew would have a character of righteousness and intuitive sense of justice God is choosing based on how he created the person or the character of that person and election is then based on the persons character. But we have been told this is not the case. thus the dicision is an arbitrary one.
4) His good pleasure does no more to detract from the abritary sence. God felt like saving so and so.
5)The scripture text "for God so love the world" must not be taken literally. Because it means that "God loved certain selected people from all over the world" Thus those not selected God necissarily Hates as is Shown in Genesis by the Jacob and Essau story. "Jacob he loved and Essau He hated".

This it goes to the very question of God's character.

I have a few questions for you based on your conclusions and I would really like to actually address them instead of regurgitating the same weak, tired, bad points over and over again. I know you cannot really answer the questions I'm going to ask, but I'd like to see you actually try.

- Why did God not save the Egyptians? Why did He bring a plague on them that would kill all of their firstborn and not rather save them from this plague?

- Why did God save the Israelites when they had already proved to be disobedient and He surely knew of their later disobedience?

- Why did God save the Israelites while leaving the Egyptians to their fate?

- Why did God provide the way through which the Israelites were to be delivered, the passover lamb, yet never told the Egyptians about it or provide them any blood of a passover lamb?

- Why did God want the Israelites to memorialize the day they were delivered seeing He chose to deliver them but chose not to deliver the Egyptians?

- Was God unfair for doing all of this? Is it against His character to provide a way of salvation to one person, or family, or nation and not to another? Is God evil for passing over one house and leaving the next house open to the plague that killed the firstborn? Shouldn't God have been required to provide a way of salvation to everyone in Egypt in like manner as He did for Israel? Why did God send Moses to Egypt if He knew the outcome would be that all the firstborn in that country would die? Better yet, why did He create the firstborn if He knew they would die in this manner?

The final set of questions can be answered by Paul: "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

 

[Amy.G]

- Why did God not save the Egyptians? Why did He bring a plague on them that would kill all of their firstborn and not rather save them from this plague?

Because they rejected God and continued in their worship of idols.
They had 400 years of witness through the Hebrews. They were not ignorant of the God of the Hebrews.

- Why did God save the Israelites when they had already proved to be disobedient and He surely knew of their later disobedience?

There has always been an obedient remnant. This is proven by the fact that many did believe God and painted their doorposts with the blood of the lamb.

- Why did God save the Israelites while leaving the Egyptians to their fate?

The Israelites believed God. The Egyptians did not.

- Why did God provide the way through which the Israelites were to be delivered, the passover lamb, yet never told the Egyptians about it or provide them any blood of a passover lamb?

We don't know that the Egyptians didn't know of it, but at that point they had been given 400 years to believe in the only true God and they would not. God judged them.

- Why did God want the Israelites to memorialize the day they were delivered seeing He chose to deliver them but chose not to deliver the Egyptians?

As a reminder of God's mercy and grace and so they would know the Christ when He came to redeem them once and for all.

- Was God unfair for doing all of this? Is it against His character to provide a way of salvation to one person, or family, or nation and not to another? Is God evil for passing over one house and leaving the next house open to the plague that killed the firstborn? Shouldn't God have been required to provide a way of salvation to everyone in Egypt in like manner as He did for Israel? Why did God send Moses to Egypt if He knew the outcome would be that all the firstborn in that country would die? Better yet, why did He create the firstborn if He knew they would die in this manner?

Any person or nation has always been invited by God to trust in and worship Him alone. Remember Ninevah? But God will judge and punish all those who reject Him.

As I said, Egypt had the witness of the Hebrews for 400 years and without a doubt knew of God. They could have received Him as their God at any time. Just as Ruth did when she told Naomi "your God will be my God".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have a few questions for you based on your conclusions and I would really like to actually address them instead of regurgitating the same weak, tired, bad points over and over again. I know you cannot really answer the questions I'm going to ask, but I'd like to see you actually try.

You can insult me all you want. The fact is you can't get past the logic of your soteriology which places God with Character flaws. How do you want me to answer these questions? Based on my opinion or based upon your view of election? On your view of election

- Why did God not save the Egyptians? Why did He bring a plague on them that would kill all of their firstborn and not rather save them from this plague?

The answer is becuase he wanted to. On my view God did save Egyptians who followed Moses out. The other Egyptians stood arrayed against God and his salvation and were in a confrontational position with God. They did not follow their God given conscience but worked contrary to it enslaving the Hebrews and rejecting God.

- Why did God save the Israelites when they had already proved to be disobedient and He surely knew of their later disobedience?

Based on your view. Because he wanted to. On my view God had made a covenant with them and intended on fulfilling his obligation to it. Which also shows his character of long suffering and love. He also intended for Jesus to come through this covenant people.

- Why did God save the Israelites while leaving the Egyptians to their fate?

According to your view because he arbitrarly caused it based on his will or his good pleasure. According to my view, God was keeping his promise to Abraham and the Egyptians who did not follow Abraham were arrayed against God despite all the evidences and proofs he gave them.

- Why did God provide the way through which the Israelites were to be delivered, the passover lamb, yet never told the Egyptians about it or provide them any blood of a passover lamb?

According to you God was showing their elect and future elect a foreshadowing of their true salvation. Everyone else was confused. and God did want the egyptians because he already chose against them long before they were created. according to my view God was not only delivering the Israelites but foreshadowing Christ. The Egyptians who listened to moses were saved from that fate and the ones that didn't arrayed themself against God.

- Why did God want the Israelites to memorialize the day they were delivered seeing He chose to deliver them but chose not to deliver the Egyptians?

YOur version he wanted them to know they were specially elect and the Egyptians were not. According to my view He wanted them to understand simple salvation consepts with Christ, to teach their children how mighty God was in saving them so that people upon hearing the tale would turn to God for salvation.

- Was God unfair for doing all of this?

According to you. No because you can't question the creator. According to me. No because Egyptians were saved and those who chose against God had the same opportunity and chose against God.

Is it against His character to provide a way of salvation to one person, or family, or nation and not to another?

Yes. God provides salvation to everyone who will take the gift. Those who don't take the gift continue in their condmenation.

Is God evil for passing over one house and leaving the next house open to the plague that killed the firstborn?

No because Egyptians could have done it as well. God didn't tell Moses to keep it secret. So if they chose not to believe Moses or copy the Israelites they suffered loss. Also note

38 Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.

Shouldn't God have been required to provide a way of salvation to everyone in Egypt in like manner as He did for Israel?

I just showed you many other people went with them not just Israelites decended from Abraham.

The final set of questions can be answered by Paul: "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

Again you proved my point of arbitrary selection for the elect.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You can insult me all you want. The fact is you can't get past the logic of your soteriology which places God with Character flaws.

TS: You are turning into a lunatic here by even the mere suggestion.....I hope you are aware of that!

Bottom line this whole OP (which by the way is self gratifying to you) is that God is Sovereign....over you, over nature over everything. See this is something your natural mind cant grasp so you like to play with it. As a friend I advise you to stop.

 

[RAdam]

The Egyptians didn't refuse God and His salvation. God never offered them the salvation He brought to Israel. Pharoah was the one who stood up against God.

Here's what God said: "And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts."

Pharaoh was the one who defied God. The "firstborn of the maidservant" had no say. That firstborn was never approached by Moses. That firstborn was never told about a way out of the coming judgement. Yet, that firstborn died all the same. All the firstborn in the land of Egypt died, whether or not they had anything to do with Pharaoh's refusal to let the children of Israel go and God never gave them a hint of using a passover lamb to save themselves.

God also said this: "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."

God said all the firstborn of the Egyptians would die, but none of the children of Israel would. Then He said this would be done to show that He put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. God had put a difference between them. It didn't have anything to do with their obedience or disobedience because Israel had its share of disobedient people. Rather, it had to do with God's choice. He chose to spare the Israelites but not the Egyptians, even leaving the firstborn of the maidservant, who had no voice and no choice, to die. You are going to have a problem with this unless you understand and believe in the sovereignty of God.

You bring up God's covenant with Abraham. We're right back at the question of why did God choose Abraham out of all those living in Ur and why did He not choose anyone else?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS: You are turning into a lunatic here by even the mere suggestion.....I hope you are aware of that!

Bottom line this whole OP (which by the way is self gratifying to you) is that God is Sovereign....over you, over nature over everything. See this is something your natural mind cant grasp so you like to play with it. As a friend I advise you to stop.

I don't have a problem with God's soveriegnty over my person. Or that he is beyond me. Or that I can't grasp certain things. I however reject the notion that God did not come to save only a few. But I believe salvation was the means for the whole world. And thus Theoretically if the whole world availed themselves of Grace it would be extended to them. However, the whole world does not avail themselves of it. I believe there is a mystery with regard to the Elect. I reject the idea of Total depravity because it leaves out a simple view that Man was made in Gods image and no matter what has occured that image isn't done away with. For this very reason sinful man can do good things. There are particular aspects that I am at issue with which is why I bring up this post and clearified that as Election has been presented thus far it becomes problematic.
Certainly, I tease people and cause a rucous however the OP is about what people really believe one needs to be saved and so far we have everything from Just faith to Faith+right belief or Faith+special election and so it goes. However, I'm glad you are conserned for me as a friend which you are. But can't we flush out these things? I believe these additives to election cause a soterilogical problem of God's Character which is why I brought it up. How is that insane?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Egyptians didn't refuse God and His salvation. God never offered them the salvation He brought to Israel. Pharoah was the one who stood up against God.

They rejected him first by worshiping idols. They rejected him by not letting the Hebrews go. Remember some Egyptians left with the Hebrews and others. Also why did God make a nation of Israel for? But to be a preisthood to the nations. They failed God at that. Pharaoh Could have obeyed God and not lost his son. But instead he hardened his heart.

Here's what God said: "And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts."

And your point is?

Pharaoh was the one who defied God. The "firstborn of the maidservant" had no say. That firstborn was never approached by Moses. That firstborn was never told about a way out of the coming judgement. Yet, that firstborn died all the same. All the firstborn in the land of Egypt died, whether or not they had anything to do with Pharaoh's refusal to let the children of Israel go and God never gave them a hint of using a passover lamb to save themselves.

irrelevant the community was at odds with God and God was fulfilling his promise to abraham.

God also said this: "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel."

Yes this theme come up time and again through out the bible. In the NT its the natural man vs the spiritual man. God's will and the worlds way. At this point in God's revelation to man Egypt is representative of the worlds way. Its not necissarily speaking of every individual Egyptian but of the Egyptian way and god's way.

God said all the firstborn of the Egyptians would die, but none of the children of Israel would. Then He said this would be done to show that He put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. God had put a difference between them. It didn't have anything to do with their obedience or disobedience because Israel had its share of disobedient people. Rather, it had to do with God's choice. He chose to spare the Israelites but not the Egyptians, even leaving the firstborn of the maidservant, who had no voice and no choice, to die. You are going to have a problem with this unless you understand and believe in the sovereignty of God.

No. Not entirely correct. Not one Egyptian would have lost a child had the Hebrews been let go. Egypt as a community and a nation stood against the will of God.

You bring up God's covenant with Abraham. We're right back at the question of why did God choose Abraham out of all those living in Ur and why did He not choose anyone else?

Abraham believed God and it was accorded to him as righteousness. Plus God had a salvific Plan and chose abraham for that very reason to created a preisthood community in which would come the promised messiah.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Like Job my friend, Id advise you take that up with God. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Our danger is to put a limit upon the power of God.

He is God & we are not.

 

[webdog]

Like Job my friend, Id advise you take that up with God. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Our danger is to put a limit upon the power of God.

He is God & we are not.

I think it would do you much good to remember that yourself, as your understanding of "sovereign" is quite lacking.

 

[RAdam]

I fail to see how the firstborn of the maidservant whom God said would die in this plague stood against God. Did that firstborn refuse to let Israel go? Nope, Pharaoh did.

I love your point of idolatry. Excellent. They had already rejected God. So God never sent salvation to people who practiced idolatry? Got it. Wait a minute, the Gentiles Paul preached to were practicing idolatry. Oops.

So you admit God chose Abraham out of all of Ur. That's a good start. Why didn't He choose someone else? Don't know do you? I don't either, except God chose to do it His way. Abraham wasn't justified by faith for another few years after God called him out of Ur.

You say God created a priesthood community from which would spring Christ. Problem is, Christ didn't come from the priesthood God created in Abraham. Christ sprang from Judah, of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisadec, to whom Abraham (and Levi) payed tithes.

 

[RAdam]

I think it would do you much good to remember that yourself, as your understanding of "sovereign" is quite lacking.

Your understanding of sheep is quite lacking.

 

[webdog]

Your understanding of sheep is quite lacking.

I know...it's pride that makes us want to believe we have supplanted God's chosen people and not been grafted in alongside them.