What purpose does election and predestination serve?

[reformedbeliever]

God will show mercy to whom He will show mercy to and He has decided to show mercy to believers.

It is God who limited Himself to mans decision. So if we walk away from Jesus we cannot blame God, because He does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. So all we can do is blame ourselves for walking away.

God will use the wicked for His purpose, but even they have a hope through Jesus.

Through Jesus God has opened the door to the world and made us the messenger of it.

God has set all the rules and regulation aside and gave us a better hope to draw near to God through Jesus.

Man from the beginning have been wanting to blame God, but it is your own fault. Because you have the same hope as I do.

Jesus is your only hope.

I hardly respond to you anymore sir/maam. You do not address scripture when you are debated.... instead you simply post more scripture without expounding upon it. One can not debate with such a lack of response.

I will say this. You are the one who limits, or should I say, trys to limit God. God is limited by nothing but His nature.

 

[psalms109:31]

Exponding

I cannot live by pieces of scripture that man decide I should be feed, but live on ever word that come from the mouth of God.


It was not man's decision or thier will that believers be saved, but God's will and discision.

We have a hope for the world that some by thier own will decided to take from them.

God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, even if men do not want to believe God or not.

I see scripture through a different eye, because I still believe in the core of my belief. That God loved the world that He sent His Son and whosoever believes in Him shall be saved.

That is the scripture that God the Father used to draw me to His Son and I will not go against what God has convinced me of in my youth.

 

[J.D.]

If God knows that I'm going to have a flat tire tomorrow, and He knows it because he foresees it, then it's "destined" to happen, is it not? Is there any thing I can do to prevent it from happening?

So let's say it's destined. What does predestined mean then? Doesn't predestination indicate the determination of a person? Namely, God? Isn't that the key difference between something being "destined" and something being "predestined"?

If God is a mere observer of history, then the Diests are right. God has no control over the universe. He's just watching it happen. Our end is determined by the impersonal force of time, for it is time that is in control, and God is just observing it.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that even the Arminian view of foreknowledge necessitates the fixation of all the events of time - includingthe salvation of souls and the propigation of the Gospel. But the unintended consequence of this view is that God becomes the impersonal force of the Diest. And His sovereignty over time and man is surrendered, either voluntarily or involuntarily, but either way, He winds up stripped of His sovereignty.

The only way you can have the events of time fixated, which it is, and yet have a personal God in direct control, is to have a God who predestines the events of time and man.

In the arminian view of foreknowledge, election and predestination are meaningless words.

 

[psalms109:31]

God in control

When I see the work of God I see it through Jonah and the fish.

God never forced His will on Jonah, but put obsticle's in the way to lead him in the direction He wanted him to go.

If we continue to go in the direction we want to go, we will perish.

 

[Jarthur001]

When I see the work of God I see it through Jonah and the fish.

God never forced His will on Jonah, but put obsticle's in the way to lead him in the direction He wanted him to go.

If we continue to go in the direction we want to go, we will perish.

And what do you think he does to us? How about..."put obsticle's in the way to lead US in the direction He wanted US to go."

Or...blind us...or send a car weak. Others He say...I gave them up. But to us...He chases down.

 

[psalms109:31]

Story

After 20 years a wife told her husband while they were in car together said we use to set right next to each real close. Why don't we do that any more.

The man simple says' "I never moved."

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

You really think He chases after you, but the truth of the matter the more closer we get to Him, the closer He gets to us.

John was the disciple whom Jesus loved, why because He was the one disciple who got the closest to Jesus.

When we hear the message, what we do is up to us.

 

[reformedbeliever]

After 20 years a wife told her husband while they were in car together said we use to set right next to each real close. Why don't we do that any more.

The man simple says' "I never moved."

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

You really think He chases after you, but the truth of the matter the more closer we get to Him, the closer He gets to us.

John was the disciple whom Jesus loved, why because He was the one disciple who got the closest to Jesus.

When we hear the message, what we do is up to us.

God wants all sorts of men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

If you look at 1 Tim 6:10, in the KJV it says the love of money is the root of all evil. The same word used in 1 Tim 2:4 for all (pas) is also translated all sorts of. We know that the love of money is not the root of all evil, but all sorts of.

I really doubt you will address this. You seem to like to use your pet verses out of context, and to not expound upon what the verses you use mean.

 

[psalms109:31]

slight of hand

You want people to look here instead of the truth found in the scripture.

Jesus was sent into the world not to condemn it but to save it.

What you are saying to me is did God really mean that you shall surely die.

 

[reformedbeliever]

You want people to look here instead of the truth found in the scripture.

Jesus was sent into the world not to condemn it but to save it.

What you are saying to me is did God really mean that you shall surely die.

No that is not what I'm saying to you. I did not say that at all, and I can't for the life of me get where you arrived at that.

The thing I did know for sure is that you would not deal with the text.

 

[psalms109:31]

God

God is not a deceiver as satan is.

What He says is the truth, but those who do not want to believe the word of God will find a way around the truth.

God is not going to tell me that He loved the world(me) that He sent His Son that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved and in my maturing say I decieved you, really I didn't mean that I meant this.

 

[reformedbeliever]

God is not a deceiver as satan is.

What He says is the truth, but those who do not want to believe the word of God will find a way around the truth.

God is not going to tell me that He loved the world(me) that He sent His Son that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved and in my maturing say I decieved you, really I didn't mean that I meant this.

Psalms....... you have on more than one occasion implied that what I believe is not the truth, or that I am as satan, a deciever. You have implied that I do not want to believe the truth, and have implied that I am lost. I will not deal with you anymore sir/maam. Instead of dealing with the text, you resort to personal attacks or just post scripture without expounding upon it. If there is an ignore feature on this bb..... you will be on my list.

 

[skypair]

Indeed. God chose for salvation/sanctification/and belief.
You are also right that a person cannot be sanctified unless they believe. And...by the same logic, one cannot believe unless they are chosen. How am I doing so far?

Note: the text does not say they were chosen to salvation. It says they were chosen through sanctification (the indwelling Holy Spirit) and belief (the part man must play in salvation). Now guess which of those comes first.

Not really. It was [they were chosen] FOR the reason to believe. right? I mean..that is what the verse says....if you do not read it backwards.

See, I don't get that. You're saying that God makes them believe then, right? Why not just make everyone believe?? Does it "please" God to condemn most to hell?? Is He that unloving??

Indeed...it is a nation. (Rom 11) It deals with CHOSING a nation. God says he choses so they WILL believe. Is that what it says? Is this the nature of God? Am I changing the Bible? I'm I sticking with the Bible on this?

The underlined is all I need to hear. You cant make application to individual salvation for this very reason. God now choses EVERYONE to believe as my quotation of Ray Stedman shows.

Indeed....And it also says WHY they don't believe. They do not believe because they do not hear/understand. right?

Not what I read. In Rom 11:6, 8, I am reading that individuals were not prevented from hearing -- it was the nation as a whole, as a religion, mostly on account of their leaders. See, this is why national applications should not be used on individdual cases.

How did he Know? God decreed it!!! Does not the potter have the power over the clay?

The potter has power over the clay -- He has power over everything! Heard John Mac commenting on this the other day. God is all powerful -- and (agreed) He could do anything He wanted to do. The issue with Calvinism is whether He uses His power to do all those things Calvinists say He could do! The answer to that would be NO -- else, since He "wills" it, all should be saved and not perish.

Basically, James, there are 2 things that hinder -- even blind -- Calvinists: 1) dispensationalism (they don't understand there's more than one covenant or don't acknowledge it) and 2) God's sovereignty. I know -- that latter is quite an accusation upon Calvinism. It's just that God's sovereignty isn't threatened in the least by Him letting us have individual sovereignty like He Himself has.

skypair

 

[russell55]

russell55, I don't see that as a thought or a plan. The Text puts it out there as "this happened", not "it will happen". If anything the wording is past tense.

Actually, I think the text puts the "before the foundation of the world" with the "written in the Lamb's book of life" part of the verse. (I don't have the actual text before me, so my quotes aren't word for word.) It doesn't anywhere, say that Christ was actually physically slain "before the foundation of the world." That would be impossible, because Christ was crucified in a certain time and place within creation. Christ was ordained or foreknown to be the redeemer before the foundation of the world, and that took place outside of time and creation in the thoughts and plan of God.

 

[skypair]

reformbeliever,

Sorry, I though it was your only point. Here's what I was asking for scripture on ---

Skypair, you have God learning what man would do in order to predestine/elect him.

God has nothing to learn. He is all knowing.

We know for a fact that at this time, God doesn't need to learn anything more. But did He ever have to? Think about it -- though God is eternal, was creation eternal? Do you think it was "intelligently designed?" With beginning and end?? So God, Who had no beginning, had no need to learn in order to create?

Think about this --- was Lucifer a "learning experience" for God?? Or did God create the sin of Lucifer and make Lucifer fall for grins (or as you would say, "Because it pleased Him")?? Did God have to think about how He would display His glory to all creation??

See, I believe Calvinists are stuck in a time warp of sorts. They can acknowledge what is true now but the cannot go backwards and consider that maybe God had another plan for Israel, for the angels and demons, etc. that was different.

Example: Israel wasn't indwelt like we are. But your "One Covenant Theology" assumes they were.

Anyway, see if you can answer my questions and come up with that scripture that says that God never learns anything -- cause His "repenting" of creating man prior to the flood is just one example where He appears to have learned something and regretted something.

skypair

 

[skypair]

reformbeliever,

Sorry, I though it was your only point. Here's what I was asking for scripture on ---

Skypair, you have God learning what man would do in order to predestine/elect him.

God has nothing to learn. He is all knowing.

We know for a fact that at this time, God doesn't need to learn anything more. But did He ever have to? Think about it -- though God is eternal, was creation eternal? Do you think it was "intelligently designed?" With beginning and end?? So God, Who had no beginning, had no need to learn in order to create?

Think about this --- was Lucifer a "learning experience" for God?? Or did God create the sin of Lucifer and make Lucifer fall for grins (or as you would say, "Because it pleased Him")?? Did God have to think about how He would display His glory to all creation??

See, I believe Calvinists are stuck in a time warp of sorts. They can acknowledge what is true now but the cannot go backwards and consider that maybe God had another plan for Israel, for the angels and demons, etc. that was different.

Example: Israel wasn't indwelt like we are. But your "One Covenant Theology" assumes they were.

Anyway, see if you can answer my questions and come up with that scripture that says that God never learns anything -- cause His "repenting" of creating man prior to the flood is just one example where He appears to have learned something and regretted something.

He raised up Pharaoh for the express purpose of demonstrating His power and might.

That's what He said He did, isn't it. But suppose Pharoah had complied with God's will. Wouldn't that also have demonstrated God's power and might?

Do you think that Joseph's brothers could have chosen to do differently that what God had planned?

Do you really think God is so weak that He is forming His plan around the decisions of man?

What God planned? See, I take exception to that on account of what Joseph told them later -- "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good." What role would what they meant have to play if it was God that did it?? Was it God's plan to kill Joseph, for instance? Was it God or Rueben that intervened to spare Joseph's life? Suppose they had never thought to kill Joseph -- mightn't there have been some other occasion for them to sell him to a caravan?

skypair


skypair

 

[skypair]

:thumbsup:
I asked my pastor (who's a calvinist) this same thing after he stated in a sermon God "orders" every event in history. I know what he meant, but when asked I got the "God allows" response which totally contradicts "ordering".
This is the one thing that a calvinist can not get around. If God has "ordered" EVERY SINGLE event for every man...He would be the author of sin.

Web, you're absolutely right!

And it is all bound up in this "sovereignty" issue. Calvinists believe that because God has the power, He will force every situation to happen the way He wants it to. They want to give the glory to God but they don't realize that God isn't glorified by what God makes us do but by what we do on account of love for Him.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

You got that right skypair!

 

[russell55]

:thumbsup:
I asked my pastor (who's a calvinist) this same thing after he stated in a sermon God "orders" every event in history. I know what he meant, but when asked I got the "God allows" response which totally contradicts "ordering".
This is the one thing that a calvinist can not get around. If God has "ordered" EVERY SINGLE event for every man...He would be the author of sin.

You know, I've never seen anyone who makes the "author of sin" objection define what it means to be the author of sin. The phrase is thrown around, but it's never defined.

Traditionally, the Calvinist defines it to mean "the doer (or agent) of an evil action." That's why the Calvinist says that God is not the author of sin, because they believe that although God orders all things, he brings about some things (like the evil acts of men) by way of his permission, and not his agency. That means that as the phrase is understood by them, God is not the author of sin in the Calvinist system.

Of course, if you define that term differently to mean the one who orders an event within history, or the one who plans for something to occur, then by your own personal redefining of the terms, you may be able to label God the author of sin. But the all you've done is use a different definition of the term, not engage in a meaningful discussion of ideas.

 

[russell55]

I challenge any of you who make the "author of sin" definition to define precisely what you mean by it. That would be very helpful.

 

[skypair]

If God knows that I'm going to have a flat tire tomorrow, and He knows it because he foresees it, then it's "destined" to happen, is it not? Is there any thing I can do to prevent it from happening?

So let's say it's destined. What does predestined mean then? Doesn't predestination indicate the determination of a person? Namely, God? Isn't that the key difference between something being "destined" and something being "predestined"?

If God is a mere observer of history, then the Diests are right. God has no control over the universe. He's just watching it happen. Our end is determined by the impersonal force of time, for it is time that is in control, and God is just observing it.

What I'm trying to get you to see is that even the Arminian view of foreknowledge necessitates the fixation of all the events of time - includingthe salvation of souls and the propigation of the Gospel. But the unintended consequence of this view is that God becomes the impersonal force of the Diest. And His sovereignty over time and man is surrendered, either voluntarily or involuntarily, but either way, He winds up stripped of His sovereignty.

The only way you can have the events of time fixated, which it is, and yet have a personal God in direct control, is to have a God who predestines the events of time and man.

In the arminian view of foreknowledge, election and predestination are meaningless words.

J.D. I can absolutely see your POV here. There is only one problem with it. Yes, God foresees everything -- your flat tire tomorrow included. But here's the thing -- all those things are "out of God's hands" for the unbeliever. But all of those things have been "foreordained" to the blessing of the believer. Why? Because God has some control regarding events and outcomes for the believer!

It IS a mix of God being "hands off" where unbelievers are concerned -- their events and outcomes (mostly sin) results in self-inflicted wrath of God!

But being as how God "predestines" those whom He foreknows as believers, God can control where they go, what they do, how they react, right? Just like Joseph. Yes, God foreknew everything and "set it in concrete" -- ordained it -- from before creation. Only thing is, God CAN control -- predestine -- what will happen and what He can do with the "elect." And we have a clue on that one too -- He "conforms them to the image of His Son" and to fulfill His purposes.

Example: God takes the church out because otherwise AC could not appear! God doesn't control AC -- He controls His church. When AC comes to power, God's plan works out naturally through the working of His law!

skypair