Why...

[MB]

Pinoybaptist;

God does not elect, and predestinate, and ordain people unto salvation, in other words, if God Himself does not step in to save some, and all that is needed is His mercy, then He will have to show mercy on everyone of His creation.

Certainly He does elect, predestinate, ordain things and people to be but this doesn't eliminate the fact that He can show mercy to anyone He wants to. He is God. He isn't limited to only saving those whom He elects.
Christ said;
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He doesn't say He will save the whole world but that the whole world does have that little word might it means possibility. We all have that same possibility.

Christ said;

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
Mar 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

We will most likely be surprized to see who gets into heaven. There is no one unsavable. Not even the vessles of wrath.
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This above says to me that even those who aren't chosen, who aren't His will someday be called the children of the living God.

 

[jonnycool]

Hello MB.

There is no one unsavable. Not even the vessles of wrath.

EPH 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

The choice must have been made in eternity, there was never a time that He did not love me or hate Esau. If there was a time that He loved Esau then this supposed love for Esau failed, to think the God of love can have His love fail is an abomination to me. The unsavable are so because God does not love them, (or His love has failed). That is, He chose not to love them from eternity. Love never fails. Love never fails. Love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8... Hear O Israel, God's love never fails! Have you noticed how we shout to the deaf and those that cannot speak English?

This above says to me that even those who aren't chosen, who aren't His will someday be called the children of the living God.

A bit of logic would say, "Even those who aren't chosen are and those who aren't His are, and those not called will be called the Children of God." Cool.

And it shall come to pass that He was found by those not seeking Him, of which, I am proud to say, I was one of.

(By the way, I am the famous johnp. undercover. I had a problem with changing my e-mail and re-enlisted.)


john.

 

[npetreley]

This above says to me that even those who aren't chosen, who aren't His will someday be called the children of the living God.

I love this quote from A. W. Pink. I think it works so well in response to tons of the posts here on BB. Like the one I quoted above by MB.

The god of this century no more resembles the Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun . The god who is talked about in the average pulpit , spoken of in the ordinary Sunday school , mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day , and preached in most of the so-called Bible conferences , is a figment of human imagination , an invention of maudlin sentimentality . The heathen outside the pale of Christendom form gods of wood and stone , while millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a god out of their carnal minds . In reality , they are but atheists , for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God and no God at all . A god whose will is resisted , whose designs are frustrated , whose purpose is checkmated , possesses no title to diety and , far from being a fit object of worship , merits nothing but contempt .

 

[jonnycool]

In reality , they are but atheists , for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God and no God at all .

I was attending an housegroup at my first Church when I was given a chance to speak. As I was speaking the elder, he was in the housegroup, stopped me mid-sentence saying, "You are taking sovereignty too far."
A couple of seconds reflection followed and he continued, "No, of course not, you cannot take God's Sovereignty too far."

I was made up. Teaching the middle classes is something else. Free willers want to be sovereign, ok, it's cool, but God is The Sovereign of sovereigns, PR 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

john.

 

[Amy.G]

Are you trying to post incognito, John? What's up with the new user name?

 

[jonnycool]

Are you trying to post incognito, John? What's up with the new user name?

You wouldn't think so would you? jonnycool and john also gives it away doesn't it? It is Calvinistic humility AmyG. I thought my 3000 posts might intimidate a lesser mortal.

I tried to change my e-mail address on BB and I found that my new id would be sent to my old e-mail address which I no longer had and I became a bit confused with working out my new supplier's ways, and life, and the universe and everything, and the more important things. As usual I left off any decision making until it was too late to do anything else but what I did.

I am indebted to the BB for the oppotunity to continue to spout my stuff and I praise God for them.

Ok?

john.

 

[skypair]

Walt

Just to sum up what we said, we are "elect" according to

God foreknew us

We received the Holy Spirit indwelling

we come by the blood of Christ

Then we can truly be called "elect." We are "elect" according to those 3 things.

To me that shows salvation before election as Pastor Larry was looking for. Almost definitional, wouldn't you say?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

So you'd be saying you are ignoring "tasso?" Or that you prefer to be blind to it? You're not even going to do the word study you want me to do? What, Larry? Other places it means "determined" not predetermined.

No, I am encouraging you to not ignore Tasso and its use in Acts 13:48. You are supporting a conclusion, not exegeting the verse. I have done the word study. You have not.

And it has never been shown to be elected unto salvation, either.

yes it has (2 tim 2:10; 2 thess 2:13; Eph 1:4; etc.)

Actually, yesterday I went to Dave Hunt's work to answer you.

I recognized it. Hunt's "work" wasn't a "work" at all. That would not pass muster in any first year Bible college class. It is an embarrassment due to its errors and problems both in logic and argumentation and in substance. In short, it is a horrible book.

Please read this article and study it thoughtfully. It totally debunks Hunt's book and shows it for what it is. http://www.dbts.edu/journals/Hunt_Review.pdf

Your objection has nothing to do with my sloppy work and everything to do with my contrary proof.

As you will be able to tell, citing Hunt is the definition of sloppy work to the second degree. It was sloppy for you to cite him, and it was sloppy when he said it the first time. There is not contrary proof found there.

This article addresses Acts 13:48 on pp 10-11 and thoroughly refutes Hunt's argumentation by pointing out that Hunt was not correct; he was not even honest in his citations. The fact that you cited it proves that you have not actually studied it. No one, having studied the issue with any sobriety, would cite Hunt as an authority.

On Acts 13:48 alone, Hunt
1. miscites lexical data.
2. miscites grammatical distinctions in his comparison with Acts 15:2. (You fell prey to this, as I recall, by failing to study this issue.)
3. misquotes the text of Scripture.
4. distorts AT Robertson by making it appear that Robertson supports Hunt, when in fact, on pp. 200-201 of his book, Robertson expressly refutes Hunt's position.

These types of errors are found throughout the whole book. Seriously, SP, study this. Don't cite Hunt.

I am very sad for you because you can't answer the critical questions regarding Calvinism.

I am not aware of any critical questions I haven't answered. Perhaps you could bring some up. I have, to my knowledge, dealt with the questions fairly and honestly.

You didn't go to the passages I highlighted to refutation.

yes I did and have many times. In my more than 17,000 posts, these verses have been discussed ad nauseum.

You passed off Hunt's and other's critiques as if they weren't worth a closer look.

Having taken a closer look, I can tell you they aren't worth a closer look. But I don't ask you to take my word for it. I have provided a link with full documentation where you can see it for yourself.

Maybe we should at this point call you "Pharoah Larry."

Not sure why. That makes no sense.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just to sum up what we said, we are "elect" according to

God foreknew us

Which means that he chose us.

We received the Holy Spirit indwelling

This does not lead to election but comes from election (2 Thes 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2)

we come by the blood of Christ

This follows election (1 Peter 1:2). Just a simple knowledge of grammar, and the ability to read Scripture will show this.

To me that shows salvation before election as Pastor Larry was looking for. Almost definitional, wouldn't you say?

No, not at all. As you can see from reading the text, this does not show salvation before election. Election, according to Scripture, was from teh beginning, from before the foundation of the world. Now, unless you think you did something in eternity past, then your conclusion is completely flawed.

 

[skypair]

No, I am encouraging you to not ignore Tasso and its use in Acts 13:48. You are supporting a conclusion, not exegeting the verse. I have done the word study. You have not.

Sorry I am such a disappointment to you. I'm sorry that predestination to salvatin makes more sense to you than foreknowledge of salvation. How do you convince yourself that you are saved and not just deluded?

I recognized it. Hunt's "work" wasn't a "work" at all.

Well, it is what it is. Apparently LaHaye who did a front cover endorsement also lacks the "knowledge and faith of Christ" that anyone who disagrees with you does.

I am not aware of any critical questions I haven't answered. Perhaps you could bring some up. I have, to my knowledge, dealt with the questions fairly and honestly.

Let's go back to our foundation, Larry -- we agreed that we are saved, that we have "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3).

That is "one God" we decided to try to reconcile between us. But one of our God's is in error. One of us has that "measure of the gift of Christ" (Eph 4:7). Now that could still mean that one can be technically trained and still not have the "measure of the gift," does it not?

So I now ask you, who is your God? Does He "so love the WORLD?" Does He offer "everlasting life" to "WHOSOEVER believeth on Him?" Could I possibly, then, "believe" and God give me -- even me -- "faith" like you say you have?

All I am hearing from you is that such as God is a delusion of mine and of many others. Which God is the "one God" of our "unity of the Spirit," Larry? Is John 3:16 a lie in your eyes? "Exegete" it for us and show us your God in it, please.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Which [God foreknows us] means that he chose us.

Foreknow = chose. Is that from your "word study?"

And the construction of the verse is "Elect" as the "effect" and foreknowledge, sanctification of the Spirit (which means indwelling), and the blood are the causes. Where do you see that the Bible denies that the elect are foreknown, indwelt, and under the blood???

Surely you can see that you are not "elect" until you are actually saved in the course of time, can't you???? I mean -- you're NOBODY, a damnable beast, until you believe on Christ!! Yet Calvinists will talk like they evangelize to reach the "elect" when, indeed, no one is "elect" until they believe!!

skypair

 

[npetreley]

indeed, no one is "elect" until they believe!!

My Bible says they're elect before they obtain salvation.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

I'm sure you can twist this to say something other than what it obviously means, but that task should keep you busy for at least a little while.

 

[jonnycool]

Could I possibly, then, "believe" and God give me -- even me -- "faith" like you say you have?

God has mercy on those He chose to have mercy on and He hardens those He chose to harden.
RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Is John 3:16 a lie in your eyes?

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell if He loves them? When you can reconcile God's love with God's Hell then maybe you will have something skypair.

Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

You are wrong, election takes place before creation and those He chose He will glorify.

john.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Sorry I am such a disappointment to you.

You are not a disappointment to me. I certainly don’t care. My concern is not your personally. It is what you are doing to the integrity of Scripture. Your use of Scripture opens the door for anything since words no longer mean anythign intelligible.

I'm sorry that predestination to salvatin makes more sense to you than foreknowledge of salvation.

They both make sense to me. I don’t know why you think I have to pick one or the other.

How do you convince yourself that you are saved and not just deluded?

The ministry of the Spirit through the Word convinces me.

Well, it is what it is. Apparently LaHaye who did a front cover endorsement also lacks the "knowledge and faith of Christ" that anyone who disagrees with you does.

I didn’t see LaHaye’s endorsement but I don’t put much stock in him anyway. Again, I simply urge you to study. Did you read the review? Tell us where the review is incorrect.

So I now ask you, who is your God? Does He "so love the WORLD?" Does He offer "everlasting life" to "WHOSOEVER believeth on Him?" Could I possibly, then, "believe" and God give me -- even me -- "faith" like you say you have?

The God of the Bible. Yes, Yes, and yes.

All I am hearing from you is that such as God is a delusion of mine and of many others. Which God is the "one God" of our "unity of the Spirit," Larry? Is John 3:16 a lie in your eyes? "Exegete" it for us and show us your God in it, please.

I love John 3:16. I am not sure why you think I don’t. The God I know in Scripture is a God who loved the world and gave us only Son that whoever believes in him has everlasting life.

Foreknow = chose. Is that from your "word study?"

Yes. It is from the study of Scripture. I have given you several passages to demonstrate this and you have not addressed them. Rom 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 both use the word in a way that is impossible with your view. Romans 8:29 also refutes your view. Think about it: Those whom God foreknew are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. If you think that is simply knowing ahead of time, then you have universalism. Because God “foreknows” the unbelievers as well and all those foreknown are eventually glorified. So Rom 8:29 gives a clear refutation.

And the construction of the verse is "Elect" as the "effect" and foreknowledge, sanctification of the Spirit (which means indwelling), and the blood are the causes.

No it doesn’t.

Where do you see that the Bible denies that the elect are foreknown, indwelt, and under the blood???

I don’t see that in the Bible. The Elect are foreknown, indwelt, and under the blood because they are elect. That’s the point.

Surely you can see that you are not "elect" until you are actually saved in the course of time, can't you????

No. Eph 1:4 says that we are chosen from the foundation of the world. 2 thess 2:13 says we are chosen from the creation for salvation. There is no way to make that when you are “actually saved in the course of time.” These verses clearly refute you. 2 Tim 2:10 likewise shows that election precedes salvation.

I mean -- you're NOBODY, a damnable beast, until you believe on Christ!! Yet Calvinists will talk like they evangelize to reach the "elect" when, indeed, no one is "elect" until they believe!!

I have just given three references that refute you. That is three more than you have given that support you. Why? Do you really have no Scripture in support of you? Of course, we know you don’t. We have known that for a long time. The question is, Why don’t you know it?

 

[MB]

Hello MB.



EPH 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will-- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

The choice must have been made in eternity, there was never a time that He did not love me or hate Esau. If there was a time that He loved Esau then this supposed love for Esau failed, to think the God of love can have His love fail is an abomination to me. The unsavable are so because God does not love them, (or His love has failed). That is, He chose not to love them from eternity. Love never fails. Love never fails. Love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8... Hear O Israel, God's love never fails! Have you noticed how we shout to the deaf and those that cannot speak English?



A bit of logic would say, "Even those who aren't chosen are and those who aren't His are, and those not called will be called the Children of God." Cool.

I doubt God would tell us such a riddle in His own book.
The problem with the Logic of man is, it isn't as exact as the man himself would like to think. Logic is a science and while science has proved many things it itself has also been disproved many times. Certainly logic is not what I place my faith in. God is not logical to the scientific mind of man.

And it shall come to pass that He was found by those not seeking Him, of which, I am proud to say, I was one of.

(By the way, I am the famous johnp. undercover. I had a problem with changing my e-mail and re-enlisted.)


john.

No one seeks God with out being called. God found you as He did me but I sure seek His presence now.

 

[MB]

My Bible says they're elect before they obtain salvation.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

I'm sure you can twist this to say something other than what it obviously means, but that task should keep you busy for at least a little while.

Then you see things there no one else can see. The verse says what it says and it sure doesn't say what you claim. This verse is speaking of the elect Jews.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This verse is speaking of the elect Jews.

Which part of the verse is this found in?

 

[skypair]

I love John 3:16. I am not sure why you think I don’t. The God I know in Scripture is a God who loved the world and gave us only Son that whoever believes in him has everlasting life.

OK, Please exegete for us how Calvin says God loves the whole world but the "world" he talks about elsewhere is the "elect." And don't the 2, then, uses of "world" contradict each other and scripture?

Same for "whosoever." If you maintain "whosoever" really means anyone, then please explain why, when it appears elsewhere, Calvin says "whosoever" means "elect" again. And, in fact, if God can say whosoever here and you are cool with it, but then later, in practical terms, only certain whosoevers can receive eternal life, how do you not deny John 3:16??

Also there's the little thing about "believing" right here. It doesn't say that God beleives or God believes "for" anyone but that "whosoever believeth." Just as if Jesus does not already know the elect and that believers would come of their own volition.

See, elsewhere, Larry you have given me the impression of having another God than I but right here you seemingly fein agreement.

Romans 8:29 also refutes your view. Think about it: Those whom God foreknew are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. If you think that is simply knowing ahead of time, then you have universalism.

No, there's no universalism if you first realize that God is talking about only believers throughout this passage just like He talked about only the lost in Rom 1.

So just begin the litany foreknow, predestine, call, justify, glorify with the idea that these in 8:29-30 can only be believers and God CAN foreknow/foresee anything He wants to -- their "belief" in this case!

Because God “foreknows” the unbelievers as well and all those foreknown are eventually glorified. So Rom 8:29 gives a clear refutation.

God foreknows them, I will grant you. That He deals with them the same as He does the saved is what you want us to presume but 1) that is patently not true and 2) obviously not what this passage is teaching. You wanna know what He does to the unbelievers He foreknows, go the Rom 1.

I don’t see that in the Bible. The Elect are foreknown, indwelt, and under the blood because they are elect. That’s the point.

So that would make them foreknown, indwelt, and under the blood according to election. It just "flips" the cause and effect (puts the cart before the horse) to say that. I mean, it is what you believe but it is not what the verse says.

Point: Does it make ANY difference to you which side of "according to" that each of these elements appears? Would it be OK to say (which I think Calvinists do) that one is under the blood according to election, foreknowledge, and indwelling?" That's as if to say they are saved because they are elect, foreknown, and indwelt. Where is belief in the blood of Jesus in that formulation??? According to your formulation, belief is not even required!

No. Eph 1:4 says that we are chosen from the foundation of the world. 2 thess 2:13 says we are chosen from the creation for salvation. There is no way to make that when you are “actually saved in the course of time.”

That, my friend, is the exact definition of fatalism -- everything on earth just mirrors the "fates" that have already been decided. See, free will sees the foreknowledge as foreseeing because it is our decision to believe. Calvinism sees foreknowledge as predestination because it is God's decision for us to believe and "He alone is sovereign". Therefore, it is easy to see that Calvinism imposed their meaning on a term that usually means simply foresee. It's a very good deception especially when one considers that scripture confirms itself only 2 words later! :laugh: "For whom He did predestinate, He did predestinate..." To most literalists, that would seem to be an "ironclad case!"

These verses clearly refute you. 2 Tim 2:10 likewise shows that election precedes salvation.

You missed something. Paul speaks of Israel, the Jews, as "God's elect." When he says here he suffers for the "elect's sake," he is referring to Israel, not to anonymous unbelievers who have yet to be recognized. I'm not sure why you don't know this but look at Rom 9-11 and see for yourself.

Why don’t you know [that no verse says election follows salvation]?

Well, I thought 1Pet 1:2 was pretty good but you shuffled the words around to mean something else (see above). I thought Rom 8:29 was pretty good but you parsed foreknow into something that disallows God to foresee who would believe and for the very reason that THEY chose, be "elect"/predestinated/foreordained by God.

Would you take the example of Israel? That God saved them out of Egypt and ever after (starting in Isaiah) refers to them as "Mine elect" also?

Larry, can we not come to a most basic unity that we ought to have about to who God is??

skypair

 

[skypair]

God has mercy on those He chose to have mercy on and He hardens those He chose to harden.

First off, mercy is not getting what we do deserve. Grace is getting what we don't deserve. So right off the verse is not about salvation.

Why does God create those He knows are going to Hell if He loves them? When you can reconcile God's love with God's Hell then maybe you will have something skypair.

That's just twisted, jc (that's why you changed your monicker, isn't it? --- jc). Hell is love, eh?

You are wrong, election takes place before creation and those He chose He will glorify.

"Election" is God's purposes and blessings upon the "elect" and so, no, they can't be received or accomplished before they happen.

skypair

 

[jonnycool]

God has mercy on those He chose to have mercy on and He hardens those He chose to harden.

First off, mercy is not getting what we do deserve. Grace is getting what we don't deserve. So right off the verse is not about salvation.

It is to those He has mercy on.

That's just twisted, jc (that's why you changed your monicker, isn't it? --- jc). Hell is love, eh?

Who's Monicker? You say I changed my name to be more like Jesus? Cool man.

Hell is love, eh?

That was my question. Where in Hell does one find love? Love is patient, love is kind. Where in Hell is there kindness? I've had a good look and find nothing but loving-less big time.
Love keeps no record of wrongs. But judgement is based on a record of wrongs isn't it? Love does not keep a record of wrongs does it, that is why our future is secure, God does not keep a record of wrongs because they have been paid for by Another?

Hell must be part of God expressing love to those He sends to Hell since it is said He loves all men. Now show me where this love is because love never fails. Hell is love is what free willers claim isn't it, why ask me the same question I asked you?

You are wrong, election takes place before creation and those He chose He will glorify.

"Election" is God's purposes and blessings upon the "elect" and so, no, they can't be received or accomplished before they happen.

Here in the UK as soon as the results are known in an election the elected take office. That is not so in the States is it? Bush was elect before he took office.

Election means a choice being made, a selection out of a mass. Since God chose us before the creation of the world then He made a selection out of a mass before He ever created anything. What can be received in that condition but ...God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. Rom 4:17.

I was never lost in the crowd. From eternity God set me apart as for noble purposes, I was never in danger of ending up in God's love in Hell. I was receiving God's blessings as I proclaimed His non-existence. A lost sheep bleating goatish.

He loved me and gave Himself for me.

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

That is 'accomplished'.

ISA 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

The punishment that bought my peace was on Christ and His wounds have healed me. Past tense.

ISA 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

To the Calvinists.

john.