U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

mjwhite · Jul 24, 2002

Dear Closer,

Man doesn't choose God because he has free will but rather the freedom to choose is how we are able to choose. The debate is construed wrongly if one pits God's election against free will.

Because we have free will, we choose one option over another based on a reason or reasons. Why did you choose Jesus and why did those in hell [at least those who heard the gospel] choose against Jesus?

So far, no Arminian has been able to answer that question without boasting on themselves. Can you?

Reformationist · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by closer
The Bible teaches freewill from the very issue of the first test.

Sorry for being dense, but, what test?

God the great architect knew from beginning to end what was going to happen. He planned it. At the same time He being God forces choice.

So how do you reconcile the knowledge that God sovereignly foreordained everything that will ever happen with the belief that we have a choice that can somehow go against God's divine plan.  Or is it that you think that there were only certain things that God predestined and He was basically ambiguous about each individual man's salvation.  See, the issue I take with this concept is that it doesn't bring to mind the concept of a loving God.  It makes me feel that God, in a human way, "loves" us but is, in truth, indifferent about our eternal fate.  Doesn't He seem a more loving God if you understand that when we were helpless to overcome our fallen nature God replaced that nature with one that could, and would, love Him?

Joshua asked the Israelites to choose whom they would serve.

To fully understand, and submit to God's authority and provedential sovereignty when reading verses that proclaim the necessity of man's choice in whom he will serve you must first take into account who the verse is addressed to.  The Israelites were/are God's chosen people who experienced God's divine protection.  Additionally, it's important to note that when referring to God's "chosen" as the Israelites we don't make the mistake of assuming this meant those of the country of Israel:

Romans 9:6,7
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect.  For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,<SUP> </SUP>nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."

This is essential to fully understanding God's provision FOR HIS PEOPLE.  See, the fallen man can only choose according to his sinful, fallen nature.  Once regenerated (saved), man can, but will not always, choose righteously.  This is in line with what Paul was talking about in Romans regarding the war that wages in his members.  He knew, as do saved people, that the Law was good.  He also acknowledged that despite wanting to do that which was good, he regularly found himself doing that which was in rebellion to God's righteous authority.

The ministry of Jesus was one choice after another.

Please don't misunderstand me.  Man was created in the image of God and therefore has the ability to make choices.  His range of available choices, or to what those choices are in bondage to, is determined by the nature that God has given him.  Even fallen man must make choices.  But, the ability for fallen man to choose righteously is as foreign to him as sin is to God.  It may be an available choice, but it is a choice he (fallen man) will never make. 

Everyman from the rich young ruler to Pilate had to choose.

We must acknowledge that it is God's granting of grace that allows us to escape the bondage of our depravation.  Both the rich young ruler and Pilate are examples of the fallen, unregenerate man.  They are both unwilling, and unable, on their own to turn from their unrighteousness.  Yes, we do have to choose.  But, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where fallen man makes a choice based on their love for God?  You can even include all those that get truly baptized throughout the Bible.  Bear in mind, that I believe that for man to publically proclaim His love for God and His decision to submit to Him, i.e., be baptized, God must first regenerate (save) that person.

Freewill is based upon the general revelation of God to man.

I would have to say that the "general revelation of God to man" is what nullifies man's ability to excuse His sinfulness in an effort to avoid a deserved and righteous judgment.  I do not see how this relates to "free-will" though.

Also each man is responisble to choose how he will responed.

True.  But, only those that God has regenerated (saved) are able to wilfully submit to God's authority.  Fallen, unregenerate man will always choose in keeping with His fallen nature.  This doesn't mean that fallen man can do nothing that outwardly looks selfless.  But God does not consider the outward manifestation of our actions.  It's our motive with which we respond to the situations God brings about in our lives that determines whether an act is sinful.

Is election unconditional? Without question. It is the complete and sovereign choice of God. How does this work in relation to man's freewill? That is a question that if God had wanted me to know the answer he would have told me.

He did tell you.

Thank you for the correction regarding my statement on heresy as well it was a point well taken.

That probably came accross a lot more harsh than I meant it.  Don't be too hard on yourself.  There is not a person on this board, and I mean no one, who has contributed a significant number of posts in the "debate" areas of this MB that can say they haven't occasionally responded in an ungodly way, or that the actual intent in their message was never misunderstood.  Sincerely, welcome to the boards.  I look forward to reading your contributions.

God bless.

Reformationist · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by Reformationist
Both the rich young ruler and Pilate are examples of the fallen, unregenerate man.  They are both unwilling, and unable, on their own to turn from their unrighteousness.

As a side note, I don't mean to imply that I know the salvific disposition of these two men.  Their behavior is more what I was addressing than their relationship with God.  I would be inclined to believe that Pilate was not saved, but as to the young ruler, he seemed to have desire to please God.  If that desire was genuine, obviously he was saved.

God bless.

franklin · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Okay this is the hard one for me. I believe in Unconditional election. i do not think god has to look and see what I will do in the future to know if i a mgoing to be in the elect or not. Why? Because if He does wouldn't that mean that God has to learn? that would mean that He is not all-knowing. He is not perfect. So I think that God has to somehow know what we will choose without having to see what we will choose although He does see it. I would really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this one especially. 

Hi blackhawk, Let me ask you some basic and logical questions if I may.....  If you believe in this Calvanistic theory of unconditional election, how would you know you are saved? In other words, how can you ever have assurance of salvation by believing in such a strange doctrine?  I don't believe the bible teaches this doctrine!  I believe it is false!  The bible teaches "predestination", not "calvanistic predestination". Scripture predestination is where God pre-determined, not the identity of the saved, but the character of the saved.  Calvinistic predestination means that the future is already determined (predestined). The implication is that it doesn't matter what you do, it has already happened. You have no free will.

mjwhite · Jul 24, 2002

Franklin,

How can ones character be predestined?

Is salvation based upon our character?

mike

Reformationist · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by franklin
Hi blackhawk, Let me ask you some basic and logical questions if I may.....  If you believe in this Calvanistic theory of unconditional election, how would you know you are saved?

For the information of all, blackhawk is on a temporary hiatus at seminary.  I don't know if he has the opportunity to get online right now, so, if he doesn't respond that would be why.  If I may, I would like to respond.  For clarification, these are my views and in no way do I mean to imply that blackhawk endorses them.  But, as I subscribe to the doctrine of unconditional election as put forth by Calvin, and others, hopefully I can shed some light on this.

Before we go further let us state what Calvin's interpretation of "unconditional election" is:

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

Which part of that do you take issue with?

The bible teaches "predestination", not "calvanistic predestination".

Please post scriptural reference that refutes Calvin's interpretation of the doctrine of unconditional election.  As a side note, Calvin was not the forebearer of this doctrine.  His beliefs are a result of a lifelong study of the Bible and of the works of St. Augustine and Martin Luther, among others.

Scripture predestination is where God pre-determined, not the identity of the saved, but the character of the saved.  Calvinistic predestination means that the future is already determined (predestined).

As the entire fate of the world and all it's inhabitants from all time was established "before the foundations of the earth" (Eph 1:3-5; Heb 4:2-4) please tell me what your basis is for believing otherwise.  Do you not believe that the "future is already determined (predestined)?"

The implication is that it doesn't matter what you do, it has already happened.

Calvin never implies that "it doesn't matter what you do because it has already happened."  What he does say is that your election to salvation was determined before you were even created.  As such, it is our responsibility, as God's children, to be obedient to His authority, just as our own children are commanded to be obedient to us.  And, just as we will not disown our children if they are not obedient, and God knows they often are, God will not cast us out of the family we were adopted into, nor can we, or our children, do anything to facilitate not being part of the family into which we were born.  We can, and often do, rebel and try to go our own road.  Occasionally, some never come back.  That does not change the fact that they are still part of the family.  As to how this relates to our spiritual conversion, unlike human parents, God sovereignly works in us "the will the ability to do for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13).

You have no free will.

As to our ability to escape from the bondage of our fallen, totally depraved nature we are helpless to do a work that would constitute salavation, i.e., baptism, the "sinner's prayer," etc.  Please understand, when someone who subscribes to this view says, "you have no free will" what they mean is in a spiritual sense you do not have the ability to spawn a desire to serve God from a fallen heart.  God must first divinely regenerate (save) you and give you that desire.  It doesn't mean you can't make choices.

Let me ask you something.  Can you name anyone, anywhere, heaven or earth, that has free will?  Now I know you think man does.  But, before you answer, consider that for a will to be free it means that our will is not dictated by outside influence.

God bless.

franklin · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by Reformationist
Please post scriptural reference that refutes Calvin's interpretation of the doctrine of unconditional election.  As a side note, Calvin was not the forebearer of this doctrine.  His beliefs are a result of a lifelong study of the Bible and of the works of St. Augustine and Martin Luther, among others.

Hi reformer, I appreciate your responsive comments and questions.  I'll try to take a few of your quotes for now and I'll try to get to your other ones later. I think there are plenty of scripture that refutes calvanism and his theory of unconditional election.  I have no problem with the researching the scholarly writings of others, however, if it doesn't pass the test of the authority of scripture then I must subordinate their opinions and interpretations to second place.  I don't put my trust in theologians either.  The rule I try to follow is scripture interpreting scripture on it's own.  That is what I believe will keep us out of trouble without fail.  First let me start by asking you some questions and following are some of the scriptures you asked that might refute the topic at hand: 

What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity? Or Character, purpose & plan?

Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." 

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:" 

Ephesians 1:3-4, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

Remember, God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). Unconditional Election makes the Devil no enemy for the saved to worry about, so if predestined, why beware? (1 Peter 5:8). 

 

Reformationist · Jul 24, 2002

Hey franklin!  Thanks for responding so quickly.

Originally posted by franklin
I have no problem with the researching the scholarly writings of others, however, if it doesn't pass the test of the authority of scripture then I must subordinate their opinions and interpretations to second place.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.  But, when reading the Bible, you are using someone's interpretation, even if it be your own.  Even coupling passages that appear to support each other becomes difficult because, as we are not God, everything we acknowledge becomes filtered through the knowledge we have already aquired.  The only way we can truly subordinate any interpretation is to determine if it is refuted by the Bible.

I don't put my trust in theologians either.

I have to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, how do you come by your knowledge base if not by the teachings of those more learned than yourself?  Obviously we should check what they are teaching but what if it holds up under scriptural scrutinty?  Do you receive some revelation or some feeling that assures you that what you're learning/believing is true? Again, I don't mean that in an accusatory way.  The written word can often be hard to comprehend as tone of voice is not easily expressed.  I just want to avoid any confusion.  I am curious, though, how do you ever know if what you believe is true?

The rule I try to follow is scripture interpreting scripture on it's own.

I don't follow. :scratch:

What do you mean here?  Do you mean that when you're reading you cross reference and see if it matches up with your interpretation of other scripture?  Or of your natural instinct?  Or what you've been taught?

What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity? Or Character, purpose & plan?

Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

It's strange that you would use this passage to refute Calvin's interpretation as this is probably the most prominent of scriptures in support of his interpretation.  Anyway, you asked, "What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity, or Character, purpose & plan?"  Well, the verse plainly states "those He foreknew."  Right?  So what does that mean?  Well, God created everyone, right?  So, wouldn't He "foreknow" everyone?  The answer to this is quite simple.  "Foreknew" in this context doesn't mean to "know ahead of time" as in a linear sense.  It refers to an intimate relationship between God and His children, which is not everyone.  This passage is a plan of sovereign saving grace, entitling all who now believe to trace their faith and salvation back to an eternal decision by God to bring them to glory, and to look forward to that glory as a guaranteed certainty.  The destiny appointed for believers (conformity to Christ and glorification with Him) flows from divine foreknowledge.  Here it is persons, not facts or events, that God has of His own initiative chosen as the objects of His active, saving love.  As I said, "know" implies intimate personal relationship, not merely awareness of facts and circumstances (Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2; Matt. 1:25); it is virtuallly the equivalent of "elect."

1 Corinthians 2:7, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:"

Not sure what you believe this passage has to do with election but I'll explain what it does mean.  This set of verses is in reference to the fact that, though "hidden" during the Old Testament period, the riches of the Gospel have now been revealed by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10).  Eph. 3:2-6 makes plain that the word "mystery," used by Paul to emphasize the distinctiveness of his message to the Gentiles, has a strong temporal meaning.  The "mystery" is a truth that "in other ages was not made known" (Eph 3:5); it was "kept secret since the world began" (Rom 16:25).  But now the truth has been clearly revealed to those who have the Spirit, who live in "the ends of the ages" (1 Cor 10:11).

Ephesians 1:3-4, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

In this passage Paul rejoices that God chooses people for a relationship with Himself (Rom. 8:29-33; 9:6-26; 11:5,7,28; 16:13; Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 1:1).  Some suggest "in Him" means God foresaw who would have faith in Christ and elected them.  Not only does this add a thought that is not in the text, but elsewhere Paul teaches that the very state of being "in Christ" is something to which one is chosen, not something they choose (1 Cor 1:26-31).  Paul says explicitly that the ground of God's predestinating love is His own good pleasure (Eph 1:5,9), not anything we have done or will do (Rom 9:11,16).  "In Him" means that God's choice always had in view a fallen peolpe in union with thier Redeemer (2 Tim. 1:9).

Remember, God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:17). Unconditional Election makes the Devil no enemy for the saved to worry about, so if predestined, why beware? (1 Peter 5:8).

This one is more an issue of perseverance than of election.  However, the warning to be "sober and vigilant" is because we must be alert to our sinfulness that is easily tempted by the devil if we are to have any chance of remaining in steadfast obedience.  This does not, however, make the implication of losing one's salvation.  The imagery used in 1 Peter 5:8 is meant too convey the strength and destructiveness of the devil and to further accentuate the need for alertness on the part of believers.

God bless.

Job_38 · Jul 24, 2002

This website might offer some insight on Calvinism.

franklin · Jul 24, 2002

Originally posted by Reformationist
Hey franklin!  Thanks for responding so quickly. I wholeheartedly agree with this.  But, when reading the Bible, you are using someone's interpretation, even if it be your own.  Even coupling passages that appear to support each other becomes difficult because, as we are not God, everything we acknowledge becomes filtered through the knowledge we have already aquired.  The only way we can truly subordinate any interpretation is to determine if it is refuted by the Bible.

Hi reformer,  I might have to reply to your post tomorrow since I've lost everything I was writing to you.... I clicked the preview button and didn''t realize i was disconnected from the internet!  I'll get back with you tomorrow, and I am enjoying our discussion BTW, so hang in there pilgrim! 

 

MatthewDiscipleofGod · Jul 24, 2002

Looks like I need to make some time to post some things on this topic. I have a lot of scripture on the topic but it will take me a while to get it all sorted. My view is that the bible makes a strong case that we have free will to accept Jesus's gift and that we are not hopeless when it comes to accepting it or not. God would never create someone FOR damnation. Some will face damnation but that's only because they have refused what God has offered. God commands all to repent Act 17:30 and 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us God desires all to be saved. So if no one has a choice it would then be logical that God would just create everyone for salvation because that's his desire. There would no need to create people for damnation if he's going to pick and choose anyways and not let us decide.

One argument I still will make tonight also is with Romans 9:15,21. That if briefly looked over would appear to support your belief but it's about God's divine use and service and not about our salvation.

franklin · Jul 25, 2002

  Originally posted by Reformationist
I wholeheartedly agree with this.  But, when reading the Bible, you are using someone's interpretation, even if it be your own.  Even coupling passages that appear to support each other becomes difficult because, as we are not God, everything we acknowledge becomes filtered through the knowledge we have already aquired.  The only way we can truly subordinate any interpretation is to determine if it is refuted by the Bible.
I have to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, how do you come by your knowledge base if not by the teachings of those more learned than yourself? 

 

hi reformer, like I said in my previous post, I do rely on the writings of others at the same time I put them to the test of scripture as stated in 2Tim3:16... Scripture is the final authority to reprove any false teaching or doctrine.  I don't claim to have all the answers and I do consult with others who have more spiritual and scriptural knowledge then I have. 

  Do you receive some revelation or some feeling that assures you that what you're learning/believing is true? [/B]

I get my revelation from the scripture.  I have never been able to figure out what some preachers on TV are always trying to say when they make statements like that.  I usually take them with a grain of salt.

  The written word can often be hard to comprehend as tone of voice is not easily expressed.  I just want to avoid any confusion.  I am curious, though, how do you ever know if what you believe is true? [/B]

Click to expand...

I believe the scripture is the inspired word of God without error and when I rely soley on it that is how I know it is the truth.  How do you know that what you believe is the truth?

 
I don't follow. What do you mean here?  Do you mean that when you're reading you cross reference and see if it matches up with your interpretation of other scripture?  Or of your natural instinct?  Or what you've been taught? [/B]

Click to expand...

Yes, comparing scripture with scripture. For example when Paul in 1Thess is speaking to his audience during the first century about prophetic events that are imminent in their lifetime, passages in Mt 24 will make it easer to understand the message Paul is conveying.

 
It's strange that you would use this passage to refute Calvin's interpretation as this is probably the most prominent of scriptures in support of his interpretation.  Anyway, you asked, "What is foreknown by God in these verses? Personal identity, or Character, purpose & plan?"  Well, the verse plainly states "those He foreknew."  Right?  So what does that mean?  Well, God created everyone, right?  So, wouldn't He "foreknow" everyone?  The answer to this is quite simple.  "Foreknew" in this context doesn't mean to "know ahead of time" as in a linear sense.  It refers to an intimate relationship between God and His children, which is not everyone.  This passage is a plan of sovereign saving grace, entitling all who now believe to trace their faith and salvation back to an eternal decision by God to bring them to glory, and to look forward to that glory as a guaranteed certainty.  The destiny appointed for believers (conformity to Christ and glorification with Him) flows from divine foreknowledge.  Here it is persons, not facts or events, that God has of His own initiative chosen as the objects of His active, saving love.  As I said, "know" implies intimate personal relationship, not merely awareness of facts and circumstances (Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2; Matt. 1:25); it is virtuallly the equivalent of "elect." [/B]

Click to expand...

As your studying these passages in Romans 8, lets consider some things..... Who is under consideration here? "Them that love God"  not a few whom God loves "The called according to His purpose," I don't go by what is commonly taught in the churches when they teach that we are called by some strange still voice inside of us or God speaking to us, I believe we are called by God's written word, the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In Romans 8 we can see God's plan unfolding. God determined to send mankind a Savior to die for all men. He foreordained all of the events before they actually took place. God predestinated our salvation.  Do you believe that God selected us individually to be saved or lost or do you believe what the scripture teaches and that is those who accepted the gospel call would be saved? Those who answer that call are justified and glorified. I choose to believe God's plan.  Not some man made doctrine.

I have to stop here reformer, I'm pressed for time and I will try to get back to your other comments later, BTW, I appreciate our discussion on this subject.

 

Reformationist · Jul 25, 2002

Originally posted by Project 86
Looks like I need to make some time to post some things on this topic. I have a lot of scripture on the topic but it will take me a while to get it all sorted. My view is that the bible makes a strong case that we have free will to accept Jesus's gift and that we are not hopeless when it comes to accepting it or not. God would never create someone FOR damnation. Some will face damnation but that's only because they have refused what God has offered. God commands all to repent Act 17:30 and 1 Timothy 2:4 tells us God desires all to be saved. So if no one has a choice it would then be logical that God would just create everyone for salvation because that's his desire. There would no need to create people for damnation if he's going to pick and choose anyways and not let us decide.

Well, I'm looking forward to your insight.  I would ask two things of you. First, that you relay all the information you offer in a spirit of love.  If your desire is that I learn because you care about my relationship with God, and that is the compulsion for all of your posts, then you'll never go wrong.  Second, that you consider all the things I offer as proof of my position and see if they are supported by scripture.  Please do not discount them because they are contrary to your own position.  I will make those same assurances to you.  Too often, discussions on this topic escalate into flame wars because salvation is something we all feel strongly about.  Let's agree not to do that.

One argument I still will make tonight also is with Romans 9:15,21. That if briefly looked over would appear to support your belief but it's about God's divine use and service and not about our salvation.

Considering the scripture you offer I would ask why it is that you interpret this to mean that it refers to "God's divine use and service" rather than salvation?  Is there other scripture that seems to imply, or outright state, that God's design for any Christian, a member of His family, were created to be dishonored or to not be the recipient of God's mercy?  Seems to me, as a father myself, that we would only want the biblical best for our children.  The following passage seems to say that we can't even begin to grasp the fullness of God's love and His intent for everything He does for us:

Matthew 7:11
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

In closing, let me ask you a couple of things to lay the groundwork for our future discussions.

1. What does "free-will" mean to you?

2.  How do you feel that our will (desires) were affected by the Fall?

3.  Do you believe that God is sovereign (my definition of sovereign is an autonomous entity whose actions are not subject to, nor influenced by, anything around him/her)?

4. How do you reconcile God's sovereignty with your belief of man's will being "free?"

This is probably enough for now.  These questions are not just for Project86, though I look forward to his insight.  Anyone may address them.

God bless.

Reformationist · Jul 25, 2002

Originally posted by franklin
hi reformer, like I said in my previous post, I do rely on the writings of others at the same time I put them to the test of scripture as stated in 2Tim3:16...

I guess what I'm wondering is how do you test if what they say is true?  I think it is difficult to read/hear something that appears to go against what I believe and then believe that I can address their views scripturally without the way I initially research my response being influenced by what I already believe (was that confusing or what?

).  Oftentimes I catch myself pursuing a rebuttal rather than deeper understanding.  I don't think I'm alone in this.  I believe that to be part of why many people on this board discount my view "out of hand" before truly considering that what I'm saying might be true.

Scripture is the final authority to reprove any false teaching or doctrine.  I don't claim to have all the answers and I do consult with others who have more spiritual and scriptural knowledge then I have.

Good to know.  But, again, how do you determine which people you go to for answers?  What if they say something that goes against what you believe?  Do you truly search for answers or are you just looking for someone to reinforce what you already believe has to be true? 

I get my revelation from the scripture.  I have never been able to figure out what some preachers on TV are always trying to say when they make statements like that.  I usually take them with a grain of salt.

That's probably the best way to take those TBN evangelists.

How do you know that what you believe is the truth?

To be honest, what I believe now goes against most of what I was taught/learned growing up.  Through God's grace I was brought to a church that not only understands the Word better than any church I've ever seen, they put it into practice in their daily lives.  Believe me, I resisted, at first, what I now know to be the truth.  I can say that I have never seen anything, in any part of the Bible, that is contrary to what I now believe.  Even from the start.  When I first met the pastor, before I started going to that church, my initial response was, "Well, that's not fair.  Why should some people have to go to hell?"  So he asked me, "Well, Don, what would be fair?  That everyone go to heaven?  What was it that God said were the wages of sin?  Wouldn't it have been fair if everyone had gone to hell?"  I thought about that and realized that, while definitely undesirable, man had, by his own disobedience, earned eternal damnation.  Even when I believed in "free will" I could only attribute man's transgression to man.  So, I said, "I guess it would be fair if everyone went to hell."  He said, "That's right.  What's not fair, technically, is that some are spared that fate that they deserve and brought into a loving relationship with their creator.  That is where we find joy.  Knowing that when we were helpless to even turn to God, He restored, completely, the relationship between us."  Now, my biblical knowledge at that point was very limited, even moreso than now

, and since that day I have never heard anything that can faithfully explain God's Word as well as the doctrine that I live by, or try to live by anyway.  I don't fall into the place that so many others on this board do where I have to say stuff like, "Well, that's just a mystery that God hasn't revealed to us."  I don't mean to imply that I understand every part of the Bible, I don't.  However, I know something that explains God's motivation for everything He brings into the lives of His children (Christians):

1 Thessalonians 4:3
For this is the will of God, your sanctification

Who is under consideration here?  "Them that love God"  not a few whom God loves "The called according to His purpose,"

I have never implied, nor believed, that the elect are a select group of Christians, nor did John Calvin teach this.  "Them that love God" are Christians.  Christians are God's elect.  What I have put forth for your consideration is that the Bible is clear as to the nature, and the desire and ability to serve God, of the fallen man.  "Them that love God," Christians, only desire, and are only able, to serve God because God has saved them.  He did this before you or I did any act, like be baptized or say a prayer, that we believed would please God.  I believe if anyone is a Christian now it is because God, prior to their desire to be a child of God, gave them that desire.  In our fallen state we don't desire it, and as such, will never persue a relationship with Him.

Do you believe that God selected us individually to be saved or lost or do you believe what the scripture teaches and that is those who accepted the gospel call would be saved?

I think you mean "do I believe what you think the scripture teaches."  To answer your question, I believe that those who accept the gospel call do so because God providentially selected whom He would save "before the foundations of the earth."  I don't believe the Bible teaches anything contrary to that.

I choose to believe God's plan.  Not some man made doctrine.

That's a good plan.  However, only if you don't go to church, and don't associate with other Christians (which you obviously do), and don't discuss theological viewpoints, your understanding of scripture comes from your own interpretation and God's revelation.  If you do all those things you will always be in a position to be influenced by other viewpoints and it basically comes down to whether they can sufficiently "persuade" you that their interpretation is what God's Word really says.  As to not believing a man-made doctrine, different denominations have different viewpoints as to the interpretation of God's Word.  I can only say that I know, with every fiber of my being, that what I am learning is the true interpretation of God's Word.  If you don't feel the same, that's okay.   

I have to stop here reformer, I'm pressed for time and I will try to get back to your other comments later, BTW, I appreciate our discussion on this subject. 

I am also thoroughly enjoying our discussion.  I look forward to addressing each others viewpoints.

God bless.

mjwhite · Jul 25, 2002

Dear Project,
RE: your last post

I noticed your scripture signature on the bottom. Matthew 11:28-30

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Did you ever look at the context those words are in? Look at the previous verses in Matthew 11.

After pronouncing 'woes' on some surrounding cities and saying how intolerable the day of judgment would be for them, we reach verses 25-27:

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these thinhs from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, this was for your good pleasure. All things have been commited to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and to those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

Those that come to Jesus do so because they believe He will give them rest. This same theme is taken up by Paul in 1st Cor. 1 and 2.

1:18 says that the words of the cross are foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are beingsaved, they are the power of God.

and,

2:14 says that the natural man recieveth not the things of the Spirit of Go: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

IF he cannot discern them as truth or understand their reality, then it comes as no suprise to hear that he thinks them foolishness. Likewise if he thinks them foolishness, then he thinks Jesus is dead, and would think it inane to 'come' unto Jesus and'get rest'.

So who then will NOT come unto Jesus and recieve rest for their weary souls? Those whom the Son has not revealed to them the Father, and to whom the father has not revealed the Son.

Who WILL come? Those whom the Spirit has revealed to the things of God, the very same ones whom the Father reveals to them the Son, and the Son the Father. They reveal truth via the Spirit.

Who will not come? 2nd Cor 4:3-6 Those whom the Devil has blinded thei minds. Who will believe? Same scripture, those for whom God commands His light to shine into their hearts and therefore through and out of their darkness.

How do we know and therefore are able to trust Jesus? The Father reveals to us, even as He did to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and ceretian of what we do not see [hebrews 11:1]. How can we be sure of Jesus and certain of His promises so that we can trust Him and walk in Him? Because God has witnessed truth to us, He has shined His light into our hrearts, revealed the mystery of the Son, and did this through the Spirit [1st Cor 2:10-11]

If God is not the reason you chose to believe, please tell me what the reason was you chose to trust in what you could not see or know otherwise as true, and why those in hell didn't?

thanks,
mike

closer · Jul 25, 2002

Perhaps the best question possible has been asked. How can one reconcile freewill and God's sovereign foreknowledge?
I must honestly say that I can't. That is the basis of my debate. I as a finite creature cannot understand the salvation capacity of the infinete creator.
In my study and opinion I can see both as evident in scripture. I also believe that it is possible for my opinion to be wrong. I just do not believe it is. I have placed careful study and research and the fact is that I cannot harmonize them and I believe they both exist.
We would say they cannot both exist. Still we also say light cannot exist in beams and particles in the same area yet light does. It is a mystery I cannot explain, but one day we will all be able to get together and realize where our errors are.

Reformationist · Jul 25, 2002

Originally posted by closer
In my study and opinion I can see both as evident in scripture.

At this point, then, let's discuss whether there is any basis for discarding one of the two, freewill and God's sovereign foreknowledge.  I personally do not, and have not ever seen anything in the Bible that supports "free will."

If anyone feels like there is sufficient proof to support or negate either of these views please share it.  To avoid confusion we should probably comment on one of the two at a time.

Additionally, I would personally be interested in seeing scriptural, or real life, support for the concept of "free will."

God bless.

Caedmon · Jul 25, 2002

Originally posted by closer
Still we also say light cannot exist in beams and particles in the same area yet light does.

Are you talking about wave/particle duality? :scratch:

franklin · Jul 25, 2002

  Originally posted by Reformationist
If anyone feels like there is sufficient proof to support or negate either of these views please share it.  To avoid confusion we should probably comment on one of the two at a time.

Additionally, I would personally be interested in seeing scriptural, or real life, support for the concept of "free will." 

Hi reformer,  I don't see how you can say that the human race that God created does not have a free will when there is plenty of evidence throughout the bible of men commiting sin and rejecting God's gift many times in the scripture, how about these examples to name a few:  In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that the Scriptures bear witness of Him. But, He says, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." In Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments over Jerusalem. He was certainly willing for them to be saved, but they were not. In Acts 6:8-10, Stephen was "full of grace and power . . . and the Spirit," and yet those who heard his preaching resisted. In Acts 7:51, before Stephen is put to death, he said, "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit."  It seems to me like there is a lot of free will activity going on in these passages, wouldn't you agree? I hope this will satisfy your request for real life, scriptural evidence for free will activity.  If not, then may I suggest you open up your bible and seek the scriptures for yourself.  You will see many other examples of men living their lives according to their own free wills and rejecting God in the process. 

Cheers 

 

mjwhite · Jul 26, 2002

U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

<font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Senior Veteran

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Active Member

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

kawaii

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Active Member

Similar threads