Weep Over Jerusalem?

janxharris · Mar 21, 2013

griff said:
In other words, God can do whatever he wants - as long as I give him permission.

With regard to salvation, that is how it is in scripture.

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

janxharris said:
it was predetermined that those that would believe would be Holy and blameless and be adopted.

According to this verse, what is the reason that the Ephesians were predestined for adoption?

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6 ESV)

To suggest that God would predetermine who would be saved impugns his good character.

How?

I doubt whether you would ever suggest such a thing to a non-believer you were giving the Gospel to. Tell me, have you ever done such a thing? Yes or no?

Yes I have. I'm not ashamed of the word of God.

Re Pilot - God would not make anyone do anything that they were not already wanting to do.

And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40 ESV)

Did they fear God before he put the fear of him in their hearts?

Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel. For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the Passover in the second month—for they could not keep it at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem—and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly. So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed. So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, “O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see. Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you. For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him.”
So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD. (2 Chronicles 30:1-12 ESV)

Please explain why it is that Judah, some men of Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem doing what the king and the princes commanded. What made the difference between them and those who laughed them to scorn?

jdbear · Mar 21, 2013

griff said,
He's addressing the Jewish leaders concerning their children. I guess that doesn't matter though if you don't give a rip about grammar.

Jesus didn't say "O Jewish leaders, O Jewish leaders, how often I would have gathered your children together...". He was addressing the City of Jerusalem. To deny this is blindness.

jdbear · Mar 21, 2013

cygnusx1 said,
Because the leaders obstructed the innocent , they made mockery of the Law by placing unnecessary conditions upon others , rules which they themselves were unwilling and unable to uphold , they kept the flock in chains .... Against the desire of God.

If irresistible grace was true and Jesus wanted to gather unbelievers to Himself, it wouldn't matter what the religious leaders did to prevent it.

cygnusx1 said,
You make the same false inference as the hyper Calvinist .
The Lord desires , even commands what men ought to do , the elders of Israel sinned against Gods revealed will , they obstructed the innocent from finding the truth revealed .
The Lord has a desire for what is right , is it right that men repent ? Yes ! And God desires men repent and trust Christ for salvation .
Not once have I said the desire of God to do what He will do can be obstructed , it can't . He is sovereign and does all He wishes .
What He wishes OTHERS to do is completely another matter .
I hope you make a note of that distinction , otherwise you may find the Hypers with their distortions reappearing at your side

.
This is insanity. God desires and wishes people would come to Him, then wills them not to come to Him. Pure insanity.

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

jdbear said:
This is insanity. God desires and wishes people would come to Him, then wills them not to come to Him. Pure insanity.

Does God ensure that every single person hears about Jesus Christ and the way of salvation that is only through him?

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

jdbear said:
Jesus didn't say "O Jewish leaders, O Jewish leaders, how often I would have gathered your children together...". He was addressing the City of Jerusalem. To deny this is blindness.

You need to read the context. Prior to v37, over and over he says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." He's obviously speaking to the Jewish leaders. Then in v37, he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37 ESV)

Who was it that killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent to the Jewish people? The Jewish leaders? Yes or no?

Skala · Mar 21, 2013

janxharris said:
Regarding Ephesians - it was predetermined that Jesus Christ would come and be crucified - it was predetermined that those that would believe would be Holy and blameless and be adopted.

To suggest that God would predetermine who would be saved impugns his good character.

No it doesn't. How?

If all men deserve hell, how does it impugne his character to have mercy on whomever he wants? Mercy is not owed to anyone, thereofre it is not unjust to withhold mercy from someone. It is only injustice if it is withheld from someone who is owed it.

If God withholds mercy from someone who deserves hell, what do thy get? Injustice? No, they get justice. Hell is justice. Punishment is justice. Can you tell me who receives injustice at God's hands if He decides to save one but not another?

Can you tell me who is owed mercy that makes God unjust for withholding it?

You've repeated this argument like a broken record (That it impugns God's character) but you've never actually said how.

Do you agree with this statement? "If damnation be justice, then mercy can choose its own object". So far, it seems like you disagree with it. Why?

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

John Gill explains Matthew 23:37 well. Observe:

The metropolis of Judea, the seat of the kings of Judah, yea, the city of the great king; the place of divine worship, once the holy and faithful city, the joy of the whole earth; wherefore it was strange that the following things should be said of it. The word is repeated to show our Lord's affection and concern for that city, as well as to upbraid it with its name, dignity, and privileges; and designs not the building of the city, but the inhabitants of it; and these not all, but the rulers and governors of it, civil and ecclesiastical; especially the great sanhedrim, which were held in it, to whom best belong the descriptive characters of killing the prophets, and stoning them that were sent by God unto them; since it belonged to them to take cognizance of such who called themselves prophets, and to examine, and judge them, and, if false, to condemn them F8; hence that saying of Christ, ( Luke 13:33 ) which goes before the same words, as here, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem": and who are manifestly distinguished from their "children": it being usual to call such as were the heads of the people, either in a civil or ecclesiastic sense, "fathers", and their subjects and disciples, "children": besides, our Lord's discourse throughout the whole context is directed to the Scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastic guides of the people, and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard. Thou that killest the prophets;
that is, with the sword, with which the prophets in Elijah's time were slain by the children of Israel, ( 1 Kings 19:10 ) and which was one of the capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish sanhedrim F9; and also that which follows was another of them. And stonest them which were sent unto thee;
as particularly Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, before mentioned. The Jews themselves are obliged to own, that this character belongs to them: say F11 they,

``when the word of God shall come, who is his messenger, we will honour him. Says R. Saul, did not the prophets come, (Mwngrhw) , "and we killed them", and shed their blood, and how shall we receive his word? or how shall we believe?''
And a celebrated writer of their's, on those words F12, "but now murderers", has this note;
``they have killed Uriah, they have killed Zechariah.''
How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Christ here speaks as a man, and the minister of the circumcision, and expresses an human affection for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and an human wish, and will for their temporal good; which he very aptly signifies by the hen, which is a very affectionate creature to its young, and which it endeavours to screen from danger, by covering with its wings. So the "Shekinah" with the Jews is called, (avydq arpu) , "the holy bird" F13; and that phrase, (xnykvh ypnk txt twoxl) , "to betake one's self, or to come to trust under the wings of the Shekinah", is often used F14 for to become a proselyte to the true religion, and worship of God, as Jethro, and Ruth the Moabitess did. An expression much like to this here is used by an apocryphal writer of 2 Esdras:
``I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.'' (2 Esdras 1:30)
It seems to be a simile much in use with that people. Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself; for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people; but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and an assent unto him as the Messiah; which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse. Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in ( Mark 10:21 ) ( Luke 19:41 ) ( 22:42 ) which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled: whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled: "who hath resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered, and made void; he does whatsoever he pleases: and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals; and therefore he says, "how often would I have gathered", &c. whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable; and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God, in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others. And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, "how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!" nor, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not"; nor, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not"; but, "how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will. Had Christ expressed his desire to have gathered the heads of the people to him, the members of the Jewish sanhedrim, the civil and ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews: or had he signified how much he wished, and earnestly sought after, and attempted to gather Jerusalem, the children, the inhabitants of it in common, and neither of them would not; it would have carried some appearance of the doctrine of free will, and have seemed to have countenanced it, and have imputed the non-gathering of them to their own will: though had it been said, "they would not", instead of, "ye would not", it would only have furnished out a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man, which often opposes his temporal, as well as his spiritual good; and would rather show it to be a slave to that which is evil, than free to that which is good; and would be a proof of this, not in a single person only, but in a body of men. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests, and rulers, did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue. So that the plain meaning of the text is the same with that of ( Matthew 23:13 ) and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God; but only shows what obstructions and discouragements were thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word. In order to set aside, and overthrow the doctrine of grace, in election, and particular redemption, and effectual calling, it should be proved that Christ, as God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it only, but all mankind, even such as are not eventually saved, and that in a spiritual, saving way and manner, to himself; of which there is not the least intimation in this text: and in order to establish the resistibility of the grace of God, by the perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect; it should be shown that Christ would have savingly converted persons, and they would not be converted; and that he bestowed the same grace upon them, he does bestow on others, who are converted: whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of the Jews, to whom, he was sent as the minister of the circumcision, would have gathered them together under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of himself, as the Messiah; which if they had only notionally received, would have secured them, as chickens under the hen, from impending judgments, which afterwards fell upon them; but their governors, and not they, would not; that is, would not suffer them to receive him, and embrace him as the Messiah. So that from the whole it appears, that this passage of Scripture, so much talked of by the Arminians, and so often cited by them, has nothing to do with the controversy about the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular redemption, efficacious grace in conversion, and the power of man's free will. This observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage, in favour of free will.

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

Does Matt. 23:37 refute the synergist's understanding of John 12:32?

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37 ESV)

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32 ESV)

In John 12:32, Jesus says he will draw all people to himself. I don't believe this means 100% of humanity, but synergists do. So assuming they are correct, how am I supposed to understand Mattew 23:37? Jesus there says that he would have gathered the children of Israel together, but the Jewish leaders weren't willing. In other words, like Matthew 23:13 says, the scribes and Pharisees shut the kingdom of God in people's faces and weren't willing to let them be exposed to Jesus. Note just one out of many examples:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48 ESV) then in v53:

So from that day on they made plans to put him to death. (John 11:53 ESV)

How exactly did Jesus draw the people who the scribes and Pharisees prevented from being exposed to Jesus?

guuila · Mar 21, 2013

janxharris · Mar 22, 2013

griff said:
According to this verse, what is the reason that the Ephesians were predestined for adoption?

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6 ESV)

It was God's pleasure and will that believers in Jesus would be holy and blameless in his sight - that they would be adopted as sons.

How?

If you cannot understand without it being explained then I am at a loss. Without doubt, it is a normal human response to rail against such a notion.

Yes I have. I'm not ashamed of the word of God.

Firstly, unconditional election is NOT the word of God.

So you have explained the Gospel to a non-believer and at the same time told them that it is possible that they may have been excluded from it?

And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. (Jeremiah 32:40 ESV)

Did they fear God before he put the fear of him in their hearts?

Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel. For the king and his princes and all the assembly in Jerusalem had taken counsel to keep the Passover in the second month—for they could not keep it at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient number, nor had the people assembled in Jerusalem—and the plan seemed right to the king and all the assembly. So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed. So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, “O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see. Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you. For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him.”
So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD. (2 Chronicles 30:1-12 ESV)

Please explain why it is that Judah, some men of Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem doing what the king and the princes commanded. What made the difference between them and those who laughed them to scorn?

Apologies, I should have said that I meant that God would not make anyone do anything that might lead to their damnation.

I agree that God does influence men as you have outlined.

janxharris · Mar 22, 2013

griff said:
You need to read the context. Prior to v37, over and over he says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." He's obviously speaking to the Jewish leaders. Then in v37, he says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37 ESV)

Who was it that killed the prophets and stoned those who were sent to the Jewish people? The Jewish leaders? Yes or no?

So you are saying that the children, the people of Jerusalem, would have willingly been gathered by Jesus if it were not for the religious leaders? You have been arguing for total depravity and unconditional election all along and now you are saying otherwise?

Without doubt the Scribes and the Pharisees were rightly rebuked by Jesus but the children were guilty too. The leaders made it much harder for the children to be gathered but they would have been resistant too.

If the leaders were the ones who decided to kill the prophets the children went along with it. Anyway, Jesus mentions Abel, so he is talking in a general sense rather than just about the prophets.

Jesus weeps over Jerusalem in Luke 13 so he was sad for the totality of it's population.

Jesus clearly implies that man has free will.

janxharris · Mar 22, 2013

Skala said:
No it doesn't. How?

If all men deserve hell, how does it impugne his character to have mercy on whomever he wants? Mercy is not owed to anyone, thereofre it is not unjust to withhold mercy from someone. It is only injustice if it is withheld from someone who is owed it.

If God withholds mercy from someone who deserves hell, what do thy get? Injustice? No, they get justice. Hell is justice. Punishment is justice. Can you tell me who receives injustice at God's hands if He decides to save one but not another?

Are you okay with the possibility that God may have withheld mercy from you?

Jesus said: 'I am the gate; anyone that enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out and find pasture.'

It is obviously unjust to withhold mercy from someone without good reason whilst, at the same time, showing mercy to another without good reason. That you don't acknowledge this is baffling. God would never do such a thing. Sending his Son to die on the cross - such a beautifully merciful act - does not sit in harmony with the notion of him picking and choosing who will be saved and damned.

Can you tell me who receives injustice at God's hands if He decides to save one but not another?

A staggering statement. I am speechless.

Do you agree with this statement? "If damnation be justice, then mercy can choose its own object". So far, it seems like you disagree with it. Why?

Why do I need to respond to this?

janxharris · Mar 22, 2013

Skala said:
If damnation be justice, then mercy can choose its own object". So far, it seems like you disagree with it.

All mankind deserves damnation. God, merciful, sent Jesus to die on the cross for every man. Each man, guided by the Holy Spirit, chooses to accept this mercy or reject it.

I don't accept Mr. Edwards' words because they imply Reformed Theology's unconditional election.

guuila · Mar 22, 2013

janxharris said:
It was God's pleasure and will that believers in Jesus would be holy and blameless in his sight - that they would be adopted as sons.

You answered a question I didn't ask. I asked you what the reason was for their adoption. If you read carefully, you'll see "according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace."

If you cannot understand without it being explained then I am at a loss. Without doubt, it is a normal human response to rail against such a notion.

Why can't you answer a simple question? How does unconditional election impugne God's character? It is also a normal human response to hate God and deny his existence. Do you think it would be wise to follow a normal human response in that case? I'm pretty sure there are a few verses about what seems right to a man is death in the end. I don't know why you're advocating a humanistic philosophy here. Christians should be guided by the Bible, not their feelings. But yes, I agree. Humans naturally hate it when they hear about a sovereign God. In our natural configuration we want to be God and want to have the final say on our eternal destination. The fact that God would decide that has a way of exposing the self-righteousness of man.

Firstly, unconditional election is NOT the word of God.

Straw man. I never said that. I said I'm not ashamed of the word of God. That implies I'm not ashamed of the entirety of it, and every doctrine contained therein. I never once tried to equate the word of God to unconditional election.

So you have explained the Gospel to a non-believer and at the same time told them that it is possible that they may have been excluded from it?

Yes. After going back and forth with an atheist for a long time, I told him the only difference between me and him is grace. God gave me eyes to see and ears to hear, so I don't think I'm any better than the atheist. I'm just better off. When opponents like this accuse you of thinking you're better than they are just because you're a Christian, it's nice to be able to consistently give God all the glory and consistently explain that God is 100% to credit for your conversion. Does your theology allow you to do that?

Apologies, I should have said that I meant that God would not make anyone do anything that might lead to their damnation.

If men are left to themselves, they are already on the road to hell. You totally ignored the elephant in the room regarding the 2 Chron. passage. It clearly says God gave them a heart to do what was commanded.

guuila · Mar 22, 2013

janxharris said:
So you are saying that the children, the people of Jerusalem, would have willingly been gathered by Jesus if it were not for the religious leaders? You have been arguing for total depravity and unconditional election all along and now you are saying otherwise?

No. I'm not saying any more than the text says. Jesus' main point is condemning the leaders' actions. I don't believe the text is teaching that God desperately wanted to save the children of Israel and the Jewish leaders were able to thwart his plan leaving him eternally frustrated.

Jesus clearly implies that man has free will.

Yep. Nobody here has said otherwise. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to destroy this straw man.

guuila · Mar 22, 2013

janxharris said:
All mankind deserves damnation. God, merciful, sent Jesus to die on the cross for every man. Each man, guided by the Holy Spirit, chooses to accept this mercy or reject it.

I don't accept Mr. Edwards' words because they imply Reformed Theology's unconditional election.

janx: All mankind deserves damnation. All mankind deserves mercy and God would be unjust to withhold it.

:doh:

janxharris · Mar 22, 2013

griff said:
You answered a question I didn't ask. I asked you what the reason was for their adoption. If you read carefully, you'll see "according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace."

Jesus was predestined - and this is 'in accordance with his pleasure and will to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.' It is believers that are adopted, as sons, into this.

Why can't you answer a simple question? How does unconditional election impugne God's character? It is also a normal human response to hate God and deny his existence. Do you think it would be wise to follow a normal human response in that case? I'm pretty sure there are a few verses about what seems right to a man is death in the end. I don't know why you're advocating a humanistic philosophy here. Christians should be guided by the Bible, not their feelings. But yes, I agree. Humans naturally hate it when they hear about a sovereign God. In our natural configuration we want to be God and want to have the final say on our eternal destination. The fact that God would decide that has a way of exposing the self-righteousness of man.

Because you offer no good reason for God deciding to choose one person for salvation whilst another is damned (again, no good reason is given) then it is logical to conclude that God would be acting unjustly.

Please do explain the reasoning behind it.

Where is your empathy for the human condition griff?

Yes. After going back and forth with an atheist for a long time, I told him the only difference between me and him is grace. God gave me eyes to see and ears to hear, so I don't think I'm any better than the atheist. I'm just better off. When opponents like this accuse you of thinking you're better than they are just because you're a Christian, it's nice to be able to consistently give God all the glory and consistently explain that God is 100% to credit for your conversion. Does your theology allow you to do that?

I asked you to tell me if you had included your doctrine of unconditional election whilst presenting the gospel to a non-believer and you turn it into an issue about not taking glory? I didn't ask that.

I repeat: have you, whilst giving the gospel to a non-believer, told them that God may have decided that they would not be regenerated by Him and that therefore, if that was the case, there was no hope for them? Yes or no?

guuila · Mar 22, 2013

janxharris said:
Jesus was predestined - and this is 'in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.' It is believers that are adopted, as sons, into this.

Wrong again. Seriously, read the words carefully. What is the direct object of the verb 'predestined' here: In love he predestined us. Again, Janx, who did he predestine?

What is the means by which we were predestined?

through Jesus Christ,

What was the basis for this predestination through Jesus? What was the reason for it?

according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6 ESV)

Janx - you are reading things that simply aren't there.

Because you offer no good reason for God deciding to choose one person for salvation whilst another is damned (again, no good reason is given) then it is logical to conclude that God would be acting unjustly.

Again, Paul gives us a reason. You are essentially telling Paul, and ultimately the Holy Spirit, that this reason is not good enough. Here it is again:

according to the purpose of his will If this isn't enough, here's another verse for you to contemplate:

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began... (2 Timothy 1:8-9 ESV)

Again we see that God saved us because of his own purpose. You seem to be really uncomfortable with this. You want the reason to be because of something YOU did, not because of a reason that only God knows. You are simply denying what Scripture teaches. I don't know what else to tell you. The reason is given to us, and the reason is that God chose to love us - not because of anything whatsoever we have done, not even because of our willingness to repent and believe. Repentance and faith are gifts from God. Janx, if you are a believer, it is because God chose to love you and decided to grant you the gift of faith. It's not because you did something that set you apart from unbelievers.

I asked you to tell me if you had included your doctrine of unconditional election whilst presenting the gospel to a non-believer and you turn it into an issue about not taking glory? I didn't ask that.

I was simply telling you why I went there. It almost seems like you're wanting to find trivial things to argue about.

I repeat: have you, whilst giving the gospel to a non-believer, told them that God may have decided that they would not be regenerated by Him and that therefore, if that was the case, there was no hope for them? Yes or no?

I told them about God's sovereign grace, yes. There is no hope for people whose names aren't currently written in the Book of Life. I don't care how you want to spin it. Yes, I told the atheist that ultimately God will be the one who saves him if he is saved. He had no problem with that. He doesn't want to be saved. He doesn't care if there is no hope for him. He hates God. If that hatred for God changes to love for God, God will be the reason for it, not him. Salvation is of the Lord. Evidently that means something entirely different to you. In your theology, salvation is of you and the Lord.

Skala · Mar 22, 2013

janxharris said:
Are you okay with the possibility that God may have withheld mercy from you?

I am okay with the understanding that I deserve hell, but God saved me out of mercy. Anyone who is not ok with that doesn't understand their own sinfulness.

It is obviously unjust to withhold mercy from someone without good reason whilst, at the same time, showing mercy to another without good reason.

If you withhold mercy from someone who deserves hell, then what has happened is called justice, not injustice. To let him perish is to let him receive the justice he has earned.

I am appalled that you think if God lets someone go to hell, then He has done an injustice.

Janx, there can't be a "reason" to give mercy. That's why it's called mercy. Mercy, by definition, is free and voluntary. If mercy has a reason attached to it, then it isn't really mercy. That's like saying "I will forgive you if you wash my car". That's not mercy. That's earning your freedom. That's called working for your salvation.

That you don't acknowledge this is baffling.

That YOU don't acknowledge that salvation is by free, unowed mercy is staggering.

I don't accept Mr. Edwards' words because they imply Reformed Theology's unconditional election.

They don't imply anything. The statement is simply a fact about the nature of justice, mercy, what is obligatory, and what is voluntary.

Apparently you don't know the difference between those things.

If a man is owed justice, then you can choose, or choose not to, have mercy on him. And you have done nothing wrong in either case. The man doesn't deserve anything. You can let him receive his punishment, or you can set him free. Since he's a criminal and has earned (his wages) condemnation, he is, literally, at your mercy and your disposal. If you let him perish, then justice is served. If you save him, then you have been merciful and gracious.

If you save one person, you aren't obligated to save another. Each person is an individual case, since each person is owed (his wages) condemnation for his sins.

skala said:
Can you tell me who receives injustice at God's hands if He decides to save one but not another?

janx said:
A staggering statement. I am speechless.

So you have no actual answer to my question. Thanks for making that plain. Doesn't that concern you? That you can't even defend your own view?

Weep Over Jerusalem?

Veteran

guuila

Guest

jdbear

Guest

jdbear

Guest

guuila

Guest

guuila

Guest

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

guuila

Guest

guuila

Guest

guuila

Guest

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

guuila

Guest

guuila

Guest

guuila

Guest

Veteran

guuila

Guest

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Similar threads