Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
I'm the one who believes they are elect before they believe. Everyone who believes is made capable of believing because they are elect.

You are classifying Paul as a believer because he was a Pharisee and believed in God and was zealous for God? According to your logic it seems that Caiaphas was also a believer. I strongly disagree with that concept.

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to call you silly. It is the things you say that I find silly. Fine distinction. But it will have to do.

Silly wasn't a good word to use.
I just find calling someone a believer before they believe to be illogical.
What else can I say about it?

Their election is joined at the hip with their predestination to be adopted and conformed. That is why ones view of predestination is a big part of ones view on election. Ones view of predestination is in turn rooted in ones view of God's providential control of His entire creation.

Perhaps we are getting to the root of our problem.

Hopefully this one last long post will get us back on track.

In my OP I said,
"So called Calvinists see Gods supreme grace in His election of some and a corresponding effectual call to those elect. They see that in scripture. Some may disagree. Calvinists see that that effectual call somehow opens the hearts of the elect to the truth and they are saved through faith. Special grace or special calling some call it.
This concept seems to be particularly offensive to many. Im not sure why."

I then went on to lay out in great detail why it seems strange to me that you are so offended and preoccupied with this doctrine when there are more offensive doctrines that you yourself would have to face without the Calvinist beliefs to kick around.

I specifically said,
[FONT=&quot]"Im not looking for arguments concerning regeneration before faith or the definition of the words election vs. the word choosing or even talking about the doctrine of limited atonement here. Im not even looking to prove or not prove here that the Bible teaches election/reprobation in any particular passage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It may be too much to ask. But leave those arguments for other threads please."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This was prompttly ignored as the anti Calvinists pulled out their doctrinal guns and trained them on election. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The question I was getting at was how do non-Calvinists deal with the "monster" god they have left to deal with in their own theology after they have done away with the monstrous god of the Calvinists.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Seems to me that spending all your time refuting those evil Calvinists is a little like whistling through a grave yard in an attempt to stave off your own theological questions that go bump in the night.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The tune you whistle is an anti Calvinist tune. If the tune was no longer around to whistle the questions you'd likely have to ask about your own beliefs might be eye opening. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What if that tune ceased and you were forced to realize that the God of the Bible knew people would sin and suffer Hell forever and did it anyway? What if He was still there when the Calvinists were no more? What if every Calvinist simply refused to talk or even recanted his theology? What if there was no one to point a finger at and claim they were the ones defaming God with their theology? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You've still got all the same thorny issues to contemplate and figure how you would deal with this God of ours. There would still be the question of evil and God's allowing it to happen and still creating and punishing people who He says would be better off if they had never been born.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You might not like predestination. You might not like election. You might not think the Bible teaches SE. You might not like Calvinistic theology in any of it's aspects. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My question is, "What's the big beef with election as an issue when the really big issues wouldn't go away even without that word being in the Bible?"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What's the reason for your preoccupation with those pesky Calvinists and their ideas concerning God when you've still got a God who seems cruel and uncaring and who plays games with people's lives and eternities? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So you don't like election. So you hate Calvinists and you know they are wrong in their doctrines. OK -tell me about your own doctrines. Tell me how they present a nicer God than the Calvinist's God. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Re-read the opening post first and then talk about it some. I'm wondering if you can face the issues of an all powerful God who seems to be involved deeply in sin and wrath when He didn't need to do it anyway.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bottom line is - What do you have that is so much less offensive than the Calvinist's formula. Free will? Doesn't solve IMO. But let's hear about it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Maybe this thread can get back on track now that we've had a little SE bashing to relieve all the Arminian/free grace tensions.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Which is why I qualified my first post by stating that we should stay on SE on NOT go to the other four points, which apparently is hard for those of RT to so seeing as it is an all encompassing dogma.
Yes the key word you voiced is IMO, and as I said I prefer God Word to man's opinion.

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
stan1953
I realize I did a disservice to you and everyone here when I titled this thread. My title gives the distinct impression that I am looking to debate SE.
Obviously after reading the body of my OP that isn't the case. But not everyone reads the body of the first post and I can't expect them to I suppose.
I probably should have named it something like, "Railing against election is a little like whistling through a grave yard." That would have gotten everyone's attention without the confusion.
My intent was to find some way to get the non-Calvinist camp to quit railing against Calvinism constantly. The same arguments are stated over and over again.
The Calvinist see the other guys redefining predestination and election because they don't like them. Their big gun is "show me a silver bullet scripture" or I won't believe the way the Calvinists believe it. To the Calvinists it seems that they end up saying things like, "God elected us after we elected Him." or some such thing. The Calvinists aren't buying it and obviously they never will.
I won't go into the view from the other side. You know that already being on that side apparently.
When I began to see that everyone was zeroing in on SE and not on the concepts I had intended - I realized my mistake. It was too late.
I've tried to correct what is going on and get on the track I had intended. I can't do any more and the posts get long and wordy when I try. I gave it my best shot.
I wanted this discussion to take place in soteriology because this is where all of the arguing goes on.
I seems that everyone will likely revert to the old stuff in this thread just as in all the others in soteriology.
My apologies again for confusion I caused concerning the intent of the thread.
My bad!

Not really...I did read your thread and did qualify my opening response.
I always address this issue when it comes up as I believe it is harmful to those that accept it and Paul admonishes us all to come against false teaching. No offence, but I think you are very naïve if you think you can get people to leave it alone....those who view it was wring will not leave it.
I am neither confused nor offended. I am more than resolute, and have been for all of my 43 years as a Christian.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

Freegace2 said,
"I am interested in the verses that clearly teach that one is elected before they believe. btw, Eph 1:4 (the usual proof text) actually refutes that notion. The "us" is a reference to believers. That's who is elected".

You'll likely want to just debate these things over and over agian challenging everyone to come up with a magic bullet that teaches SE. It's been done here by others and I probably couldn't add to that debate.

To me it comes down to you and those who believe like you playing word game frankly. You end up presenting a concept like; Joe Brown is mayor. Based on the fact that he is mayor I will elect him mayor. He will then be considered elected after he was mayor. No one can prove that he was elected mayor before he became mayor. Therefore I will say that he is only the "elect" because he has entered the mayoral office.

Sorry, but if words mean anything at all this is silly. It is silly in the above example and it is silly when discussing the elect in scripture. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that. And challenges to prove that it is silly by a particular verse won't make it any less silly when I won't play those word games. I don't claim to be a Greek scholar. But a little common sense can go a long way in theology IMO.

Freegrace said,
"So what's the problem? Only Calvinism has the problem with evil. For non Calvinists, the issue is easily solved with man's freedom to choose and think freely, AND being held accountable for his free actions."

I don't see the problem of evil being solved by free choice at all. (Even if it was - free choice is not a doctrine that I deny).

If God looked ahead and saw that some would exercise freechoice and end up in Hell, and created them anyway that's no kind of solution as to why He is good for doing it. He was supremely happy being God before doing these things and He could have chosen not to do them and cause all this pain. The problem remains whether you use a Calvinist model or a free grace model or an Arminian model.

Freegrace said,
"So, what would those big issues be?".......
'd be very interested to see what the free grace tensions are, in your opinion. Because I can't think of any. Really.

Please refer to my other posts including my original. I'm running out of steam. Add a few more issues if you will.

Hammster · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
I did NOT say man did, and obviously Jesus recognized the good that men are capable of, as he pointed it out. Maybe you should pray about it an query your savior?

So man doesn't prepare his own heart, but Jesus recognized good that men are capable of? Seems a bit of a contradiction there.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
Not really...I did read your thread and did qualify my opening response.
I always address this issue when it comes up as I believe it is harmful to those that accept it and Paul admonishes us all to come against false teaching. No offence, but I think you are very naïve if you think you can get people to leave it alone....those who view it was wring will not leave it.
I am neither confused nor offended. I am more than resolute, and have been for all of my 43 years as a Christian.

Your admission that you read and understood where I was wanting to go with the conversation in this thread is a very clear illustration of what my issue is with the fixation on SE. You knew where I wanted to go in the conversation. You purposefully channeled the conversation to the old debate on election that we have seen virtually every thread in soteriology end up being.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that it was just my fault in the titling of this thread. I see now that it wasn't just that. It was your absolute unwillingness to leave it alone that was the problem. It was intentional after all.

You and others seem to think that the Calvinist's view of election is the biggest issue in scripture. I disagree.

I'm pretty resolute myself. I believe that Arminian/feegrace theology is harmful as well. People will just have to determine for themselves which system they think is most harmful.

I believe that to allow for your theology requires a complete suspension of agreement with the scriptures concerning the very nature of God and His sovereign providential control over His creation. I'm not a complete "Calvinist" as some define Calvinism. But I think that most Calvinists feel that way as well even if they don't put it quite that strongly.

Here we stand brother! No wonder these things are so thorny.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

bling said:
In my previous post I did not address two of your statements that show a lot of wisdom and truth:

Your logic is good and this does present God as a monster and/or doing all this for some sick entertainment.

Your problem is with the “facts”, some facts are known today which Calvin in his time could not realize. We have shown experimentally over the last 100 years that: “Time is Relative”. In our little finite world that relativity of time is limited by the speed of light, but since information would have to flow faster than the speed of light for God, “time” would be different for God and we sometimes suggest God created time and exists outside of time. Most people agree with this concept and yet like yourself turn around and say: “God knew (before they were created) and yet created them anyway.”

If God is outside of time the “before they were created” would not exist in God’s time frame.

By suggesting there is a “before” and “after” for God is to limit God to time.

God does exist in our time frame and communicates to us for our understanding, but that does not mean we have to “limit” God’s knowledge of our future to it being God’s future also.

You believe God is omni-present, so would that also include throughout all of time?

Does God exist both in our past and our future right now as we exist in our present time?

Could the God of our future communicate with Himself in the beginning of our time?

Yes, God in the beginning could know all human free will decisions that will ever be made, from His existence way out beyond the future of man. It would all be “history” for the God way out in the future.

Here in lies the reason why God: “could not just make individuals that will accept His help and thus has to make some that will refuse to accept God help.” If “someone” is never to exist, than there is nothing to know about a non-existent person. God could make up the free will choices of a non-existent person the same as you could. As soon as a person will exist God can know everything about that person, so does that mean God is not all knowing, since God knows all there is to know past/ present/ future?

My head is spinning!

They tell me that there have been a couple of physicists who went crazy thinking about infinity. I suspect they were well on their way before they got to thinking about infinity.

But the subject of time is a heavy thing to think about as are other aspects of an "infinite" God.

Of course we know that God isn't bound by time. But He is and always has been able to think in time relationships. He is also the one who uses terms like; "in the beginning", "before the foundation of the world",and such.

The very use of the terms pre-destination and foreknowledge shows the concept of an even that took place (or is it is taking place???) one before the other.

I believe it is clear that (to use anthropomorphic terminology) there was a time when God had not created anything and a time after He created them. That includes folks who will eventually end up in Hell. He didn't need to do it. He could have done an "infinite" number of other things and "chose" not to do them but do this thing instead.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
My intent was to find some way to get the non-Calvinist camp to quit railing against Calvinism constantly. The same arguments are stated over and over again.

My argument against the Calvinist definition of election is that it is not supported by Scripture, which I clearly demonstrated in a previous post.

The Calvinist see the other guys redefining predestination and election because they don't like them.

The real issue is that Calvinism has "redefined" them. No one is either predestinated to salvation or elected to salvation. Believers are predestinated to conform to the image of the Son, and believers are elected to special privilege and service.

Their big gun is "show me a silver bullet scripture" or I won't believe the way the Calvinists believe it. To the Calvinists it seems that they end up saying things like, "God elected us after we elected Him." or some such thing. The Calvinists aren't buying it and obviously they never will.

Eph 1:4 is very clear. The "us" refers to believers; Paul and his audience, which includes ALL believers, by extension. That's who God elected in eternity past: believers. And the verse specifically tells us to WHAT God has elected believers for: to be holy and blameless. That's part of our expected service.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
Freegace2 said,
"I am interested in the verses that clearly teach that one is elected before they believe. btw, Eph 1:4 (the usual proof text) actually refutes that notion. The "us" is a reference to believers. That's who is elected".

You'll likely want to just debate these things over and over agian challenging everyone to come up with a magic bullet that teaches SE. It's been done here by others and I probably couldn't add to that debate.

Seems you've just dodged my request. I asked for verses that actually state what election is: that God chooses who will believe, as that is the logical conclusion of the RT view of election. For God to choose who will be saved, He must also by (RT) definition choose who will believe, and then He regenerates them so they will believe. Where is that verse?

To me it comes down to you and those who believe like you playing word game frankly.

What words have I been playing with?

You end up presenting a concept like; Joe Brown is mayor. Based on the fact that he is mayor I will elect him mayor. He will then be considered elected after he was mayor. No one can prove that he was elected mayor before he became mayor. Therefore I will say that he is only the "elect" because he has entered the mayoral office.

This is nonsense and I reject this mischaracterization of my view. I don't believe that even an idiot would make this kind of claim. So your charge is false.

Sorry, but if words mean anything at all this is silly. It is silly in the above example and it is silly when discussing the elect in scripture.

I agree that the example was way more than just silly. Nonsense. But I've given a clear definition of election and you've done nothing to refute any of it from Scripture. Will that refutation be coming?

No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that.

I'm neither playing with words or engaged in any kind of gymnastics. I am challenging the RT view of election, which I do not find anywhere in Scripture.

And challenges to prove that it is silly by a particular verse won't make it any less silly when I won't play those word games. I don't claim to be a Greek scholar. But a little common sense can go a long way in theology IMO.

The first thing that is necessary if one is going to use any common sense is to find verses or passages that actually say what they claim.

Freegrace said,
"So what's the problem? Only Calvinism has the problem with evil. For non Calvinists, the issue is easily solved with man's freedom to choose and think freely, AND being held accountable for his free actions."

I don't see the problem of evil being solved by free choice at all. (Even if it was - free choice is not a doctrine that I deny).

Your opinion is noted. It's still wrong, though.

Free will and accountability solves the "problem" of evil completely. Since Calvinism cannot stand behind free will, it cannot provide any solution for the problem, and its position makes God the 'first cause' of all sin and evil, which I believe is blasphemous.

Just as no auto maker is the cause of one's personal choices about how they drive their car, so God is NOT the cause of how anyone makes their own choices.

If God looked ahead and saw that some would exercise freechoice and end up in Hell, and created them anyway that's no kind of solution as to why He is good for doing it.

The error here is seen in your phrase "if God looked ahead". Since God is omniscient, He doesn't look ahead. He already knows. In fact, He has always known.

What Calvinists keep rejecting (or just not comprehending) is the fact that by providing the solution to sin (Christ's death on the cross for all men), He demonstrates His perfect and unlimited love for all His creatures. Even the ones who will reject His love. For some reason, RT just can't fathom that kind of love.

He was supremely happy being God before doing these things and He could have chosen not to do them and cause all this pain.

This is irrelevant and hypothetical. Let's just stick with "what is", not "what if".

The problem remains whether you use a Calvinist model or a free grace model or an Arminian model.

By rejecting (or not comprehending the free grace model) one cannot realize that there is no problem.

How does a problem remain with free will to choose and being responsible for all choices? Please explain this.

Freegrace said,
"So, what would those big issues be?".......
'd be very interested to see what the free grace tensions are, in your opinion. Because I can't think of any. Really.

Please refer to my other posts including my original. I'm running out of steam. Add a few more issues if you will.

I hope you're kidding. I'm not going to wade through pages of threads trying to find what you may be referring to. If you can explain tensions in free grace, just go ahead and do it.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
I believe that Arminian/feegrace theology is harmful as well.

I'm very interested in specifically what was meant by "free grace theology is harmful as well". Harmful in what way, specifically? Thanks.

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Hammster said:
So man doesn't prepare his own heart, but Jesus recognized good that men are capable of? Seems a bit of a contradiction there.

Only to you from your dogmatic POV.
I see it as consistent.

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
Your admission that you read and understood where I was wanting to go with the conversation in this thread is a very clear illustration of what my issue is with the fixation on SE. You knew where I wanted to go in the conversation. You purposefully channeled the conversation to the old debate on election that we have seen virtually every thread in soteriology end up being.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that it was just my fault in the titling of this thread. I see now that it wasn't just that. It was your absolute unwillingness to leave it alone that was the problem. It was intentional after all.

You and others seem to think that the Calvinist's view of election is the biggest issue in scripture. I disagree.

I'm pretty resolute myself. I believe that Arminian/feegrace theology is harmful as well. People will just have to determine for themselves which system they think is most harmful.

I believe that to allow for your theology requires a complete suspension of agreement with the scriptures concerning the very nature of God and His sovereign providential control over His creation. I'm not a complete "Calvinist" as some define Calvinism. But I think that most Calvinists feel that way as well even if they don't put it quite that strongly.

Here we stand brother! No wonder these things are so thorny.

Your expectation that people will leave it alone is a tad disingenuous to say the least. If that was really your intent then you should have posted in the RT or the Monergistic Safe House.

When you feel like actually debating the scripture and what it does convey, feel free to do so and let me know.

I spend the least amount of my online time on this thread, so no I don't, but it is a big issue. Sounds like you have become tired of defending it?

Hammster · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
Only to you from your dogmatic POV.
I see it as consistent.

I'm sure you do.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

This is for no one in particular.

My not providing a scripture that we can dissect here concerning SE isn't for lack of scriptures. It's just that they have all been trotted out by the Calvinists over and over again. Someone then trots out their explanation of how they only refer to service, the fine differences of election vs. choosing etc. etc. etc. In some of these cases it is all very unique and clever. It's even got me investigating my beliefs at times. That's a good thing IMO.

But why should we retry the case again and again and again. I invite everyone here to look through the soteriology forum and look at it from both sides. My lack of wanting to debate the issue in great detail is just because everyone has heard it all before. I'd like to cut a little new ground if possible.

Say what you will about it. Everyone here can assume what they want about what my arguments might be. You will probably be right in 80% of it. Everyone can assume what others would say in rebuttal. They'd probably be right in at least 80% of their assumptions.

The charge is made again and again, "You can't prove that." Let's hear it one more time and then leave it alone please.

I can almost hear the come back to why saying let's leave it alone is not being guided by scripture or being afraid to debate from scripture only- just going on my opinion etc. . Let's hear that also. Why not?

Then maybe we cut a little new ground.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

FreeGrace2 said:
I'm very interested in specifically what was meant by "free grace theology is harmful as well". Harmful in what way, specifically? Thanks.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Lets just include any other limited sovereinty person (LIKE stan1953) here in that question - not just you FG2. It'll cover more ground.

It's simply that your view of the lack of sovereignty concerning everything that happens seems close to another view of God than what I believe the scriptures teach.

The idea that God isn't involved fully in both evil and good and has relinquished control of anything at all is a dangerous false view of God in my view. I find it much more troubling than a doctrine like election could ever be.

The fact that the majority of Christianity now believes in a non sovereign God tells me nothing about the truth of the matter. The scriptures teach us about a totally sovereign God.

You and others charge over and over that I can't believe in free will and still believe in a sovereign God. That simply isn't true. God's sovereignty and my free will are totally compatible. Saying otherwise is a straw man it seems to me.

My free will and God's sovereignty work together. This seems like basic Christianity 101 to me. Leave that truth out of any theology concerning soteriology or anything else and you've distorted scripture badly. Your theology is bound to be off as it is in the case of all limited sovereignty proponents here on the forum.

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
Now we're getting somewhere!

Lets just include any other limited sovereinty person (LIKE stan1953) here in that question - not just you FG2. It'll cover more ground.

It's simply that your view of the lack of sovereignty concerning everything that happens seems close to another view of God than what I believe the scriptures teach.

The idea that God isn't involved fully in both evil and good and has relinquished control of anything at all is a dangerous false view of God in my view. I find it much more troubling than a doctrine like election could ever be.

The fact that the majority of Christianity now believes in a non sovereign God tells me nothing about the truth of the matter. The scriptures teach us about a totally sovereign God.

You and others charge over and over that I can't believe in free will and still believe in a sovereign God. That simply isn't true. God's sovereignty and my free will are totally compatible. Saying otherwise is a straw man it seems to me.

My free will and God's sovereignty work together. This seems like basic Christianity 101 to me. Leave that truth out of any theology concerning soteriology or anything else and you've distorted scripture badly. Your theology is bound to be off as it is in the case of all limited sovereignty proponents here on the forum.

I have a very good handle on the issue of SE or Sovereignty of God. My intent was to deal with the former, but I'm more than willing to address the later.

Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?

Hammster · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
I have a very good handle on the issue of SE or Sovereignty of God. My intent was to deal with the former, but I'm more than willing to address the later.

Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:11-13 ESV)

It's a command from God. I'm not sure how you don't see God's sovereignty here.

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?

Ephesians 6:1-13 "Put on the full armor of god, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm."

As I said, we are dealing here with the most basic of Biblical principles. Many of them are simply put on the shelf and out of sight by some when they consider salvation in all of it's aspects. That includes our activities leading up to and including our most basic Christian endeavors.

I was taught early on to cement certain Biblical truths concerning the nature of God and His relationship with the creation in my theology. Only then could I safely forge ahead into the more intricate considerations of theology.

Working out salvation (of which the above Eph. scripture is a part) is Him working in us first and foremost.

Philippians 2:12-13 "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

Our works are His works. Overcoming in spiritual battle is part of the works He is doing through us."

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

Consider also some of the most basic of Biblical concepts concerning the omni-present, upholding providence of God in everything in His creation including our brains and tongues.

Colossians 1:16-17 "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
Ephesians 6:1-13 "Put on the full armor of god, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm."

As I said, we are dealing here with the most basic of Biblical principles. Many of them are simply put on the shelf and out of sight by some when they consider salvation in all of it's aspects. That includes our activities leading up to and including our most basic Christian endeavors.

I was taught early on to cement certain Biblical truths concerning the nature of God and His relationship with the creation in my theology. Only then could I safely forge ahead into the more intricate considerations of theology.

Working out salvation (of which the above Eph. scripture is a part) is Him working in us first and foremost.

Philippians 2:12-13 "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

Our works are His works. Overcoming in spiritual battle is part of the works He is doing through us."

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

Consider also some of the most basic of Biblical concepts concerning the omni-present, upholding providence of God in everything in His creation including our brains and tongues.

Colossians 1:16-17 "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

This did not address my question. What is this saying about your previous statement about the Sovereignty of God? Why do we need to put on armour if God is in control of this world?
You said:

Marvin Knox said:
The idea that God isn't involved fully in both evil and good and has relinquished control of anything at all is a dangerous false view of God in my view. I find it much more troubling than a doctrine like election could ever be.

Obviously Paul teaches in Eph 6, that God has relinquished control to;
"the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms", if WE have to struggle against them.

nobdysfool · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
This did not address my question. What is this saying about your previous statement about the Sovereignty of God? Why do we need to put on armour if God is in control of this world?

How does one grow in strength except through exercise and struggle?

Obviously Paul teaches in Eph 6, that god has relinquished control to: 'the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms', if WE have to struggle against them.

God has not relinquished anything. What would make you say such a thing? God allows these intermediate forces for the purpose of accomplishing His Will in the world, fallen though it is. Our struggle against them is not because God has abdicated (which is what you imply), but because strength is built through resistance, struggle, and hardships. Otherwise we'd all be namby-pamby, weak, limp-wristed, milque-toast christians afraid of their own shadows, and wholly unfit for any use in the Kingdom.

heymikey80 · Jun 9, 2014

Hammster said:
I didn't.

I kinda thought the same thing. Isnt this taken to be instruction? And by whom? Sovereignty isnt exclusive of everything done, it is rule over what is done.

Were these the armor suggestions of God?

Now I guess we are on a hunt for suggestions and noncommittalness in Scripture, likemaybe Paul on whether to get married? Would that indicate lack of sovereignty, or diversity of roles in life?

Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Similar threads

Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????