Calvinists do not really affirm "the purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever"

The Righterzpen said:

You still miss the point that no one would choose God if left to their own volition. We are all dead in trespass and sin and therefore don't want God to begin with.

Click to expand...

Man is not born with a totally depraved nature making him unable to choose God, that is a man made idea. As I just posted in another post earlier, those in Acts 2 were lost, spiritually dead but were willing and able to hear, understand Peter's gospel message, be pricked in the heart and ask what they must do and obey all while dead. Those who are physically dead cannot do anything but the spiritually dead sure can do things.

The Righterzpen said:

The choice of who were the elect was made from the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4) So therefore God's "choosing someone" could not be a result of a choice they made in this life.

That's also covered in Romans 9 when Paul talks about Jacob and Esau having been elected or not prior to birth.

Click to expand...

God chose that a group, Christian, would be saved before the world began. But God never determined for men which ones will or will not be in this foreknown, predestined group. Such choices for men would make God a respecter of persons.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In Romans 11, God cast off the Jews from being His chosen and in Romans 9 Paul is raising and refuting arguments he knew the Jews would have against God for casting them off. The Jews thought simply because of their fleshly descent from Abraham God had to save them and casting them off would be breaking promises God made to Abraham.

The idea that God had to save the Jews simply because they were Abraham's descendants had been refuted by others already, for example, in Matthew 3:9, John refuted the idea by telling the Jews God can raise up children to Himself from these stones.

In Romans 9, Paul picks two descendants of Abraham, Jacob and Esau to make his point God does not have to base His choices/promises on physical descent.

Note that Paul skipped a generation, he did not use Isaac and Ishmael to make his point for if he did, then the Jews would say Isaac, (the true son of Abraham) was chosen over Ishmael (son of a hand maiden) due to physical descent.

So Paul skips a generation and uses Jacob and Esau, for both were descendants Abraham and of Isaac (who the Jews considered Abraham's true son) so the Jews could not make the same argument between Jacob and Esau they could with Isaac and Ishmael. Paul's point here being.... if God's choices are based on physical descent then God would have to have also chosen Esau (Edom) too for they were just as much the true descendant of Abraham as was Jacob (Israel). Of course, Esau (Edom) was not chosen for God did not base it on physical descent...as Paul says in Romans 9:8 "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

So Paul is NOT say God was choosing to save Jacob and choosing Esau to be lost but proving God did not base HIs choices/promises on physical descent.

As I read the Bible, I do no read anywhere that Esau was lost, but as I read it, Esau could have been saved. After the falling out between Jacob and Esau they forgave each other, (very touching scene in Gen 33:1-4), Genesis 33:4. They lived together peaceably and their possessions became so great the land could not contain them all, so God blessed (not hated) Esau by giving him a possession (Mt. Seir Deuteronomy 2:5) and driving out the inhabits of Mt. Seir before Esau (Deuteronomy 2:22) . No indication at all that Esau died a lost, unforgiven reprobate.

But why did God choose Abraham Isaac and Jacob? Was it a capricious choice? No. Was there a basis Yes.

Why did God choose Abraham Genesis 18:19 "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." God foreknew that Abraham and his descendant would be obedient, not perfectly obedient, but obedient enough that God could accomplish His will in bringing "upon Abraham that which (God) hath spoken of him"

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." In God's foreknowledge, God foreknew that Israel (Jacob) would be the better choice, one stronger than the other.

So there was a basis, obedience, that God foresaw in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that God did not see in Esau and the Edomites.

If God's choice of Jacob over Esau was about salvation with Jacob being chosen to be saved and Esau lost, was God's choice of Abraham over Melchisedec mean Melchisedec was destined by God to be lost?

bling said:

I will let Christ define and use His definition of “dead” (in trespass and sin) since Christ could use any word He wanted, yet chose to describe the prodigal son as “dead” twice while the son was in the foreign land. That son while dead was able to come to his senses (on his own, no servants were sent to him) and decide to turn to his father (repent), all while being in a dead state.

Click to expand...

Jesus did define what that means. The prodigal was "dead" at one point, though obviously not physically and when he "came to his senses" was he "dead" anymore? (That's a valid question.) How many dead prodigals never come to their senses - and why not?

The answer to that question is because the action of God actually is what causes sinners to repent:

Romans 2:4, Acts 5:31, Jeremiah 31:17-19

bling said:

If God is working in the heart of some that are unworthy and could just as easily and safely work in the hearts of all who are unworthy and all are unworthy, then God is being less than the epitome of Love.

Click to expand...

God could have but didn't and He didn't because it was to the furtherance of His glory not to. What is in the recognition of undeserving grace if everyone gets it?

bling said:

I see God doing and allowing everything He can to help those who are willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective. The willingness to accept or reject God’s help (like the prodigal son being willing to accept his father’s charity) is the determining factor for who is helped by God. God is not going to force His Love on you like some shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.

Click to expand...

God's initiated action alters the course of human will

Matthew 8:2-3, 1 Corinthians 1:1, Luke 10:22, John 5:21, John 6:37, Romans 9:16, Romans 9:18, Philippians 2:13, Jeremiah 30:21-22

bling said:

You can be macho, hang in there, be willing to accept the punishment you fully deserve, be willing to pay the piper and not disturb your Father again or you can wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy while God is still your enemy. This is not something they really “want” to do, but are just willing to do it. You just have to be willing to “accept” your enemy’s undeserving charity. They do not “want” to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity, but are just a big enough wimps to do it.

Click to expand...

But does this not contradict your premise about humans wanting or not wanting God?

Hammster said:

As I’ve shown you in context, that passage says nothing of the sort.

Click to expand...

It has been shown if God makes choices about salvation for man, then God is being a respecter of persons in choosing one man over another. But since any, Jew or Gentile, can choose for themselves to "fear God and work righteousness", then God is not being a respecter of persons.

-57 said:

Acts 10 shows Gentiles saved prior to baptism. That points out your error.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Peter in Acts 15:11 says "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)."

Peter preached the first recorded gospel sermon to the Jews in Acts 2 and preached the gospel to what would be the first Gentile converts in Acts 10. The "like manner" way the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved was the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins.

It was Gods plan that salvation of the gospel first go to the Jew (it did in Acts 2) and then to the Gentile (Acts 10) Romans 1:16. Therefore when Peter says in Acts of the Apostles 10:47 "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized,..." If any Jew (many, if not most all the Jews, did not think salvation should go to the Gentiles - the reason for Peter's vision in Acts 10) tired to forbid the Gentiles from being water baptized (being saved, remission of sins) they would be fighting against God in God taking salvation to the lost Gentiles.

-57 said:

Romans 9:21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Click to expand...

If the clay disobey, mar in the hands of the potter, it will be fashioned a vessel of dishonor.

2 Timothy 2:20-21 "Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some unto honor, and some unto dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the master’s use, prepared unto every good work."

The obedient will be vessels of honor.

Jeremiah 18:6-10
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Jehovah. Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it;
if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

If a nation obey, turn and repent they will be fashioned into vessels of honor but if they will not "obey My voice" they will be vessels of dishonor. So there is clearly a basis....and that basis is obedience to God.

Hammster said:

You keep adding to scripture. You should stop. Peter says that salvation is also available to Gentiles. That’s it. So trying to make it say something it doesn’t is just wrong.

Click to expand...

I am following what Peter is saying.

The context in Acts 10 shows that anyone, Jew or Gentile, from "every nation" that chooses for themselves to "fear God and worketh righteousness" will be accepted with God. This shows God is NOT choosing for men but men, but men are choosing for themselves. And since men are choosing for themselves their own eternal abode, that keeps God from being a respecter of persons when it comes to who will or will not be saved.

The context of Romans 2:6-11 shows men choose for themselves the type of work they will do, whether righteousness or wickedness, which determines their eternal abode. Again, God is not choosing for men which type of work they will do.

You continue to accuse me of adding to the Bible but what is actually going on is you are avoiding having to deal with the fact that Calvinism's idea of predestination makes God a respecter of persons in having God unconditionally CHOOSING FOR MEN their eternal abode apart from man's free will, apart from man having any input at all in his own salvation.

Does God choose for men or do men choose for themselves to fear God and work righteousness??

TheSeabass said:

No, it doesn't. Peter in Acts 15:11 says "But we believe that we (Jews) shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they (Gentiles)."

Peter preached the first recorded gospel sermon to the Jews in Acts 2 and preached the gospel to what would be the first Gentile converts in Acts 10. The "like manner" way the Jews in Acts 2 and Gentiles in Acts 10 were saved was the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins.

It was Gods plan that salvation of the gospel first go to the Jew (it did in Acts 2) and then to the Gentile (Acts 10) Romans 1:16. Therefore when Peter says in Acts of the Apostles 10:47 "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized,..." If any Jew (many, if not most all the Jews, did not think salvation should go to the Gentiles - the reason for Peter's vision in Acts 10) tired to forbid the Gentiles from being water baptized (being saved, remission of sins) they would be fighting against God in God taking salvation to the lost Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Nope. They received the Holy Spirit...saved... THEN were baptized.

Peter was saying, look they too are saved!!!! Who can refuse them the association with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

TheSeabass said:

God has given Christians the duty of the great commission to take the gospel to the lost

Click to expand...

Had, lost, found. - i.e. one can only lose what they once had, and find what they once lost.

The Lord said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24) Not lost souls in general, i.e. Gentiles, which is what you're implying.

@Kate30 has a point about the origin of election, faith, and belief, quoting Jer. 23 (which while true, is more about Jeremiah himself).

Here are links to the more relevant pre-destinatorial verses (or dual-predestinatorial verses), surrounding election of Jacob vs Esau:

Mal. 1:1-5; Deu. 7:6-9; Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn 4:9-10; Gen 25:20-34

The relevant verses:

• "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau"
• "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers… Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations"
  
• "For God so loved the world..."
• "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us..."

@TheSeabass "Hearing" (and believing) is ineffective alone without being pre-conditioned by God, to soften our hearts, open our ears, to be able to receive the Gospel.

The above verses tell of God only electing those who "would keep the oath" and would "love him and keep his commandments". He knew Jacob would turn out the way he did, and loved him, and chose him. Contrarily, he absolutely hated Esau (who would grow up to reject God and sell his inheritance for a bowl of bean soup).

This is rather important for an evangelist in the NT perspective because there were (and are) many 'peddlers of the word of God' who went from town to town selling the Gospel for money, for accommodation, etc. Orators, dialecticians, etc.

Hence, Paul went to great lengths to stress his integrity to Christ (and love for the people), reinforcing how he "laboured day and night" (1 Thes. 2:9) and "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:" (2 Thes. 3:8) -- The very opposite of most ministers and missionaries nowadays (full-time preachers on a salary + fundraising + manse / housing + extras. without doing secondary work as Paul and others did). People who preach for profit. -- This is a cancer in the church, but anyway.

Re. God's pre-conditioning / fertility / election vs preaching and teaching, Paul said, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." (1 Cor. 3:6) -- Meaning that no matter the evangelist, the words will mean nothing to a person who's mind, heart, and soul, are not fertile conditions ready for the Gospel. -- This is one of problems of the Jews who loved to attend temple: They believe in Kabbalah / Jewish Magic / Jewish Superstition, which is verbal.

E.g. 'Abracadabra' = 'I create when I speak' vs Only God the Creator creates... Or spitting 3 times or saying a special phrase 3 times for good luck (similar to some Presbyterians who chant 'the 3 Amens' at the conclusion of service - which is pagan superstition). The point is sermons alone, and the 'words' alone will not only fall on deaf ears, but it can be sinful to presume that one's sermon has the sure power to save souls, by merit of it's own.

Hence, the Lord told his disciples about seeds of the Gospel that will fall onto infertile soil: "Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:" (Mt. 13:5) -- Plants that won't grow properly, being tangled with weeds. This is the story and condition of the church today. Stunted growth. Tangled in false-doctrines. Anti-semitic towards God's people (Jacob's people) and imperfect in so many ways.

Kate30 said:

God did give us the great commission to preach the gospel unto the ends of the earth.

Click to expand...

Have you considered, Who is "us" ?

Assuming you mean 'Gentiles'...

Hmm, not the easiest topic but anyway... hopefully this won't be incendiary, but... The 'Great Commission' is not really the responsibility of Gentiles.

Gentiles are 'guests' of the Lord's feast (Lk. 14). We're secondary citizens / 2nd class citizens in the kingdom of heaven. We're not the primary beneficiaries, but secondary beneficiaries. Paul makes this clear with the olive tree metaphor, reinforcing how we mustn't be conceited evangelicals: "Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee (the wild olive tree branches, wild by nature)." (Rom. 11:20-21)

The Lord had Jewish disciples and a Jewish ministry, to Jews (exclusively - at the time), hence, the 'Great Commission' passages themselves are exclusively Jewish concepts, such as Baptism (ritual cleansing of sin in Jewish mikveh baths, found in synagogues - per the Torah) and the laws of hospitality (to accept a traveller who enters a Jewish place - per Torah). These were all Jewish laws and customs. Thus when the disciples arrived, they would be essentially doing what John the Baptist had already been doing in 'preparing the way', by ritually cleansing people of sin, repenting, and turning from sin back to God.

Remembering that Christ explicitly said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24) and likewise his disciples were continuing the same mission, 'following' their master.

Evangelicalism is a very very recent thing... that took off in the 1800s... The Early Church wasn't as hyperactive and anxious to preach to the "ends of the earth". Listen to Ranald Macaulay from L'Abri explain how momentum from the 'Pietous Hangover' and collapse of various Western revolutions spilled into what we now know as 'Evangelicalism' (see 28:00, ). For elaboration see Ryan Reeve's lecture on 'The Rise of Evangelicalism'.

It wasn't until Acts during Omer that Gentiles were suddenly converted, and this also wasn't by the Jewish apostles it was by the HOLY SPIRIT (again, the divine origin of God's election / predestination). So, the Early Church was not established by "us" Gentiles "preaching the Gospel". Not at all.

The proof is in Isa. 49:

The Lord said, "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

The phrase "l'owr goyim" = "light to the Gentiles" or "light to the nations". Meaning that "the tribes of Jacob", "the preserved of Israel", aka "Jews" are 'the light' to 'us Gentiles', to 'our nations'. The same phrase is repeated in Lk. 2:32, Acts. 13:47.

i.e. God's intended ministry process: Jew --> Gentile (not vice versa)

This correlates to Psalm 56:14, which uses the same word for 'light' about the "light of living"...

Which also correlates with Pro. 6:23, "For the commandment (of God) is like a luminary, and the law is as a light", referring to the Torah, the commandments / law that is intended by God to be taught to the Gentiles / nations.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

Kate30 said:

Did Kate have a Damascus experience. Most certainly not. For the God did like what he saw straight away. Others like Paul did come to know the God later: Everything in Gods time. There was no reasoning for Paul when God met the Paul. God simply revealed himself and did convert him straight away. As to your 5 points except for maybe the first. Well nothing wrong with those points for that is what respectable and law abiding Christians do. It be how one learns. So what about the Bing is he on that list . Or does he have his own seperate little list ???? It be some late. Now must sleep.zzzzz

Click to expand...

Have a good night’s sleep!

The Bible does not say: “God simply revealed himself and did convert him straight away”, so that is a huge assumption on your part. Paul does not say: “I had no choice but to become a Christian”, but Paul does say: Acts 26: 19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.” But saying: “I was not disobedient…” leaves the impression it was Paul’s free will choice?

With free will I see how Saul/Paul could have not become a Christian, so this was a free will act of Saul/Paul.

If God is zapping people and converting them, why is there inconsistencies in the way it is done? Why is God going way out of his way to get Saul/Paul and not doing the same for others?

You feel God zapped you and yet will not zap one of your “neighbors” (who is no different than you were before being zapped), so do you have or can you have survivor regret? I can understand the fact that my neighbor would never enjoy being Loved unconditionally (since he really want to be loved for how he wants others to perceive him to be) and would not like to just Love other unconditionally (in spite of the way others are), so he would not be happy in heaven. It is sad, but that is his choice and it would not be right for God to force heaven on him.

I can see Godly Logic in everything that is happening and why it happened at the time and explain the timing to the nonbeliever, while “Everything in Gods time”, sounds like we are trying to explain the actions of a crazy person?

I see in myself and every mature adult at sometime in their life being brought to their senses by their own bad choices and having the opportunity to either: seek and accept the creator’s help as pure charity or hang in there, maintain the little pride they have (even though it is a false pride), be willing to pay the piper and take the punishment they fully deserve. I wimped out.

philadelphos said:

Had, lost, found. - i.e. one can only lose what they once had, and find what they once lost.

Click to expand...

Nope. Doesn't have to mean that at all. There's no reason God couldn't just use the idea to illustrate that ALL men through Adam lost something that they as a part of humanity once had....fellowship with God.

The Lord said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24) Not lost souls in general, i.e. Gentiles, which is what you're implying.

Click to expand...

Sorry but if you're going to interpret that in the way you do than the Gentiles cannot be saved.

The Righterzpen said:

Jesus did define what that means. The prodigal was "dead" at one point, though obviously not physically and when he "came to his senses" was he "dead" anymore? (That's a valid question.) How many dead prodigals never come to their senses - and why not?

Click to expand...

The prodigal son was made alive by the father and not his own actions.

All mature adults at some point in their lives through their own poor choices are brought to their senses (many times for most), but that does not mean they come alive. The prodigal sons of this world throughout time make the choice when they “come to their senses” to either: hang in there, be macho, be willing to pay the piper, take the punishment they fully deserve, don’t disturb the Father further with undeserving request and do not fuel their brother’s scorn or they can chose to wimp out, give up and surrender to their enemy God, being just humbly willing to accept their enemy’s pure undeserved charity.

The Righterzpen said:

The answer to that question is because the action of God actually is what causes sinners to repent:
Romans 2:4, Acts 5:31, Jeremiah 31:17-19

Click to expand...

Your changing the topic: the topic was “coming to your senses” which is not the same as “repenting”. When you “come to your senses” you think about where you are headed and at least some possible alternatives. Repenting does require “coming to your senses”, but then you can make that possible choice to repent. The “choosing” to repent for the nonbelieving sinner is for selfish reasons (not liking the way he/she is going and feeling God might just be willing to unconditionally help them, out of pure undeserved Godly charity). So “trusting” in God’s Love (goodness and forbearance and longsuffering) will turn the sinner in that direction. The greater “repentance” is when the person becomes a child of God from being a child of satan, but that come after God showers the person with gifts.

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

This follows what I am saying.
Acts 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

This is about the Jews (God’s people on earth at the time)?

Jeremiah 31:17 And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jehovah; and [thy] children shall come again to their own border.

18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself [thus], Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a calf unaccustomed [to the yoke]: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah my God.

19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

This is about Jews repenting?

The Righterzpen said:

God could have but didn't and He didn't because it was to the furtherance of His glory not to. What is in the recognition of undeserving grace if everyone gets it?

Click to expand...

So, it is all God’s fault? God needs more glory and this is done by: not saving more and/or everyone?

God does not need anything to understand grace, so lets look at our understanding of grace:

Your saying: “We better recognize ‘God’s grace’ by God not offering His grace to everyone.” But grace is part of God’s Love, so very limited grace to a few people, also means God’s Love is very limited. So with your understanding we learn God’s Love is very limited?

Where did Christ present a very limited Love for sinners?

This idea does not go along with: God being Love, God having infinite Love, God being the epitome of Love, and so on?

Yes, God is totally “just”, but you can be totally just and totally Loving, so that does not resolve the question.

What I see throughout scripture and live: God offering grace/Love to everyone for at least some time in the sinner’s life to the point that person will never accept God’s grace and Love.

What we do see are most sinners rejecting God’s grace/Love of their own free will and thus learn we can reject it.

You make the problem of, most sinners on earth not being saved, out to be God’s problem (Lacking Grace), while I see the problem as being man’s problem of not accepting God’s grace. These two alternative present two contrasting images of God. So, does God have an unbelievably huge gracious Love?

The Righterzpen said:

God's initiated action alters the course of human will

Matthew 8:2-3, 1 Corinthians 1:1, Luke 10:22, John 5:21, John 6:37, Romans 9:16, Romans 9:18, Philippians 2:13, Jeremiah 30:21-22

Click to expand...

All mature adults have been set up to have the opportunity to accept or reject God’s grace/Love or reject it.

The Righterzpen said:

But does this not contradict your premise about humans wanting or not wanting God?

Click to expand...

NO! When you are a soldier of satan, you do not like God (the same way the prodigal son did not like his father and virtually said: “I wish you were dead so I can have my inheritance.”). Just because you are weak and wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy God does not mean you “want” God, like God, or love God, since He is still your enemy you virtually hate God. You are just willing to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from you enemy (like soldiers in war). You might feel you fully deserve to be tortured to death by your enemy for war crimes, but you trust in an unbelievable Love your hoping for.

philadelphos said:

Have you considered, Who is "us" ?

Assuming you mean 'Gentiles'...

Hmm, not the easiest topic but anyway... hopefully this won't be incendiary, but... The 'Great Commission' is not really the responsibility of Gentiles.

Gentiles are 'guests' of the Lord's feast (Lk. 14). We're secondary citizens / 2nd class citizens in the kingdom of heaven. We're not the primary beneficiaries, but secondary beneficiaries. Paul makes this clear with the olive tree metaphor, reinforcing how we mustn't be conceited evangelicals: "Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee (the wild olive tree branches, wild by nature)." (Rom. 11:20-21)

The Lord had Jewish disciples and a Jewish ministry, to Jews (exclusively - at the time), hence, the 'Great Commission' passages themselves are exclusively Jewish concepts, such as Baptism (ritual cleansing of sin in Jewish mikveh baths, found in synagogues - per the Torah) and the laws of hospitality (to accept a traveller who enters a Jewish place - per Torah). These were all Jewish laws and customs. Thus when the disciples arrived, they would be essentially doing what John the Baptist had already been doing in 'preparing the way', by ritually cleansing people of sin, repenting, and turning from sin back to God.

Remembering that Christ explicitly said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24) and likewise his disciples were continuing the same mission, 'following' their master.

Evangelicalism is a very very recent thing... that took off in the 1800s... The Early Church wasn't as hyperactive and anxious to preach to the "ends of the earth". Listen to Ranald Macaulay from L'Abri explain how momentum from the 'Pietous Hangover' and collapse of various Western revolutions spilled into what we now know as 'Evangelicalism' (see 28:00,

). For elaboration see Ryan Reeve's lecture on 'The Rise of Evangelicalism'.

It wasn't until Acts during Omer that Gentiles were suddenly converted, and this also wasn't by the Jewish apostles it was by the HOLY SPIRIT (again, the divine origin of God's election / predestination). So, the Early Church was not established by "us" Gentiles "preaching the Gospel". Not at all.

The proof is in Isa. 49:

The Lord said, "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

The phrase "l'owr goyim" = "light to the Gentiles" or "light to the nations". Meaning that "the tribes of Jacob", "the preserved of Israel", aka "Jews" are 'the light' to 'us Gentiles', to 'our nations'. The same phrase is repeated in Lk. 2:32, Acts. 13:47.

i.e. God's intended ministry process: Jew --> Gentile (not vice versa)

This correlates to Psalm 56:14, which uses the same word for 'light' about the "light of living"...

Which also correlates with Pro. 6:23, "For the commandment (of God) is like a luminary, and the law is as a light", referring to the Torah, the commandments / law that is intended by God to be taught to the Gentiles / nations.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

Click to expand...

Philadelphos the video was most interesting. Especially with how the speaker explains how technology has influenced the way society and the church thinks and functions today. And how that is eroding our cultural values to allow our character and spirituality to grow. As to the the great commission, whilst the church did begin with Jewish believers it was very quickly realised that the church was going to incorporate and commission believers from all nations to preach the good news of Jesus Christ. Unless of course you believe that the old is superior to the new.

bling said:

The prodigal son was made alive by the father and not his own actions.

Click to expand...

Congratulations - you finally got it right!

bling said:

Your changing the topic: the topic was “coming to your senses” which is not the same as “repenting”. When you “come to your senses” you think about where you are headed and at least some possible alternatives. Repenting does require “coming to your senses”, but then you can make that possible choice to repent.

Click to expand...

In one respect you are correct, because a lot of people have moral reformations but not salvation. A moral reformation is not repentance that leads to eternal life though. That type of repentance requires an act of God to raise the dead.

bling said:

This is about Jews repenting?

Click to expand...

Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

So yes, this passage in Jeremiah is speaking to those who become believers.

bling said:

God needs more glory and this is done by: not saving more and/or everyone?

Click to expand...

Take that up with God. He didn't atone for everyone. He's the one who said this was unto His glory.

Romans 3:3-8
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

bling said:

Where did Christ present a very limited Love for sinners?

Click to expand...

"Limited Atonement" - Jesus only paid for the sins of believers.

JESUS DIED FOR ONLY THE ELECT

"for he shall save his people from their sin" Mt 1:21

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (elect 1588) Mt 22: 14, 20: 16

"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, ... " Mt. 24:31

(it's not national Israel) - Rev 7:4 -15 (144 thou.)

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." Ps 33: 12

"Blessed is the man whom thou chooses, and causest to approach unto thee that he may dwell in thy courts:" Ps 65:4

"For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant, and he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness." Ps 105:42 + (Rom 9: 6)

"For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure" Ps 135:4

"But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham" Is 41:8

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." Is 48:10

"In whom we also have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will," Eph 1:11

"And except that the Lord had shortened these days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. " (elect 1586) Mk 13:20

"I know whom I have chosen ... " (elect 1586) Jn 13:17

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, .. " (elect 1586) Jn 15:16

bling said:

This idea does not go along with: God being Love, God having infinite Love, God being the epitome of Love, and so on?

Click to expand...

Again, take that up with God because the plan has unfolded as He has determined it would.

GOD REVEALS HIS MERCY TO ONLY THE ELECT

"neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Mt. 11:27

"Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Mt. 13:11

" ... no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father" Jn 6:65 "This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" Jn 6:29

"For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them; even so the Son quickens whom he will" Jn 5:21

".and the sheep follow him for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow for they know not the voice of strangers" Jn 10:4

bling said:

Yes, God is totally “just”, but you can be totally just and totally Loving, so that does not resolve the question.

Click to expand...

Except in your mind to be "totally loving" means to atone for everyone. And clearly God did not do that. So again, you have to take that up with Him.

bling said:

What I see throughout scripture and live: God offering grace/Love to everyone for at least some time in the sinner’s life to the point that person will never accept God’s grace and Love.

Click to expand...

"Many are called, few are chosen". Matthew 20:16, Matthew 22:14

bling said:

but you trust in an unbelievable Love your hoping for.

Click to expand...

If you're trusting in an unbelievable love you're hoping for; than how can you hate God - and vice versa?

Hammster said:

Can you quote the part in Acts 10 that talks about choosing for themselves?

Click to expand...

Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48 they were commanded to be water baptized, thereby they would be saved in "like manner" way as the Jews in Acts 2:38 cf Acts of the Apostles 15:11. It was the Gentiles own choosing to "work righteousness" in obeying God's command to be water baptized and be accepted with God or not be baptized.

philadelphos said:

Had, lost, found. - i.e. one can only lose what they once had, and find what they once lost.

The Lord said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt. 15:24) Not lost souls in general, i.e. Gentiles, which is what you're implying.

Click to expand...

Romans 1:16 it was God's purpose that the gospel be taken to the lost Jews first, then to the lost Gentiles. In Jesus' earthly ministry He did take the gospel to the Jews, for the most part they rejected. After His death and ascension back into heaven He left His written gospel word behind as His authority on earth, and Jesus preached that gospel to the Gentiles through that word, Ephesians 2:17 (Isaiah 57:19)

philadelphos said:

Here are links to the more relevant pre-destinatorial verses (or dual-predestinatorial verses), surrounding election of Jacob vs Esau:

Mal. 1:1-5; Deu. 7:6-9; Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn 4:9-10; Gen 25:20-34

The relevant verses:

• "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau"
• "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers… Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations"
  
• "For God so loved the world..."
• "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us..."

"Hearing" (and believing) is ineffective alone without being pre-conditioned by God, to soften our hearts, open our ears, to be able to receive the Gospel

Click to expand...

There is no verse that teaches one must be first "preconditioned" by God before one can hear and believe. Such an idea would mean God is solely choosing for men which men will or will not be saved making God a respecter or persons in unconditionally choosing to "precondition" one person over another.

In an earlier post, I showed that God's selection of Jacob over Esau has NOTHING to do with the personal salvation of either individual. God was selecting what men He would use to bring the Messiah into the world through. Was God's selection of Abraham mean everyone else in the world would be lost? God not selecting Melchisedec to be the father of many nations mean he was predetermined to be lost?

philadelphos said:

The above verses tell of God only electing those who "would keep the oath" and would "love him and keep his commandments". He knew Jacob would turn out the way he did, and loved him, and chose him. Contrarily, he absolutely hated Esau (who would grow up to reject God and sell his inheritance for a bowl of bean soup).

Click to expand...

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that God "hated" the individual Esau. The love and hate of Malachi 1 is directed to the peoples that came from Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom and not towards the two individuals who had been dead for centuries.

Again, in an earlier post of mine, I showed how Jacob and Esau forgave one another (Genesis 33:4) and lived together peaceably and their possessions became so great the land could not contain them (Genesis 36:6-7) so God BLESSED Esau by giving him Mt. Seir as a possession (Deuteronomy 2:5). Why would God remove the inhabits of Mt Seir from before Esau and give him that land as a possession if God "hated" Esau in the sense Calvinists think of 'hate'? There is no indication that Esau was lost from what I read in the Bible.

philadelphos said:

This is rather important for an evangelist in the NT perspective because there were (and are) many 'peddlers of the word of God' who went from town to town selling the Gospel for money, for accommodation, etc. Orators, dialecticians, etc.

Hence, Paul went to great lengths to stress his integrity to Christ (and love for the people), reinforcing how he "laboured day and night" (1 Thes. 2:9) and "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:" (2 Thes. 3:8) -- The very opposite of most ministers and missionaries nowadays (full-time preachers on a salary + fundraising + manse / housing + extras. without doing secondary work as Paul and others did). People who preach for profit. -- This is a cancer in the church, but anyway.

Re. God's pre-conditioning / fertility / election vs preaching and teaching, Paul said, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." (1 Cor. 3:6) -- Meaning that no matter the evangelist, the words will mean nothing to a person who's mind, heart, and soul, are not fertile conditions ready for the Gospel. -- This is one of problems of the Jews who loved to attend temple: They believe in Kabbalah / Jewish Magic / Jewish Superstition, which is verbal.

E.g. 'Abracadabra' = 'I create when I speak' vs Only God the Creator creates... Or spitting 3 times or saying a special phrase 3 times for good luck (similar to some Presbyterians who chant 'the 3 Amens' at the conclusion of service - which is pagan superstition). The point is sermons alone, and the 'words' alone will not only fall on deaf ears, but it can be sinful to presume that one's sermon has the sure power to save souls, by merit of it's own.

Hence, the Lord told his disciples about seeds of the Gospel that will fall onto infertile soil: "Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:" (Mt. 13:5) -- Plants that won't grow properly, being tangled with weeds. This is the story and condition of the church today. Stunted growth. Tangled in false-doctrines. Anti-semitic towards God's people (Jacob's people) and imperfect in so many ways.

Click to expand...

Again, there is no verse that says one must first be "preconditioned" by God miraculously or otherwise before one is able to hear and believe the gospel.[/quote]

-57 said:

Nope. They received the Holy Spirit...saved... THEN were baptized.

Peter was saying, look they too are saved!!!! Who can refuse them the association with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Click to expand...

The context does not say they were saved when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. In fact NO VERSE says baptism with the Holy Spirit saves/remits sins as in water baptism.

Again, Acts 15:11 Peter says Jews and Gentiles are saved in a "like manner" way and that like manner was was the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord for remission of sins, Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48.

---just the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2
---nowhere is it said that baptism with the Holy Spirit remits sins/saves
---therefore baptism with the HS is eliminated as the like manner way Jew & Gentile are saved.