• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Arminians, why are you Arminian?

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
WHO LOOKED? WHO SAVED?

Sinners look to the Saviour. They do not save themselves.
Exactly right. Here is a comical story related to the lifting of the bronze serpent that uses satire to underscore the absurdity that lies behind this oft repeated Calvinist claim:

And the LORD said unto Moses, “Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.”(Numbers 21:8-9)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.(John 3:14-15)

[Scene: The border of Canaan near the land of Midian, two Israelite men from the tribes led by Moses and a silent young woman all stand at a high point and look out over the promised land]

Zimri: Ah, finally on the border of the promised land!

Carmi: Yes, we’ve come a long ways.

Zimri: Now we get to enjoy the good part. Been quite a journey here, hasn’t it?

Carmi: Indeed. We’ve known nothing but the desert our whole lives.

Zimri: Yeah, that was was pretty dangerous too, but God’s been faithful to deliver us, even when we failed Him. Remember that time we all complained so much against Moses that God sent those vipers into the camp?

Carmi: All too well…

Zimri: But even then God’s mercy was amazing; when Moses put up that bronze serpent, all we had to do was look at it and God cured us. It was awesome, all God asked was that I look up and acknowledge my need for His help, and He healed me.

Carmi: But, what you are in effect saying is that you cured yourself.

Zimri: Cured myself? What are you talking about?

Carmi: I’m saying that you hold a man-centered view of divine healing, and lack vital understanding as to how God cured us.

Zimri: Vital understanding?

Carmi: Yes, when God delivered those He wished to from the serpents, He did so all of His own power, with no inherent cooperation from those bitten. This important teaching is commonly called the doctrine of snakes.

Zimri: You lost me. How did I cure myself?

Carmi: Looking up at the snake, in your beliefs, is something you did, and therefore you caused your own cure.

Zimri: That seems to be a bit of a stretch. God was the one who gave the cure, and commanded Moses to put up the bronze serpent, all he told us to do was look at it and-

Carmi: But looking at it was a work, it was something that you did.

Zimri: Wait, now looking is work? Remind me not to wake up on the Sabbath.

Carmi: Since it was you who effected the condition, it was in essence you who effected the cure.

Zimri: So you’re saying God just gave us the power to cure ourselves or something?

Carmi: Oh no, not at all. God had to revive you before you could look up at the snake at all.

Zimri: Revive me?

Carmi: Yes, you were actually already dead from your snake bite.

Zimri: Dead, like hyperbole ‘dead?’ Like a Genesis 20:3 ‘dead man?’

Carmi: No, literally dead.

Zimri: Like, “I am dead Horatio” dead?

Carmi: No, dead as in ‘physically decomposing’ dead, and therefore totally powerless to do anything but be a corpse.

Zimri: Uh, I don’t recall this.

Carmi: Of course not, you were dead at the time.

Zimri: Oh right, right.

Carmi: And because you were already dead from your snake bite, you weren’t capable of looking up at the snake, so you had to be brought back to life to do so.

Zimri: Well, I was certainly pretty delirious and weakened from the venom, so I have no problem buying that it was God who gave me strength to look up….

Carmi: No, no, God didn’t merely give you strength to look at the snake, He irresistibly changed you so you would both be capable and irresistibly drawn to look up at the snake.

Zimri: Changed me?

Carmi: By reviving you of course.

Zimri: Ah.

Carmi: It’s called the ‘irresistible snake.’ So you were literally dead and helpless, but God brought you back to life so you would be able and willing to look at the snake. See, it’s written right here, “…and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.”

Zimri: Um, isn’t that saying that the people who looked at the bronze serpent survived?

Carmi: No, it’s saying that those who lived, or rather were brought to life, looked on the bronze serpent.

Zimri: That sounds a bit backwards. It seems that our living was contingent on looking at the bronze serpent, and I distinctly recall feeling the effects of the poison subside when I looked at it, not before.

Carmi: Your mistake is a common one, but your being revived, cured, and looking at the serpent all happened at the same instant in time, it’s simply a logical necessity that your being revived came first. You have to study and think about it real hard for a long, long, long time before arriving at this important truth.

Zimri: I’m sure you do.

Carmi: Of course you being a Phinehasite wouldn’t understand it.

Zimri: A what?

Carmi: A Phinehasite. Followers of the beliefs of Phinehas, you know, Aaron’s grandkid – the priest.

Zimri: Oh, him.

Carmi: He holds to the heretical view that those bitten by the snakes weren’t yet completely, physically dead, but merely had the sentence of death working in them. Phinehas is under the delusion that he wasn’t irresistibly compelled to obey by being literally resurrected, but thinks that he somehow just ‘cooperated’ with God in performing the impossibly difficult task of looking up at the snake so that he could be healed! And since he believes that he had to make some kind of decision to look up (obviously a work meritorious beyond imagining), he is therefore robbing God of the glory in healing him! So anyone who believes that free will plays any role in divine healing is a Phinehasite.

Zimri: I barely know Phinehas, much less studied anything he wrote or said.

Carmi: Doesn’t matter, you still fall into that category. If you don’t believe in totally monergistic divine healing, then you’re automatically a Phinehasite of some kind. Of course, Phinehasism is really just semi-Nimrodism, and everyone knows that the Phinehasism eventually leads to either spirit channeling or sun worship, as that’s really what consistent Phinehasism amounts to….

Zimri: And I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Carmi: Hopefully God will reveal it to you and save you from your Phinehasite blindness. In fact, here’s a list of scrolls I recommend you read on the subject that will give you a better understanding of monergist divine healing and the Phinehasite error.

Zimri: So if God actually revived us so we could look at the serpent, then why did some people stay dead from the snake bites?

Carmi: Because God didn’t want everyone to look at the snake. God only intended that certain people look at it.

Zimri: Really? I didn’t get that indication at all.

Carmi: God’s ways are very mysterious.

Zimri: Yeah, but Moses invited anyone who was bitten to look at it.

Carmi: Yes, that was the ‘outward hiss’ but not the ‘effectual hiss.’

Zimri: The what?

Carmi: God only wanted certain people to be cured, so He made only a limited amount of antivenin,

Zimri: I wasn’t told this.

Carmi: -then He chose certain people to be cured and let the rest die.

Zimri: Ah, so He chose them because He knew they’d hear and respond?

Carmi: No, He chose them from eternity past based on nothing whatsoever about them, then after they died from the snake bites, He revived the ones He chose so that they would both have the innate desire and the irresistible unction to perform the action of looking up at the bronze serpent, thereby receiving a dose of the limited supply of antivenin that He’d prepared beforehand.

Zimri: Where exactly are you getting all this?

Carmi: I…it’s…it’s so elementary, even a child could see it.

Zimri: But, didn’t He say that anyone who was bitten could look and be cured?

Carmi: Oh He did, but that was God’s “I don’t really mean this, I just say stuff like this to relate to people” will talking. In God’s “super-duper-secret really, really I actually mean this” will, He didn’t really want everyone who was bitten to look at it, and hence wouldn’t revive them, which is why the antivenin was limited.

Zimri: ….This seems like a somewhat overly complicated system of beliefs.

Carmi: Well it has to be true, otherwise you must logically have cured yourself.

Zimri: Hmmmm…I see. So since the antivenin is limited, then what if I get bitten by another viper? Could God not cure me?

Carmi: That’s the best part. The fact that you were cured of your snake bite guarantees that you will make it into the promised land.

Zimri: Really?

Carmi: Yes, it’s like a divine seal of approval. To those who have been chosen and cured, God has unconditionally chosen to provide final entrance into the new land.

Zimri: I seem to recall Him listing some stuff we’d better not do, as well as what would happen if we disobeyed….

Carmi: Oh that’s just something God’s “I don’t mean this” will says to goad you into living right. It’s all up to His sovereign “super-duper-secret” will really.

Zimri: Hey, that kind of makes sense. I mean, He wouldn’t have cured us if He’d wanted us to die in the desert.

Carmi: Exactly. While being brought to life again will certainly make you want to avoid future snake bites, there’s no actual chance for you to fall short of entering, even should you run across every viper this side of the Jordan. You can rest in complete assurance that you will make it through.

Zimri: Oh wait, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a few of the people die who had previously been cured.

Carmi: They were never really cured. The belief that they were actually cured stems not from objective observation, but the influence of biased Phinehasite teachings.

Zimri: But they were, you know, walking around with no apparent problems.

Carmi: God provided them with a temporary means to give the illusion that they were alive and had been cured, so that we and even they thought that they were, but the fact that they have failed to make it to the promised land demonstrates that they were never truly cured.

Zimri: How could they think they were cured, or even move around at all if they were already dead?

Carmi: That- …That’s a mystery.

Zimri: So if someone might be walking around like they’re perfectly healthy, but in reality still be poisoned, and dead no less, then isn’t it possible that you or I might not really be cured as well?

Carmi: Technically, yes, but unlikely; and if you aren’t truly cured there’s nothing you can do about it anyway, so you really shouldn’t waste time troubling yourself about such things.

Zimri: Wow, that’s a relief. I was kind of worried about bringing this Midianite chick back to camp with me. If I didn’t know for sure that God was going to preserve me, I’d be scared of what Phinehas might try and do.

Carmi: I for one find it highly doubtful that he was ever cured in the first place.

Zimri: You’re definitely right on that one. He is so man-centered. Come on Cozbi, let’s get to the camp. I’ll show you the Tabernacle.

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...explained-a-monergist-view-of-divine-healing/
 
Reactions: Job8
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Two Parallel truths,

God's Sovereignty and Humans Responsibility -

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two.

No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.

Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained,that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm
 
Last edited:
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Two Parallel truths,
God's Sovereignty and Humans Responsibility - You cant harmonize them and they both are true.
Andy, was that a typo? You meant you CAN harmonize them, because God harmonized them.

1. Was God sovereign in Eden? Absolutely

2. Was Adam responsible in Eden? Absolutely

3. Was there any conflict? Absolutely not.

Before and after the Fall, God was always sovereign, and will always remain sovereign. AT THE SAME TIME God gave man dominion over the whole earth at creation. Did that diminish His sovereignty? Not in the least. God's sovereignty is used as an excuse by Calvinists to shore up their false doctrine of eternal decrees pertaining to salvation.

But the true eternal decree is stated in Revelation 22:17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,656
Northeast, USA
✟196,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So if we do not resist, even though God enables us to resist, that means we have libertarian free will. We had the God given ability to do right, but chose to do wrong.
But does not the inevitability of God's unfolding plan include our choices?
 
Upvote 0

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.

Or it is because we have not carefully Biblically defined one or the other of these concepts.


But contradictions reveal error, and if this is our approach the Bible and truth, we can affirm all sorts of things that plainly contradict each other. For example, the Bible certainly depicts God at times as being ignorant of certain things or gaining knowledge at certain times. Those are the passages that Open Theists like to cite. The Bible also declares that there is nothing God does not know (which is the classical view of exhaustive foreknowledge). Now it simply cannot be true that God knows everything and there are all sorts of things God does not know. So we need to revisit these texts and see where the misunderstanding is. Logic is a reflection of God's truth, the One who is the truth and defines truth. The word "logic" comes from "Logos" the same Greek word that is used to describe Christ in John 1 (usually translated: "the Word"). Can we use logic improperly? Of course. But if something is clearly illogical it cannot reflect God's truth because God's truth is the basis of logic and the laws of logic (primarily the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle). The idea that God irresistibly causes us to do something and at the same time we are truly free not to do that thing is illogical, an obvious contradiction, which reveals error, and that will not change in eternity either.

Now the Arminian absolutely affirms God's sovereignty, but recognizes that sovereignty does not mean "exhaustive determinism." It doesn't mean that in any other context and it doesn't mean that in the Bible either. In fact, you won't find the word "Sovereignty" in the Bible with respects to God. Sometimes "adonai" is translated that way when compounded with "YHWH" since English translations typically translate both "adonai" and "YHWH" as Lord. So instead of the redundant "lord LORD", they make it "Sovereign LORD." And that gives us a good clue as to how the Bible sees sovereignty. It is about God being Lord, meaning that He is the ultimate authority in the universe and has the absolute freedom to exercise His authority as He pleases. That certainly does not mean that God must exhaustively determine all things in order to be "Sovereign". If anything, that would strike against His divine freedom to create free agents and hold them accountable (as Lord) for their choices and actions. So Arminians both affirm God's sovereignty and providence and that God has given His creatures a measure of free will and will hold us accountable for our choices and actions. A.W. Tozer does a good job of explaining this:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." (A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God)


But this is just a dodge and assumes that truth and error can somehow become compatible given enough time. Even eternity cannot make sense of nonsense. Now this does not mean there is not Biblical mystery. There is, but that is never an issue of embracing contradiction as truth. The Trinity is a mystery and beyond our comprehensions, but it is not illogical. Saying that an eternal decree dictates our actions so that we cannot do anything but what the decree dictates we do, while also maintaining that we do have the freedom to do otherwise than what the decree dictates we do is plainly illogical and reveals error, not mystery. This is not an "apparent" contradiction, it is an "obvious" contradiction. If this can be an "apparent " contradiction, then any contradiction can likewise be just an "apparent" contradiction. It is like saying that the decree is both fully irresistible and fully resistible. It is like saying we can choose when we have no choice. Those are not parallel lines, those are blatant contradictions. Otherwise, we might just as well say that everything the Bible says is both true and false. I understand that these sorts of discussions can make one want to throw up his or her hands and say "maybe both things are true", but the simple fact is that both things cannot be true, at least not in the way you describe it (though they can both be true if sovereignty is not defined in such a way that necessary excludes libertarian free will).

And that gets back to proper interpretation of the key passages.
 
Reactions: Leevo
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married


I have read nearly every post on this thread. And I see the debate between the two camps with regards to salvation.

My post above is my conclusion that God is sovereign and that man is responsible.

The Arminian will say anyone can come to God, The Calvinist will say only the elect, whom the father chose according to His will can come to the father. I think they both are right, I believe in the sovereignty of God, I would consider myself a Calvinist, as you can tell by my profile picture. But at the same time throughout scripture God is saying whosoever shall repent and turn to me shall be saved.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think they both are right, I believe in the sovereignty of God, I would consider myself a Calvinist,
But believing God is sovereign is not a just a feature of Calvinism. All Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God. We just do not believe in the Calvinist contrived understanding of sovereignty as equating to exhaustive determinism. So it is not a matter of believing in God's sovereignty or not, it is a matter of whose view of sovereignty is Biblically accurate.
Thats why you cant harmonize the two view points because they both are truth.
Actually, if they were both true in the sense you are describing that would mean they could be harmonized. If they cannot be harmonized, that means they cannot both be true. The view you are suggesting is irrational and incoherent as it claims that two incompatible concepts can yet be compatible. If that is the view you want to affirm, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is incoherent as stated.
 
Reactions: Leevo
Upvote 0

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
By the way, if you are going to quote Spurgeon, you should give credit to the source: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm
 
Upvote 0

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For more on why these seemingly irreconcilable issues are really just problems created by Calvinism and not Scripture, see my response to C. Michael Patton on his claim that because Calvinism seems irrational, it is probably true:

https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...chael-pattons-the-irrationality-of-calvinism/

God Bless.
 
Reactions: Leevo
Upvote 0

kangaroodort

Active Member
Jan 8, 2016
216
80
51
NH
✟18,472.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Andy, I would also suggest that this is not something you need figure out right now. Many people know almost nothing of this issue and still live wonderful Christian lives. While this is an issue that looks at the nuts and bolts of salvation, it is not an issue you must fully understand in order to be saved (though sometimes it does seem to me that Calvinists ironically suggest that believing salvation is unconditional is the necessary condition for for getting and remaining saved). This sort of discussion can be stimulating and interesting and it is good to try our best to understand all that God's word says. But practical Christian living is much more important, and there are plenty of things that good Christians just will not agree on. So don't let this trouble you too much and don't feel that you must declare yourself on it or that you need to just affirm that both things are true even if that requires holding to incompatible ideas. Christian growth is much more about spending time with the Lord in prayer and reading His word and allowing Him to speak to you, as well as loving others as God loves us, etc. This debate is peripheral. Here is some more good advice from Tozer given to a College student,

"I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?"

And I'll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God." (emphasis mine)

Cliff Westergren"

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18309&forum=35
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
...The Calvinist will say only the elect, whom the father chose according to His will can come to the father.
Let's assume for a moment that this is true. Now let's take the case of Israel. Why would God the Father not bring every Israelite to Christ? Why wasn't Israel totally saved?

God specifically included Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant. So if Calvinism was true, absolutely every Jew should have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, because the whole of Israel was an "elect" nation, and every spiritual privilege was given to them. THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF JEWS REJECTED CHRIST PROVES THAT THE CALVINISTIC THEORY OF ELECTION IS FALSE.
 
Reactions: Leevo
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married


Thank you, your right there are many more important things to focus on, and praying and spending time in the word, is more beneficial then debating.

I am going to post a Paul Washer quote:

"I know all about the sovereignty of God, about the great confessions, and I embrace them all. I know about election and predestination, and all those things I believe; but at the same time, when I look in the new testament, this is what I hear God saying, "I don't care what you have become, and I don't care what you've done, My Son has paid for it all on the cross, now come home... He calls all men to turn from sin and come back to Him, and those who come to Him, He will not cast out...God is love and He has provided a Savior... and if you don't come to Him, the fault will be yours."

Why can both not be true? That he picks whom he will, and he also calls everyone to come to Him?
 
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

I don't follow your logic, Salvation was offered to Jew and Gentile alike.

God's elect is comprised of some jews and some gentiles. With regards to the nation of Isreal, Why would God have to elect every single Jew? Rather then partial selection?

Yes he did chose a nation, out of all the pagan and gentile nations, he chose the Jews to be his people, but that doesn't mean they are all elect.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes he did chose a nation, out of all the pagan and gentile nations, he chose the Jews to be his people, but that doesn't mean they are all elect.
Do you not see that that statement reveals the fallacies of Calvinism? Now please ask yourself why God would CHOOSE (ELECT) a nation and then allow the majority of them to go to Hell? "His people" yet in Hell? How in the world could not all be elected for salvation?

It would be like selecting a top-notch team in any sport and then assigning the majority of them to sit on the bench. The coach would be immediately fired. Please think about this very carefully. It thorougly unravels everything about Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

But isn't the fact that he chose Israel a sign that he does choose whom he will? It wasn't salvation offered to pagan and gentiles, but to Jews, and not even all of them were saved. Kind of like the road is NARROW and FEW enter it.

God chose Israel, so out of Israel, some chose to follow and some chose not to...
 
Upvote 0

Leevo

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2015
774
286
29
Tennessee
✟37,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian


Sounds like you believe in corporate election, heh.
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God chose Israel, so out of Israel, some chose to follow and some chose not to...
And so we are back to what we have been saying. If "some chose not to" then they exercised their free will, and if that is true (which it is) then Calvinism is false.

Technically (Calvinistic logic), a nation specifically chosen by God to serve Him should be completely predestined for eternal life, therefore none could choose NOT TO be saved. "Irresistable grace" would prevent them from choosing NOT TO. But you admit that some chose not to, hence grace was resisted and TULIP was cancelled.
 
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

God chose the nation of Israel, but that does not mean every Israelite is saved, or chosen. The ones who excersized their free will, and chose not to believe, could they not have been the ones whose names do not appear in the Book of Life?

I don't think the ENTIRE nation of Israel should have been predestined for eternal life, I think salvation OT was limited/exclusive to the chosen people of God, and among them that believed God, were credited as righteous, those are whom belong to the Lord, and were ultimately saved.

There were many immoral Isrealities who served pagan gods and foreign idols. They were not part of the flock, because they did not hear His voice nor follow Him.

I think it could go both ways, I could say:

The chosen were given a heart of flesh which allowed them to follow the LORD, The ones who ultimately don't follow aren't his sheep.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: royal priest
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God chose the nation of Israel, but that does not mean every Israelite is saved, or chosen.
It looks like I am simply not getting through. Why would God choose a nation for Himself and then predestinate the majority to Hell*Q*

You simply are not coming to grips with this very fundamental truth. It would be similar to a friend telling you *I really love you as a friend, I have chosen you as my best friend, but guess what, I am going to shoot you dead right now because you have been predestined to die today*. Of course that makes no sense, and neither does TULIP.
 
Upvote 0

PrettyboyAndy

• Andy •
Site Supporter
Sep 14, 2009
1,092
354
Toronto/NY
✟139,925.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Were loosing focus on the story of the Bible and the goal of restoring fellowship between God and man, and God giving a people to his son, and them becoming conformed to the image of Christ.

a) God chose a nation to whom he would ultimately send his son to redeem mankind.
b) The aforementioned is an example of God choosing in the OT, so I don't see a problem with choosing an elect in the NT also.
c) Just because God chose the isrealities, does not mean God needs to save every single individual who belongs to Israel.

God was fixing the problem in Genesis 3, by choosing a nation, and using them as a means of accomplishing his goal of restoring fellowship with mankind, by sending his Son to redeem us.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: royal priest
Upvote 0