• 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.

Calvinists...supported by this or hurt?

Status
Not open for further replies.

orthotomeo

U.E.S.I.C.
Jan 2, 2004
226
0
Ohio
Visit site
✟350.00
Faith
Christian
Let's say I visit one of those mega-car lots with hundreds of vehicles. I look around some and see what I want. I make my choice without having to look at every single car, truck and van on the lot. I "pass by" the vehicles I don't want, whether I actually saw them or not. In this example, "pass by" and "reject" amount to the same thing.

Yet God, being perfectly omniscient, knew from eternity past every human being who would ever exist. So can God be said to have merely "passed over" those who don't get saved, without actually rejecting them? No, because He knows everybody. He foreknew those He didn't elect just as fully as He foreknew those whom He did elect.

So the only way He could fail to elect most to salvation is by sovereignly choosing NOT to do so (by reprobating them).
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
orthotomeo said:
R.C. Sproul wrote:

In the Reformed view, God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not...work sin or unbelief in their lives...God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly.
With all due respect due to Mr. Sproul, but how anyone could read the bible and consider themselves regenerated and conclude of God stuff like this is beyond me. They will pass off my comments by saying that I am speaking from a carnal mind. Well i say that the carnal mind is theirs.

Utter nonsense, absolutely no concept of what it means to be just. And then they drag God down to their level of justice. In the name of God, they call good evil and evil good. Out of the perfect moral character of God, good and evil is defined. And according to God's own nature good is good, and evil is evil. And it does not matter who does what, they remain the same. Election cannot be justified in the name of God. There is no justification possible that can change this evil into good. Even if God uses evil to accomplish good, evil is still evil. The nature of election remains the same...
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
Chappie, your posts reek of hatred....
Ken said:
never mind


Sorry about that, pray for me, as I have not yet learned to love a God of election. I realize that I am probably placing my salvation at risk if I am wrong. I am afraid.

I preach that God is light, and in him is no darkness. Election is a darkness that I cannot accept. A God that would create in his image, beings for the sole purpose of eternal torment without ever giving them the opportunity to escape; predestined before they were even created to be subject to eternal torture; is a God that I have not yet learned to call God.

We frown upon men for torturing a helpless cat, but you praise a God that for his own pleasure: Creates beings with feelings: Beings that were fearfully and wonderfully made, he created them just to torture them.

What would you think of this God, if you looked out your back door and there he was; torturing a helpless cat just because he is God. What would your first reaction be? Would you recognize him as God, or upon seeing what he was doing, would you require further identification. Perhaps a drivers license and a major credit card with picture ID. Prayerfully I hope that he regenerated you better than to praise him for it.

Please my friend, this is not hate, it is the inevitable consequences of reformed theology. I never said that you believed them, "or" embraced then. Nevertheless they are there. Why do you not want to see them? Even tho you deny them, the effect on what you believe is there whither you want to see them or not. Placing your head in the sand will not make them go away. Accusing me of hate because I love enough to expose them will not make them go away.

Perhaps you would consider the possibility that God has appointed me a watchman, and this is my watch. If I see the enemy and do not warn, your blood will be on my hands. I am not strong enough to carry that burden. If I allow you to silence me, should I not ought to obey God?

Not hate my friend; I love enough to continue to warn in spite of all obstacles. I am not perfect, but I am called. Knowing that, I find solace in knowing that God will not allow you to be harmed by my imperfections.

I will gladly back off, if in the annals of all of eternity past, you can show me where these poor helpless souls had the opportunity to come to God, but refused. Is that too much to ask? That is not what you teach, you teach that they were created for hell, and then you turn around and want to blame them for it. Did God consult with them concerning the state of their creation?

These are not concerns of hate. I love the ones that you are so willing to burn. Perhaps I am their spokesman. Perhaps God has called me to be an apostle to those that are lost. When you say that they deserve hell, I hurt for them, I don't know why; but I do.

Pray that my pain at their suffering goes away. I cannot embrace my salvation while I can hear their cries. I so hope that God will have mercy upon me for loving them. He did say that he came to seek and to save those that are lost. Why do you consider me a hate mongerer because I love them?

Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be a hate mongerer also; and all that I believe that you are trying to do is praise God: But to them it is a God that hates them? Does that make God a hate mongerer also?

I do not hate any man; But in order to love them, I have to hate your theology, perhaps that is why you call me hateful. You try to hate the same things that God hates, and God hates them... So it is easy for you to discard the, I do not believe that God hates them, therefore I can love them. For me, they are as easy to love as you are. Do you despise me for that?
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,187.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Chappie said:
That is true.


The bible never says that. You said that....

The elect are the elect, but nowhere is scripture is it stated that they were predestined to be the elect. Noah "found" grace. No where does it say that Noah was predestined to find grace... Or that God found it for him...

Be well, be blessed...


Hbr 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Read Genesis

Gen 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.



ALL men were evil . God did not say all men are evil except Noah.


Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

No exception here for Noah.


Gen 6:8
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

He did not earn it , it was Gods unmerited favor.

Gen 6:9
These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

Justified by Gods grace( to have right standing with God) ,walked with God as Enoch had

"the Jerusalem Targum is, he "found grace and mercy;" the grace he found was not on account of his own merit, but on account of the mercy of God: and this shows that he was not without sin, or he would have stood in no need of the mercy and grace of God to save him; and as he found grace and favour in things spiritual, so in things temporal; he found favour with God, and therefore he and his family were spared"
Gill


Blessings back to you
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
rnmomof7 said:
Hbr 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Read Genesis

Gen 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.


ALL men were evil . God did not say all men are evil except Noah.


Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

No exception here for Noah.


Gen 6:8
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

He did not earn it , it was Gods unmerited favor.

Gen 6:9
These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

Justified by Gods grace( to have right standing with God) ,walked with God as Enoch had

"the Jerusalem Targum is, he "found grace and mercy;" the grace he found was not on account of his own merit, but on account of the mercy of God: and this shows that he was not without sin, or he would have stood in no need of the mercy and grace of God to save him; and as he found grace and favour in things spiritual, so in things temporal; he found favour with God, and therefore he and his family were spared"
Gill


Blessings back to you
It is not your ability to copy and paste scripture that I question, it is your ablity to intreprit them...
 
Upvote 0

Ken

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,137
47
62
North Central Indiana
Visit site
✟1,582.00
Faith
Calvinist
ortho, you said
It was clear from the get-go you weren't capable of even a rational discussion (much less a debate!) without resorting to personal attack and ignoring direct questions

Talk about resorting to personal attacks.... sheesh... or do you not feel that telling someone that they are not capable of rational discussion is some kind of compliment? Didn’t think so. What you have said is the very epitome of hypocrisy. And you did exactly as KayDee specifically asked you not to do, and specifically what you said you were not going to do, namely argue after she explained her beliefs. She was not looking for a debate, you knew that.



You insisted that she back up her remarks
but must ask you to back up what you said.[/quote

Which she did.



Then you said
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A DEBATE.


Then you post your diatribe!! Unbelievable.



You said
If you believe I have misrepresented Calvinism...if you believe I don't know what I'm talking about...then before God, and with all humility, I ask you to show me where I'm wrong.


She did, you just didn’t like it. You may not agree, but she showed you where she felt you were wrong. This does not mean having to convince you that you were wrong, which is an entirely separate issue.



You said
You have nothing to be afraid of.

Apparently, she did.



The fair and mature thing for you to do would be to apologize to KayDee for your hypocrisy, and for going back on your word in regard to your promise to not debate the issue.



You said
The questions I aimed at you weren't really for YOU. I never expected you to answer them, and you did exactly as I expected.



You sir, are a liar. If you did not “mean” for KayDee to answer you, then you have been deceitful in asking her questions that you did not really mean for her to answer at all. Or, if you did mean for her to answer them, you are a liar for claiming not to have asked her questions, while directly asking questions specifically addressed to her. Either way, you have some explaining to do, or rather, some repenting and apologizing. I mean, who asks questions when they do not “really mean” to be asking !?! Here are proofs of your lying:



So, KayDee, if your assurance……



Does any of this look to you like the work of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, KayDee?



Both can't be true. One of them is wrong. Which do you believe?



Please explain - because Packer didn't - exactly WHAT does a non-existent person do to "deserve" Hell? Exactly HOW can somebody "deserve" Hell when God predestines them to Hell before they're ever born? It makes NO SENSE. It's like someone designing a machine to explode, then blaming the machine when it blows up! Whose responsibility was it - the machine's, or the designer's? Explain, please.



(a just Judge can't condemn people for rejecting something HE made them unable to understand, now can He).

But if you want to cite verses that show where unsaved folks by nature can't understand the Gospel, please do.



Wrong. Salvation is the gift of God, but saving faith is not the gift of God. I invite you to prove from Scripture that it is.



There are more such lies I could point out, but I suspect that in even pointing out the ones I have thus far recorded, that pointing out others would just be a waste of time. Besides, there are other lies to deal with.



You said
Wait a minute...that's exactly what Packer said, and you're as wrong as he is (or "was"...he's dead, so he knows better now).

Really!?!? JI Packer is dead? Does he know this about himself? He just did an interview with Thomas Oden on Jan. 20th of this year. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/103/22.0.html

Odd that a man of such stature in the Evangelical community should pass away, and there be no news of it, at least, none that I could find. But please, let me know your resource for this information, if he has passed away, it is truly a sad day for the Christian world. But one thing you have indeed proven, you do not know better. Your behavior is deplorable. I ask you to either support your statement, or retract it with an apology for claiming to speak on things of which you do not know.

continued
 
Upvote 0

Ken

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,137
47
62
North Central Indiana
Visit site
✟1,582.00
Faith
Calvinist
You said
LITTLE NEWBORN BABIES, KayDee, PREDESTINED FOR HELL BY GOD HIMSELF. Not being nasty - just stating a Calvinistic fact.

No, not a fact, rather, its another one of your nasty lies. And it also shows that you are not the expert on Calvinism that you claim to be, ehhh?



Most Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm that all persons dying in infancy are saved, even though they acknowledge the Bible has no definitive doctrine on this subject. Some Calvinists will go only so far as to acknowledge that the Bible definitely teaches that at least some persons dying in infancy are saved. But no representative Calvinist theologian declares that any person dying in infancy is ******. (See the preceding message, #171.)
Arminians nevertheless deliberately misrepresent Calvinists as believing persons dying in infancy are ******. Let the following quotations from some of the most renown Calvinists suffice to show that the Arminian accusation is false.

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)

John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)

Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).

Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."

B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:

"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."

Whom will you believe: Calvinists speaking for themselves? or Arminians deliberately misrepresenting them?


http://grace-for-today.com/688.htm

So it is obvious that (yet) another detraction/apology is in order for you today.


That’s all for now.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,187.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Chappie said:
It is not your ability to copy and paste scripture that I question, it is your ablity to intreprit them...

You are right that you need prayer.

Sorry you are offended by the thought that God has free will .

The problem with the doctrine you hold Chappie is that man is god and God is a helpless bystander ringing his hands hoping some one will choose to be saved.


Let me ask you this chappie , was anyone at all saved when Jesus died on the cross ?

Is the cross sufficient for salvation?
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
Ken said:
You said

No, not a fact, rather, its another one of your nasty lies. And it also shows that you are not the expert on Calvinism that you claim to be, ehhh?





http://grace-for-today.com/688.htm

So it is obvious that (yet) another detraction/apology is in order for you today.


That’s all for now.
I have the same problem that plagues Calvinists. Nobody understands me. There, that's better than believing that I might be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ken

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,137
47
62
North Central Indiana
Visit site
✟1,582.00
Faith
Calvinist
O, you said
But I want to know something no Calvinist I've ever read or spoken with has answered - perhaps you'll be the first:
Did God choose who to save and who to burn by looking forward in time to see who will believe the Gospel and who won't? Did He base their election/reprobation on what He foreknows they'll decide to do?




No.

If you answer "no," then how can you employ the term "deserve" since the lost can't do ANYTHING (much less sins deserving of eternal separation from God) if they didn't even exist when God made His decision to condemn them?

Oh the lost do something alright, they sin. And this sin is what seals their doom.

So which is it? What *exactly* did reprobates do in eternity past - before they even exist! - to make them "deserve" Hell? Chapter and verse, please.

Equivocation. False Dilemma. This is your fantasy and your ongoing misunderstanding of Calvinism, your misrepresenting Calvinism, and of erecting caricatures/straw men of Calvinism. No Calvinist I know of says that the reprobates did anything in eternity past, let alone sin. Please, chapter and exact quote from a reputable Calvinistic author to support your claim that this is what Calvinists actually teach and/or believe. Otherwise, yet another apology and detraction is due. At least this ongoing habit of yours of misrepresenting Calvinism gives you the opportunity to remain humble by openly admitting your mistakes, and apologizing for them. We will just have to wait and see what actually happens though, won’t we?



And hey! Good news! I just saved a lot of money…. Errrr…. No… what I mean to say was; now you can say that a Calvinist has answered your question, which might be the only bright spot for you of late. And remember, your disagreement does not constitute a Calvinist not answering your question. Disagree, agree, I don’t care, you have your answer.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,187.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
orthotomeo said:
Let's say I visit one of those mega-car lots with hundreds of vehicles. I look around some and see what I want. I make my choice without having to look at every single car, truck and van on the lot. I "pass by" the vehicles I don't want, whether I actually saw them or not. In this example, "pass by" and "reject" amount to the same thing.

Yet God, being perfectly omniscient, knew from eternity past every human being who would ever exist. So can God be said to have merely "passed over" those who don't get saved, without actually rejecting them? No, because He knows everybody. He foreknew those He didn't elect just as fully as He foreknew those whom He did elect.

I happen to agree with that , contrary to most Calvinists.
The scripture clearly says that He made some vessels for honor and some for dishonor.

Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:



Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Is God allowed to have a will?

A question ...if election is based on Gods foreknowledge and He fore-knew every one that would vote for him and those that would vote against Him.

Why did He choose to make men that he knew with certainty would spend eternity in hellsfire?
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
rnmomof7 said:
You are right that you need prayer.
Well, start praying...

Sorry you are offended by the thought that God has free will.
Sorry that you believe that his freewill has gone to his head and rendered him a tyrant..

The problem with the doctrine you hold Chappie is that man is god and God is a helpless bystander ringing his hands hoping some one will choose to be saved.
Sorry for the dept of your misunderstanding of the matter...

Let me ask you this chappie , was anyone at all saved when Jesus died on the cross?
Is this a trick question? You know that I have not seen the book yet...

Is the cross sufficient for salvation?
Sufficient, yes: Efficient, only in the lives of those that believe in Christ. Now that's Christ, not election or efficacious grace.

Be well, be blessed...
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
rnmomof7 said:
I happen to agree with that , contrary to most Calvinists.
The scripture clearly says that He made some vessels for honor and some for dishonor.
That's honor and dishonor. Not heaven and hell. On what authourity do you render then as meaning the same.

Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
He chose "us". Speaking to believers. And he did not need any help from efficacious grace to make the choice...

Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Is God allowed to have a will?
You answer that. Is he free to choose a relationship with man based on freewill. If not, then no...

A question ...if election is based on Gods foreknowledge and He fore-knew every one that would vote for him and those that would vote against Him.

Why did He choose to make men that he knew with certainty would spend eternity in hellsfire?
He made them that they might have the opportunity to spend their eternity with him. If he had never created them, that opportunity would never have existed....

Be well, be blessed.
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,187.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Chappie said:
Well, start praying...

Sorry that you believe that his freewill has gone to his head and rendered him a tyrant..

I find that as very disrespectful.

You can not make one choice out side the will of God

All of your choices are determined by the preferences God gave you and the limitations of you and your environment .
Sorry for the dept of your misunderstanding of the matter...

Is this a trick question? You know that I have not seen the book yet...

Not a trick a simple observation .

In the arminian view of salvation
Jesus save not one person on that cross.
All he did was offer a potential salvation.....so men really save themselves.
Sufficient, yes: Efficient, only in the lives of those that believe in Christ. Now that's Christ, not election or efficacious grace.

Be well, be blessed...

That is the definition that Calvinists use for the limited atonement

His death was sufficient for all , but only effective for the elect.

So we have agreement on the limited atonement .

Scripture says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them.

The cross paid the entire price for those that the Father draws
 
Upvote 0

rnmomof7

Legend
Feb 9, 2002
14,503
735
Western NY
✟94,187.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Chappie said:
That's honor and dishonor. Not heaven and hell. On what authourity do you render then as meaning the same.

Honor and dishonor how?

If a man is made to dishonor God..would you say he could be saved?
He chose "us". Speaking to believers. And he did not need any help from efficacious grace to make the choice...

HE CHOSE US (the saved, the believers )...we did not choose Him

It takes some twisting to say the text does not say what it says

Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

We were chosen even before we had a "free will" with which to choose anything


Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,



what it says...God chose you and predestinated you to be adopted by Jesus Christ ...and He did not do that based on anything we said or did ,he based it according to His good pleasure.


Eph 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace,] wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

He...His grace..made us acceptable IN Christ

Grace is unmerited favor we can do nothing to earn it


Eph 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Because He has chosen us ,and predestined us , and made us acceptable by by putting us in Christ we have redemption in Christ.

There is not one word said about any act of man

Eph 1:8
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Eph 1:9
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself

Eph 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

Eph 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
You answer that. Is he free to choose a relationship with man based on freewill. If not, then no...

So you do not believe that God should have a say in the children he adopts and will spend eternity with?

He is only God if he shares His power and Glory with men ?

The problem is where do we center our faith?
Did God create men for our benefit or His Glory?
If we take the man centered view then God needs us to make himself complete. He needs us to love him , because he is not complete in the Trinity .

If we take the God centered view , we understand that all things and all plans are made so He can receive glory in His love and mercy and justice.
He made them that they might have the opportunity to spend their eternity with him. If he had never created them, that opportunity would never have existed....

Be well, be blessed.


God does not need our company in heaven.
He does just fine without us :>)

Our whole purpose is to glorify God and to love Him .
You know I look at me..on the day I was saved I asked God what he wanted with a worthless person like me??

I have often repeated that question. There is nothing in me or about me that deserves the God of creation to love me .
I have no worth , or value except that which God has placed on me.
Does that make me love and glorify Him ?
You bet..because as paul said ..in me dwells no good thing .

Only His love and grace makes me worthy

Be blessed
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
rnmomof7 said:
Honor and dishonor how?
rnmomof7 said:
If a man is made to dishonor God..would you say he could be saved?




The word "made" here is in reference to God forming the body, not the soul. He created the soul, he formed {made} the body. It is the soul that is judged, not the body. What is being discussed is God’s authority to work his purpose through ordaining our positions in our earthly lives. Being a King or a beggar does not negate nor affirm our salvation…



Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Whole Chapter: Romans 9 In context: Romans 9:20-22)




Of a truth, it does not say, "made to dishonour God" does it. You changed the wording just enough to misdirect the intent of the passage. You changed “make” to made. And you added the word “God” to make it appear that it says “made to dishonour God”. You’ll need a literary license for that my friend…



It is these earthen vessels spoken of that points us in the right direction. These earthen vessels speak to us of earthly consequences. Clay, the body not the soul. It is these vessels that are made unto honour and dishonour. Example: One a king, another a beggar.



Romans 920 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? In context the question was posed in response to “Why hast thou made me thus”?



10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)




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.
(Whole Chapter: Genesis 25 In context: Genesis 25:22-24)



God chose Jacob (honour) over Esau {dishonour} as the progenitor of the twelve tribes of Israel through which our savior would come. It has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. Now you can force it into there if you want to. But I’ll leave that up to you....



If Esau had been present and asking the question, it would go something like this. I, just like Jacob have done nothing wrong. Why have you chosen Jacob to carry this honour over me, which has resulted in dishonour for me? {The elder shall serve the younger, a position of dishonour in Jewish society of that time.}



God answered, "I have done so that my purpose according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth".

Our whole purpose is to glorify God and to love Him .
You know I look at me..on the day I was saved I asked God what he wanted with a worthless person like me??



I have often repeated that question. There is nothing in me or about me that deserves the God of creation to love me .

I have no worth, or value except that which God has placed on me.




That is the response that humility requires. But have you ever wondered how God picked one worthless good for nothing over the other worthless good for nothing? Or even why? Even from God’s perspective, to choose one is to reject another. If they are all the same; did God just choose the first in line, every tenth person, every hundredth. Did he choose you over the other guy, or was it your place in line that got you elected. Or maybe it was the other guy….



There is no good thing in me, but there is nothing but good in God, That eliminates election…



Only His love and grace makes me worthy
Be blessed

His love would make the other guy just as worthy. Maybe it did….
 
Upvote 0

Chappie

Active Member
Dec 4, 2003
204
5
California
Visit site
✟359.00
Faith
Christian
Believes Gods Sovreginity said:
I know the bible says that we have been chosen in Christ (for salvation) before the foundation of the world. If you have a problem with what the bible says, take that up with God.
If I take it up with God, does that mean that I can count on your silence....
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.