Can God save whom He wants?

[MamaZ]

That's not what I think at all. "Chosen" meaning that God chooses. But He chooses based on our response in faith.

Show me the scripture for this. That Gods choosing us is based upon our response.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Gods choosing is according to His will and not our works.

Your last statement here can also apply to your theology. You reason the way you do in order to keep your theology straight, including your twisting of Romans 8:30.

I don't think you can find any posts of me saying we keep ourselves. God keeps us. That is what I said in my last post. But He keeps us based on our faith; we are kept by His power as a result of our faith. This is what it means for us to live by faith; God in His grace gives us eternal life through our faith.

Show me where in scripture that it is our faith that keeps us. We are kept by the very power and Spirit of God and His promises being yea and amen. Even if we have little faith He is forever faithful..

For by grace you have been saved through faith...Eph 2:8.


Why just the beginning of the verse. Keep it in context of how it was written without your own commentary on this.




I already told you that you already have it twisted, so nothing I say will make a difference. Our views of predestination are different, so we will not see eye to eye on Romans 8:30.
I do agree that there are things that are secret and there are things that are revealed, but it is our flawed belief that prevents us from understanding the things that are revealed, so we call them "secrets" and "inner workings" as you are doing now.
I am using it because I genuinely believe that your Calvinist belief is flawed. There is nothing illogical about what I said, and there is no argument here.

Problem with logic here is Gods thoughts are sooo much higher than even our thoughts or Logic.. Because we believe in the sovereign choosing of God over the sovereign choosing of men it is flawed?

 

[Doveaman]

Problem with logic here is Gods thoughts are sooo much higher than even our thoughts or Logic.. Because we believe in the sovereign choosing of God over the sovereign choosing of men it is flawed?

So we do not have any choice in the matter, we are just robot men who do what we are spiritually programmed to do and nothing else? I don't think so. God chooses those who choose what He chose.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

God chooses those who choose what He chose.

So God's choosing is a meritorious choosing?

 

[jmacvols]

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

then Paul goes into the text of none is righteous. This is also what he talks about in Ephesians Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--

Stay in the context of Rom 3. The Jews were boasting about their supposed superiority over the Gentiles. Paul quotes from the OT to prove Jews are sinners also.

Rom 3:9 - What then? are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Beginning in verse 10 Paul quotes verses from the OT that proves the Jews are sinners, and then in verse 19 Paul says:

Rom 3:19 - Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


Obviously the Jews were the ones under the OT law. Paul just quoted from the OT law, so in v19 Paul is saying that what the OT law saith it is saying to you Jews. That every mouth that saith fleshly Jews are not sinners must be stopped. Obviously all these OT verses by Paul were directed toward fleshly Israel. The Jews already believed the Gentiles were sinners, so no need to prove that to the Jews.

Again, we were dead. But even in Romans, Paul isn't finished with the thought. Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I agree. But nothing in Rom 8 proves any point of Calvinism.

Well, using this logic, then all who died before the law was given would be without sin...except Adam and Eve. UNLESS, Adam's sin is imputed to us. Hmmm.

See previous note.

There was what is referred to as the Patriarchal law that was before the Mosaical Law.

I am not sure where you got the idea that depravity was not knowing the law. Calvinism sure doesn't teach that.

I guess it depends on what Calvinist I am speaking to.
I have come across Calvinist that say the depraved man knows nothing about God's law, has no desire to know, only can know and do wrong. But if a depraved person can know God's will, then they are not really depraved when they know.

Not a Calvinism proof text that I am aware of. Paul is talking about the struggles he goes through as a believer. Then, he goes right in to 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." It has nothing to do with Paul before he was saved.

Paul said "now" in Rom 8:1. Now is a contrasting word, 'now' as opposed to how it was back when he persecutor of Christians and was trying to live under the OT law and not "in Christ Jesus".

Again, I am not sure where you get the idea Calvinism teaches that the lost are oblivious. God has written His law on our hearts. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, etc. But are these Gentiles that you are holding up as great examples worshiping God? Do they honor God? Do they seek after God? No. And why is that? Because they don't desire to seek after God, but they desire to do their own thing.

The point is that lost sinners are not totally depraved, they have knowledge of God's will. Not only do lost sinners have knowledge of God's law but are able to do those things contained in God's law.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Stay in the context of Rom 3. The Jews were boasting about their supposed superiority over the Gentiles. Paul quotes from the OT to prove Jews are sinners also.

The beginning of Ephesians 2 is a mini recap of Romans 1-3. Paul uses many pronouns to denote Gentiles vs. Jews-

Eph 2:1 And you (Gentiles) were dead in your trespasses and sins,


Eph 2:2 in which you (Gentiles) formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.


Eph 2:3 Among them we (Jews) too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.


Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

Us in verse 4 becomes all inclusive.

 

[jmacvols]

The beginning of Ephesians 2 is a mini recap of Romans 1-3. Paul uses many pronouns to denote Gentiles vs. Jews-

Eph 2:1 And you (Gentiles) were dead in your trespasses and sins,


Eph 2:2 in which you (Gentiles) formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.


Eph 2:3 Among them we (Jews) too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.


Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

Us in verse 4 becomes all inclusive.

A point Paul makes in Rom 3 is that all, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners.

But Rom 3:19 shows that those quotes Paul made from the OT (verse 10-18) was directed towards the Jews, they were his main subject.

Verse 19 immediately follows Paul quoting from the OT law. Paul said what the law saith it saith to them that under the law. The Jews, not the Gentiles, were under the OT law, so those OT quotes in verses 10-18 is directed towards the Jews.


Besides this Paul said all are sinners - Paul NEVER said all are totally depraved, a nite and day difference.

 

[Doveaman]

The term "foreknew" here means "foreloved" or had a "forerelationship" with.

What I find interesting is that you accuse others of adding to the text but then you do the very same thing. Why is it that you can do it and no one else can? Are you God?

To suggest that God "foreloved" some and not others is unscriptural. God is love, He loves all. To suggest otherwise is to deny God. He may hate what we do, but He loves us all.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies...that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good...Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect...Matt 5:43-48.

And what is a "forerelationship"? I mean, come on, if it's a "forerelationship" doesn't that mean that He had a relationship with them beforehand?

And if it's a relationship wouldn't He have known them and predestined them based on the relationship in that He predestined those He foreknew?

A relationship isn't just to know someone, it is also to know about them. It is know what they think and speak and do, it involves communication and interaction, it involves intimacy. Is this what He had with them beforehand? Did God communicate and interact with them beforehand? Was He intimate with them beforehand, because this is what "foreralationship" means?

If God predestined them based on a "foreralationship" it means that God predestined them based on His knowledge of the choices they would make in that relationship, because in relationships involves choices. Robots don't have relationships. Robots do no choose. Robots are programmed slaves.

 

[Rightglory]

CmRoddy,

Wow, this is absolutely amazing. You are completely ignoring "by the power of God" in this passage! Why in the world would you do such a thing? It says that we are kept by God through faith. We are not kept by ourselves. Why would it say that we are kept by the power of God if we are keeping ourselves? What else is there for the power of God to keep??

Are you honestly suggesting that this is sound exegesis right now?

You change the wording of scripture, then proclaim WOW to someone who actually understands what it stated, clearly.

Here is the verse of I Pet 1:3-5 To even get a better context vs 3-4 is the necessary. But vs 5 reads, "who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the lsat time. It clearly says that God' power ONLY works as long as we have faith, It is OUR faith through which God works. He does not work in us absent OUR faith. Which is why all through the NT faith is the key word of our personal salvation. God does not work in US without OUR faith. Thus IF we lose faith, God no longer is working in us. It is all about enduring that faith. working with God, not trying to do it alone or without Him.

Your theology is so far the extreme that you have God the ONLY agent in the entire universe. If man lifts a finger, it must be because God moved his finger. Surely man cannot do anything. So consquently when man is actually a cooperative agent with God, you deny it, because you assume man is working totally alone. Man is NEVER alone. We are creatures, we depend on God for every good and perfect Gift. But God also depends on man in order to be personally saved. God does not save your soul arbitrarily or by some predestined decree.

Scripture never teaches this. As the op, asked, yes, God could save every human being personally, but He wanted a person, a being, who chose to freely return love, loyalty, trust, obedience, not be a manufactured tool to do the same.

In order to even have one believer, God first needed to same mankind from death. That salvation was ALL God. Man has nothing to contribute toward it, cannot even deny the Gift. All man can deny is the offer of union and communion that God gives to every human being.

Right, whatever you say. You still haven't done anything with Romans 8:30. I'm still waiting to see how you twist that one.

More like untwist it from reformed theology.

 

[Doveaman]

So God's choosing is a meritorious choosing?

No, it is based on common sense, or, should I say, divine sense.

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do...Eph 2:10.

We are created in Christ to do what God has prepared for us to do.

If God knew beforehand that we had no intention to do what He prepared for us to do then He would not create us in Christ to do it. That would make no sense.

The reason why He created us in Christ to do it is because He knew beforehand that we would choose to do it, so because He foreknew we would choose to do it He predestined us to do it.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations...Jer 1:5.

God "knew" beforehand that Jeremiah would choose to be a faithful prophet so God predestined Jeremiah to be a prophet based on God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah's faithful choice.

It is like you wanting someone to build your house and choosing the one who you know beforehand would choose to do it while rejecting the one who you know beforehand would choose not to do it. It's simple, really. So lets keep it simple.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

No, it is based on common sense, or should I say divine sense.

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do...Eph 2:10.

We are created in Christ to do what God has prepared for us to do.

If God knew beforehand that we had no intention to do what He prepared for us to do then He would not create us in Christ to do it. That would make no sense.

The reason why He created us in Christ to do it is because He knew beforehand that we would choose to do it, so because He foreknew we would choose to do it He predestined us to do it.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations...Jer 1:5.

God "knew" beforehand that Jeremiah would choose to be a faithful prophet so God predestined Jeremiah to be a prophet based on God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah's faithful choice.

It is like you wanting someone to build your house and choosing the one who you know beforehand would choose to do it while rejecting the one who you know beforehand would choose not to do it. It's simple, really. So lets keep it simple.

Why would God need to predestine something that was going to happen whether He predestinated it or not? My point being, if He saw we were going to do something anyways, why predestinate it?

 

[cygnusx1]

So God's choosing is a meritorious choosing?

keep at it bro , it's either one or the other , cannot be both

 

[CmRoddy]

Yes, our "Sovereign God" is contingent upon the actions of man to make His choices... but man's existence is contingent on God... but God cannot do anything that is not contingent on man's choices...

Really?? No one else sees the circular logic here??

Amazing.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes, our "Sovereign God" is contingent upon the actions of man to make His choices... but man's existence is contingent on God... but God cannot do anything that is not contingent on man's choices...

Really?? No one else sees the circular logic here??

Amazing.

keep pushing this line of enquiry , it gets really crazy when looking at salvation as ; saved then lost then saved again then lost then ........ ya know , and God is supposed to base His decree on that !!!

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, our "Sovereign God" is contingent upon the actions of man to make His choices... but man's existence is contingent on God... but God cannot do anything that is not contingent on man's choices...

Really?? No one else sees the circular logic here??

Amazing.

This is how I see the logic:

A man had two friends whom he loved and wanted to show his appreciation for them both, so he decided to prepare them an appreciation dinner and invite them both to partake of it.

He first went to work to earn the money to buy the food items.

Afterward, he took the money to the market to buy the food items to prepare the dinner.

Afterward, he went into his kitchen to cook the dinner.

Afterward, he set out the dinner nicely on the table.

Afterward, he invited his two friends to come and partake of the dinner, and both of his friends chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of the dinner, and they all had a wonderful dinner together.

Can anyone honestly say that those two friends earned or merited that dinner just because they chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of it? I DON’T THINK SO.

Now, let’s say that only one of those friends chose to accept the invitation and the other chose not to, does this mean that the invitation was not for both? IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR BOTH, but while one chose to accept the invitation to come, the other chose not to come even though the dinner was prepared for them both.

The one who chose not to come chose not to come because he chose not to come. It was his own choice not to come and partake of that which was freely prepared for him and the other friend.

My choice to accept God's salvation does not merit that salvation. God already earned the salvation for me and He now freely offers it to me, but the only way I will get it is if I choose to accept it. He is not going to force it on me or program it in me. I must freely choose to accept it. It's that simple.

 

[Wizzer]

This is how I see the logic:

A man had two friends whom he loved and wanted to show his appreciation for them both, so he decided to prepare them an appreciation dinner and invite them both to partake of it.

He first went to work to earn the money to buy the food items.

Afterward, he took the money to the market to buy the food items to prepare the dinner.

Afterward, he went into his kitchen to cook the dinner.

Afterward, he set out the dinner nicely on the table.

Afterward, he invited his two friends to come and partake of the dinner, and both of his friends chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of the dinner, and they all had a wonderful dinner together.

Can anyone honestly say that those two friends earned or merited that dinner just because they chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of it? I DON’T THINK SO.

Now, let’s say that only one of those friends chose to accept the invitation and the other chose not to, does this mean that the invitation was not for both? IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR BOTH, but while one chose to accept the invitation to come, the other chose not to come even though the dinner was prepared for them both.

The one who chose not to come chose not to come because he chose not to come. It was his own choice not to come and partake of that which was freely prepared for him and the other friend.

My choice to accept God's salvation does not merit that salvation. God already earned the salvation for me and He now freely offers it to me, but the only way I will get it is if I choose to accept it. He is not going to force it on me or program it in me. I must freely choose to accept it. It's that simple.

Actually, I prefer the view which says that the man who offered the dinner chose for his guests, and instilled within them the notion that they either accepted or rejected the offer (which was in actuallity never a true offer). In other words, I like the pre-programmed robot explanation.


P.S. I'm feeling rather cantackerous right now. But actually it is not me, it is God making me feel this way. I wish I knew why. Well, rather He is making me feel like I wished I knew why, but in actuallity I probably don't care. Heck, I probably don't even exist; I am most likely a figment of my own imagination. But what if I'm not? What if God is toying with me... What if my actions really do determine how He will judge me? Calgon, take me away...

I think I need help.

 

[CmRoddy]

This is how I see the logic:

A man had two friends whom he loved and wanted to show his appreciation for them both, so he decided to prepare them an appreciation dinner and invite them both to partake of it.

He first went to work to earn the money to buy the food items.

Afterward, he took the money to the market to buy the food items to prepare the dinner.

Afterward, he went into his kitchen to cook the dinner.

Afterward, he set out the dinner nicely on the table.

Afterward, he invited his two friends to come and partake of the dinner, and both of his friends chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of the dinner, and they all had a wonderful dinner together.

Can anyone honestly say that those two friends earned or merited that dinner just because they chose to accept the invitation to come and partake of it? I DON’T THINK SO.

Now, let’s say that only one of those friends chose to accept the invitation and the other chose not to, does this mean that the invitation was not for both? IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS FOR BOTH, but while one chose to accept the invitation to come, the other chose not to come even though the dinner was prepared for them both.

The one who chose not to come chose not to come because he chose not to come. It was his own choice not to come and partake of that which was freely prepared for him and the other friend.

My choice to accept God's salvation does not merit that salvation. God already earned the salvation for me and He now freely offers it to me, but the only way I will get it is if I choose to accept it. He is not going to force it on me or program it in me. I must freely choose to accept it. It's that simple.

I don't think a more sub-Biblical analogy could have been thought up... well, maybe Norman Geisler's "Farmer" analogy... but this one is still pretty bad.

First of all, comparing God to a man with two "friends" is unbiblical because men are enemies of God, not friends. Strike one.

Secondly, by depicting God "buying food items" in order to prepare the dinner implies that God is looking to something outside of Himself that determines how He will be able to make this "dinner of appreciation" rather than God having to appease His wrath against His two "friends" for their sin against Him. Strike two.

Thirdly, you once again assume that the "friends" of the man [God] actually want to go to this dinner. Biblically, the men would want nothing to do with the dinner at all because they are enemies of the person who prepared it and they hate him. Strike three.

Well, I could go on about how sub-Biblical this analogy is, but I think I've made my point.

 

[Wizzer]

...Well, I could go on about how sub-Biblical this analogy is, but I think I've made my point.

Somehow, I don't think you have made the point you would like to think you have. But then again, Elvis still thinks I am alive.

 

[CmRoddy]

Somehow, I don't think you have made the point you would like to think you have. But then again, Elvis still thinks I am alive.

So you think that was a Biblical analogy? Wow, you must be reading a different Bible then I am because mine tells me that men are haters of God, not "friends" that choose to go to the "dinner of appreciation."

 

[Wizzer]

So you think that was a Biblical analogy? Wow, you must be reading a different Bible then I am because mine tells me that men are haters of God, not "friends" that choose to go to the "dinner of appreciation."

But mine does "tell me" that some do choose to accept the invitation while others choose not to accept. I think you are hung up on certain hyperboles, and by misinterpreting these hyperboles you are coming to conclusions which are not biblically accurate.

 

[Hammster]

The debate isn't on whether man chooses, but why man chooses.