Does God call and then give us a choice to respond to his call?

[RobertZ]

Robert,

Did you read that book yet?

Not yet as I have been terribly busy, tomorrow my wife is off work so I will have some free time without having to watch after my kids so I can actually concentrate when I read it.

 

[Hentenza]

I believe that man in their freewill continually and will only continually reject the Gospel because they are slaves to sin, unless, God purchased them with the blood of Christ and caused them to be alive. If this means I believe in double predestination, so be it.

Your belief is not double predestination unless you make it so. You stated in your previous post that by implication only the elect are the saved ones but again, that can not be supported with scripture. That is the point that I am addressing.

 

[faceofbear]

Your belief is not double predestination unless you make it so. You stated in your previous post that by implication only the elect are the saved ones but again, that can not be supported with scripture. That is the point that I am addressing.

Who else would the elect be?

I feel like I haven't seen you in awhile. Maybe I've just been missing your posts around the forums (as in skipping over them -- that sounded kind of sarcastic to me but I didn't mean it that way). Hope all is well.

 

[RobertZ]

"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Well this passage throws a wrench into calvinism for me, anyone?

 

[help_the_lord]

There definitely are profits who were called and weren't given a choice they were simply told your going to be a profit

Jeremiah 1:4 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prohpet unto the nations."

So at least some of the time the answer is no you don't get a choice, as for all of the time I can't give you a specific passage to answer this so i will refrain from giving any answer

 

[Hentenza]

"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Well this passage throws a wrench into calvinism for me, anyone?

It doesn't Robert. It merely proves that there is much that we attempt to explain away instead of leaving it as the mystery that it is. I believe that both predestination and non libertarian free will can coexist just as both God and human natures coexisted in the incarnation.

 

[the particular baptist]

"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Well this passage throws a wrench into calvinism for me, anyone?

To a Hebrew who for his whole life thought God's covenant was solely with Israel after the flesh when he says whole world he means gentiles, or all nations. Not every single individual that ever lived otherwise hell would be empty.

Consider Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

 

[Hupomone10]

Heb. 12:15
"See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God"

Matt. 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

Acts 7:51
"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did."
Thus did Stephen proclaim to the Jews in his midst. It is true that God's calling is previous. It is also true that they openly resisted the Holy Spirit. Doctrinal systems like to key in on one of these elements, because the limited logic of man's fallen mind cannot understand God's mind. That is why spiritual truth is taught by the Spirit and discerned with man's spirit first, not the mind.

In the end, you cannot see God's predetermination and election. That is something for Him to see. What you can see is your response to Him, regardless of the reason. What you can see is your resistance to or submission to Him.

I suggest submission and faith.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

I meet with a ladies group on Monday nights and we are studying J.I. Packer's book "Knowing God". We hit a nerve this past Monday because he said this:

Still he shows his freedom and lordship by discriminating between sinners, causing some to hear the gospel while others do not hear it, and moving some of those who hear it to repentance, while leaving others in their unbelief, thus teaching his saints that he owes mercy to none and that it is entirely of his grace, not at all through their effort, that they themselves have found life

The ladies immediately said he wasn't talking about election and I said that he was and that election is in the Bible, it's just people argue on "how" God elects and they brought up "foreseeing" who would choose him and I said that no one is capable of choosing him and they immediately ended the conversation and left lol.

Anyway, I emailed them today with some pretty amazing information (some of which I gathered from this thread) and I also emailed this link to them.

For anyone unsure of election and how God chooses, have a look, it explains so much!

Interview with J.I. Packer on Election

 

[Hammster]

"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Well this passage throws a wrench into calvinism for me, anyone?

I think tpb answered sufficiently. But I want to point out that usually when someone finds a verse that they think is a problem for Calvinism, it's just that...a verse. The context is rarely considered.

Forum Runner goes to 11.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

I understand that God is not limited to time like we are but what is your point?

My point is like you have been going back and forth between right and wrong for years. I remember your first post years ago. Personally I would say that Calvinism and Arminianism are both right and wrong. The point is we're getting sick over repetitive questions from everyone like forever. I remember asking elders of a Presbyterian Church in America about the salvation plan brochure and they said that it can also work in reverse or coming through backwards. I know omnipresence doesn't make sense to everyone but if you desire Christ now then why not take that desire as it is and make nothing more or less of it and live a healthy spiritual life.

" The perfect Dao is without difficulty, save that it avoids picking and choosing. Only when you stop liking and disliking will all be clearly understood. A split hair's difference, and heaven and earth are set apart! If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind."

If one doesn't like wrenches thrown everywhere, then Open Theist would remove the wrenches. Open theists are wrong and right at the same time as well. How can we tap the future without spending time in the presence. We're ALWAYS living in the slight past. Robert, observe your true belief and desire in Christ in the presence or NOW and take it as it is.

Enjoy being blessed.

 

[RobertZ]

The ladies immediately said he wasn't talking about election and I said that he was and that election is in the Bible, it's just people argue on "how" God elects and they brought up "foreseeing" who would choose him and I said that no one is capable of choosing him and they immediately ended the conversation and left lol.

LOL!

 

[CoconutPrincess]

LOL!

hahaha! They were not comfortable with it at all, but then again, either was I, but now I understand and really, my comfort doesn't matter, truth is truth and we have to accept truth and I know all that God does is perfect and right.

 

[Skala]

Gill has some truth but as a proponent of double predestination proved that some of his conclusions are erroneous. If you agree with the implication then that the only ones saved are the elect then you have to also, by implication, agree that all that are not saved are elected to destruction. That is not biblical

.

Brother, perhaps you are confusing double predestination with equal ultimacy. If one believes in election then he cannot deny double predestination. It is the logical conclusion. If God chose person A for salvation, and left person B to their just condemnation, that is the same thing as saying God chose person B for their just condemnation.

God's non-choice of person B is still a choice on God's part. You just can't escape that conclusion. So double predestination is perfectly biblical. Consider these verses:


Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Rom 9:21-23
(21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

1Pe 2:7-8
(7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
(8) and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

These verses clearly teach that God passes over some, hardens some, however you want to call it. reprobation is taught by scripture, we can't escape from it. I mean 1 Peter 2:7-8 clearly teaches that unbelievers are destined to disobey the word.

That being said, election and reprobation are not equal. They are not symmetrical. Let me explain.

God saves the elect by coming into their lives and actively pursuing them, and changing their hearts, and drawing them to Christ, etc.

But the reprobate he simply leaves to their just condemnation. He doesn't have to do any active movement on His part. He can just "remove his hands" of grace from them.

So the reprobate are not condemned by any movement on God's part, but by their own sin. The elect are saved precisely because God intervenes. He comes as a rescuer! A savior.

Originally Posted by RobertZ
"And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Well this passage throws a wrench into calvinism for me, anyone?

No Robert because the phrase "us and the whole world" does not necessarily mean "those who are reading this and everyone else who isn't reading this, too". Rather it could mean "Jews and Gentiles". John was a Jew writing to Jews (He was an apostle to the Jews) and to a Jewish person the "world" or "whole world" means the nations of the world.

The NT authors were constantly trying to correct the Jewish mindset that the Messiah was for the Jews only. They never thought He would come and save the pagan Gentiles too!

Further, in the context of that verse John is writing specifically to believers and talking about how Christ is a worthy savior because he gave himself as a propitiation for our sins. "If anyone sins..we have an advocate with the Father..Jesus Christ...who was the propitiation for not only our sins, but the world"

Jesus was not the propitiation for unbelievers, nor is he the advocate to the Father to them. Those are only true of believers. Propitiation means to successfully satisfy God's wrath. It doesn't mean that he potentially satisfied God's wrath for an unbeliever if only the unbeliever adds his free will to it. John says he was the propitiation, not that he was the hypothetical one.

 

[Skala]

LOL CP!

That's pretty typical. When people are confronted with something that opposes their worldview they get uncomfortable (We've all been there, including me!)

But at the end of the day scriptural truth trumps what we are "comfortable" with.

If you enjoy JI Packer stuff, you may want to check out his introduction to John Owen's famous work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (It's a book defending the Calvinistic notion of Limited Atonement). Packer's intro is amazing.

You can view JI Packer's intro here, for free:

Introductory Essay to John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ (J. I. Packer)

 

[Hentenza]

Double predestination is by analogy the opposite extreme to universal reconciliation. Each focuses on primarily one attribute of God effectively minimizing the others. Equal ultimacy is not biblical. One can wretch verses out of context to prove it just as one can wretch verses out of context to prove universal reconciliation. That is why extremes are extremes and not supported by scripture.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

---It is up to us to accept or reject. ---

I never heard of Open Theist till just a few months ago. Too much to read about it but I got the idea that it means God doesn't know the future either. If it's up to us to choose or reject then neither of us knows the future. I enjoyed all Back to the Future movies. Very thought provoking ! Many new movies has expressed the meaning of time warp or infinity. I look at accept or reject based on daja vu or been there before like God knew us before we were born.
God knew us before we were born. We existed in God's creations long before being born on this planet Earth. Come on Guys !, just say we've been here before and stop saying we control the present, NOW. Free Will doesn't exist. Open Theist is wrong at this point of this conversation. It's right in Earthy terms but it's written that we existed before our planet formed.

Why not take the Bible as it is and accept that God predestined us without our involvement in anything. I mean we have nothing to do with God's foreknowledge.

God just created

 

[RobertZ]

hahaha! They were not comfortable with it at all, but then again, either was I, but now I understand and really, my comfort doesn't matter, truth is truth and we have to accept truth and I know all that God does is perfect and right.

At first glance it isnt comfortable at all because most likely if they are like me they were exposed to a "God loves everyone and wants to save everyone Gospel but he cant because you wont let him" like I was for so many years.

When I first learned about calvinism I was appalled by it and I refuted it not wanting to believe it could be true, but slowly as time went by I kept finding myself digging deeper and deeper and suddenly it all made sense to me and I understood it and no longer do I view it as a cruel Gospel but I view it as a Loving Gospel!

Funny how things can change once a person has a right understanding.

 

[Skala]

Each focuses on primarily one attribute of God effectively minimizing the others. Equal ultimacy is not biblical. One can wretch verses out of context to prove it just as one can wretch verses out of context to prove universal reconciliation.

Can you go into detail a little more about this? Can you explain how I took those verses out of context, when I gave scriptural support for reprobation? Were you implying that I was taking scripture out of context?

What does this verse mean, then?

1Pe 2:7-8
(7) So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
(8) and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

 

[CoconutPrincess]

I never heard of Open Theist till just a few months ago. Too much to read about it but I got the idea that it means God doesn't know the future either. If it's up to us to choose or reject then neither of us knows the future. I enjoyed all Back to the Future movies. Very thought provoking ! Many new movies has expressed the meaning of time warp or infinity. I look at accept or reject based on daja vu or been there before like God knew us before we were born.
God knew us before we were born. We existed in God's creations long before being born on this planet Earth. Come on Guys !, just say we've been here before and stop saying we control the present, NOW. Free Will doesn't exist. Open Theist is wrong at this point of this conversation. It's right in Earthy terms but it's written that we existed before our planet formed.

Why not take the Bible as it is and accept that God predestined us without our involvement in anything. I mean we have nothing to do with God's foreknowledge.

God just created

I realize you're new to this thread but I have just changed my belief on this as Skala has helped me to understand. I gladly take the Bible as it is I just was mistaken on some things and needed some clarification and guidance.

p.s. Maybe go back and read a few posts to keep up to date