Foreordained?

[Elect]

I have seen, and been engaged in, numerous discussions regarding the extent to which God foreordains the inter-workings of His creation, to include their salvation.

I would like to hear your opinions about the following truths and how they relate to God's sovereign control of His creation:

1. God is the Creator of all things created.

2. God is omniscient.

3. God knew when He created certain individuals that they would never come to repentance yet He created them anyway.

I am confused about the position that God does not foreordain the salvation of all who are saved.  For those of you who subscribe to that position, please explain how God can desire, as we desire something to come to pass, for all people to come to repentance, while knowing ahead of time that some won't.

I believe most of the confusion stems from the word "desire," and how we interpret that from a human perspective of desire.  "Desire" is a very strong word.  Before answering consider your own desires.  For example, if you desire a scoop of ice cream what is it that stops you from making that desire a reality?  Lack of available ice cream?  A greater desire for something else?  See, even in our limited capacity, humans seek to accomplish that which is our greatest desire.  In fact, it is always those limitations that we cannot overcome that keep us from obtaining those desires.  The point is, we will always act according to our greatest desire at that moment.  So how is that relevent to God?  What stops God's desires from coming to fruition?  How much more is He who is the most powerful thing in existance able to bring about His desires?  What is it that God cannot overcome?  The "free will" of man?  If yes is your answer then you are saying that the will of man is greater than the Will of God.  If you believe it's just that God chooses to not overcome the will of man then would you still contend that it is God's desire that all people be saved?  And, if the only thing keeping God from bringing all people to repentance, and thus salvation, is His own choice to not overcome man's will, is man's will really "free?"

Thanks for your comments.

God bless.

I do not believe that God desires the salvation of all men (everyone). I believe that the misunderstanding comes from the words all men.

All men without distinction, not all men without exception.

All men without distinction - Rev 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;

 

[beloved57]

I do not believe that God desires the salvation of all men (everyone). I believe that the misunderstanding comes from the words all men.

All men without distinction, not all men without exception.

All men without distinction - Rev 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;

You know, I think its high time also to proclaim that salvation is complteted and finished for those God gave to the son. All those who were given to the son in the covenant of redemption are saved right now. The DBR of christ reconciled them to God , Justified by his resurrection, and they are saved. Yes, my friend they are saved before they believe, because believing does not result in salvation, believing is proof of their salvation. The DBR of christ is what saved them, thats it. Now thats Good news !!

 

[Elect]

You know, I think its high time also to proclaim that salvation is complteted and finished for those God gave to the son. All those who were given to the son in the covenant of redemption are saved right now. The DBR of christ reconciled them to God , Justified by his resurrection, and they are saved. Yes, my friend they are saved before they believe, because believing does not result in salvation, believing is proof of their salvation. The DBR of christ is what saved them, thats it. Now thats Good news !!

Amen!


Even though Jesus made Atonement for His people in time, I believe that God's people were never in danger of God's judgement. Ephesians chapter 1 tells us that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. We were in Christ then before we ever believed. This is why those that do not believe nor never will, stand condemned all ready and the wrath of God abides on them.

The Love of God is found in Christ Jesus, so outside of Jesus there is no love for the sinner. The sinner has to be in Christ to have access to the Love of God. Those that are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world have always been loved by God and always will be. God does not change. Who God loves today, He loved from the beginning and He always will.

In Christ,
John

 

[Easystreet]

Because the Bible state God desires I am not of the mind to say he does not desire. I am glad He desires the salvation of all humanity.

Because He desires it that tells me He did not elect some and not elect others.

The teaching that man is so totally depraved and has no capacity to accept God's love in Christ does not match up with actions to same some and not all then say He desires all to be saved.

In other words. If God, because no man would ever believe, saves some and not all - then states I desire all to be saved goes against logic, Holiness, - God's character.

If God desires the salvation of all and we know he does then it is impossible for a God who desires all to be saved and just save some form the stand point the Calvinist posit.

In that God can and did according to the Calvinist view save some of the all and then say I desire all to be saved and having the ability to do so just does not cut the mustard so to speak. This kind of reasoning does not cut the mustard

The way I see it is God according to Romans 8 foreknew in advance that the ones loving Him that they would freely accept Christ and because of this foreknowledge He predestines, calls and everything else that follows and it included.

 

[Reformationist]

Because the Bible state God desires I am not of the mind to say he does not desire. I am glad He desires the salvation of all humanity.

Because He desires it that tells me He did not elect some and not elect others.

The teaching that man is so totally depraved and has no capacity to accept God's love in Christ does not match up with actions to same some and not all then say He desires all to be saved.

In other words. If God, because no man would ever believe, saves some and not all - then states I desire all to be saved goes against logic, Holiness, - God's character.

If God desires the salvation of all and we know he does then it is impossible for a God who desires all to be saved and just save some form the stand point the Calvinist posit.

In that God can and did according to the Calvinist view save some of the all and then say I desire all to be saved and having the ability to do so just does not cut the mustard so to speak. This kind of reasoning does not cut the mustard

The way I see it is God according to Romans 8 foreknew in advance that the ones loving Him that they would freely accept Christ and because of this foreknowledge He predestines, calls and everything else that follows and it included.

Gordon, it's posting styles like yours that cause rational discussions to quickly degenerate into pointlessness. You start out by submitting that because the Bible states that "God desires" you're not willing to say He doesn't desire, to which I offer a loud, and resounding, HUH? Who ever said that God doesn't desire? It's WHAT He desires that was being discussed. Then, to follow up that faux pas with a show of unparalleled circular reasoning and strawman tactics, you state, in a thread in which this very idea is being debated, "If God desires the salvation of all and we know he does..." If "we know that He does" we wouldn't be discussing whether He does, don't you think? Now, you may have just been speaking to those that share this erroneous view with you but, in a public debate forum, such an approach is conducive only to confusion.

So, to address the only part of your post that "cuts the mustard," I quote:

The way I see it is God according to Romans 8 foreknew in advance that the ones loving Him that they would freely accept Christ and because of this foreknowledge He predestines, calls and everything else that follows and it included.

You have not only done horrific violence to Romans 9:11-13, you have blatantly contradicted Ephesians 2:8,9. Paul, in Romans 9:11, is explaining, very clearly, that God has elected to have mercy upon the younger instead of the older, contrary to the common Jewish practice, before they had done any good or evil so that His purpose according to election might stand, not of works but of the call of God. Now, if you're up to the task, think about this rationally. If God made His decision to predestine, call, etc, based on what He knew Jacob and Esau would do, i.e, freely accept Christ, it would be contradictory to state that He has bestowed His salvitic love irrespective of their works because Jacob's act of "freely accepting Christ" would, in fact, be the foundation for His call. Additionally, the objection in verse 9:14 would be completely incongruous. Let me show you what I mean. Applying your idea that God predestines because He "foreknew that the ones loving Him would freely accept Christ" this is what we end up with:

God elects unto salvation those whom He foreknows will freely accept Christ. The example given to us to exemplify this dispensation of love is in Romans 9:11-13, that of Jacob and Esau. Two brothers, twins in fact. Contrary to standard Jewish practice, God has decreed that the older shall serve the younger and determines to express His salvatic love upon the younger precisely because He foreknew that Jacob would "freely accept Christ." Now we get to verse 14:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?"

Whoa!!! Why in the world would Paul, the teacher par excellance, ever presume that someone would have this objection???? Why would someone ever think of accusing God of being unjust if His election is based on His knowledge that a person will "freely accept Christ." Hmmm....that makes absolutely no sense. Well, let's move on to verses 15 and 16 for now:

"For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Wait a minute!!! We have just been told that God reserves the right to extend His mercy to whomsoever He chooses and it is NOT based on anything the human thinks or does but, rather, on the merciful nature of God.

Tell you what Gordo, I'll let you ponder how your position has just has a mule sized hole blasted right through it. If you'd like, I can show you, quite easily, how the reformed view, which you so clearly despise, is perfectly in line with these passages and how it is the ONLY view with which this chapter makes any sense at all.

 

[Calminian]

Whoa!!! Why in the world would Paul, the teacher par excellance, ever presume that someone would have this objection???? Why would someone ever think of accusing God of being unjust if His election is based on His knowledge that a person will "freely accept Christ." Hmmm....that makes absolutely no sense. Well, let's move on to verses 15 and 16 for now:

I think you nailed it. He wouldn't! One would only accuse God of injustice if he believed in determinism. Paul rhetorically asks the determinist's question:

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

I personally wouldn't find fault with God because I understand our freedom. But the determinist, who doesn't understand human freedom, would certainly find fault. Paul, instead of agreeing with him and saying, "yes you are right, you were destined to unbelief," instead rebukes him for even thinking such a notion.

The determinist will always receive the above rebuke from Paul.

I thought Gordon's assessment of Romans 8 was on the money.

 

[Easystreet]

I have seen, and been engaged in, numerous discussions regarding the extent to which God foreordains the inter-workings of His creation, to include their salvation.

I would like to hear your opinions about the following truths and how they relate to God's sovereign control of His creation:

1. God is the Creator of all things created.

2. God is omniscient.

3. God knew when He created certain individuals that they would never come to repentance yet He created them anyway.

I am confused about the position that God does not foreordain the salvation of all who are saved. For those of you who subscribe to that position, please explain how God can desire, as we desire something to come to pass, for all people to come to repentance, while knowing ahead of time that some won't.

I believe most of the confusion stems from the word "desire," and how we interpret that from a human perspective of desire. "Desire" is a very strong word. Before answering consider your own desires. For example, if you desire a scoop of ice cream what is it that stops you from making that desire a reality? Lack of available ice cream? A greater desire for something else? See, even in our limited capacity, humans seek to accomplish that which is our greatest desire. In fact, it is always those limitations that we cannot overcome that keep us from obtaining those desires. The point is, we will always act according to our greatest desire at that moment. So how is that relevent to God? What stops God's desires from coming to fruition? How much more is He who is the most powerful thing in existance able to bring about His desires? What is it that God cannot overcome? The "free will" of man? If yes is your answer then you are saying that the will of man is greater than the Will of God. If you believe it's just that God chooses to not overcome the will of man then would you still contend that it is God's desire that all people be saved? And, if the only thing keeping God from bringing all people to repentance, and thus salvation, is His own choice to not overcome man's will, is man's will really "free?"

Thanks for your comments.

God bless.

Reformationist,

You state,

“What is it that God cannot overcome? The "free will" of man? If yes is your answer then you are saying that the will of man is greater than the Will of God. If you believe it's just that God chooses to not overcome the will of man then would you still contend that it is God's desire that all people be saved? And, if the only thing keeping God from bringing all people to repentance, and thus salvation, is His own choice to not overcome man's will, is man's will really "free?”

Here is how I explain God’s desire.

A. God conceived the thought to create

B. God’s conception became a plan

C. God’s plan involves creating mankind

D. God’s plan also permits man to be free within his limited boundaries

E. God’s foreknowing that Man would not stay in His will planed to have Jesus die for their sin - God Elects God To Die for Man’s Sin to offer reconciliation not Purposing any of all mankind to perish but to come to repentance and salvation.

F. God’s love for mankind is express in his desire to have all men come to Him demonstrated in His death on the cross, but because He designed into his plan to permit mankind limited freedom to accept or reject Him - He freely acts this way as He, Christ being lifted up draws all men unto Himself - He is God. Whereby all who accept the drawing receive Salvation and are Elect In Him. God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit being One Foreknew and acted accordingly being in full and complete compliance with His Holy Character.

G. Because of God’s Holiness He can not both desire all to be saved and then purposely make some believe and not make all. God can not violate His Character (Holiness). God can and did plan to permit all to be saved “for God so love the world and purposes none to perish but in His purposing also desires men to come to repentance.

H. God’s foreknowing and foreknowledge both mean the same one being a noun and the other a compound verb does not negate the meaning of the word which clearly tells us that in God’s plan He in advance knew, for He is all knowing, that man would sin and that He would provide a solution - did so. He in His plan elected to save Man In Christ all who freely receive His drawing for He draws all men. It is the drawn one that believe He give to Christ for all that the Father give Christ - Christ will not lose

 

[Reformationist]

I think you nailed it. He wouldn't! One would only accuse God of injustice if he believed in determinism.

Cal, though I often disagree with you, I have found you to be an intelligent and honest poster. Unfortunately, your understanding on this area of Scripture leaves much to be desired, which is ironic as it is one of the clearer sections of Scripture. The point being made by Paul is that God has elected Jacob instead of Esau, irrespective of anything they have/will think, desire, do, not do, etc. The reason that His choice isn't based on them and what they do is because He is revealing that His choice is not based on something the creation establishes, either willfully or actively, but, rather, that it is based on His own purpose in election. You see Cal, because Paul is making the point that God has elected to bless Jacob rather than Esau, irrespective of their works, He anticipates the natural objections his audience will have to such a decision. Paul understands that, having just been told that God determined to bless Jacob instead of Esau and and that His choice to do so wasn't because of His knowledge of their works, his audience will naturally object to the idea that neither Jacob, nor they, are chosen because of their works. The natural objection is, "Hey, that's not fair," or more biblically, "that is unjust." Paul is saying, "In light of the fact that God's choice of someone is made according, not to their works, but rather, His purpose in election, shall we say that God is unjust?" His response, "Certainly not! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." IOW Cal, the objection that God is unjust for selecting someone irrespective of their works is explicitly being refuted because God, and God alone, reserves the divine perrogative to bless, with His mercy and compassion, whomsoever He will and His choice to do so isn't based on the will of the recipient or their works.

I thought Gordon's assessment of Romans 8 was on the money.

Well then, I feel doubly bad for you.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Here is how I explain God’s desire.

A. God conceived the thought to create

Okay. I agree.

B. God’s conception became a plan

Still agree.

C. God’s plan involves creating mankind

Still with ya.

D. God’s plan also permits man to be free within his limited boundaries

We're still in agreement.

Uh oh...here's where you get into theological hot water:

E. God Elects God To Die for Man’s Sin to offer reconciliation not Purposing any of all mankind to perish but to come to repentance and salvation.

Okay, so, here we have God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things created, decreeing to die as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile, according to you, "all mankind." Do you contend that all mankind are reconciled by the purposeful death of God Himself? Pray tell, you can't possibly think that if God purposes to accomplish something that anything can stop God from achieving His purpose, right? I mean, Scripture plainly states that God accomplishes all that He purposes and nothing can stay His hand:

Job 42:2
I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Likewise, the Word of God clearly proclaims that He does His will on earth and in the army of Heaven and nothing and no one can stop Him:

Dan 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

F. God’s love for mankind is express in his desire to have all men come to Him demonstrated in His death on the cross, but because He designed into his plan to permit mankind limited freedom to accept or reject Him - He freely acts this way as He, Christ being lifted up draws all men unto Himself

The numerous unsupported theological leaps you make in this section of your post alone are staggering. First off, you errantly presume that Christ's death on the Cross must, somehow, indicate His love for all mankind. The atonement itself implies no such thing about the scope of God's intent. All it reveals is that He purposed to atone for sin. Then, you inconsistantly claim that though He desired to have all men come to Him, He designed His plan to allow for man to make the choice whether to do so knowing that many of them would not. Um...hello...anyone home? If God desired for "plan A" to come to pass but seeks to accomplish it through a means that do not guarantee success, and considering God's knowledge of all that will be, He is aware that "plan A" will not come to pass, it is simply ridiculous to assume that God desires that something come to pass that He knows will not. Additionally, the reason that anyone comes to Christ is because God gives them faith. Once given faith, a person always comes to Christ. Therefore, to claim that God purposes to die to reconcile all mankind to him, atone for the sins of all mankind, and then does nothing to ensure that anyone actually comes but, rather, leaves it all up to them, is nothing short of...well, let's just say it's biblically untenable.

- He is God. Whereby all who accept the drawing receive Salvation and are Elect In Him. God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit being One Foreknew and acted accordingly being in full and complete compliance with His Holy Character.

LOL! Here is GordonSlocum. Boasting that he made the right decision and God rewarded his right decision with salvation. So much for grace.

G. Because of God’s Holiness He can not both desire all to be saved and then purposely make some believe and not make all. God can not violate His Character (Holiness). God can and did plan to permit all to be saved “for God so love the world and purposes none to perish but in His purposing also desires men to come to repentance.

I am not even sure what to say to this. You strip salvation of any element of grace and make the dispensation of faith the obligationof God. Truly sad.

H. God’s foreknowing and foreknowledge both mean the same one being a noun and the other a compound verb does not negate the meaning of the word which clearly tells us that in God’s plan He in advance knew, for He is all knowing, that man would sin and that He would provide a solution - did so.

The saddest part of all is that you don't even see that the "church teminology" that you employ doesn't even line up with the views you espouse. You say that God "provided a solution" when, in reality, you believe nothing more than that God "provided the possibility of a solution." You don't believe anything God did is sufficient to save a single person, unless they choose to receive His work.

You believe nothing more than that Christ is the potential Savior of all and the actual Savior of those smart enough to make the right decision. Boast away. It's not me to whom you answer.

 

[Calminian]

Cal, though I often disagree with you, I have found you to be an intelligent and honest poster.

Thanks..... I think. Here comes the "but."

Unfortunately, your understanding on this area of Scripture leaves much to be desired, which is ironic as it is one of the clearer sections of Scripture.

IOW, you're really dumb for a smart guy!

The point being made by Paul is that God has elected Jacob instead of Esau, irrespective of anything they have/will think, desire, do, not do, etc.

Which is no different from the arminian view of salvation.

The reason that His choice isn't based on them and what they do is because He is revealing that His choice is not based on something the creation establishes, either willfully or actively, but, rather, that it is based on His own purpose in election.

No problem.

Rom. 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Based in the prior chapter, Paul revealed God's decrees were based on his prior knowledge (Rom. 8:29). Based on that knowledge He determined that Jacob would better serve His purpose. As we see in Genesis, Jacob was no more righteous than Esau. Some make the case he was less righteous. But he was a better fit into God's purpose and plan. This is confirmed hundreds of years later when God declared his disapproval of Esau's descendants.

Mal. 1:2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,”Thus says the LORD of hosts: “They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. 5 Your eyes shall see, And you shall say, ‘The LORD is magnified beyond the border of Israel.’

You see Cal, because Paul is making the point that God has elected to bless Jacob rather than Esau, irrespective of their works, He anticipates the natural objections his audience will have to such a decision.

But only those that adhere to determinism would ask the question, for they don't realize that God can accomplish his will without destroying man's freedom and removing his liability. God wasn't saying "yeah, I know it's not far but I'm God and can do what I want!" Rather he was saying, just because I'm in control doesn't mean I'm causing you to sin.

Paul understands that, having just been told that God determined to bless Jacob instead of Esau and and that His choice to do so wasn't because of His knowledge of their works, his audience will naturally object to the idea that neither Jacob, nor they, are chosen because of their works. The natural objection is, "Hey, that's not fair," or more biblically, "that is unjust." Paul is saying, "In light of the fact that God's choice of someone is made according, not to their works, but rather, His purpose in election, shall we say that God is unjust?" His response, "Certainly not! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." IOW Cal, the objection that God is unjust for selecting someone irrespective of their works is explicitly being refuted because God, and God alone, reserves the divine perrogative to bless, with His mercy and compassion, whomsoever He will and His choice to do so isn't based on the will of the recipient or their works.

None of this is a problem in an arminian system. Arminians do not believe that God chooses based His foreknowledge of their works. These are caricatures of arminianism.

Well then, I feel doubly bad for you.

I only feel bad you don't really understand the view you are attempting to correct. Calvinists have attempted to solve these apparent paradoxes through philosophical ideas like determinism and compatibilism. But in my view arminian theologians have done a much better job through concepts like middle knowledge.

 

[Reformationist]

Which is no different from the arminian view of salvation.

I was not attempting to correct the Arminian view of salvation. In fact, if what you claim above is true, I wasn't addressing the Arminian view at all. What I was addressing was Gordon's claim that God's act of foreordaination is based on God's foreknowledge of what a person would do. This is the understanding that Gordon espoused and you seconded. Now, if you see the idea that God elects irrespective of human contribution as equivalent to the idea that God's elective purpose is based on His foreknowledge of what a person will do, further discussion between you and I will be pointless, because those two ideas are diametrically opposed.

Based in the prior chapter, Paul revealed God's decrees were based on his prior knowledge (Rom. 8:29).

God's decrees are based on God's purposes. Romans 8:29 does not speak of what God foreknows but, rather, whom God foreknows. Now, we are all, I'm sure, in agreement that God is omniscient. Therefore, God foreknows all people. However, to understand this passage properly, we must look at the concept of "foreknowledge" in context. We are told that those whom God foreknows, He predestines to be conformed to the image of Christ. Further, those He predestines, He calls. Those He calls, He justifies. Those He justifies, He glorifies. Now, it is quite easy to see that it is completely appropriate to understand that each step of that process applies to the same people. Therefore, it is accurate to acknowledge that those whom God foreknows, He ultimately glorifies. The Bible is clear that not all are glorified so, unless we wish to make a mockery of Scripture, God's foreknowledge does not refer simply to His foreknowledge of all people. So, we are forced to ask, "In what sense is the foreknowledge of God being employed in this passage?" Context dictates that we understand the foreknowledge of God as it is spoken of in verse 29 in light of His determined purpose to glorify. Therefore, this "foreknowledge" is specific to those whom God ultimately glorifies. I like to understand this "foreknowledge" as the predicative love of God by which He invincibly rescues His elect from certain, and everlasting, death and damnation.

Based on that knowledge He determined that Jacob would better serve His purpose.

Here you show more of the anthropocentric nature of your views. Jacob is not better suited for the purposes of God apart from the sovereign providence of God. It's not as if God looked at the brothers and said, "You know, because Jacob seems like he would suit my purposes better, I'm gonna pick him." On the contrary, it is only by the grace of God that Jacob is suited to serve the purposes of God. In short, it is God who creates and governs Jacob, not Jacob.

But only those that adhere to determinism would ask the question, for they don't realize that God can accomplish his will without destroying man's freedom and removing his liability.

Cal, you have a terribly inadequate grasp of these passages and your explanations are void of logic. No one who adheres to determinism would ask such a question. The entire premise of the chapter is built off the understanding that God establishes some to serve His purpose as vessels of wrath and others as vessels of His mercy and it is all according to His purpose to be glorified in setting apart a people unto Himself from the undeserving masses. The very point being made is that man has no right to question God's authority to dispense His mercy because none are deserving of His grace. It is God who determines to whom He will have mercy and it isn't based on what that person does. Were it based on what that person does, they would have reason to boast. Likewise, were it based on what Jacob did, or Esau did, no one would raise the objection that it's not fair to pick Jacob over Esau. Because Paul has just finished telling the church in Rome that God's elective purpose is not based on what Jacob or Esau did but, rather, that God determined to be merciful to Jacob for His own purposes, those, like yourself and Gordon, who arrogantly presume that God selects whom to have mercy upon based on their faithful response man would naturally object, calling God unjust. Paul rebukes those who, like yourself, presume that God would be unjust were He to elect to be merciful to Jacob irrespective of what they did, whether it be foreknown or actually done. To be honest, I fail to see how you don't see what is so clearly shown in these passages.

God wasn't saying "yeah, I know it's not far but I'm God and can do what I want!" Rather he was saying, just because I'm in control doesn't mean I'm causing you to sin.

This section of Scripture isn't saying either of those, though I acknowledge the truth of the latter. What's being said here is that man has no right to question the authority or holiness of God simply because he may think it's unfair if elects one over another without consideration of their works. Seriously, I feel like I'm explaining 1 + 1 = 2 here. Why would the point be made by Paul that God, the Potter, has power over you and I, the clay, to make one vessel for the purpose of honor and another for the purpose of dishonor?

None of this is a problem in an arminian system. Arminians do not believe that God chooses based His foreknowledge of their works. These are caricatures of arminianism.

Whether that is true or not is irrelevent, because I didn't address my position in contrast to the Arminian position. I offer it in contrast to the GordonSlocum position.

But in my view arminian theologians have done a much better job through concepts like middle knowledge.

Sure. Well, by all means, stick with what you feel is right. In the meantime, try not to ignore so many blatant inconsistancies in your views. They just might be red flags that the position you hold to be true is contradictory to Scripture.

 

[Easystreet]

Gordon, it's posting styles like yours that cause rational discussions to quickly degenerate into pointlessness. You start out by submitting that because the Bible states that "God desires" you're not willing to say He doesn't desire, to which I offer a loud, and resounding, HUH? Who ever said that God doesn't desire? It's WHAT He desires that was being discussed. Then, to follow up that faux pas with a show of unparalleled circular reasoning and strawman tactics, you state, in a thread in which this very idea is being debated, "If God desires the salvation of all and we know he does..." If "we know that He does" we wouldn't be discussing whether He does, don't you think? Now, you may have just been speaking to those that share this erroneous view with you but, in a public debate forum, such an approach is conducive only to confusion.

So, to address the only part of your post that "cuts the mustard," I quote:



You have not only done horrific violence to Romans 9:11-13, you have blatantly contradicted Ephesians 2:8,9. Paul, in Romans 9:11, is explaining, very clearly, that God has elected to have mercy upon the younger instead of the older, contrary to the common Jewish practice, before they had done any good or evil so that His purpose according to election might stand, not of works but of the call of God. Now, if you're up to the task, think about this rationally. If God made His decision to predestine, call, etc, based on what He knew Jacob and Esau would do, i.e, freely accept Christ, it would be contradictory to state that He has bestowed His salvitic love irrespective of their works because Jacob's act of "freely accepting Christ" would, in fact, be the foundation for His call. Additionally, the objection in verse 9:14 would be completely incongruous. Let me show you what I mean. Applying your idea that God predestines because He "foreknew that the ones loving Him would freely accept Christ" this is what we end up with:

God elects unto salvation those whom He foreknows will freely accept Christ. The example given to us to exemplify this dispensation of love is in Romans 9:11-13, that of Jacob and Esau. Two brothers, twins in fact. Contrary to standard Jewish practice, God has decreed that the older shall serve the younger and determines to express His salvatic love upon the younger precisely because He foreknew that Jacob would "freely accept Christ." Now we get to verse 14:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?"

Whoa!!! Why in the world would Paul, the teacher par excellance, ever presume that someone would have this objection???? Why would someone ever think of accusing God of being unjust if His election is based on His knowledge that a person will "freely accept Christ." Hmmm....that makes absolutely no sense. Well, let's move on to verses 15 and 16 for now:

"For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Wait a minute!!! We have just been told that God reserves the right to extend His mercy to whomsoever He chooses and it is NOT based on anything the human thinks or does but, rather, on the merciful nature of God.

Tell you what Gordo, I'll let you ponder how your position has just has a mule sized hole blasted right through it. If you'd like, I can show you, quite easily, how the reformed view, which you so clearly despise, is perfectly in line with these passages and how it is the ONLY view with which this chapter makes any sense at all.

Fare enough will be back in a bit with my answer - eating my “Vitis rotund folia” other wise know as Muscadine

 

[Calminian]

I was not attempting to correct the Arminian view of salvation. In fact, if what you claim above is true, I wasn't addressing the Arminian view at all. What I was addressing was Gordon's claim that God's act of foreordaination is based on God's foreknowledge of what a person would do. This is the understanding that Gordon espoused and you seconded.

Er, and... you didn't realize that's an arminian concept?

Now, if you see the idea that God elects irrespective of human contribution as equivalent to the idea that God's elective purpose is based on His foreknowledge of what a person will do, further discussion between you and I will be pointless, because those two ideas are diametrically opposed.

I don't believe God elects based on human merit. I believe he elects based on faith. Faith, according to Paul, is not meritorious, thus needs to be reckoned as such (Romans 4:2-9). I believe in unmerited election based on God's foreknowledge. But there is a condition of faith.

God's decrees are based on God's purposes. Romans 8:29 does not speak of what God foreknows but, rather, whom

Technically, whoms are also whats. I yes I also see that this is speaking of an intimate relationship knowledge that was limited to a few. This doesn't help your case. The logical order is still there. God predestined based on this particular foreknowledge. It's one thing to add intimacy and relationship to this knowledge, it's quite another to try to completely remove knowledge from it. I realize the theological need to try to do this, but I'm not going to let theology constrain my interpretations. We are elected based on this knowledge, not known based on election.

Here you show more of the anthropocentric nature of your views. Jacob is not better suited for the purposes of God apart from the sovereign providence of God. It's not as if God looked at the brothers and said, "You know, because Jacob seems like he would suit my purposes better, I'm gonna pick him."

Sorry, this IS what He does. Jacob was no more righteous that Esau, as the text bears out (though I think most theologians are a little hard on Jacob), yet he served God's purpose in reconciling the world better. Your view logically implies God chose him arbitrarily. Challenge: If you don't believe it was arbitrary, tell me the reason God chose him.

On the contrary, it is only by the grace of God that Jacob is suited to serve the purposes of God. In short, it is God who creates and governs Jacob, not Jacob.

Sure it was by grace. Jacob did not merit his own choosing. God could have justly rejected both of them and started fresh.

Cal, you have a terribly inadequate grasp of these passages and your explanations are void of logic.

I take it you really feel statements like these are convincing.

No one who adheres to determinism would ask such a question. The entire premise of the chapter is built off the understanding that God establishes some to serve His purpose as vessels of wrath and others as vessels of His mercy and it is all according to His purpose to be glorified in setting apart a people unto Himself from the undeserving masses.

Only determinists would ask this! Why would the arminian/molinist ask it? He sees no injustice in God controlling the future because He understand the tools God has to work with. I also believe God determined some to be vessels of wrath and others of mercy. If you would just just step out of calvinist circles long enough to read some arminian material, you'd understand you are knocking down straw men. Craig has a book out called The Only Wise God. You won't agree with it, but it will make you a better calvinist.

The very point being made is that man has no right to question God's authority to dispense His mercy because none are deserving of His grace.

Close but I don't think this is precise. Man shouldn't question the goodness of God based on His decisions. His knowledge and wisdom are so far above ours, we need to just trust He's not violating His other attributes, such as universal love and non-favoritism. Paul closes out this portion of Romans with this.

Rom. 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

It is God who determines to whom He will have mercy and it isn't based on what that person does.

It is not based on human merit, but it is certainly not void of God's wisdom and knowledge. His decrees are based on His knowledge and that includes foreknowledge.

Were it based on what that person does, they would have reason to boast.

According to Paul, in this very same book, faith is not considered a work and this does not merit boasting. For you to say it does, puts you in opposition to Paul. Paul absolutely destroyed the idea that faith can earn anything.

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. ....4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.

Sorry, Reform. The way I see it, God was rebuking the determinist, not the molinist.

 

[Easystreet]

"Okay, so, here we have God, the Creator and Sustainer of all things created, decreeing to die as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile, according to you, "all mankind." Do you contend that all mankind are reconciled by the purposeful death of God Himself? Pray tell, you can't possibly think that if God purposes to accomplish something that anything can stop God from achieving His purpose, right? I mean, Scripture plainly states that God accomplishes all that He purposes and nothing can stay His hand:

You say thing I did not say because that is how you think - I understand that.

(1) Jesus died for all mankind

John 1:4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

John12:32,47
32. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John5:18. Therefore 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.

John 8:32. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

I Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I Timothy 4:0. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Hebrews 2:9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
2 Peter 2:1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


2 Peter 4: 9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

I John 2: 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Job 42:2
I know that you can do all things,and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

The reason I fully believe this verse is because his purpose to die for man was not thwarted. It was carried according to His plan. The purpose of His plan was that He is not willing that anyone perish. God provided all the provisions for salvation in Christ. We know from 100s of scripture that His desire is for all to be save. What we also know is that God did not chose some out of all because all could not, and would not respond to the Gospel message so he picks some and damns all else.

Likewise, the Word of God clearly proclaims that He does His will on earth and in the army of Heaven and nothing and no one can stop Him:

God's plan is to save all who will come to Him and All are being drawn and all can free receive or reject.

[size=1]Dan 4:35[/size]
 
[size=1]All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;[/size]
 
[size=1]and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"[/size]
[size=1][/size]

God's plan is to save all who will come to Him and All are being drawn and all can free receive or reject.

If God desired for "plan A" to come to pass but seeks to accomplish it through a means that do not guarantee success, and considering God's knowledge of all that will be, He is aware that "plan A" will not come to pass, it is simply ridiculous to assume that God desires that something come to pass that He knows will not.

So Plan A which is the only plan that God has is in your opinion a piece of non-sense. Well, you are bold to say the least. OK-let me set you straight one more time. God planed to save man by offering him salvation. God knew in advance because he knows all things and all those He knows that will freely accept Christ are Called In Christ not outside Him or before Him. So Plan A is God's will and plan A will come to pass because it is God's perfect plan. I have to say in all seriousness - I dearly Love my Lord. My heart is humbled just thinking about His love for me and that He chose me in Christ not because He made me by zapping me with believing faith but because He saw me from eternity pass willfully respond to Christ. All that God does - Secure me In Christ, Elect my in Christ, all of it - humbles my heart and I have to say fills me with compassion to see others saved because they can. No, he wants real believer to witness to them and then the Holy Spirit convicts where-by they are free to chose this day whom they will serve. Faith is not a special gift. It is part of man because He is created in the image of God.

Additionally, the reason that anyone comes to Christ is because God gives them faith.

Really! How does He do that? What Bible are you reading? Anyone out there have a Bible that teaches this?. God gives faith to the lost so that they can believe? Back it up. You will not find one single verse that teaches that God gave anyone believing faith so they would believe.

All men are in the image of God. This and this alone is the basis for man's ability to trust in this or that. Man has the capacity to take information and decide for himself it he believes it or not, including faith in Christ.

Once given faith, a person always comes to Christ

.

I have not see your translation. From this statement it must be one just discovered.


Actually all men will not be saved but all men have potential. God did not take away man's potential to respond to His grace.

 

[Elect]

He in His plan elected to save Man In Christ all who freely receive His drawing for He draws all men.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The one that Jesus will raise up at the last day is the same one being drawn by the Father.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Draw - To pull along; to haul; to cause to move forward by force applied in advance of the thing moved or at the fore-end, as by a rope or chain. It differs from drag only in this, that drag is more generally applied to things moved along the ground by sliding, or moved with greater toil or difficulty, and draw is applied to all bodies moved by force in advance, whatever may be the degree of force. Draw is the more general or generic term, and drag, more specific. We say, the horses draw a coach or wagon, but they drag it through mire; yet draw is properly used in both cases.

If an object does not move, then it has not been drawn, so everyone that is drawn by the Father will come to Jesus

F. God’s love for mankind is express in his desire to have all men come to Him demonstrated in His death on the cross, but because He designed into his plan to permit mankind limited freedom to accept or reject Him - He freely acts this way as He, Christ being lifted up draws all men unto Himself - He is God. Whereby all who accept the drawing receive Salvation and are Elect In Him. God, Jesus, The Holy Spirit being One Foreknew and acted accordingly being in full and complete compliance with His Holy Character.

I understand how some people believe that there are Scriptures that imply free-will. If these Scriptures were understood in the proper contexts, one would see that it is not implied at all.

For example:

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

If the word world here means every single person, then there would be no one condemned for their sin, because the sin has been taken away. That would have to include the sin of not believing. So in this verse, if one is going to hang on to the idea that world means every single person, then to stay consistent, one would have to believe in universal atonement. All will be saved.

Here is what I believe that the word world here means. John is saying here that Jesus is not just for the Jews but for the gentiles as well. Most did not understand this until well into the book of Acts. Jews also referred to the Gentiles as the world.


Another example:

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

We know that all men does not mean every single person, because God does not draw outside the preaching of the Gospel. There are untold millions of people or more that have lived that have never heard the Gospel and so they were not drawn. All men, again, must mean Jew and Gentile and all the kinds of people that make up the Gentile world. All men does not mean all without exception, but rather it mean all without distinction. A good definition of world and of all men is found here.

Rev 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;

Remember John 6:44, the one being drawn by the Father is the same one that Jesus will raise up at the last day.

 

[Reformationist]

Er, and... you didn't realize that's an arminian concept?

You are a very confusing person. I state that Paul is explicitly revealing that God has elected Jacob instead of Esau, irrespective of anything they have thought/will think, desire, do, not do. You say that that is "no different from the Arminian view of salvation." I clarify that if the Arminian view is that God elects irrespective of anything we contribute, then I wasn't addressing the Arminian view. I then clarify that the view that I was repudiating was the one that Gordon proffered, i.e., that God's act of foreordination is based on His foreknowledge that someone freely accepts Christ, which you now contend is an "Arminian concept." So, to avoid further confusion, is the following view the Arminian understanding of this issue or not:

"God's act of foreordination is based on His foreknowledge that someone freely accepts Christ."

If not, please clarify the Arminian view.

I don't believe God elects based on human merit. I believe he elects based on faith.

From whence comes the faith upon which God bases His election?

Faith, according to Paul, is not meritorious, thus needs to be reckoned as such (Romans 4:2-9).

The question here isn't whether "faith," in and of itself, merits anything because faith, by nature, relies on the substance of something other than itself to establish value. Faith does not save. One can be devoutly faithful to a cow. Such faith only serves as an indictment. It is faith in the vicarious atonement of Jesus by which we appropriate salvation. Abraham was not reckoned as righteous because he had faith. Abraham was reckoned as righteous because he appropriated the merits of Christ's redemptive work by way of faith.

I believe in unmerited election based on God's foreknowledge. But there is a condition of faith.

How are we, as believers, to view this "condition of faith?" Do we see it as something that we must have but are, intrisically unable to provide? Or, shall we submit that faith is the byproduct of a choice we make?

Technically, whoms are also whats.

Fair enough. I do not think that was the point being made so it is rather irrelevent but I concede your point. The point I was trying to make, which I'm not sure you apprehended, was that Romans 8:28-30 is speaking of a specific foreknowledge of God, not his general omniscient knowledge of all things.

I also see that this is speaking of an intimate relationship knowledge that was limited to a few. This doesn't help your case. The logical order is still there. God predestined based on this particular foreknowledge.

LOL! It doesn't "help my case?" On the contrary. It establishes my case. If Romans 8:29 is speaking in a limited sense of God's intimate knowledge of the elect, then His sovereign act of predestination, which explicitly culminates in glorification, is likewise specifically referring to God's purpose in election.

It's one thing to add intimacy and relationship to this knowledge, it's quite another to try to completely remove knowledge from it. I realize the theological need to try to do this, but I'm not going to let theology constrain my interpretations. We are elected based on this knowledge, not known based on election.

I've never contended that we are known "based on election." What I do acknowledge is that God's knowledge of His elect includes a providential and unique loving intent for their glorification and that such a foreknowledge is not applicable to all people.

Sorry, this IS what He does. Jacob was no more righteous that Esau, as the text bears out (though I think most theologians are a little hard on Jacob), yet he served God's purpose in reconciling the world better. Your view logically implies God chose him arbitrarily. Challenge: If you don't believe it was arbitrary, tell me the reason God chose him.

I fully agree that the decision to have salvitic mercy on Jacob and not Esau was arbitrary and, to avoid confusion, offer the following definition of "arbitrary," from Merriam-Webster:

Arbitrary
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority

God's decision does rely only on God's divine perrogative and there is certainly no law which governs God's choices, apart from the Law He, Himself, establishes. Likewise, there is nothing that can restrain God's exercision of power, for He alone is authoritative.

To imply, as you do, that acknowledgement of God's choice of Jacob and not Esau was contingent upon something that Jacob brought to the table is inherently anthropocentric, unless you concurrently acknowledge that the intrinsic value in Jacob which God has found integral to His divine purpose was established by God as well.

Sure it was by grace. Jacob did not merit his own choosing. God could have justly rejected both of them and started fresh.

While this appears to be perfectly acceptable, it seems to carry an undertone that does not acknowledge that God needn't "start fresh" to establish His eternal plan. On the contrary, it is the unacceptable nature of both Jacob and Esau that reveals that God's elective decree is based on His own purpose to be glorified in setting apart a people unto Himself for His own glorification.

I take it you really feel statements like these are convincing.

Not at all. I hold no delusions that I have the power to convince you of anything. You are, unfortunately, far to sure of yourself and far too willing to disregard the completely illogical views you purport.

Only determinists would ask this! Why would the arminian/molinist ask it? He sees no injustice in God controlling the future because He understand the tools God has to work with. I also believe God determined some to be vessels of wrath and others of mercy. If you would just just step out of calvinist circles long enough to read some arminian material, you'd understand you are knocking down straw men. Craig has a book out called The Only Wise God. You won't agree with it, but it will make you a better calvinist.

I'll not waste any more of my time beating this dead horse. Hopefully you will one day recognize that only one who enjoyed an anthropocentric view of Scripture would ever presume to accuse God of injustice for choosing to save someone irrespective of their works. It is the very nature of the view that purports that it is our decisions that serve as the catalyst for God's dispensation of grace that would object to the idea that God's elective purpose is established irrespective of our decisions.

His knowledge and wisdom are so far above ours, we need to just trust He's not violating His other attributes, such as universal love and non-favoritism.

There is nothing in Scripture which speaks of God's universal love or ridiculous notion that God does not show favortism. What is clearly revealed in the Word is that God's love will always prompt Him to save someone and that His favoritism is not based on anything in the creation.

It is not based on human merit, but it is certainly not void of God's wisdom and knowledge. His decrees are based on His knowledge and that includes foreknowledge.

Aside from the fact that I've never even implied, much less stated, that God's choices are void of wisdom or knowledge, pray tell, what is it that you believe His foreknowledge reveals to Him?

According to Paul, in this very same book, faith is not considered a work and this does not merit boasting. For you to say it does, puts you in opposition to Paul. Paul absolutely destroyed the idea that faith can earn anything.

Goodness. I strongly encourage you to spend some time giving honest consideration to your unbiblical views about Scripture. What Paul is saying isn't contradictory to my views, nor did I say that faith merits boasting. The reason you keep having such an erroneous understanding of both my position and Scripture is that you see "faith" as some silly, existential nonsense. As the Apostle James clearly reveals, we show our faith by our works. That is, true faith is manifested as obedience. So, Paul is saying that if we see our salvation as a gift that is based solely on the works of another, there is no reason to boast. To claim that God elects someone based on His knowledge that they will respond to the call to repentance properly is to show that your faith is in your own right response to the call.

Sorry, Reform. The way I see it, God was rebuking the determinist, not the molinist.

Well, whether you're "sorry" or not, you're still wrong.

 

[Calminian]

You are a very confusing person.

That's possible. You seem confused, but I'll grant molinistic views tend to confuse people.

I state that Paul is explicitly revealing that God has elected Jacob instead of Esau, irrespective of anything they have thought/will think, desire, do, not do. You say that that is "no different from the Arminian view of salvation." I clarify that if the Arminian view is that God elects irrespective of anything we contribute, then I wasn't addressing the Arminian view. I then clarify that the view that I was repudiating was the one that Gordon proffered, i.e., that God's act of foreordination is based on His foreknowledge that someone freely accepts Christ, which you now contend is an "Arminian concept." So, to avoid further confusion, is the following view the Arminian understanding of this issue or not:

"God's act of foreordination is based on His foreknowledge that someone freely accepts Christ."

If not, please clarify the Arminian view.

The short answer is yes, but when it comes to the election of Jacob we're obvious not talking about salvation but the birthright. I think most calvinistic commentators will admit this. Jacob and his descendants were chosen to be stewards of the revelation of God, His chosen people by which He would reconcile the world to Himself. God chose Jacob not based on any good or evil. His hatred for Edom's evil was stated many hundreds of years later. But God did know that Jacob was going to appreciate the birthright much more than Esau. Thus God determined to allow Jacob and Rebekah's deceptive plan to go through. Thus the older would serve the younger, but of course that was in regard to both their descendants. Esau never served Jacob in any way while they both were alive. Personally I'm not even convinced Esau was not saved. The repentance spoken of in the book of Hebrews was in regard to Isaac, not Esau. But I could be convinced otherwise.

From whence comes the faith upon which God bases His election?

The faith is self-determined by men in the arminian view. However the reckoning of that faith is the choice of God alone. God is not obligated to save believers. They are as unrighteous as unbelievers (Rom. 4:5). So while faith is synergistic, the accounting of that faith is monergistic.

This is why I can say, just as loudly as you, salvation is wholly credited to God, and damnation is wholly credited to man.

The question here isn't whether "faith," in and of itself, merits anything because faith, by nature, relies on the substance of something other than itself to establish value. Faith does not save. One can be devoutly faithful to a cow. Such faith only serves as an indictment. It is faith in the vicarious atonement of Jesus by which we appropriate salvation. Abraham was not reckoned as righteous because he had faith. Abraham was reckoned as righteous because he appropriated the merits of Christ's redemptive work by way of faith.

I'm very close to you on this, but I disagree. Abraham did not appropriate merit by faith. God appropriated merit to his faith by grace and mercy. He elected to, but was not caused to.

I fully agree that the decision to have salvitic mercy on Jacob and not Esau was arbitrary and, to avoid confusion, offer the following definition of "arbitrary," from Merriam-Webster:

Arbitrary
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority

God's decision does rely only on God's divine prerogative and there is certainly no law which governs God's choices, apart from the Law He, Himself, establishes. Likewise, there is nothing that can restrain God's exercision of power, for He alone is authoritative.

I would agree there is no determinative law governing God's choices, but at the same time I would disagree His decisions are arbitrary. Everything God does is by his wisdom and knowledge, and election is no exception. God elects based on reasons, but not causes. He is a free being and can choose His reasons, but is not caused to chose any reason.

To imply, as you do, that acknowledgement of God's choice of Jacob and not Esau was contingent upon something that Jacob brought to the table is inherently anthropocentric, unless you concurrently acknowledge that the intrinsic value in Jacob which God has found integral to His divine purpose was established by God as well.

Jacob didn't bring any merit to the table, but we was a better choice according to the wisdom of God. Jacob's foreknown decisions were good for him in that regard, but not good of him. The same is true of faith. Faith is good for us, just not good of us. This is why we can't boast about it. Accepting good gifts is good, but again for us, not of us.

While this appears to be perfectly acceptable, it seems to carry an undertone that does not acknowledge that God needn't "start fresh" to establish His eternal plan. On the contrary, it is the unacceptable nature of both Jacob and Esau that reveals that God's elective decree is based on His own purpose to be glorified in setting apart a people unto Himself for His own glorification.

Right, it served His own purpose. IOW it was not arbitrary.

Not at all. I hold no delusions that I have the power to convince you of anything. You are, unfortunately, far to sure of yourself and far too willing to disregard the completely illogical views you purport.

Ouch! Was that really necessary?

I'll not waste any more of my time beating this dead horse. Hopefully you will one day recognize that only one who enjoyed an anthropocentric view of Scripture would ever presume to accuse God of injustice for choosing to save someone irrespective of their works. It is the very nature of the view that purports that it is our decisions that serve as the catalyst for God's dispensation of grace that would object to the idea that God's elective purpose is established irrespective of our decisions.

Fair enough. I can appreciate your passion for your view. But I can’t deny my own convictions.

 

[Ben johnson]

I do not believe that God desires the salvation of all men (everyone). I believe that the misunderstanding comes from the words all men.

So --- God is "partial"? You're saying He is; either "partial" (not-desiring salvation for certain ones), or "impartial" (He welcomes all who come to Him).

Which does Scripture support?

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The one that Jesus will raise up at the last day is the same one being drawn by the Father.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Draw...

John6:44 is in answer to John6:42; you cannot make an "I-AM-AUTHORIZED" passage, into anything else but "Jesus asserting His authorization from the Father".

"Draw", is "helkuo-drag"; it's the same word as in Jn12:32, in the Greek it means "drag-forcibly".

If an object does not move, then it has not been drawn, so everyone that is drawn by the Father will come to Jesus

We are not "objects"; we are consious. A rock has not the ability to move itself; but we do.

We know that all men does not mean every single person, because God does not draw outside the preaching of the Gospel. There are untold millions of people or more that have lived that have never heard the Gospel and so they were not drawn. All men, again, must mean Jew and Gentile and all the kinds of people that make up the Gentile world. All men does not mean all without exception, but rather it mean all without distinction. A good definition of world and of all men is found here.

Of course they are. In Rom1, "what is known about God has been revealed to them". And, "Since the beginning of time God's invisible attributes, His divine nature and eternal power have been CLEARLY SEEN, so they are therefore without excuse."

Pragmatically --- many more will believe if the Gospel is preached. But "not-preaching", is no excuse for not-believing. God is real; those who seek the Creator, will find Him.

To answer the OP --- God is love; he who abides in love, abides in God, and God abides in him. "Love" is the key; love requires that we be conscious, and sentient. To love someone, must include thought, and a soul.

The nature of love --- is that it does not demand its own way. ("Zeteo" in 1Cor13:5.)

Thus --- our fellowship-of-love with the Father, cannot be one-sided. He cannot CAUSE us to love, else it would not be love. A man cannot make a woman love him; he can only love her and hope she CHOOSES to love him back. If not, then his love is not fulfilled. Such is the nature of love, that if she does not want to love him back, then he WANTS her not to want him.

God is not partial; He does not choose who WILL love Him back. Every person is drawn to Him; every person has depravity overcome BY His calling, sufficiently to believe (sufficiently to love). Every person LOVES God; or turns back to love sin instead.

This is the essence of "justness" --- at the Judgment, we will be judged for our hearts. And justness requires that there be NO excuse.

Those who enter Hell, do so by their own choice; they are the cause of their destruction.

Those who enter Heaven, also do so by their own choice; though He is the door, each is causal in accepting His hand offered.

This is the clear dictate issued in Roman2:6-8; each receives the consequence of willful choice.

Equally --- when we are saved, we are not "robotized"; we are conscious entities. Full of thought and direction. He directs our steps, but we are free to follow HIs direction or not. Yet we lack the power to walk towards righteousness; so we walk in Him, and He becomes our righteousness. The idea of "walk in Him", is fellowship; communion. Love.

 

[TruthMiner]

Helkuo does not mean "drag forcibly." We have evidence to prove otherwise. This mistaken notion comes from the error of word loading.... loading a word with the situation in which it was used.

"Over many years you did draw them, and did warn them by your Spirit through your prophets; yet they would not give ear. Therefore you did give them into the hand of the peoples of the lands." (Nehemiah 9:30 LXX).

"O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! For your love is better than wine, your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is oil poured out; therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will exult and rejoice in you; we will extol your love more than wine; rightly do they love you" (Song of Solomon LXX).

"From long ago, the Lord appeared to me, "I have loved you with an eternal love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you" (Jeremiah 31:3 LXX).

 

[Reformationist]

The faith is self-determined by men in the arminian view. However the reckoning of that faith is the choice of God alone. God is not obligated to save believers. They are as unrighteous as unbelievers (Rom. 4:5). So while faith is synergistic, the accounting of that faith is monergistic.

Is that your view? If so, can you please explain this idea of "self-determined faith?"

You see Cal, if one submits that faith is "self-determined," and then attempts to cloak this blatant boasting in a shroud of "it is still God's exclusive perrogative to reckon that faith as righteous," they only show their willingness to disregard logic in their pursuit of maintaining the view they currently hold, whether it be biblically tenable or not.

Those who contend that faith is "self-determined," instead of acknowledging that it is a gift monergistically instilled by God for the express and invincible purpose of establishing an unseverable relationship, have ultimately submitted that those who have determined to have faith have put themselves in a position to receive the salvitic blessing of God while those who determine to remain obstinate against the call of God have put themselves in a postion to receive their due condemnation. That, Cal, is boasting, at least for those who have made the right decision.

Abraham did not appropriate merit by faith. God appropriated merit to his faith by grace and mercy. He elected to, but was not caused to.

You say nothing different on that issue than I did. I did not imply that Abraham's appropriation of the merit of Christ was not, itself, based on the graciousness and mercy of God. I was simply acknowledging that God has established that the means by which we appropriate the merit of Christ's vicarious atonement is by faith.

I would agree there is no determinative law governing God's choices, but at the same time I would disagree His decisions are arbitrary. Everything God does is by his wisdom and knowledge, and election is no exception. God elects based on reasons, but not causes. He is a free being and can choose His reasons, but is not caused to chose any reason.

How you differientiate between "everything God does is by his wisdom and knowledge" and "depending on individual discretion" is beyond me. The very reason I posted the definition was so that you could see that I acknowledge that God's choice to elect is based on His own individual discretion.

Jacob didn't bring any merit to the table, but we was a better choice according to the wisdom of God. Jacob's foreknown decisions were good for him in that regard, but not good of him. The same is true of faith. Faith is good for us, just not good of us. This is why we can't boast about it. Accepting good gifts is good, but again for us, not of us.

Cal, this is the same untenable track attempted by semi-Pelagians. To claim that there is no merit in making the right decision to accept God's offer of salvation is nothing more than a denial of the obvious. You, like they, are simply submitting that the catalyst for a person's salvation is nothing other than that a person makes the right decision.

Right, it served His own purpose. IOW it was not arbitrary.

Arbitrary does not contradict that it serves His own purposes. In fact, the first given definition of arbitrary in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "depending on individual discretion." Not sure what it is about this that is confusing you.

Ouch! Was that really necessary?

I don't know. Do you feel that it was untrue? If so I will try to reword it. I was not trying to offend you. I simply see you as too set in your views to even acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. That said, I may suffer from that proclivity myself so you're not alone.

Fair enough. I can appreciate your passion for your view. But I can’t deny my own convictions.

I understand. I pray that we can come to a greater knowledge and understanding of the will of God together, as brothers in the Lord.

God bless