Free Will or Predestination

[Hupomone10]

Even it is talking about those He foresaw would believe (which is different than foreknowing, but we'll roll with it), it still presents a problem for you. Stick with me and see if you can follow this argument.

If foreknew meant that He foreknew who would believe, then it is still limiting. Why? Because those He foreknew would be saved He predestined to be saved (which is oxymoronical in itself), and those are the ones He called. However, if those are the ones He called, how can you say that those He didn't call wouldn't have been saved if they had been called? Or do you believe in two calls, one external and one internal?

So although you view of God seems all warm and fuzzy (God just wants to try really really hard to save everyone), when you actually have to defend what scripture really teaches, it just falls apart.

No need to respond. This was for those following along, not for you. You dismissed it as soon as you saw who UT was from.

Hammster,
Are you saying that things such as the idea of universal atonement are still limited in their effects, and therefore just another flavor of limited atonement? I may be putting this with another recent post of yours to get here, but is that essentially it?

H.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I believe that the only way Christ would die for everybody is if the Father had predestined to save everybody. A person who Christ died for cannot be lost.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,
Are you saying that things such as the idea of universal atonement are still limited in their effects, and therefore just another flavor of limited atonement? I may be putting this with another recent post of yours to get here, but is that essentially it?

H.

It's always limited, since not all are saved.

 

[omanid]

Yep. Both...I think this Proverb perfectly explains it:

The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.
Proverbs 16:9​

Free will is planning; God either accepts our plan or rejects it, according to His Plan (Predestination).

 

[Skala]

Even it is talking about those He foresaw would believe (which is different than foreknowing, but we'll roll with it), it still presents a problem for you. Stick with me and see if you can follow this argument.

If foreknew meant that He foreknew who would believe, then it is still limiting. Why? Because those He foreknew would be saved He predestined to be saved (which is oxymoronical in itself), and those are the ones He called. However, if those are the ones He called, how can you say that those He didn't call wouldn't have been saved if they had been called? Or do you believe in two calls, one external and one internal?

So although you view of God seems all warm and fuzzy (God just wants to try really really hard to save everyone), when you actually have to defend what scripture really teaches, it just falls apart.

No need to respond. This was for those following along, not for you. You dismissed it as soon as you saw who UT was from.

Thank you Hamm, for stepping in.

I noticed His_disciple didn't actually deal with any of my actual arguments. But that's ok, he never does. Nor did he deal with the Apostle Paul's arguments! But that's ok. He never does.

 

[Hammster]

Thank you Hamm, for stepping in.

I noticed His_disciple didn't actually deal with any of my actual arguments. But that's ok, he never does. Nor did he deal with the Apostle Paul's arguments! But that's ok. He never does.

Yeah. He's good coming out if the gate, but not much on stamina. He tried hijacking the Propitiation thread. Never even dealt with the OP.

 

[iLogos]

It's always limited, since not all are saved.

This part I don't get. Why is it limited because all are not saved? Is there a law that specifically address no part of the atonement must be wasted? What scripture is there to support this?

I can see how Jesus could die for every one, unlimited atonement, and yet not every one saved, and yet still not failing.

I think the doctrines of limited atonement is perhaps a case of over simplifying the Salvation plan.

Granted this is merely my opinion, but I have yet to see scripture that specifically address this point.

We see phrases such as God so loved the world, and whosoever. I see in order to get around that some Calvinists will resort to an exhaustive Greek translation exercise to remedy the meaning to fit the theology. I don't think God would allow the scriptures since it is inspired by the Holy Spirit to fall that far out of accuracy and require such a extensive research to understand such a clear message. It's a stretch for me to accept that.

It is far more conceivable that the Word of God means what it says the way it is and Calvinists attempt to modify clear passages that don't fit Calvin's theology.

I have no gain either way as I am not a Calvinist nor am I out to discredit them. I approach issues such as this the way our Beroeans did

 

[Skala]

This part I don't get. Why is it limited because all are not saved? Is there a law that specifically address no part of the atonement must be wasted? What scripture is there to support this?

I can see how Jesus could die for every one, unlimited atonement, and yet not every one saved, and yet still not failing.

I think the doctrines of limited atonement is perhaps a case of over simplifying the Salvation plan.

Granted this is merely my opinion, but I have yet to see scripture that specifically address this point.

We see phrases such as God so loved the world, and whosoever. I see in order to get around that some Calvinists will resort to an exhaustive Greek translation exercise to remedy the meaning to fit the theology. I don't think God would allow the scriptures since it is inspired by the Holy Spirit to fall that far out of accuracy and require such a extensive research to understand such a clear message. It's a stretch for me to accept that.

It is far more conceivable that the Word of God means what it says the way it is and Calvinists attempt to modify clear passages that don't fit Calvin's theology.

I have no gain either way as I am not a Calvinist nor am I out to discredit them. I approach issues such as this the way our Beroeans did

It's not a Greek exercise to assert that "whosoever believes" means "all the believing ones". That's simply what it means.

How is that a modification of anything? And how does the phrase "For God so loved the world" say anything about the extent of the atonement?

If anything, John 3:16 does tell us something about the intention of God sending Christ: To save believers. The intention was not, according to John 3:16, to save everyone.

It's these kinds of accusations and broad-brush assertions that really worry me.

 

[iLogos]

It's not a Greek exercise to assert that "whosoever believes" means "all the believing ones". That's simply what it means.

How is that a modification of anything? And how does the phrase "For God so loved the world" say anything about the extent of the atonement?

If anything, John 3:16 does tell us something about the intention of God sending Christ: To save believers. The intention was not, according to John 3:16, to save everyone.

It's these kinds of accusations and broad-brush assertions that really worry me.

I have over 40 electronic Bibles I can instantly compare verses, they all translate the same way. Why suddenly are we expected to believe that is not the intended way to read it? They are all wrong?

It's really a stretch for me to believe that the true meaning of John 3:16 has been lost for so long.

It seems more conceivable they are not all wrong and the Word says what it means and means what it says.

 

[Skala]

I have over 40 electronic Bibles I can instantly compare verses, they all translate the same way. Why suddenly are we expected to believe that is not the intended way to read it? They are all wrong?

It's really a stretch for me to believe that the true meaning of John 3:16 has been lost for so long.

It seems more conceivable they are not all wrong and the Word says what it means and means what it says.

Brother, they are translated just fine. And yes, "whosoever believes" means exactly that: "Whosoever believes"

What exactly do you think "Whosoever believes" means?
In what way was my argument wrong in the prior post?

Here's an exercize in grammar for you.

In the phrase...
"whosoever is wet", who is in view?

A) Wet people
B) Dry people

In the phrase...
"whosoever is male", who is in view?

A) Males
B) Females

 

[iLogos]

I get that *the believers* are in view. Whosoever believes.

Perhaps this verse sheds some light on that,

(Mat 22:14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

I just don't get the limited atonement thing and why thats more correct then unlimited atonement. I read the arguments for it, I just don't get the scripture support for that.

I feel we are splitting hairs.

 

[Skala]

I get that *the believers* are in view. Whosoever believes.

Perhaps this verse sheds some light on that,

(Mat 22:14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

I just don't get the limited atonement thing and why thats more correct then unlimited atonement. I read the arguments for it, I just don't get the scripture support for that.

I feel we are splitting hairs.

Well your original argument was that phrases like "God so loved the world" and "whosoever believes" were not compatible with Limited Atonement. here is your original argument.

I think the doctrines of limited atonement is perhaps a case of over simplifying the Salvation plan.

Granted this is merely my opinion, but I have yet to see scripture that specifically address this point.

We see phrases such as God so loved the world, and whosoever. I see in order to get around that some Calvinists will resort to an exhaustive Greek translation exercise to remedy the meaning to fit the theology.

If you'd like to talk about Limited Atonement i'd be more than happy to discuss it! Perhaps I should start another thread over int he Soteriology forum. I hope to see you there brother.

 

[iLogos]

Well your original argument was that phrases like "God so loved the world" and "whosoever believes" were not compatible with Limited Atonement. here is your original argument.



If you'd like to talk about Limited Atonement i'd be more than happy to discuss it! Perhaps I should start another thread over int he Soteriology forum. I hope to see you there brother.

That's correct. Because I can still see how that can apply to any one *if* they believe.

 

[Skala]

That's correct. Because I can still see how that can apply to any one *if* they believe.

Anyone if they believe is the same as saying "whoever believes" or "everyone who believes"



Btw I've created a limited atonement thread over in Soteriology and would like to invite you!

 

[His_disciple3]

Thank you Hamm, for stepping in.

I noticed His_disciple didn't actually deal with any of my actual arguments. But that's ok, he never does. Nor did he deal with the Apostle Paul's arguments! But that's ok. He never does.

skala, i have to work for a living I can't keep up with every post( i do mean "every" post) that is posted, but let me say this since you have brought me into it, I don't think I could ever be a calvinist for all the calvinist I know are Rude and mean , and they think they are better than others, and though they say; they are the chosen ones, I never see any fruit of the Spirit, being produced from a calvinist in any of their discussions, with the exception of Hamm maybe, so please don't try to warp him Up!! oops I just call hamm's next post after this yep he is a true calvinist !! I take back what i said about hamm maybe being an exception well I did say maybe!

 

[His_disciple3]

Can we put aside Calvin for a minute? I'm not Calvin one of his relatives or even a Calvinist. I'm just a Christian who has been reading the bible for a long time and love the Lord. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, not about Calvin, but about *your* views.

So if I understand you correctly, you do believe God does chose people or at least he use to, like the Jews, but since they rejected him, he grafted the rest of the nations (gentiles) in. Where I am having a little trouble following you is what are the gentiles, whoever by chance accepts the Lord is suddenly elected or do you place less emphasis on the term elect? Do you think God called every one? Or just some?

You limit my responses to your post if I can't use calvinism, but let me see if I can skip around it. I think your timing of the actual electing is off, the man you don't me to mention says we are elected before time begins not when we are saved, then some of those people who claim to be 4.5 of ( the man you don't want me to mention) and not a full 5. says that we still need atonement , we still need to hear the word through preaching, But as I have pointed out already those that He fore knew, those He called, and those He call He sanctified, so now we have to possiblities who are the ones that he foreknew? If it is limited atonement, and He only elected those the He foreknew, would the God of creation foreknow all of His creation?? but enlight of other scriptures it can not mean all those He created, Hell groweth larger every day! so we go by depart from me I never knew you, so those that He foreknew would be the saved, so If he foreknew the saved before He sanctified, this don't line up with scriptures either so maybe you not being a ( the man you don't want me to mention) . maybe you have a differnt take on it!

 

[His_disciple3]

Even it is talking about those He foresaw would believe (which is different than foreknowing, but we'll roll with it), it still presents a problem for you. Stick with me and see if you can follow this argument.

If foreknew meant that He foreknew who would believe, then it is still limiting. Why? Because those He foreknew would be saved He predestined to be saved (which is oxymoronical in itself), and those are the ones He called. However, if those are the ones He called, how can you say that those He didn't call wouldn't have been saved if they had been called? Or do you believe in two calls, one external and one internal?

So although you view of God seems all warm and fuzzy (God just wants to try really really hard to save everyone), when you actually have to defend what scripture really teaches, it just falls apart.

No need to respond. This was for those following along, not for you. You dismissed it as soon as you saw who UT was from.

it was Paul that said that He died for US ( the elect ) that some might/would be redeemed, paul who john calvin says taught calvinism said that Christ died for the elect that some not a"ALL" the elect would be redeemed. You can't assume paul is talking about the elect "US" and then in mid sentence jump to mean some ( of the World) or either paul was saying that Christ died for us ( the World ) that some ( the elect ) would be redeemed, which if Paul is saying the latter, then your limited atonement just took a dive. If He is saying that Us ( the elect ) then Some of the elect will be redeemed and some won't. either way your limited attonement took a dive!!!

 

[His_disciple3]

Brother, they are translated just fine. And yes, "whosoever believes" means exactly that: "Whosoever believes"

What exactly do you think "Whosoever believes" means?
In what way was my argument wrong in the prior post?

Here's an exercize in grammar for you.

In the phrase...
"whosoever is wet", who is in view?

A) Wet people
B) Dry people

In the phrase...
"whosoever is male", who is in view?

A) Males
B) Females

you must be getting really tired this post make no sense at all
I think you are the one that needs to exercise your grammar, for you are changing whosoever believes into the saved believes, so let's look at scripture in your grammar test:

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
KJV

so here is your test "For God so loved the World" who is in view here

A) the World
B) the elect

let's try one more

John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
KJV

"sent not His Son into the World" who is in view here ,

A). the World
B). the elect

For God sent not His Son into the World or God sent not His Son into the elect, forget the grammar test Skalla which one did the Bible say "THE WORLD" or "THE ELECT"

 

[iLogos]

You limit my responses to your post if I can't use calvinism, but let me see if I can skip around it. I think your timing of the actual electing is off, the man you don't me to mention says we are elected before time begins not when we are saved, then some of those people who claim to be 4.5 of ( the man you don't want me to mention) and not a full 5. says that we still need atonement , we still need to hear the word through preaching, But as I have pointed out already those that He fore knew, those He called, and those He call He sanctified, so now we have to possiblities who are the ones that he foreknew? If it is limited atonement, and He only elected those the He foreknew, would the God of creation foreknow all of His creation?? but enlight of other scriptures it can not mean all those He created, Hell groweth larger every day! so we go by depart from me I never knew you, so those that He foreknew would be the saved, so If he foreknew the saved before He sanctified, this don't line up with scriptures either so maybe you not being a ( the man you don't want me to mention) . maybe you have a differnt take on it!

I don't consider myself a Calvinist because in all my years of study it was not a issue for me. I do agree with some of the theology. I was really just curious what *you* believe and why and didn't really want to make this a Calvin debate.

It looks like no matter how you look at it, it is limited atonement because not every one is saved. Do u agree with that point?

 

[Robs07M6S]

Or could it be limited atonement because not everyone believes? Was Christ atonement applied to any of you before you believed? that is the question that im asking.