Free Will or Predestination

[Skala]

Although I disagree with the part about the whole phrase being the gift, I do understand your logic in it, and I can identify with the rest of your response. Thanks for acknowledging this.

Brother Hupo, with all due respect, I don't mean this sarcastically:

It's dangerous to disagree with a fact. My argument was not an opinion or a wishful thinking. It's the flat out truth of the Greek grammar in Eph 2:8-9. That is not my opinion. It is not my made up idea that the language works that way. It is the absolute truth.

More information:

Antecedents and Faith (Eph 2:8-9) | BillMounce.com

Ephesians 2:8

Faith is a Gift! (Jim McClarty) - YouTube

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I vote predestination.

 

[Skala]

If everybody is already chosen then guess we should all just give up on the Great Commission... Yeshua/ Jesus apparently didn't know what He was talking about. I mean, why waste time doing that if they will come to Christ anyway somehow.

This argument backfires on the Arminian as well.

The Arminian does believe in election.
The Arminian does believe that God chose certain people to be saved before the foundation of the world.

Arminians believe God's choice of people was based on his foreseeing of future events. That is, from eternity past, God knew in advance that certain people would respond to the gospel. So God chose those people to be saved.

Now lets look at the argument again by Michael: "If everybody is already chosen then guess we should all just give up on the Great Commission..."

 

[Robs07M6S]

Arminians believe God's choice of people was based on his foreseeing of future events. That is, from eternity past, God knew in advance that certain people would respond to the gospel. So God chose those people to be saved.

Why would a infinite God who operates in the eternal need to look down through the tunnels of time to foresee anything when God himself occupies all of space and time?

 

[Skala]

Why would a infinite God who operates in the eternal need to look down through the tunnels of time to foresee anything when God himself occupies all of space and time?

I'm not sure brother, but that's what Arminians believe. Ask them.

They believe that before God created, before time even existed, He knew that so-and-so would believe the gospel, so He chose them to be saved on that basis.

My point in bringing this up is that Michaels argument works equally against the Arminian position (and Michael is most assuredly Arminian or at least Semi-Pelagian in his soteriology)

So his own argument backfires and works equally against himself too.

If God knew in advance who would be saved and chose them to be saved on that basis, why should we bother evangelizing?

 

[Skala]

BOTH Free Will and Predestination are correct... where the strictly predestination or free will crowds errs, however, is by excluding Free Will. You cannot have predestination without man's free will, and vice-versa. That is the great paradox, and is the result of us being constrained WITHIN the space-time domain, while God exists outside of it. You need to seriously EXPAND your mind; there is more to the universe than you are trying to make it out to be. Even the apostle Paul said, "we see through a glass darkly... I know in part, but then I will know fully" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And John said, "We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is" (1 John 3:2b).

You've told us that some people err by excluding free will.

Can you explain in great detail how those who exclude predestination err?

When you've done that, can you explain how it differs at all from your own supposedly balanced view?

Also I want to point out that what you've described is pretty much plain ole Calvinism. Only Calvinism affirms both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. It's called compatiblism. All Calvinists believe in Compatiblistic free will.

Hyper Calvinism denies man's responsibility in salvation
Arminianism denies God's sovereignty in salvation

Calvinism is right in the middle between these two extremes.

So your argument isn't really an argument against both positions so much as it's an argument against Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, making you a pretty good Calvinist

 

[Robs07M6S]

They believe that before God created, before time even existed, He knew that so-and-so would believe the gospel, so He chose them to be saved on that basis.

So just because man responds to the Gospel call it somehow makes God a respector of that person? or somehow doesnt give God all of the Glory for ones salvation?

If God knew in advance who would be saved and chose them to be saved on that basis, why should we bother evangelizing?

But see thats the whole problem, God doesnt operate within the limitations of time so he doesnt need to know anything in advance since he exist in the past present and future.

And cant the same be said for calvnisim if God already chose Bill or Bob over Sally or Sue then why bother evangelizing? Well in BOTH cases evangelism is the means that God uses to bring one to salvation is it not?

 

[Skala]

So just because man responds to the Gospel call it somehow makes God a respector of that person? or somehow doesnt give God all of the Glory for ones salvation?

Huh?

But see thats the whole problem, God doesnt operate within the limitations of time so he doesnt need to know anything in advance since he exist in the past present and future.

How does the question of how God exists in relation to time have anything to do with whether men believe because they were elected or that they are elected because they believe? It is irrelevant.

And cant the same be said for calvnisim if God already chose Bill or Bob over Sally or Sue then why bother evangelizing? Well in BOTH cases evangelism is the means that God uses to bring one to salvation is it not?

We evangelize because we have the same attitude Paul had. He endured all things for the sake of the elect so that they would be saved. (2 Tim 2:10)

And no its not true that in both cases evangelism is the means that God uses to bring one to salvation. It's only true in Calvinism.

In Arminianism it is not the means God uses to save someone, it is the means God uses to try to save someone. Big difference.

The bottom line is only Calvinists can say "I owe my faith to my election". Everyone else (read: arminians and semi-pelagians) says "I owe my election to my faith"

The latter view can take some of the credit for his salvation. (I'm elected BECAUSE OF WHAT I DID)

 

[Robs07M6S]

Huh?

What was so difficult to understand about my question?

How does the question of how God exists in relation to time have anything to do with whether men believe because they were elected or that they are elected because they believe? It is irrelevant.

Actually it is completely relevant, your just not understanding.

We evangelize because we have the same attitude Paul had. He endured all things for the sake of the elect so that they would be saved. (2 Tim 2:10)

Agree.

And no its not true that in both cases evangelism is the means that God uses to bring one to salvation. It's only true in Calvinism.

Lol, yes it is the same with both cases.

In Arminianism it is not the means God uses to save someone, it is the means God uses to try to save someone. Big difference.

So again, is man responsible for responding to the Gospel Message? Yes or no?

The bottom line is only Calvinists can say "I owe my faith to my election". Everyone else (read: arminians and semi-pelagians) says "I owe my election to my faith"

And both would be wrong because if you really understood what I meant about God existing in the eternal then you would understand that both of these facts "election/faith" happen simultaneously.

The latter view can take some of the credit for his salvation. (I'm elected BECAUSE OF WHAT I DID)

No thats actually a false claim that the calvinist makes in regards to arminians so I will ask you again skala, does a man have a responsibility to respond to the Gospel call or not?

 

[Robs07M6S]

Let me make it clear that I see error in both calvinism and arminianism. As of right now it is my belief that both sides are guilty of taking things to far into extreems in one way or another. God is eternal, he has always been and always will be and is not bound to the limitations of time as we humans are, this fact alone should really end all of the debate between these 2 doctrines.

 

[Skala]

What was so difficult to understand about my question?

It wasn't difficult, it's that you said something I never said or included in my argument..."respector of persons.."

Actually it is completely relevant, your just not understanding.

I really wish I could.

So again, is man responsible for responding to the Gospel Message? Yes or no

He absolutely is.

And both would be wrong because if you really understood what I meant about God existing in the eternal then you would understand that both of these facts "election/faith" happen simultaneously.

I disagree. Faith happens in time, during our lives. election happens "before the foundation of the world" as the Bible says many, many times. That's not simultaneous.

No thats actually a false claim that the calvinist makes in regards to arminians so I will ask you again skala, does a man have a responsibility to respond to the Gospel call or not?

Absolutely man is responsible to respond to the gospel.

God is eternal, he has always been and always will be and is not bound to the limitations of time as we humans are, this fact alone should really end all of the debate between these 2 doctrines.

Again, how God exists in relation to time is irrelevant. The argument between Calvinism and Arminianism has always been "On what basis does God elect sinners? Does he base it on what he knows sinners will do by some passive foreknowledge? Or does he base it on his own free grace?"

Again, Arminians say "I owe my election to my faith" and Calvinists say "I owe my faith to my election"

 

[Hupomone10]

Brother Hupo, with all due respect, I don't mean this sarcastically:

It's dangerous to disagree with a fact. My argument was not an opinion or a wishful thinking. It's the flat out truth of the Greek grammar in Eph 2:8-9. That is not my opinion. It is not my made up idea that the language works that way. It is the absolute truth.

More information:

Antecedents and Faith (Eph 2:8-9) | BillMounce.com

Ephesians 2:8

I don't take it as sarcasm, brother, but merely as your passion or else just misleading info you've been given that it is a settled cut and dry issue. But it doesn't appear to be a fact, simply an opinion. Here's another one from a respected source:

A. T. Robertson, Professor of Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky, from 1892 – 1934:
(fyi, "Kai touto" is Greek for “and that”; "pistis" is faith; and "charis" is grace.)
“and that”, "Kai touto" (Greek) - Neuter, not feminine, and so refers not to "pistis" (feminine) or to "charis" (feminine), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source in men, but from God. ...it is God's gift, and not the result of our work.”

I will listen to the sermon as soon as I get a chance. The first link you included seems to be saying what I'm saying. The second, that it refers to the whole phrase. Again, another opinion but only that, an opinion, which I will weigh against Robertson's. Forgive me, but it seems to be as much a "fact" as macro-evolution.

I have to address the post His Disciple wrote to me and I'll give it more time then.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Skala]

“and that”, "Kai touto" (Greek) - Neuter, not feminine, and so refers not to "pistis" (feminine) or to "charis" (feminine), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source in men, but from God. ...it is God's gift, and not the result of our work.”

Hupo, I do not see how this author's conclusion follows from the premise that the pronoun is neuter.

He says that it refers NOT to "faith" (feminine) nor "grace", (feminine) but to "the act of being saved" (masculine) conditioned on faith.

So he author is implying that the pronoun's antecedent is "salvation" (conditioned on pistis), even though it is already established that it is a neuter pronoun.

That makes no sense whatsoever and it is not allowed in the rules of Greek grammar.

He made an assertion with no argument or evidence to back it up. On what basis does he conclude that the pronoun's antecedent (the thing that is God's gift, not of ourselves) is "salvation conditioned on faith"?

 

[Hupomone10]

you know I have already told you once sir I speak english. greek is greek to me. alot of blood sweat and tears was shed that I may open my KJB and come to the Knowledge Of My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. and I gave you the 1828 webster definition to if you call that a modern day defintion then that's you.

The posts I wrote were all in English. I assume you can recognize symbols, can't you? Then you can recognize Greek letters and that the Greek Word dictionary is honestly copying the word from the Greek New Testament, right? Everything else I gave you was in fact English. So that's not an argument. It seems to be that you simply wish to retain the KJV word and use a 200 year later definition because it fits your original post.

You are using a 400 year old translation to get your word: might redeem.
You then use a dictionary 200 years later to define, not the Greek word in the original, but the 400 year old English word.

Here's why that's not a good idea. Using your technique on another verse and word:

The KJB has the word unicorn six times. Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Job 39:9,10; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.

Here's one:
Job 39:9,10
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow?


Now, using your technique:
Mirriam Webster's Dictionary:
Definition of UNICORN
: a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead.

Origin of UNICORN
Middle English unicorne, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin unicornis, from Latin, having one horn, from uni- + cornu horn — more at horn
First Known Use: 13th century


So, using your technique, you see that the KJB you are using as your sole source, tells you in English that there is such a thing as a unicorn, and that unicorns are hard to capture!
You can use this in a sermon next time you preach! "So, congregation, according to the Holy Bible, there is such a thing as a unicorn, and when we check it against the dictionary we see that it is indeed a one horn creature, not mythical at all. AND he's hard to catch."

Or, you can do what the rest of us do and compare other translations and compare the original languages with a good Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Word dictionary that is written in English.

Do you now see the problem with this? If not, i cannot help you any more bro.

p.s. - I believe Christ died for all, you have me pegged wrong. Again you spoke (wrote) presumptively rather than doing research or asking questions. I know it's hard for pastors to ask questions or to be a true disciple (a learner), but sometimes it really helps!

 

[Hupomone10]

REVISITING EPHESIANS 2:8

I'll split this into a couple of posts...

“For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;” The Amplified Bible. This IMHO is the best rendering of the true meaning of this passage.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” – Eph 2:8, NASB

THE POSSIBILITIES
First, an objective or inductive approach to this without viewing it through the lens of a doctrinal system would lead to the obvious conclusion that there are three possibilities:
“and that” refers back (1) to salvation, or (2) to faith, or (3) to grace. Some have tried to say it refers back to all three. I don’t accept that, because it is just an attempt to hang onto faith being the gift since faith is one of the three. But regardless, the point is that it is not definitive. There are 3 possibilities, and so it should not be taken as a proof text for any of the three. It may be additional evidence to someone for one or the other views, but it is not a proof text. Therefore, since it is not definitive, we need to look at the “probable” and the “improbable.”

THE CONTEXT
I believe the first step should be to let scripture speak for scripture, even before getting into the boring part about language.

In the case of Eph 2:8, Paul explains himself in the context. It would seem that the phrase “and that” could refer to faith if he had not elaborated and spoken further to explain what he meant. If the passage stopped with the last word of verse 8, I could understand that conclusion. But he elaborates on the phrase "and that not of yourselves" in the very next verse: "not of works." He equates "not of yourselves" with "not of works". In his writings, Paul always presents salvation as being of faith and not of works, or of grace and not of works, or of grace through faith and not of works; but it always salvation of which he is speaking. When he does so, he is contrasting grace with works and faith with works. Therefore, unless he is departing from his normal approach and in one small isolated verse choosing to say something totally different, he is contrasting works with faith. Salvation is by grace through faith; salvation is not of works. It (salvation) is not of ourselves. I have generally found that the same people who use Eph 2:8 as a proof text that faith is the gift of God referred to in that verse, also say that John 6:29 ("This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.") teaches that faith is a work, and since salvation is not of works, faith must be given by God. This should show an obvious contradiction in this Ephesians passage, as Paul just contrasted faith with works, showing that faith is indeed not works. This is no surprise to the student of the Word, who realizes that Paul always contrasts faith with works. It doesn’t mean I am favoring what Paul said over Jesus, but merely that we have misunderstood Jesus’ point in the verse. He wasn’t teaching that eternal life is by works.

2. “the gift of God”: Paul describes whatever he is referring to by “and that” as being “the gift of God.” Using rule 3 above, I decided to see what Paul refers to as the gift of God in parallel writings of his. I found that Paul himself defines what he means if we let him:
[FONT=&quot]Rom 3:24 “being justified as a gift by His grace”
Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.[/FONT]

To interpret this Ephesians verse as teaching that the “and that” refers to faith, would mean that Paul is referring to faith as the gift of God. And this is exactly what has been said on this and other threads. Not only does this diminish the subject of the sentence – salvation – but also elevates faith and makes it into an entity in itself. I have been a Christian for 32 years, and never have I heard a single Christian boast in their faith as though it were something they accomplished. This is a straw man created by extreme Calvinists. These believers simply put their trust in Christ and boasted in Him and His accomplished work. The person who is convicted of their sin and of going “their own way” (Isaiah 53:6) doesn’t stop to ask where the faith comes from; he simply believes in Christ, knowing if he doesn’t he is destined for hell.

 

[Hupomone10]

THE GRAMMAR
A. T. Robertson in his work Word Pictures in the New Testament, says the following regarding this phrase. Dr Robertson was Professor of Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky, from 1892 – 1934, and was one of the most respected Greek scholars of the last few centuries:
(fyi, "Kai touto" is Greek for “and that”; "pistis" is faith; and "charis" is grace.)
“and that”, "Kai touto" (Greek) - Neuter, not feminine, and so refers not to "pistis" (feminine) or to "charis" (feminine), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source in men, but from God. ...it is God's gift, and not the result of our work.”

John MacArthur has a somewhat different take on it, and is no doubt attempting to counter Dr Robertson’s view, when in his Ephesians commentary he says: Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God’s giving it. Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that “faith” (pistis) is feminine, while “that” (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that “that” does not refer precisely to the noun “faith” but to the act of believing.” (the bolding is mine, not his). Why does he say this, the last statement? Because, if we make it to say “believe”, the active verb, then it can be feminine, and can fit in with our beliefs. Dr. MacArthur is one of my favorites, as he is more thorough usually than most others; and because he interprets prophecy literally when literal, figurative when figurative, the way it was intended when written. However, because he is defending a view he personally held, he suggests keeping the interpretation because if the author had written it differently, it would then fit.” That is not good enough for me. But that is not what made me doubt this, it was the failure to research other instances of “and that.” (covered at the end)

In contrast to Dr. MacArthur’s view, Dr. Harold W. Hoehner, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, says the following:
“Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun “this” (touto). Though some think it refers back to “grace” and others to “faith,” neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Rather, the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause (you are saved). Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation, whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is “not from yourselves”) but rather, its source is God’s grace for “it is the gift of God.”

 

[Hupomone10]

AND THAT; AND THIS
I mentioned previously that if Dr. MacArthur had pushed his research further instead of settling for an explanation that allowed the interpretation he favored, he might have made some discoveries as I did regarding the use of “and that.” I’ve included some other examples of where the words “and that” or “and this” occur, and how we do not interpret them the same way Eph 2:8 is being interpreted. They aren’t always the same Greek word (touto); but that’s the point. Given the weak defenses for using the phrase connected with faith against the rules of Greek grammar usage, I know that people just see the English phrase “and that” and attach it to the latter phrase “faith” instead of to the main point of the sentence, “salvation.”

I included some examples of that, and what might happen if we kept our interpretation of Eph 2:8 consistent:
1 Cor 3:17 “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.” Reading this verse the way some read Eph 2:8 would render “and that” referring to “holy”, such that he would be saying, “and holy is what you are.” However it is obvious that “and that” refers to the subject – the temple of God is what you are.

Compare these two passages. Maybe the color coding will help us see what we’re doing:
Eph 2:8 “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

1 Cor 6: 6 “but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?” Here it is going to law brother against brother that “and that” refers to, not “with brother.” Such a rendering would be considered ridiculous. But in the following verse:
“you have been saved by grace through faith” we somehow believe “and that” refers not to the subject (you) and the act (saved) but to the amplifying phrase.

The correct way of looking at it would be
“you have been saved by grace through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;”
“but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?”

Phil 1:28 “in no way alarmed by your opponents-- which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God.” What does “and that” refer to? To “you”, that “you” are from God? Or does it refer back to the subject “salvation”, and that “salvation” is from God?

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we shall do, if God permits.”
This is the same Greek word as “and that” in Eph 2:8. The same exegesis in this passage might render “and this” to refer, not to the phrase “press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation” but to any of the amplifying phrases after that.

Because of the above, for me personally, I think the Amplified Bible translation of this verse sums it up best.

“For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;” The Amplified Bible.

This does not mean faith is not granted by God. It merely means Eph 2:8 is no proof text for it.

 

[Skala]

“For it is by free grace (God's unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;” The Amplified Bible. This IMHO is the best rendering of the true meaning of this passage.

So your conclusion is that the antecedent of "touto" is salvation?

Even though grammatically that is impossible????

Also brother this part struck me as odd.

John MacArthur has a somewhat different take on it, and is no doubt attempting to counter Dr Robertson’s view, when in his Ephesians commentary he says: Paul intends to emphasize that even faith is not from us apart from God’s giving it. Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that “faith” (pistis) is feminine, while “that” (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that “that” does not refer precisely to the noun “faith” but to the act of believing.” (the bolding is mine, not his). Why does he say this, the last statement? Because, if we make it to say “believe”, the active verb, then it can be feminine, and can fit in with our beliefs. Dr. MacArthur is one of my favorites, as he is more thorough usually than most others; and because he interprets prophecy literally when literal, figurative when figurative, the way it was intended when written. However, because he is defending a view he personally held, he suggests keeping the interpretation because if the author had written it differently, it would then fit.” That is not good enough for me. But that is not what made me doubt this, it was the failure to research other instances of “and that.” (covered at the end)

In English, we do not have a verb form of "faith" (it would be faithing). In English, instead of a verb form of "faith", we have a new word: "believe"

But in the Greek, this is not true. In Greek, there is a verb form of "pistis". In English, we do not have a verb form of "faith", but instead, we have "believe".

So I'm really not sure what Macarthur's argument is or even what your own objection to his argument is. Could you elaborate?

The fact still remains that when we read words and sentences, we must allow the grammar to rule us. Otherwise words and languages would be meaningless. It remains that if an author used a neuter pronoun he was doing it on purpose because he was referring to a collective thought rather than an individual antecedent.

It blows my mind that these authors you are quoting are still insisting that the pronoun can refer to the masculine antecedent salvation. That is literally impossible in the Greek language brother.

Also there is much emphasis from some of your authors that Paul is trying to distinguish faith from "works". But nothing in the text would incline a reader to think the works Paul was speaking of were technically "works of the law" (ie salvation by obedience).

Rather, it seems Paul is saying that anything we contribute to salvation would be considered a work (ie salvation by obedience) therefore, all of the salvation process is God's gift, it is not our doing (it is not our works or our effort).

However ironically the authors you are quoting have explained things in such a way that the final end result is still salvation by obedience. They insist that sinners contribute their faith, and God saves them on that basis. That is still an earned salvation. Salvation by merit. Salvation by obedience. And Paul has labored to demolish that very thing in several of his letters (romans, corinthians, etc) If we are saved by obedience, then grace is no longer grace...

 

[Robs07M6S]

I disagree. Faith happens in time, during our lives. election happens "before the foundation of the world" as the Bible says many, many times. That's not simultaneous.

You still dont get it because your only seeing things within the limits of time and space which man........."not God" is bound to. From a human perspective what you are saying is correct but from Gods perspective who exist outside the limitations of time both of these facts are indeed simultaneous acts. Please, try to grasp that.

Absolutely man is responsible to respond to the gospel.

Glad we agree on that.

Again, how God exists in relation to time is irrelevant.

Again no it isnt, it is totally and completely relevant. If you would step outside of the box that you have placed God into you would understand this.

The argument between Calvinism and Arminianism has always been "On what basis does God elect sinners? Does he base it on what he knows sinners will do by some passive foreknowledge? Or does he base it on his own free grace?"

I know what the arguments between these two consist of and I will say it again that I believe both sides are at fault for taking it to far into one extreme over the other.

Again, Arminians say "I owe my election to my faith" and Calvinists say "I owe my faith to my election"

And again when we step outside of our little boxes that we have placed God in we see that both faith and election are not seperate events in the view of an eternal God but do indeed happen simultaneously in Gods view. In our huministic view we cannot see it this way because we are bound to the limitations of time.

 

[Skala]

Robert, you talk a lot of philosophy but little exegesis. Also, how come no major Christian teacher or theologian in all of church history figured out this mystery like you all of a sudden have? It seems that someone, somewhere would have figured out what you figured out. You make it sound so easy like the rest of us are dumb for not noticing it. Do you really think that much of your own knowledge of the Bible and spiritual things and your knowledge of how God works and how God exists and how time and space work?

Can you please make a biblical argument for the stuff you are saying? Let me start by bringing the bible into this argument. I would ask you to exegete this passage brother:

Rom 8:30
(30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Robert, first I'd ask you "what does Paul mean by "calling" in this verse?"

Second, I'd ask you to answer the question: "Does being called happen because of justification, or does justification happen because of being called?"

Then I'd ask you this? "Does predestination happen because we answer this calling, or do we answer this calling because we are predestined?"

If you could please answer those 3 questions, by answering from the passage itself.