Free Will or Predestination

[Robs07M6S]

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.

No matter what I say or do your going to be right so I will just end it here and bow out of this discussion. Im sorry that you feel as though im trying to make everyone sound stupid because that was certainly not my intentions at all. I dont understand election and probably never will, guess I can live with that since I have no other option.

 

[His_disciple3]

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!

sir I don't know if you are trying to bait me up to get off topic so you can report me or what. But I remind the moderators here I am only responding to your post. but I will stand up for the AUTHORIZED ENGLISH translation of the Word of God, I don't care how many forums I get kicked out of. as you have said a UNICORN has one Horn, and is hard to catch, doesn't this remind you of a living creature that we even have amongst us. would a rhino fit this description? a rose by any other name, is still a animal that is hard to catch and has one horn. you ever seen anyone catch a rhino? take note here also that many times in the wild cattle oxen, rams, goats will fight with their horns thus many fight results in them losing a horn, let's see If an animal with two horns loses one how many does he have left, could this be called a one horned beast that would be hard to catch. If you want to say that the Bible speaks of a mythical animal then that you. also You are not attacking me with this post but the 400 year old english word of God, if you are for Him you are not against Him. not sure what greek manuscript you are using but even some of those were tainted. the dead sea scrolls were all but fragments, the alexandria text was consider corrupt, which is one of the manuscripts used in all the modern day Translations. so no thanks on using other translations and manuscripts, I have the Holy Word Of God, why settle for the rest when you have the Best?? surprise you didn't mention the four footed beast with wings, or the turtle that flew. if you want to talk translations though, I suggest you start another post, please!

1 John 2:2
whole the world.
3650 3588 2889
hólou toú kósmou

(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. [For more detail see the full copyright page.])
NT:3650
NT:3650
<START GREEK>o%lo$
<END GREEK> holos (hol'-os); a primary word; "whole" or "all", i.e. complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb:

KJV - all, altogether, every whit, throughout, whole.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
NT:3588
NT:3588
<START GREEK>o(
<END GREEK> ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom):

KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it,
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
NT:2889
NT:2889
<START GREEK>ko/smo$
<END GREEK> kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):

KJV - adorning, world.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

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

 

[twin1954]

No matter what I say or do your going to be right so I will just end it here and bow out of this discussion. Im sorry that you feel as though im trying to make everyone sound stupid because that was certainly not my intentions at all. I dont understand election and probably never will, guess I can live with that since I have no other option.

What don't you understand about election Robert? Election is all throughout the Scriptures. God chose Abel and not Cain, God chose Noah and let the rest of the world die under His wrath, God chose Abram out of all the rest of the world, He chose Isacc not Ishmael, He chose Jacob not Esau and on and on. Election isn't something that is difficult to understand it is something that is impossible to accept until you realize that God is not obligated to be merciful to anyone. Yet He chose to be merciful to some and chose them based on nothing but the good pleasure of His will. He could have just as well destroyed all of creation and it wouldn't have changed Him at all. It wouldn't have made Him any less satisfied with Himself or caused any disturbance in His charachter and nature. The wonder is that He chose to be merciful to any and we want to question why He chose or whom He chose? Ridiculous. He chose to be merciful and to whom He would be merciful. That is settled.

That in no way removes the responsibility from man to believe God and bow to Him as God. We are responsible because He made us all and we belong to Him as His creatures. Our responsibility is to honor and obey Him without question regardless of our ability. He never once says do what you can He says be ye holy as I am holy. He never once says try your best and it will be OK. He says it must be perfect to be accepted. He demands perfection and we are responsible to do it.

We are also responsible because He has given us a record of His Son from the beginning. God Himself preached the first Gospel message in Gen. 3:15. He showed how we will be redeemed by the death of a substitute Gen. 3:21. We have Him pictured in all of the OT Scriptures and revealed as the Son of God our Savior in the NT. The record is clear and to not believe in Christ is not only insanity it is calling God a liar. 1John 5:10. Yet once again our responsibility doesn't involve our ability.

We are responsible because the Gospel message is unmistakably clear. When we hear the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ and we refuse to believe, it is to our just condemnation. (for those of you who know the controversy I am not advocating "Duty Faith")

Yes God is not bound by time but He works in it and through it. He doesn't know the end from the beginning because He inhabits both, which of course He does, but because He has ordained the end from the beginning. The idea that God knows the end from the beginning because He inhabits both would mean that He really is not working right now in time to bring His purpose to fruition.

Election isn't complicated. It is the second most prominant doctrine of the Sccriptures behind the atoning work of Christ. The difficulty doesn't lie in the truth of the doctrine but in our unwillingness to simply bow to it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Election isn't complicated. It is the second most prominate doctrine of the Sccriptures behind the atoneing work of Christ. The difficulty doesn't lie in the truth of the doctrine but in our unwillingness to simply bow to it.

Yes it is brother.

People want to keep man at the center. Man was going to do something for God, or man was going to believe, that is why they were "elected".

Take man out of the equasion, and they have nothing but a Sovereign God. And man won't let Him be that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

Yes it is brother.

People want to keep man at the center. Man was going to do something for God, or man was going to believe, that is why they were "elected".

Take man out of the equasion, and they have nothing but a Sovereign God. And man won't let Him be that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am so thankful that no matter how much man seeks to remove God from His throne it will never happen.

 

[Hupomone10]

sir I don't know if you are trying to bait me up to get off topic so you can report me or what. But I remind the moderators here I am only responding to your post.

I am not. I am asking you serious and honest questions. I don't understand why you are getting frustrated, except that many pastors do not respond well to challenges. It comes from having to "defend the turf" against everyone that complains and attacks. But unfortunately, that makes it hard to be a disciple which is a learner.

but I will stand up for the AUTHORIZED ENGLISH translation of the Word of God, ... as you have said a UNICORN has one Horn, and is hard to catch, doesn't this remind you of a living creature that we even have amongst us. would a rhino fit this description? a rose by any other name,

Thank you. Doesn't that sound like the point I was making to you? You're saying it might not mean unicorn but might mean rhino. I'm exactly showed you that the word in that passage doesn't mean "might redeem" or "might not redeem" but means "to redeem" and you have mistranslated it. So, with the word "unicorn" you admit the KJV may be wrong, but with Titus 2:14 you will not even entertain the suggestion, but instead retreat to the defense of not understanding Greek. Interesting.

take note here also that many times in the wild cattle oxen, rams, goats will fight with their horns thus many fight results in them losing a horn, let's see If an animal with two horns loses one how many does he have left, could this be called a one horned beast that would be hard to catch.

No, if you are going to be consistent with your interpretation of Titus 2:14 and refuse to look at other possibilities for "might not redeem" then no, there is only one possibility - the unicorn. That's what the KJV says, therefore it must be a unicorn.

However, if you were not so inflexible and would use study techniques, you would find that other translations, and the original Hebrew word, indicate this is a "wild ox" not a unicorn as people in King James' day might have thought to translate it. However, you should be consistent and stick to unicorn if you are going to stick with "might redeem" and "might not redeem."

you know I have already told you once sir I speak english. greek is greek to me.

and yet, when it doesn't disagree with you, you use Greek

1 John 2:2
3650 3588 2889
hólou toú kósmou

<START GREEK>o%lo$
<END GREEK> holos (hol'-os); a primary word; "whole" or "all", i.e. complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb:

KJV - all, altogether, every whit, throughout, whole.

<START GREEK>o(
<END GREEK> ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom):

KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it,
<START GREEK>ko/smo$
<END GREEK> kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):

KJV - adorning, world.

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

Could you explain to me why you use Greek whenever and wherever you wish, but refuse to check it against the passage I questioned you on? Either stick to the KJV only, or use proper study resources consistently please.

And all this Greek was to no avail, for apparently you paid no attention to the last part of my previous post:

post #114: p.s. - I believe Christ died for all...."

 

[Hupomone10]

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.

What you are saying is what is grammatically impossible.

Here's what Macarthur said: "Some have objected to this interpretation (that faith is a gift of God), saying that &#8220;faith&#8221; (pistis) is feminine, while &#8220;that&#8221; (touto) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that &#8220;that&#8221; does not refer precisely to the noun &#8220;faith&#8221; but to the act of believing.&#8221;

He says that you are wrong in saying the neuter word "touto" applies to the feminine word "faith", and that the only way it can is if we read it as the act of believing instead of the noun faith; but that makes us change the text itself to force it to fit our doctrine. I don't do Bible study that way. It says what it says. We must deal with that, not what we wish it said. If you can walk, it is not "walking" that is a gift. It is your legs, legs that function. Talking is not the gift, your brain and your mouth are the gifts. God in His sovereignty opens the eyes of some and not all, they believe and are saved. In this context, the gift is the opening of one's spiritual eyes to see the truth, not faith or the act of believing which follows this revelation. But that is not what this passage is dealing with. It can be seen in other passages.

You said there is no English word for the verb form of faith, but believing works just fine. There was no Old Testament word equivalent to the noun faith. It was always in the verb form. In view of the background being the OT, and in view of the fact that MacArthur points out that the only way to make this work is to make the text different from what it is, don't you think we should just simply interpret it the only logical way it should be interpreted instead of trying to force it to fit with our theology? And that is, to interpret it as salvation is the gift of God, not of ourselves, not of works so no one can boast. You cannot say faith is not of works so no one can boast. But you can smoothly say salvation is not of works so no one can boast. It makes no sense to try to make it say faith is the gift. It doesnt' fit the grammar, and it doesn't make logical sense.

Salvation is by grace through faith, not of works, lest any should boast. That makes more sense than 'faith is not of works, lest any should boast.'

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.

"Faith is not in itself a meritorious act; the merit is in the One toward Whom it is directed. Faith is a re-directing of our sight, a getting out of the focus of our own vision and getting God into focus. Sin has twisted our vision inward and made it self-regarding. Unbelief has put self where God should be&#8230; Faith looks out instead of in and the whole life falls into line."
- A. W. Tozer, &#8220;The Pursuit of God&#8221;, ch 7 &#8220;The Gaze of the Soul.&#8221;

Rom 4:3
For what does the Scripture say? "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

"There was no honor, no "merit," in Abraham's believing the faithful God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). The honor was God's. When Abraham believed God, he did the one thing that a man can do without doing anything! God made the statement, the promise; and God undertook to fulfill it. Abraham believed in his heart that God told the truth. There was no effort here."
"Faith was neither a meritorious act by Abraham, nor a change of character or nature, in Abraham: he simply believed God would accomplish what He had promised "
- William R. Newell, "Romans Verse By Verse"

 

[Hammster]

before I answer that let me make sure that all knows that I am not denying that the Bible has predestination in it, it is just not predestination as the calvinist sees it, that is the reason in my response to the question of the thread that the Bible preaches both predestination by free will
now to answer your question;
It means the exact same thing that calvinist says is limited = atonement

but as you can see the Bible clearly says it is unlimited or for the whole world!!

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for propitiation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPITIATION, n. propisia''shon.

1. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.
2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men. Rom.3. 1 John 2.

WOW LOOK EVEN IN THE GREEK IS MEANS ATONEMENT !!!!
PROPITIATION
NT:2434
NT:2434
<START GREEK>i(lasmo/$
<END GREEK> hilasmos (hil-as-mos'); atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator:

KJV - propitiation.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
1 John 2:2
propitiation
(Interlinear Transliterated Bible. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. [For more detail see the full copyright page.])
NT:2434
NT:2434
<START GREEK>i(lasmo/$
<END GREEK> hilasmos (hil-as-mos'); atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator:

KJV - propitiation.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Would you agree, then, that Jesus' sacrifice satisfied the Father's wrath against sinners?

 

[Skala]

No matter what I say or do your going to be right so I will just end it here and bow out of this discussion. Im sorry that you feel as though im trying to make everyone sound stupid because that was certainly not my intentions at all. I dont understand election and probably never will, guess I can live with that since I have no other option.

The minute I bring the bible into the discussion, you bow out?

You'd talk philosophy all day long, but not scripture? Hm...

 

[Skala]

Thanks for the discussion Hupo but we both remain unconvinced of each other.

The difference is, you seemed to not even know about this issue (the grammar behind Eph 2:8-9) until only yesterday, so you hastily scrambled to find some articles that were in your favor, and you took them as gospel truth without hesitation, only because they agreed with you.

The sad thing is none of the authors you posted made scholarly arguments. They simply made assertions. They kept asserting that the pronoun referred to salvation, with no evidence to back it up. One author had the nerve to say that the neuter pronoun referred to "salvation conditioned on faith", but that is so far removed from what Paul actually said it is ridiculous.

The fact still remains (not opinion) that a neuter demonstrative pronoun in Greek cannot, ever, ever, ever, in any form or fashion, use as its antecedant a noun that does not match it in gender or number.

There's two groups of people:

1) Those that adhere to this rule and conclude the only possible conclusion was that Paul was referring to the collective phrase, which it seems obvious that he was doing on purpose
2) Those that do not adhere to this rule in order to "wriggle out" from the idea that faith is not self-wrought in the sinner but is part of God's gift of salvation to us.

 

[Robs07M6S]

The minute I bring the bible into the discussion, you bow out?

Excuse me? not at all. I am bowing out because we are not getting anywhere and your not the only one presenting scripture bro. You asked for scripture and I gave it to you, is my exegesis of it correct? probably not.

You'd talk philosophy all day long, but not scripture? Hm...

"Shaking my head" I dont even know how you can say that. Anyway this debate between you and I is over and I admitted that I might not ever fully understand election so you can lower the gloves a bit, brother.

 

[Skala]

Excuse me? not at all. I am bowing out because we are not getting anywhere and your not the only one presenting scripture bro. You asked for scripture and I gave it to you, is my exegesis of it correct? probably not.




"Shaking my head" I dont even know how you can say that. Anyway this debate between you and I is over and I admitted that I might not ever fully understand election so you can lower the gloves a bit, brother.

Rob, I do not want things to be like this between us. I enjoy speaking with you and I apologize if my tone came across as harsh ever in this conversation. That is not my ultimate intention, but as always, sometimes things get heated in debate forums

Let me just explain my understanding, it's ok if you don't agree with it.

In Romans 8:30 we read:

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

First I asked you what kind of "calling" this was. As far as I know theologians have recognized two kinds of calling in scripture, regarding salvation.

1) Outward call - this is the universal gospel message that we preach to every creature
2) Inward call - this is the call that God does inwardly to us, when he calls us to salvation.

According to Paul, all the called are justified (Justified meaning saved - we are declared as just before God's court) Since all the called are justified, Paul cannot be referring to the general call of the gospel, or else this verse would be saying that every person who hears the gospel is justified and glorified.

So obviously Paul is speaking of a special kind of call that God does. If all the called are justified and glorified, that means all the called are saved. So this type of call is effectual and has a 100% success rate. And this call cannot be to every person or every person would be saved (universalism)

Now, the second question I asked you was "Does being called happen because of justification, or does justification happen because of being called?"

According to Paul, the order is this: "whom He predestined, He called, and whom He called, He justified...". So being called is based on being predestined, not vice versa. We are not justified (saved) and then called on that basis, but rather, we are called on the basis of being predestined.

The third question I asked was this: "Does predestination happen because we answer this calling, or do we answer this calling because we are predestined?"

Yet again according to Paul the order is this: "whom He predestined, He called, and whom He called, He justified, and whom He justified, He glorified"

Since all the called are justified and glorified, that means all the called obviously respond positively to the gospel and are saved/justified. So they respond to the gospel (justified and glorified) because they are predestined which leads to them being called.

They do not become predestined on the basis of responding to the call, but rather, they respond to the call on the basis of being predestined.

Calvinists believe the latter, Arminians believe the former. Someone is wrong and someone is right. The debate here is "Did God elect because we believe? Or do we believe because He elected?"

That's the debate between the two systems. The Bible is clear which answer is the correct answer in several places, but especially in this passage. Therefore, there is no reason or need to write this off as a mystery under the guise of "Well, God exists outside of time therefore we don't need to worry about it". There is no need to appeal to mystery and philosphy and assert that in some mysterious way, election and responding to the call are somehow simultaneous. They are not simultaneous, logically speaking, which is clear from this verse.

The whole point is, in logical order, one leads to the other. One is the result of the other. One is the basis for the other. One of them has causal priority. One is the cause and the other is the result. They cannot both be all of these things.

And to me, it seems clear that the reason I responded positively to the gospel and was justified is because I was "foreknown, and called...", and according to Paul, all the called are justified and ultimately glorified.

Therefore, Arminians are wrong in saying that the reason we are predestined is because we are justified (because we answered the call). Such an notion is to put the entire thing backwards and make Paul's argument twist around backwards.

Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Robs07M6S]

Rob, I do not want things to be like this between us. I enjoy speaking with you and I apologize if my tone came across as harsh ever in this conversation. That is not my ultimate intention, but as always, sometimes things get heated in debate forums

Let me just explain my understanding, it's ok if you don't agree with it.

In Romans 8:30 we read:

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

First I asked you what kind of "calling" this was. As far as I know theologians have recognized two kinds of calling in scripture, regarding salvation.

1) Outward call - this is the universal gospel message that we preach to every creature
2) Inward call - this is the call that God does inwardly to us, when he calls us to salvation.

According to Paul, all the called are justified (Justified meaning saved - we are declared as just before God's court) Since all the called are justified, Paul cannot be referring to the general call of the gospel, or else this verse would be saying that every person who hears the gospel is justified and glorified.

So obviously Paul is speaking of a special kind of call that God does. If all the called are justified and glorified, that means all the called are saved. So this type of call is effectual and has a 100% success rate. And this call cannot be to every person or every person would be saved (universalism)

Now, the second question I asked you was "Does being called happen because of justification, or does justification happen because of being called?"

According to Paul, the order is this: "whom He predestined, He called, and whom He called, He justified...". So being called is based on being predestined, not vice versa. We are not justified (saved) and then called on that basis, but rather, we are called on the basis of being predestined.

The third question I asked was this: "Does predestination happen because we answer this calling, or do we answer this calling because we are predestined?"

Yet again according to Paul the order is this: "whom He predestined, He called, and whom He called, He justified, and whom He justified, He glorified"

Since all the called are justified and glorified, that means all the called obviously respond positively to the gospel and are saved/justified. So they respond to the gospel (justified and glorified) because they are predestined which leads to them being called.

They do not become predestined on the basis of responding to the call, but rather, they respond to the call on the basis of being predestined.

Calvinists believe the latter, Arminians believe the former. Someone is wrong and someone is right. The debate here is "Did God elect because we believe? Or do we believe because He elected?"

That's the debate between the two systems. The Bible is clear which answer is the correct answer in several places, but especially in this passage. Therefore, there is no reason or need to write this off as a mystery under the guise of "Well, God exists outside of time therefore we don't need to worry about it". There is no need to appeal to mystery and philosphy and assert that in some mysterious way, election and responding to the call are somehow simultaneous. They are not simultaneous, logically speaking, which is clear from this verse.

The whole point is, in logical order, one leads to the other. One is the result of the other. One is the basis for the other. One of them has causal priority. One is the cause and the other is the result. They cannot both be all of these things.

And to me, it seems clear that the reason I responded positively to the gospel and was justified is because I was "foreknown, and called...", and according to Paul, all the called are justified and ultimately glorified.

Therefore, Arminians are wrong in saying that the reason we are predestined is because we are justified (because we answered the call). Such an notion is to put the entire thing backwards and make Paul's argument twist around backwards.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Thanks skala, I dont wanna fight with you either because bro in all honesty I have nothing but complete respect for you and look up to you as well. I actually agree with you skala more that I probably am at times willing to admit and I think its because part of me knows what you are saying is truth and the other part of me is very VERY frightened by it.

 

[VCViking]

...and I admitted that I might not ever fully understand election...

Rob, I've posted this video before, maybe even here (apologies), but it helps explain election to a degree. Below it is a Q&A from MacArthur. Hope they help.



"I don't understand Election" Paul Washer answers - YouTube


MacArthur
Question

I just moved here from Florida, and before I moved, a lot of people said that if I came to this church, that they believe in election, and I don't understand it completely. I would like to get it cleared up because, so far, of what I do understand, it seems right.

Answer

Okay. Welcome! We are glad to have you from Florida. God Bless You! Thanks for coming.

Election. Well, this is easy (sarcasm). Let's see. In other words, what people always ask, and I will frame the question for you. "Are we chosen to be saved, or do we choose ourselves to be saved?" Right? Did I come to Jesus Christ because I was irresistibly drawn by God and had nothing to do with it, or did I come to Christ because my heart said, “I want to come to Christ?” And, the answer is yes. Isn’t that simple?

Now, let me see if I can explain it to you simply. Okay? The Bible teaches election. It uses that word many times. It says, "...we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God." It says "...we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world." It says our "...names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life from before the foundation of the world." It says "...you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you." In the book of Acts, it says, that God said, "I have much people in that city." People who were not even saved, yet, but had His name on them to be saved. You cannot deny election.

Ephesians 1, "Chosen in Him before the foundation of the world." We know we are elect, so when you come to a passage on election, you preach it with all your heart. You just preach it. It's there. You can't argue with it. We are elect. Chosen by God. Nobody ever came to Jesus Christ, except the Father did what? Draw him. So, we are saved because of God’s predetermined love and that's it. I mean, we are elect of God, and what a marvelous thing that is. That is so important in the doctrine of security because if He elects us, He is going to hold us. Right? So, we teach that and we preach that. And, when you come across a passage on election, you just preach it fully and completely because that is what the Bible teaches.
But, the Bible, also, teaches human volition. Jesus said, "You will not come to me that you might have life." Jesus said, “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how oft I would have gathered thee as a hen gathereth her brood and you would not.” In other words, Jesus, on the one hand said you cannot come to me unless the Father draws you, and on the other hand, if you don't come, you’re to be blamed.

Now, in our minds, those seem like opposites, don’t they? Paradoxes unresolvable. And, they really are. Over here, if you are saved, it is by God’s election, and over here, if you are damned, it is your own choice. Now, let me tell you something. That should not be a problem for you because of this: God’s mind is greater than our mind. Right? If I could understand everything, I would be God, and if I was God, the world would really be in bad shape. But, man loves to think he is God. He wants everything to fit into his mind, so what he does is take those kinds of things and try to find a truth in the middle that accommodates both, and in the end he destroys both. And, so, you come up with this thing where, well, you see God looks down the road and He says, “Aha! I see the way they are going! I know what is going to happen. Boy! They are going to go over there and, so , I just will not elect them because I can see that." And, so, God becomes the victim of the things that men do. That is not what the Bible teaches. If you deny election, you have denied something in the Bible. If you deny the choice of man, where it says, “Whosoever will, let him come. Taketh of the water of life freely.” Revelation 22. You cannot deny either one. You leave them there and if you try to harmonize them in the middle, you have destroyed both of them. See. Just leave them there. You say, “But I do not understand.” But, that is good. It proves you are not God, and that makes us all very comfortable.

And, I will tell you another thing. John Murray, the theologian in Westminster Seminary says, “There is an apparent paradox in every biblical doctrine.” Every major biblical doctrine. For example, I will ask you a simple question. Who wrote Romans? Who wrote Romans? Paul? God? Holy Spirit? Who? Did Paul write a verse and then, God write a verse? Then Paul write a verse, then God write a verse? You say, was it all the Holy Spirit? Is every word in Romans from the mind of the Holy Spirit? Yes! Is every word in Romans from the mind of the Apostle Paul in his heart, in his vocabulary? Yes! Who wrote it? Well, it is all God, and it is all Paul. Well, how can it be all God and all Paul? Well, it can't be in our human thinking. That is paradoxical, but it is. Let me ask you this: Was Jesus God? or man? Yes! Half God, half man? What is half a man? What is half a god? A nothing! He was 100 percent God, 100 percent man. You can't be that! That is right. It is paradoxical. But, if you try to make it in the middle and mix it and take away a little of His deity and a little of His humanity to come up with a hybrid, what have you just done? You have destroyed the person of Jesus Christ! So, you leave it alone. And, you say to yourself, “I can't know that!” "The secret things belong to the LORD." Deuteronomy 29:29. I will not play God and assume that everything has to fit into my computer to be true.

I will ask you another question. Who lives your Christian life? Who does? Do you? Are you out there saying, “I am going to live my Christian life if it kills me!” You say, “No! It is Christ in me. I do not do anything. I just flop and He does it all.” No! No! No! "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless, I live, yet, not I, but Christ lives in me." It is the same paradox. See, whenever you try to reduce the truth of God down to the human brain, you are going to have some stuff left over. Do you understand that? And, consequently, you have got to be able to allow for what we call divine tension. Just leave it there. The Bible teaches election. The Bible teaches human choice. Let it teach both. God understands how it all goes together. We don't. That is a matter of faith, isn’t it? Don’t come up with something in the middle. You destroy both. So, people who want to say, “Oh, we cannot believe in election because it messes us up on this end,” are really doing what they have no right to do. They are really saying, “We have got to reduce God to our own thinking processes and assume He is going to do only the things that we can fully understand." And, that is not so. Okay?

 

[VCViking]

Here's another,


MacArthur
Question

I wanted your opinion on a specific doctrine that you hear both teachings. You hear the free-will doctrine verses the election doctrine as far as salvation is concerned. And, I wanted your thoughts on that.

Answer

Everybody in this room believes in predestination if they believe the Bible. Right? How many of you believe the Bible? You believe the Bible? That is good! God help the rest of you. You are either slow or heretics, I do not know which.

All right, everybody believes the Bible, right? Then you believe in predestination. You say, “No, I was raised a Methodist.” I don't care what you were raised, you believe in predestination, if you believe the Bible, because in Ephesians 1, it says, He predestined us before the foundation of the world. It says in Revelation, He has written our names in the Lamb’s Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. It uses the word predestination. Everyone believes in that, who believes the Bible. God predetermined who would be saved. Before they were ever born. That's in the Bible. You believe it. So, just accept that you believe it. Now, was not that easy? Absolutely painless. You believe that.

The Bible also says, “Whosoever will may come. Him who cometh to me I will in no wise cast out? You believe that? Okay. So, you believe that, too. So, you believe in man’s volition. Free will is not a biblical term, because man’s will isn't really free. It is bound by sin.
When you became a Christian, did you say to yourself, “Oh! I am elect! I think, I'll get saved.” No. No, you made a decision, didn’t you? You made a choice.

So, the Bible teaches God’s predestining plan, God’s electing plan. It says that over and over, "elect" according to the foreknowledge of God, "elect" in Him. You know, I have many people in that city, he said, you know, in the book of Acts who weren't even saved, yet, but they were already considered His people because they were elect. So, you believe all of that. Then, you believe in man’s choice as well. So, you believe both of those things.

The problem is not whether you believe those. The problem is how you harmonize them, right? You know how you harmonize them? No, you don't. You don't know how to harmonize them. Because there is no way to harmonize them. And, the way that I like to illustrate it is this, Is Jesus God or man? Both. Is He all man? 100 % man? 100 % God? How can He be 200 %? It is a paradox. Who wrote Romans? Paul wrote Romans? God wrote Romans. They alternated verses? Who wrote Romans? Was it Paul’s words from his vocabulary and his heart? Was every word inspired by the Spirit of God? How could every single word come out of the mind of God, and yet, Paul feel that every single word came out of his own heart? You know what is going to happen if you try to synthesize those things? Okay. You know what happened in the early church councils? They got so confused and said, “Okay, he is half God and half man.” And, you know what you have got when you have half God and half man? Nothing. What is half a man? There is no such thing. What is half a God? A nothing. So they come up with heresy. So, on the one hand they said he is all deity and the idea that he was a physical being is just a phantom. And, they came up with a phantom view. And the others said, “No. He was all man, and he is not deity at all. Because they tried to resolve it, they came up with heresy every time. They either said he is all God and not man, or all man and not God, or half and half, and that is a nothing. You have to leave the paradox.

Now, when you come to the writing of the Bible, some say that it can't be all Paul and all the Holy Spirit, so Paul just wrote what the Holy Spirit told him, and it all really the Holy Spirit. Is that true? You have just eliminated the Pauline authorship. But, on the other hand, if you say, “It is all Paul, like the liberals do and none of the Holy Spirit.” Then, you have eliminated God.

Let me ask you another question. Who lives your Christian life? Who? Do you? Do you? I hope you do. Is it just you out there living it up? "Not I, but," what? "Christ liveth in me. Nevertheless," what? "I live. Yet, not I, but Christ." Well, if it is all Christ, then I become a quietist: "Let go and let God." And, you have that movement. On the other hand, if you say, “It's me,” I become a pietist and a legalist. You just have to handle both and leave them in a paradox.

When it comes down to the whole area of sovereignty and will, you got to leave them where they are. And, as soon as you try to resolve them, you get all of the Calvinists who run over to this end of the seesaw and start screaming, “sovereignty, sovereignty! (bang) And, down goes the scale, right? And, they got God doing everything. One guy came to me one day and said, “God even makes you sin.” That is the ultimate...and, then on the other hand, you have got the Armenians who say, “No, no, no, it is all us, it is all us, it is all us.” And, if it is all us, folks, we are really in trouble. Why don’t you leave it alone?

Then you have the Baptists. Oh, the Baptists. And, the Baptists come together in the middle and they say, “Well, it is a little bit of predestination and a little bit of free will. You see, God looks down the road and He says, “Oh, that is what they are going to do. I see, so that is what I will choose..." No! Just leave it alone.

So, the best way to solve that problem is to believe both and let God resolve it. Now, if you could resolve all those problems, you would be God. And, then there would be other problems we have to deal with.

Now, let me tell you something. One of the greatest marks of the inspiration of the scripture is the fact that it has those incomprehensible paradoxes. Because, if a man or men had written that book, they never would have, number one, conceived them; number two, they never would have left them there. They would have resolved them. The fact that they are there and they stand all over the place in the Bible is one of the truest proofs that God of an infinite mind far beyond our own wrote those things. And, the very fact that there are those irreconcilable apparent paradoxes in scripture speaks of divine authorship. God understands how they harmonize. We don’t. And, that means God has a greater mind than we do. Aren’t you glad about that?

 

[Skala]

I heard someone explain election this way:

A person said to a pastor "I don't understand election, could you explain it to me?"

The pastor said "Sure! Let me ask you a question. Are you a Christian? Are you saved?"

The person answered "Yes, I am!"

The pastor said "Ok good! Now, who saved you? You, or God?"

The person answered "Well, God saved me of course!"

The pastor said "Great! Now then, when God saved you, did He save you on purpose, or was it an accident?"

And the person said "Well, I guess it was on purpose! God saved me on purpose."

And the pastor smiled and said "Now you understand election!"

 

[Hupomone10]

Thanks for the discussion Hupo but we both remain unconvinced of each other.

You are correct.

The difference is, you seemed to not even know about this issue (the grammar behind Eph 2:8-9) until only yesterday, so you hastily scrambled to find some articles that were in your favor, and you took them as gospel truth without hesitation, only because they agreed with you.

LOL! Ha ha
You are wrong.
Don't mistake my not posting for ignorance; it is probably indifference or other irons in the fire. These notes are a couple of years old, and even then were reflections of years, put together with materials supporting. As anyone would do when they know the other party is wrong, I found other more reputable authors that supported the fact.

The sad thing is none of the authors you posted made scholarly arguments. They simply made assertions.

Hmm... still smiling, but I think at this point I have to respond.

This would be a non-argument and simply an opinion or mere assertion on your part if it weren't so blatantly misrepresenting of the facts. A.T. Robertson was a scholar, and a highly thought of Greek scholar, and is highly thought of in Baptist circles. Of course it doesn't matter, but I am disappointed in this response. At best you are willfully ignorant of these facts and are misrepresenting these persons, or at worst you are deliberately doing so, which I think is reprehensible for a Christian. I am not trying to get you upset, but I have to call it like it is when it's this obvious.

They kept asserting that the pronoun referred to salvation, with no evidence to back it up.

You also kept asserting that faith was a gift, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Maybe there is something embedded in the message you posted, but until I get the chance to listen to it, I will assume it's more of the same kind of thing I got from the 5-pointer MacArthur, who as other 5-pointers I've known, feel an incredible emotional need to defend faith as an entity like a quantity, and that as such it is a gift given by God.

The fact still remains (not opinion) that a neuter demonstrative pronoun in Greek cannot, ever, ever, ever, in any form or fashion, use as its antecedant a noun that does not match it in gender or number.

Not knowing your credentials, I think I'll go with an established and well-known Greek Scholar A. T. Robertson and professor Dr. Harold Hoehner. They're good enough for me. As I pointed out, I showed in my own study the flaw in your and MacArthur's reasoning, and it's in the posts; I don't really want to hash it out again.

Bottom line, I looked seriously at it from both sides, because I want to know spiritual truth even more than I want to be right. I know people with a doctrinal comfort box sometimes have a hard time relating to that type of mindframe, but some Christians do that. If I was wrong I wanted to know. I have friends that aren't even 5-pointers who think this text says that.

The essence of that passage is this: "salvation is a gift of God that is by grace through faith and not of works." Why that is so hard to see amazes me. I've shown evidence of that in the posts which I know are long and you may not have read through them; but anyone who wishes to doubt this need merely to search the Word of God itself for his answer. You don't even need a Greek scholar or dictionary. This is elementary.

There's two groups of people:

1) Those that adhere to this rule and conclude the only possible conclusion was that Paul was referring to the collective phrase, which it seems obvious that he was doing on purpose

again, just your opinion, unsupported yet again.

2) Those that do not adhere to this rule in order to "wriggle out" from the idea that faith is not self-wrought in the sinner but is part of God's gift of salvation to us.

You show me more than you know with these demeaning words of the other side: you are perhaps too emotionally vested in this subject to have a rational and logical discussion on it.

I think it's really sad that you have been taught that other believers who love the Lord and have come to the Cross of Christ fleeing the wrath to come, for forgiveness and deliverance through Christ alone, with no confidence in Self whatsoever and no right to heaven whatsoever in themselves, approach such scriptures which they regard as the precious Word of God from which they get their sustenance, with an effort to "wriggle out."

You wrote such a kind response to Rob. Please don't resort to these tactics with me, brother. We can discuss, agree and disagree, all without questioning the other's motives, and assume sincerity - even if error - on the other's part. If you wish to not discuss this anymore to keep from personal criticism and personal attacks of the other side, I understand. But I am very concerned about the attempt some have to try to turn faith into a quantity of something like water that Lord just opened us up and poured into us.

The truth is, believing is an attitude and a response of trust in something. You exercise it all the time. You have faith in this, faith in that. Everyone before they came to Christ trusted in something. And most had faith in themselves. That is a no-brainer. So, you had faith before salvation, it wsa just misdirected. What we didn't have was a realization of the truth of the gospel. What God does is open our eyes to see the truth, and He does this by all things in our makeup and environment and our minds and brains. When He opens our eyes to see the truth, and when He has done things in our lives to make us willing, this faith is turned from Self and from the World and from material things to Christ. But please don't try to convince people that they don't have faith, for they have faith in all kinds of things and exercise it every day. What they don't have is the insight that the gospel is true. When they see it and become willing, they don't have to hope God has plopped down faith into them so they can be saved or wait until He does. The Scripture NEVER tells us to wait for such a ridiculous thing. Such teaching has been the cause of irreparable harm to young believers who, having believed and loved the Lord Jesus, but being young having come up against some of the powerful strongholds of the flesh, have concluded that they must not have been given faith after all and they must not have been saved; for if they were, certainly they would have the faith to overcome this stronghold. And they flounder around until they get better teaching or give up and try to quit as gracefully as they can, considering that God didn't want them or He would have given them faith. This is IMHO, reprehensible to an incredible degree.

Christ says today is the day of salvation. "My time is not yet come, but your time is always opportune." Nothing stops you or anyone else from believing but failure to see or admit to the truth. And today is the day of deliverance from any sinful stronghold. Nothing stops anyone from believing in Christ's complete deliverance in the cross but failure to see or admit to the truth. And you don't have to wait for faith for either one.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Skala]

You also kept asserting that faith was a gift, with absolutely nothing to back it up

No, I never asserted such a thing my friend. Perhaps you are confused at what my argument has only always been.

My argument all along has been this:

That none of the nouns individually can serve as antecedents to the neuter pronoun, including faith.

Let me say that again by reiterating so there is no confusion:

Salvation cannot be the antecedent of the neuter noun
Grace cannot be the antecedent of the neuter noun
Faith cannot be the antecedent of the neuter noun

My argument is that since none of the nouns match the neuter pronoun in gender or number, none of them can serve as antecedents. Thus, the collective phrase is what is "not of yourselves, but the gift from God"

That is, the entire reality of being in God's family is God's doing, not ours. The entire salvation "package", for lack of a better word, is God's complete, freely given gift of mercy to us.

I never argued that faith was the antecedent of the pronoun. I argue that the entire thought is what the pronoun is referring to.

Is justification by faith? Yes

But where in the Bible does it say that faith is self wrought in the sinner? In many places it appears that authors argue that faith is from God, wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, the result of a renewed heart, a spiritual gift, a spiritual fruit.

The argument of the reformers is that everything that a man needs for salvation is supplied by God. Do I need faith? Then I rely on God to give me that, too. I can't do it by myself, I can't do it with my own fallen faculties.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Faith is a gift:

Ephesians 2:8 ESV
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

 

[Robs07M6S]

The whole point is, in logical order, one leads to the other.

But see bro, thats just it...........when we deal with an eternal God who knows neither a beggining or an end then their is no logical order when we deal with it from Gods perspective.

Now from our human perspective in which things do happen in an order of events from start to finish you are 100 percent correct.