Gods sovereignty & our free will

[Dan1988]

Regarding Paul, we only have Paul's own testimony of himself.


Revelation 3:14-22 (NKJV)
14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:
15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
17 Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked--
18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." ' "


This is the church to-day.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say "this is the Church today"

I was merely trying to make the point that, only God knows who His elect or "true believers" are. when I hear the term "Church" I think of Christ and His Bridegroom existing as One Body of true believers.

There is another kind of earthly image that comes to mind, I see a congregation of people inside a building all professing to be true believers. I used to be a regular at a Church where the pastor was having an affair with a very young lady around half his age.

I never would have imagined for a moment that he would even be capable of committing adultery as he seemed to be a model husband and father and a great preacher.
I'm only bringing this up to make the point that, we aren't equipped with perfect discernment. We can't see what's in a mans heart but God can and does, so He is the only one who knows for sure who the true Christians are and who the hypocrites are.

I left that Church as soon as it came to light and I don't know if he repented and got back with his wife and children, but God does forgive us of every sin if we repent. So there's no was I can know for sure who the true believers are in my current Church.

The only point I was trying to make is, that we can never know who is truly saved and who isn't and only God knows that.

 

[Hawkins]

Do you agree that we will continue to sin every single day for the rest of our lives, no matter how hard we try not to?

That's a yes. That ties to yet another concept. it's about holiness.

God is holy so we must be holy. Holiness is rather something not measured against covenant nor law. It's about how much we are like God. It relies on no human effort to attain. It relies faith in God to be like God. It is because we can't be like God 100% that holiness is an endless process to us. We have to spend our life to put faith in God and Jesus Christ in order to be more and more like God, and thus holy.

So it's always speaking in the different perspectives.
Christians can be saints, when measured against the New Covenant.
We are all sinners, when measured against an older covenant applied to us (covenant never obsolete in a legal/lawful sense, a newer covenant acts on top of it instead of making it obsolete. A covenant is obsolete only from the perspective of the final judgment, that is, once we accept Jesus Christ we will no longer be judged by the older covenant once applied to us)
We are absolutely sinners when measured against God's absolute Law which applies to both humans and angels alike.

We will continue to deal with our sins till we are holy. This is however not done by our human efforts, it's by faith that we are more and more like God and Christ, by gaining back our freedom from the captivity of sins. I felt painful to quit bad habits by my own effort. However when I learned to depend on faith, my bad habits are gone almost seamlessly, even those I once deemed impossible to quit. And I feel truly happy to see them gone this way.

The perspective that no one is righteous, not even one,
Here's an example, if someone declares that he's sinless, he shouldn't be able to even appear on the Internet. He should have donated his everything to those children dying of hunger in Africa as we speak. If we can't it means that we are weak, and murderous. Unlike holiness (which is a continuous process to be like God and Christ), sinlessness is measured against God's absolute set of Law which only some angels can pass through the final judgment.

That said. Our sins can be covered by doing something more important, and we do this out of our love. We join God's business of saving souls. We preach the gospel to the four corners of the world, while making our donations and tithes to our churches.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I would never sum up the doctrine of election and reprobation, in the above terms as that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.

Our Pastor advises us, that only scripture has the authority to interpret scripture. So I would need to see relevant scriptures before I could accept your view.

In our Church we believe that God has not revealed everything to us, and the question of why He chose to save some and leave others in their sin is one of those for which He never provided a clear answer so we just accept it as His sovereign will.

If I was to ask you, if you believe that God knows all things, that He is almighty, that He knows the begging and the end of all things, that He is in full control of all things, that He created Man and Angels with the ability to choose to rebel and that He is sovereign over all things. I take it, you would agree that all these are true of God.

So if you agree, then it's only a small leap of faith to admit that God did preordain all things including who would be saved and who would be lost.

We can't ascribe those attributes to God, then deny Him His sovereign right to choose to save billions of His enemies. If God was righteous and just, according to mans measure then He should condemn the whole human race because all have sinned.

So instead of people accusing God of being unfair for not saving everyone, they should be asking why didn't He just condemn the whole human race to hell.

I've heard some in our Reformed Church say that is a great sin to even question Gods motives, they ask how a totally depraved fallen sinner can question anything a perfectly righteous, sinless, infinite, omniscient, all powerful Creator God does.

So, I'm very happy to allow God to be God and accept everything that He does as perfect. I converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity in late 2014 and since then, I've heard about a hundred of different views on this doctrine.

I've decided to let every man be a liar and let God be true.

Who are you addressing?

 

[sparow]

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say "this is the Church today"

I was merely trying to make the point that, only God knows who His elect or "true believers" are. when I hear the term "Church" I think of Christ and His Bridegroom existing as One Body of true believers.

There is another kind of earthly image that comes to mind, I see a congregation of people inside a building all professing to be true believers. I used to be a regular at a Church where the pastor was having an affair with a very young lady around half his age.

I never would have imagined for a moment that he would even be capable of committing adultery as he seemed to be a model husband and father and a great preacher.
I'm only bringing this up to make the point that, we aren't equipped with perfect discernment. We can't see what's in a mans heart but God can and does, so He is the only one who knows for sure who the true Christians are and who the hypocrites are.

I left that Church as soon as it came to light and I don't know if he repented and got back with his wife and children, but God does forgive us of every sin if we repent. So there's no was I can know for sure who the true believers are in my current Church.

The only point I was trying to make is, that we can never know who is truly saved and who isn't and only God knows that.

I have had to change my view on this point recently, when we are reborn of the spirit we belong to the congregation called Israel, we can of course backslide, and Peter and John and James give advice as to how the rest of the church should react.

You may not know who is or who will be, but you can tell who isn't, or who runs out of oil while we wait.

 

[Dan1988]

That's a yes. That ties to yet another concept. it's about holiness.

God is holy so we must be holy. Holiness is rather something not measured against covenant nor law. It's about how much we are like God. It relies on no human effort to attain. It relies faith in God to be like God. It is because we can't be like God 100% that holiness is an endless process to us. We have to spend our life to put faith in God and Jesus Christ in order to be more and more like God, and thus holy.

So it's always speaking in the different perspectives.
Christians can be saints, when measured against the New Covenant.
We are all sinners, when measured against an older covenant applied to us (covenant never obsolete in a legal/lawful sense, a newer covenant acts on top of it instead of making it obsolete. A covenant is obsolete only from the perspective of the final judgment, that is, once we accept Jesus Christ we will no longer be judged by the older covenant once applied to us)
We are absolutely sinners when measured against God's absolute Law which applies to both humans and angels alike.

We will continue to deal with our sins till we are holy. This is however not done by our human efforts, it's by faith that we are more and more like God and Christ, by gaining back our freedom from the captivity of sins. I felt painful to quit bad habits by my own effort. However when I learned to depend on faith, my bad habits are gone almost seamlessly, even those I once deemed impossible to quit. And I feel truly happy to see them gone this way.

The perspective that no one is righteous, not even one,
Here's an example, if someone declares that he's sinless, he shouldn't be able to even appear on the Internet. He should have donated his everything to those children dying of hunger in Africa as we speak. If we can't it means that we are weak, and murderous. Unlike holiness (which is a continuous process to be like God and Christ), sinlessness is measured against God's absolute set of Law which only some angels can pass through the final judgment.

That said. Our sins can be covered by doing something more important, and we do this out of our love. We join God's business of saving souls. We preach the gospel to the four corners of the world, while making our donations and tithes to our churches.

Everything you stated above seems to be Biblically correct, the only part I don't quite understand is where you said "God is holy so we must be holy".

My understanding is that we won't ever become holy while we live in a fallen corrupt body of death. My understanding of the meaning of the word "Holy" is to be perfectly pure and sinless. I do believe that we do get Holier as we walk with the Lord, as the Bible says that He is the author and finisher of our faith.

I don't know of anyone in the Bible who attained a Holy status while they walked the earth during their life time. Abraham, Moses and Daniel were all very faithful in serving the Lord but the Bible never refereed to them as being Holy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Dan1988]

Who are you addressing?

I was responding to a member called "Bling", about 10 comments back. He quoted many scriptures, to support his view that salvation is a joint effort between God and man. My understanding of the scriptures is that salvation is the work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit alone.

I believe the bible teaches that we are born dead in our sins and trespasses, and as such there's nothing we can do about it. I believe God must make the first move to make us receive the truth. So it has nothing to do with how with how intelligent a person is, we are 100% reliant on God to draw us to Himself. We would never choose to follow Christ if God left us in our natural state.

 

[Dan1988]

I have had to change my view on this point recently, when we are reborn of the spirit we belong to the congregation called Israel, we can of course backslide, and Peter and John and James give advice as to how the rest of the church should react.

You may not know who is or who will be, but you can tell who isn't, or who runs out of oil while we wait.

It goes without saying, that we can easily identify a non believer by the way they live their lives. I was making the point that there are many professing Christians, who may display all of the outward signs of a true believer but they have never been truly converted.

1 Cor 3:3 says: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

So there are many professing Christians who fly under the radar and everyone in the Church thinks they are genuine, they will only be exposed as hypocrites when their works are tested and reveled by fire.

This seems to suggest that everything we sow to the flesh will be burned of, and only the fruits of the Spirit will remain if they were true believers. If not, their works will be burned off and they will have no claim in the Kingdom of God.

 

[sparow]

It goes without saying, that we can easily identify a non believer by the way they live their lives. I was making the point that there are many professing Christians, who may display all of the outward signs of a true believer but they have never been truly converted.

1 Cor 3:3 says: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

So there are many professing Christians who fly under the radar and everyone in the Church thinks they are genuine, they will only be exposed as hypocrites when their works are tested and reveled by fire.

This seems to suggest that everything we sow to the flesh will be burned of, and only the fruits of the Spirit will remain if they were true believers. If not, their works will be burned off and they will have no claim in the Kingdom of God.

Jesus will judge who is saved and who isn't and that judgment is a head of us; we judge according to what we see and know for the purpose of the congregation being healthy; we may not know who will ultimately be saved but in the interim but we can shop around for a church that does follow Christ, but all I see is religions not mini Kingdoms of God. I believe we are saved just because we are born of the spirit, salvation is a journey which ends when we arrive in the Kingdom which is the resurrection of the righteous when Christ returns.

 

[sparow]

I would never sum up the doctrine of election and reprobation, in the above terms as that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.

Our Pastor advises us, that only scripture has the authority to interpret scripture. So I would need to see relevant scriptures before I could accept your view.

In our Church we believe that God has not revealed everything to us, and the question of why He chose to save some and leave others in their sin is one of those for which He never provided a clear answer so we just accept it as His sovereign will.

If I was to ask you, if you believe that God knows all things, that He is almighty, that He knows the begging and the end of all things, that He is in full control of all things, that He created Man and Angels with the ability to choose to rebel and that He is sovereign over all things. I take it, you would agree that all these are true of God.

So if you agree, then it's only a small leap of faith to admit that God did preordain all things including who would be saved and who would be lost.

We can't ascribe those attributes to God, then deny Him His sovereign right to choose to save billions of His enemies. If God was righteous and just, according to mans measure then He should condemn the whole human race because all have sinned.

So instead of people accusing God of being unfair for not saving everyone, they should be asking why didn't He just condemn the whole human race to hell.

I've heard some in our Reformed Church say that is a great sin to even question Gods motives, they ask how a totally depraved fallen sinner can question anything a perfectly righteous, sinless, infinite, omniscient, all powerful Creator God does.

So, I'm very happy to allow God to be God and accept everything that He does as perfect. I converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity in late 2014 and since then, I've heard about a hundred of different views on this doctrine.

I've decided to let every man be a liar and let God be true.

You are referring to doctrine I do not subscribe to.

“”that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.””

For heavens sake what is wrong with private interpretation? One should never add to scripture. But the doctrine of election and re-probation is not scripture, it is private interpretation in place of scripture, it is a doctrine of a man.

When we read or hear words we interpret them in order to understand; when we read the Bible we either privately interpret it or have someone else privately interpret the Bible for us, in this case we have to privately interpret the interpretation.

This rejection of private interpretation seems to come from one verse instead of two verses:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NKJV)
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I now privately interpret this; this is referring to any of the OT prophesies and prophets; and it means the prophets of old did not make up their prophesies, they did not interpret their prophesies from scripture, instead they received their prophesies directly from God; nothing at all to do with us mentally processing scripture.

When we say “scripture interprets scripture” we do not mean that literally, but refer to a methodology; interpretation always requires a mind.

God hasn't told us everything in literal or spiritual terms, He instead has given us a puzzle, not for the purpose of solving it but for the purpose of wrestling with the puzzle and in overcoming as opposed to solving, the wrestler matures or finds the narrow path. There are two puzzles, the one God gives us, and a puzzle within us and in wrestling with one we solve the other. Jacob had a problem with his brother, but his real problem was in his own mind and his relationship with God.

We have to go on what God has told us and universal predestination contradicts what God has told us.

We should not question God' motives as to put Him on trial, but there is nothing wrong with being curious and seeking understanding. I have stood toe to toe with God and demanded to know what the hell He thought He was doing; you know, been there done that. What amazes me is what was God doing there, at that place at that time, and why was I in the spirit on that occasion before I took an interest in the Bible apart from Sunday school when I was eight years old; Maybe God predestined that.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You are referring to doctrine I do not subscribe to.

“”that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.””

For heavens sake what is wrong with private interpretation? One should never add to scripture. But the doctrine of election and re-probation is not scripture, it is private interpretation in place of scripture, it is a doctrine of a man.

When we read or hear words we interpret them in order to understand; when we read the Bible we either privately interpret it or have someone else privately interpret the Bible for us, in this case we have to privately interpret the interpretation.

This rejection of private interpretation seems to come from one verse instead of two verses:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NKJV)
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I now privately interpret this; this is referring to any of the OT prophesies and prophets; and it means the prophets of old did not make up their prophesies, they did not interpret their prophesies from scripture, instead they received their prophesies directly from God; nothing at all to do with us mentally processing scripture.

When we say “scripture interprets scripture” we do not mean that literally, but refer to a methodology; interpretation always requires a mind.

God hasn't told us everything in literal or spiritual terms, He instead has given us a puzzle, not for the purpose of solving it but for the purpose of wrestling with the puzzle and in overcoming as opposed to solving, the wrestler matures or finds the narrow path. There are two puzzles, the one God gives us, and a puzzle within us and in wrestling with one we solve the other. Jacob had a problem with his brother, but his real problem was in his own mind and his relationship with God.

We have to go on what God has told us and universal predestination contradicts what God has told us.

We should not question God' motives as to put Him on trial, but there is nothing wrong with being curious and seeking understanding. I have stood toe to toe with God and demanded to know what the hell He thought He was doing; you know, been there done that. What amazes me is what was God doing there, at that place at that time, and why was I in the spirit on that occasion before I took an interest in the Bible apart from Sunday school when I was eight years old; Maybe God predestined that.

Predestination and election is Scriptural. That's quite clear in the Bible. That's pretty easy to prove too. If you get on a Bible Concordance site, you can look them up. "Elect" and "chosen" are the same Greek word.

Now, people have differing interpretations of what those words mean; but there's no denying, they are definitely in the Scripture.

Isaiah tells us how to study the Scripture. "Line upon line, upon line, precept upon precept upon precept..." The Bible is its own dictionary, commentary and interpreter and this is why it says, its not for private interpretation.

Now is there such a thing as "double predestination"? The answer to that is no; because "the wages of sin is death". The punishment someone incurs for their sin is on account of what they've "earned" based on how they transgressed. Now you can't earn a wage until you've actually done the work.

The "earning" of those "wages" is not the same thing as being predestine unto salvation from the foundations of the world though, because you can not perform a work until you actually exist. This is how humans are held accountable for their sin; because how much an individual commits is a matter of choice.

Choice in the matter of how much sin one commits though is not the same theological concept as "free will". Your will is not "free" because its affected by your fallen nature. We have a fallen nature because evil exists in this current universe and we are corruptible. So in this regard, not even Adam's will was totally free.

Jesus though because He had a Divine nature inseparably joined to a human nature is what made Him in a very real way "incorruptible". Now in His humanity He could disobey; but if He had it would have meant instant death, because the Divine nature could not remain joined to a human entity who chose to disobey. Yet the presence of that Divine nature, is also what made Him in that regard at the same time, not able to sin. The motivation of the Divine nature, because of its Divinity, superseded the human nature's will. The love that He grew to understand in His humanity, was of greater motivation than the temptation to disobey. He didn't want to be severed from that; which is what the atonement was about and that's why He said: "Not my will, but Yours be done."

 

[Dan1988]

Jesus will judge who is saved and who isn't and that judgment is a head of us; we judge according to what we see and know for the purpose of the congregation being healthy; we may not know who will ultimately be saved but in the interim but we can shop around for a church that does follow Christ, but all I see is religions not mini Kingdoms of God. I believe we are saved just because we are born of the spirit, salvation is a journey which ends when we arrive in the Kingdom which is the resurrection of the righteous when Christ returns.

I'm a member of a Reformed Baptist Church, where the Word of God as we have it preserved for us in the Holy Scriptures is the first and final authority in all matters.
They try to live and teach the Word of God as faithfully and truly as possible. They try to model our Church on the original Church, which Christ established and the Disciples continued in until their executions.

I agree with you that many Churches have conformed themselves to what the world wants. Folks what to be entertained and told they are good people in a bad world, we regularly have visitors walk out half way through because the Gospel is highly offensive to today's carnal "Christians".

It took me a long time to find a Church where the Word of God is preached faithfully, so I know exactly what you mean by shopping around. it's comforting to know that we will all be judged by a fair judge, One who suffered, died and rose again to save those who trust in Him.

 

[Dan1988]

You are referring to doctrine I do not subscribe to.

“”that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.””

For heavens sake what is wrong with private interpretation? One should never add to scripture. But the doctrine of election and re-probation is not scripture, it is private interpretation in place of scripture, it is a doctrine of a man.

When we read or hear words we interpret them in order to understand; when we read the Bible we either privately interpret it or have someone else privately interpret the Bible for us, in this case we have to privately interpret the interpretation.

This rejection of private interpretation seems to come from one verse instead of two verses:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NKJV)
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I now privately interpret this; this is referring to any of the OT prophesies and prophets; and it means the prophets of old did not make up their prophesies, they did not interpret their prophesies from scripture, instead they received their prophesies directly from God; nothing at all to do with us mentally processing scripture.

When we say “scripture interprets scripture” we do not mean that literally, but refer to a methodology; interpretation always requires a mind.

God hasn't told us everything in literal or spiritual terms, He instead has given us a puzzle, not for the purpose of solving it but for the purpose of wrestling with the puzzle and in overcoming as opposed to solving, the wrestler matures or finds the narrow path. There are two puzzles, the one God gives us, and a puzzle within us and in wrestling with one we solve the other. Jacob had a problem with his brother, but his real problem was in his own mind and his relationship with God.

We have to go on what God has told us and universal predestination contradicts what God has told us.

We should not question God' motives as to put Him on trial, but there is nothing wrong with being curious and seeking understanding. I have stood toe to toe with God and demanded to know what the hell He thought He was doing; you know, been there done that. What amazes me is what was God doing there, at that place at that time, and why was I in the spirit on that occasion before I took an interest in the Bible apart from Sunday school when I was eight years old; Maybe God predestined that.

I would beg to differ with you regarding the doctrine of election and rep-probation not being in the Bible. The Bible doesn't use these terms, we gave the doctrine those terms.

I can list you around 60 Bible verses which support it, but you would simply tell me that you see it differently so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one because much brighter men then us have been debating it for the past 500 years and they are no closer to a consensus now then they were when they first started.

I had the same view as you, when I first converted from Roman Catholicism and I held to that view for the first 6 years and then the penny dropped one day and I saw the light.

 

[bling]

I would never sum up the doctrine of election and reprobation, in the above terms as that would be tantamount to adding my own private interpretation to the Holy Scriptures.

Our Pastor advises us, that only scripture has the authority to interpret scripture. So I would need to see relevant scriptures before I could accept your view.

In our Church we believe that God has not revealed everything to us, and the question of why He chose to save some and leave others in their sin is one of those for which He never provided a clear answer so we just accept it as His sovereign will.

If I was to ask you, if you believe that God knows all things, that He is almighty, that He knows the begging and the end of all things, that He is in full control of all things, that He created Man and Angels with the ability to choose to rebel and that He is sovereign over all things. I take it, you would agree that all these are true of God.

So if you agree, then it's only a small leap of faith to admit that God did preordain all things including who would be saved and who would be lost.

We can't ascribe those attributes to God, then deny Him His sovereign right to choose to save billions of His enemies. If God was righteous and just, according to mans measure then He should condemn the whole human race because all have sinned.

So instead of people accusing God of being unfair for not saving everyone, they should be asking why didn't He just condemn the whole human race to hell.

I've heard some in our Reformed Church say that is a great sin to even question Gods motives, they ask how a totally depraved fallen sinner can question anything a perfectly righteous, sinless, infinite, omniscient, all powerful Creator God does.

So, I'm very happy to allow God to be God and accept everything that He does as perfect. I converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity in late 2014 and since then, I've heard about a hundred of different views on this doctrine.

I've decided to let every man be a liar and let God be true.

You say: “So I would need to see relevant scriptures before I could accept your view.”

And you also say: “why He chose to save some and leave others in their sin is one of those for which He never provided a clear answer so we just accept it as His sovereign will.”

I will not be able to provide you a scripture verse stating: “God elected those who of their own autonomous free will humbly accepted His charity.”

But remember your saying: you have no clue to how the selection was made, while I see scripture supporting the doctrine of “whosoever”. This question is extremely important and not one to be left unanswered. The reason it seems your doctrine says the question of “why He chose” is left unanswered is because there would be no fair/just/Loving answer for the choice with your doctrine. That alone is reason enough for most people to reject your doctrine.

I have addressed the scripture verses you have provided, feeling they support your doctrine, with logical alternatives, contextual reasoning, and the irrelevance of some verses to the issue.

The logic used to support your doctrine is the truism of: “the sinful unbeliever cannot “do” anything noble, righteous, honorable, worthy of anything and deserving to obtain salvation”, which I agree with. BUT the sinful unbeliever can for unrighteous selfish reasons wimp out, give up and surrender to his enemy while he still considers God his enemy. He is not changing sides (which would be a righteous act) nor is he doing this out of “Love” for God, since he has none. The sinful unbeliever for purely selfish reasons is just humbly willing to accept undeserved charity from his enemy. Accepting charity is not going to earn you anything, nor is it a noble act, worthy of anything, righteous, honorable and going to earn you something. It is like what that unworthy son did in the prodigal son story.

The offer of salvation through faith is given to ""all"" who believe. This belief results in eternal salvation:


For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to ""all"" people. Titus 2:11


For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that ""whoever"" believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)


For this is the will of My Father, that ""everyone"" who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)


This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires ""all"" men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)


The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for ""all"" to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ""all"" men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)


For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ""all"" men, (Titus 2:11)And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ""all"" men to Myself." (John 12:32)


So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ""all"" men. (Romans 5:18)


For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for ""all""; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)


For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for ""all"", therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:15)



By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for ""all"". (Hebrews 10:10)


For Christ also died for sins once for ""all"", the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Peter 3:18)

 

[The Righterzpen]

You say: “So I would need to see relevant scriptures before I could accept your view.”

And you also say: “why He chose to save some and leave others in their sin is one of those for which He never provided a clear answer so we just accept it as His sovereign will.”

I will not be able to provide you a scripture verse stating: “God elected those who of their own autonomous free will humbly accepted His charity.”

But remember your saying: you have no clue to how the selection was made, while I see scripture supporting the doctrine of “whosoever”. This question is extremely important and not one to be left unanswered. The reason it seems your doctrine says the question of “why He chose” is left unanswered is because there would be no fair/just/Loving answer for the choice with your doctrine. That alone is reason enough for most people to reject your doctrine.

I have addressed the scripture verses you have provided, feeling they support your doctrine, with logical alternatives, contextual reasoning, and the irrelevance of some verses to the issue.

The logic used to support your doctrine is the truism of: “the sinful unbeliever cannot “do” anything noble, righteous, honorable, worthy of anything and deserving to obtain salvation”, which I agree with. BUT the sinful unbeliever can for unrighteous selfish reasons wimp out, give up and surrender to his enemy while he still considers God his enemy. He is not changing sides (which would be a righteous act) nor is he doing this out of “Love” for God, since he has none. The sinful unbeliever for purely selfish reasons is just humbly willing to accept undeserved charity from his enemy. Accepting charity is not going to earn you anything, nor is it a noble act, worthy of anything, righteous, honorable and going to earn you something. It is like what that unworthy son did in the prodigal son story.

The offer of salvation through faith is given to ""all"" who believe. This belief results in eternal salvation:


For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to ""all"" people. Titus 2:11


For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that ""whoever"" believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)


For this is the will of My Father, that ""everyone"" who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)


This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires ""all"" men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)


The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for ""all"" to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)


For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ""all"" men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)


For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ""all"" men, (Titus 2:11)And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ""all"" men to Myself." (John 12:32)


So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ""all"" men. (Romans 5:18)


For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for ""all""; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)


For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for ""all"", therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:15)



By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for ""all"". (Hebrews 10:10)


For Christ also died for sins once for ""all"", the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Peter 3:18)

You have several issues with the notion of universal atonement.

1. Obviously not everyone becomes saved.

2. The notion of justice. If you commit a crime and I tell the judge I will go to jail for you and the judge sends both of us to jail, that's not justice; not even in a human regard.

Yet the idea that Jesus paid for the sin of every single human being that ever lived does exactly that. If you are cast into the lake of fire for sin Jesus already paid for; that's not justice.

3. Universal atonement makes a portion of Christ's work ineffectual.

4. Universal atonement makes Jesus a liar because He said "All the Father has given to me will come and I will raise it up on the last day." (John 6:37) Now if the Father gave Jesus all of humanity; all of humanity does not come. This makes Jesus a liar.

Now in many of these verses you quote you specify the word "all". "All" in many places means "the whole of"; but the whole of what? To say Christ provided the atonement for all men is not the same thing as saying He paid the atonement for all men. Now what "provided atonement for all men" means that any who become believers are going to be atoned for by Christ. He is the only Redeemer. There is no other Redeemer.

Also note that of many of these other verses you quoted - there's a predication in there of "who believes". Now how does one come to believe is a different question. So getting back to "the whole of what"? The whole of those who come to believe. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to when you look at every thing else.

 

[sparow]

Predestination and election is Scriptural. That's quite clear in the Bible. That's pretty easy to prove too. If you get on a Bible Concordance site, you can look them up. "Elect" and "chosen" are the same Greek word.

Now, people have differing interpretations of what those words mean; but there's no denying, they are definitely in the Scripture.

Isaiah tells us how to study the Scripture. "Line upon line, upon line, precept upon precept upon precept..." The Bible is its own dictionary, commentary and interpreter and this is why it says, its not for private interpretation.

Now is there such a thing as "double predestination"? The answer to that is no; because "the wages of sin is death". The punishment someone incurs for their sin is on account of what they've "earned" based on how they transgressed. Now you can't earn a wage until you've actually done the work.

The "earning" of those "wages" is not the same thing as being predestine unto salvation from the foundations of the world though, because you can not perform a work until you actually exist. This is how humans are held accountable for their sin; because how much an individual commits is a matter of choice.

Choice in the matter of how much sin one commits though is not the same theological concept as "free will". Your will is not "free" because its affected by your fallen nature. We have a fallen nature because evil exists in this current universe and we are corruptible. So in this regard, not even Adam's will was totally free.

Jesus though because He had a Divine nature inseparably joined to a human nature is what made Him in a very real way "incorruptible". Now in His humanity He could disobey; but if He had it would have meant instant death, because the Divine nature could not remain joined to a human entity who chose to disobey. Yet the presence of that Divine nature, is also what made Him in that regard at the same time, not able to sin. The motivation of the Divine nature, because of its Divinity, superseded the human nature's will. The love that He grew to understand in His humanity, was of greater motivation than the temptation to disobey. He didn't want to be severed from that; which is what the atonement was about and that's why He said: "Not my will, but Yours be done."

You have misunderstood what I meant to say! We probably agree on the concepts of predestination and election and so on but we disagree on what is false doctrine.

Relative to the Judaeo-Christian perspective the Koran is false. Even if every word in the Koran was true, I do not know what is in the Koran; even if the Koran was an exact copy of the Bible, it would still be false for a number of reasons; the author is not authenticated and primarily the author claims it is BASED on the first five books of scripture, but as well, having declared the first five books false; or written by the Jews to suit themselves. Christ's presence and activity authenticates the prophets of old and indeed the OT and they authenticate Christ; anything since Christ wont be authenticated until Christ returns.

The teachings of John Calvin are also BASED on scripture and are therefore are not the teaching of Christ which is the scripture. The main feature is that people follow Calvin and not Christ and worship and authority becomes divided or redirected, regardless of whether Calvin is right or wrong. As with righteousness which can be dirty rags; righteousness can only be useful for salvation if it is defined by and in obedience and in allegiance to God.

<<Isaiah tells us how to study the Scripture. "Line upon line, upon line, precept upon precept upon precept...">>

Isaiah is referring to studying and using the scripture, but not writing substitutes for them. There are two ways a person can go; one is to go deeper and deeper into the word of God, as it exists; the second is to expand on, or add to, what God has given, as if God is inadequate.

The problem with doctrines of men is they are at least red herrings, The scriptures, while being Law, are not legal documents in anyway, they can witness and judge when a fitting cap is worn but cannot prove anything, being parables and symbols and history and abstract prophesy.

 

[sparow]

I would beg to differ with you regarding the doctrine of election and rep-probation not being in the Bible. The Bible doesn't use these terms, we gave the doctrine those terms.

I can list you around 60 Bible verses which support it, but you would simply tell me that you see it differently so we will just have to agree to disagree on this one because much brighter men then us have been debating it for the past 500 years and they are no closer to a consensus now then they were when they first started.

I had the same view as you, when I first converted from Roman Catholicism and I held to that view for the first 6 years and then the penny dropped one day and I saw the light.

All false teaching quote scripture in support so quoting scripture is not proof of true doctrine. True doctrine is essentially the OT. Jesus taught the OT way, the straight version of it, the WAY made straight. If men have been debating it for 500 years forget it. Galvin seems to be second guessing God on the mechanics of salvation. But the idea is we eat the word of God and grow into harvestable fruit, Galvin or anyone else cannot do it for us; doctrines of men cannot substitute the word of God. There is nothing wrong with listening to other men, keeping what is good and rejecting what is bad, but man can never be teacher or authority.

 

[bling]

You have several issues with the notion of universal atonement.

1. Obviously not everyone becomes saved.

2. The notion of justice. If you commit a crime and I tell the judge I will go to jail for you and the judge sends both of us to jail, that's not justice; not even in a human regard.

Yet the idea that Jesus paid for the sin of every single human being that ever lived does exactly that. If you are cast into the lake of fire for sin Jesus already paid for; that's not justice.

3. Universal atonement makes a portion of Christ's work ineffectual.

4. Universal atonement makes Jesus a liar because He said "All the Father has given to me will come and I will raise it up on the last day." (John 6:37) Now if the Father gave Jesus all of humanity; all of humanity does not come. This makes Jesus a liar.

Now in many of these verses you quote you specify the word "all". "All" in many places means "the whole of"; but the whole of what? To say Christ provided the atonement for all men is not the same thing as saying He paid the atonement for all men. Now what "provided atonement for all men" means that any who become believers are going to be atoned for by Christ. He is the only Redeemer. There is no other Redeemer.

Also note that of many of these other verses you quoted - there's a predication in there of "who believes". Now how does one come to believe is a different question. So getting back to "the whole of what"? The whole of those who come to believe. That is the only logical conclusion you can come to when you look at every thing else.

First off: There are lots of “problems” for those espousing Penal Substitution and unlimited atonement, which you only pointed out the one being two being punished for the same crime.

The biggest problem with Penal Substitution is the unfair/unjust/unloving idea of having the Judge (God) seeing to the torture/humiliation and murder of the innocent Christ and allowing the guilty to go unpunished (undisciplined might be a better word), so that could never happen.

Atonement is a huge topic which I enjoy discussing, but it takes a ton of words and scriptures to read, think about, pray about, study and logically investigate. You have done “good” to point out an issue with unlimited atonement and Penal Substitution, but you are assuming Penal Substitution is right and thus unlimited atonement is wrong, yet maybe the opposite is true?

As far as the meaning of: “world”, “any”, “all”, “whosoever” and “everyone” is concerned, you have to look at the way these word are used in the context. I am not saying: these words could not sometimes mean something other than every sinner on earth, but that certainly seems to be the mean in some of these verses especially when the blessing to all was previously talking about all who sinned.

In the parables of the banquet and those being invited: some invited refused with weak excuses, and some came. The king did not kidnap guests to go to His banquet, yet all who did come were invited.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You have misunderstood what I meant to say! We probably agree on the concepts of predestination and election and so on but we disagree on what is false doctrine.

Relative to the Judaeo-Christian perspective the Koran is false. Even if every word in the Koran was true, I do not know what is in the Koran; even if the Koran was an exact copy of the Bible, it would still be false for a number of reasons; the author is not authenticated and primarily the author claims it is BASED on the first five books of scripture, but as well, having declared the first five books false; or written by the Jews to suit themselves. Christ's presence and activity authenticates the prophets of old and indeed the OT and they authenticate Christ; anything since Christ wont be authenticated until Christ returns.

The teachings of John Calvin are also BASED on scripture and are therefore are not the teaching of Christ which is the scripture. The main feature is that people follow Calvin and not Christ and worship and authority becomes divided or redirected, regardless of whether Calvin is right or wrong. As with righteousness which can be dirty rags; righteousness can only be useful for salvation if it is defined by and in obedience and in allegiance to God.

<<Isaiah tells us how to study the Scripture. "Line upon line, upon line, precept upon precept upon precept...">>

Isaiah is referring to studying and using the scripture, but not writing substitutes for them. There are two ways a person can go; one is to go deeper and deeper into the word of God, as it exists; the second is to expand on, or add to, what God has given, as if God is inadequate.

The problem with doctrines of men is they are at least red herrings, The scriptures, while being Law, are not legal documents in anyway, they can witness and judge when a fitting cap is worn but cannot prove anything, being parables and symbols and history and abstract prophesy.

Your argument of what is truth and what is not, is based on faulty logic. Something can still be true even if it isn't Divinely inspired. A medical text book can be full of true facts, but it is not the word of God. Just because the medical text book is not the word of God, does not automatically mean it isn't true.

Truth stands alone, and all truth ultimately is revealed by God; it's just not all revealed directly. Truth discovered by means such as scientific method or established as historical fact is still truth. (I.E. WWII happened between years A and B and nations X,Y and Z were involved. Those facts are still true; even if men argue about the implications of those facts.)

Truth stands on its own merits. So therefore a doctrine can not be "Scriptural" and be false. That is an illogical conclusion. If what John Calvin says is in line with what Christ says; John Calvin's words are still true, regardless of whether or not you like them.

 

[The Righterzpen]

First off: There are lots of “problems” for those espousing Penal Substitution and unlimited atonement, which you only pointed out the one being two being punished for the same crime.

The biggest problem with Penal Substitution is the unfair/unjust/unloving idea of having the Judge (God) seeing to the torture/humiliation and murder of the innocent Christ and allowing the guilty to go unpunished (undisciplined might be a better word), so that could never happen.

Atonement is a huge topic which I enjoy discussing, but it takes a ton of words and scriptures to read, think about, pray about, study and logically investigate. You have done “good” to point out an issue with unlimited atonement and Penal Substitution, but you are assuming Penal Substitution is right and thus unlimited atonement is wrong, yet maybe the opposite is true?

As far as the meaning of: “world”, “any”, “all”, “whosoever” and “everyone” is concerned, you have to look at the way these word are used in the context. I am not saying: these words could not sometimes mean something other than every sinner on earth, but that certainly seems to be the mean in some of these verses especially when the blessing to all was previously talking about all who sinned.

In the parables of the banquet and those being invited: some invited refused with weak excuses, and some came. The king did not kidnap guests to go to His banquet, yet all who did come were invited.

Your argument that penal substitution can not happen is fundamentally erroneous in the fact that Jesus was still crucified and died. If those things that happened to Jesus were not part of God's plan, than there would be no point in them happening. If Jesus is innocent and suffers the wrath of God, what would that be other than penal substitution?

 

[Concord1968]

All false teaching quote scripture in support so quoting scripture is not proof of true doctrine. True doctrine is essentially the OT. Jesus taught the OT way, the straight version of it, the WAY made straight. If men have been debating it for 500 years forget it. Galvin seems to be second guessing God on the mechanics of salvation. But the idea is we eat the word of God and grow into harvestable fruit, Galvin or anyone else cannot do it for us; doctrines of men cannot substitute the word of God. There is nothing wrong with listening to other men, keeping what is good and rejecting what is bad, but man can never be teacher or authority.

Galvin?