How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Rick Otto]

Otto,
I'm not sure just what all the texts regarding repentance prove on this subject, but they do not even address it.

Those were in reply to Ben's statement:
"Repentance is certainly something God DOES receive, rather than "author" or "gift TO us". "

Find a text that confirms your above statement. I find none, and none have yet to be
presented.

My statement:
All who were placed "in Christ" are redeemed unto eternal life as all who were in Adam were condemned (including the elect), but not all who were in Adam were placed in Christ(only the elect were).

First, my statement:
All who were placed "in Christ" are redeemed unto eternal life:
1Co 15:22 - Show Context For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But not ALL were placed in Christ(only the elect were):Paul oopens Ephesians identifying who he is addressing (not all mankind) -1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus ChristIn the whole chapter, he repeatedly speaks of "we" & "us", and is rather obviously, not including all humanity - all who were in Adam:
Ephesians 1:3-14
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Other "in Christ" verses:
Ro 3:24 - Show Context Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 8:1 - Show Context There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:39 - Show Context Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Ro 12:5 - Show Context So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 1Co 1:2 - Show Context Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 1:30 - Show Context But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

You need to refute Col 1:15-20, II Cor 5:14-15, 18-20, I Cor 15:21-22, Rom 11;32, Rom 5:18-19. Find any that says, only some were placed under Christ. All the above very explicitedly deny your statement.

You are a hard taskmaster.
Col 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19: For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
All the above are addressed to NOT all humanity - read verse 2
"2: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ..."
To reconcile all thing unto Himself does not necessarily imply a happy ending for all things, rather justice is rendered unto all things. If you are not elect & are reconciled, your reconciliation is condemnation:
reconcile:
1 : to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions> b : SETTLE, RESOLVE <reconcile differences>
2 : to make consistent or congruous <reconcile an ideal with reality>
3 : to cause to submit to or accept something unpleasant <was reconciled to hardship>
4 : to check (a financial account) against another for accuracy b : to account for

11Cor5:14: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
John Gill saves my fingers:
"The persons for whom Christ died are all; not every individual of mankind, but all his people, all his sheep, all the members of his church, or all the sons he, as the great Captain of salvation, brings to glory. Wherefore this text does not make for the doctrine of general redemption; for it should be observed, that it does not say that Christ died for "all men", but for "all"; and so, agreeably to the Scriptures, may be understood of all the persons mentioned. Moreover, in the latter part of the text it is said, that those for whom Christ died, for them he rose again; he died for no more, nor for others, than those for whom he rose again: now those for whom he rose again, he rose for their justification; wherefore, if Christ rose for the justification of all men, all would be justified, or the end of Christ's resurrection would not be answered; but all men are not, nor will they be justified, some will be condemned; hence it follows, that Christ did not rise from the dead for all men, and consequently did not die for all men: besides, the "all" for whom Christ died, died with him, and through his death are dead both to the law and sin; and he died for them, that they might live, not to themselves, but to him; neither of which are true of all the individuals of mankind: to which may be added, that the context explains the all of such who are in Christ, are new creatures, are reconciled to God, whose trespasses are not imputed to them, for whom Christ was made sin, and who are made the righteousness of God in him; which cannot be said of all men. The conclusion from hence is,
then were all dead;
meaning, either that those for whom Christ died, were dead in Adam, dead in law, dead in trespasses and sins, which made it necessary for him to die for them; otherwise, there would have been no occasion for his death; yet it does not follow from hence, that Christ died for all that are in such a condition; only that those for whom Christ died were dead in this sense, admitting this to be the sense of the passage; though death in sin seems not to be intended, since that all men are dead in sin, would have been a truth, if Christ had died for none; and much less is this an effect, or what follows upon the death of Christ; nor does it capacitate, but renders men incapable of living to Christ: wherefore a mystical death in, and with Christ, seems rather to he meant; and so the Ethiopic version reads it, "in whom everyone is dead". Christ died as the head and representative of his people, and they all died in him, were crucified with him, and through his death became dead to the law, as to its curse and condemnation; and to sin, as to its damning power, being acquitted, discharged, and justified from it; the consequence of which is a deliverance from the dominion of it, whereby they become capable of living to the glory of Christ. The sense of the passage is not, that Christ died for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom he died; which is true of them, whether in the former, or in the latter sense: the article (oi) , is anaphorical or relative, as Beza and Piscator observe; and the meaning is, that if Christ died for all, then all "those" were dead for whom he died.

 

[Rick Otto]

11Cor 5:18-20 Same thing. He's not addressing all mankind.

I Cor 15: 21: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
This doesn't say all who are in Adam are also in Christ! Rather it says "all who are in Christ", implying NOT ALL ARE IN CHRIST. Keep reading:
23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Rom 11;32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
J.Gill explains:
"
that he might have mercy upon all:
not upon all the individuals of Jews and Gentiles; for all are not concluded in, or convinced of the sin of unbelief, but only such who are eventually believers, as appears from the parallel text, (Galatians 3:22) ; and designs all God's elect among the Jews, called "their fulness", (Romans 11:12) ; and all God's elect among the Gentiles, called "the fulness of the Gentiles", (Romans 11:25) ; for whom he has mercy in store, and will bestow it on them; and in order to bring them to a sense of their need of it, and that he may the more illustriously display the riches of it, he leaves them for a while in a state of unbelief, and then by his Spirit thoroughly convinces them of it, and gives them faith to look to, and believe in, the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life."

Rom 5:18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Again, Gill restores lost context:
came upon all
men to justification of life;
the righteousness of Christ being freely imputed without works, as it is to all the men that belong to the second Adam, to all his seed and offspring, is their justification of life, or what adjudges and entitles them to eternal life. The sentence of justification was conceived in the mind of God from eternity, when his elect were ordained unto eternal life, on the foot of his Son's righteousness; this passed on Christ at his resurrection from the dead, and on all his people as considered in him, when they, in consequence of it, were quickened together with him; and this passes upon the conscience of a sinner at believing, when he may, as he should, reckon himself alive unto God, and is what gives him a right and title to everlasting life and glory.

Welcome to Reform Theology! Glad to have helped.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Other "in Christ" verses:
Ro 3:24 - Show Context Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 8:1 - Show Context There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:39 - Show Context Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Ro 12:5 - Show Context So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 1Co 1:2 - Show Context Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 1:30 - Show Context But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

None of these texts even address the text in question. these all deal with faith, and is summarized in the last one you wrote I Co 1:30, Being IN Christ would not have even been a possibility unless redemption occurs first. It wholly confirms what I have been saying. One cannot live IN Christ unless Christ has restored life to all mankind. Address the text which is redemption, not faith and the salvation of our souls.

All the above are addressed to NOT all humanity - read verse 2
"2: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ..."
To reconcile all thing unto Himself does not necessarily imply a happy ending for all things, rather justice is rendered unto all things. If you are not elect & are reconciled, your reconciliation is condemnation:

Again, you are not even addressing the topic which is redemption of mankind. you move right to the reconciliation that a believer recieves by faith. Faith is consequent to life. Read I Cor 15 again very carefully. If Christ does give life which He accomplishes through the Incarnation, death and resurrection, you can talk faith night and day and it will not give you eternal life. Faith does not give physical life, it ONLY gives you a spiritual life IN Christ. The spiritual is what we fell from ONLY because Adam died physically. How can God have union with a dead human being for an eternity? As long as we remain mortal, we cannot have union with God. It is a simple Biblical fact. The reconciliation made is from death to life, from mortal to immortality.

"The persons for whom Christ died are all; not every individual of mankind, but all his people,

All of mankind are His Creation. He put ALL THINGS under Him, who is able to restore all things to LIFE.

Wherefore this text does not make for the doctrine of general redemption; for it should be observed, that it does not say that Christ died for "all men", but for "all"; and so, agreeably to the Scriptures, may be understood of all the persons mentioned.

These are equations. If one wants or needs to limit these verses, then you need to limit them equally. If all died through Adam or in this case it says all died through one man and all were raised by one man, these are equal. Secondly, we know that all will be raised in the last day. If even ONE man is raised, by necessity all will be raised. All persons mentioned is mankind in every single instance. You will not find explicitedly, nor implied that Christ did not die for all of mankind. There is never a limitation nor restriction.

Moreover, in the latter part of the text it is said, that those for whom Christ died, for them he rose again; he died for no more, nor for others, than those for whom he rose again: now those for whom he rose again, he rose for their justification; wherefore, if Christ rose for the justification of all men, all would be justified,

Obviously I assumed incorrectly that you would believe that all men will rise in the last day. For here you are saying that not all men will rise on the last day.
But, alas, you will find no support for that view in scripture. And it does exactly mean that Christ reconciled mankind, in fact reconciled the world to Himself. There is NEVER a limitation on the redemption, reconciliation, justification, man made right and acceptable to God by Christ's work on the Cross. Rom 5:18-19 uses that word and phrase perfectly. Read it as written, it is the Truth.

but all men are not, nor will they be justified, some will be condemned;

Now you have moved off from the topic again. We are not speaking about the justification that comes through faith. Justification by faith is moot, unless you first have the justification of mankind, man being made right with God, so that God can even have a union and communion with any man. Those then that believe are justified by faith, this is not the justification as a result of His death and Life being given to all men.

besides, the "all" for whom Christ died, died with him, and through his death are dead both to the law and sin; and he died for them, that they might live, not to themselves,

Before Christ gave Life to mankind we were all condemned in Adam and ONLY able to live for ourselves. Now that He has given life, those that desire can live IN Him. We no longer are held in bondage to death and sin. We have a choice, which was not possible in Adam.
The same problem exist. you are conflating what Christ restored and to what man was meant to be as a created being. You cannot align your view of salvation with the creation of man and the fall of man. They are not consistant. One actually has no relationship with the other. That is why the equation is not understood within your paradigm.
Continued......

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,
Continued......

11Cor 5:18-20 Same thing. He's not addressing all mankind. Cor 15: 21: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

That is a precise equation. there are no limitations. If one is limited then the other is as well. Since you seem adament that Christ did not die for mankind, that not all of mankind are in Adam either. Some never died, because Christ only made alive those that died in Adam. Which way do you want it. It cannot be half and half.

This doesn't say all who are in Adam are also in Christ! Rather it says "all who are in Christ", implying NOT ALL ARE IN CHRIST. Keep reading:
23: But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Isn't any wonder you confuse yourself. You are using the wrong words. It is not even referencing BEING IN CHRIST. It is whom Christ made alive as a result of His resurrection. Being IN Christ is the result of faith, not the resurrection. The resurrection made it possible but redemption does not address faith or a person believing.
But, this is just making the order. I wouldn't doubt that beleivers would be first, then all others. All shall rise on the last day. Here again, if Christ did not raise all men, then obviously not all men will be raised. In your view, the ONLY men to be raised will be believers. Then you have a monster contradiction, because you have a host of believers being sent to hell standing before Christ in judgment. Who are these believers being sent to hell?
You are welcome to Reformed theology as you have not yet shown it is even close to scriptural. You need to change meaning of words, just to support and erroneous premise that God elected believers. There is not a single verse in the Bible that makes that statement. It is a grossly misinterpreted doctrine. Consequently you conflat what Christ did on the Cross with the purpose of man being created in the first place.
You also put a limit on God's Sovereign will and purpose in creating man. it destroys the whole purpose of revelation and that man was created to glorify God, freely of his own will. To be transformed into the likness of God by being in union with Him, not elected arbitrarily. God was not willing to share His authority with Satan, which is the sum of your view. Christ could not even redeem all of mankind. Satan still has dominion over the larger portion of creation and mankind.
Hardly a Sovereign God.

 

[Rick Otto]

RG, you might be assigning me to an agenda I didn't volunteer for:

I'm not sure just what all the texts regarding repentance prove on this subject, but they do not even address it.

I'm not sure what you think "it" is.

It is not even referencing BEING IN CHRIST. It is whom Christ made alive as a result of His resurrection.

Same thing. He only made alive those He died for - those who His Father gave Him, those placed "in Christ" before the foundation of the world.
Your applications of "in Christ" are confused in chronology & substance. Those verses are absolutely referencing those "in Christ" from before the foundation of the world, not then currently circa 40+ or -A.D.

The elect were placed in Christ before they were created, they were put there "in the plan" before they were born & began to live out God's plan.
"BEING IN Christ" can thus have different meanings depending on what part of the Christians life you are discussing. Once you are born & then born again, being "in Christ" can apply to your beliefs & behaviour.

That is a precise equation. there are no limitations. If one is limited then the other is as well. Since you seem adament that Christ did not die for mankind, that not all of mankind are in Adam either. Some never died, because Christ only made alive those that died in Adam. Which way do you want it. It cannot be half and half.

It isn't half & half. I am not adamant that Christ did not die for all mankind, That is a misrepresentation of me. I am adamant that Christ died for all mankind as opposed to Jews only. I am adamant that Jesus died for & does not lose, any that His Father gave Him.

If Jesus paid for everyman's sins, precise equating would demand everyman goes to heaven. His gifts are without repentance. His giving of them, like the gift of life itself, does not depend upon our permission. If He gives it, we have no choice but to take it. If He offers it, it isn't a gift, it is an offer with a reward merited to those smart enough, or "lucky" enough to have any reason to accept, no matter how ludicrous the reason might be.
The rejectable gift analogy is bankrupt.

You also put a limit on God's Sovereign will and purpose in creating man. it destroys the whole purpose of revelation and that man was created to glorify God, freely of his own will.

No I don't, actualy you do when you give man authority over himself. Man is glorified by giving him sovereignity over his own destiny, not God, because then man is responsible for his own salvation, God having only made it a possible option for him to take or leave.
The whole idea destroys God's omniscience & omnipotence. Even those who resist His will do so according to His plan.

Christ could not even redeem all of mankind

Could, but didn't intend to.
You realy don't understand what I'm saying, it appears.
Free will is a myth. You are either serving The Lord, or you are servin' the devil.

Obviously I assumed incorrectly that you would believe that all men will rise in the last day. For here you are saying that not all men will rise on the last day.

Not at all. You again assume incorrectly. All men will rise, but not all will rise to glory. Some rise to judgement.
Acts17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32: And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter

And it does exactly mean that Christ reconciled mankind, in fact reconciled the world to Himself. There is NEVER a limitation on the redemption, reconciliation, justification, man made right and acceptable to God by Christ's work on the Cross. Rom 5:18-19 uses that word and phrase perfectly. Read it as written, it is the Truth.

Let's read it together:
18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

"All" or "many"? Tell me precisely.

 

[Ben johnson]

Negative, Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with redemption. Redemption is outside the perview of man. It is all God centered. This is what Paul is describing in Rom 9-11 as well in other places.
Faith, mankind, the Image of God, union, communion with God all have to do with creation. Mankind was restored to the capacity, the ability, to do what we were created to do. Christ's Work on the Cross eliminated, reversed the fall. The Bondage to death and sin is what held mankind in Adam or under Adam. Christ freed mankind from the bondage to death and sin. The reverse is Life and atonement.
Christ restored mankind from what he fell from, from what he was created to do as a creature created in God's Image.

Perhaps I did not say that well; all are redeemed, but faithlessness rejects that redemption. I think we still will disagree on this --- that's OK, it's not a major point.

Agreed, Ben. This is not where you digress from scripture, per the Church Fathers. it is the way you state it, not because it has anything to do with redemption, but because that is the way man was created, all men. We are not different in our natures, but of the same essence. Man is created to be free, that is the Image of God in man. It is the ONLY reason we can even be judged. Christ redeemed Mankind so each could choose for themselves, rather than be left under the condemnation of Adam, death, dust to dust. Condemned to death, not on what any person did, but solely on the one sin, of one man.

"Redemption" is listed equal to "sanctification", and "justification" and "righteousness", in places like Rom3:24, and 1Cor1:30. In Rom3:24, we are "justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" --- clearly not all are "justified", but only those who believe. That's all I mean when I say "redemption is rejectable".

Those who refuse to believe and receive Jesus, don't stay redeemed.

And you are quite correct on the "Judgment"; we must be able to freely choose, else the Judgment is no judgment at all.

 

[Ben johnson]

Repentance IS a gift!!!


Ac 5:31 - Show Context Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Ac 11:18 - Show Context When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
2Co 7:9 - Show Context Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
Ro 2:4 - Show Context Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
2Ti 2:25 - Show Context In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

All who were placed "in Christ" are redeemed unto eternal life as all who were in Adam were condemned (including the elect), but not all who were in Adam were placed in Christ(only the elect were).

Have you ever read Ezk18? It speaks of a righteous man turning from righteousness and towards wickedness, so that he will die; and that a wicked man can turn towards righteousness, and he will live.

God's perspective is clear in verse 24: "I (God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live."

There's no way that verse works with "sovereignly-granted-repentance". Repentance flows in direction, from man-to-God --- not God-to-man.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Same thing. He only made alive those He died for - those who His Father gave Him, those placed "in Christ" before the foundation of the world.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, every single human being that ever lived. All were given to Him. John 6:39 specifically spells that out. But you have yet to answer the texts that Christ redeemed the world, all things, which includes not just mankind, but every tree and rock in His Creation.
You ignore texts that speak explicitely against your view. And you are right that this was made before the foundations of the earth. Christ would be the Savior, the Redeemer of the created ORDER. The entire universe felt the condemnation of Adam. The universe fell under the power of death and sin, not just man.

The elect were placed in Christ before they were created, they were put there "in the plan" before they were born & began to live out God's plan.

that is your misunderstanding of Scripture. You have neither shown that this has ever been a view in Christianity. It comes on the scene in accepted doctrine in the 16th century, but is not, has not even been formerly clarified by all of those who use the term election as being believers predestined. When the Reformed get it together, then we can look at the Church Fathers, to see if you align with how it has been understood.
Some time back in another post to Cygnus I asked Him to present a theological understanding of the Incarnation in the Reformed perspective. So, far no one has answered that question. It is very obvious the Reformed do not accept the definition as given and explained in the Council of Ephesus which would be understandable, but I have never read, heard one developed by the Calvinists that supports their theology relative to the predestination of believers.
I only say that, so that you might take a look at trying to answer that question.

"BEING IN Christ" can thus have different meanings depending on what part of the Christians life you are discussing. Once you are born & then born again, being "in Christ" can apply to your beliefs & behaviour.

Since this in Scripture deals with faith, with man's cooperative covenantal union with Christ, it would be moot to even speak about it since man, from your vantage point is still dead. Christ gave life to mankind, so that man could fulfil the created mandate for his being created. Predestination falls flat in the very first chapter of Genesis, when we have adam falling out of predestination of a believer. He was more IN Christ than any man since. Yet He was not held IN Christ. Because He died, it precluded God ever having an eternal union with man. Christ the Creator, the sustainer of LIFE, is the ONLY one that can give LIFE back to a mortal creature. He did that through the Incarnation. Physical LIFE is not given by faith. Show anywhere in scripture that faith generates anything more than a spiritual union or communion with God.

It isn't half & half. I am not adamant that Christ did not die for all mankind, That is a misrepresentation of me. I am adamant that Christ died for all mankind as opposed to Jews only. I am adamant that Jesus died for & does not lose, any that His Father gave Him.

Which is the universe, the World, all things in heaven and on earth. Which human beings do not exist in either heaven or earth? How can there be a limitation. Do you know something that science has yet not revealed in all of our space probes, that there is some part of creation that is not contained in heaven or earth. Can you explain that for me. I am at a loss here.

If Jesus paid for everyman's sins, precise equating would demand everyman goes to heaven.

Universal redemption, reconciliation, justification, has NOTHING directly to do with the salvation of our souls and going to either heaven or hell, But it does have everything to do with giving mankind life, which means immortality, an eternal existance. That is why faith is moot until and unless you speak of righting mankind with God, to reverse the fall. If you cannot reverse the fall, then you can forget about what man fell from, because it is moot. We fell from having union and communion with God for an eternity. Mortal, means death, lack of life. We would all just die and return to dust and God promised Adam in Gen 3:16. That is why He cannot lose a single human being, because He is Sovereign and rules over Satan as well. Losing even one human being to death, makes God a failure and He must share His sovereign power with Satan, who would still have dominion through the power of death and sin, at least to even one human being.
If He can save all but one, what king of sovereign powe is that? No, He saved every single human being from the fall. It has nothing to do with man but with who is God and Sovereign. That is why man has nothing to do with redemption. This is what Paul spends almost 3 chapters on in Romans 9-11. That is why God consigned all to death through our nature, because God had the plan already made that Christ could assume that human nature and restore it to LIFE. He could defeat Satan, and HAS.

His gifts are without repentance.

And why would God take back the death and resurrection of Christ and give power and glory to Satan? Everything God does is without repentance. But respective of faith, He is also without repentance, but since it is a mutual agreement that must be met by man as well, it is ALWAYS man that reneges on that agreement, thus makes it null and void. But that is the whole reason Christ redeemed mankind so God could be merciful and just and give the choice of their eternal abode, with God or absent from Him, but all men will live eternally. All men have worth, all men bear God's Image. You may see some of mankind as worthless, but God does not. He was not willing to permit any of His creation to be subjected eternally under Satan.

If He offers it, it isn't a gift,

First this is off topic again because it deals with faith, and not redemption.
I fully understand why Calvinists need to redefine what a gift means. But explain to me then, why the Bible uses the word gift, if it does not mean a gift. Whether one accepts a gift or not does not change the nature of the gift. All it means we did not accept it. It does not even change the value of the gift, it does nothing to the gift or even the giver, except disappointment. He will simply offer it to someone else. Tough on you.

If He offers it, it isn't a gift, it is an offer with a reward merited to those smart enough, or "lucky" enough to have any reason to accept, no matter how ludicrous the reason might be.
The rejectable gift analogy is bankrupt.

If it is bankrupt why do you insist on changing the meaning. If it is forced on you, like redempton it is not a gift. Man being created is not a gift. It is a direct plan of God. Did man have a choice in his creation? Did man have a choice in how he was created? Man does not have a choice in his redemption either, because it does not either depend on man, nor is it only about man.
But when it comes to Christ offering the salvation of our souls, that is a gift He gives to us to make a decision on. He does not force the gift. He created us for a purpose which is to glorify Him but freely. How can man glorify God if God forced the gift of union and communion with God. This is where you leave all revelation in your view of reformed faith. You are denying the purpose of man/s existance, the fact God created you in His Image to specifically perform A PURPOSE for Him. It is that very purpose to which mankind was restored, it is what man fell from due to the fall. It is not the fall which is what you are trying to make it. And that created purpose is all about work. That is why man will be judged on what He did with the offer of His personal salvation of his soul. You were created to make the choice and then honor it. God will hold you responsible for it. For one reason, He gave His ONLY Son to Die, to remove the death sentence already imposed on mankind, so you could do with Him what He created you to do.
Now, you can sit on your duff and say we cannot work for our salvation. But unfortantely, you are speaking of the wrong salvation. The salvation of mankind we had nothing to do with, but the salvation from judgment and hell is now places squarely upon every human being, ONLY BECAUSE CHRIST GRATED LIFE TO THE WORLD. Take it or leave it, the consequencs will be yours either way. God does not determine the consequences. Talk to Adam, he can give you a much better answer. Did God mean what He said?

You were not elected thus denying you the choice you were created to do, because you bear HIS Image and waste the Death He suffered for you, so that you can do what God created you to do.
Tell me why God would change the created order. Change the created purpose of mankind being in the universe but simply denying all the above and simply elect him, force him to be in union.
What is the name we give to forced love? Is that the kind of God you have? Is that just or merciful? Could God even do that, if He is LOVE. What does I Cor 13:4-5 say about man's love, wouldn't God's be even greater?

No I don't, actualy you do when you give man authority over himself. Man is glorified by giving him sovereignity over his own destiny, not God, because then man is responsible for his own salvation, God having only made it a possible option for him to take or leave.

Where do I give man authority over God? I have explained many times before, you have even responded to some of those posts before. In this one, I think I am quite adament, that MAN HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH REDEMPTION. But man does have a part to play in the salvation of his own soul. It is so because God demands it. He created man to be so, then He saved man from death and destruction, just so He, God, could demand love, obedience, but by a free choice. We do not need to love Him, to serve Him, to be a servant to the least of His. But, if we do not, then there are consequences as well. And you call that doing something for merit. it is a created obligation placed upon man by God, through His creating us, as human beings. Now you can quote the verse you so often use but incorrectly. Rom 9:21.

The whole idea destroys God's omniscience & omnipotence. Even those who resist His will do so according to His plan.

Yes, His plan was to do it freely, not by decree. He could have saved the world and Christ a lot of trouble if He started with Adam. It is at this very point that Calvinism falls. It is the magnitude of His omniscience and omnipotence that is so abundant in this plan.

Could, but didn't intend to.
You realy don't understand what I'm saying, it appears.
Free will is a myth. You are either serving The Lord, or you are servin' the devil.

First you have again conflated the two parts of salvation.
But I have shown that God intended to save, not just mankind, but the universe. If He did not, He is neither sovereign and surely not omnipotent. He would be willing to share authority with Satan, no less.
Free will may be a myth to you, because you blatantly deny God created man the way He did. It is the only reason for our existance. If not for that, we are but objects, we have no soul, no reason. We are even worse than animals. We become stones, trees, or any other object that exist in this creation. It is not that this is wrong or not an option. It just is not scripture.
And explain to me, why if we are serving God or Satan, that this is not free will? God did not elect any man to either serve Him or Satan. He died and saved mankind, so man could fulfil his created mandate, to be in union freely. Adam again. You whole view needs revision starting with Adam. But if you want to hold to election or predestination of the believer, it must start with Adam. You will need to show that God did not in fact give Adam an option nor an ultimatum.

Not at all. You again assume incorrectly. All men will rise, but not all will rise to glory.

Ah, so I was right in the first place, But now it is even more confusing. You have already stated that Christ only died for the elect, only those IN Christ. These are the only ones to have eternal life.

Some rise to judgement.
Acts17:31

And I can give you possibly 10 more. But, could you please explain, just how these will rise for judgement. You deny that Christ gave life to mankind, now you have everyone rising from the dead. Is there some other means that God can raise the dead, other than through Christ? If you can explain that with a yes, then my next question will be. Why, oh, why, Did Christ need to die for the elect to give them eternal life when there was some other means availble to God?
This is contingent also on your definition and explanation of the Incarnation. These two things should align in your theology.

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

This I do not understand in light of your theology to this point. This is probably what needs to be explained in the above questions I just gave to you..

Let's read it together:
18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
"All" or "many"? Tell me precisely.

They have the same meaning because each is an equation. But maybe for your theology, you better ignore the first and ONLY take the second. Then explain to me which men did not die in Adam, if many mean some, since you want some IN Christ. Why would God retain life in some human beings and they subject only the elect to death first, before they actually recieve life. Kinda strange.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben,

Perhaps I did not say that well; all are redeemed, but faithlessness rejects that redemption. I think we still will disagree on this --- that's OK, it's not a major point.

We probably will disagree, but man cannot reject redemption. Redemption is from the condemnation of Adam, Life, immortality. it matters not what man will do, He WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
However, the second Work of Christ on the Cross is the atonement. He propitated the sins of the world because even though man will have eternal life, He also wanted union in this life. Since sin and God do not mix, man needed a way that He could be reconciled to God in this life, still a sinner. Thus man can reject the call to union with Him, which can only be entered upon repentance and continual confession of sin. We are saved through our faith. The spiritual covenant we made with God, to forsake sin. To work with Him to be transformed into His Image and work to resist sin. But when we do, repentance, confession keeps us reconciled to God.

Redemption" is listed equal to "sanctification", and "justification" and "righteousness", in places like Rom3:24, and 1Cor1:30. In Rom3:24, we are "justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" --- clearly not all are "justified", but only those who believe. That's all I mean when I say "redemption is rejectable".

yes, but redemption of our souls. or justified by faith. They have the same meaning, but in Scripture, only the context will tell you if it is refering to Christ's work on the Cross, the saving of mankind, or the saving of our individual souls.
Rom 3:24 is mankind. I Cor 1:30 the phrase IN Christ immediately puts this in the salvation of ones soul, saved through faith.

Those who refuse to believe and receive Jesus, don't stay redeemed.

Yes, that is true, but it refers to the faith, the union and communion through faith, the salvation of our person, or souls. It is not refering to mankind, the world, the universe, creation.
Just an added note: This is also the difference between the two death, both of which were overcome by Christ on the Cross. Physical by His resurrection, spiritual by the atonement.

 

[cygnusx1]

Have you ever read Ezk18? It speaks of a righteous man turning from righteousness and towards wickedness, so that he will die; and that a wicked man can turn towards righteousness, and he will live.

Sure , as a general rule scripture is very clear , you reap what you sow , you get what you pay for .......

.....but there is also another "law" , it's called Grace ; you get what you don't deserve , and you don't get what you do deserve

God's perspective is clear in verse 24: "I (God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live."

sure , and there are times when God does delight in the death of sinners ....... or do you only quote a scripture that supports your own position ?

There's no way that verse works with "sovereignly-granted-repentance". Repentance flows in direction, from man-to-God --- not God-to-man.

It works just fine ben , and all readers will take care and notice how you have avoided the scriptures presented to you by brother Rick ;


Originally Posted by RickOtto
Repentance IS a gift!!!


Ac 5:31 - Show Context Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Ac 11:18 - Show Context When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
2Co 7:9 - Show Context Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
Ro 2:4 - Show Context Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
2Ti 2:25 - Show Context In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, that is absolutely correct, every single human being that ever lived.

Can you show me your scrps fer that'n?
It sounds like tho He paid, you might have to pay too!
And I get accused of wanting it two different ways!

All were given to Him. John 6:39 specifically spells that out.

It does?!
Joh 6:39 - Show Context And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. I don't see where it specificaly spells out alll men were placed in Christ". I thought it was supposed to be a "remnant".

Ro 9:27 - Show Context Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:....Isreal being a shadow-type of the church:
Ro 11:5 - Show Context Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

But you have yet to answer the texts that Christ redeemed the world, all things, which includes not just mankind, but every tree and rock in His Creation.

Well isn't that obviously a physycal redemption... like "renovation"? I mean after all, trees & rocks don't need saving from their sins.

You ignore texts that speak explicitely against your view.

I AM sorry. This is the first I've heard of this. It realy concerns me, because oddly enough, it happens to me all the time. I figured it was par for the course, business as usual, the lay of the land, the cost of doin' business,... you get my drift.
I promise to do better!

And you are right that this was made before the foundations of the earth. Christ would be the Savior, the Redeemer of the created ORDER. The entire universe felt the condemnation of Adam. The universe fell under the power of death and sin, not just man.

Did Einstein get the memo? (sorry)

that is your misunderstanding of Scripture. You have neither shown that this has ever been a view in Christianity.

What, Limited Atonement? Sure it was. It was one of many things that got shoved aside in the free for all the dozens of other heresies were keepin' 'dust in the air' about from early on.

It comes on the scene in accepted doctrine in the 16th century, but is not, has not even been formerly clarified by all of those who use the term election as being believers predestined.

Of course not by all of them. That's why it is called "Reform".

When the Reformed get it together, then we can look at the Church Fathers, to see if you align with how it has been understood.

Is this a form of "My Dad is bigger than your Dad?"
In my neighborhood they'd say,"My dad can beat up your dad." and the other kid would say,"What'll that cost me?"

Some time back in another post to Cygnus I asked Him to present a theological understanding of the Incarnation in the Reformed perspective. So, far no one has answered that question.

Well, ya gotta admit, you do have a charming, offhanded way of handing out difficult assignments without offering anything comprable in return except these sophisticated & well rehearsed mini-rants on Reform obtuseness.

It is very obvious the Reformed do not accept the definition as given and explained in the Council of Ephesus which would be understandable, but I have never read, heard one developed by the Calvinists that supports their theology relative to the predestination of believers.

The definition of what, predestination? You gotta be kidding. But I suggest only visiting the Fathers of The Reformation for limited information. I am Calvinist only on the 5 Points, and differ sharply on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

I only say that, so that you might take a look at trying to answer that question.

I know it's aa kinda obscure reference, but see what ya can make of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

Since this in Scripture deals with faith, with man's cooperative covenantal union with Christ, it would be moot to even speak about it since man, from your vantage point is still dead.

I don't understand why. I like to speak about it. Why moot?

Christ gave life to mankind, so that man could fulfil the created mandate for his being created.

"Christ gave life to mankind"
Yes, not just to Jews only. In that sense, He gave life to all mankind.

Predestination falls flat in the very first chapter of Genesis, when we have adam falling out of predestination of a believer.

So what? Everybody did that ('cause we were all "in him"). You tryin' to tell me an omniscient God was surprised? Only the elect are placed "in Christ", not every one who was in Adam is placed in Christ. Judas was not placed in Christ and Jesus knew it:
Joh 6:70 - Show Context Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

He was more IN Christ than any man since. Yet He was not held IN Christ. Because He died, it precluded God ever having an eternal union with man.

Well, not completely ever. There was a way....

Christ the Creator, the sustainer of LIFE, is the ONLY one that can give LIFE back to a mortal creature. He did that through the Incarnation.

Don't forget the crucifixion & the resurrection!
And He only gave spiritual life thru these. Physical life is given thru creation itself. Creatures. Our family.

Physical LIFE is not given by faith

.
Ok.

Show anywhere in scripture that faith generates anything more than a spiritual union or communion with God.

Why?

Which is the universe, the World, all things in heaven and on earth. Which human beings do not exist in either heaven or earth? How can there be a limitation.

By Sovereign decree.

Do you know something that science has yet not revealed in all of our space probes, that there is some part of creation that is not contained in heaven or earth.

No, why do you ask?

Losing even one human being to death, makes God a failure

Ok, but I don't count them as God's loss. I don't see God as possible of loss in this sense. He is almighty. Nothing exists, or happens in existence unless He has not only allowed it, but predetermined it. Even mankind's worst act... Theicide.
Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

and He must share His sovereign power with Satan, who would still have dominion through the power of death and sin, at least to even one human being.

Did people suddenly stop dying? What are ya sayin' here?

If He can save all but one, what king of sovereign power is that?

Wrong.
AGAIN, could've, but wouldn't've! Capice?

No, He saved every single human being from the fall

.
Yet many go to hell, so many saved are not saved at all.

It has nothing to do with man but with who is God and Sovereign.

Exactly. I say God is, & you say your will is free of His sovereignity. Ok.

That is why man has nothing to do with redemption.

You mean excepting of course, the excercise of his free will.

This is what Paul spends almost 3 chapters on in Romans 9-11. That is why God consigned all to death through our nature, because God had the plan already made that Christ could assume that human nature and restore it to LIFE. He could defeat Satan, and HAS.

Amen! Go Jesus!

And why would God take back the death and resurrection of Christ and give power and glory to Satan?

I don't think He would!

Everything God does is without repentance.

...well, scrip says "His gifts" are without repentence, so you may be oversimplifying, or overgeneralizing for some quibblers out there, but I get your drift.

But respective of faith, He is also without repentance, but since it is a mutual agreement that must be met by man as well,

BOING! Reality Check, please. Didn't you just get finished tellin' me man has nuttin' ta do wid it???

it is ALWAYS man that reneges on that agreement, thus makes it null and void. But that is the whole reason Christ redeemed mankind so God could be merciful and just and give the choice of their eternal abode

,
Wait just a minute!! Exactly HOW is it merciful to let one of your precious critters risk damnation?

with God or absent from Him, but all men will live eternally. All men have worth, all men bear God's Image. You may see some of mankind as worthless, but God does not.

He sees some as deserving hell.
Not exactly worthless, but not an accounting entry in the positive values column, either. More like a negative worth, wouldn't you say?

He was not willing to permit any of His creation to be subjected eternally under Satan.

Aren't some anyway? Satan's more powerful than God?

First this is off topic again because it deals with faith, and not redemption.

They are inextricably linked.

I fully understand why Calvinists need to redefine what a gift means.

Tell me which one did. I have only heard Arminians do it. As if every gift can be rejected before it is recieved. As if it isn't realy yours, because if you don't eat yer beans, it'll be taken back.

But explain to me then, why the Bible uses the word gift, if it does not mean a gift.

Brace yourself. Not all gifts are alike, say the gift of creation - life itself. No one waited for you to say, "Ok, I believe I will live!". Beyond that, a single word can mean different things depending on context. When scripture says "all Jerusalem went out to see him" (John The Baptist) it does not mean every living soul in Jerusalem. You push language to logical extremes by insisting on rigid word meanings that don't serve the context.

Whether one accepts a gift or not does not change the nature of the gift.

Sure it does! Not all gifts are returnable!

All it means we did not accept it. It does not even change the value of the gift, it does nothing to the gift or even the giver, except disappointment. He will simply offer it to someone else. Tough on you.

Disapointing Jesus is something, not nothing.
Tough on Jesus too, if He loves me like you say He does. Why'd he even let a screw up like me take a chance like that, didn't He know I always screw important stuff up?
Doesn't He love like a brother? I would sure shoot my brother in the knee if I saw him runnin' toward hell.

If it is bankrupt why do you insist on changing the meaning. If it is forced on you, like redempton it is not a gift.

Sure it is. I'm Paul on the road to Damascus with letters of execution for suspected Christians. I get knocked off my horse & blinded for three days. That ain't force? It sure was mercy!

Man being created is not a gift. It is a direct plan of God.

Yiou don't count livin' a gift of God???
What, did He owe you?

Did man have a choice in his creation? Did man have a choice in how he was created? Man does not have a choice in his redemption either, because it does not either depend on man, nor is it only about man.

That's what I been tryin' to tell ya, but ya turn around & hinge it on free will.

But when it comes to Christ offering the salvation of our souls, that is a gift He gives to us to make a decision on.

Either He gives us a decision, or He gives us a gift. Which is it?

He does not force the gift.

Tell it to Paul.

He created us for a purpose which is to glorify Him but freely.

Freely? You mean like we don't owe it? Like it was ours & we hand it over undeserved? Freely?

How can man glorify God if God forced the gift of union and communion with God.

By sovereign predeterminate council.

This is where you leave all revelation in your view of reformed faith. You are denying the purpose of man/s existance, the fact God created you in His Image to specifically perform A PURPOSE for Him.

Nuh, uh.

You were created to make the choice and then honor it.

Making the choice is performing the purpose and what, no matter which choice, He is glorified, or can the creation defy and leave frustrated, its creator?

God will hold you responsible for it.

I never denied it.

Sorry, this too much diatribe. I'm gonna have to let the rest of your post go.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Can you show me your scrps fer that'n?
It sounds like tho He paid, you might have to pay too!
And I get accused of wanting it two different ways!

The reason you don't understand what I am explaining is because you cannot see outside of the box that conflates them in your view.
I have given you the scripture already. You just deny it because you think it refers to those who believe. Christ did not save your soul on the Cross. That is probably a better way to say it so you might get the a grasp on the difference between what Christ did not the Cross and what each individual must do, being a created human being in God's image and created for a purpose.
Simply, Christ overcame the fall, and restored mankind to the purpose of our existance. You have Christ overcoming the creation, and leaving the fall completely out of your theology.
But if you still need them all bunched up, I can give you all the texts that support the Incarnation of Christ.

It does?!
Joh 6:39 - Show Context And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. I don't see where it specificaly spells out all men were placed in Christ". I thought it was supposed to be a "remnant".

Read the next verse. Of those who are raised, have eternal life, those that SEE AND BELIEVE WILL be raised but will have everlasting life. You are also confusing the phrase, "IN CHRIST" with all mankind being made alive by Christ. These are not saying the same thing. One needs to have life, immortality, before one can even be IN Christ. That is why Christ came in the first place. To make us alive, so that we can have an eternal existance, which God meant with creating man. Adam was death, mortality, dust to dust. If man is not given life, he is dust. Very simple.

supposed to be a "remnant".
Ro 9:27 - Show Context Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:....Isreal being a shadow-type of the church:
Ro 11:5 - Show Context Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

He is contrasting the flesh with faith. The remnant is faith. But to have even a remnant of faith, mankind, or all the flesh must be saved. They are being saved from the fall. So that man could do what he was created to do before the fall. That is why Paul sums up later that all flesh were consigned to disobedience just so they all could be shown mercy.
In order to have any beleive, you must have human beings that are capable of having eternal life, or everything just ends in death. That is what Paul sums up here and then reiterates it beautifully in I Cor 15. Faith, believe does not give life. It gives spiritual life, but not immortality. Unless man has immortality, Christ overcoming Adam and mortality, anything and everything you say about faith is moot, useless, meaningless. We all still die, and become dust.

Well isn't that obviously a physycal redemption... like "renovation"? I mean after all, trees & rocks don't need saving from their sins.

Yes, but what I just explained to you. without that life, sin is irrelevant. We will just die and return to dust. What does it matter that dust sinned. Under Adam, the judgment of Adam, mankind was condemned to death, dust to dust. That we sinned ourselves, even if we would have been perfect in our living in that mortal state, we would still die, dust to dust. Mankind needed life. Life is paramount. That is what Christ accomplished, first of all, on the Cross. Now, if man has life, then sin becomes relevant. It has consequences. We will stand in judgement now for our sins. But, Christ in His atonement, propitiated the sins of the world. Why, because God wanted to have union with His creatures, whom He saved from death, in this life as well. But sin and God do not mix. So by believing, having faith, we repent, seek forgiveness of our sins, so that we can enter into Christ. We can begin that eternal life with Christ here and now through the forgiveness of sins. That is also why constant repentance, confession is needed to remain reconciled to God.
The eternal life of the unbeleiver also begins. If he never believes, he is already condemned, this time for His sins because no man is under Adam, because he rejected the salvation offered to every man. He will have eternal life apart from God.
But God does not permit Satan to have any power through death and sin. God was not willing to permit creation to succumb to death. He created it all to be eternal. Life shared with Him.

Of course not by all of them. That's why it is called "Reform".

You gave a lot of non substantive answers. If you have not reply, just say so.
The above is a reply to a question that the reformers have not developed a view of the Incarnation. And you say they are still in "reform". When will the reformed end. When will you actually know what the Bible actually says, and you don't need to continue to reform? How do you even know what Christianity might be, how to live the life of a Christian, when it is under constant reform? Did Christ actually say that we need to reform the "ALL TRUTH" that He gave once for all? Must have missed that text.

Well, ya gotta admit, you do have a charming, offhanded way of handing out difficult assignments without offering anything comprable in return except these sophisticated & well rehearsed mini-rants on Reform obtuseness.

I just gave to you the historical understanding of the Incarnation for the second time to you, but several times in this thread alone. Instead of some nonsensical, non-substantive answer give it some thought. Can you even theologically align your view within itself.

The definition of what, predestination? You gotta be kidding. But I suggest only visiting the Fathers of The Reformation for limited information. I am Calvinist only on the 5 Points, and differ sharply on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

That was an obtuse answer.
You lack nothing in the definition of predestination, But the Reformed, as far as I know, have never given a definition of the Incarnation that fits their doctrine of predestination. That is what I also mean be aligning your view within itself.
It may have changed in the last 50 -100 years, but following the reformation, most reformers and denominations that sprung up, all stated that they accepted the defintions of the first four Ecumenical Councils. But accepting them and understanding them seems to be quite different today. Predestination, denies, by definition, the historical definition of the Incarnation. The fact that you are strongly disagreeing with the explaination I am giving to you, speaks volumes in that respect. So, give it some thought and explain a view of the Incarnation, or state that It is not a view that reformers or you in particular even adhere to at all.
Your link confirms what I am saying, Nothing about predestination relative to the Incarnation. Do you believe in the Incarnation at all?

I don't understand why. I like to speak about it. Why moot?

I have been all during this exchange. However, if Christ did not raise all mankind, every human being, He first of all is not the victor over death and Satan. Satan still has the power and authority through death. If Christ did not raise all of mankind through the Incarnation, then He raised none. He lost all to Satan and death. Mankind will still be under the condemnation of Adam, death, mortality.
In order to even speak of faith, of union and communion with God in any capacity, which is the purpose of our existance, why and how we were created, we need to overcome the fall. The fall precluded this union and communion, the spiritual, eternal aspect of God creating man. So, unless Christ is indeed the Second Adam, then all is moot. That is clearly described in I Cor 15 where Paul keeps emphasizing the resurrection as the lynchpin of all of salvation. All the faith in the world is not going to bring you back to life, immortality. You will still die under the condemnation of Adam.

"Christ gave life to mankind"
Yes, not just to Jews only. In that sense, He gave life to all mankind.

No, God never gave life to the Jews. It was His purpose within His whole plan, from the very beginning, to give life to His created order, which died due to Adam. He will lose none through Adam, He will lose none to death. Satan will have authority and power over NO ONE.

My comment:
"Predestination falls flat in the very first chapter of Genesis, when we have adam falling out of predestination of a believer."
Your response:
So what? Everybody did that ('cause we were all "in him"). You tryin' to tell me an omniscient God was surprised? Only the elect are placed "in Christ", not every one who was in Adam is placed in Christ. Judas was not placed in Christ and Jesus knew it:

How can everyone. So you don't really believe in perseverance of the Saints. All beleivers can lose their salvation. Now, where did that change. Is this just another inconsistancy again?
First of all, no one is places in Christ. We are IN Christ through faith. However, all of the universe fell with Adam. That denies predestination, that God preserves those IN HIM. Granted Christ is not in the picture before the fall. But we cannot deny that Adam was with God, talked and walked with God. Yet God allowed him to leave that fold, that communion. Was Adam not predestined to be a beleiver, is what I am asking. If so, why did God permit him to fall from grace? Your theology does not account for it, or at least you have not explained how it might.

Well, not completely ever. There was a way....

Yes, the Second Adam reversed the first Adam. But you have been vigorously denying that it even occured. This gets to the definition of the Incarnation again. Do you have an explanation that accounts for predestination within the Incarnation?

My comment:
"Christ the Creator, the sustainer of LIFE, is the ONLY one that can give LIFE back to a mortal creature. He did that through the Incarnation."
Your response:
Don't forget the crucifixion & the resurrection!
And He only gave spiritual life thru these. Physical life is given thru creation itself. Creatures. Our family.

That is the same thing, Otto. Do you understand that? He gave physical life. Spiritual life is through the atonement. Atonement does not require a resurrection.
From this, I assume, you think Adam was created mortal. If so, then the fall never happened. Or that God created Adam with a nature, mortal, that was already dead. Adam, or mankind was never intended by God to be eternal in the first place. Man was not really created in God's Image because God created man to simply die and cease to exist. More is coming to light here on your interpretation. If mortal is life, what is immortality then?
This goes right back to the Incarnation. Why would Christ need to assume our human natures, as it is totally irrelevant to your view which is a good reason none was ever developed. Sin is the only part that seems relevant and man was created to sin. Makes God the author of sin as well. He did not cause man to sin even, but made him to sin.
Where does it say, that faith grants a physcial life? Why are the dead raised in the last day. You just denied your view that the dead are raised in the last day. By what means? Faith?

My comment: "Which is the universe, the World, all things in heaven and on earth. Which human beings do not exist in either heaven or earth? How can there be a limitation."
Your response:
By Sovereign decree. {/quote] So who are those human beings?
Or are you saying that one text in scripture by your interpretation, overturns all of revelation. All the rest of the Bible is irrelevant because by decree God overturn everything He revealed dealing with the creation of man, the fall of man, redemption from the fall, and the restoration to union and communion, the purpose of creating the universe. And then for what reason. I see nothing in scripture or any other revelation, that God in fact did this, and if He did, any other revelation as to why.
Why even tell any creature anything. It is all irrelevant to the creature what God will do. What would it concern me what God will do with me since I am just an object, a part of some created order that is going through some decreed actions of which I am irrelevant. Now, it may be that way, but it seems to me, that the Revelation we received, says just the very opposite.

My comment: Do you know something that science has yet not revealed in all of our space probes, that there is some part of creation that is not contained in heaven or earth.
Your response:
No, why do you ask?

Because you deny the verses that say Christ redeemed the World. You say only the elect. So I am assuming that all other creatures must live in some other created order which does not come under the domain of Christ. in order that the elect equal all of the created order (all things in heaven and earth). How do you limit that definition?

Losing even one human being to death, makes God a failure
Ok, but I don't count them as God's loss. I don't see God as possible of loss in this sense. He is almighty. Nothing exists, or happens in existence unless He has not only allowed it, but predetermined it. Even mankind's worst act... Theicide.

I know. But hardly scriptural. What you are saying from my perspective, is that God in His almighty power has agreed with Satan that Satan will share in that power and authority. Satan rules and has power over death. It is his signature power. So, all those non-elect, that are dying will simply return to dust, respective of mankind, the universe will continue to die and authority is shared by God with Satan.
You are saying, if you believe man was created in God's Image, a unique creature, unlike any other He created, specifically to be eternal and in union with Him, that God is willing to permit these creatures to be destroyed by death and submit them to the power of the devil.
The Bible, as far as I know, clearly says Christ is the victor over death. How can He be a victor over death, when by your view, it does not matter. He will share that power with Satan. Christ being raised from the dead, is limited in its effect. He really is not the sustainer or the provider of life to all. He really has not overcome the grave, for some, yes, the elect, but no other. He was not able to save all, He lost many to death and Satan.

Cont in part II,

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,
Cont....... Part II

Ac 2:23 - Show Context Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Just how does this support your view? I don't see any relevance to what we are speaking about.

and He must share His sovereign power with Satan, who would still have dominion through the power of death and sin, at least to even one human being.
Did people suddenly stop dying? What are ya sayin' here?

Theologically, we have never died permanently through Adam. In Gen 3:15 God gives the first promise of delieverance from the condemnation He will spell out to both Eve and Adam in the next verses. Adam is told that man will return to dust. He created us from dust, we shall return to dust. But that physical death was a mercy judgement on the part of God to man. God already knew that Christ would eventually enter history and by His Incarnation, asuming that fallen nature of Adam, destined to permanent death, to raise it again, to life, to immortality. God worked throughout history, right from the beginning, AS IF THE FALL HAD NEVER HAPPENED. Death, our physical death permitted Christ to raise it to life, without the fallen flesh, and we die to destroy that flesh. We are raised incorruptible.
Christ did not lose a single human being to death. ALL shall be raised in the last day,

Wrong.
AGAIN, could've, but wouldn't've! Capice?

So, you want to be that emphatic that Christ really is not sovereign. He is unable to conquer death. He only did for some, but was willing that Satan have power and authority over the rest.
I'm glad that He did save all. He actually is omnipotent, even over Satan and death.

Yet many go to hell, so many saved are not saved at all.

Hardly. it is the only REASON that hell exists. Without the redemptive Work of Christ on the Cross, there is no hell. In your view, the elect might have been saved, all will go to heaven, but you clearly state that all the rest are in Adam still. If in Adam, they are dead. They were already condemned to death through Adam, See Gen 3:19. Explain to me just how dust will stand in judgement and go to hell?
Now, I know you stated that all shall rise on the last day, but you have not shown just how all these piles of dust in the grave permits them to stand in judgement as living beings. You might answer this with your explanation on the Incarnation. We'll reserve further comment.

Exactly. I say God is, & you say your will is free of His sovereignity. Ok.

See all the above comments. Where have I even hinted that man, any man, has the ability by free will to give himself, life, immortality? It is your misunderstanding of the whole scriptural explanation of the relationship of God with man, His most prized created being.

My Comment: That is why man has nothing to do with redemption.
Your response:
You mean excepting of course, the excercise of his free will.

See above.
Scripture also uses these terms relative to our faith, our being saved through that faith. it is referencing the justification by faith, the redemption of our souls. which is totally separate from what we are discussing here. But it it true that you are conflating these two separate events.

My comment: This is what Paul spends almost 3 chapters on in Romans 9-11. That is why God consigned all to death through our nature, because God had the plan already made that Christ could assume that human nature and restore it to LIFE. He could defeat Satan, and HAS.
Your response;
Amen! Go Jesus!

And just on what basis could you even agree with that statement? In this whole discourse you are adament that Christ did not in the least accomplish what that statement states. So, I will assign it to a total misunderstanding

My comment:And why would God take back the death and resurrection of Christ and give power and glory to Satan?
Your response;
I don't think He would!

Again, forked mouth or total misunderstanding. It is not a matter of "I don't think so" to you being above emphatic that God is willing to share authority with Satan, let alone giving some back. Under the circumstances, I see it as a real possibility. Since God does not consider His creatures of value, even though they bear His Image, that He chose not to redeem some, that those He did redeem, He might just as easily cast off. What would prevent Him from doing so. You agreed His is Sovereign, who are we to tell Him otherwise, right?

BOING! Reality Check, please. Didn't you just get finished tellin' me man has nuttin' ta do wid it???

Due to your conflating redemption from the fall, and the salvation of ones individual soul. Two different events.

Wait just a minute!! Exactly HOW is it merciful to let one of your precious critters risk damnation?

Well, there is only one other option. God could have left all to remain under the condemnation of Adam. We would have lived a while, died and ceased to exist. Nothingness.
God was not willing to give that power to Satan. He is Sovereign you know. He created man free, so He could have union with a creature that returned the love back to Him. He was not interested in creating an object to manipulate.
But being free also has responsibilities and thus God gives consequences. But hell is not destruction. It is not being In Christ or with God in the same sense that believers will inherit the promise of eternal life shared with HIM. God will still love those creatures. They will be incapable of returning that love.

Aren't some anyway? Satan's more powerful than God?

By your view, and I can understand why you would think so.

My comment: First this is off topic again because it deals with faith, and not redemption.
Your response:
They are inextricably linked.

Linked, but it is not the topic we are discussing. The creation of man is linked also, so is the fall. But we are dealing specifically with the redemption of the universe. The Incarnation of Christ, assuming our fallen natures to redeem them, to grant immortality to human beings and the universe as well. It makes it possible to be restored to the purpose of our existance, why we were created, even without the fall.

Tell me which one did. I have only heard Arminians do it. As if every gift can be rejected before it is recieved. As if it isn't realy yours, because if you don't eat yer beans, it'll be taken back.

That is because you equate Christ's redemptive work which is a gift, but a gift to the universe, to the created order which cannot be reneged or taken back. Its purpose was to enable mankind to fulfil the created purpose of being in union with God for and etenity. The salvation of our souls is our choice. A gift offered and can be rejected. It can be rejected as easily as Adam did. It can be repented of as well, as long as you live.
Your conflating the two again means man can reject His immortality and Christ's propitiation. He cannot, these are completed events. But man also had nothing to do with this event, only to what they event restored man to, his ability to be in communion with God. All men are called. All men will give an active choice and be judged on the measure in which they received that grace.

Brace yourself. Not all gifts are alike, say the gift of creation - life itself. No one waited for you to say, "Ok, I believe I will live!". Beyond that, a single word can mean different things depending on context. When scripture says "all Jerusalem went out to see him" (John The Baptist) it does not mean every living soul in Jerusalem. You push language to logical extremes by insisting on rigid word meanings that don't serve the context.

And just how is the 'All Jeruselem" have anything to do with the definition of the word gift.
Also, "all Jeruselem" is not referencing mankind, or the Work of Christ on the Cross, or the Incarnation definition. Context, Context, Context. you cannot take a meaning of irrelevant uses of the same word in different context and apply that context to the context which you don't agree with. Nifty, but not acceptable.

Sure it does! Not all gifts are returnable

But returning it or rejecting a gift does not change the gift. Simpy saying one is not returnable, does not change the gift.

Disapointing Jesus is something, not nothing.
Tough on Jesus too, if He loves me like you say He does. Why'd he even let a screw up like me take a chance like that, didn't He know I always screw important stuff up?
Doesn't He love like a brother? I would sure shoot my brother in the knee if I saw him runnin' toward hell.

But God took that risk by creating you free. He did not want a creature decreed to love, or designed to only love. He wanted communion with His Creature, freely given. That is true love. He loves all His creatures, that is why He was not willing to lose any to Adam to death, to the power of the devil. He will continue to love and provide for all of His creatures, even those in Hell. They still are creatures, they still bear His image, even though they will live apart from true union and communion.

Sure it is. I'm Paul on the road to Damascus with letters of execution for suspected Christians. I get knocked off my horse & blinded for three days. That ain't force? It sure was mercy!

NO, that is leading. Paul was not forced to accept. You view of man's will seems to be more in line with others who oppose free will, but say man does not have autonomus will. They are not the same and man does not have autonomous will, never had, was not created with one. But he does have a will that is separate from the will of God. If not, there can be no responsibility. No moral agency and surely no judgement. Man is incapalbe of independent judgement and decision. He is simply following a computer programmed path. It is inevitable.

Yiou don't count livin' a gift of God???
What, did He owe you?

I have nothing to do with my creation as a creature. If you were not in existance would you think that He owned you life and a created existance?

My Commentid man have a choice in his creation? Did man have a choice in how he was created? Man does not have a choice in his redemption either, because it does not either depend on man, nor is it only about man.
Your response:
That's what I been tryin' to tell ya, but ya turn around & hinge it on free will.[/quote}
But, predestination turns all of this on its ear. Man was created specifically with a free will, to enable him to freely love and return the love of His creator. God did not create us to be His tool or object and love is created aspect, rather than a choice. But redemption here is of creation, of mankind, not the salvation of our souls which brings us back to the created order and purpose of man in creation, to freely love His creator. Predestination precludes any active part of man as a creature. If we exist as part of decrees, we move only through decrees, then man is not an free moral agent. God would be unjust to and He would fail to be God, in judging a creature that is doing what He decreed of Him. God, I suppose, can judge Himself, but they He is not really God, as there must be some higher authority than Himself to which He is accounting.

Either He gives us a decision, or He gives us a gift. Which is it?

He does both. He offers us a gift, and we can accept or reject that offer of union and communion. We will be held accountable for that gift. That is the whole purpose of revelation. God revealing to us His purpose, so that we can freely chose to live IN Him, or we can reject that great offer. What is so hard about understanding that?

My comment: He does not force the gift.
Your response:
Tell it to Paul.

Paul, much later still believed that He could reject his faith. He warns others of that very thing happening. But, evne in this instance, Paul was not forced. Only in your total misunderstanding can this even be an option. Predestination does great harm to the whole of revelation.

my comment: How can man glorify God if God forced the gift of union and communion with God.
Your response:
By sovereign predeterminate council.

That is your interpretation, but then God is glorifying Himself. Does God need glorifying. He needed some creature to "pat himself on the back" so to speak. So man becomes that machanical patter?
I thought God created man to be in communion with Him. To interact with Him. Both God and Adam were working together in this world to bring all things to God in a living sacrifice. Not a contrived, mechanical, meaningless tool or object.
Obviously you do not believe man was created in His Image either. How could a creator destroy part of His created order and a creature that bears Him imprint. Not like a tree or animal even, but a human being, possess a soul. Your view leaves much to be desired theologically in understanding our relationship with God.

Making the choice is performing the purpose and what, no matter which choice, He is glorified, or can the creation defy and leave frustrated, its creator?

Wow, so I can actually reject God, and that will glorify Him. So, actually whether I accept Him, or reject Him I can glorify Him and will be saved. It all hinges on the fact that God decreed some to have this strange union with Him that could either accept or reject Him, just so God does not get frustrated? All others simply end in dust untill you can resolve the raising of the dead. Some God.

my comment: God will hold you responsible for it.
Your response:
I never denied it.

Wth your view, it matters not anyway. A strange concept that God will punish those who are glorifying Him by rejecting Him.
One of those strange twist that man is acting on decrees and God will hold him responsible for doing the will that God actually does, not man aligning his will with that of God's will. God punishes himself for not, I guess, living up to His High standards. How do you explain this.
Man is responsible, but God does all the action through him?

Sorry, this too much diatribe. I'm gonna have to let the rest of your post go.

When it gets tough, back out. You don't understand your view well enough to defend it? You don't know how your view can refute what I am explaining to you?

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't have as much time as you seem to.
Time to straighten out distortions like this:

"Man is responsible, but God does all the action through him?"

No. Man does by wicked hands(evil motive) what God planned for good.

Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

A strange concept that God will punish those who are glorifying Him by rejecting Him.

Allow me to familiarize you with the classic example, Pharoah:
Rom9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

And since I support Total Sovereignity, this has to be somewhat plain contentiousness:

So, you want to be that emphatic that Christ really is not sovereign.

And that discourages me.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

No. Man does by wicked hands(evil motive) what God planned for good.
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Your relating to events, not individual choices. You have God's providence confused with man's free choice. These are not the same thing. No, doubt God uses evil, even evil men, the Bible gives several examples.
But no place does it ever say that God overruled the will and desire of man. He leads men, through His providential work, but God, cannot go against His own sovereign will in that he created man with a free will.

My comment: A strange concept that God will punish those who are glorifying Him by rejecting Him.
Your response.
Allow me to familiarize you with the classic example, Pharoah:
Rom9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

There is a vast difference in God glorifying Himself and God showing His power and might through a man like Pharoah. Pharaoh had already rejected God as earlier verses attest. God was here using a wicked man to show His power. He was not using Pharaoh to glorify Himself.

And since I support Total Sovereignity, this has to be somewhat plain contentiousness:

You say so, I understand. But your explanation and theology says otherwise. Here you are denying God's image in man and you quote verses that say we should not question what God has done. Then just accept the fact that He created you with a free will. He says He did, so why are you objecting?

My comment: So, you want to be that emphatic that Christ really is not sovereign.
Your response:
And that discourages me.

You keep taking away His sovereign power. You don't accept that He created all men with His Image, that He was not willing to permit any to be destroyed by death. You want Him to share power and authority with Satan by giving Satan the power over man, through death. Maybe the better question is, what do you understand as Sovereign?
Are you thinking through how you can align predestination with the Incarnation? You have not answered yet either whether you even accept the Incarnation. Maybe you don't need to align it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Define "free will", RG.

What does it mean, what does it NOT mean?

 

[Rightglory]

Nobdysfool,

Define "free will", RG.
What does it mean, what does it NOT mean?

Man was created with a rational soul, the power of reason. The ability to make choices based on facts, influences, passions, determinations, deliberations, with possibilities and alternatives.
It is not autonomous, a will outside of influence, nor of necessity or force.

 

[nobdysfool]

Nobdysfool,


Man was created with a rational soul, the power of reason. The ability to make choices based on facts, influences, passions, determinations, deliberations, with possibilities and alternatives.

I don't think any one here would find fault with that statement. None of the Calvinists would, I know that.

It is not autonomous, a will outside of influence, nor of necessity or force.

OK, let me see if I understood this statement. Man's will is not autonomous, not outside of influence (meaning that it can be influenced), and not a will of necessity (not sure what you mean here), and not a will that is forced, which I assume you mean "coerced". Am I right?

 

[Rightglory]

Nobdysfool,

I don't think any one here would find fault with that statement. None of the Calvinists would, I know that.

However, your theology and explanations deny its existance. Man does not have it, then not have it, depending on some circumstances. It is innate, it is of our human essence. It is why we are even called human beings, versus some species of animal or a plant.
It is part of the soul, the divine nature, the Image of God in each and everyone of us.

OK, let me see if I understood this statement. Man's will is not autonomous, not outside of influence (meaning that it can be influenced), and not a will of necessity (not sure what you mean here), and not a will that is forced, which I assume you mean "coerced". Am I right?

It is ONLY influenced. It is the difference between free and autonomous. Can man create ex nihilo? Can man grant life? Can man do the things God can do? I have yet to understand why the term is even ever mentioned in thelogy dealing with man.
Necessity, The will has no choice but to do something of necessity, like animals using instinct. There is no reasoning, contemplative power, but reaction of necessity.
Forced is exactly what force means. It is not coercion. That is closer to necessity again. There is no force that actually moves or does the act of the will outside of man. Man is free, totally volitional in choice.

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think any one here would find fault with that statement. None of the Calvinists would, I know that.



OK, let me see if I understood this statement. Man's will is not autonomous, not outside of influence (meaning that it can be influenced), and not a will of necessity (not sure what you mean here), and not a will that is forced, which I assume you mean "coerced". Am I right?

good post bro , and now we will be told what we believe , ooops , it already happened!

If men spent more time concerned with asking what others believe and less with assuming , then the wheels would not get stuck ......... we might actually get off the start line one day soon ...