Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Italics yours. Wow. After you and @Clare73 berated me across a hundred posts that feelings lack epistemic import. Maybe the rule of conscience is of some value after all.A Calvinist's feeling of security comes from the witness of the Holy Spirit within him.
Let me try this:
1. If I believed that Jesus died for the sins of 100% of humanity, how does that make my choice any more valid?
2. Meanwhile, (since I don't believe #1 above), and if God gives me faith in his work, he also gives me faith in his choice of me.
All the above.I first have to ask you what you mean by "his work"? That Christ died on the cross and was resurrected or that Christ was punished for my personal sins?
Let me try this:
1. If I believed that Jesus died for the sins of 100% of humanity, how does that make my choice any more valid?
2. Meanwhile, (since I don't believe #1 above), and if God gives me faith in his work, he also gives me faith in his choice of me.
All the above.
In both of these paragraphs you seem to find it necessary to tie faith to certainty of personal applicability of the theory. I don't really get that.If you have gotten faith in that Jesus was punished for your sins, you still don't know Jesus actually was punished for you sins, so you trust in something you don't know is true. Well, you say God gave you the faith, isn't that proof enough? Are you sure God gave you saving faith? So unless you are 100% sure it's saving faith you have and you thereby know God elected you, you don't know Christ was punished for your sins either. So unless you do, it's having faith in something that is possibly true. Then there is no clear fact to trust in, just a probabilty. And here comes the inconsistency. Even you don't know Christ was punished for your sins, you trust in that he was, which you are "sure" of without any real ground, other than believing your faith is genuine.
To know Jesus was punished for you, you have to know you are elect. And the only way you can know you are elect is to know you have saving faith. The way to know you have saving faith is knowing you trust that Jesus died for you. And you know Jesus died for you since you have saving faith, which makes it circular.
Or you could believe Jesus in Mark 16:16 that says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Mark 16:16 is what Jesus commanded His disciples to preach just before He left them, and should rid the naval gazing caused by wondering if one was selected to election - which is caused by preferring Calvin''s fatalistic theology, which came 1500 years after Jesus, over Jesus's words. Even if Calvinist predestination is true (which I don't see), it cannot affect the truth in Mark 16:16!The only reason for 'not being 100% sure I am of the Elect', is the evidence of my works, and my sometimes rebellion against what I know to be right, and rebellion's accompanying reminder that I can be fooling myself. I have no doubt of the power of Christ's sacrifice.
In both of these paragraphs you seem to find it necessary to tie faith to certainty of personal applicability of the theory. I don't really get that.
How do you know Jesus was actually punished for your sins? YOUR soteriology. I don't think you would say that your faith is in your soteriology. The faith is not whether I am the one being saved, but in the Gospel. In what Christ has done, and in Christ himself. I am not the focus of that faith.
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise.Trusting in Christ is a clear object of faith because it's not depending on whether I'm elect or not.
The object of faith is what Christ has done. Not that he has done it for me personally.Trusting in what Christ has done, sure you can have faith in that, that you are of the elect that Christ was punished for and was raised for. I just think the object of faith gets blurry. The object gets dependant of my faith, rather of being something true without any correlation to whether I believe or not. That is one reason universal atonement is so important to me. Of course I believe it because it's true, but that's another thing.
I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"If you trust in that Christ was punished for sins and risen from the dead, and you mean that is the gospel, that too is a clear object of faith, since that is true whether we believe or not. It just doesn't get as strong object of faith, as the point of Christ bearing my personal sins on the cross
My clear point of faith to hang onto is that God will do what he set out to do. And my feeling on that is that "I love it, even if I am not of the elect." Granted, if I am not of the elect on that day, I won't love it, but for now, I can't help but love it. I trust God's choice far more than I trust mine.You don't seem to see a problem and maybe there is no real problem if you are confident in your relation to Christ. The problem I see is if you are in a time of doubt, then it's vital to have a clear point of faith to hang on to. There mustn't be any doubt that also my sins was on that cross. That's my thoughts.
One can avoid the Calvinist naval gazing and unbelief that they package as reverence. Be like the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) who Jesus acclaims and who immediately receives what he asks for by taking Jesus at his word. Jesus says in Mark 16:16 that those who belive and are baptized wiil be saved! For Mark Q: Receive the simplicity of God's word in Mark 16:16 and ditch the complex Calvinism that opposes such!I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"
faith per se, and independent of my faulty, small and weak understanding of the terms of the Gospel —again, the object being Christ himself, and not my concepts.
As you do not answer my rebuttal to your objection. . .One can avoid the Calvinist naval gazing and unbelief that they package as reverence. Be like the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) who Jesus acclaims and who immediately receives what he asks for by taking Jesus at his word. Jesus says in Mark 16:16 that those who belive and are baptized wiil be saved! For Mark Q: Receive the simplicity of God's word in Mark 16:16 and ditch the complex Calvinism that opposes such!
The following may sound harsh: Realize that Mark Quayle and Claire73 have posted thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinism (obviously they view it as their ministry to preach such). It is telling when they will not answer my strong objections! I take no response on their parts to concede my points! Thus rest assured, per Mark Quayle's and Claire73's not response per se, Calvinism is false doctine!
No, I give thoughful answers (reference posts 2589 and 2600) to your arguments. But your responses are dismissive and difficult to understand (2593 and 2601).As you do not answer my rebuttal to your objection. . .
Where is your thoughtful answer to mine:No, I give thoughful answers (reference posts 2589 and 2600) to your arguments. But your responses are dismissive and difficult to understand (2593 and 2601).
I addressed 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Peter 1:2 in Post 2600 and your response was "Strawman". Here is a another argument:Where is your thoughtful answer to mine:
God desires that all men be saved (1Ti 2:4), while choosing only some to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).
Likewise, all from divine foreknowledge to the secret will of God has been previously litigated with you.
I will not be relitigating them.
God's election of some (according to his decree before the foundations of the world, which is the substance of his foreknowledge, which he then executes in their election) is in his drawing them by the Holy Spirit, for their obedience and sprinkling with Christ's blood.I addressed 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Peter 1:2 in Post 2600. If you assume that God chooses who will be saved you can make an argument that 1 Peter 1:2 is addressing that.
1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
However, grammatically here, the foreknowledge (of his decree to do so) is the cause of the choosing them, not of the slain Lamb.If you know that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), then you will take a different view of this passage - as God, who desires all men be saved, is not predestining any men to eternal torment - as God is not duplicitous. I 1 Peter 1:2 is addressed to believers who qualify for redemption per Mark 16:16. I veiw the passage saying that "foreknowledge of God" here is speaking of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelations 13:8). Christ's blood makes provision for sanctification of the Spirit.
Ya' think?Litigate means to "to decide and settle in a court of law" - I am pretty sure that never happened.
That is an interpretation that requires ignoring the fact that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) as it has God predestinating some to eternal torment. Foreknowlege just means "awareness of something before it happens or exists" as we see in Romans 11:2. You use the word decree which is not in the text. With kings, decree typically refers to directives, assignments, and judgments. For example, Mark 16:16 decrees that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Of course, God decreed that Christ specifically be slain from the foundation of the world so that fallen man can be saved. But I don't see God decreeing that someone steal a candy bar from the 7-11 at such-and-such a time - which is the kind of thing Calvinists believe.God's election of some (according to his decree before the foundations of the world, which is the substance of his foreknowledge, which he then executes in their election) is in his drawing them by the Holy Spirit, for their obedience and sprinkling with Christ's blood.
Did you just litigate that?However, grammatically here, the foreknowledge (of his decree to do so) is the cause of the choosing them, not of the slain Lamb.
That is the plain reading of the text.That is an interpretation that requires ignoring the fact that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)
The NT's use of divine foreknowledge has been previously explicated.as it has God predestinating some to eternal torment. Foreknowlege just means
I give up, did I?Did you just litigate that?
The definition of foreknowledge in Websters and Oxford dictionary does not include any mention of decree."Foreknowledge" has been previously explicated.
Are those Greek dictionaries?The definition of foreknowledge in Websters and Oxford dictionary does not include any mention of decree.
Do you have a Greek dictionary or an expository dictionary of Biblical words? If not, what is your point?Are those Greek dictionaries?
Are they expository dictionaries of Biblical words?
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise.
The object of faith is what Christ has done. Not that he has done it for me personally.
I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"
faith per se, and independent of my faulty, small and weak understanding of the terms of the Gospel —again, the object being Christ himself, and not my concepts. But I don't argue that there are no concepts. Nor that there is no confidence as to whether I am saved, once I am saved.
My clear point of faith to hang onto is that God will do what he set out to do. And my feeling on that is that "I love it, even if I am not of the elect." Granted, if I am not of the elect on that day, I won't love it, but for now, I can't help but love it. I trust God's choice far more than I trust mine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?