predestination

Obviously this is not something that can be covered in a few words.

This is probably my final attempt at understanding all this. May the holy spirit allow those who want to understand, understand. For understanding does not come from our own methods, but because of God. He sees you searching, and knows that on your own you will NEVER find what you are looking for. This is where God's mercy comes in and HE helps us understand.

nobdysfool said:

You're mixing metaphors, Ben. The soil is the soil. It is either prepared for planting or not prepared. Good soil is good because it has been prepared, not by how it receives the seed. The soil does not differentiate between weeds and thorns, and good seed. The rocky and thorny soil was not prepared to receive the seed. The rocks and the thorns were ALREADY THERE. The soil is not responsible for preparing itself, it is prepared by another. This parable actually is a good teaching for PE, because it highlights the fact that the soil MUST be prepared by another, it cannot prepare itself. The free will-ers believe that they can choose whether or not to receive, as though the soil could decide to give preference to the seed over the thorns or rocks.

Click to expand...

I have heard this parable used many times, but one thing keeps bothering me. Catholics say it is the Popes and Priests that Sow the fields (humans). Calvinists say that God Himself chooses to sow some ground (humans) while leaving others undone (Ofcourse this means that God does His job halfheartedly). Godly based Common sense would then tell us that the humans are not the soil and the true sowers are not Popes or Another. Instead the Soil is OUR HEARTS the True Sowers our OURSELVES who TAKE IN these WORDS of priest preachers popes mutimedia, news, gospel, and USE THESE TOOLS to cultivate OUR HEARTS.

Where does God come in? provider of Wisdom and Mercy, giver of the tools, without which we would not be able to develope.

Where does the Son come in? Bringer of the Gospel and Salvation, giver of the seed, our role model on what should be happening when the ground is cultivated.

Where does the Holy Spirit come in? puts everything together and Helps us by reminding us and instructing us on how to PROPERLY cultivate our HEARTS (our soil), giver of the guidence and instructions.

how about that? The Field is our hearts, and the Sower is Ourselves.

Some of you might say "We can't sow ourselves!" But i say "Who said that we HAVE THE TOOLS to even sow AT ALL??? And therefore God is All in All:

GIVING US THE SOIL TO SOW,
GIVING US THE KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW,
GIVING US THE GROWTH TO GROW,
GIVING US THINGS THAT WE CAN NOT PROVIDE OURSELVES."
Giving not because we deserve but because of His Mercy and His Will.

In other words we Are the tools of our Lord used to cultivate the earth, and God is our source keeps us from rusting and becoming useless, and merging with our sinful Nature. The "MACROCOSM" of it all is that God is working, and certain things are predestined for this work. The "MICROCOSM" of it all is that we are also working, and making sure we remain useful for His work by seeking Him and being dedicated to Him. But remember, God's tools are not things, but us, the human soul, free will and angels, and the tools that we use, and the product of those tools, it all belongs to God. Our tools on the other hand, are things like words, writings, observations. Although as humans we produce both righteous and wicked effects with our tools, God took the blame for our wicked products on the Cross. Therefore it would be like trying to Limit God by saying that "God is UNABLE to work with OUR free will and needs us to be like puppets indifferent to Him."

This is all symbolism and obviously sin and repentence are more specific things that will be difficult to visualise in a limited parable. But i could continue to say rusting or idleness of God's tools (Humans, our souls) is the result of disobedience. Jesus was sent, to show US what to do. It seems that when God sent us here, we forgot why we came here for. What did God command Adam to do? And what happens to useless tools, and busibodies?? But someone would say "No, the bible says that God makes Objects of Wrath and Objects of Mercy. These objects are certian people doing certain things."

But you have to ask yourself first: What makes a king HArden his Heart? God or PRide? What brought Pride? God or The things God has done in the kings life? What then makes the king become stubborn? His misunderstanding of those Good gifts. Complete Ignorance and lack of understanding about where the gifts (fame and riches) came from, and therefore assuming it came from themselves, and therefore becoming prideful. What then is the object of Wrath? The Stubborn King or the things that made Him stubborn? Then we come to the conclusion: that Lack of Understanding (not knowing who God is) mixed with trying to understand the Good gifts (such as life etc.) lead to Ignorance and Arrogance and Wrath. The Opposite would then Be God's presence in someones life. Things that Help us understand God (testimonies, God's chosen people) are called Objects of His mercy.

(you can almost see that Evil is not really evil but the twisting of Good. the Distortion of what is Right)

What then are the objects of Gods Wrath? Things like An Athiest book about Why there is no God. The Objects of His Mercy are testimonies and things that show that no matter what God is Still in Control.

Some take in the Objects of Wrath and become IDLE. While others take in the Objects of His Mercy and BELIEVE.

Objects of Wrath LEAD to Wrath which leads to Death
Objects of Mercy LEAD to Mercy which leads to Life

Think about the parable, think about why it is more convenient to have free will, instead of being like puppets. Think of a shovel, can it think? can it do anything? Now think of why God needs his tools to think? Some one may tell me "But are you saying that God can't use a shovel?" But all i can say is that God is not made in OUR image, WE are made in HIS image. Not only does God have shovels (objects), He has our free will to work with, the soul. The One tool the human mind can not comprehend because we are it!

God's Mercy does not work on Puppets. Although God is soveriegn, His mercy (the weaker of them both, according to the carnal eye) comes first. Mercy is the Focus and the Emphasis in the whole entire Bible. In it we see God going from Soveriegn to Merciful. choosing the weaker things to come out on top. (the weaker things are predestined to always come out on top.) In it we see God going from Soveriegn to Merciful. Does this contradict God? Does He change his mind about how to do things? Of course not! We see OUR PARENTS disciplining us, setting us straight, then we see our PARENTS trusting us and allowing us to go into the world and be adults on our OWN.

Their Discipline leads us to their Trust. Not that they changed their minds but that their Discipline is part of their Trust. We are not the Puppets of our parents. But we do want our parents to trust us right? if they Don't, who will we run to when trouble comes? Trust is better than discipline because Trust is where the fullness of Dicipline is found. Wow, now i understand why Jesus is the Fullness of the Law! Praise the LORD. God does not contradict Himself but completes His Will In Jesus!

We can see God working in a similar manner to the Parent Parable! and also with Law and Faith!

Free will is of God. The weakest quality but at the same time it glorifies the name of God.

In conclusion Predestination is a doctrine used to Make sense of a mysterious concept. But then free will becomes the ripple in this "still water". And still water is not how God works. no matter how hard we try to establish something God comes and stirs the waters. Look at the Catholic church, the Reformation was God's stirring of the waters. Look at Judaism, Christianity was the Stirring. Stirring always causes turmoil. This turmoil is not Evil, but is simply the effect of struggles. What we decide to do in light of all the suffering is what one calls good or evil.

Where we think we find rest (aside from God), we find unbearable turmoil. But if we can understand turmoil we can achieve rest. A rest that turmoil can not disturb. It is in the Heart, Spirit. But this understanding can only come from God. Turmoil is then what tests our faith in God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of Jesus Christ

Why? because they understand turmoil, and therefore are able to reach Rest and continue to stand firm in Christ. Only Jesus can do this. Not the "predestination Doctrine", which is man's understanding of something which in itself is apart from God, even though truth wisdom and understanding can only be found in God. This doctrine ignores the fact that if God forces any individual into eternal suffering makes Him 50% unrighteous.

Other religions (and/or heavy doctrines) can help us accept Turmoil, but they can not define Turmoil, and therefore no matter how hard they try to establish themselves and find rest, Turmoil comes and destroys. The only doctrine fit to make sense of it all is the Gospel of Salvation. Because it is the only sound and simple doctrine that can stand in the mist of storms.

The only way To stand is to place God as the Priority. (look at the beginnings of nations who trusted in God, like America) Free will clarifies God's plan more effieciently than predestination.

Therefore it is the JOB of the HUMAN SOUL to SEARCH THE THINGS OF GOD. and BECAUSE OF GOD'S MERCY he will provide answers, and we will be doing according to His Will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Then what is predestination? Why is it mentioned at all?

nobdysfool said:

Predestination right there Ben. Who is predestined (before ordained) to walk in the works? Those whom He has created in Christ Jesus (if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation), for that express purpose (unto or for good works), to walk in them (the good works). That is specific. Those whom God has created in Christ are specifically created for the works which He has specifically fore-ordained that they should perform. God cannot specify particular good works, and not specify who will do them. Therefore, He MUST predestine specific people to do the specific predestined works.

Click to expand...

The Image of Christ is described in Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22. The Elect are people who do the will of God. There is no "Some Good" and "Some Bad". but those who do the will of God are the "Good" and those who don't are the "Bad". His Law Word Commandments, is what seperates Good from Bad. It is not individuals but the FACT that PEOPLE WILL OBEY GOD NO MATTER WHAT is what predestined means. God positioned us in a place where our faith in Him can not be shaken. The Apostles are an example. Paul too, He Saw Jesus, and such a revelation practically super glues your faith in God. Paul was going through something in himself. He didn't understand where all these "christians" came from, they are "ruining" what he tried so hard to achieve, righteousness through works and obedience of the Law.

Paul wasn't evil, but from what he understood, "christianity" was just another cult distorting truth. Paul was making the Decree because, as a Jew, he thought it was the right thing to do. When Paul was reviewing all this in his heart on his walk to Damascus, that's when God revealed Himself. Paul repented, for he has been searching all his life for true righteousness, and On that walk, he found it. As for the thorn in his flesh, IMO if i was him i would ask God to let me finish school, or have a family or do things that i didn't get to finish, being mocked is like a "thorn in my flesh."

For example, i was in a good school, intelligent student, until i got a computer. Then i started having questions about the bible, and i stood day and night searching and searching. Everyday my faith was being tested, and still I love my Lord. But i got kicked out of school, and went to a lower one, and now i'm probably Getting my GED. I would pray to God day and night to let me get a real High School Diploma, if i get it praise God, if i don't, I can still praise God, because of the things i have learned at a relatively young age. But when i do get this GED it would be like a thorn in my flesh, because in my heart i know i could have done better. Like Paul, many Jews mocked him and told him "look at where you were, and look at you now."

Without Faith i would feel mocked and be utterly destroyed materialistically and Spiritually. Being stripped of everything to simply hang on to faith, but what if i didn't have that faith? But i did have faith, Because of the understanding God allowed me to have, i realised that i rather be stripped and be saved, than to be great and be lost. Who knows, with my good education, i would have grown up to be a greedy rich person, (being that i like to keep things to myself and not take risks.), and not be as dedicated to God as i would like. I rather let go of things now than to wait to they grow and have that be a hinderance to the Will of God. this is the servant with only 5 talents.

See and Some people like to say "God, you bless me first, then i'll believe in You." But it doesn't work this way. Because when God says "Ok, its time to let go and follow me" We have the habit of saying "Nooooooo wait God im not finished, hold on!" And what happens? The person who does let go and follow God, is the servant with 10 talents.

Therefore, i rather believe in God, learn of Him trust in Him, and in the end, know that What God has planned is better than what i had. This is the conclusion Paul came to, and therefore he even can count how many times he prayed, to show that he simply decided to Let Go and Let God.

This is the mark of predestination. Faith in God. A quality clearly expressed through the History and Future of Israel. And What God has fore-ordained is that there will always be someone who has complete Faith in Him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how can those who go to God (drawn to God by His Grace) be a matter of our will and not His Will? How can we have free will when There is no way to reject His grace?

Again, you insist on seeing it as something that any person can choose to do on his own, by his own volition, apart from God. You do not see man's inherent depravity as an inability to do so, but only a hindrance to doing so. That is a grave mistake. Jesus makes it clear: No man cancome to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44). All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (Joh 6:37) no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (Joh 6:65)

Click to expand...

The things that happen in my life is God's will, but my choice to believe in God has to be done by my will to believe in Him, this choice can NEVER be done APART from God. We make our choice because God is before us. If we, on our own, choose to do what is of God, then we Believe through faith and have our salvation. But if we choose to do what is not of God, (because of selfish desires or misunderstandings) then our salvation is at risk, and only through God's GRACE that will we be able to make the right choice. Eventually we will come to a point where it's either a yes or no answer, where God has clearly and vividly presented Himself before us, and therefore we will have no excuses nor can we blame God for never knowing about Him. and those who choose not to believe in God anyway, make their decision and in that by their own will. If this is not the case then there is no point in Hell and the Bible would be nothing but lies. God has however prophecied that there will be those who reject Him no matter how much prove He presents them with. Judas Iscriot is one of them.

What made me risk my education to learn about the things of God? What made Paul risk going to jail and being called a fool for the Name of God? What made Peter Confess that Jesus is the Messiah? What made Peter step out into the water? It all seems irrational from the outside, but if you were in our shoes, and lived our lives, and had the same questions that drown us every night, you would know why we do the things we do.

So then what is it? Is it God? Or is it Free Will? Things would get extremely complicated if i were to simply ignore free will. Because there were almost times where i was losing faith and assumed the position of Agnostic. Where i would blame God for my messed up life. But the Gospel and the Testimonies (this is why i thank God for churches) impacted my life so much that my Faith was refueled and i continued to search for the Lord. Despite my current mess, i couldn't let these failures define who God is and how He has presented Himself in my life and the life of others. Their lives have been the objects of God's mercy and The Fuel for my Faith.

In conclusion it is the Need for God that draws me To Him. God AND Free will is at work, because it is the FAther you places in my Heart the fact that i NEED Him, the NEED then DRAWS me to The SON, and the GOSPEL of the Son then Builds my FAith and i Follow Him because i BELIEVE His words. It was My CHOICE to HEED the warnings the FATHER has placed in my heart. Those who are NOT OF GOD will not heed the need. Because they do not know His Voice. The Messenger "Usually interchanged to be the Guilty Conscience" Is the Holy Spirit. Therefore if you are being preached that you need God, and you say "No i Don't" and then you have a dream that says the same thing and you say "I DO NOT NEED GOD" and the finally your Own Heart and Conscience INSISTS with the Need to go to God, you say "I SAID I DO NOT NEED NOR DO I WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GOD NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!" God will not contend with the hearts of men for too long...

The Holy Spirit then gives us choices, or chances to obey. Blaspheme of the Father or The Son can be forgiven, but of the Holy Spirit? When you make the final decision in your heart (spirit) how can you not do what your heart is set to do? Complete rejection of God within the heart is not something easy to come by. But there are people like that. Where else can their souls go if they want to be apart from God? There is only one place i know, which i call "Complete seperation from God". If God is Life then what place is without life? If God is In Heaven, then what place is without Heaven?

Lets be reasonable, would God actually force someone to Go to hell against their will? Wouldn't that be cheating? I would hope that is not the kind of God we believe in.

God is 100% Just and Righteous in His Ways if and only if free will is 100% fact.

I tried my best to be as clear and concise as possible, all for the honor and Glory of God. There is nothing else i rather do than to leave everything in the hands of the Lord.

God Bless

To Ben Johnson

The HS according to 1 cor 2:10 is who searches God..... Not man....

so when a unrighteous man who is chosen before the foundation of the world eph 1:4 but is not presently saved upon the requirement that God says must be done..... How does the HS enlighten this person by verses....

part 1
In Mark 3:26-27 talks about satan house and how one must bind him to spoil his goods.... so since satan is the prince of this atmosphere the H.S. binds satan so he can save you...restraining work of the H.S. .....additional verses 2 thes 2:1-12

part 2
in John 16:7-11 the H.S. reproving the unbeliever to believe that he needs God since he is a sinner,and of righteousness, and of judgement.

the HS is not in the unbeliever but around this individual convicting him

part 3

since he has been made ready ...his soil plowed the HS is restraining satan from be a problem removing all blinds[1 cor 2:14, 2 cor4:3-4, 2 cor 3:14-16, eph 4:17] this person might have from satan....

The HS has convicted this person that he needs GOD since he is not able to do it his self.......

Then and only then can a person believe 1 cor 15:2-4

Dear Ben Johnson

did you read mark 4:9-12

with your response I do not think so....

Ben johnson said:

Here is the contradiction:
"When they hear, they receive the word with joy; yet they have no firm root who believe for a while, but in time of temptation fall away." Luke8:13

They RECEIVED THE WORD WITH JOY, and BELIEVED. According to "Total Depravity", they MUST have been regenerated. But in time of temptation (affliction - persecution, Mk4:17), they fall away. This prevents "elective-regeneration" --- for if they HAD been "elected-regenerated", they would not have fallen away. Yet they MUST have been regenerated (according to Total Depravity), else they could NEVER have believed.

There is no way to assert, "Oh they only had a FALSE belief". Clearly, what differentiated the ROCKY ground from the GOOD ground, is that the GOOD "received with honest and good heart, and HELD FAST with PERSEVERANCE. 100% their own choice; 0% predestined by God...

If one can only believe BECAUSE of regenerateion, then how did they believe in Luke8:13?

Click to expand...

I think in this case we are pushing the parable beyond its intended purpose, Ben. After thinking it through and discussing it among brethren, I believe that the parable of the sower does not have any concrete bearing on either your position or ours. The parable's intended message was the different reactions one can expect from the sowing of the seed. In the case of the rocky soil, the point is that there are those who appear to embrace the seed, but in times of persecution or difficulty quickly fall away.

Gill: "their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus; which shows it is not true faith; for that is an abiding grace, Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not. The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it. The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped"

I have checked with several commentaries, by both Reformed commentators (Gill, Henry, Sproul) and decidedly non-Reformed (Coffman, MacDonald, Clarke) commentators, and there is agreement among all of them. They all see the lack of endurance through temptation to be an indication of a less-than-genuine faith. (1 John 2:19)

I don't believe that the assertion can be made dogmatically that the case of the rocky soil indicates a proof of fallenness from salvation any more than we can draw conclusions on the very nature of the soil being an indication of its being prepared beforehand for how it will receive the seed. I am aware that much fuss has been made over this passage. I personally think it best if we agree at this point that this parable does not speak definitively to either of our positions.

frumanchu said:

I think in this case we are pushing the parable beyond its intended purpose, Ben. After thinking it through and discussing it among brethren, I believe that the parable of the sower does not have any concrete bearing on either your position or ours. The parable's intended message was the different reactions one can expect from the sowing of the seed. In the case of the rocky soil, the point is that there are those who appear to embrace the seed, but in times of persecution or difficulty quickly fall away.

Gill: "their faith is a temporary one, like that of Simon Magus; which shows it is not true faith; for that is an abiding grace, Christ, who is the author, is the finisher of it, and prays for it, that it fail not. The Persic version renders it, "in the time of hearing they have faith"; and such sort of hearers there are, who, whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it. The Arabic version renders it, "they believe for a small time"; their faith do not continue long, nor their profession of it, both are soon dropped"

I have checked with several commentaries, by both Reformed commentators (Gill, Henry, Sproul) and decidedly non-Reformed (Coffman, MacDonald, Clarke) commentators, and there is agreement among all of them. They all see the lack of endurance through temptation to be an indication of a less-than-genuine faith. (1 John 2:19)

I don't believe that the assertion can be made dogmatically that the case of the rocky soil indicates a proof of fallenness from salvation any more than we can draw conclusions on the very nature of the soil being an indication of its being prepared beforehand for how it will receive the seed. I am aware that much fuss has been made over this passage. I personally think it best if we agree at this point that this parable does not speak definitively to either of our positions.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you Fru, in that the passage was not intended to support either position.

Excellent and inspired posts, Boanerge.

Boanerge said:

Lets be reasonable, would God actually force someone to Go to hell against their will? Wouldn't that be cheating? I would hope that is not the kind of God we believe in.

Click to expand...

I can speak for the PE's; they strongly assert that "God does NOT force them against their will" --- the belief is that God regenerates their hearts -- and from the regenerated heart, necessarily/unavoidably/invariably flows the WILL to FOLLOW GOD. The regenerated heart cannot will but to follow God (conversely the unregenerated heart cannot will but to rebel from God). I see no difference between this, and the concept of "forcing their will". But they do.

I have cited several passages that speak of "FALLING FROM SALVATION"; he who believes in OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), be it "Predestihned-Election", or "Antinomianism", or "Eternal Security" (the three different beliefs under the "OSAS" banner), must take these "FALL-FROM-SALVATION" passages as "weren't really SAVED in the FIRST PLACE", or "didn't really FALL", or "empty hyperbole fanciful fatherly GUIDANCE-STORIES", or "dismiss the entire letter" (maybe it was written to JEWS-BACK-THEN or a PREVIOUS DISPENSATION). This is the weakness --- there is no way to interpret them.

Case in point --- if only a REGENERATED HEART can BELIEVE, then what of the ROCKY-SOIL? OSAS are constrained to say "they didn't REALLY BELIEVE(false belief, or HEAD-not-HEART belief)". Nothing in the text to indicate the belief, short-lived though it was, wasn't REAL. Saying "head belief but not regenerated" contradicts Jesus in Matt6:24 & 7:18, Paul in Rom6:15.

The Holy Spirit then gives us choices, or chances to obey. Blaspheme of the Father or The Son can be forgiven, but of the Holy Spirit? When you make the final decision in your heart (spirit) how can you not do what your heart is set to do? Complete rejection of God within the heart is not something easy to come by. But there are people like that. Where else can their souls go if they want to be apart from God? There is only one place i know, which i call "Complete seperation from God". If God is Life then what place is without life? If God is In Heaven, then what place is without Heaven?

Click to expand...

"Predestined-Election" ("Limited Atonement", "Irresistible Grace", "Calvinism/Hyper-Calvinism", etc.) claims the will DOES follow the heart; but they found on the idea that God UNILATERALLY CHANGES the heart. See Ezk36:26-27, which they claim as "evidence God unilaterally changes their hearts BEFORE they believe, BEFORE they consent." (I respond with the mirror passage, Ezk11:18-21, especially vs 21 shows their VOLITION [how could they SEEK abominations, if their hearts were CHANGED?]).

The difference between "Predestined-Election" and "Responsible Grace", boils down to one simple question: does regeneration lead unavoidably to BELIEF, or does belief cause regeneration? A foundational question --- and it defines the fabric of our Gospel. Is God sovereign over who becomes elect? Or does God's sovereignty allow choice? How can it not matter?

The HS according to 1 cor 2:10 is who searches God..... Not man....

Click to expand...

My "take" on it, is that the HOLY SPIRIT indwells us --- when we believe. Eph1:13

so when a unrighteous man who is chosen before the foundation of the world eph 1:4

Click to expand...

chosen IN JESUS; "chosen from the beginning ...THROUGH FAITH IN THE TRUTH." 2Thess2:13 We only disagree on the source of that faith --- unilateral from God, or from the man's heart?

The HS has convicted this person that he needs GOD since he is not able to do it his self.......

Then and only then can a person believe 1 cor 15:2-4

Click to expand...

The conviction causes the man to believe. You reference 1Cor15:2-4? Let's read 15:1-2: "I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, by which you are saved, IF you HOLD FAST the word which I preached to you, UNLESS you believed in vain." Is there anything in that which sounds conditional?

Dear Ben Johnson

did you read mark 4:9-12

Click to expand...

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear. To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside receive parables, in order taht while seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear and understand lest they return and be forgiven. Do you not understand the parable? How will you understand all the parables? Nothing is hidden except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it sould come to light. If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. TAKE CARE WHAT YOU LISTEN TO. By your measure will it be measured to you; and more shall be given besides. For whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him." Mk4:9-13, 22-25.

Contextually, ABIC, if God "gives him ears to hear", why does he say "take care what you listen to"? Does any of this contradict what I proposed in Jn10, that is --- "if they had believed in Jesus, then they would have known He was the Messiah"? Jn10:24-26

You have "OUTSIDE", and you have "IN CHRIST"; what is the difference? PE must prove, "GOD CHOOSES"; but Scripture only says "they who believe are "IN CHRIST".

"If TIS-ANYONE enters through Me (believes), he shall be saved; and shall go in and out and find pasture..." Jn10:9
Exegesis: "If anyone..."
Eisegesis: "If anyone OF THE ELECT..."

Fru said:

The professor indicated that he didn't "think the writer intended 'appointed themselves'." As such, the appointment must be from some other source. Given that the term is a military reference, he seems to agree that the troops were "ordered" by the divine general.

Click to expand...

He said no sequence is indicated; merely "coincidence". Either, "those who were positioned BELIEVED", or "those who believed were positioned". Either way.

At this point I must point out that there is complete disagreement between your professor and Robertson (whom you quoted). Robertson said specifically "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." So you have conflict among your sources.

Click to expand...

No conflict, agreement. Robertson said "no divine decree of personal salvation" --- the professor said "no indication of ordination causing belief". I understand Robertson to be saying, "there is no way to assert those who believe, were appointed (to that belief)." Clearly Robertson says "revealed as subjects of God's grace by the stand THEY TOOK." And, "they RANGED THEMSELVES on GOd's side".

No, I don't believe you are right in that regard. That they "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" is a figure of speech, not a literal truth with respect to their salvation.

Click to expand...

How do you separate the two, Fru? The Jews "APOTHEOMAI-REJECT it", and "judge themselves unworthy"; thus the ALTERNATIVE, is that the GENTILES receive it EAGERLY. How can the Gentiles be predestined to salvation, if the Jews REJECT IT OF VOLITION? The two cannot separate; if the Jews voluntarily reject it, then you cannot say that the Gentiles are saved without volition.

This doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY in light of the verse immediately preceding it ("Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" -Rom 9:21, NKJV). In this verse, the vessels are cleary made BY THE POTTER with a specific purpose or destiny in mind. This eradicates any notion of the vessels themselves having anything to do with their ultimate use from a formal standpoint.

Click to expand...

Does the Potter do anything to the "vessels of wrath for destruction"? No. Are the "wrath-destruction" made from the SAME LUMP OF CLAY as the others? No. I agree with the NAS, that BOTH the "time" (honor) and "atimia" (dishonor, or NAS-COMMON) are SAVED. I do not think he refers to TWO unsaved groups; "honor, common, and wrath-destruction". Three vessels. "honor-common" made from one lump of clay, "wrath-destruction" from another...

The context of the verse is the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Anyone who rejects the old covenant (law of Moses) is easily condemned on the testimony of witnesses. How much worse will it be for someone who has rejected the the blood of Christ and trampled it underfoot, insulting the Spirit of grace?

What I'm saying here is that it does not of necessity mean, either by the word used or by the context, that one could actually be purified by the blood of Christ and then turn around and reject it. I find this as the case for many of the verses you have used to support the "responsible grace" position of 'once saved, not always saved.'

Click to expand...

The context includes verse 26 --- which is written with the word, "epignosis". "If we continue sinning willfully after having received EPIGNOSIS-EXPERIENTIAL-KNOWLEDGE of the truth..." This "epignosis" is SAVED knowledge in 2Pet1:3, it is SAVED knowledge in 2Pet2:20, Col3:10, 1Tim2:4 & 2:25 & 3:7, Titus1:1. The one who is SAVED but CONTINUES IN WILLFUL SIN (becomes unsaved) in Heb10:26 is the same one who "tramples Jesus, scorns the blood by which he WAS SANCTIFIED, and insults the Spirit" in 10:29...

At best, in agreeing with you both, we would have to consider this verse as uncertain. Salvation by grace through faith (which I assume he is referring to as "THAT FACT") is by no means at odds with the Reformed position any more than with yours.

Click to expand...

The PE position is the verse says, "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves, SAVING-FAITH is the GIFT of God..."

Ben johnson said:

We only disagree on the source of that faith --- unilateral from God, or from the man's heart?
..."

Click to expand...

If I could muster up the Faith to believe with my own will ?
romans 4:2 then I could glory; but not before God.

Independence from God is a satanic attack

It's not independant from God, ABIC; I believe Scripture shows how He calls us to salvation, and gives us sufficient faith to believe; so we do not "believe independantly". I just don't see it as "flowing invariably". Throughout Scripture is shown RESISTIBILITY to His call. Before salvation, and after.

We are not justified by works; we-saved, have Jesus in us, doing our good works through us. We are justified by faith. When we receive Jesus, when we receive the gift of grace...

If I could muster up the Faith to believe with my own will ?
romans 4:2 then I could glory; but not before God.

Independence from God is a satanic attack

Click to expand...

But you cannot believe by a thrust of will; it is psychologically impossible. You can, however, believe by nature of being the person you are, which is very much conditional on how you have directed your will in the past. The whole idea of the claim "salvation by works" is at base the understanding that we can somehow earn the right of God's love regarding our salvation. But this leaves to the dust the entire point behind being saved -- being raised from a dead soul to a live one! To work ourselves to this point would be to earn nothing; this is why we cannot work our way to salvation -- we would be working for the love of God, which is the most flagrant contradiction that ears can hear!

To believe is hardly a work. I find it interesting that you quote only verse two, but fail to quote the remainder of the context, which clearly shows a dichotomy between faith and works, belief not being one (v.4,5). Those who cannot believe are considered the blind; and given that Jesus scorns such people through the understanding of their actions (Matt. 23:17,19), it must logically follow that there is a capacity to believe that is of our accountability. Without which Jesus is blaming men for a blindness that only He has caused, either directly, or through omission. And this means that Jesus is worse than a villian.

chosen IN JESUS; "chosen from the beginning ...THROUGH FAITH IN THE TRUTH." 2Thess2:13 We only disagree on the source of that faith --- unilateral from God, or from the man's heart?

Click to expand...

God gives faith, what we do with it is up to man. God or mammon....

Ben johnson said:

He said no sequence is indicated; merely "coincidence". Either, "those who were positioned BELIEVED", or "those who believed were positioned". Either way.

Click to expand...

The participle is PERFECT. Participles have no absolute time. Their "time frame" is relative to the time defined by the main verb of the clause.

This structure is called the Periphrastic Perfect. Actually it is periphrastic PLUPERFECT.

The main verb of the clause is h|san, which is the third person plural imperfect indicative of the verb eijmiv (to be, or more properly, I am).

The imperfect is the past tense that describes repeated or continueous action. The participle is actually perfect passive, masculine plural.

The verb structure being a combination of the Imperfect indicative and the Perfect Passive Participle, the resultant verbal idea is PLUPERFECT, that is to say that the event described happened in past time and was completed. The result may or may not be continuing...only the context can tell you that.

It is obvious that believing is not anticedent to being appointed. The action of being appointed was completed in past time, and it's result continues to the time where they believed. The word ejpivsteusan (they believed) is the main verb of the clause (as oposed to "they were" being the main verb of the structure) . It is in the aorist indicative tense, that is to say the simple past tense.*
As your Professor said, the Greek speaks for itself, and Robertson agrees. "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were [already] appointed unto eternal life.." As I said, your sources are in conflict.

No conflict, agreement. Robertson said "no divine decree of personal salvation" --- the professor said "no indication of ordination causing belief". I understand Robertson to be saying, "there is no way to assert those who believe, were appointed (to that belief)." Clearly Robertson says "revealed as subjects of God's grace by the stand THEY TOOK." And, "they RANGED THEMSELVES on GOd's side".

Click to expand...

Your sources agree insofar as they don't see specific or direct evidence of an "absolutum decretum of personal salvation," but as shown above the language indicates that the appointment or "ordering" was accomplished in the past and its result continues. It is implicit in the verse that the appointment occurred BEFORE the belief and that there is direct relationship between the two.

You are putting words in Robertson's mouth with your parenthetical addition of "to that belief" in Robertson's statement "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed."" The statement that follows this one makes that absolutely clear: "It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life" As I pointed out previously in this post, Robertson does maintain that the appointment unto eternal life PRECEDED the saving faith, and despite your "legerdemain" the text remains soundly in favor of such an understanding.

How do you separate the two, Fru? The Jews "APOTHEOMAI-REJECT it", and "judge themselves unworthy"; thus the ALTERNATIVE, is that the GENTILES receive it EAGERLY. How can the Gentiles be predestined to salvation, if the Jews REJECT IT OF VOLITION? The two cannot separate; if the Jews voluntarily reject it, then you cannot say that the Gentiles are saved without volition.

Click to expand...

Where did I EVER state that the Gentiles did not accept it of volition, Ben? You've created a false dilemma in implying I hold that I see volition in one case and not the other.

I explained the meaning of this verse and the reasons to reject the relationship you are trying to force upon two different verses with two different words and two different structures.

Does the Potter do anything to the "vessels of wrath for destruction"? No. Are the "wrath-destruction" made from the SAME LUMP OF CLAY as the others? No. I agree with the NAS, that BOTH the "time" (honor) and "atimia" (dishonor, or NAS-COMMON) are SAVED. I do not think he refers to TWO unsaved groups; "honor, common, and wrath-destruction". Three vessels. "honor-common" made from one lump of clay, "wrath-destruction" from another...

Click to expand...

Ben, that is just flat out crazy.

The preceding context of the verse is Paul speaking of God's purpose in election as shown in Jacob and Esau, and God's sovereignty and justice in showing mercy upon whom He will and hardening whom He will. The rhetorical is raised regarding the justice of being particular in His elective purposes, and the answer is given in the analogy of the potter and the clay. The answer to the rhetorical question given is that God, as the potter, DOES have the right to fashion out of the clay one vessel fit for honor (salvation) and one fit for dishonor/common use (referring essentially to a bedpan - damnation). I find it interesting as well that the NAS footnotes refer us to Prov 16:4 and 1 Pet 2:8 in relation to this verse, both of which assert God's preparation and appointment of men to destruction. There is no reasonable hermeneutic reason whatsoever to believe that the vessels in Rom 9:22-23 are different from those referred to in Rom 9:21, nor is it reasonable to assume given the context that the vessels fit for dishonor in 9:21 are saved. This passage stands steadfastly against your position.

And to top it all off, Ben, the grammar structure in Rom 9:22-23 is IDENTICAL to that in Acts 13:48 in terms of past action.

The context includes verse 26 --- which is written with the word, "epignosis". "If we continue sinning willfully after having received EPIGNOSIS-EXPERIENTIAL-KNOWLEDGE of the truth..." This "epignosis" is SAVED knowledge in 2Pet1:3, it is SAVED knowledge in 2Pet2:20, Col3:10, 1Tim2:4 & 2:25 & 3:7, Titus1:1. The one who is SAVED but CONTINUES IN WILLFUL SIN (becomes unsaved) in Heb10:26 is the same one who "tramples Jesus, scorns the blood by which he WAS SANCTIFIED, and insults the Spirit" in 10:29...

Click to expand...

You are implying a necessary relationship where there is none, Ben.

Please read verse 39 at the end of that section: "But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul." -Heb 10:39 (NKJV)

Now please explain to me once again why it is unreasonable to view this passage as being illustrative and hypothetical in light of the fact that the author summarizes the section by stating that it does not apply to them.

The PE position is the verse says, "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves, SAVING-FAITH is the GIFT of God..."

Click to expand...

Quit arguing against "PE" and argue against me, Ben. Here I am, a Calvinist, and I'm saying that it DOES NOT MATTER whether you view it to be "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves" or "SALVATION-BY-GRACE-THROUGH-FAITH (as a process) is not of yourselves." AT BEST this verse would be inconsequential to the argument. What the verse does do is illuminate the difference in understanding causality between the different "causes" of salvation. Both grace and faith are a cause of salvation.

At this point I see no reason for anyone to take the position you have on Acts 13:46-48, Rom 9:21-23, or Heb 10. Your sources do not agree with each other, and on the whole do not agree with the majority of past centuries of Biblical scholarship. The Greek language speaks for itself, and it says nothing in your support and much in ours.

Ben johnson said:

It's not independant from God, ABIC; I believe Scripture shows how He calls us to salvation, and gives us sufficient faith to believe; so we do not "believe independantly". I just don't see it as "flowing invariably". Throughout Scripture is shown RESISTIBILITY to His call. Before salvation, and after.

We are not justified by works; we-saved, have Jesus in us, doing our good works through us. We are justified by faith. When we receive Jesus, when we receive the gift of grace...

Click to expand...

Yes after He pulls off the blinds.... We believe independently after God give us Faith which is from Him......

But if God does not pull blinds we will never believe since they are satan's children

A Brethren IN CHRIST said:

Yes after He pulls off the blinds.... We believe independently after God give us Faith which is from Him......

But if God does not pull blinds we will never believe since they are satan's children

Click to expand...

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:3

"Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things which have been freely given to us by God" I Cor. 2:12

"But the natural (unregenerate) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN he know them, because they are spiritually descerned." I Cor 2:14

These verses show as ABIC stated that an unregenerate man cannot see, or perceive spiritual things and therefore how can he have faith? Yes faith is sent from God to man, but if God sent faith to an unregenerate man then it would always be rejected because it would be foolishness to him. If it were as you suggest then it would be up to something in man, his wisdom, previous path of good works, or whatever else you might suggest that would lead him to believe. Those who hold the reformed position believe that scripture teaches that it is God who grants all of salvation so that He ALONE might receive all of the glory and none be reserved to ourselves. Faith to an unregenerate man is foolishness, but to the regenerate it is the instrumental cause of salvation. We can now see the kingdom of God and perceive spiritual things and yes, we can exercise God-given faith on our own through the strength Christ provides.

Calvinism:



[font=verdana,arial]http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/calvin9.html[/font]

[font=verdana,arial]In Calvinism, God is ultimately the author of both good and evil. He sovereignly controls everything including Satan. The Star Wars movies presented this philosophy in its "god," the "Force," with both a good side and a dark side. [/font]







When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan's activity is an extension of God. God sovereignly controls Satan's every move, making God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all. The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.

I John 1
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

James 1
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

We must keep in mind that Satan's ultimate ambition is to usurp God's position, [Isaiah 14:13-15, 2 Thes. 2:3,4]. Satan cannot make himself holy, but, he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man's perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Then, as Darth Vader puts it, "the circle is now complete." This philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan's ultimate aspiration.

The danger for Christians, however, is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism, taught in mainstream Evangelical churches, from the logical philosophical conclusion, that God is both good and evil. Ultimately, God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast. I have received a fair amount of "hate mail" from Calvinists because of this article.

Usually they accuse me of equating Calvinism with the Occult. But, that is not what I have written. Unfortunately, in most cases, they have misunderstood my point. I am NOT saying that Calvinism teaches God is wicked, or a sinner, or even directly responsible for sin. Calvinists stop short of drawing those conclusions. I am saying that this is the outcome when you project Calvinism's philosophy to its logical conclusion. And lets be frank. If the logical outcome of a particular philosophy is impossible, then the system is illogical. [/font]

Chappie said:

Calvinism:

Where Calvinism Leads​

[font=verdana,arial]http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/calvin9.html[/font]

[font=verdana,arial]In Calvinism, God is ultimately the author of both good and evil. He sovereignly controls everything including Satan. The Star Wars movies presented this philosophy in its "god," the "Force," with both a good side and a dark side. [/font]

[font=verdana,arial]The nature of Calvinism's God fits perfectly with Chinese philosophy represented by the symbol, "Yin Yang." The dark side of the circle represents the evil side of God, while the light side represents the good side. The opposite colored points within the circle represent a touch of evil even within the good side of God, and a touch of good within the dark side. [/font]​

[font=verdana,arial]Everything good has an evil side, and everything evil has a good side. Everything has its counterpart. A good example of the counterpart of Christianity is the Occult Black Mass, where the Crucifix is inverted, Scripture is read backwards, etc.. New Agers have adopted this philosophy and its symbols. ​

When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan's activity is an extension of God. God sovereignly controls Satan's every move, making God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all. The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.

I John 1
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

James 1
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

We must keep in mind that Satan's ultimate ambition is to usurp God's position, [Isaiah 14:13-15, 2 Thes. 2:3,4]. Satan cannot make himself holy, but, he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man's perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Then, as Darth Vader puts it, "the circle is now complete." This philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan's ultimate aspiration.

The danger for Christians, however, is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism, taught in mainstream Evangelical churches, from the logical philosophical conclusion, that God is both good and evil. Ultimately, God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast. I have received a fair amount of "hate mail" from Calvinists because of this article.

Usually they accuse me of equating Calvinism with the Occult. But, that is not what I have written. Unfortunately, in most cases, they have misunderstood my point. I am NOT saying that Calvinism teaches God is wicked, or a sinner, or even directly responsible for sin. Calvinists stop short of drawing those conclusions. I am saying that this is the outcome when you project Calvinism's philosophy to its logical conclusion. And lets be frank. If the logical outcome of a particular philosophy is impossible, then the system is illogical. [/font]

Click to expand...

All these assertions are grand. Now BACK IT UP. You've made the claims, so please show the premises for your conclusions. Otherwise you're just a resounding noise.

This article makes some conclusions that are completely and wholly false, not to mention that the logical conclusions one could draw by assuming this article is actually correct throw God to the other end of the spectrum in the extreme.

Anyway, if you want to take this line of faulty reasoning and make these assertions, please start another thread with your article. The implication is rather obvious...that we Calvinists are occultists and are either too ignorant to realize it or are willfully supressing it. You are flirting with slander here friend, and giving no substance to back up the claims.

Like I said, start a thread.

Does evil befall a city and has the LORD not done it?

Shall we accept good from the LORD and not evil?

Are these just unenlightened Old Testament saints or are they teaching us something important?

The greatest evil in the history of the world, Jesus death on the cross, was predetermined by the Father before the beginning of the world. If the greatest evil is in the plan of God then why not the lesser ones?