Questions and Answers

[zeke37]

Hi Van....

Q1) Since God decreed in eternity past those that would be saved and those that would not, then all who are the elect will be saved. If this is true, then why should I (not knowing whether I am of the elect or not) even care? If I am, he will save me. If I am not, then it really doesn’t matter anyway for there is, nor has there ever been, any hope for me. Am I not, “fated for evil”?








A1) If God decreed in eternity past those individually that would be saved, and therefore by default, that all the rest would not, then all the preselected individuals will be saved. But if the foregoing premise does not reflect reality, then the observation is pointless. If the false premise were true, then it logically follows that we need not care, nothing we can do will alter our final destination. If the premise were true, then everyone not chosen for mercy would be fated for perfect justice in the afterlife.

this is sooooo flawed....

God did not know who would and who wouldn't....that is what this age is for.....to find out.

He did however know who the elect were, because they stood for Him in that age when Satan rebelled and 1/3 followed him...

that is why the elect were chosen for their particular role in this age. Thy are good to go, so God can use them to further His plan of Salvation for the rest.

Q2) If all things are decreed by God to happen, then how is any man responsible for his actions? It seems to me that if predestination is true then none of us are actually responsible for our actions because we don't choose who we are and can only experience existence, rather than control it or even influence it. It is the existence we continually experience that dictates who we are and how we act. In this sense, I am simply a robot - I do what I was programmed to do. How can God fault me for doing what he decreed in eternity past that I would do?

only the elect were predestined....the rest are not...


A2) If all things are decreed by God to happen, exhaustive determinism, then our life choices are an illusion, and it would not be logical to punish us for doing what we are compelled to do with no alternate possibility. However if God has created a purview within which we can make autonomous decisions, except that God sometimes invades that purview and influences some limited specific outcomes, then to the extent we make our choices, we can be logically held accountable for those choices.

Q3) By virtue of the assumption that all things happen because they are predetermined to do so, does not my sin actually become the will of God? Because of predestination, is not everything I do actually the decretive will of God - whether good or bad?

you don't really believe that God WANTS you to sin, do you?



Q4) Does God totally impose His will on man? That is, are there things that God wants, such as that all men would be saved, but which He does not force to happen? If God does not desire the salvation of all men and if God does not love all men, then what hope is there for me? Do I hope against hope that somehow, someday God might decide to grant me faith?

all men have free will to choose Him...except the elect, who already have...they are good to go....even Satan had free will and chose to rebell.



A4) No, God does not totally impose His decretive will on man, because the outcome of our individual lives is not totally foreordained. The concept that God desires all men to be saved is inconsistent with exhaustive determinism. However, if God desires all men to be saved according to His purpose and plan – which provides those that hear the gospel an opportunity to trust in Christ – then giving His Son as a propitiation for all reflects God’s love for the world – fallen mankind in general. Certainly no one comes to Christ unless granted by the Father, so we should hope that we are not among those limited few that scripture describes were precluded like Pharaoh, Judas and the unbelieving Jews, to facilitate God’s redemptive plan.

all will be given a fair chance, including Jews...and Judas, God will determine his fate, not you or I...it is unfair to judge him...he repented and was murdered.

God puts the soul into their position in life...it is not random...He knows what will most benefit us...

Q5) I have been told that the reason I do not come to Christ is not that I cannot, but that I will not. However, if God wants me to come to Him, I will. If God wants me to want to come to Him, I would want such things. I could not want, or come without His direct action in my life.

gotta ask....seek, search....He will find us when we are HONESTLY ready...at our breaking point when we realize that we cannot make it with out Him...after all, without Him, we are just dust....and succeptable to the woes of the world...

with Him, we are strengthened in many, many ways.

And God, being omnipotent, if He wanted me to come, or to want to come, cannot be gainsaid. So it’s clear to me that the reason I do not want to come is because God does not want me to.

God wants all to come as He declares in the Bible...
God cannot make someone love Him...or better said, He will NOT make any one love Him....that love has to be real, genuine and from oneself...He just doesn't want robots...


A5) Yes the statement is true, see John 5:40, but it does not reflect what Calvinism teaches. Their view is the lost will not because they are unable, being unregenerate and suffering from the total inability to trust in Christ. Yes, if the Reformed view were true, and it is not, then it would be clear that if you never during your life want to come to Jesus, the reason is God has foreordained that you will not come to Jesus. However, it this view is mistaken, then if you are not so blinded by a love of darkness that you cannot understand the gospel, you do indeed still have a slight opportunity to trust in Christ. But it is slight, because if you have been enlightened (you have heard and understood the gospel) but have rejected Christ, unless something happens to alter your core character, it is impossible to bring you to repentance again.

both of these answers are incorrect...completely...

Q6) The man, who is faced with two paths, picks one, and the man, faced with only one path and one impassable path, goes down the only one he can. In the first, free will is actually being used. I have a choice between two paths, and I pick one. In the second, I have no free will. The blocked, impassable path might as well have not existed for me. Why would God give me a choice if I cannot choose?

That would be redundant...so it is totally incorrect...
He just would not.


A6) He would not! God sets before us a choice and exhorts us to choose life. Reformed thinking says this is not true, that we do not make decisions, or that we are unable to make some decisions (yes, reformed theology is logically inconsistent) but scripture is crystal. What must you do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. What does God do with our faith? See Romans 4:5 and 4:24. He accepts our faith, with no mention of the faith being supernaturally given to us, and reckons or credits it as righteousness. Jesus says the work or action God requires of us is to believe in the One God sent, the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One, the Lamb of God, and the King of Kings.

boy, you had me going until the end....

I did not realize the perspective you were writing from....cool!

in His service
c

 

[nobdysfool]

After reviewing some of the answers you gave, I am appalled at the strange doctrine I see. Truly appalled.

 

[Van]

Thanks Zeke37, my position is a one point Calvinist, once saved aways saved, 2 point Arminian, God's election unto salvation is conditioned upon His acceptance of our faith in Christ, and mankind in general has the ability and capability to respond adequately to the gospel such that God credits the faith as righteousness. I believe the doctrines of Total Spiritual inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism, and Irresistible Grace as false doctrines. But I differ from the Arminian view in that I believe (1) in our fallen state we can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, (2) that our election unto salvation occurs during our physical lives and not before, and (3) OSAS.

 

[bling]

Thanks Zeke37, my position is a one point Calvinist, once saved aways saved, 2 point Arminian, God's election unto salvation is conditioned upon His acceptance of our faith in Christ, and mankind in general has the ability and capability to respond adequately to the gospel such that God credits the faith as righteousness. I believe the doctrines of Total Spiritual inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism, and Irresistible Grace as false doctrines. But I differ from the Arminian view in that I believe (1) in our fallen state we can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, (2) that our election unto salvation occurs during our physical lives and not before, and (3) OSAS.

Van I am following up to the OSAS issue. It does not sound even logical that you could not give up you birth right of your own free will. There is to many warning to Christians about falling away. I am not even suggesting we “work” or “do” stuff to maintain our salvation that is already our birth right, but that we give it up. Gal. 6:9 </SPAN>Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
The words are “if we do not give up” and it refers directly to eternal life in heaven. As Children of God we do have “eternal life” in the form of our birth right, but that right can be given up (I am also not suggesting that it can be ever taken away.)

 

[nobdysfool]

It would have to be an extreme circumstance, if it is possible, not something that could be easily done, as some here suggest. I don't buy into the "in-out-in-out" school of thought, where you technically could lose your salvation and gain it back several times a day, based on your actions at any given moment. That is not logical either.

The classic example of the 40 year Christian who sins just before getting run over by a bus, so that he doesn't consciously repent of that last sin before death, and winds up losing 40 years of good Christian living, and eternity, applies here. Some would say that "too bad, he blew it" while I say that he is covered by the Blood in such a situation, and goes to be with the Lord.

 

[bling]

It would have to be an extreme circumstance, if it is possible, not something that could be easily done, as some here suggest. I don't buy into the "in-out-in-out" school of thought, where you technically could lose your salvation and gain it back several times a day, based on your actions at any given moment. That is not logical either.

The classic example of the 40 year Christian who sins just before getting run over by a bus, so that he doesn't consciously repent of that last sin before death, and winds up losing 40 years of good Christian living, and eternity, applies here. Some would say that "too bad, he blew it" while I say that he is covered by the Blood in such a situation, and goes to be with the Lord.

I do not suggest such a thing. Scripture talks about us withering away, not jumping back and forth. At some point we just do not care about our birth right, it has little value, so satan buys it from us for pocket change. The reason we are asked to do good stuff is not directly related to our salvation, but to cement our relationship so we will not slowly fall away. We are told we can grow rapidly and that is what we want to do, but not growing will result in slow withering and then we start doing really bad stuff.

 

[nobdysfool]

I do not suggest such a thing. Scripture talks about us withering away, not jumping back and forth. At some point we just do not care about our birth right, it has little value, so satan buys it from us for pocket change. The reason we are asked to do good stuff is not directly related to our salvation, but to cement our relationship so we will not slowly fall away. We are told we can grow rapidly and that is what we want to do, but not growing will result in slow withering and then we start doing really bad stuff.

I wasn't implying that you did believe my example. I was giving qualified agreement to what you said previously.

 

[AndOne]

It would have to be an extreme circumstance, if it is possible, not something that could be easily done, as some here suggest. I don't buy into the "in-out-in-out" school of thought, where you technically could lose your salvation and gain it back several times a day, based on your actions at any given moment. That is not logical either.

The classic example of the 40 year Christian who sins just before getting run over by a bus, so that he doesn't consciously repent of that last sin before death, and winds up losing 40 years of good Christian living, and eternity, applies here. Some would say that "too bad, he blew it" while I say that he is covered by the Blood in such a situation, and goes to be with the Lord.

Good point made by John Hendrix over at monergism.com on this very point, NBF - http://www.monergism.com/interpretivekey.html

The key issue being that folks are failing to see the centrality of Christ in regards to these things. All of the focus is being put on the ability of the person to perform or believe rather than on the accomplished work on the cross.

 

[nobdysfool]

Good point made by John Hendrix over at monergism.com on this very point, NBF - http://www.monergism.com/interpretivekey.html

The key issue being that folks are failing to see the centrality of Christ in regards to these things. All of the focus is being put on the ability of the person to perform or believe rather than on the accomplished work on the cross.

Excellent! I just read it, and it is spot-on correct. Thanks for the link!

 

[Van]

Hi Bling, yes it is difficult to tell whether once saved, always saved is scripturally valid. Many well studied scholars support the loss of salvation view. I do not, and many other scholars share my view.

Let's take the view that in the Old Testament, folks, like Esau, gave up their birth right, so it seems logical to conclude a born again believer could give up their birth right. However if scripture teaches that we cannot, then we must accept that it is more logical to conclude that God can predestine born again believers to eternal life.

Lets look at 1 Peter 1:3-5. Those in view are born again for "His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Next, we are born again "to an inheritance, imperishable and undefiled, and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you." Now these same born again believers "...are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last day."

Now the word translated in the NASB as "protected" means to protect by guarding, to keep. The loss of salvation proponents argue that God keeps us in a cell with the door open, such that we can walk out. But my side argues that to keep means with the cell door locked closed, such that we are not free to walk out.

I think everyone agrees at some point a born again believer would not be free to walk out. When we enter the eternal kingdom, do you think we can depart? So it is a question of when does God constrain our will such that we cannot depart our love of God. I say during our physical lives, when we are born again.

Next, lets consider Galatians 6:9. Viewed in isolation it certainly can be read to indicate a works based salvation. This connection can be inferred by saying what is sown in verse 8 to the Spirit from which we reap eternal life, is the same as doing good in verse 9. But is it?

If we flip over to Romans 6:21-22, we see a little different view. While we were "in the flesh" before you were born again, you derived no benefit from sin, for the outcome of those things is death. But now, having been freed (born again) you derive your benefit from God, the Spirit. And one of the benefits is eternal life.

Taken together, I think the best view is two separate benefits are in view from being born again, with one being the outcome of eternal life, and the other sanctification, growing more like Christ and earning rewards for faithful service, such as supporting those who teach us in our local churches. And we will reap rewards, if we do not lose heart, and grow weary. And as an aside, I believe the rewards are those we help by planting, watering, cultivating directly or indirectly such as supporting those who teach, enter God's kingdom.

 

[bling]

Van said:
Lets look at 1 Peter 1:3-5. Those in view are born again for "His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Next, we are born again "to an inheritance, imperishable and undefiled, and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you." Now these same born again believers "...are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last day."

Now the word translated in the NASB as "protected" means to protect by guarding, to keep. The loss of salvation proponents argue that God keeps us in a cell with the door open, such that we can walk out. But my side argues that to keep means with the cell door locked closed, such that we are not free to walk out.

The door can be unlocked from the inside by us is the point. Peter showing as best he can that nothing can take our gift away, defeat us, or will it ever perish, but he is not addressing (like is addressed in other places) our giving up our inheritance. That is a total different topic then what Peter is addressing. We still hold the key. The free will moral decision to become heirs to the Kingdom remains with us, it is hard to believe we would give it up, but it is also hard to believe people would refuse the gift in the first place.

Van said:
I think everyone agrees at some point a born again believer would not be free to walk out. When we enter the eternal kingdom, do you think we can depart? So it is a question of when does God constrain our will such that we cannot depart our love of God. I say during our physical lives, when we are born again.

I agree there is a point where we could still have “free will” and not have likely perceived alternatives (sins) to accepting God’s Love, and that would be in “heaven”. In heaven you will not have temptation, satan, limited resources, or separation from God. You will still be able to have the free will Godly type Love you personally choose to accept while on earth, when you did have alternatives that were needed to make that a real choice. The question might then be asked, “Why do we remain on earth after we have accepted Godly type Love (fulfilled our purpose)?” It is our privilege and honor to provide bodies for Christ (the Spirit) to work through and with to help others accept God’s Love. The only issue is we remain vulnerable to satan, but that should not be a real problem for those that Love the Lord, just don’t give up. Gal. 6:9.

Van said:
Next, lets consider Galatians 6:9. Viewed in isolation it certainly can be read to indicate a works based salvation. This connection can be inferred by saying what is sown in verse 8 to the Spirit from which we reap eternal life, is the same as doing good in verse 9. But is it?

If we flip over to Romans 6:21-22, we see a little different view. While we were "in the flesh" before you were born again, you derived no benefit from sin, for the outcome of those things is death. But now, having been freed (born again) you derive your benefit from God, the Spirit. And one of the benefits is eternal life.

Taken together, I think the best view is two separate benefits are in view from being born again, with one being the outcome of eternal life, and the other sanctification, growing more like Christ and earning rewards for faithful service, such as supporting those who teach us in our local churches. And we will reap rewards, if we do not lose heart, and grow weary. And as an aside, I believe the rewards are those we help by planting, watering, cultivating directly or indirectly such as supporting those who teach, enter God's kingdom.

I see no contradiction. First, the idea of sowing does not mean you are “working” to bring forth a harvest of eternal life. You do not “work” at sinning “sowing bad seed” that is just part of your sinful life and you do not “work” at sowing good seed that is just part of being righteous. God causes the seed we sow to change into something glorious beyond our imagination “eternal life”. There are lots of commands given Christians about what they can and should and will be doing if we are believers. If we do not then, yes we will wither and start sowing seeds after the flesh and eventually “give up” our birth right.
With our birth right in hand we do posses eternal life, but that does not mean we could not give it up.

 

[zeke37]

After reviewing some of the answers you gave, I am appalled at the strange doctrine I see. Truly appalled.

were you refering to my answers or Van's answers?

 

[nobdysfool]

were you refering to my answers or Van's answers?

LOL! I think I'll let you think on that a while....I think you know the answer.

 

[Van]

Hi Bling, your view of 1 Peter 1:3-5 has us keeping ourselves, for we have the key, but that is not what the passage says.

Sowing is working. And the wages of working, sowing bad seed, is death. But to sow to the Spirit does not require the inference of on going effort, it could just refer to the contrast, one sows to the flesh, another sows to the Spirit.

 

[bling]

Van said:Hi Bling, your view of 1 Peter 1:3-5 has us keeping ourselves, for we have the key, but that is not what the passage says. Sowing is working. And the wages of working, sowing bad seed, is death. But to sow to the Spirit does not require the inference of on going effort, it could just refer to the contrast, one sows to the flesh, another sows to the Spirit.1 Peter does not say we have or do not have the right to walk away from our inheritance. It talks about what God is doing for our salvation and does not address that we must continue to accept this Love.We both maybe taking Paul’s analogy of the sowing and reaping more then it was intended, but to say one sowing is work and the other is not, would be adding something Paul definitely did not say. “But to sow to the Spirit does not require the inference of on going effort” Paul says very specifically to continue to sow after the Spirit and not give up, Gal.6:9.

 

[savedbygrace57]

1 pet 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Most folk who dont understand faith as being from God , make a sore mistake in the understanding of verse 5..

Faith is a product of the power of God, its produced by the dunamis of God.

People mistakenly think that this verse is teaching that our faith keeps us as it reaches out to the power of God and stay connected..

Thats not what it says or means..The verse plainly is attributing being kept by the power of God ! Being kept is not conditioned upon the one being kept..Faith is the instrumental means by reason of the power of God..

rom 1:

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Here too believing or faith is produced by the power of God..those believing are so by the power of God..

Faith is not of human origin , its a product of the new creation , the new creation brought about by the power of God..

So 1 pet 1:3-5 is teaching that the saints are kept by the power of God and faith is produced by that power.

 

[Van]

Hi Bling, no Galatians 6:9 does not even mention sowing. It indicates we reap something from doing good works if we do not grow weary. That is why my view, based on Romans 6:21-22 is viable.

 

[bling]

Hi Bling, no Galatians 6:9 does not even mention sowing. It indicates we reap something from doing good works if we do not grow weary. That is why my view, based on Romans 6:21-22 is viable.

The whole context Gal. 6: 7-9 is talking about reaping and sowing. You can not reap that which you did not sow. Gal. 6:8 “…will reap eternal life” spells it very plainly what you will or will not reap. Gal.6 does not say “doing good” are the seeds, but they might be needed to keep us from “giving up” the inheritance. Those that sow after the Spirit will be doing good.

 

[Van]

As I have explained, you are making an unwarranted inference, that what is discussed in verse 9 is the same idea as in verse 8. However, as I have mentioned, the alternate view is that they are two different concepts, just as presented in Romans 6:21-22. In verse 8 a person sows to the Spirit and reaps eternal life. In verse 9, a person sows to the Spirit and reaps the rewards of doing good works.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Since y'all can't play nice together as I advised you to in THIS POST I'm taking away the toys...

Thread closed for numerous rules violations