The 4-point Calvinist's position - Nearer truth than full Calvinism or Arminianism?

[dms1972]

Do we have to subscribe partly or entirely to one system or the other when it comes to theology? Is it not more important to be Biblical? Then use true insights from each theology?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Some of us who believe in many of the concepts expressed in Calvinism reject the "limited atonement" view as usually expressed in the expounding of the meaning of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.

We would point out that the acronym itself can only be traced to the early 1900's and no further back than that. The "limited atonement" concept as usually presented by full 5 point Calvinists is not the position held by the Cannons of Dort in article 8 ( The Canons of Dordt, Second Head of Doctrine ) or the Westminster Confession of Faith in paragraph 4 of chapter 11 Westminster Confession of Faith ).

However,this is the 4th paragraph of ch 11 of the WCF:
"IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification"

This is clear: God did decree to "die for their (the elect) sins". How is that not limited atonement? Basically, the 5 pointers believe and that Christ died ONLY for the elect, or words to that effect. I don't see anything different from the WCF, in ch 11.


However, how does a 4 pointer get away with unlimited atonement, or Christ dying for the sins of everyone if they agree with the first 2 points of TULIP?

For example, total depravity generally means that unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel. So, God elects certain persons, which is unconditional election. And the ultimate conclusion of reformed election is that God chooses who will believe.

So, if these points are what your view is, why would Christ die for everyone, if God only chooses some to believe, and elects only them?

iow, what would be the point?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do we have to subscribe partly or entirely to one system or the other when it comes to theology? Is it not more important to be Biblical? Then use true insights from each theology?

Good question. We need to subscribe to what we can find in Scripture that is clearly stated. When one starts with this, there is less tendency to get into error.

This works well for the atonement, free will, and eternal security.

 

[Marvin Knox]

However,this is the 4th paragraph of ch 11 of the WCF:
"IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification"

This is clear: God did decree to "die for their (the elect) sins". How is that not limited atonement? Basically, the 5 pointers believe and that Christ died ONLY for the elect, or words to that effect. I don't see anything different from the WCF, in ch 11.

Very clearly the WCF says that He died for the sins of the elect. It doesn’t say that He didn’t die for the sins of those who are not the elect. It is no different than what you believe. You (and I) believe that He died for the sins of those who will believe and also for the sins of those who would not believe.

Granted, there is a difference between decreeing and knowing something. But we all agree that at the very least He knew that some would not be saved. Never the less He was crucified for the sins of all and was raised for the justification of all.

My position (and that of the WCF as far as the wording goes) is exactly the same as yours, for instance.

Whether God knew the facts of the history of salvations or decreed the facts of the history of salvations is all the same.

You rightly point out that many 5 pointers believe that Christ died ONLY for the elect. That is different than what you and I believe.

However, how does a 4 pointer get away with unlimited atonement, or Christ dying for the sins of everyone if they agree with the first 2 points of TULIP?

For example, total depravity generally means that unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel. So, God elects certain persons, which is unconditional election. And the ultimate conclusion of reformed election is that God chooses who will believe.

So, if these points are what your view is, why would Christ die for everyone, if God only chooses some to believe, and elects only them?

iow, what would be the point?

What you ask is almost exactly what anyone in your position should ask about God’s work as you view it.

Namely:

Why would Christ die for everyone (those who would believe and those who would not believe) - if God knew He would choose to save only those who would believe?. What would be the point?

I suppose that we would both answer something to the effect that He did so to be able to show clearly His righteous judgment against those who would not believe.

The fact that I believe that He needed to show particular grace and mercy for any at all to believe changes nothing.

We need to subscribe to what we can find in Scripture that is clearly stated. When one starts with this, there is less tendency to get into error. This works well for the atonement, free will, and eternal security.

I agree!

That's why I do that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Very clearly the WCF says that He died for the sins of the elect. It doesn’t say that He didn’t die for the sins of those who are not the elect.

But that is the clear insinuation. Just like a 5 pointer saying that He died for the church. The meaning is that He didn't die for those not of the church.

It is no different than what you believe. You (and I) believe that He died for the sins of those who will believe and also for the sins of those who would not believe.

I believe any statement about the scope of Christ's death should state the full scope; He died for all.

Granted, there is a difference between decreeing and knowing something. But we all agree that at the very least He knew that some would not be saved. Never the less He was crucified for the sins of all and was raised for the justification of all.

Amen.

My position (and that of the WCF as far as the wording goes) is exactly the same as yours, for instance.

I agree He died for the church. But I'd never just state that. I don't like the insinuation.

What you ask is almost exactly what anyone in your position should ask about God’s work as you view it.

Namely:

Why would Christ die for everyone (those who would believe and those who would not believe) - if God knew He would choose to save only those who would believe?. What would be the point?

From my time on forums over the years, it seems that 5-pointers think that it is Christ's death that saves the elect; not their faith.

This is supported by the fact that most 5 pointers will charge "universalist" to those who claim unlimited atonement. It seems they don't understand that one is saved through faith rather than through Christ's death.

I suppose that we would both answer something to the effect that He did so to be able to show clearly His righteous judgment against those who would not believe.

I agree. I also believe that it was to show that anyone who believes will be saved. iow, there isn't anyone who can't be saved.

 

[Marvin Knox]

But that is the clear insinuation. Just like a 5 pointer saying that He died for the church. The meaning is that He didn't die for those not of the church.

I believe any statement about the scope of Christ's death should state the full scope; He died for all.

Amen.

I agree He died for the church. But I'd never just state that. I don't like the insinuation.

From my time on forums over the years, it seems that 5-pointers think that it is Christ's death that saves the elect; not their faith.

This is supported by the fact that most 5 pointers will charge "universalist" to those who claim unlimited atonement. It seems they don't understand that one is saved through faith rather than through Christ's death.


I agree. I also believe that it was to show that anyone who believes will be saved. iow, there isn't anyone who can't be saved.

We agree on almost everything in this.

Neither of us agree with the 5-point presentation as it is often portrayed in Calvinism concerning limited atonement. That's why I started this thread.

Obviously to a strict limited atonement guy the WCF would be seen as insinuating more than what it insinuates to me.

But TULIP came on the scene long after the WCF for printed. I have no reason to believe that the framers of the WCF meant the more strict sense for limited atonement. In fact - as I understand Calvin's belief on this - neither did he. I must admit though that Calvin struggled with this concept himself at times in his writings.

They say that the Bible itself "insinuates" that He only died for the elect. I disagree. I believe their insistence on limited atonement in the very strict sense is based on flawed human logic and assumptions. It is not based on the clear teaching of the Word of God IMO.

Many limited atonement people would tell us that it only means that it was His intent to save only the elect (or as you would have it - those who believe). If everyone thought of limited atonement in those terms there would be no problems between them and me. For that matter there would likely be no problems between them and you - at least on this particular issue.

I don't agree that Calvinists teach or believe that it is not faith that justifies. It has not been my experience that even hard line 5-pointers believe that election saves. They all believe that it is by faith that we are justified.

Now they do believe that election assures that one will be saved through faith eventually. That is different.

Obviously you disagree with even that position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We agree on almost everything in this.

But TULIP came on the scene long after the WCF for printed. I have no reason to believe that the framers of the WCF meant the more strict sense for limited atonement. In fact - as I understand Calvin's belief on this - neither did he. I must admit though that Calvin struggled with this concept himself at times in his writings.

It's my understanding that Calvin actually wavered on this subject. Some writings seem to support limited atonement, while others seem to support unlimited. They may represent different times in his life.

Many limited atonement people would tell us that it only means that it was His intent to save only the elect (or as you would have it - those who believe). If everyone thought of limited atonement in those terms there would be no problems between them and me. For that matter there would likely be no problems between them and you - at least on this particular issue.

I know they always do acknowledge faith, but by their "universalist" reaction to unlimited atonement, that sure seems to me that they base salvation on who Christ died for. iow, they are saved by His death. I recall they say that because they were chosen, God grants them "faith to believe", effectively meaning that God chooses who will believe. To which I disagree.

[QUTOE]I don't agree that Calvinists teach or believe that it is not faith that justifies. It has not been my experience that even hard line 5-pointers believe that election saves. They all believe that it is by faith that we are justified.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But they think that faith is part of the "chosen package". That those God chose, will be saved, will believe, etc.

Now they do believe that election assures that one will be saved through faith eventually. That is different.

Obviously you disagree with even that position.

My view of election is completely different than theirs. Election has a purpose, but not for salvation. The purpose of God's election is for privilege and service.

So, even Judas, the traitor, could be said to be chosen by Jesus (Jn 6:70), even though he was never saved. He did serve a purpose. And he was privileged to be in the presence of the Messiah, though he never appreciated that.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It's my understanding that Calvin actually wavered on this subject. Some writings seem to support limited atonement, while others seem to support unlimited. They may represent different times in his life.

He was a lot like most of us in this. His theology evolved somewhat over time. Mine too.

I know they always do acknowledge faith, but by their "universalist" reaction to unlimited atonement, that sure seems to me that they base salvation on who Christ died for. iow, they are saved by His death. I recall they say that because they were chosen, God grants them "faith to believe", effectively meaning that God chooses who will believe. To which I disagree.

Yes. But they think that faith is part of the "chosen package". That those God chose, will be saved, will believe, etc.

Yes.
I've even heard it said that He "purchased" faith - whatever that means.

I do believe that God grants faith to believe. He "authors" faith in us and not in all of us.

I believe that God chose who would believe and granted them faith.

His choosing who would believe is closely tied to His Omniscience of what would happen in history (including individual belief).

His granting of faith has to do with His accomplishing everything within history through the omnipresent function of His Word (His decrees as some would say).

I don't believe that the strict form of limited atonement is necessary to hold that belief.

My view of election is completely different than theirs.

I've noticed.

Election has a purpose, but not for salvation. The purpose of God's election is for privilege and service.

So, even Judas, the traitor, could be said to be chosen by Jesus (Jn 6:70), even though he was never saved. He did serve a purpose. And he was privileged to be in the presence of the Messiah, though he never appreciated that.

I believe that election for privilege and service requires election to either belief or unbelief as appropriate to what that service might be.

I don't believe that one can be elected to preach the Word for instance if he has not been elected to be saved.

I don't believe that one can be elected to betray Christ for instance if he has not been elected to be among the reprobate.

If the Bible was talking about election by God after the fact of belief - that would support your view. But it is clear that the electing was done before the belief - even before a person's existence in fact.

One could say that God simply foresaw the belief and elected them to service based on that. That would be like the "Arminian" system with the added twist of making sure that you said election only meant election to service.

But we've been through most of this before. The topic of the thread is the statement that some form of a 4-point system is closer to the truth of scripture than a strict 5-point system.

That is to say that Christ's sacrifice was directed toward unbelievers as well as believers. What it would finally end up accomplishing for unbelievers in eternity - not so much.

I think we can at least agree on the premise of the OP.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do believe that God grants faith to believe. He "authors" faith in us and not in all of us.

I see "faith" as a noun, for which it is, and yes, God does grant what it is that we are believing. But I believe that the action of believing is from our own hearts, which is what Rom 10:10 says.

I believe that God chose who would believe and granted them faith.

His choosing who would believe is closely tied to His Omniscience of what would happen in history (including individual belief).

I don't agree with the first sentence, but I agree that He certainly knows who will believe. If God chooses who will believe, then there really isn't any need to evangelize. Because if He chooses who will believe, we can be assured that all of them will believe. Thus, no actual need for evangelization.

I believe that election for privilege and service requires election to either belief or unbelief as appropriate to what that service might be.

Then your view must be that Judas was saved and went to heaven.

I don't believe that one can be elected to preach the Word for instance if he has not been elected to be saved.

It should be obvious that God wouldn't choose any unbeliever to preach the Word.

I don't believe that one can be elected to betray Christ for instance if he has not been elected to be among the reprobate.

The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.

If the Bible was talking about election by God after the fact of belief - that would support your view.

Yes!! And the Bible does support my view. Glad you noticed!

Eph 1:4 - just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

The word "us" is clearly defined in v.19 as "believers". So Eph 1:4 is actually saying that God chose believers to be holy and blameless.

But it is clear that the electing was done before the belief - even before a person's existence in fact.

Yes. And God choses believers, which is what the "us" refers to.

One could say that God simply foresaw the belief and elected them to service based on that. That would be like the "Arminian" system with the added twist of making sure that you said election only meant election to service.

According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.

For example, Christ, the nation Israel, angels, NT believers, the 12 apostles, and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles are all said to be elections. Yet, none of them were FOR salvation.

But we've been through most of this before. The topic of the thread is the statement that some form of a 4-point system is closer to the truth of scripture than a strict 5-point system.

I agree.

That is to say that Christ's sacrifice was directed toward unbelievers as well as believers. What it would finally end up accomplishing for unbelievers in eternity - not so much.

I think we can at least agree on the premise of the OP.

Yes, sir!

 

[Marvin Knox]

I see "faith" as a noun, for which it is, and yes, God does grant what it is that we are believing. But I believe that the action of believing is from our own hearts, which is what Rom 10:10 says.

I do as well. I think that all Reformed types would say that. Do you know of any who would say it is not from our heart?

I don't agree with the first sentence, but I agree that He certainly knows who will believe. If God chooses who will believe, then there really isn't any need to evangelize. Because if He chooses who will believe, we can be assured that all of them will believe. Thus, no actual need for evangelization.

There isn't any "need" to evangelize at all. God could save without it if He had so ordained that salvation happen that way. There is the question as to whether or not we choose to participate in the activities that He ordained to bring people into the Kingdom. That's your choice just as it is for me.

Then your view must be that Judas was saved and went to heaven.

That's a bogus charge concerning what I obviously meant.

Don't get silly on me now or we will be back into the kind of trouble we have had in the past.

The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.

I don't disagree that everyone who believes can and will be saved.

I do disagree that the scriptures indicate that everyone "can" believe and be saved. The scripture indicates that many men left to their own power can not believe.

Eph 1:4 - just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

The word "us" is clearly defined in v.19 as "believers". So Eph 1:4 is actually saying that God chose believers to be holy and blameless.

Yes. And God choses believers, which is what the "us" refers to.

Obviously the Ephesian letter is being addressed to believers. Of course Paul is talking about believers.

But when God predestined there were no believers. It is that time (for want of a better term) before their existence that he is talking about and not after.

If God meant to say that He ordained that everyone who believes will end up such and such a way - He would have said it that way.

I believe this is a bit of a word game that you play and it gets a little old.

According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.

For example, Christ, the nation Israel, angels, NT believers, the 12 apostles, and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles are all said to be elections. Yet, none of them were FOR salvation.

Again - If God says in eternity past that when Marvin lives he will do this or that in the service of God - He is saying that Marvin will be saved first.

As you rightly pointed out before - one can't serve God if he is not saved. If, before my existence, God assigned my destiny to be in the service of God - He also made the decision that I would be saved to do it.

Obviously you feel that He knows who will be saved and after thinking on that fact He decides that that person will be a good candidate to elect for a certain task or predestine for a certain thing.

This kind of thing is just twisting and turning the meaning and is just plain word games. It is akin to what you do with the "us" and "believers" stuff. I must admit that it gets new people flustered just as it did me at first. But after a little while it gets old.

Your position and that of the Arminians is that God foresees what will happen and then decrees and ordains.

My position is that God foresees what could happen from an infinite number of choices He can make. After deciding if a particular scenario fits His purpose - He then decrees and ordains so as to bring that scenario to past.

We have two diametrically opposed concepts of how God works.

We are off topic. You can have the last word along these lines if you wish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do as well. I think that all Reformed types would say that. Do you know of any who would say it is not from our heart?

The 5 pointers believe that all belief comes from God, the "gift of faith". iow, if God doesn't give it, man cannot believe.

There isn't any "need" to evangelize at all. God could save without it if He had so ordained that salvation happen that way. There is the question as to whether or not we choose to participate in the activities that He ordained to bring people into the Kingdom. That's your choice just as it is for me.

I don't believe that He has "ordained" anyone into the kingdom. Certainly He knows who will believe or not, but He doesn't choose who will believe.

I don't disagree that everyone who believes can and will be saved.

My point is that everyone who believes IS saved. Jn 5:24

I do disagree that the scriptures indicate that everyone "can" believe and be saved. The scripture indicates that many men left to their own power can not believe.

I haven't found any verse or passage to support this. And, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that it takes "power" to believe the gospel. There is a verse about the "power of the gospel to save". Rom 1:16

But when God predestined there were no believers. It is that time (for want of a better term) before their existence that he is talking about and not after.

Sure. It's about God's omniscience; that He always knew everything. And His knowledge of everything doesn't mean He causes everything.

If God meant to say that He ordained that everyone who believes will end up such and such a way - He would have said it that way.

I believe this is a bit of a word game that you play and it gets a little old.

First, Eph 1:4 isn't about ordaining. It's about being chosen. And it isn't about how people who are chosen will end up, but WHAT they were chosen for.

iow, the purpose of election is privilege and service. To live a life that is holy and blameless is what the believer's service is to be.

Second, there is no word game here. The object of the election of Eph 1:4 is "us", as in "God chose us". The "us" is specifically defined in Eph 1:19 as in "us who believe". Therefore, the "us" in Eph 1:4 is believers. That's who God chose in that verse. He didn't choose who would be believers, as most 5 pointers seem to think.

Again - If God says in eternity past that when Marvin lives he will do this or that in the service of God - He is saying that Marvin will be saved first.

No, He is noting what saved Marvin will do.

As you rightly pointed out before - one can't serve God if he is not saved. If, before my existence, God assigned my destiny to be in the service of God - He also made the decision that I would be saved to do it.

I haven't found any verse to support this. God knows what and how each of us will live. He doesn't assign destinies. He knows it. For those who believe, He does assign service, as to our "call", and what spiritual gifts will will get.

Obviously you feel that He knows who will be saved and after thinking on that fact He decides that that person will be a good candidate to elect for a certain task or predestine for a certain thing.

I don't think that God needs to "think on that fact". He already knows everything.

I said this:
"According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.

For example, Christ, the nation Israel, angels, NT believers, the 12 apostles, and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles are all said to be elections. Yet, none of them were FOR salvation."

This kind of thing is just twisting and turning the meaning and is just plain word games. It is akin to what you do with the "us" and "believers" stuff. I must admit that it gets new people flustered just as it did me at first. But after a little while it gets old.

There is no word game here. As there wasn't with the word "us" and "believers" in Eph 1:4. It's all very crystal clear and plain.

Please show me any verse that speaks of eklektos (election) being used for election to salvation. There aren't any.

To be clear, God DOES choose who He will save. And that is believers only.

Your position and that of the Arminians is that God foresees what will happen and then decrees and ordains.

No, I strongly disagree with the Arminians on this. God doesn't have to "foresee". That insinuates that He learns by "looking ahead" or something like that. Because He is omniscient, He doesn't have to "foresee" anything. He already knows intrinsically.

My position is that God foresees what could happen from an infinite number of choices He can make. After deciding if a particular scenario fits His purpose - He then decrees and ordains so as to bring that scenario to past.

I never use the word "foresee", but rather, "knows". This is a definition from the internet:
tr.v.
1. To imagine or know as a probable occurrence; anticipate or predict.

God never has to "imagine" anything because He already knows.

And God never "knows as a probable occurrence" because there aren't any "probables" in His knowledge. He does know probables, and He knows the actuals.

And God never anticipates or predicts. These are words that only apply to non-divine creatures.

We have two diametrically opposed concepts of how God works.

OK

We are off topic. You can have the last word along these lines if you wish.

I do, only to clarify my view.

 

[Albion]

The problem is that there are no verses about anyone being "elected to be among the reprobate". In fact, Jn 3:16 communicates that anyone who believes will be saved. So, in essence, anyone CAN believe. That would remove any idea of the so-called non-elect, or those who CAN'T believe.

However, that's not what John 3:16 says.

It teaches us that "whosoever believes "will be saved, but it doesn't give us any indication of who it is who will believe and who will not...or why those who do believe do so.

According to the ISBE, that's what election means: elected to special privilege and service. And given the 6 categories of election that I have found in Scripture, none of the categories were said to be elected FOR salvation.

There are too many verses that speak of election as relating to salvation for me to agree to that. For instance John 10:28. That's a direct refutation of your thinking about election being only a selection for service.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...............I never use the word "foresee", but rather, "knows". This is a definition from the internet:
tr.v.
1. To imagine or know as a probable occurrence; anticipate or predict.

God never has to "imagine" anything because He already knows.

And God never "knows as a probable occurrence" because there aren't any "probables" in His knowledge. He doesn't know probables, and He knows the actuals..........

There are so many things in your post that I am tempted to respond to. But I know from experience with you how these things go. I just don't want to go there.

Obviously there are many areas where I believe you are wrong. But I'm going to assume in this one instance that you at least want to correct your thinking when you quite obviously are not in line with what the Bible says.

I could talk at length on this and provide many scripture "proofs" against what you have said. But one scripture should show you the gap that exists in your knowledge of God in at least this one area.

I'm assuming that you are honest and will revise your thinking rather than just argue. I hope that my assumption is correct.

"Then David said, “O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit." 1 Samuel 23:10-13 (NASB)

 

[FreeGrace2]

However, that's not what John 3:16 says.

It teaches us that "whosoever believes "will be saved, but it doesn't give us any indication of who it is who will believe and who will not...or why those who do believe do so.

My understanding of "whosoever believes" means that anyone can believe, contrary to the 5 point reformed. They don't believe that anyone can.

There are too many verses that speak of election as relating to salvation for me to agree to that. For instance John 10:28. That's a direct refutation of your thinking about election being only a selection for service.

"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

I don't see any mention of election here. The verse is a promise of eternal security to those who believe in Him. There is nothing about election.

What other verses indicate being elected (eklektos) to salvation?

 

[FreeGrace2]

There are so many things in your post that I am tempted to respond to. But I know from experience with you how these things go. I just don't want to go there.

I do understand how these things "go".

Obviously there are many areas where I believe you are wrong. But I'm going to assume in this one instance that you at least want to correct your thinking when you quite obviously are not in line with what the Bible says.

I could talk at length on this and provide many scripture "proofs" against what you have said. But one scripture should show you the gap that exists in your knowledge of God in at least this one area.

I'm assuming that you are honest and will revise your thinking rather than just argue. I hope that my assumption is correct.

"Then David said, “O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit." 1 Samuel 23:10-13 (NASB)

OK, so it would seem that God make a mistake here. Is that your take on this passage? It sure isn't my take at all.

Either God makes mistakes, and doesn't completely know the future, or we must understand this passage differently than that. I choose to understand it so that God hasn't made any mistake.

And that's rather easy to do. What David asks can easily be seen as asking about one's motivation. iow, it was Saul's motivation to go to Keilah in pursuit of David. And it was the citizen's motivation to turn David over to Saul.

I think v.13 is instructive. It begins with David leaving Keilah and then Saul deciding not to go there. Saul was motivated only if David was there. But since David had left, there was no more reason to go there.

So, we have a choice. Either God isn't omniscient or the passage is more about motivation and desire, rather than God not knowing the future clearly.

If I didn't understand the character and attributes of God, like unbelievers, I would easily conclude that God isn't all that. That He doesn't know everything.

But I know better, because I know that He is omniscient.

 

[Albion]

My understanding of "whosoever believes" means that anyone can believe, contrary to the 5 point reformed. They don't believe that anyone can.

That's what I understood you to mean. However, the words in that verse don't actually say that, if you read carefully.

The verse merely says that those who do believe--whoever they are (because this is known only to God)--will be saved. That's entirely compatible with a belief in Election.

It does not say what many people think it says, that anyone who decides on his own to accept Christ in some way or other, will be saved as a result.

"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

I don't see any mention of election here. The verse is a promise of eternal security to those who believe in Him. There is nothing about election.

Very well. That passage does refer more to another of the points -- Perseverance in Grace (Eternal Security). But if you read the whole of the passage, beginning at verse 26, for example, it does have Jesus saying that these people were given to him by the Father, which seems incompatible with the "come one, come all" understanding of things.

See also Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 8:29-33

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's what I understood you to mean. However, the words in that verse don't actually say that, if you read carefully.

I'm sure all the translators did read carefully before they submitted their translation. And they still translated it as "whosoever believes". That's how they understood John's sentence.

The verse merely says that those who do believe--whoever they are (because this is known only to God)--will be saved. That's entirely compatible with a belief in Election.

I have more faith in translators than trying to decipher the actual Greek. And when it's nearly unanimous, why argue with translators?

It does not say what many people think it says, that anyone who decides on his own to accept Christ in some way or other, will be saved as a result.

I sure don't believe that anyone will be saved "in some way or other", whatever that means. btw, man does believe on his own. Rom 10:10 says man believes from his heart. That's where the belief comes from. It does not come from God. How do I know that? There is no verse that says it comes from God.

Very well. That passage does refer more to another of the points -- Perseverance in Grace (Eternal Security). But if you read the whole of the passage, beginning at verse 26, for example, it does have Jesus saying that these people were given to him by the Father, which seems incompatible with the "come one, come all" understanding of things.

I don't think so. The question is: just who does the Father "give" to the Son? The answer should be clear: believers. That's who He gives to His Son.

Why would He give anyone who hasn't believed yet?

 

[Albion]

I'm sure all the translators did read carefully before they submitted their translation. And they still translated it as "whosoever believes". That's how they understood John's sentence.

I'm not contesting "whosoever believes." I'm questioning your understanding of the meaning of those words in English. "Whosoever" means all those who do. It does not say anything directly about free will or, OTOH, election.

I have more faith in translators than trying to decipher the actual Greek. And when it's nearly unanimous, why argue with translators?

I'm not. And I think that should be pretty clear by now since I made my point on the basis of that very translation.

Rom 10:10 says man believes from his heart. That's where the belief comes from. It does not come from God. How do I know that? There is no verse that says it comes from God.

You asked for some verses. I gave you three. Did you read them?

I don't think so. The question is: just who does the Father "give" to the Son?

No, it isn't. The point is that the Father gives them to the Son; they are not "up for grabs." Their acceptance of Christ--or, OTOH, refusal of him--is not in doubt. They are his and it's because of a decision on the part of the Father.

 

[Marvin Knox]

OK, so it would seem that God make a mistake here. Is that your take on this passage? It sure isn't my take at all.

Either God makes mistakes, and doesn't completely know the future, or we must understand this passage differently than that. I choose to understand it so that God hasn't made any mistake.

And that's rather easy to do. What David asks can easily be seen as asking about one's motivation. iow, it was Saul's motivation to go to Keilah in pursuit of David. And it was the citizen's motivation to turn David over to Saul.

I think v.13 is instructive. It begins with David leaving Keilah and then Saul deciding not to go there. Saul was motivated only if David was there. But since David had left, there was no more reason to go there.

So, we have a choice. Either God isn't omniscient or the passage is more about motivation and desire, rather than God not knowing the future clearly.

If I didn't understand the character and attributes of God, like unbelievers, I would easily conclude that God isn't all that. That He doesn't know everything.

But I know better, because I know that He is omniscient.

Why God speaks the way He does in this and other passages is something I want to understand better and will probably some day. This isn't the only place where He calls things that are not as though they were. I believe that He likely wants us to struggle a bit with the Word in some cases to glean what we can from His statements.

To me what He is communicating goes to what I said and not to your "explanation".

The point goes to the concept of His seeing things that could be just as vividly as He sees those that will actually be.

He can speak with authority as to what would happen if David hadn't prayed about it and didn't heed what God said would happen. He does pray and he does respond and the outcome is totally different from what God knew full well would happen had he not.

God's was telling David very directly exactly what would happen if the current circumstances remained the same. This was only a possibility as we soon see in the passage. But God knew that particular possibility just as if it were fact.

God knows possibilities just as clearly as He knows actualities. That is the point. You are wrong in your assumption that God doesn't know possibilities.

Your explanation is an example of someone who looks for a way to make scripture fit his desired theology rather than bend his desires to what the scriptures clearly show.

Notice that David told God that he had "heard for certain" what Saul intended to do. He was not asking God if Saul was "motivated" to do it. He was telling God what Saul intended to do (Saul's "motivation").

What David wanted to know from God was if these things would indeed happen. He came to the one who knows all possibilities to find out what exactly what would happen if things remained the same.

And - by the way - the interaction of God with His creation as shown in this account in 1 Samuel is exactly what Calvinists (both 4 or 5 pointers) believe and teach.

It is often said of Calvinists that they believe that people do not have wills of their own if God decrees everything that happens. That is a false charge.

David had a will. He exercised that will by seeking God's face and believing God. The fact that God predetermined that this would happen - and that David would live and further the line of Messiah changes nothing. Far from making him a mere robot as some charge - we see him as a willing partner with God in the working forth of God's decrees.

I should have let it go and just gone with my instincts here and not tried to correct you.

I will add this one more thought here because it is so important to show the kind of games you play to find a way to not have to change your theology.

You know full well that when you say that God gives "believers" to the Son - the passages are talking about a time before they believed or even necessarily existed. Now you may say that you are just going there because God is omniscience. But we all know that if Christ wanted to tell us that the Father has given those to Himself who the Father saw would eventually believe - He could have said exactly that.

He doesn't say or even hint that people are given to the Son because they believe. He says clearly that those who are given to the Son will believe or come to Him.

This is indeed a game you play with the scriptures. It is obvious to all who have for some time watched you do it with new "opponents".

I'm quite sure that it is obvious to God as well.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not contesting "whosoever believes." I'm questioning your understanding of the meaning of those words in English. "Whosoever" means all those who do. It does not say anything directly about free will or, OTOH, election.

The words mean "anyone who". It clearly insinuates that anyone can.

I said this:
"Rom 10:10 says man believes from his heart. That's where the belief comes from. It does not come from God. How do I know that? There is no verse that says it comes from God."

You asked for some verses. I gave you three. Did you read them?

In post # 136 I found Eph 1:4-5 and Rom 8:29-33. A few posts before that I found John 10:28, which I pointed out didn't say anything about election to salvation.

And Eph 1:4 is probably the most misunderstood verse by Calvinists. Who does the verse say is "chosen"? It is "us". Who does Paul mean by "us"? He defines the "us" in Eph 1:19 - "and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might"

He was addressing believers. The "us" is only about believers. That's who God chose to be holy and blameless.

Rom 8:29-33 mentions election, but not in connection with getting saved.

"29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies"

v.29 speaks about believers, whom He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. iow, to be Christ-like. That is what believers are predestined to become. And by eternity, we all will. Some won't be until eternity.

v.30 speaks about an invitation. That's what the Greek word means. What are believers invited to? To be Christ-like. Then we have the so-called golden chain. But it is simply a list of what all believers will experience. Notice the English past tense of "glorified". That happened to you yet? Me neither. But Paul is so confident that all believers WILL BE glorified that he put it in the tense of completed action; as though it has already occurred. But we won't be glorified until eternity.

v.31 gives us a guarantee of God's security.
v.32 is a verse about God's grace in supplying His children with "all things".
v.33 is a guarantee that there will be no charge against God's elect.

Again, nothing here about being chosen for salvation.

No, it isn't.

Yes, the question is about who the Father gives to His Son. And it's believers.

The point is that the Father gives them to the Son; they are not "up for grabs."

I never said anything about anyone being "up for grabs". I have no idea what makes you think I even suggested such a thing. The Father gives believers to His Son.

If you disagree, then who does the Father give to His Son? Specifically.

Their acceptance of Christ--or, OTOH, refusal of him--is not in doubt. They are his and it's because of a decision on the part of the Father.

Of course it's the Father's decision to give believers to His Son.