The lie of eternal security refuted once and for all.

[FreeGrace2]

Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

God doesn't call everyone

Please explain the meaning of Matt 22:14 - many are called; but few are chosen.

....in fact the decision is made prior to you being born.

All of God's decisions were made before the world began. So what?

Romans 9:11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…

What is clear here is that every election has a purpose. Do you know that there are at least 6 different categories of what the Bible describes as being "elect", and NONE of these categories are about being chosen for salvation.

Romans 9 :16So then it does not depend on the man who wills (free will) or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy

The Bible tells us upon whom God will have mercy or compassion. Do you know the verse that says so?

....because concerning salvation you have no free-will...do you claim it makes God unjust?

Salvation is a gift of God, and we know that gifts are offered before they are received. The very nature of a gift proves that it has to be received in order to be obtained.

The decision to save is obviously God's. When one believes in Christ for salvation, they are NOT choosing to save themselves by their action of believing in Christ. Their action to believe is the basis for God to save them. His decision all the way.

 

[-57]

Don't be silly. He has always been in my equations. But why haven't you noticed before?


The horse isn't thirsty.


Nonsense. Arminians have just as many errors as do the Calvinists. Just in different areas.

My view of eternal security is no doubt even stronger than the Calvinsts.

btw, I wasn't born in, nor am I from the country of Armenia, as you wrongly accuse. You need to know the difference between Armenians and Arminians. The first is a county and the second is an errant theology. Like Calvinism.

The horse isn't thirsty because he just happened to take a quick drink several miles back. To bad life got in the way and he missed the water from the watering hole.

Your "free-choice" theology is based upon happenstance concerning life.

Concerning Arminians.....you fully know I mispelled it..or spell correction changed it...so please don't accuse me of wrongly accusing you.

 

[-57]

God is OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENCE.

God knows beginning from the end, so of course God knows. But that does not mean that He changes or alters our free will.

God is not held to time. Time is from our dimension. God is not human or held to time as in things happening in a certain order of things. as we see them.

God does alter our "free-will". When we are quickened by the Holy Spirit...our "free-will" is changed. We now freely choice Christ. A man who is dead in Spirit has no free-will to choose Christ. He can't. He will always freely choose's seperation from God....then again it's not really free will because he has no choice but to choose seperation from God. John 3:18 tells us he is already condemned. The choice has been made. The wages of sin is death...without the Holy Spirit quicking him, the choice has already been made.

 

[-57]

The Calvinist fascination with Lazarus is misplaced. Lazarus was not a regeneration, but a resuscitation. Not to be compared with regeneration.

In fact, Lazarus was a saved person. So Jesus didn't re-regenerate him. That is silly.

The point is, as Calvin corrrectly ponts out...Lazarus had NO CHOICE but to resuscitate. You're looking at it wrong.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Do you agree that there is a particular initial time in the process of salvation when we pass from death to life and will never again come into condemnation because we are evermore seated with Christ in glory as part of His body and sealed with His Holy Spirit forever?

Yes I do. I understand now where I have confused you.

Good. Then we have no problem.

From that "particular initial time", when a person passed from death to life, out of condemnation forever, was sealed by the Holy Spirit, and seated with Christ in glory -- that person was saved forever.

I too believe in OSAS.

Again - we have no problem apparently.

Perhaps you think that Reformed believers like myself think that a person who hears the Word of God need not respond in true faith to the preaching of the gospel to be saved.

If that's the case, you need not worry about us.

No one - even the most Calvinistic among us - believes that we have grounds to believe that anyone who hears the gospel is saved without a personal heartfelt response to that gospel (elect or not).

Calvinists do not believe in salvation through election alone. They believe that a person who is among the elect and predestined to believe will indeed believe sooner or later.

That is precisely why almost every major theater for evangelism around the world, that was opened up in the 19th century, was pioneered by someone who believed in the basic doctrines of grace preached by Reformed believers.

That is why believers in the doctrines of grace - whether we are talking about Jesus, Paul, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, Kennedy, MacArthur or any other such teachers - are among the most ardent evangelists.

The faith possessed by new believers will be evidenced by obedience to God (works). Everyone believes that. There is no need to teach Calvinists about works following - if that is your purpose in all this.

 

[-57]

Please explain the meaning of Matt 22:14 - many are called; but few are chosen.

At least you acknowledge people are chosen. As far as calling goes...now we need to discuss effectual calling and general calling.

Jesus said, “For many are invited (called), but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). In this statement, Jesus distinguishes between the general call that everyone receives by hearing the gospel and the effectual call that leads to salvation. The effectual call is also taught in passages such as Romans 1:6, where Paul greets the believers as those “who are called to belong to Jesus Christ”; and Acts 16:14, where Luke says of Lydia that “the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” The effectual call, therefore, is God’s action toward the elect, those whom He chose in Christ “before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless. ref

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your "free-choice" theology is based upon happenstance concerning life.

If you'd like to continue to think so, yet erroneously, that's your FREE choice. But you've been given the facts of the matter. And you are free to accept them or reject them.

Concerning Arminians.....you fully know I mispelled it..or spell correction changed it...so please don't accuse me of wrongly accusing you.

It wasn't changed when I read it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The point is, as Calvin corrrectly ponts out...Lazarus had NO CHOICE but to resuscitate. You're looking at it wrong.

i've shown how you have looked at it wrongly. There is no connection between raising Lazarus and regeneration of an unregenerate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

At least you acknowledge people are chosen.

Have you acknowledged that the Bible describes at least 6 different categories of the "elect" and yet NONE of them were chosen for salvation?

As far as calling goes...now we need to discuss effectual calling and general calling.

So, you're not willing to consider the Greek word and what it means?

Jesus said, “For many are invited (called), but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). In this statement, Jesus distinguishes between the general call that everyone receives by hearing the gospel and the effectual call that leads to salvation.

No, He used 2 different Greek words. One means to invite, the other means to choose, select, elect.

 

[-57]

If you'd like to continue to think so, yet erroneously, that's your FREE choice. But you've been given the facts of the matter. And you are free to accept them or reject them.


It wasn't changed when I read it.

Should I change your theology to the "God points you in the right direction and hopes you accept Jesus theology?"

 

[-57]

i've shown how you have looked at it wrongly. There is no connection between raising Lazarus and regeneration of an unregenerate.

I never said there was THAT connection. Sheeze.
What I said was "The point is, as Calvin correctly ponts out...Lazarus had NO CHOICE but to resuscitate." Lazarus didn't have free-choice concerning his coming back to life....or...do you think he did?

 

[-57]

Have you acknowledged that the Bible describes at least 6 different categories of the "elect" and yet NONE of them were chosen for salvation?

Then lay them out:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Just for the record:
2 Thes 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

2nd Tim 2:10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Should I change your theology to the "God points you in the right direction and hopes you accept Jesus theology?"

That would be quite wrong. Why would one think that I think that God "hopes". God is omniscient, meaning that He has always known everything. Therefore, He cannot hope. Because He always knows.

But you were kinda close, until you derailed on the silliness of God hoping for something.

God HAS pointed us in the right direction. And I proved that with Scripture, which you obviously haven't bothered to address or even acknowledge. If my use of Acts 17:25,26 and Rom 1:19,20 is in error, it would be appreciated if you'd point out how they were.

That is, if they were. But since you didn't bother to address either passage, I'll take it as I didn't use them in error, but you just didn't want to discuss the implications of them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I never said there was THAT connection. Sheeze.
What I said was "The point is, as Calvin correctly ponts out...Lazarus had NO CHOICE but to resuscitate." Lazarus didn't have free-choice concerning his coming back to life....or...do you think he did?

Of course he didn't. Which is still irrelevant to the issue of salvation.

Why can't the Calvinist see the freedom of choice in Isa 1:18-20?

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;

20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Here, God actually suggests that man REASON with Him. How can that be if God is making the choices. No reason for reason.

Then, God gives man 2 clear conditional clauses, with consequences for each condition.

These are choices, even though Calvinists don't want to admit it.

But, please go ahead, and explain how this passage doesn't support the fact that man is free to choose between options.

 

[-57]

That would be quite wrong. Why would one think that I think that God "hopes". God is omniscient, meaning that He has always known everything. Therefore, He cannot hope. Because He always knows.

But you were kinda close, until you derailed on the silliness of God hoping for something.

God HAS pointed us in the right direction. And I proved that with Scripture, which you obviously haven't bothered to address or even acknowledge. If my use of Acts 17:25,26 and Rom 1:19,20 is in error, it would be appreciated if you'd point out how they were.

That is, if they were. But since you didn't bother to address either passage, I'll take it as I didn't use them in error, but you just didn't want to discuss the implications of them.

Now were digging where the clams are...
OK, should I change it to the God points you in the right direction but may not get His wish theology?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

For anyone interested, I've started a thread in "Soteriology". It's called The secrets of Faith and the narrow path. I did this to highlight important points about the once saved portion of the osas equation and debate.

thanks

One of the marks of true Christianity is that there are no secrets Acts 26:26. Secrets are for gnostics.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then lay them out:

Thanks for asking. I've done this many times, but apparently you missed all of those times.

1. Election of Christ: an individual election
1 Pet 2:6 Isa 28:16 Isa 42:1 Luke 9:35 Luke 23:35

2. Election of Angels: a group or corporate election
1 Tim 5:21

3. Election of Israel: a group or corporate election
Amos 3:2 Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17

4. Election of believers: a group or corporate election
Eph 1:4a [note: this verse doesn’t say that God chose who would be believers, but that He chose believers…to be holy and blameless]
1 Peter 2:9

5. The Election of the 12 Disciples: a group or corporate election
John 15:16

6. The Election of Paul: an individual election
Acts 9:15

Now, please point out which of these 6 categories that were elected to salvation.

Just for the record:
2 Thes 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

I've done my homework, unlike some here. The word for "chose" is completely different than the verb "to elect". According to the International Study Bible Encyclopedia, election is defined as being chosen or selected for special privilege and service.

That definition fits all the 6 categories.

2nd Tim 2:10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

The first question is to ask; chosen for what? While at first glance it appears to indicate being chosen for salvation, we must face the final parenthetical phrase "with it eternal glory". This is more than salvation. And Paul wastes no time in getting to that subject in v.12 when he tells us that those who endure in their faith will reign with Christ, but those who don't endure, won't.

So, the "elect" here are those who will be chosen at the Judgmenet Seat of Christ to rule with Christ forever.

But even if one doesn't accept my explanation, it is clear that Paul endures everything so that the elect "may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus".

This does not demand that God has chosen or decided who will believe, but that those who believe will obtain salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Now were digging where the clams are...
OK, should I change it to the God points you in the right direction but may not get His wish theology?

I guess you're just not paying much attention. How is "wishing" any different than "hoping", which I've already debunked.

 

[-57]

Of course he didn't. Which is still irrelevant to the issue of salvation.

Why can't the Calvinist see the freedom of choice in Isa 1:18-20?

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;

20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Here, God actually suggests that man REASON with Him. How can that be if God is making the choices. No reason for reason.

Then, God gives man 2 clear conditional clauses, with consequences for each condition.

These are choices, even though Calvinists don't want to admit it.

But, please go ahead, and explain how this passage doesn't support the fact that man is free to choose between options.

You appear to be using that verse out of context. I believe it is much deeper and richer than you speak of.
In this instance God is pronouncing a serious woe upon the nation of Judah. God is speaking to an entire nation and not individuals.

It is not about personal salvation and free-will

 

[-57]

I guess you're just not paying much attention. How is "wishing" any different than "hoping", which I've already debunked.

Should I change it to the God patting people on the butt saying, get along. Perhaps life will line up and you'll choose me theology.