• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by Blackhawk, Apr 11, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +1
     
  2. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    So you don't decide of your own free-will to accept God? :confused:
     
  3. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Hmmm...free will. :scratch: Tell you what, before I answer this, please share your definition of "free-will." That way I won't be explaining the wrong thing.

    Thanks.
     
  4. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +1
     
  5. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Here's an idea :idea: :You give your interpretation, I'll give mine. If you disagree with mine you relay that you disagree with my opinion, and to be productive, why you disagree, not just that my opinion is false. Opinions can't be false, just different than the opinion of others.

    What exactly do you think I am using as the basis for my faith?

    Ed, I believe in OSAS and I believe I'm saved already. Pray tell, do you think I'm actually not saved because I don't agree with edpobre's interpretation of scripture?

    God bless.
     
  6. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    How can we discuss theology in absence of Scripture? Forgive me for quoting, but only a Scriptural response will do here...

    God is FAITHFUL to "bring to completion that which He began in is", completely founded on the ASSUMPTION that we will remain/abide/persevere. See 3 verses later: "ANd this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until (for) the day of Christ..."

    Sounds to me like a prayer for us to REMAIN IN SALVATION...

    "If we endure we shall reign with Him; if we deny Him He also will deny us; if we are faithless He remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself" (2Ti2:11-13) Does this not say, "died & live & endure & reign, OR deny & NOT-REIGN & be faithless & perish"?

    Even if we perish, He remains faithful. Or do you believe that we can be faithless AND STILL GO TO HEAVEN???
     
  7. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    Rerformist-

    An opinion can be right, but it can't be proven right. ;)
     
  8. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Funny...I don't see the "assumption" portion of your statement listed in scripture. :scratch: Paul says he is confident "that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ."

    I think you put the emphasis on the wrong part. And, I think this verse becomes clearer when quoted from the NKJV:

    "And THIS I pray (he's talking about what follows), that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God."

    This is just Pauls hope, as it should be the hope of all Christians in regard to their brethren, that those who are God's elect remain steadfast in their obedience, not because their salvation is in jepeordy, but because God desires our obedience to His righteous counsel.

    Sounds to me like a prayer for us to REMAIN IN OBEDIENCE...


    I'm a little confused by the verse you quoted. First, this whole section starts off by Paul saying, "I am willing to endure anything if it will bring salvation and eternal glory in Christ Jesus TO THOSE GOD HAS CHOSEN. Secondly, as you quoted, "If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself." What that means is that the Holy Spirit (God) dwells in us and even when we falter, His Love does not. He will continue to teach us, and conform us, and convict us when we sin. But, He won't give up. And, He won't let you give up. He may purpose for you to be lax in your faith for awhile. However, if you are God's elect, He will use your sin to teach you from it, as a parent would use the failings of their child to teach them.

    I don't believe you can be saved and faithless. Does that answer your question? If a person is "faithless" it's because they aren't saved. That doesn't mean God will never save them. It just means they aren't now. There is a huge difference between doubting your faith because of immaturity and being "faithless." Even saved people question their salvation sometimes but that's only because of a lack of maturity in His Word, not a lack of salvation.

    God bless.
     
  9. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Jim: "My opinion is that the car is more bluish than greenish."

    Bob: "My opinion is that it is more greenish than bluish."

    Who's right? Is the "rightness" of an opinion determined by majority? It is illogical to say that someone's opinion is "false." Unless, of course, you are saying that their opinion is not really their opinion. :)

    God bless.
     
  10. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +1
     
  11. Blessed-one

    Blessed-one a long journey ahead

    +170
    Protestant
    Single
    even a devoted Christian can fall away if he/she lost faith.
    We're given free will to choose, to accept or reject the gift of salvation. But how can a "christian" still be receiving it when he/she turns away from God and sins and goes to the point where he/she becomes an atheist?
     
  12. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    As I said, Ed, I don't take issue with you "considering" my statements to be false. That is your opinion, and as I've said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What you said, three times in one post, was not that you "consider" my posts to be false, but rather they are false:

    See the difference?

    Okay ed, my beliefs are based on scripture. You are dangerously close to violating forum rule #1. If you disagree, that's fine. Do not say my beliefs are "unscriptural" again. S0uljah started this thread by saying, "Instead of throwing scripture at each other, answer this please." For that reason I have not given scriptual support for my position. I can do that if you'd like. If you will look at most of the posts on this board you will see that there are not a whole lot of people here who believe what I believe. I'm okay with that. I still believe it. However, when you make comments like this:

    you are in direct violation of forum rule #1. It is not your place to tell me I'm not saved or assume you know what, or in whom, I believe, nor is it even biblically supported for you to do so. Please refrain from this type of behavior.

    If you would like to dicuss this in a civil manner with the inclusion of scriptural support I will be more than happy to do so. If not, let me know and I will no longer address your posts unless they are in violation of forum rules again.

    God bless.
     
  13. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Not sure if you were directing this at anyone in particular, but I'll just offer my two cents worth. I would say that if a person "walked the walk" of a Christian for a period of time and then "turned away" from God and became an athiest until they died they were probably never a Christian to begin with. If, however, a person strays from their faith for a period of time but always realizes there is truth in what they believed as a Christian and eventually comes back to that truth and repents of their sinfulness, they were neither an athiest, nor did they "fall away."

    God bless.
     
  14. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    ERRRRR! :mad:

    I'm sorry man, but this makes no sense to me.

    You are saying that there is no possible way for a one time Christian to lose their faith, and since they lost their faith, they never had it in the first place.

    You can't know that they never had faith, and along those lines, you can't know if you or anyone else has enough or "real" faith. It isn't a TRUE or FALSE...it is a matter of degree. Not everyone who says Lord will get into Heaven.
     
  15. mjwhite

    mjwhite Member

    210
    +0
    Dear all, in answer to Ben's post:

    quote:
    [as posted by Ben on this forum] says that God looked into the future [via His foreknowledge] and in seeing who would choose Jesus, predestined these to be the elect.
    Ben didn't say that. Ben said, that "those whom He FOREKNEW, He predestined to be CHRISTLIKE".
    Ben do you have a short memory? Yes Ben you said that the above as well. Here is your former post [# 67 on page 7 of this thread.] First you posted this Arminian doctrine:

    “The main tenets of Arminianism are:
    1.God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)”

    Then you posted your position:

    “The first tennet of Arminianism I accept. Indeed, this is word-for-word from Romans1”

    Since you accept this tenet of Arminianism, and you posted it on the web, then yes you said it. But whether you agree with it or not, it is the first tenet of Arminianism. And therefore let it be said that Arminianism teaches that there is a predestined elect. Therefore my argument still stands.



    The verse in Phlp1:6 says "He will bring to completion the good work He began in you"---but, contextually, it is entirely predicated upon the believer's BELIEF. (Paul then prays for the believers to ENDURE IN THEIR SALVATION, in verses 1:9-14; unless someone can contend that "in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ" is not talking about salvation {see Col1:22-23})... [/I[

    This is a moot point. The argument from the Arminianist side isn’t whether God will perform a good work in you if you have faith or not, but whether faith can be lost. So this verse is useless for the Arminian argument. If faith cannot be lost, their argument is voided. Simply asserting it can be lost doesn’t prove anything, since it is an ungrounded assertion. The verse certainly doesn’t address that issue [looking from their point of view that is]. But what is this good work God has begun in us? If it is the work of faith, then their whole position is lost. Certainly this verse alone doesn’t dispute that assertion, so they must appeal elsewhere to dispute it, even as a Calvinist must appeal beyond this verse to show that is what they think iy is saying [if they even think that!]

    Is there any reason in context to think that this good work God has started in us could be faith? First, Ben simply, and I mean simply assumes this working of God is contingent on our continuance in the faith. There is nothing in the verse, or the context that gives credence to that assumption. Let us look at the parallel between this verse and the previous one.

    Verse 5 your fellowship from the first day until now
    Verse 6 good work begun in you until day of Jesus Christ

    Second, let us look at who is having faith, Paul, for he says

    [Paul] being confident of this very thing.

    Paul has confidence that God will complete what He has started. There is no mention of the faith of who he has started that good work in.

    Third, If faith is a work of God, then it very well could be that good work God has begun in us. John 6:29 tells us:

    Jesus answered and said unto them, “This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent.”

    Otherwise, what good work is Ben or anyone else proposing Paul is talking about?
    Ben.
    quote:
    Again, you rip the verse out on context and assign your own meaning to it.. Paul is not making a statement of what God wills for every single human that ever lived. Many have gone and died and went to hell already. Does God now will them to be saved? If God willed that Judas be saved why did He write the Scripture that Judas [as the son of perdition] must be lost? See John 17:13. And while you are in John 17, read the prayer in context. Read how Jesus is NOT praying for the world in general [and specifically says that], but rather is only praying for believers. John 17:6-21.
    God wills, and God desires. Two different approaches. What God wills, must occur. What God desires, may occur. God does not WILL that ANY man be saved. He DESIRES that ALL MEN be saved. If God WILLS only the ELECT (His choice) be saved, then how do you separate the first "Pas Anthropos" of Rm5:18 (condemnation to all men), from the second "Pas Anthropos" (justification to all men)? Where is the predestined-election in verses such as Rm10:13, Jn1:7, Rm3:22?


    Me.
    Ben asks about 4 verses.

    First, Romans 5:18

    I have already answered this, but Ben has ducked my answer. But I will answer it again, Romans 10:9-10 tells us that it is only those who believe in the heart that are justified. Paul has already established this point prior to Romans 5:18. See Romans 3:21-28, which plainly teaches that men are justified by faith. Therefore in Romans 5:18, Paul sees no reason to re-establish that point again. Are all men justified by the cross of Christ, or only those with faith?
    The Scriptures plainly teach that only hose with faith are so justified. Therefore in Romans 5:18 when Paul says that the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men, he means ALL men WITH FAITH. This is easily seen by the next verse where Paul substitutes the phrase’ the many’ for the ‘all’ of the previous verse. Finally, if you look at a little larger context, the picture gets clearer. It speaks about those -who reign in righteousness with Christ- both before and after the verse in question. It clearly only means to say that those who have received God’s abundant grace will so reign. And as previously noted, only by faith is anyone justified.

    It is obvious that the word all can mean different things in the same sentence, as can the word world. When people allow the Word to dictate their doctrine they can easily see what this verse means. But when you let your false doctrine dictate how you read the Word, you stumble and are blind, failing even to see simple contradictions in your argument. Surely Ben believes that only those with faith are justified by the cross. Why then does he argue for some other doctrine? He does so to bolster a case that is not grounded in the truth. Arminianist doctrine [as shown by how they too believe in a predestined elect] is self-contradictory and careful assessment of it will show us that.

    Scripture 2 Where is the predestined elect in Romans 10:13, he asks?

    Where is it not? Let us review the Arminianist doctrine of predestined elect. God in His foreknowledge sees who will choose Him and predestines these as the elect. Or, God in His foreknowledge sees who will call upon the name of the Lord [same as choosing Him] and predestines these as the elect. Now that is the Arminianist take on it. Since God foreknows who will call on Him and designates these as the elect, we can safely say that only the elect will call on Him. The ‘whosoever’ here and in John 3:16 is not an open ended thing with God, for he has foreknowledge. Granted, we cannot see who these ‘elect’ are until they do call upon the Lord, but that is no different than Calvinism. What’s his beef? Maybe he doesn’t understand his own doctrine!

    Scripture 3 Where is the predestined elect in John 1:7?

    From God’s point of view [with His foreknowledge] could He still think that He sent Jesus so that ALL [as in every person who ever lived] might believe? Absolutely not!! In fact, even if He had no foreknowledge, that would be an absurd thought. There is no way that ALL in this verse can possibly mean every person who ever lived. For easy starters, many people were already dead and gone. Second, many people would never even hear of the Lord Jesus, and as we know without hearing, there can be no believing. Third, we know that only those to whom the truth is revealed can understand the Gospel as spiritual truth. Fourth, we know that God does have foreknowledge and already knew there would be some that would believe and many who would not. So therefore thinking that this ALL must mean everyone who ever lived is again driven not by good biblical thinking, but rather by a desire to force a doctrine on the Word that is alien to it and to common sense as well.

    What could this ALL mean? We need to remember the times and the recipients to whom the gospels were originally written. These were real live people, with real live needs and concerns. God didn’t just override their present position to write His Word, but used their words formed by their godly concerns to write a living word applicable to all. Many of that day felt that only Jews could be saved. In fact, all through their history, Jews were told that they alone were God’s people, and that the rest were pagans. Only by going through a prescribed ritual and after many years of it, could a Gentile be partially admitted to their ‘club’. It is no surprise then that Jews thought Jesus, also a Jew, was sent only for them. Another problem early Christians faced was a heresy called gnosticism. Here there were some people who claimed they had a secret club based on unrevealed knowledge [secrets]. They sought to exclude all others from their cult and claimed Jesus solely as their own. ALL could have been written to combat one or both of these false teachings.

    ALL cannot mean everyone who ever lived, so it must mean less than that. God knows who will believe and these are the predestined elect. No one else can believe but them.

    The fourth Scripture, Romans 3:22. Where is the predestined elect in that verse?

    This is another poor example of bad scripture reading. ALL there is already qualified by “those who believe”. We know that all those who believe are the predestined elect. If someone who wasn’t of the predestined elect believed, then God’s foreknowledge would be wrong and with error. I serve a great God, perfect in every way and not one who makes mistakes! How about you?

    quote:
    So what does 1st Timothy 2:4 mean? It means that Paul is saying that the gospel is not limited to a few people here or there, or just the Jewish people, but to people everywhere, people of every race and tongue and nation,. See Rev. 5:6-10.
    Indeed. The Gospel is available to all---all who will believe...


    And who will believe BUT ONLY those who are of the predestined elect, so says Arminianism!

    Love,
    mike
     
  16. mjwhite

    mjwhite Member

    210
    +0
    Dear all,
    my reply to ben's post and questions for all arminianists
    Ben said.
    quote:
    [as posted by Ben on this forum] says that God looked into the future [via His foreknowledge] and in seeing who would choose Jesus, predestined these to be the elect.
    Ben didn't say that. Ben said, that "those whom He FOREKNEW, He predestined to be CHRISTLIKE".

    Ben do you have a short memory? Yes Ben you said that the above as well. Here is your former post [# 67 on page 7 of this thread.] First you posted this Arminian doctrine:

    “The main tenets of Arminianism are:
    1.God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)”

    Then you posted your position:

    “The first tennet of Arminianism I accept. Indeed, this is word-for-word from Romans1”

    Since you accept this tenet of Arminianism, and you posted it on the web, then yes you said it. But whether you agree with it or not, it is the first tenet of Arminianism. And therefore let it be said that Arminianism teaches that there is a predestined elect. Therefore my argument still stands.

    then Ben,

    The verse in Phlp1:6 says "He will bring to completion the good work He began in you"---but, contextually, it is entirely predicated upon the believer's BELIEF. (Paul then prays for the believers to ENDURE IN THEIR SALVATION, in verses 1:9-14; unless someone can contend that "in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ" is not talking about salvation {see Col1:22-23})... [/I[

    This is a moot point. The argument from the Arminianist side isn’t whether God will perform a good work in you if you have faith or not, but whether faith can be lost. So this verse is useless for the Arminian argument. If faith cannot be lost, their argument is voided. Simply asserting it can be lost doesn’t prove anything, since it is an ungrounded assertion. The verse certainly doesn’t address that issue [looking from their point of view that is].

    But what is this good work God has begun in us? If it is the work of faith, then their whole position is lost. Certainly this verse alone doesn’t dispute that assertion, so they must appeal elsewhere to dispute it, even as a Calvinist must appeal beyond this verse to show that is what they think it is saying [if they even think that!]

    Is there any reason in context to think that this good work God has started in us could be faith? First, Ben simply, and I mean simply assumes this working of God is contingent on our continuance in the faith. There is nothing in the verse, or the context that gives credence to that assumption. Let us look at the parallel between this verse and the previous one.

    Verse 5 your fellowship from the first day until now
    Verse 6 good work begun in you until day of Jesus Christ

    Second, let us look at who is having faith, Paul, for he says

    [Paul] being confident of this very thing.

    Paul has confidence that God will complete what He has started. There is no mention of the faith of who he has started that good work in.

    Third, If faith is a work of God, then it very well could be that good work God has begun in us. John 6:29 tells us:

    Jesus answered and said unto them, “This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He hath sent.”

    Otherwise, what good work is Ben or anyone else proposing Paul is talking about?


    Ben.
    quote:
    Again, you rip the verse out on context and assign your own meaning to it.. Paul is not making a statement of what God wills for every single human that ever lived. Many have gone and died and went to hell already. Does God now will them to be saved? If God willed that Judas be saved why did He write the Scripture that Judas [as the son of perdition] must be lost? See John 17:13. And while you are in John 17, read the prayer in context. Read how Jesus is NOT praying for the world in general [and specifically says that], but rather is only praying for believers. John 17:6-21.
    God wills, and God desires. Two different approaches. What God wills, must occur. What God desires, may occur. God does not WILL that ANY man be saved. He DESIRES that ALL MEN be saved. If God WILLS only the ELECT (His choice) be saved, then how do you separate the first "Pas Anthropos" of Rm5:18 (condemnation to all men), from the second "Pas Anthropos" (justification to all men)? Where is the predestined-election in verses such as Rm10:13, Jn1:7, Rm3:22?


    Me.
    Ben asks about 4 verses.

    First, Romans 5:18

    I have already answered this, but Ben has ducked my answer. But I will answer it again, Romans 10:9-10 tells us that it is only those who believe in the heart that are justified. Paul has already established this point prior to Romans 5:18. See Romans 3:21-28, which plainly teaches that men are justified by faith. Therefore in Romans 5:18, Paul sees no reason to re-establish that point again. Are all men justified by the cross of Christ, or only those with faith?
    The Scriptures plainly teach that only hose with faith are so justified. Therefore in Romans 5:18 when Paul says that the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men, he means ALL men WITH FAITH. This is easily seen by the next verse where Paul substitutes the phrase’ the many’ for the ‘all’ of the previous verse. Finally, if you look at a little larger context, the picture gets clearer. It speaks about those -who reign in righteousness with Christ- both before and after the verse in question. It clearly only means to say that those who have received God’s abundant grace will so reign. And as previously noted, only by faith is anyone justified.

    It is obvious that the word all can mean different things in the same sentence, as can the word world. When people allow the Word to dictate their doctrine they can easily see what this verse means. But when you let your false doctrine dictate how you read the Word, you stumble and are blind, failing even to see simple contradictions in your argument. Surely Ben believes that only those with faith are justified by the cross. Why then does he argue for some other doctrine? He does so to bolster a case that is not grounded in the truth. Arminianist doctrine [as shown by how they too believe in a predestined elect] is self-contradictory and careful assessment of it will show us that.

    Scripture 2 Where is the predestined elect in Romans 10:13, he asks?

    Where is it not? Let us review the Arminianist doctrine of predestined elect. God in His foreknowledge sees who will choose Him and predestines these as the elect. Or, God in His foreknowledge sees who will call upon the name of the Lord [same as choosing Him] and predestines these as the elect. Now that is the Arminianist take on it. Since God foreknows who will call on Him and designates these as the elect, we can safely say that only the elect will call on Him. The ‘whosoever’ here and in John 3:16 is not an open ended thing with God, for he has foreknowledge. Granted, we cannot see who these ‘elect’ are until they do call upon the Lord, but that is no different than Calvinism. What’s his beef? Maybe he doesn’t understand his own doctrine!

    Scripture 3 Where is the predestined elect in John 1:7?

    From God’s point of view [with His foreknowledge] could He still think that He sent Jesus so that ALL [as in every person who ever lived] might believe? Absolutely not!! In fact, even if He had no foreknowledge, that would be an absurd thought. There is no way that ALL in this verse can possibly mean every person who ever lived. For easy starters, many people were already dead and gone. Second, many people would never even hear of the Lord Jesus, and as we know without hearing, there can be no believing. Third, we know that only those to whom the truth is revealed can understand the Gospel as spiritual truth. Fourth, we know that God does have foreknowledge and already knew there would be some that would believe and many who would not. So therefore thinking that this ALL must mean everyone who ever lived is again driven not by good biblical thinking, but rather by a desire to force a doctrine on the Word that is alien to it and to common sense as well.

    What could this ALL mean? We need to remember the times and the recipients to whom the gospels were originally written. These were real live people, with real live needs and concerns. God didn’t just override their present position to write His Word, but used their words formed by their godly concerns to write a living word applicable to all. Many of that day felt that only Jews could be saved. In fact, all through their history, Jews were told that they alone were God’s people, and that the rest were pagans. Only by going through a prescribed ritual and after many years of it, could a Gentile be partially admitted to their ‘club’. It is no surprise then that Jews thought Jesus, also a Jew, was sent only for them. Another problem early Christians faced was a heresy called gnosticism. Here there were some people who claimed they had a secret club based on unrevealed knowledge [secrets]. They sought to exclude all others from their cult and claimed Jesus solely as their own. ALL could have been written to combat one or both of these false teachings.

    ALL cannot mean everyone who ever lived, so it must mean less than that. God knows who will believe and these are the predestined elect. No one else can believe but them.

    The fourth Scripture, Romans 3:22. Where is the predestined elect in that verse?

    This is another poor example of bad scripture reading. ALL there is already qualified by “those who believe”. We know that all those who believe are the predestined elect. If someone who wasn’t of the predestined elect believed, then God’s foreknowledge would be wrong and with error. I serve a great God, perfect in every way and not one who makes mistakes! How about you?

    quote:
    So what does 1st Timothy 2:4 mean? It means that Paul is saying that the gospel is not limited to a few people here or there, or just the Jewish people, but to people everywhere, people of every race and tongue and nation,. See Rev. 5:6-10.
    Indeed. The Gospel is available to all---all who will believe...


    And who will believe BUT ONLY those who are of the predestined elect, so says Arminianism!

    Love,
    mike
     
  17. mjwhite

    mjwhite Member

    210
    +0
    Dear all,


    Slavenomore asks:
    We all deserve condemnation, that's right. But why would God provide a rescue plan for only some people?

    Here is the description of 2 gods:

    God 1:Loves the world so much that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

    God 2:Loves some people so much that he gave his only begotten son, but only for certain people. This god creates some people simply for destruction, who will never even have the chance to hear of Christ. He will send them to hell anyway.

    Are these 2 gods the same god? I would say not.


    God 1 and God 2 are NOT opposites. God 2 could have sent the Son into the world so that whosoever would believe would be saved. Have you read Paul/s argument on the choices of God in Romans 9? God chooses some and not others. God has mercy on whom he chooses and that His choice does not depend on man’s desire or efforts. That God has mercy on who He wants and hardens who He wants. That God makes some vessels for honor and some for dishonor. That God does not answer to man. Read this chapter several times. It speaks of God as He is, not as you desire Him to be.

    Do you believe in God’s foreknowledge? If so, then you believe God knew before creating the nonelect that He would consign them to hell. If you do not believe in His foreknowledge, explain what that means in the scriptures it is used.

    Slavenomore continues

    You talk about me ripping something out of context, but it's just not true! I didn't assign it my own meaning. I assigned it the meaning that is blatant to anyone who reads it, whether in context or not. In 2 Timothy, Paul is indeed talking about ALL people, not just groups of people in all different areas of the world. In fact, I will color all instances of the word "all" or "everyone" in blue. I do not see how you can possibly claim that Paul is not talking about all people here.

    1Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men , 2for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all , to be testified in due time, The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

    If Paul meant that God only wanted some to be saved, why didn't he say that?


    I already answered you. Why didn’t you address my points? Simply reasserting your position is no way to debate. You are not even thinking straight. Do you really think Paul means ALL to mean EVERY ONE WHO EVER LIVES? Do you pray for Hitler? Pharaoh? Do you give thanks for the 9-11 bombers? Did Jesus give His life as a ransom for those already dead and in hell? You argue for a no-exceptions ALL, but your argument is not based on fact or common sense. ALL is qualified in every instance in this passage. Paul doesn’t always give every nuance of doctrinal theology in every sentence. Paul assumes his readers have the same basic theology as he does because he brought them the truth and is like their father in the faith. To simply indiscriminately make blanket statements about what is written shows that you are not thinking things through but are letting your doctrinal biases guide your understanding of the Word as opposed to letting the Word guide your doctrine.

    Slavenomore continues.
    Revelation 5:6-10 does nothing, absolutely nothing to refute the theory that all men are called.


    It is not meant to. It is meant to teach us that people from all walks of life will be saved. What does teach that NOT all men are called? John 6:44 does though. Matthew 11:25-27 does as well. Other include: Mat13:11-15; John 6:65, with verse 44; 1 Cor 2:6-14. That is only a partial list.

    In Him,
    mike
     
  18. Ben johnson

    Ben johnson Legend Supporter

    +374
    Christian
    Heh heh! That's not what it says. There are two types of clay in Romans 9, the type that is on the potter's wheel(some He chooses to use for honor and some He chooses to use for common), AND the type that makes "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". The tense of "prepared", is "passive-perfect"---the "passive" means the subject receives the action on itself...

    In other words, "Prepared THEMSELVES for destruction"...

    Thus, God "enduring with patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" is identical to the parable in Matt13:24-30, where He waits on both the wheat and the tares (weeds) until the harvest...

    ;) & Mike...
     
  19. Reformationist

    Reformationist Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

    +412
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Okay. Calm down.

    I'll do my best to explain it then.

    No. I am saying there is no possible way for a saved person to lose their salvation. I know a lot of people who claim to be Christians. I have no idea if they're saved. What I can recognize is whether or not they exhibit the characteristics of someone who lives by the Word. If they don't that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't saved, it just means they aren't being obedient. Beyond that, I have no idea as to the disposition of their salvation.

    Every single Christian who strives to mature in their faith does so. Sometimes this maturation progresses more rapidly than at other times because of how much we give into our old man and are disobedient to God. The only claim I can confidently make regarding someone's salvitic state after they die is that if someone had once "been a Christian" and then "fell away and became an athiest and stayed that way until they died" MY GUESS would be that they weren't saved to begin with. The bottom line is it's irrelevent. I don't truly know whether or not they are still saved. I don't decide their eternal fate. I can't change God's mind regarding them because God's Will is always righteousness. That would mean I changed His mind away from righteousness. Not gonna happen.

    See the paragraph above.

    I don't agree. I believe it's an issue of sovereignty. God made me. God separated me from Him through the Fall. God reconciled (saved) me through the death of His Son. God is conforming me to the image of His Son. God gave me faith in Him. God increases that faith. Hmmm...I see a trend here.

    God is not subject to a whim. He never acts upon a whim so every, single decision He makes is the best decision that could be made. He won't give up on you, or let you give up on Him if you are one of His children. If all He wanted was to leave the decision up to us He wouldn't go to the great lengths to regenerate and conform anyone, which is what allows them to have a heart for Him, and, He wouldn't give anyone faith, which is what allows them to recognize God's sovereignty in their lives. Then, NO ONE would have, or could have, chosen Him due to their fallen nature and the only "degree of faith" anyone would have had would be NONE.


    That's because not everyone who says, "Lord" is actually saved. It's not because they're saved when they say, "Lord" and then later some fall away. God has just not "taken out their heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh." They are still fallen. Fallen doesn't mean unintelligent or unfeeling. Some non-Christians see the comraderie that many Christians have and though they don't believe they act like they do because they too want that comraderie. They say stuff like "Lord." That doesn't mean they're saved, and it doesn't mean they later "lose their salvation" because they change their mind about being involved in the Christian community.

    Just as you say "I can't know that they never had faith" and "I can't know if you or anyone else has enough or real faith," you too can not know that just because someone says they are Christian that they are truly saved. Goes both ways s0uljah.

    God bless.
     
  20. mjwhite

    mjwhite Member

    210
    +0
    Dear all,

    Ben replies saying,
    quote:
    Have you read Paul/s argument on the choices of God in Romans 9? God chooses some and not others.
    Heh heh! That's not what it says. There are two types of clay in Romans 9, the type that is on the potter's wheel(some He chooses to use for honor and some He chooses to use for common), AND the type that makes "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". The tense of "prepared", is "passive-perfect"---the "passive" means the subject receives the action on itself...

    In other words, "Prepared THEMSELVES for destruction"...

    Thus, God "enduring with patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" is identical to the parable in Matt13:24-30, where He waits on both the wheat and the tares (weeds) until the harvest...


    Well Ben, maybe your Bible is different than mine?
    I said read Romans 9 and see where God chooses and so your bible must be missing some verses?

    God chose Jacob and not Esau. God chooses to have mercy on some but harden others. Do you think you deserve mercy?

    Does anyone? God doesn't give out mercy based on our actions but His choices.
    So before you are so quick to dispute, think about what it is you are disputing.
    The whole argument is NOT made on one scripture.
    You fail to answer to the other points.
    You have failed to explain why some believe and others do not.

    Besides your argument is fallacious. You and I deserve condemnation as much as those already in hell. They were no more fitted to their destruction than we have also fitted ourselves. One deserves hell because one sins. We all have sinned and all deserve hell. But because of His great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even while we dead in our transgressions -it is by grace we have been saved.

    As to the Matthew quote, you simply make a bald face assertion Ben. You program the Word to fit your doctrine. Instead you should let the Word speak for itself. If you want an interpretation of this verse, let jesus do it for you in mat. 13:36-43.
    No doubt God endures sinners in the world but He saves some of this sinners as well witgrace they don't do a thing to deserve.

    Which is why you spaek falsities when you claim salvation is for the reponsible ones. While we were yet sinners [and therefore yet irresponsible] God saved us. Salvation has never been about man being responsible, but in man being chosen by God despite his sinfulness.

    Your silence on my other points is duly noted.

    in Christ,
    mike
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...