Weep Over Jerusalem?

[cygnusx1]

So the elect are those elected to a future salvation.

The non elect are those not elected to a future salvation.

To quote Griff, the non elect cannot become the elect. So I dispute the notion that "No man is withheld an opportunity for salvation". In fact, the non elect are withheld any opportunity.

Give a reason why you think God is unable to add to the number of those elected ?

If any reprobate truly repented and exercised saving faith or sought God with a full heart , He would not be turned away !

 

[Hammster]

So the elect are those elected to a future salvation.

The non elect are those not elected to a future salvation.

To quote Griff, the non elect cannot become the elect. So I dispute the notion that "No man is withheld an opportunity for salvation". In fact, the non elect are withheld any opportunity.

Election is not salvation. I thought I said that already. You make it sound like we are saying that the elect aren't denied the opportunity for election.

 

[guuila]

A little birdie told me JackSparrow is back trolling the threads... is this true or did I just have a bad dream?

 

[crimsonleaf]

A little birdie told me JackSparrow is back trolling the threads... is this true or did I just have a bad dream?

Oh noes!

 

[cygnusx1]

A little birdie told me JackSparrow is back trolling the threads... is this true or did I just have a bad dream?

He gets frustrated just looking over these threads , the temptation to ignore rules etc must be like a black hole

 

[Hammster]

?

Not sure what you are saying.

Election isn't salvation. They aren't synonymous terms. One isn't the other.

 

[cygnusx1]

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Chapter 8

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY


A.W Pink.

If God determined the crucifixion of his Son by a sovereign, eternal decree, with no foreknowledge at all involved (it was unconditional), then we are left with the ghastly, draconian thought that God decreed the death of his Son and then created man so he could fall and God could bring about his decree of crucifixion.

False quotation !

That is Vance the anti- Calvinist not A W Pink !


Tut tut

 

[jdbear]

cygnusx1 said,
Apologies accepted , my view is the same as BOT , the Son of God reflects God entirely , the picture is one found even in the OT of a God with emotions , He maybe unchanging in essense and in Purpose but He created emotions and feels , empathises with us .
Christ weeping over Jerusalem is none other than God made manifest .

He was willing , but they were not ......

Sounds like a great example of free will.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sounds like a great example of free will.

Sounds like empathy for coming destruction !

 

[guuila]

Sounds like a great example of free will.

The way I would articulate it is that we can choose whatever we want. But that statement itself contains a qualifier that is an inherent limitation, namely, "whatever we want." We are free to follow the desires of our heart. If we want Christ, we're free to choose Christ. If we hate Christ and want to pursue ungodliness, we're free to choose that path as well.

What we're not free to do is determine our own desires. Our desires are determined by our nature. We can't make ourselves love something we naturally hate. The Bible is clear that by nature we are hostile toward God and love sin. If a person hates God and loves sin, they don't have the ability to love God. Why would they? They're perfectly content not loving God. They would never desire to desire anything else because they're slaves to sin. They love sin. Unregenerate man takes to sin like a duck takes to water. The Bible says over and over that the human heart is the ultimate problem, not the will of man. The will is subservient to the heart. The heart must be changed. The only way the sinful, dead, stony heart of man in its natural configuration can all of a sudden have holy desires and love God is if God first replaces that heart with a heart of flesh. In our natural state we are like pigs who love eating garbage. A pig will always love eating the trash pigs love to eat as long as it is a pig. A pig's nature must be changed before it will hate eating what it once loved. Obviously this is an analogy and it breaks down, but I hope you get the point I'm making. The heart must be changed, and that only happens by sovereign regenerating grace whereby a person is spiritually awakened to love the things God loves and hate the things God hates.

So yes, we have free will to do whatever we desire. It's our desires that are the limitation because by nature they come from a dead, stony, calloused heart that hates God. And yes, while there are many unregenerate people who would never say they hate God, the fact that they remain in rebellion to him not bowing the knee to Christ in repentance and faith means they are hostile toward him, even if they don't acknowledge it.

 

[cygnusx1]

^. I would even reduce free will some more bro , we often cannot even choose what we want .

 

[guuila]

^. I would even reduce free will some more bro , we often cannot even choose what we want .

True, but I believe we always choose according to our greatest motive. So while we may be inclined to choose something we want, but can't for some reason, the choice to choose otherwise was according to a greater motive. Either way, we still choose according to our greatest desire at that moment.

 

[Hammster]

^. I would even reduce free will some more bro , we often cannot even choose what we want .

But what we do choose, out of our options, is done so freely.

 

[travelah]

I have to agree with the other reply. That is not Pink but Vance so you have not properly attributed the quote.

 

[cygnusx1]

True, but I believe we always choose according to our greatest motive. So while we may be inclined to choose something we want, but can't for some reason, the choice to choose otherwise was according to a greater motive. Either way, we still choose according to our greatest desire at that moment.

But what we do choose, out of our options, is done so freely.

where it gets even trickier is. Romans 7 , read the KJV , they must have smiled a lot when translating

 

[Hammster]

where it gets even trickier is. Romans 7 , read the KJV , they must have smiled a lot when translating

Yeah. That's where I was coming from. Paul still ultimately did what he wanted.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yeah. That's where I was coming from. Paul still ultimately did what he wanted.

But did he ? ............ Or was it sin ?

"I yet not I" . Seems to be a construct Paul believes in more than once .

 

[Hammster]

But did he ? ............ Or was it sin ?

"I yet not I" . Seems to be a construct Paul believes in more than once .

I'm sure he had something in mind, but he still says it's him. He's not trying to pass the blame.

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm sure he had something in mind, but he still says it's him. He's not trying to pass the blame.

I dare to say its deeper than "who's to blame" , Paul genuinely didn't want to do some things , things he hated to do but did them anyway , so , whilst it was him that did these things , he recognised an intruder , he says he didn't want to do what he ended up doing , and visa versa , he wanted to do much he couldn't do , this frustration made him recognise his will was being attacked by sin , now if its sin not I , then in one important respect Paul is at heart blaming sin , he acknowledged his body was troublesome , "this body of death" and he strongly implies he wants what is best but cannot always get it , it seems sin , death and Satan are seen as enemies not the true desire of any regenerate .



"That which is born of God does not sin" ie , he has a new nature and a Christian sins only by weakness of the flesh not by the new mind , heart or will ...


1 John

[6] Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
[7] Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
[8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

So who's to blame ?

Sin.

Romans 7

[20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me

 

[Hammster]

I dare to say its deeper than "who's to blame" , Paul genuinely didn't want to do some things , things he hated to do but did them anyway , so , whilst it was him that did these things , he recognised an intruder , he says he didn't want to do what he ended up doing , and visa versa , he wanted to do much he couldn't do , this frustration made him recognise his will was being attacked by sin , now if its sin not I , then in one important respect Paul is at heart blaming sin , he acknowledged his body was troublesome , "this body of death" and he strongly implies he wants what is best but cannot always get it , it seems sin death and Satan are seen as enemies not the true desire of any regenerate .

"That which is born of God does not sin" ie , he has a new nature and a Christian sins only by weakness of the flesh not by the new mind , heart or will ...


So who's to blame ?

Sin.

Okay, so here would be my follow up. Since Paul didn't constantly sin, there were times when he was obedient. So at the moment of sin, could he have chosen to do other? Or at the moment of obedience, could he have chosen to sin?