What do we tell unsaved about biblical election?

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,865
1,714
59
New England
✟512,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day, All

Just to good not to share.

During my 2010 reading list I read multiple books on Evangelism these two were on the list.


God Centered Evangelism- https://www.amazon.com/God-Centered-Evangelism-R-Kuiper/dp/0851511104


Specifically, [the unsaved] should be told that election spells salvation by divine grace, that human merit is out of the question, and that therefore there is hope for the chief of sinners; that the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation; that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it so that all who hear the gospel proclaimed are in sacred duty bound to believe, and, God not being the cause of unbelief as he is the cause of faith, those who persist in unbelief perish wholly through their own fault; that the decree of election is not secret in the sense that none can be certain of belonging to the elect, but that, on the contrary, faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election, one can be just as sure of being numbered among the elect as of being a believer; that the house into which they are invited has an eternal, unmovable foundation, so that he who enters, though all hell should assail him, cannot possibly perish but will most certainly inherit everlasting life."

– Kuiper

Certainly the best book on the subject of Evangelism would be Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God By J.I Packer



“The only aspect of divine sovereignty that will concern us in these pages is God’s sovereignty in grace: His almighty action in bringing helpless sinners home through Christ to Himself"

“The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism. It should make us bold.”

It should make us patient.
It should make us prayerful


In Him,

Bill
 

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,191
5,697
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,470.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it
Great post.

Predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, defines it, I would say. Just as in the Bible predestination is shown to be to something that is not said to be in and of itself the very end result, (glorification and what we become upon seeing him as he is), but rather, some of the specifics that lead to that end, or even 'on the way to that end', or are part of that end. Adoption as sons of God. Good works. Etc.

And as to the specific human responsibility that you are talking about, the obedience to which is demanded of man by God, Acts 17:30 says, "...he commands all people everywhere to repent."
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,394
823
Califormia
✟134,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Good day, All

Just to good not to share.

During my 2010 reading list I read multiple books on Evangelism these two were on the list.


God Centered Evangelism- Amazon.com


Specifically, [the unsaved] should be told that election spells salvation by divine grace, that human merit is out of the question, and that therefore there is hope for the chief of sinners; that the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation; that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it so that all who hear the gospel proclaimed are in sacred duty bound to believe, and, God not being the cause of unbelief as he is the cause of faith, those who persist in unbelief perish wholly through their own fault; that the decree of election is not secret in the sense that none can be certain of belonging to the elect, but that, on the contrary, faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election, one can be just as sure of being numbered among the elect as of being a believer; that the house into which they are invited has an eternal, unmovable foundation, so that he who enters, though all hell should assail him, cannot possibly perish but will most certainly inherit everlasting life."

– Kuiper

Certainly the best book on the subject of Evangelism would be Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God By J.I Packer



“The only aspect of divine sovereignty that will concern us in these pages is God’s sovereignty in grace: His almighty action in bringing helpless sinners home through Christ to Himself"

“The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism. It should make us bold.”

It should make us patient.
It should make us prayerful


In Him,

Bill
You won't find any evangelization efforts in Acts where the Apostles tells the unsaved or new believers that God predestines which individuals will believe the Gospel and be saved.

Rather Peter promises salvation (which is included in forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit) to those who do something (repent and be baptized). Why is Peter making such promises if people play no part in receiving their salvation?

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.​

fatalism​

noun

fa·tal·ism ˈfā-tə-ˌli-zəm

: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them
also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bones49

Active Member
Jan 18, 2024
80
30
44
Seoul
✟3,456.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It looks like here are some people that I would like to talk to.
I don't currently adhere to the reformed doctrine of predestination, however I would like to discuss with someone who can actually defend what they say. I have read a few articles online about it, but always just get frustrated, and want to ask the author what he means, or how he came to that conclusion.

Sorry, I'm not quoting properly, but I want to pick up a few points from the discussion:

1. 'the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation;' How? if he has predetermined that only a few will be saved, then in reality he only invites those predestined to be saved?

2. 'that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it'. Actually I might be willing to accept this, however the doctrine of total depravity, that people are wholly unable to do anything to affect their salvation, certainly excludes any human responsibility - how can people be responsible to do something which they cannot do?

3. 'faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election' So only those who are elect will become Christian, and the doctrine of irresistible grace says that they will remain Christians and ultimately be glorified. Except that in modern times, most people who make a confession of faith and begin attending church eventually walk away from Christianity. I believe reformed theology would say that these people were never true Christians in the first place, which maybe so. But even the Bible talks about people who walk away from the faith (Hebrews 6 and 10 for a start). So again, this idea doesn't seem to be right?

I will stop there for now!
Thanks
 
  • Useful
Reactions: John Mullally
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,191
5,697
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,470.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It looks like here are some people that I would like to talk to.
I don't currently adhere to the reformed doctrine of predestination, however I would like to discuss with someone who can actually defend what they say. I have read a few articles online about it, but always just get frustrated, and want to ask the author what he means, or how he came to that conclusion.

Sorry, I'm not quoting properly, but I want to pick up a few points from the discussion:

1. 'the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation;' How? if he has predetermined that only a few will be saved, then in reality he only invites those predestined to be saved?

2. 'that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it'. Actually I might be willing to accept this, however the doctrine of total depravity, that people are wholly unable to do anything to affect their salvation, certainly excludes any human responsibility - how can people be responsible to do something which they cannot do?

3. 'faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election' So only those who are elect will become Christian, and the doctrine of irresistible grace says that they will remain Christians and ultimately be glorified. Except that in modern times, most people who make a confession of faith and begin attending church eventually walk away from Christianity. I believe reformed theology would say that these people were never true Christians in the first place, which maybe so. But even the Bible talks about people who walk away from the faith (Hebrews 6 and 10 for a start). So again, this idea doesn't seem to be right?

I will stop there for now!
Thanks
1. The 'offer' is valid. IF the sinner would repent, and pursue Christ, and obey, they would be saved, but none will —even the elect will not— until God changes their hearts. The fact they cannot, (while it can truly be said it was a predestined fact), is because they are corrupt at the core. Even those who have fooled themselves that they are repentant, or have "accepted the Lord", or however many other things, by force of will still are not truly repenting, but doing what is natural to the flesh. They have no 'salvific faith' which is necessary to all true Godliness. That faith only comes by the work of the Spirit of God, in being born again.

2. Their salvation is not their responsibility. Their obedience is. It could rightly be said that their condemnation is their own responsibility because they continuously live and choose at willful enmity with God, and not in submission. Salvation is by faith, which is the means, or the essence, of belief. They are already condemned because they will not believe (John 3:18) —so their condemnation is not simply because of the sin of unbelief, but rather, because of their sin, which has not been forgiven them. They must pay.

To the point of your 'quote', though, "predestinated" is only a term meant to describe God's sure purposes that WILL come to pass. The fact that God has decided and caused, via creating and his immanent dealings with his creation, who will be saved and who will not, designates what the results are —if those results include free will, that free will is still also a predestined fact, and caused by God, true regardless of whether that freewill is truly libertarian or not. To put it another way, both our choosing and our choices, for good or evil, came about as a result of God, at the least, creating all things.

3. It is not as though election in itself bears fruit. The work of God (in choosing upon whom to show mercy) is what bears fruit. It is a fine point, but it might help to understand that this is not formulaic —again, it is the work of God immanently saving the elect that bears fruit, but we humans want to reduce all the terminology to a common denominator.

Nor is irresistible grace a reference to the continuing pursuit of God that marks the redeemed (commonly referred to as "sanctification" and, particularly, in TULIP, "perseverance"). Irresistible Grace is a term used to fit the acrostic. It does not mean that grace is always irresistible, but only that man's decision in the matter of salvation, is not causal of that salvation. In a sense, salvific faith is not even ours, but generated within us by the Spirit of God within us. Thus, the faith, in whatever measure, is of full capability, of a KIND of faith, in which even the smallest amount is strong enough, valid enough, understanding all the elements of the Gospel at their core. Valid faith. Not faith by the will of man.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,865
1,714
59
New England
✟512,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It looks like here are some people that I would like to talk to.
I don't currently adhere to the reformed doctrine of predestination, however I would like to discuss with someone who can actually defend what they say. I have read a few articles online about it, but always just get frustrated, and want to ask the author what he means, or how he came to that conclusion.

Sorry, I'm not quoting properly, but I want to pick up a few points from the discussion:

1. 'the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation;' How? if he has predetermined that only a few will be saved, then in reality he only invites those predestined to be saved?

2. 'that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it'. Actually I might be willing to accept this, however the doctrine of total depravity, that people are wholly unable to do anything to affect their salvation, certainly excludes any human responsibility - how can people be responsible to do something which they cannot do?

3. 'faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election' So only those who are elect will become Christian, and the doctrine of irresistible grace says that they will remain Christians and ultimately be glorified. Except that in modern times, most people who make a confession of faith and begin attending church eventually walk away from Christianity. I believe reformed theology would say that these people were never true Christians in the first place, which maybe so. But even the Bible talks about people who walk away from the faith (Hebrews 6 and 10 for a start). So again, this idea doesn't seem to be right?

I will stop there for now!
Thanks
Good day, Bones

In addition to what Mark has posted:

Greek NT Tom Schreiner has a great commentary on Hebrews, and premiere Greek NT DA Carson directly addresses Hebrews 6 here:


Schreiner


Also

Warning Passages in Hebrews (w/ Dr. Madison Pierce)​





Yes they would never had been nor should never be considered Christians...

A bit of context:

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

As the Good Shepard Jesus does not lose sheep losing sheep makes one a very bad shepherd, they are His responsibility. He takes that very seriously as seen by Him laying down His live for them (exclusively).


In Him


Bill
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It looks like here are some people that I would like to talk to.
I don't currently adhere to the reformed doctrine of predestination, however I would like to discuss with someone who can actually defend what they say. I have read a few articles online about it, but always just get frustrated, and want to ask the author what he means, or how he came to that conclusion.

Sorry, I'm not quoting properly, but I want to pick up a few points from the discussion:

1. 'the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation;' How? if he has predetermined that only a few will be saved, then in reality he only invites those predestined to be saved?

2. 'that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it'. Actually I might be willing to accept this, however the doctrine of total depravity, that people are wholly unable to do anything to affect their salvation, certainly excludes any human responsibility - how can people be responsible to do something which they cannot do?

3. 'faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election' So only those who are elect will become Christian, and the doctrine of irresistible grace says that they will remain Christians and ultimately be glorified. Except that in modern times, most people who make a confession of faith and begin attending church eventually walk away from Christianity. I believe reformed theology would say that these people were never true Christians in the first place, which maybe so. But even the Bible talks about people who walk away from the faith (Hebrews 6 and 10 for a start). So again, this idea doesn't seem to be right?

I will stop there for now!
Thanks
You have already heard from two strong promotors of God unmercifully intentionally creating some individual distend to hell, without anything these individuals, can do about it.

  • Would God’s invitation be a lie if the person could never select to go? We know from the banquet parables, God does invite everyone, yet there are some who refuse to go and their refusal makes the master angry (why would the Master be angry with those who refuse to go if He is at fault for their refusal?) God’s invitation should be persuasion enough to get them to come. Everyone at the banquet was invited to be there. Man has very limited autonomous free will, but enough to help willing humans fulfill their earthly objective.
  • YES! The unbeliever sinful human cannot do anything honorable, righteous, Loving, worthy, or commendable!!! BUT he/she can choose some of the sins they will do, so for selfish reasons (a sinful reason) they can choose to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity as charity, from the enemy they are hating while still hating Him. Everyone will become humble at some time so it is a gift we all have. Accept these gifts take nothing away from the giver of the gift and do not make the receiver of the gift worthy of the gift in any way. What did the prodigal son do to be worthy of the banquet or was that all the father’s doing?
  • Your free will is not taken away from you. Even though the gifts (including the birthright to a home in heaven) God showered on you at conversion can not be taken from you and even God will not take them from you, you can give these gifts up like Esau gave his birthright up.
Gal. 6: 7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

You can give up our inheritance, but don’t.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: John Mullally
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,394
823
Califormia
✟134,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married

Warning Passages in Hebrews (w/ Dr. Madison Pierce)​


Yes they would never had been nor should never be considered Christians...
The Hebrews 6 warning applies to those who meet all the conditions underlined below, which can be argued as applying only to mature Christians. Among the conditions is that the person shared in the Holy Spirit. The warning does not apply to unbelievers because they cannot share in the Holy Spirit. From that we can rule out that this warning is addressed to unbelievers. It is however addressed to believers who meet all the underlined conditions.

Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.​
A bit of context:

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.
The above scripture is taken from 1 John 2:18-20 which is not related to Hebrews 6. Although it is commonly used as argument for OSAS, it does not provide context to Hebrews 6.

The topic of the passage is a warning that antichrists will come out from Christian fellowships. The "they" references in 1 John 2:19 are referring to antichrists. and the "us" references in 1 John 2:19 are referring to those who continue in Christ. Antichrists do not continue in Christ.

2 Peter 2 speaks of false prophets harming the church. 2 Peter 2:20 depicts many of these false prophets as having at one time "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing Jesus". Can someone "escape the corruption of the world by knowing Jesus" while remaining a non-believer? If so, is that compatible with Calvinist Total Depravity?

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bones49

Active Member
Jan 18, 2024
80
30
44
Seoul
✟3,456.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day, Bones

In addition to what Mark has posted:

Greek NT Tom Schreiner has a great commentary on Hebrews, and premiere Greek NT DA Carson directly addresses Hebrews 6 here:


Schreiner


Also

Warning Passages in Hebrews (w/ Dr. Madison Pierce)​





Yes they would never had been nor should never be considered Christians...

A bit of context:

18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

As the Good Shepard Jesus does not lose sheep losing sheep makes one a very bad shepherd, they are His responsibility. He takes that very seriously as seen by Him laying down His live for them (exclusively).


In Him


Bill
Actually I was referring to Hebrews 6:4 - 'For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have stated the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away ...'

Mark is correct in saying that this relates to the issue of the perseverance of the saints, rather than the irresistibility of grace.
It seems that the author is making great pains to make it very clear that the people he is talking about were in fact genuine Christians (I would consider it not possible for an ingenuine 'believer', to shar in the Holy Spirit. And he states it as simple fact that they fell away, and says it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. In thinking about it, the whole idea is meaningless if these people were not truly believers i the first place. This seems to me a very clear and unequivocal statement that true Christians can walk away from the faith.

Mark, sorry for not replying, I'm not sure how I want to continue this conversation. I think I will go through the NT looking for related verses, and come back to you. I think we could discuss logic for a good while without me being convinced, and ultimately the primary issue is whether this is a biblical idea or not - outside of that what I believe is not relevant. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Bones49

Active Member
Jan 18, 2024
80
30
44
Seoul
✟3,456.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have already heard from two strong promotors of God unmercifully intentionally creating some individual distend to hell, without anything these individuals, can do about it.

  • Would God’s invitation be a lie if the person could never select to go? We know from the banquet parables, God does invite everyone, yet there are some who refuse to go and their refusal makes the master angry (why would the Master be angry with those who refuse to go if He is at fault for their refusal?) God’s invitation should be persuasion enough to get them to come. Everyone at the banquet was invited to be there. Man has very limited autonomous free will, but enough to help willing humans fulfill their earthly objective.
  • YES! The unbeliever sinful human cannot do anything honorable, righteous, Loving, worthy, or commendable!!! BUT he/she can choose some of the sins they will do, so for selfish reasons (a sinful reason) they can choose to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity as charity, from the enemy they are hating while still hating Him. Everyone will become humble at some time so it is a gift we all have. Accept these gifts take nothing away from the giver of the gift and do not make the receiver of the gift worthy of the gift in any way. What did the prodigal son do to be worthy of the banquet or was that all the father’s doing?
  • Your free will is not taken away from you. Even though the gifts (including the birthright to a home in heaven) God showered on you at conversion can not be taken from you and even God will not take them from you, you can give these gifts up like Esau gave his birthright up.
Gal. 6: 7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

You can give up our inheritance, but don’t.
I agree with everything you stated here. Even if this is not how I would put it - which is why I like to discuss things people, different perspectives can be very valuable.

I find your first question interesting. 'Would God's invitation be a lie ...'
In my understanding few people would say that the had no ability to select to go. I think few would consider that God's predestination over rides human free will, but works with it -> which can get very confusing, if it is said that even accepting the invitation is a work, and therefore doesn't originate in us, but is somehow a work of God through us (but working with our free will). Which I guess is part of my suspicion of the reformed soteriology - that it seems that it creates very difficult almost contradictions that need to be worked around.

I would strongly agree with your second point that in accepting a gift makes it no less a gift. Humanly speaking no one would say that i person accepting a gift from another means that they worked for it or earned it, so how do we get to that point that the act of repentance (which is accepting God's gift of salvation?) can be considered a work. The gift is of immense value - so much that no mere person could ever hope to pay of the debt, whereas while true repentance may even be more difficult that we are capable of, and cannot truly repent without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it is still a relatively insignificant offering, in contrast to the gift of salvation.

What I'm not clear on is your position on the issues at hand - do you adhere to reformed theology?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,191
5,697
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,470.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Actually I was referring to Hebrews 6:4 - 'For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have stated the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away ...'

Mark is correct in saying that this relates to the issue of the perseverance of the saints, rather than the irresistibility of grace.
It seems that the author is making great pains to make it very clear that the people he is talking about were in fact genuine Christians (I would consider it not possible for an ingenuine 'believer', to shar in the Holy Spirit. And he states it as simple fact that they fell away, and says it is impossible to restore them again to repentance. In thinking about it, the whole idea is meaningless if these people were not truly believers i the first place. This seems to me a very clear and unequivocal statement that true Christians can walk away from the faith.

Mark, sorry for not replying, I'm not sure how I want to continue this conversation. I think I will go through the NT looking for related verses, and come back to you. I think we could discuss logic for a good while without me being convinced, and ultimately the primary issue is whether this is a biblical idea or not - outside of that what I believe is not relevant. Thanks.
Thanks. FWIW I'm thinking we might have a whole different use of Hebrews 6, and in particular, 6:4. To me, it makes sense to see this as rhetorical, which also works contextually and grammatically —that the notion or scenario described is an impossibility, since doing so would put Christ to death again. And there is a lot more to say there, but yeah, it can wait.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟826,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I agree with everything you stated here. Even if this is not how I would put it - which is why I like to discuss things people, different perspectives can be very valuable.

I find your first question interesting. 'Would God's invitation be a lie ...'
In my understanding few people would say that the had no ability to select to go. I think few would consider that God's predestination over rides human free will, but works with it -> which can get very confusing, if it is said that even accepting the invitation is a work, and therefore doesn't originate in us, but is somehow a work of God through us (but working with our free will). Which I guess is part of my suspicion of the reformed soteriology - that it seems that it creates very difficult almost contradictions that need to be worked around.

I would strongly agree with your second point that in accepting a gift makes it no less a gift. Humanly speaking no one would say that i person accepting a gift from another means that they worked for it or earned it, so how do we get to that point that the act of repentance (which is accepting God's gift of salvation?) can be considered a work. The gift is of immense value - so much that no mere person could ever hope to pay of the debt, whereas while true repentance may even be more difficult that we are capable of, and cannot truly repent without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it is still a relatively insignificant offering, in contrast to the gift of salvation.

What I'm not clear on is your position on the issues at hand - do you adhere to reformed theology?
I do not agree with the "reformed Theology".
The Bible defines "work" and it is something the Jews of the OT could not do on the Sabbath, but there was lots of stuff they could do which is not "work". They could certainly repent. "Repenting" does not have to mean going from being a big time sinner to being sinless, It can mean just mentally turning from the way you are heading toward a different direction, like the prodigal son just turning to the father ashamed of what he had done, but not "doing" anything worthy of anything.
 
Upvote 0

Bones49

Active Member
Jan 18, 2024
80
30
44
Seoul
✟3,456.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks. FWIW I'm thinking we might have a whole different use of Hebrews 6, and in particular, 6:4. To me, it makes sense to see this as rhetorical, which also works contextually and grammatically —that the notion or scenario described is an impossibility, since doing so would put Christ to death again. And there is a lot more to say there, but yeah, it can wait.
Yes, I think so. I'm not sure what you quite mean by rhetoric. I'm guessing you don't mean effective and eloquent. But the only other use of the word I know of, is as meaningless, which is hopefully not your use. Considering it as an impossibility, certainly the language around crucifying Christ again is difficult, but other than that I see nothing in the passage to suggest it as an impossibility, given that the next section the writer is using an example to clarify his meaning, the ground receives rain, if it produces good crops it is blessed, if it produces thorns it is condemned.
So a quick exegesis of the passages shows thus, starting in Heb 5.

Outline
Hebrews 5: Christ as High Priest (1-6); Christ's obedience (7-10); Hebrew's lack of growth - dullness of hearing (11-14)
Hebrews 6: The author's desire for the Hebrew's to go on to maturity (1-3); The author's concern that the Hebrew's may have (or will fall away?) expressed with an emphatic view on the prospects of those who fall away returning to faith (4-6); An example of the prospects for the Hebrews (7-8); The author's confidence that the Hebrews will choose to 'go on to maturity', shown by their works and love (9-11); A final exhortation not to be sluggish (as they are being), but imitators of those who inherit the promises. (vs 12)
vs 13 ff, the author continues to explain why the Hebrew's should persevere.

Note specifically, vs 8, I see the language of 'Crucifying again the Son of God, seems to me to be an expression of the backslidden Christian needing to return to the cross in repentance, as if they were an unbeliever.
vs 9, the author seems to believe that there is only two possible outcomes, that either the Hebrews will be a field producing a good crop, or producing thorns - to which end is destruction. It seems that lack of growth is not an option.

If the author is using 'rhetoric' here, in that this consideration is impossible, the use of 'for at the beginning of verse 4 connects it with the previous verses, which seems most logical to me to connect it with the end of chapter 5, with chapter 6:1-3 as a kind of parentheses, then it would make the author's point that it doesn't matter if the Hebrew's stay immature, because they can never fall away. Also then how do we make sense of the 6:7-8? It is clearly an example, so does it make sense for it to still be rhetoric? The land is the Hebrews, they have drunk the rain (accepted the gospel), and will the prove to be profitable crops (grow to maturity), or thorns and thistles (backslide) which are destined for destruction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bling
Upvote 0

FutureAndAHope

Just me
Site Supporter
Aug 30, 2008
6,362
2,912
Australia
Visit site
✟736,252.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good day, All

Just to good not to share.

During my 2010 reading list I read multiple books on Evangelism these two were on the list.


God Centered Evangelism- Amazon.com


Specifically, [the unsaved] should be told that election spells salvation by divine grace, that human merit is out of the question, and that therefore there is hope for the chief of sinners; that the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation; that predestination, far from excluding human responsibility, definitely includes it so that all who hear the gospel proclaimed are in sacred duty bound to believe, and, God not being the cause of unbelief as he is the cause of faith, those who persist in unbelief perish wholly through their own fault; that the decree of election is not secret in the sense that none can be certain of belonging to the elect, but that, on the contrary, faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of election, one can be just as sure of being numbered among the elect as of being a believer; that the house into which they are invited has an eternal, unmovable foundation, so that he who enters, though all hell should assail him, cannot possibly perish but will most certainly inherit everlasting life."

– Kuiper

Certainly the best book on the subject of Evangelism would be Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God By J.I Packer



“The only aspect of divine sovereignty that will concern us in these pages is God’s sovereignty in grace: His almighty action in bringing helpless sinners home through Christ to Himself"

“The sovereignty of God in grace gives us our only hope of success in evangelism. It should make us bold.”

It should make us patient.
It should make us prayerful


In Him,

Bill
I would like to suggest that preaching election will turn people away from the gospel. To me, it is a doctrine not of God and has the power to destroy lives.

The Early Church did not teach election. As we see below:

All the Earliest Chruch Leaders (within around 150 years of Jesus) taught that man has genuine free will, and that people were not preselected for salvation:

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.


Justin Martyr (110-165) brings up the topic of Predestination (Fatalism) and says it is not what the Church believed in his day

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

Justin Martyr - Dialoque with Trypho

Chap. CXL. — In Christ All Are Free. The Jews Hope for Salvation in Vain Because They Are Sons of Abraham.

...Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded, that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be...

Chap. CXLI. — Free-Will in Men and Angels.

...But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin;’...
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,191
5,697
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,470.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Yes, I think so. I'm not sure what you quite mean by rhetoric. I'm guessing you don't mean effective and eloquent. But the only other use of the word I know of, is as meaningless, which is hopefully not your use. Considering it as an impossibility, certainly the language around crucifying Christ again is difficult, but other than that I see nothing in the passage to suggest it as an impossibility, given that the next section the writer is using an example to clarify his meaning, the ground receives rain, if it produces good crops it is blessed, if it produces thorns it is condemned.
So a quick exegesis of the passages shows thus, starting in Heb 5.

Outline
Hebrews 5: Christ as High Priest (1-6); Christ's obedience (7-10); Hebrew's lack of growth - dullness of hearing (11-14)
Hebrews 6: The author's desire for the Hebrew's to go on to maturity (1-3); The author's concern that the Hebrew's may have (or will fall away?) expressed with an emphatic view on the prospects of those who fall away returning to faith (4-6); An example of the prospects for the Hebrews (7-8); The author's confidence that the Hebrews will choose to 'go on to maturity', shown by their works and love (9-11); A final exhortation not to be sluggish (as they are being), but imitators of those who inherit the promises. (vs 12)
vs 13 ff, the author continues to explain why the Hebrew's should persevere.

Note specifically, vs 8, I see the language of 'Crucifying again the Son of God, seems to me to be an expression of the backslidden Christian needing to return to the cross in repentance, as if they were an unbeliever.
vs 9, the author seems to believe that there is only two possible outcomes, that either the Hebrews will be a field producing a good crop, or producing thorns - to which end is destruction. It seems that lack of growth is not an option.

If the author is using 'rhetoric' here, in that this consideration is impossible, the use of 'for at the beginning of verse 4 connects it with the previous verses, which seems most logical to me to connect it with the end of chapter 5, with chapter 6:1-3 as a kind of parentheses, then it would make the author's point that it doesn't matter if the Hebrew's stay immature, because they can never fall away. Also then how do we make sense of the 6:7-8? It is clearly an example, so does it make sense for it to still be rhetoric? The land is the Hebrews, they have drunk the rain (accepted the gospel), and will the prove to be profitable crops (grow to maturity), or thorns and thistles (backslide) which are destined for destruction.
By 'rhetorical', in this case, I mean a hypothetical is presented for consideration, that is shown to be self-defeating. The author speaks not of a possibility, but of an impossibility.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,394
823
Califormia
✟134,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
By 'rhetorical', in this case, I mean a hypothetical is presented for consideration, that is shown to be self-defeating. The author speaks not of a possibility, but of an impossibility.
So you think that God's warnings are hypothetical - as opposed to actual warnings? Peter identifies actual apostates (i.e. those who once knew Christ as they were once "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and yet are identified as false prophets on their way to destruction (per 2 Peter 2:1). As a side note, note that Christ's redemption psid even for these on their way to destruction. How does that make sense under your Calvinism?

2 Peter 2:17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[g] and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”​
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.​
 
Upvote 0

Cassian

Active Member
Sep 1, 2015
148
20
80
✟121,082.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I would like to suggest that preaching election will turn people away from the gospel. To me, it is a doctrine not of God and has the power to destroy lives.

The Early Church did not teach election. As we see below:

All the Earliest Chruch Leaders (within around 150 years of Jesus) taught that man has genuine free will, and that people were not preselected for salvation:

Irenaeus (120-202 AD) in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38 shows clearly that it is man's free will choice to choose or reject God.

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:7) God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.


Justin Martyr (110-165) brings up the topic of Predestination (Fatalism) and says it is not what the Church believed in his day

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

Justin Martyr - Dialoque with Trypho

Chap. CXL. — In Christ All Are Free. The Jews Hope for Salvation in Vain Because They Are Sons of Abraham.

...Furthermore, I have proved in what has preceded, that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be...

Chap. CXLI. — Free-Will in Men and Angels.

...But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin;’...
In addition to the above election in context in scripture is never about individuals being saved. It is about being appointed to service.
In scripture there are 5 notations regarding election. Three are for groups, Israel, the Apostles, and the elect (Church - Body of Christ, and two for individuals, Christ and Apostle Paul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bones49
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,191
5,697
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,470.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
So you think that God's warnings are hypothetical - as opposed to actual warnings?
You continue under the impression that Calvinism posits a life in Christ that is 'automatic'. It is not. It is only sure, that what God has begun he will complete. My eternal security is in the fact that whom God has chosen he will take to be with him. If that is not me, that is his to say, and not mine, and he is still to be praised for his justice, kindness and power and purity and so many other things. I would much rather depend on his mercy and not on my strength of will or dependability of decision or my understanding of what faith is about.

God's warnings are effectual for the elect believer, and are part of how they are kept, and how they grow in grace. If, as a false teacher does, I am a slave of depravity, and never return to faithfulness, but are indeed apostate, then I never escaped the corruption, but was only a pretender, fooling even myself, and at best reaping the benefits of 'walking the way'.
Peter identifies actual apostates (i.e. those who once knew Christ as they were once "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and yet are identified as false prophets on their way to destruction (per 2 Peter 2:1). As a side note, note that Christ's redemption psid even for these on their way to destruction. How does that make sense under your Calvinism?

2 Peter 2:17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[g] and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”​
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.​
Your argument operates on the assumption that what the false teachers deny actually is fact, but that's not how this language structure works. Verse 20 begins with "IF they have escaped the corruption..." —not, "They have escaped the corruption..." In verse one it is not assuming that the sovereign Lord bought them, but is emphasizing the false teachers' denial of that principle —(that the sovereign Lord has bought the faithful)— and so they continue into their depravity of the flesh.

For the Calvinists that may be reading this, and who disagree with my use of 2 Peter 2, understand that I don't claim to be a Calvinist, but a monergist only. I am a "Reformed Calvinist by reputation" —not in fact. My interpretation is what I understand Peter to be saying. I haven't studied what Calvinists say about it.
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,394
823
Califormia
✟134,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You continue under the impression that Calvinism posits a life in Christ that is 'automatic'. It is not. It is only sure, that what God has begun he will complete. My eternal security is in the fact that whom God has chosen he will take to be with him. If that is not me, that is his to say, and not mine, and he is still to be praised for his justice, kindness and power and purity and so many other things. I would much rather depend on his mercy and not on my strength of will or dependability of decision or my understanding of what faith is about.
What is the criteria for being "chosen" and how would you know if you were "chosen"? If what you say is true, you would need to answer that question before possibly talking about personally having eternal security.
God's warnings are effectual for the elect believer, and are part of how they are kept, and how they grow in grace. If, as a false teacher does, I am a slave of depravity, and never return to faithfulness, but are indeed apostate, then I never escaped the corruption, but was only a pretender, fooling even myself, and at best reaping the benefits of 'walking the way'.
What is the criteria for being an "elect believer"?

Peter 2:20-21 identifies that some who "escaped the corruption of the world by knowing the Lord Jesus", will be worse off then if they never knew the way of righteousness. Why would Peter bring up that subject if it could never happen?
Your argument operates on the assumption that what the false teachers deny actually is fact, but that's not how this language structure works. Verse 20 begins with "IF they have escaped the corruption..." —not, "They have escaped the corruption..."
If that is the case, wouldn't it be more straight-forward for Peter to simply say that false teachers arising out of their midst never truly believed? What kind of person warns of hypotheticals that can never happen?

I break down 2 Peter 2:20 as being IF (condition A), then (result B) statement. But you don't believe Condition A can happen:

Condition A: they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome​
Result B: they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning​
2 Peter 2:21 reinforces my argument. as 2 Peter 2:21 continues to speak of something that you argue could never happen.

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.​
In verse one it is not assuming that the sovereign Lord bought them, but is emphasizing the false teachers' denial of that principle —(that the sovereign Lord has bought the faithful)— and so they continue into their depravity of the flesh.
The passage does not say "false teachers" denied the principle that the Lord only bought the faithful. Instead it says that the false teachers heretical teaching denies the Lord. Mentioning that the Lord had bought these false teachers, which this verse does, makes their actions more grievous.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. NIV​
For the Calvinists that may be reading this, and who disagree with my use of 2 Peter 2, understand that I don't claim to be a Calvinist, but a monergist only. I am a "Reformed Calvinist by reputation" —not in fact. My interpretation is what I understand Peter to be saying. I haven't studied what Calvinists say about it.
Can a true "Monergist" believe 1 Timothy 4:10, without also being a "Universalist"? I Timothy 4:10 says that God is the Savior of all people. As a "Synergist", I take 1 Timothy 4:10 as showing that God provided salvation for all people, but that people have a role in receiving the provision as salvation is only received by those who believe.

1 Timothy 4:0 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
God designed for the perfect atoning work of Christ not to become efficacious to any individual until it is personally received. How do we know this? Simply compare John 3:14-15 with Numbers 21:6-9, in which Jesus provides an Old Testament illustration to explain His eventual atonement. A standard was raised for the healing of all those who were snake-bitten, which was fully operating, but intentionally designed not to save anyone until they participated by looking upon it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bones49
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bones49

Active Member
Jan 18, 2024
80
30
44
Seoul
✟3,456.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You continue under the impression that Calvinism posits a life in Christ that is 'automatic'. It is not. It is only sure
What is the difference, practically?

Perhaps what I don't understand is why?
If everything that is important, i.e. our salvation or not, is sure, then why not just dispense with the charade of life, and get on with eternity. Because ultimately, if we have no choice whether we are saved or not, because it has be predetermined, then what is life for? what is the point?
 
Upvote 0