Why do Arminians...

[FreeGrace2]

I'm hiding behind a WHOLE CHAPTER????

Wow.

Well, let me break it down. Since there aren't any verses that SAY what is claimed, you hide behind a chapter that still doesn't SAY what is claimed.

I could claim "Genesis-Revelation" for my views. What would that prove?

I think the problem has really been exposed now. You think single verses out of context trump whole passages. I can't even imagine doing theology that way.

No, that's just putting words in my mouth. I don't think single verses are out of context. They SAY what they MEAN, which refutes your views and claims.

And since there ARE single verses that say the opposite of your claims, it should have been obvious that the chapter cited doesn't say what is claimed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Speechless. smh

Dont' forget verseless as well.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What is Paul's point in Titus 2?

Proper Christian living.

 

[Hammster]

But you must say the things that are consistent with sound teaching. Older men are to be level headed, worthy of respect, sensible, and sound in faith, love, and endurance.

^^^ One type of person.

In the same way, older women are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to much wine. They are to teach what is good, so they may encourage the young women to love their husbands and to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, homemakers, kind, and submissive to their husbands, so that God’s message will not be slandered.

^^^ Two types, older women and younger women.

In the same way, encourage the young men to be self-controlled in everything. Make yourself an example of good works with integrity and dignity in your teaching. Your message is to be sound beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be ashamed, having nothing bad to say about us.

^^^ Another type, younger men. Looks like Titus was included.

Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back or stealing, but demonstrating utter faithfulness, so that they may adorn the teaching of God our Savior in everything.

^^^ Another type of person.

For the grace of God has appeared with salvation for all people [meaning all types, if Paul is being consistent. Note the "for".], instructing us [those actually saved by the grace] to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession, eager to do good works [Those not saved are not redeemed people for Himself. They are not eager to do good works]. Say these things, and encourage and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:1-15 HCSB)



It's clear, when read and understood as a whole, the grace that brings salvation actually brings salvation, not a potential salvation dependent on man "accepting the gift". No, it actually saves and transforms.

 

[Hammster]

And there's this gem from chapter three.

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us — not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy — through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. He poured out this Spirit on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior so that, having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7 HCSB)

 

[FreeGrace2]

But you must say the things that are consistent with sound teaching. Older men are to be level headed, worthy of respect, sensible, and sound in faith, love, and endurance.

^^^ One type of person.

In the same way, older women are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to much wine. They are to teach what is good, so they may encourage the young women to love their husbands and to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, homemakers, kind, and submissive to their husbands, so that God’s message will not be slandered.

^^^ Two types, older women and younger women.

In the same way, encourage the young men to be self-controlled in everything. Make yourself an example of good works with integrity and dignity in your teaching. Your message is to be sound beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be ashamed, having nothing bad to say about us.

^^^ Another type, younger men. Looks like Titus was included.

Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back or stealing, but demonstrating utter faithfulness, so that they may adorn the teaching of God our Savior in everything.

^^^ Another type of person.

For the grace of God has appeared with salvation for all people [meaning all types, if Paul is being consistent. Note the "for".], instructing us [those actually saved by the grace] to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself a people for His own possession, eager to do good works [Those not saved are not redeemed people for Himself. They are not eager to do good works]. Say these things, and encourage and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:1-15 HCSB)

Not clear at all why 1 Tim was quoted. Explanation?

It's clear, when read and understood as a whole, the grace that brings salvation actually brings salvation, not a potential salvation dependent on man "accepting the gift". No, it actually saves and transforms.

What is clear is that God's grace does ACTUALLY bring salvation. And that salvation MUST BE received, like all gifts.

There's been no evidence at all that God's gift of salvation can't be rejected.

In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself can be rejected, per Acts 7:51. Why can't salvation, which the Holy Spirit reveals?

 

[FreeGrace2]

And there's this gem from chapter three.

All of Scripture can be viewed as a gem.

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us — not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy — through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. He poured out this Spirit on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior so that, having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7 HCSB)

Yes, our salvation is linked to the washing of regeneration. And the Holy Spirit can be rejected.

Therefore, so can salvation, which is by the Holy Spirit. Thanks for bringing up a passage that indicates this.

Correct, a gem.

 

[Hammster]

Not clear at all why 1 Tim was quoted. Explanation?


What is clear is that God's grace does ACTUALLY bring salvation. And that salvation MUST BE received, like all gifts.

There's been no evidence at all that God's gift of salvation can't be rejected.

In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself can be rejected, per Acts 7:51. Why can't salvation, which the Holy Spirit reveals?

I didn't quote 1 Tim. And you had to inject your theology to counter what the chapter says.

 

[Hammster]

All of Scripture can be viewed as a gem.


Yes, our salvation is linked to the washing of regeneration. And the Holy Spirit can be rejected.

Therefore, so can salvation, which is by the Holy Spirit. Thanks for bringing up a passage that indicates this.

Correct, a gem.

I see you had to inject your theology into this one, too.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.......... my point, which continues to be ignored or dodged, is that no believer was elected to believe OR to be saved. That's what should be "got"............................................ No one was predestined to believe..............................................
God obviously knows who will believe. But He does not elect who ........................your alluding to Eph 1:4 does not say what you think it means.

Given your very limited use of the word "elect", it is a true statement that no believer was "elected" to believe or be saved. Maybe I didn't "get" that because it is a very limited use of the word. It is use in that limited way to support the idea that, as you say, "no one was predestined to believe" -something that I most definitely disagree with.

Obviously, given the very fine use of elect, that word should not be used interchangeably with the word predestined. So let's leave out the term elect and concentrate on predestination.

God has always known who would believe and who would not believe. If God truly knew in eternity past that some would believe then there was no way that those people were not going to believe. It was predestined from eternity past to occur and not a thing could stop it.

Correct?

(By the way, I don't believe I alluded to Ephesians 1:4 in particular nor do you know what I think it means.)

 

[stan1953]

I see you had to inject your theology into this one, too.

Are you telling us you don't?

 

[stan1953]

Given your very limited use of the word "elect", it is a true statement that no believer was "elected" to believe or be saved. Maybe I didn't "get" that because it is a very limited use of the word. It is use in that limited way to support the idea that, as you say, "no one was predestined to believe" -something that I most definitely disagree with.

Obviously, given the very fine use of elect, that word should not be used interchangeably with the word predestined. So let's leave out the term elect and concentrate on predestination.

God has always known who would believe and who would not believe. If God truly knew in eternity past that some would believe then there was no way that those people were not going to believe. It was predestined from eternity past to occur and not a thing could stop it.

Correct?

(By the way, I don't believe I alluded to Ephesians 1:4 in particular nor do you know what I think it means.)

This is very true, as you can only be Elect if you are a Christian. Elect does NOT mean pre-ordained or predestined in the way RT tries to present it.
Rom 8:28-30 shows very clearly only those that confess Jesus are predestined by the Father to be conformed to His image.

 

[Hammster]

Are you telling us you don't?

In my post, did I say "see, because people are predestined to believe and need to be regenerated first, this passage means this", or anything like that?

 

[Skala]

I'm hiding behind a WHOLE CHAPTER????

Wow. I think the problem has really been exposed now. You think single verses out of context trump whole passages. I can't even imagine doing theology that way.

I'm guilty of hiding behind entire chapters.
Heck, I hide behind the ENTIRE BOOK of the Bible to defend my theology!!!

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is very true, as you can only be Elect if you are a Christian. Elect does NOT mean pre-ordained or predestined in the way RT tries to present it.
Rom 8:28-30 shows very clearly only those that confess Jesus are predestined by the Father to be conformed to His image.

In that RT presents election and predestination as virtual synonyms- doing so is, of course, incorrect.

I can see where exact scripture supported proof of the doctrine of "election" is not possible using certain scriptures since scriptures which speak of predestination cannot be use precisely to do so. I thank you and FreeGace2 for that help in defending my beliefs more concisely in the future.

But those who are to confess were predestined to be so conformed before they believed - from eternity past - since they didn't at that "time", as it were, exist to believe.

Correct?

That is really the heart of the matter. Parsing exact words is useful and even necessary in determining correct theology. But in so much as those discussions can form, as it were, a smoke screen to avoid the "heart of the matter" they should be avoided.

That is why I kept trying to "cut to the chase" and avoid arguing about whether so called Calvinists were using a certain word correctly or not. What one calls the doctrine isn't the important thing. But agreeing with God's previous predestination and His subsequent bringing to past of all things according to His good and perfect will is the important thing.

That is why (in my discussion with FreeWill2) I kept jumping to concepts such as immutability, omniscience, providence, concurrence, and us having our "being" in Him - that is to say "in Him all things exist" as the scriptures teach.

We are talking about our actions as His creatures forming the method that God uses to bring His will to past. Things like Joseph's telling his brothers that their actions really only amounted to God's method of doing the things that were done to him. Therefore it was God who did them.

That, of course, is the entire thrust of the constant references to "sovereignty" used by RT, Calvinistic, Augustinian, Paulist, Josephist, folks such as my self. Although we did indeed "believe and confess", that believing and confessing was really only God's method of bringing to past what He had predestined to bring to past.

How God can find fault with His creation since it is really Him who is doing it as the "first cause" is the $64,000 question for sure. It is a question I desire to have answered. But for right now my task is to believe what He says, teach what He says, and figure it out later when the fog lifts.

I'm looking at the length of this post and realizing that I am doing again what I did with FreeWill2. I ramble on for too long. Very sorry about that.

It's just that what we are talking about is really our concept of God Himself and the relationship of His creation to that all powerful God. It really comes down eventually to the original beef that Lucifer had with His creator. He wanted to be able to function outside of the exact parameters set by God. Essentially He wanted to be God.

The heart of the matter is so important and so far reaching in it's implications that it is very difficult for me to address these things in small chunks.

Sometimes it seems that my God is a different God from the one worshiped by those who don't see Him in the manner that I do - sovereign in all things.

My apology again. Just deal with that highlighted question in the early part of this post if you wish. We'll just let these ramblings stand for observers to think on.

 

[stan1953]

In that RT presents election and predestination as virtual synonyms- doing so is, of course, incorrect.
I can see where exact scripture supported proof of the doctrine of "election" is not possible using certain scriptures since scriptures which speak of predestination cannot be use precisely to do so. I thank you and FreeGace2 for that help in defending my beliefs more concisely in the future.
But those who are to confess were predestined to be so conformed before they believed - from eternity past - since they didn't at that "time", as it were, exist to believe.
Correct?

What scripture shows is that God's plan, EVERYTHING He has done and will do, was a design, a plan if you will, based on His will AND His Omniscient foreknowledge. God is not subject to time so He looks at it in an overall view, NOT a linear one. In that regard Rom 8:28-30 shows us God knew those who accept His son, and He put a plan of action into place to have them be like their joint heir, Jesus. This all transpired at once, in an instant, before God created us and the universe. He may have taken 6 days to create it all but it only took Him an instant to form His entire plan. God has never REACTED, He has always been PROACTIVE, in that all that has transpired, He foresaw and made a contingency for.

I commend you for being faithful to the truth of God's Word.
God Bless.

 

[sdowney717]

This is very true, as you can only be Elect if you are a Christian. Elect does NOT mean pre-ordained or predestined in the way RT tries to present it.
Rom 8:28-30 shows very clearly only those that confess Jesus are predestined by the Father to be conformed to His image.

Predestination is the doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come to pass yet he is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was brought about by sinful men who unjustly put Jesus to death (Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10).

I dont know how you get that thought from Romans 8, unless your twisting it to fit your anti-election semi-pelagian views.

Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides who will be saved (Rom. 9:16) and that it is not up to the desire of the person (John 1:13). God is the one who ordains the Christian into forgiveness, "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Also, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified," (Rom. 8:29-30). Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9. (See also Election and Sovereignty.)

Predestine | What is Predestination? | Define Predestine | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Marvin Knox]

............ In that regard Rom 8:28-30 shows us God knew those who accept His son, and He put a plan of action into place to have them be like their joint heir, Jesus. ...................... God has never REACTED, He has always been PROACTIVE, in that all that has transpired, He foresaw and made a contingency for.

I commend you for being faithful to the truth of God's Word.
God Bless.

God is indeed proactive in all that transpires. He is so proactive in fact that it is said of Him that He is the one who has "done" what everyone else has done (the "doctrine" of concurrence).

Since nothing other than Himself has the power of "being" in itself - He Himself must be omnipresent for anything to happen or even exist (whether on another planet or inside my brain).

"In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28

The idea that God creates things or persons and then sits back and watches them perform without His proactive participation is foreign to what the scriptures teach IMO.

"......all things have been created through Him, and for Him. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together." Col. 1:16-17

It seems to me that folks who hold to predestination because of foreseen faith must, of necessity, present a God who is considerably less than the omnipresent, sovereign God I believe the scriptures present.

 

[stan1953]

Predestination is the doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come to pass yet he is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was brought about by sinful men who unjustly put Jesus to death (Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10).

That may be the RT definition but it is NOT what the scripture means. I find it interesting that you set a definition but then make an exclusion to it.
The crucifixion was foreseen and prophesied, it was NOT foreordained.

I dont know how you get that thought from Romans 8, unless your twisting it to fit your anti-election semi-pelagian views.

I read what the scripture says, I don't go into it with fixed doctrinal views that you attempt to label.

Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides who will be saved (Rom. 9:16) and that it is not up to the desire of the person (John 1:13). God is the one who ordains the Christian into forgiveness, "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Also, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified," (Rom. 8:29-30). Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9.

Again that is what RT defines it as, but it is NOT what scripture defines it as. Predestination means to chart a course or to plan a course. God only does that with those that choose His plan of salvation, He doesn't ordain WHO will choose Him. The order of Rom 8:28-30 is clear. Those He foreknew, He predestined to become conformed to the image of His son, not the reverse order.
There is not scripture in the NT that excludes God's foreknowledge from who He predestined. The former comes before the latter. That is God's order of things, as also confirmed in Acts 2:23, Romans 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:2 in addition to the above.

 

[Hammster]

Crucifixion. Planned and predestined.


“For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27, 28 HCSB)