God chose Israel to be the line of the messiah. Of course, his will was that they all be saved. Were they? Certainly not. And these promises are for all who are in Christ, not necessarily Israel by birth but by the second birth. The Messiah is the Saviour of all who currently believe in him, of course. Not just physical Israelites, but from all of mankind.
Saved Or Predestined ???
- Thread starter Pianoworldstage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God chose Israel to be the line of the messiah. Of course, his will was that they all be saved. Were they? Certainly not. And these promises are for all who are in Christ, not necessarily Israel by birth but by the second birth. The Messiah is the Saviour of all who currently believe in him, of course. Not just physical Israelites, but from all of mankind.
God chooses all first. Prevenient grace goes out to all. It is divine grace that precedes human decision. In other words, God will start showing love to that individual at a certain point in his lifetime. If we respond to that grace by choosing him, we become part of the group of people called "Elect." I first did this at ten years of age, (at an altar during an altar call) but I drifted into a lack of faith and became quite miserable. At 19 years of age, I again responded to the Spirit and have been his ever since, although I certainly have had my ups and downs in my walk with God.
You asked "Where in the Bible are non believers saved?" Why do you bring that question up? Did I say anything in my post which you quoted that begs the question? Please show.
You said and charged "In your eternal security scheme, a person can believe once, be saved, become a God hater, and still be eternally secure." That's a false charge sir. When did I mean to say that? Please show proof.
You asked "What do you do with the many verses that tell us Christians can become reprobates?" Cite them and I'll answer your question.
The thing is, you can't seem to deny what I posted, and apparently could not answer my questions, and I quote:
You said "if we lose faith we are no longer born again." So, what becomes of you then, back to being not born again? What does that even mean? Now you also said "God give people second chances". So, you mean that after you are no longer born again, you can be born again again? And perhaps you would not object to a third chance, or even fourth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or nth, for as long as the man is alive, having his free will, he can at any time, repent and have faith in Christ, right? So, you are teaching that one can be born again and be not born again and be born again again and be not born again and be born again and again and again.
Who do you say are them who will depart from the faith? Are they true believers? The "faith" there refers to Christian beliefs or doctrines of Christ. The "some" there sure refers to those who are numbered among those who are of that faith. But it is no secret that, in the church, there are false brethren, who are not really among the elect and are not elect. I believe that no true child of God gives heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Should there be any, he remains a child of God, though is deceived and sins.
Basically the same comments as above.
But let me add and say, one who says he believes and some time later says he do not believe any more, really had not believed. For I believe that regarding the choice set before the man, concerning true faith or believing in Jesus Christ, could only be a one time decision and with finality. It's either you believe with all your heart, mind and soul, or not. True faith is not half hearted or have uncertainty or doubt.
Tong
R0276
My point is that, why people get to know the Son is not dependent on one's covenant relationship with God. This is to refute your argument and teaching that the Jews in Jesus' time did not know Christ by reason of their covenant relationship with God. John the baptist, Peter, Paul, did not know Christ because of their covenant relationship with God. The prophet John the baptist knew the Christ because the Father revealed Him to him. The ordinary fisherman Peter knew the Christ because the Father revealed Him to him. The unbelieving Pharisee and enemy and persecutor of the church and Jesus, Saul (Paul), knew the Christ because the Son revealed Himself to him. That refutes your argument and teaching. That is my point.
Tong
R0277
So, after bringing up unconditional election even while I did not say anything about it, now you bring up individual election and again making it appear as if I've spoken about it.
So, let me just repeat, as I said, nowhere did I speak about the issues of unconditional election nor of individual election. But what I spoke about and have told you is that in John 8:47, there are, as Jesus mentioned of, people who are "of God" and people who are "not of God".
Tong
R0278
I did read my Bible carefully and prayerfully, and read it again, and continue to study it. You should do that as well.
Do you want me to show you why the first order would be, God's quickening of the spirit in the man, enabling him to spiritually see and hear and positively respond to God in the spirit? And why the next would be God's work concerning his repentance and faith, or what I call, God's work of conversion?
You see, if you understand what salvation really is, you will come to realize that faith or believing could not be before salvation.
Sin and death, if I may so, is the lost of faith and life in the man, and salvation is the giving of faith and life to the man.
Tong
R0279
What?! You please go ahead and read carefully what Paul said in Romans 9. Here, let me post that here.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
I don't know how you could not seem to understand the rhetorics and Paul's point by the questions there. Let me try to rephrase that for you. Paul asked in the context of God's sovereignty over mankind as He can harden whom He wills, why does God still find fault or charge them of wrong doing or of doing evil, or of sin? Paul gives some justice to such question, by asking the second question, for who has resisted God's will? What will? God's "sovereign will" to do what He wills to do with man, and not what some theologians call "preceptive will" which are God's revealed law or commandments. So that, the two questions asked by Paul there, was to bring out the truth which is embodied in the answer he gives in the next verses, that is, "20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
What truth is embodied in there in relation to the questions Paul brought up? That man has to right whatsoever to talk back to God. That God is the Sovereign Creator of man and man is but the creature whom God can make of him to be as He pleases to make of him. I hope you get that now.
Tong
R0280
I wouldn't repeat asking if you have.
And since you insist that you already answered it, then I would not be expecting any answer better than that which you say is your answer.
The question:
Ask yourself, what does "that the purpose of God according to election might stand" mean? What was Paul meaning to say in that passage?
To answer, let me quote the passage again:
Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Paul had pointed out the fact that Jacob and Esau were not yet born, which obviously, neither had done any good or evil, when God said to Rebecca, “The older shall serve the younger.” Paul was by that pointing out that God's election is not of works, that is, not based or in consideration of one's works. Now, we must not forget that what Paul is saying in these verses are part of his explanation of what he said in verse 6 concerning unbelieving Israel. And so to continue, that it is not based on Jacob's or Esau's works, but on God's sovereign election, Paul had here pointed out that, because of that, it is why the purpose of God concerning Israel had not failed, but remains and stands. In effect, Paul was saying that, relative to the present time then, Israel's unbelief in Jesus Christ, while it may seem as though God's word had failed concerning Israel, the truth is that, God's word concerning Israel had not failed, because all of that is by God's sovereign election and so, will surely come to pass.
Tong
R0281
Paul may have borrowed the figure, but it does not necessarily follow that Paul was alluding to that scriptures. It does not mean that when words and statements in the NT seems similar to some scriptures in the OT, that the writer necessarily alludes to the said OT scriptures.
Tong
R0282
If it did not easily slip your mind who the Israel of God are, as Paul had just explained in Romans 9:6-8, you will probably not say that Israel are also vessels of wrath. The vessels of wrath shall all be revealed at judgment day, and so too will the vessels of mercy be all revealed.
The Christian, in reading scriptures, should be aware of the times (now NT, OT no longer). What was there in the OT times were but shadows of which the substance and the reality had already come some 2000 plus years ago, and are here in the NT times.
You said "If you go on and read the rest of the chapter, it's clarified that faith was the difference between being a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy." I would just like to remind you that man is the vessel and God is the maker of the vessel. And that it is not the vessel that makes itself what vessel it shall be, but it is God who makes the vessel, either a vessel of wrath or of mercy.
Tong
R0283
I'm sorry sir, but you are clearly mistaken. And it's not even obvious. It is written. The men of Judah are His plant (grape vines), not the grape fruit.
Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
Tong
R0284
You said "Of course, his will was that they all be saved." Well, I think that settles the issue of whether they were chosen for salvation or not.
And perhaps I need to say, that we must look at the substance and reality which are here and now, rather than the shadow, which were there and then. Regarding Israel therefore, we must see Israel in reality and not the Israel in the shadow it was. Paul told us who the Israel of God are in the scriptures that he was inspired to write.
By the way, you seem to have ignored the other question and argument I presented to you, such as:
So, you believe that God chose Jacob only for a job and not to save him. And what job is that?
So with Noah, you believe that God found Himself left without a choice, and was practically forced to save them? May I asked, would you say if ever God did not chose Noah to give His grace and instead destroyed all mankind, would God be unrighteous by not saving Noah?
Was Abraham not saved when God, from among the other peoples, chose him and made promise to him? Would Abraham had faith if God had not chosen him and spoke His words to him? If God did not account righteousness to his faith, would Abraham not be saved?
I hope you could address them.
Tong
R0285
Last edited:
You said "God chooses all first." If by that you imply that your answer to my questions is "yes", then that settles it I guess.
What does prevenient grace that you say there got to do with my questions?
Did God choose you for salvation so that you are among the chosen people of God, or did you choose God to be among the chosen people of God?
Did God chose you first or did you chose God first?
Tong
R0286
Nope, you can't depart from something you never had. This does not refer to false "Christians." And as for your last sentence, this is refuted by Paul telling us to not fall into false beliefs and if we do Christ will be of no use to us. I'm not talking about merely "sinning". I'm talking about those who fall into false beliefs (such as relying on the law instead of Christ) or nonbelief.
Again, that's not what the verse says. You can't fall away from the living God if you never knew him. At least try to be consistent with what the verse says.
You are looking at it backwards. They were not in right relationship with God the Father, so they refused to accept his physical manifestation in the Son. This is why Jesus said that everyone who learns from the father comes to him. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every Jewish person across the board.
Then why were the "not of God"? Could they be saved or not? You have been beating the individual election drum all along, unless you have some other explanation why they were not of God, which you have not revealed.
Ezekiel 18:30-32
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”
The order clearly laid out is as follows:
“Repent, Turn away…Rid yourselves…”
“…get a new heart and a new spirit.”
Verse 32 makes it even more simple:
“Repent and…”
“…live!”
Life comes from repentance, not the other way around.
Acts 11:18
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
The order clearly laid out is as follows:
“Repentance unto…”
“…life”
The Gentiles were not granted life unto repentance, but just the opposite according to the text. And the gospel is the means God grants mankind the ability to believe. He sent the gospel first to the Jews and then the Gentiles which enabled their faith response (Rom. 1:16, 10:14-17).
Since you misunderstand this passage, maybe you should compare your understanding of it with the many places in Scripture where God claims people don't do his will. Such as:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Matthew 23:37
Election of Esau and Jacob as already shown was to head of nations, not to salvation. Did God choose for Israel to rebel against him? If so, why did both the Father and Son lament about their rebellion? You can't have it both ways. You make God schizophrenic. God doesn't have two wills, that's another Calvinist invention to support their weird interpretation of scripture.
Similar threads
