Best Reply to “From Eternity Past”

  • 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!

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,240
846
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wanted to share this reply because I believe it is instructionally significant to the thread’s theme concerning God’s omniscience and omnipotence.



Here's what I think:

God created everything.... including evil. If God did not create it, it wouldn't exist.

God does not do evil, but the fact that evil exists IS GOOD, because it will ultimately glorify Him through the eventual destruction of it.

Too many people want to let God off the hook for evil in the world. But the bottom line is that God does not want to be let off the hook. God is sovereign overall and nothing in the universe happens outside of God's sovereignty. He will accomplish all his purpose (Isaiah 46:9-10).

The fall of the angels in heaven was ordained by God. He was not "surprised" by it. If God did not ordain it, it wouldn't have happened.
Same for the fall of Adam and Eve. Replace them with any other couple that you know and they would have made the exact same decision. It's all good fun to call them idiots or to say "they screwed us" by sinning, but it's folly to claim that had you or I been in the garden back then that we would have made any other decision.

God does not cause the sinner to sin. He doesn't need to. The sinner will sin by default. More often, God restrains us from sinning, way more than we probably ever know (Gen 20:6).

When explaining this concept, many people use language that God "allows" sin to happen. I personally don't believe this is the best word choice because "allowing sin" implies that God is relatively unengaged and is somehow discovering humans conducting sinful acts as history plays itself out. I believe that all sin is ordained by God and is part of His design. The scripture says He declared "the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done." (Isaiah 46:9-10) He declared it! He declared all things not yet done before they would happen. He wrote every day of our lives "when as yet there were none of them." (Psalms 139:16) This is predestination. It is a script that is being played out according to His purpose and for His glory. Predestination is not a discovery of people's choices through His divine foreknowledge. It is a sovereign ordination of things not yet done.

- A Forum Member




Though evil came by God’s creation, this does not incur attribution to Him as doing evil. The crux of this issue concerns His foreknowledge of evil coming into creation, because that which is foreknown is that which is foreordained, thus He preplanned everything according to His “perfect will” (Rom 12:2).

He foreknew Satan would be “a murderer from the beginning,” who “abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him” (John 8:44). The fact Satan was “the anointed cherub” and “wast perfect in thy ways,” was an insignificant position because God knew eventually “iniquity” would be “found in thee” (Eze 28:14, 15).

This concept only partially parallels God’s foreknowledge of man’s iniquity, the difference being that His plans of redemption involved man only, for angels cannot be “heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14). All angels were created, but only two humans were created and the remnant incarnated, thus bringing into reality by His preplanning, those who would be “born of God.”

Though evil came by God’s creation, this does not incur attribution to Him as doing evil. The crux of this issue concerns His foreknowledge of evil coming into creation, because that which is foreknown is that which is foreordained, thus He preplanned everything according to His “perfect will” (Rom 12:2).

He foreknew Satan would be “a murderer from the beginning,” who “abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him” (John 8:44). The fact Satan was “the anointed cherub” and “wast perfect in thy ways,” was an insignificant position because God knew eventually “iniquity” would be “found in thee” (Eze 28:14, 15).

This concept only partially parallels God’s foreknowledge of man’s iniquity, the difference being that His plans of redemption involved man only, for angels cannot be “heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14). All angels were created, but only two humans were created and the remnant incarnated, thus bringing into reality by His preplanning, those who would be “born of God.”

I believe Satan and Adam were created apart from the sinful nature and that this nature came into being by the choice of the created, because there was a time when there was no "iniquity found" (Eze 28:15) concerning the Lucifer, and that Adam was "good" (Gen 1:31), thus also apart from the same.

The crux-issue is the fact that since God foreknew everything, He ordained (preplanned) everything to serve His purpose. This is the reason for the thread, to exhibit God's control, which in knowing, the believer can be assured that He works "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).

Concerning predestination of the elect, the issue will most likely remain mostly unknown in its fullest comprehension and I believe this is the crux-passage why: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour (Rom 9:21)?

-NC
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPPT1974

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
NetChaplain said:
Concerning predestination of the elect, the issue will most likely remain mostly unknown in its fullest comprehension and I believe this is the crux-passage why: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour (Rom 9:21)?

-NC
Personal individual salvation is not at all Paul's point of Romans 9.
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,240
846
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
musterion said:
Personal individual salvation is not at all Paul's point of Romans 9.
Hi M - Thank you for the comment, though I disagree, which is alright because the believer's should be unified concerning things essential, liberal concerning things nonessential, but charitable (agape love) in all things.

Pleas allow me to share John Gill's comment on Romans 9:21:

"Hath not the potter power over the clay,.... By the power the potter has over the clay, to shape it in what form he pleases, and out of it to make what vessels he pleases, and for what purposes he thinks fit, which will be most to his own advantage, the apostle expresses the sovereign and unlimited powder which God has over his creatures; the passages referred to, are Isaiah 64:8, in which God is represented as the potter, and men as clay in his hands.

"Now if the potter has such power over the clay which he did not make, only has made a purchase of, or has it in his possession, much more has God a power, who has created the clay, to appoint out of it persons to different uses and purposes, for his own glory, as he sees fit; even

"of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. The apostle seems to design hereby, to point out to us the object of predestination to be man, as yet not made, but as lying in the mere mass of creatureship, signified by the unformed clay, before put into any shape; and is an allusion to the first creation of man, out of the clay, or dust of the earth, Genesis 2:7."

I would recommend the comment in its entirety of chapter 9 at your leisure.

http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/romans/gill/romans9.htm

God's blessing to your Family!
 

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
I'm aware of Gill's interpretation since I'm something of an ex-Calvinist, and I insist vehemently that to read personal, individual salvation into Romans 9 is to not only do violence to the Scripture but has done untold and needless damage to the sanctification and walk of far too many believers over the centuries. But I thank you for posting it just the same.

Allow me to be blunt: I find that very, very few portions of Scripture are nonessential in the sense you meant it. The reason I've come to feel this way is the raison d'être behind all my posts here: one way or the other, almost every passage of Scripture reveals to us something about the holy, righteous God who inspired it and/or reveals something about His Christ. So since God does not author confusion, when two believers are at interpretational odds, someone is not simply wrong. Their being wrong brings the Word of God, which He has exalted above His very name, into disrepute. In other words, iron sharpening iron is commanded and one way or the other comes out to His glory. Agreeing to disagree about the very Word of God does not because it leaves it in doubt as the source of confusion.

Of course no believer is perfect and without error, and of course there are a few vague or obscure passages that men of good conscience disagree over because there's simply no one clear rendering. But Romans 9-11 is not among them. So to brush off disagreements which (like it or not, realize it or not) ultimately strike at the very character of God is itself an unbiblical attitude, in my opinion. It is, just my opinion, sin.

Continued grace to you and yours.
 

JPPT1974

Flowers of May
Staff member
Encounter Team
Jan 23, 2012
358
217
43
49
East TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Read John 3:16 as it says it all. We are no perfect as everybody is a sinner. But we can accept God's forgiveness and grace due to Jesus dying and rising again.
 

daq

HSN#1851
Feb 9, 2013
821
63
0
Olam Haba
What if there is a NetChampaign and a NetChaplain which both came from the same one lump of clay?
What if there is a Mysterion and a musterion which both came from the same one lump of clay?
What if there is a JPPT1794 and a JPPT1974 which both came from the same one lump of clay?

Does the above necessarily mean that all six personages came from the same one lump of clay?

What if each of the three duo's above came from their own separate respective lumps of clay?

I know that in my earthen vessel there was an "old man" Bel-dak but now in his place is me, daq, (3rd ruler of my kingdom). :)
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,240
846
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
musterion said:
I'm aware of Gill's interpretation since I'm something of an ex-Calvinist, and I insist vehemently that to read personal, individual salvation into Romans 9 is to not only do violence to the Scripture but has done untold and needless damage to the sanctification and walk of far too many believers over the centuries. But I thank you for posting it just the same.

Allow me to be blunt: I find that very, very few portions of Scripture are nonessential in the sense you meant it.

So to brush off disagreements which (like it or not, realize it or not) ultimately strike at the very character of God is itself an unbiblical attitude, in my opinion. It is, just my opinion, sin.
Hi M - The terms essential and nonessential are in reference to Scriptural doctrine that is essential for receiving salvation and doctrine that is not essential for receiving salvation, but rather is essential for growth in our salvation.

An example of essential doctrine for receiving salvation is Romans 10:9. An example of a nonessential doctrine for receiving salvation is believing or disbelieving God is omniscient, which does not affect receiving salvation but does affect growth in it.

I'm not offended by your last comment and I believe none was intended, but I do not see how the post "brushes off" anything, and I do not say this to be competitive but just wanted you to know accusations are never necessary.

Thanks for your interest.
 

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
NC,

Thanks for not taking offense because, indeed, none was intended. However, please allow me to make a brief illustration of what I meant (WITHOUT trying to spark a debate).

According to consistent Calvinism and to John Calvin himself, God determined in eternity past who would and would not be elected unto salvation (the elect and the reprobates). Modern Calvinists may disagree on this but many of them are as clear on the point as Calvin himself was - God did both.

According to the Bible, however, the Gospel of the grace of God has gone out into the world unto all men, all of whom are invited - begged, by the apostle Paul in God's stead - to believe it and be saved.

Now, if Calvin was right, that offer of salvation is a sham and a fraud for those whom God reprobated. Period. The Gospel simply cannot be true for them. As you know, this is a common argument against Calvinism (which, again, I used to believe) and is a valid and profound one, but it is by no means the most profound one:

The Bible teaches that God will condemn people who have heard and rejected the Gospel specifically for their rejection of it. Now on its surface, that's fair: God gave men under conviction the choice to believe it or not...men, despite conviction, have the power to believe or not...so the penalty for disbelieving is entirely on them. God is cleared of all partiality and is justified in condemning all who reject Christ.

The problem is, if Calvinism is true this whole process is also a sham and a fraud because the reason those who reject Christ do so is NOT because they chose to do so, but because they were reprobated in eternity past to NOT believe the Gospel when they hear it. They CANNOT believe it because God willed that they should not.

So while, in the Bible, God condemns those who reject Christ, if Calvinism is true, what actually happens is God condemns them for the very unbelief He predestined them to exhibit. That makes both God and Christ liars because both said men may be damned for unbelief. But if Calvinism is true, there IS no real unbelief, only reprobation from eternity past, just as their is no real faith needed by the irresistibly drawn Elect who are "quickened" to believe before they can even have "saving faith."

In short, when the root assumptions of Calvinism are examined...when one looks closely and what is implied about the character of God in Calvin's hypothetical processes of election and reprobation...one sees plainly that it is slander if not blasphemy against God and Christ who (acc. to the Bible) cannot lie but (acc. to Calvinism) MUST lie in order to balance the Scripture's promises with Calvinism's hypothetical decrees.

I was as brief as I could be but my point here is this:

Most people would simply agree to disagree about Calvinism even though it has VERY grave implications for the very nature and character of God. As I've shown, it is not a nonessential matter one can choose to lay aside in the interest of fellowship...if one cannot trust what God says about why unbelievers are damned (and if Calvin was right, He cannot be), what else in God's Word can we not trust? See my point? This is why I find very few things to be truly nonessential because almost everything in the Word directly traces back to the very character of the God who inspired it.

If we're not very careful in knowing the unquestioned assumptions behind all we believe, we can end up slandering and blaspheming God even as we sincerely believe we're glorifying Him. Thus, almost everything is essential.

Thanks again for your time; continued grace to you and yours.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
musterion said:
NC,

Thanks for not taking offense because, indeed, none was intended. However, please allow me to make a brief illustration of what I meant (WITHOUT trying to spark a debate).

According to consistent Calvinism and to John Calvin himself, God determined in eternity past who would and would not be elected unto salvation (the elect and the reprobates). Modern Calvinists may disagree on this but many of them are as clear on the point as Calvin himself was - God did both.

According to the Bible, however, the Gospel of the grace of God has gone out into the world unto all men, all of whom are invited - begged, by the apostle Paul in God's stead - to believe it and be saved.

Now, if Calvin was right, that offer of salvation is a sham and a fraud for those whom God reprobated. Period. The Gospel simply cannot be true for them. As you know, this is a common argument against Calvinism (which, again, I used to believe) and is a valid and profound one, but it is by no means the most profound one:
Hey Musterion...hope you dont mind me jumping in here with a thought.....

We know that there is a "book of life", with all the names of those who are saved within it. But we are not given that book, and we cannot know who God has "forenew" or "predestined". What we are told, is this:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?...
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.(Romans 10:14,17 ESV)

Every single person we encounter might be 'elect'. But how do we know if we don't preach the word to them? God uses US to preach the word....so therefore, regardless if we think someone is going to be 'elect' or not, its for us to preach like they are. Beyond the preaching, it's not up to us...it's up to God.

The Bible teaches that God will condemn people who have heard and rejected the Gospel specifically for their rejection of it. Now on its surface, that's fair: God gave men under conviction the choice to believe it or not...men, despite conviction, have the power to believe or not...so the penalty for disbelieving is entirely on them. God is cleared of all partiality and is justified in condemning all who reject Christ.

The problem is, if Calvinism is true this whole process is also a sham and a fraud because the reason those who reject Christ do so is NOT because they chose to do so, but because they were reprobated in eternity past to NOT believe the Gospel when they hear it. They CANNOT believe it because God willed that they should not.
I know you don't believe that Romans 9 is talking about specific and personal accounts...but I don't know if it needs to be, for the point to still be valid...in any context.

Let's say that that passage is talking about ethnic Jews....and God's absolute and Sovereign right to chose some of them, but not the others. It's still God's right to do that...yes? God being Sovereign, all powerful and maker of all...the potter...he does have that right. So....why would that right be any different when compared to his right to call some idividuals and others not.

So...why are we even debating what Calvin thought or taught? If God is potter for Israel, then he is potter for all....he is who he is, and that cannot be changed...

So while, in the Bible, God condemns those who reject Christ, if Calvinism is true, what actually happens is God condemns them for the very unbelief He predestined them to exhibit. That makes both God and Christ liars because both said men may be damned for unbelief. But if Calvinism is true, there IS no real unbelief, only reprobation from eternity past, just as their is no real faith needed by the irresistibly drawn Elect who are "quickened" to believe before they can even have "saving faith."

In short, when the root assumptions of Calvinism are examined...when one looks closely and what is implied about the character of God in Calvin's hypothetical processes of election and reprobation...one sees plainly that it is slander if not blasphemy against God and Christ who (acc. to the Bible) cannot lie but (acc. to Calvinism) MUST lie in order to balance the Scripture's promises with Calvinism's hypothetical decrees.

I was as brief as I could be but my point here is this:

Most people would simply agree to disagree about Calvinism even though it has VERY grave implications for the very nature and character of God. As I've shown, it is not a nonessential matter one can choose to lay aside in the interest of fellowship...if one cannot trust what God says about why unbelievers are damned (and if Calvin was right, He cannot be), what else in God's Word can we not trust? See my point? This is why I find very few things to be truly nonessential because almost everything in the Word directly traces back to the very character of the God who inspired it.

If we're not very careful in knowing the unquestioned assumptions behind all we believe, we can end up slandering and blaspheming God even as we sincerely believe we're glorifying Him. Thus, almost everything is essential.

Thanks again for your time; continued grace to you and yours.
May I ask a question? What do you do with those passages with the 'weighty' words in them. And by that I mean....how do you deal with the words you believe make God a liar? Words that God himself used? How do you deal with 'predestined', 'forenew', 'chose us before the foundation of the world'....those passages.
I'm honestly interested. How do you see these passages? What do they say to you?
Ta.......
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,240
846
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
musterion said:
NC,

Thanks for not taking offense because, indeed, none was intended. However, please allow me to make a brief illustration of what I meant (WITHOUT trying to spark a debate).

According to consistent Calvinism and to John Calvin himself, God determined in eternity past who would and would not be elected unto salvation (the elect and the reprobates). Modern Calvinists may disagree on this but many of them are as clear on the point as Calvin himself was - God did both.

The problem is, if Calvinism is true this whole process is also a sham and a fraud because the reason those who reject Christ do so is NOT because they chose to do so, but because they were reprobated in eternity past to NOT believe the Gospel when they hear it. They CANNOT believe it because God willed that they should not.
HI M - Your replies have been genuine and that's the most important when seeking truth. Learning what is true or false comes with time in the Word--through the Spirit, and there are many false doctrines which are believed on unknowingly to the ones believing them, which are many in contemporary Christendom.

The issue isn't believing false teachings (unless its essential doctrine for receiving salvation) but not seeking truth first in everything, then it eventually comes (seek and find - Luke 11:9), thus if truth is not present it's because it was not sought. All who are God's will eventually find truth in all things because He will ensure it (Phil 2:13).

I'm still in research for a more full comprehension of predestination. Though the doctrine is nonessential for receiving salvation, it is, as is all nonessential doctrine, instructional for spiritual growth.

At present I believe it hinges on our choices (Deu 30:19), which began when God gave Adam and Eve to choose concerning everything He allowed and forbid. It's not that He ordained people to perish but that He foreknew they would, and allowed it, for the sake of those He knew would receive His "drawing" (John 6:44).

Myself presently, I believe God does not "draw" others to Christ because He knows they will resist it. Why offer something to someone you already know will not receive it. If I'm wrong concerning this, I will eventually be shown in Scripture, or it may even be an doctrine God does not desire to disclose in this life.

God's blessings to your Family!
 

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
Rach said:
Hey Musterion...hope you dont mind me jumping in here with a thought.....

We know that there is a "book of life", with all the names of those who are saved within it. But we are not given that book, and we cannot know who God has "forenew" or "predestined". What we are told, is this:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?...
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.(Romans 10:14,17 ESV)

Every single person we encounter might be 'elect'. But how do we know if we don't preach the word to them? God uses US to preach the word....so therefore, regardless if we think someone is going to be 'elect' or not, its for us to preach like they are. Beyond the preaching, it's not up to us...it's up to God.


I know you don't believe that Romans 9 is talking about specific and personal accounts...but I don't know if it needs to be, for the point to still be valid...in any context.

Let's say that that passage is talking about ethnic Jews....and God's absolute and Sovereign right to chose some of them, but not the others. It's still God's right to do that...yes? God being Sovereign, all powerful and maker of all...the potter...he does have that right. So....why would that right be any different when compared to his right to call some idividuals and others not.

So...why are we even debating what Calvin thought or taught? If God is potter for Israel, then he is potter for all....he is who he is, and that cannot be changed...


May I ask a question? What do you do with those passages with the 'weighty' words in them. And by that I mean....how do you deal with the words you believe make God a liar? Words that God himself used? How do you deal with 'predestined', 'forenew', 'chose us before the foundation of the world'....those passages.
I'm honestly interested. How do you see these passages? What do they say to you?
Ta.......
Hello Rach,

The key (only my opinion) you are missing in the whole election/predestination deal is the key words "in Christ." I missed that myself for many years until a wise old pastor pointed them out. Yes, I'd seen them before, right there in front of me the whole time, but I never considered their deepest of meanings.

Christ is God's elect one and so believers are elect from eternity past in Him and ONLY in Him, not at all in ourselves and not invidually chosen over others. It actually has nothing to do with us as individuals, as Calvinism says, because that would (and does!) give some "electionists" cause to swell with arrogant pride because they convince themselves they're among Calvinism's elect (though that'd be impossible to know 100% for sure this side of death but that's another issue).

If we are saved at all, we are all saved on the exact same terms: by grace ALONE, not by election.

The takeaway point is this: since any and all may repent and believe the Gospel, any and all may become elect "in Christ." Paul himself said that even "in Christ," he was nothing and Christ was all. Apart from Him, we are less than nothing - enemies, in fact - so to presume God capriciously elects some to salvation in that state while reprobating others is blasphemous.

Calvinistic election puts the emphasis - oh so subtly - on Man instead of on Christ. Biblical election - our all in all is in Christ - puts the emphasis where it should be: totally on Him.

Briefly re: Romans 9....

Please find me one passage in all of Scripture that shows where the elder (Esau) ever literally and personally served the younger (Jacob), as was prophesied would happen, and you will have gone a long way toward proving what Calvinism must prove to keep Romans 9 in its bag of prooftexts: that the election here spoken of was personal and individual soul salvation from sin.

Until then, the contextual meaning is exactly what it says elsewhere: that two NATIONS were wrestling in their mother's womb and Jacob and Esau represented those nations that would come from their seed. Please, look at Rom. 9 with fresh eyes in the context of nations and their positions of service to and blessing by God, or their loss of such, and it makes total sense. Same with Pharaoh - God raised him up to his position as "god" of Egypt, and possibly from sickness, to show His judgment against the most powerful NATION on earth, an example that stands to this day (since Egypt never, ever recovered her power and glory after God demolished her). The salvation of Pharaoh was never an issue at the time of his stiff-neck responses to God, nor in Paul's using him as an illustration.

Personal salvation in Christ was absolutely not Paul's point here. It must be eisegeted into the passage for it to be seen there, which is to wrest the Scripture.

God is utterly and totally sovereign over all the affairs of the world's nations - amen to that! - but He does not pick and choose who He will and will not save via the Gospel. To do so would contradict the plainly and repeated terms of the Gospel (as I've already demonstrated) and would make the Bible worse than meaningless...it would make it a book of lies at its very innermost heart: the very character and reliability of God Himself.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
musterion said:
Hello Rach,

The key (only my opinion) you are missing in the whole election/predestination deal is the key words "in Christ." I missed that myself for many years until a wise old pastor pointed them out. Yes, I'd seen them before, right there in front of me the whole time, but I never considered their deepest of meanings.

Christ is God's elect one and so believers are elect from eternity past in Him and ONLY in Him, not at all in ourselves and not invidually chosen over others. It actually has nothing to do with us as individuals, as Calvinism says, because that would (and does!) give some "electionists" cause to swell with arrogant pride because they convince themselves they're among Calvinism's elect (though that'd be impossible to know 100% for sure this side of death but that's another issue).

If we are saved at all, we are all saved on the exact same terms: by grace ALONE, not by election.

The takeaway point is this: since any and all may repent and believe the Gospel, any and all may become elect "in Christ." Paul himself said that even "in Christ," he was nothing and Christ was all. Apart from Him, we are less than nothing - enemies, in fact - so to presume God capriciously elects some to salvation in that state while reprobating others is blasphemous.

Calvinistic election puts the emphasis - oh so subtly - on Man instead of on Christ. Biblical election - our all in all is in Christ - puts the emphasis where it should be: totally on Him.
Yeah....see, I've bumped into a few people like you, who seem to place special weight on the phrase "In Christ". Now, don't get me wrong, it's a game changer...life changer! But I can see absolutely no biblical reason to see more to it than what is obvious. And that obvious thing is this: Jesus is the only way, truth and life. No one comes to the Father but through him.
Jesus came, lived, died and rose. He is the Saviour, and it is only through belief and faith in him that we are saved.
That's how the gospel spells it out, how the bible puts it, and I have not found anyone yet who can make a biblical case for understanding it otherwise.
Oh...and I have to disagree about 'calvinistic election' putting the emphasis on man. I'm not a huge fan of 'calvinistic' labels, really. For me, it's biblical election, and from how I see scripture painting it, it's impossible for man to get any credit at all. It's all his. All. That's what election means. His choice, his work, his grace.



Briefly re: Romans 9....

Please find me one passage in all of Scripture that shows where the elder (Esau) ever literally and personally served the younger (Jacob), as was prophesied would happen, and you will have gone a long way toward proving what Calvinism must prove to keep Romans 9 in its bag of prooftexts: that the election here spoken of was personal and individual soul salvation from sin.
I don't see that the prophecy ever referred to or required Esau to 'literally and personally' serve Jacob.
Recieving Esau's birthright and blessing meant that Jacob had essentially recieved God's blessing....

May God give you of the dew of heaven
and of the fatness of the earth
and plenty of grain and wine.
Let peoples serve you,
and nations bow down to you.
Be lord over your brothers,
and may your mother's sons bow down to you.
Cursed be everyone who curses you,
and blessed be everyone who blesses you!” (Genesis 27:28-29, ESV)

We see that God did indeed look after Jacob, despite Laban's efforts towards 'free labor'.

These twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and your female goats have not miscarried, and I have not eaten the rams of your flocks. What was torn by wild beasts I did not bring to you. I bore the loss of it myself. From my hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night. There I was: by day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night, and my sleep fled from my eyes. These twenty years I have been in your house. I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times. If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my affliction and the labor of my hands and rebuked you last night.” (Genesis 38:37-42, ESV)

And as far as Jacob being 'lord' over Esau...we have no reason, biblically, to suppose that meant Esau literally and personally 'serving' his brother. The blessing is clearly in terms of Isaac's inheritance...what Jacob would receive from his father in terms of weath and possession; and God's blessing to Jacob, in terms of the covenant that had begun with Abraham...that through his line would come the Saviour.

Isaac answered and said to Esau, “Behold, I have made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?” (Genesis 27:37, ESV)

God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said to him, “Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.” So he called his name Israel. And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.” (Genesis 35:9-12, ESV)

There is nothing to suggest we need to find a passage where Esau 'serves' Jacob....and I'm afraid I don't really see the connection to that and to it therefore cancelling the idea that Romans 9 speaks to more than just national Israel......

Until then, the contextual meaning is exactly what it says elsewhere: that two NATIONS were wrestling in their mother's womb and Jacob and Esau represented those nations that would come from their seed. Please, look at Rom. 9 with fresh eyes in the context of nations and their positions of service to and blessing by God, or their loss of such, and it makes total sense. Same with Pharaoh - God raised him up to his position as "god" of Egypt, and possibly from sickness, to show His judgment against the most powerful NATION on earth, an example that stands to this day (since Egypt never, ever recovered her power and glory after God demolished her). The salvation of Pharaoh was never an issue at the time of his stiff-neck responses to God, nor in Paul's using him as an illustration.
Yes, but you're missing my point. Namely....that God used 'individuals' to paint broader strokes. I am sure when reading Romans 9-11 that he is indeed talking about 'nations'. But how often in scripture do we see that things have many different meanings? Echos, foreshadowings....taking something at a single face value, is often a mistake and will lead to missing richer meanings....important meanings.
So...if God used Jacob and Esau and Pharaoh to provide instruction on larger scale, he still used those individuals. So saying that 'God cannot and will not work in such ways for individuals, because he is only referring to nations' is not seeing a tree because a forest is in the way.....
Besides....as I see Romans 9-11...isn't he actually dividing the nation of Israel? His point is that ALL national Israel is not, in fact, spiritual Israel? Paul is saying that out of National Israel some are 'children of promise'....in other words, elect; and some are not.
So it's not a simple matter to say Paul is saying God chose Israel and not Gentiles....chose Jacob and not Esau. Even in the OT we see God telling us that He is Sovereign and that he chooses who he wills:

And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19, ESV)

Personal salvation in Christ was absolutely not Paul's point here. It must be eisegeted into the passage for it to be seen there, which is to wrest the Scripture.

God is utterly and totally sovereign over all the affairs of the world's nations - amen to that! - but He does not pick and choose who He will and will not save via the Gospel. To do so would contradict the plainly and repeated terms of the Gospel (as I've already demonstrated) and would make the Bible worse than meaningless...it would make it a book of lies at its very innermost heart: the very character and reliability of God Himself.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. And as I see it; scripture does indeed say that God 'picks and chooses'....and that he has the Sovereign right to do just that. I don't understand it, but I have no doubt that God does and that if his hand is apon it, it is good.
Again I ask: if God does not 'pick and choose', how do you deal with Ephesians 1

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14, ESV)

You can look up the Greek if you want...but those words are fairly well defined. How do you deal with them being in scripture? When combined with passages such as Romans, I'd say election fits pretty well...no need for outside explinations. In fact, to me, the purpose and outcome of election just brings more glory and praise to God...It's all him, and none...not even a smidge...us.
 

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
Rach said:
Yeah....see, I've bumped into a few people like you, who seem to place special weight on the phrase "In Christ". Now, don't get me wrong, it's a game changer...life changer! But I can see absolutely no biblical reason to see more to it than what is obvious. And that obvious thing is this: Jesus is the only way, truth and life. No one comes to the Father but through him.

It says those who are elect are elect IN HIM. How does one come to be elect in Him? By being saved. How does one come to be saved? By believing the Gospel. Who may believe the Gospel? Any living human being who hears and repents, without exception. There is NO ELECTION today apart from being in Christ, but that election is the RESULT of being saved, not the cause of it.

Oh...and I have to disagree about 'calvinistic election' putting the emphasis on man.

Really? See colorful paragraph below...

I don't see that the prophecy ever referred to or required Esau to 'literally and personally' serve Jacob.

Does it not say the elder would serve the younger?

And as far as Jacob being 'lord' over Esau...we have no reason, biblically, to suppose that meant Esau literally and personally 'serving' his brother.

Does it not say the elder would serve the younger?

There is nothing to suggest we need to find a passage where Esau 'serves' Jacob....

Does it not say the elder would serve the younger?

Even in the OT we see God telling us that He is Sovereign and that he chooses who he wills:

And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19, ESV)

Cite one (1) passage in the N.T. that speaks of God electing a lost sinner to salvation.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. And as I see it; scripture does indeed say that God 'picks and chooses'....and that he has the Sovereign right to do just that. I don't understand it, but I have no doubt that God does and that if his hand is apon it, it is good.
Again I ask: if God does not 'pick and choose', how do you deal with Ephesians 1

I already addressed this but I answer again by adding purple caps below...

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us IN CHRIST with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons THROUGH JESUS CHRIST according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us IN THE BELOVED. IN HIM we have redemption through HIS blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth IN CHRIST as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things IN HIM, things in heaven and things on earth.
IN HIM we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope IN CHRIST might be to the praise of his glory. IN HIM you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed IN HIM, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14, ESV)

Don't you see what you did there, Rach? Look where your red underlining puts all the emphasis. It puts it onto MAN - the predestined - making MAN the focus of the passage. The purple demonstrates my earlier point of how the Reformed interpretation of this passage pretty much ignores Christ EVEN THOUGH HE IS ALL THROUGHOUT IT AND KEY TO IT. You basically just made my earlier point far more perfectly than I could: For you, this passage is all about the elect. Christ is secondary.

You can look up the Greek if you want...but those words are fairly well defined. How do you deal with them being in scripture?

I don't "deal" with them at all. I read them in their proper context instead of forcing an interpretation on top of them that creates huge, dreadful implications for the character and veracity of God.

When combined with passages such as Romans, I'd say election fits pretty well...no need for outside explinations. In fact, to me, the purpose and outcome of election just brings more glory and praise to God...It's all him, and none...not even a smidge...us.

So do you believe the basic order of salvation is election>regeneration>saving faith>salvation? I ask because that's the typical Reformed position despite the fact there's not one passage in the N.T. that speaks of or shows God electing a lost sinner to salvation.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
Musterion says:
It says those who are elect are elect IN HIM. How does one come to be elect in Him? By being saved. How does one come to be saved? By believing the Gospel. Who may believe the Gospel? Any living human being who hears and repents, without exception. There is NO ELECTION today apart from being in Christ, but that election is the RESULT of being saved, not the cause of it.
Yes, our salvation comes through Christ. It is in him, his flesh, his life, his death, his resurrection, that we have salvation. We heard the gospel...which is the news of Christ and what he did for us, and recieved his spirit...however...

I disagree with that last sentence. The reason I disagree is because scripture clearly uses words that mean he 'selected us' BEFORE we were even born. Consider:

Ephesians 1:4...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
"he chose", strongs 1585 : Original Word: ἐκλέγομαι ......Definition: I pick out for myself, choose, elect, select.

"before", strongs 4253: Original Word: πρό.......Definition: (a) of place: before, in front of, ( of time: before, earlier than.


And then we add Ephesians 1:5...he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ,
"predestined", strongs 4309: Original Word: προορίζω....Definition: I foreordain, predetermine, mark out beforehand.

This is only one passage that talks of the elect and of predestination, but the intent of the words used is quite clear. Having used such language, I believe we cannot interpret it any other way...to do so is to dismiss what God is telling us, just because we might not like the idea.


Cite one (1) passage in the N.T. that speaks of God electing a lost sinner to salvation.
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death - Col 1:22

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:6-11, ESV)

Every single Christian was a 'lost sinner' before we recieved salvation. Again, fairly clear...we were not sitting around in righteousness until Christ gave us a new heart....

Also, I object to your argument. You've basically said "your arguement is invalid because you cannot show me a verse that has a specific phrasing."...even though I can show you passages that clearly have that intent, that clearly have that language.
Yet you're ignoring (apparently) the fact that you also don't have a specific verse backing your claims, and you have yet to even give a passge that shows an intent for your ideas. I doubt you can, as I don't see scripture backing it.


I already addressed this but I answer again by adding purple caps below...

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us IN CHRIST with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons THROUGH JESUS CHRIST according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us IN THE BELOVED. IN HIM we have redemption through HIS blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth IN CHRIST as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things IN HIM, things in heaven and things on earth.
IN HIM we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope IN CHRIST might be to the praise of his glory. IN HIM you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed IN HIM, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14, ESV)

Don't you see what you did there, Rach? Look where your red underlining puts all the emphasis. It puts it onto MAN - the predestined - making MAN the focus of the passage. The purple demonstrates my earlier point of how the Reformed interpretation of this passage pretty much ignores Christ EVEN THOUGH HE IS ALL THROUGHOUT IT AND KEY TO IT. You basically just made my earlier point far more perfectly than I could: For you, this passage is all about the elect. Christ is secondary.
No. We, and I, most certainly do not ignore Christ. The specific underlining that I gave you, was strictly because you were asking about, and denying that the bible tells us, that God predestined us. It is actually quite insulting for you to ask me to point something out, and then when I do, you then tell me I'm ignoring Jesus. Making Jesus secondary? Really? Okay....let me try and rephrase what I've been trying to say:

Jesus predestined us before the world began. Jesus then came, living, dying and then being ressurected so that through him, we might be called and become the elect. It is Jesus who promised this to us and Jesus who made it happen. And it is Jesus who will uphold it for all time, allowing us to have assurance and peace and hope. All Jesus. All.

So you see, when you say that I'm ignoring Jesus or that I'm putting the emphesis on man....it's just ridiculous. I'm giving Jesus ALL the kudos...how can I do anything else?

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:16-23, ESV)

Jesus IS everything, and therefore it is only through and in him that our salvation comes. Scripture makes that plain. What it doesn't make plain, or even refer to, in my mind, is what you are trying to put forward.

I don't "deal" with them at all. I read them in their proper context instead of forcing an interpretation on top of them that creates huge, dreadful implications for the character and veracity of God.
"Forcing an interpretation on top of them"? Seriously? They spell it out clearly! I'm afraid you must 'deal' with them, as they contradict what you're saying, and until you come up with something that is biblically sound then I cannot, in all honestly, consider what you're saying at all.
 

williemac

New Member
Apr 29, 2012
1,094
65
0
Canada
Predestination is based on "foreknowledge", plain and simple. But it usually leaves the plain and simple arena when a Calvinist (as labels go) gets a hold of that word. Foreknowledge suddenly is taken apart and taken to mean any number of things other than what it seems to mean, which is to know beforehand. I have seen many who manipulate this to somehow mean that God, being sovereign (a word not used in scripture concerning Him), and being all powerful, and being in "total control" (o really?), therefore knows exactly what He is doing before He does it so this is what foreknowledge means. O really?

I have asked many a Calvinist what criteria God has used or is using to determine who will be the lucky chosen and who will not. I get replies that speak of His motive (His good pleasure), but not His method. However, His method is plainly seen in the bible. It merely depends on whether the reader wants to see it or not, I guess.

His choosing of an individual is not random, is not a coin toss, is not a lottery, is not "eenie meenie". And "Whom He wills" most certainly does not mean whom He favors, nor whom He is partial to. There had to be a criteria other than all these options.

C'mon anyone...give it your best shot. ...And while you are at it, maybe someone can tell me how sovereign means control rather than authority, and tell me you know the difference. Believe me, many don't. God has authority. If he was in total control, we can blame Him for all this mess the human race has been immersed in for centuries.
But the potter made the clay with a mind that can think, reason and respond, knowing beforehand that the negative side of this is that many will go their own way, just like Lucifer did, thus becoming vessels of dishonor. Did Lucifer say..why did you make me like this?, It's your fault I was able to rebel! Oops, now I'm giving things away.
 

ScottAU

New Member
Feb 27, 2013
209
25
0
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.



The eternal now view of God has its origin in Greek philosophy and not in the Bible.

God preordained the means of salvation but did not preordain "whom" inparticular would be saved. God is soveriegn in the sense that He is ruler and can brings things to pass but this does not mean that God makes everything happen. God works events but does not cause all events.

God did not make men to sin. Men chose to sin. God did place men in a position to be tempted but He did not ordain that they submit to temptation and sin.

We are fully responsible for our sin.
 

musterion

New Member
Aug 4, 2013
215
5
0
williemac said:
C'mon anyone...give it your best shot. ...And while you are at it, maybe someone can tell me how sovereign means control rather than authority, and tell me you know the difference. Believe me, many don't. God has authority. If he was in total control, we can blame Him for all this mess the human race has been immersed in for centuries.
But the potter made the clay with a mind that can think, reason and respond, knowing beforehand that the negative side of this is that many will go their own way, just like Lucifer did, thus becoming vessels of dishonor. Did Lucifer say..why did you make me like this?, It's your fault I was able to rebel! Oops, now I'm giving things away.
I'm not ashamed to say I have no idea where you're headed with this, but I am listening.

Rach said:
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death - Col 1:22

This verse says only that sinners are reconciled to God through Christ. It says nothing about God predestinating a lost sinner to salvation.

Every single Christian was a 'lost sinner' before we recieved salvation. Again, fairly clear...we were not sitting around in righteousness until Christ gave us a new heart....

If Calvinism is true, the elect are actually saved from eternity past. Thus they are never really lost because there's zero chance of them going to the Lake of Fire; quite the opposite, they're already safe eternally by God's primordial decree. Which renders the the entire Gospel drama from O.T. to Revelation an utterly pointless sham since every possible conclusion regarding eternity - salvation or damnation - was already unchangably established by God.

Also, I object to your argument. You've basically said "your arguement is invalid because you cannot show me a verse that has a specific phrasing."...even though I can show you passages that clearly have that intent, that clearly have that language.
Yet you're ignoring (apparently) the fact that you also don't have a specific verse backing your claims, and you have yet to even give a passge that shows an intent for your ideas. I doubt you can, as I don't see scripture backing it.

Ask me specifically what you want.


No. We, and I, most certainly do not ignore Christ.

"Ignore" was too strong and for that I apologize. "Diminish" was what I had in mind and I stand by that because of the elect-centered emphasis, which I detailed, Reformed folk ALWAYS reflexively put on these verses. You've refuted nothing in that regard.

The specific underlining that I gave you, was strictly because you were asking about, and denying that the bible tells us, that God predestined us. It is actually quite insulting for you to ask me to point something out, and then when I do, you then tell me I'm ignoring Jesus. Making Jesus secondary? Really?

Wait. I had already said it happens, then you proved it.

Jesus predestined us before the world began.

Christ predestined the elect?

Jesus then came, living, dying and then being ressurected so that through him, we might be called and become the elect.

Wait...you have been insisting that the elect were elected before the foundation of the world. So which is it? You are elected before creation, or you BECOME elect?

It is Jesus who promised this to us and Jesus who made it happen. And it is Jesus who will uphold it for all time, allowing us to have assurance and peace and hope. All Jesus. All.

So you see, when you say that I'm ignoring Jesus or that I'm putting the emphesis on man....it's just ridiculous. I'm giving Jesus ALL the kudos...how can I do anything else?

You can't, now that I drew attention to your typical Calvinistic man-centered reading of those passages. Better late than never, I guess.

"Forcing an interpretation on top of them"? Seriously? They spell it out clearly! I'm afraid you must 'deal' with them, as they contradict what you're saying, and until you come up with something that is biblically sound then I cannot, in all honestly, consider what you're saying at all.

Okay, try this. If you can find a gap or flaw in the logic, do point it out. I cannot.

[SIZE=11pt]Question: Did God actively reprobate as well as elect, according to Calvin?
Answer: Yes. Unlike many Calvinists today, John Calvin was honest enough to admit God must have done both. It is logically impossible to have one being active without the other being equally active. If in merely "choosing not to believe on Christ" the unbeliever actively rejects Him (and he does) then, by the same reasoning, by merely not choosing to elect the lost, God actively reprobated them.

Q: Can members of either group do anything to alter or avoid their predestined fate?
A: No. Calvinism's elect WILL be irresistibly enabled to believe unto salvation before they die. Calvinism's reprobates, on the other hand, WILL be damned to the Lake of Fire, even if they sincerely (though falsely) "believed" the Gospel.

Q: Can any person believe and obey God's revealed will without first Him enabling them to do so?
A. No. According to Calvinism, all mankind is by nature so dead in sin that he cannot even hear God unless God enables him first. Not even God's elect can hear or do His will until His chosen time to regenerate them, enabling them to do so.

Q. Can Calvinism's elect ever be damned and perish in the Lake of Fire?
A. No.

Q. When God says He will condemn people specifically for the sin of unbelief, of whom is He speaking?
A. Those whom He reprobated from eternity past.

Q. Does the Bible say God can or cannot lie?
A. God cannot lie.

Q. Does the Bible say God will condemn people SPECIFICALLY for the sin of unbelief?
A. Yes, many many times. Christ Himself said so as well.

Q. Is it possible for a reprobate to hear and believe the Gospel, even though he/she was not enabled by God to do so?
A. Yes. Reprobates may hear, understand and believe anything but their faith is vain; since it was not from God it is not genuine and cannot save them. Moreover, since Christ did not die for reprobates, their sins cannot even be forgiven.

Q. Is God aware of this?
A. Yes. According to Calvinism, He planned it this way to His glory.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Q. So if God eternally condemns someone for unbelief, that person must be a reprobate? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]A. Yes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Q. Which came first: the unbelief of the damned reprobate, or God's reprobative will for him?
A. God's reprobative will, in eternity past, along with His elective will.

Q. Is reprobation caused by God's foreknowledge that a person would choose to never believe unto salvation?
A. No. Calvinists are firm on the point that God's foreknowledge of what men might or might not do with the Gospel was not the basis for His decrees. If it were, it would make man's free will eternally sovereign, and not God Himself.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Q. Does the Bible say God can or cannot lie?
A. God cannot lie.

Q. If dying in unbelief is proof of God's reprobative will, and if (as the Bible shows repeatedly) God condemns a lost person for his unbelief, is the person really being condemned for his unbelief? Or is it more accurate to say he's actually being condemned simply because God, in His sovereignty, chose to reprobate him?
A. The second.

Q. What does that make of God's repeated statements that He will condemn souls SPECIFICALLY for unbelief?
A. It makes God a liar because it cannot be true. In order for condemnation for unbelief to be just, the lost need the genuine ability to choose between either believing unto salvation or disbelieving unto damnation. If they still chose disbelief, THEN their condemnation would be 100% justified. But since they never had that choice, condemning them as if they DID have and DID make that choice is a hypocritical charade. It is akin to the work of an unjust, corrupt judge of the very kind the God of the Bible has sworn to damn.

Q. Why?
A. Because the Bible says God cannot lie but He HAS to lie to do what Calvinism ascribes to Him.

Q. So can the God of Calvinism - who DOES lie - be the God of the Bible, who CANNOT lie?
A. No. The two propositions are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

Q. According to Calvinism, are Christ and the Holy Spirit in harmony with God's primordial elective and reprobative decrees?
A. Yes. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Q. Would that make them equally guilty of falsehood?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]A. Yes. Only one example would be Christ inspiring the N.T. writers to say He died for all when He knew that was false.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Q. If Calvinism is true, can the Bible be trusted?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]A. No.

CONCLUSION: The lying "God" of Calvinism is an idol because it CANNOT be the unlying God of the Bible. Calvinism is blasphemous. [/SIZE]
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
williemac said:
Predestination is based on "foreknowledge", plain and simple. But it usually leaves the plain and simple arena when a Calvinist (as labels go) gets a hold of that word. Foreknowledge suddenly is taken apart and taken to mean any number of things other than what it seems to mean, which is to know beforehand. I have seen many who manipulate this to somehow mean that God, being sovereign (a word not used in scripture concerning Him), and being all powerful, and being in "total control" (o really?), therefore knows exactly what He is doing before He does it so this is what foreknowledge means. O really?
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, (Acts 4:24, ESV)

to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (1 Timothy 6:14-15, ESV)

"Sovereign Lord"...Stongs no: 1203 despótēs – properly, an authority figure ("master") who exercises complete jurisdiction (wields unrestricted power).
(despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints"

I have asked many a Calvinist what criteria God has used or is using to determine who will be the lucky chosen and who will not. I get replies that speak of His motive (His good pleasure), but not His method. However, His method is plainly seen in the bible. It merely depends on whether the reader wants to see it or not, I guess.
Firstly, I don't actually consider mysef a "Calvinist"...Calvin was a man and made, I have no doubt, many mistakes. That being said, many of his ideas were revolutionary for the reformation and I respect him...just as I respect Wesley for his many contributions.

As far as a reply to "how God choses some and not others"....I would say that quite frankly, that's up to God, and within his authority to declare. Or...if anything else is needed:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,- (Romans 9:14-24, ESV)

Now, I know many who oppose predestination want to say that this passage is only talking about nations, but really....it applies to both equally. God hardened Pharaoh, a single person, to achieve his will on a national scale, and he 'hated' Esau and 'loved' Jacob...both individuals...

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (Romans 9:11, ESV)

So clearly these verses speak to both, national and individual. Which means...God will choose whom he will....and for that reason....it is his will. His will to further his "purpose of election" and for his ongoing glory. Bible's words, not mine...not Calvins.

His choosing of an individual is not random, is not a coin toss, is not a lottery, is not "eenie meenie". And "Whom He wills" most certainly does not mean whom He favors, nor whom He is partial to. There had to be a criteria other than all these options.

C'mon anyone...give it your best shot. ...And while you are at it, maybe someone can tell me how sovereign means control rather than authority, and tell me you know the difference. Believe me, many don't. God has authority. If he was in total control, we can blame Him for all this mess the human race has been immersed in for centuries.
But the potter made the clay with a mind that can think, reason and respond, knowing beforehand that the negative side of this is that many will go their own way, just like Lucifer did, thus becoming vessels of dishonor. Did Lucifer say..why did you make me like this?, It's your fault I was able to rebel! Oops, now I'm giving things away.
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (Hebrews 2:8, ESV)
musterion said:
This verse says only that sinners are reconciled to God through Christ. It says nothing about God predestinating a lost sinner to salvation.
Seriously?

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26, ESV)

Every single on of us was a "lost sinner" before Christ saved us.
Which brings us to your next non-sensical arguement....

If Calvinism is true, the elect are actually saved from eternity past. Thus they are never really lost because there's zero chance of them going to the Lake of Fire; quite the opposite, they're already safe eternally by God's primordial decree. Which renders the the entire Gospel drama from O.T. to Revelation an utterly pointless sham since every possible conclusion regarding eternity - salvation or damnation - was already unchangably established by God.
Salvation is to show God's glory, grace, mercy and goodness. If we (the elect) were popped out at birth as perfect as Christ, then that would not "achieve his purpose of election" so to speak.
No....every single elect have an intense knowledge about the goodness and mercy of Christ. We, all of us, were rescued out of sin and death. We were done so by Christ...not by our own revelation or strength.
Your whole hypothesis of Calvinism is just ridiculous.

Ask me specifically what you want.
I want bible verses to show what your purporting here. Quite frankly, as I've given verses that plainly speak towards election and predestination, the onus is completely on you at this point.

Wait. I had already said it happens, then you proved it.



Christ predestined the elect?
You're first comment here, makes very little sense in regards to our previous conversation, so I'm ignoring it.

And yes....Christ predestined. Being as he is, one of the Trinity. We see in scripture that it was Christ's hand that was stretched out in creation, as well as his that upholds. Christ is intimately involved with us on every level...as is God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:3-5, ESV)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20, ESV)

Wait...you have been insisting that the elect were elected before the foundation of the world. So which is it? You are elected before creation, or you BECOME elect?
You really need to get picky with my language?? Alright, let me rephrase.....we are predestined to be saved before the foundation of the world (not my words, but scriptures....hard to rebuke). But clearly we start our lives in an unsaved state (Romans 3:22-26)....until:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8, ESV)

Did you get that? God saves us at the right time....to show his love for us. And according to that scripture that right time, and to show his love, he saves us while we were still sinners. Again....the bibles words, not mine.

You can't, now that I drew attention to your typical Calvinistic man-centered reading of those passages. Better late than never, I guess.
The very fact that you see "Calvinism" as 'man-centred', tells me that you really have no idea what I believe.

As far as your Q & A's.....nice try, but no cigar. It's a nice trick to put so much truth down with just a tiny twist of untruth in it....makes it more believeable.
But your problem is that you are taking an inheritantly wrong view of God. You're saying...."God cant choose to condemn some people straight off the bat....that's "morally" wrong and makes God a giant meenie!"


By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Romans 3:4-6, ESV)

Paul "speaks in a human way" because he knows many will do as you are....question God's 'right to choose'...that in pouring out his wrath on those he did not elect would for God to be 'unrighteous'. Clearly Paul is saying otherwise, that God is in no way 'unrighteous' to be judging the world.

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or badin order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(Romans 9:11-13, ESV)

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (Romans 9:14-23, ESV)

I am aware you do not believe these verses to be focused towards the 'election' issue, but I'm sorry, you are very wrong....and it has skewed your whole view.

This will be my last post to you, as clearly you cannot, or will not, allow what the bible clearly says to even come into the conversation. You post no verses to try and defend your opinions, and seemingly rely on your forceful assertion that what I believe is not only calling God a liar, but is blasphemous.
Such arguements and tactics will bring no meaningful debate or edification to the body, and as so many of your repartees make no logical sense and cannot be answered, there is no point going on until this is a full blown arguement. So I bid you good day.
 

horsecamp

New Member
Feb 1, 2008
765
23
0
NetChaplain said:
I wanted to share this reply because I believe it is instructionally significant to the thread’s theme concerning God’s omniscience and omnipotence.



Here's what I think:

God created everything.... including evil. If God did not create it, it wouldn't exist.

God does not do evil, but the fact that evil exists IS GOOD, because it will ultimately glorify Him through the eventual destruction of it.

Too many people want to let God off the hook for evil in the world. But the bottom line is that God does not want to be let off the hook. God is sovereign overall and nothing in the universe happens outside of God's sovereignty. He will accomplish all his purpose (Isaiah 46:9-10).

The fall of the angels in heaven was ordained by God. He was not "surprised" by it. If God did not ordain it, it wouldn't have happened.
Same for the fall of Adam and Eve. Replace them with any other couple that you know and they would have made the exact same decision. It's all good fun to call them idiots or to say "they screwed us" by sinning, but it's folly to claim that had you or I been in the garden back then that we would have made any other decision.

God does not cause the sinner to sin. He doesn't need to. The sinner will sin by default. More often, God restrains us from sinning, way more than we probably ever know (Gen 20:6).

When explaining this concept, many people use language that God "allows" sin to happen. I personally don't believe this is the best word choice because "allowing sin" implies that God is relatively unengaged and is somehow discovering humans conducting sinful acts as history plays itself out. I believe that all sin is ordained by God and is part of His design. The scripture says He declared "the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done." (Isaiah 46:9-10) He declared it! He declared all things not yet done before they would happen. He wrote every day of our lives "when as yet there were none of them." (Psalms 139:16) This is predestination. It is a script that is being played out according to His purpose and for His glory. Predestination is not a discovery of people's choices through His divine foreknowledge. It is a sovereign ordination of things not yet done.

- A Forum Member




Though evil came by God’s creation, this does not incur attribution to Him as doing evil. The crux of this issue concerns His foreknowledge of evil coming into creation, because that which is foreknown is that which is foreordained, thus He preplanned everything according to His “perfect will” (Rom 12:2).

He foreknew Satan would be “a murderer from the beginning,” who “abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him” (John 8:44). The fact Satan was “the anointed cherub” and “wast perfect in thy ways,” was an insignificant position because God knew eventually “iniquity” would be “found in thee” (Eze 28:14, 15).

This concept only partially parallels God’s foreknowledge of man’s iniquity, the difference being that His plans of redemption involved man only, for angels cannot be “heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14). All angels were created, but only two humans were created and the remnant incarnated, thus bringing into reality by His preplanning, those who would be “born of God.”

Though evil came by God’s creation, this does not incur attribution to Him as doing evil. The crux of this issue concerns His foreknowledge of evil coming into creation, because that which is foreknown is that which is foreordained, thus He preplanned everything according to His “perfect will” (Rom 12:2).

He foreknew Satan would be “a murderer from the beginning,” who “abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him” (John 8:44). The fact Satan was “the anointed cherub” and “wast perfect in thy ways,” was an insignificant position because God knew eventually “iniquity” would be “found in thee” (Eze 28:14, 15).

This concept only partially parallels God’s foreknowledge of man’s iniquity, the difference being that His plans of redemption involved man only, for angels cannot be “heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14). All angels were created, but only two humans were created and the remnant incarnated, thus bringing into reality by His preplanning, those who would be “born of God.”

I believe Satan and Adam were created apart from the sinful nature and that this nature came into being by the choice of the created, because there was a time when there was no "iniquity found" (Eze 28:15) concerning the Lucifer, and that Adam was "good" (Gen 1:31), thus also apart from the same.

The crux-issue is the fact that since God foreknew everything, He ordained (preplanned) everything to serve His purpose. This is the reason for the thread, to exhibit God's control, which in knowing, the believer can be assured that He works "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28).

Concerning predestination of the elect, the issue will most likely remain mostly unknown in its fullest comprehension and I believe this is the crux-passage why: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour (Rom 9:21)?

-NC
John 12:21
They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.”


THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO FLAUNT Gods soverinty .BUT RATHER TO SHOW A MERCIFUL SAVIOR .


Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.



2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.


There is not a word in the Bible which is extra cruem, which can be understood without reference to the cross.
MARTIN LUTHER
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,240
846
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
horsecamp said:
THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO FLAUNT Gods soverinty .BUT RATHER TO SHOW A MERCIFUL SAVIOR .
Hi HC - I appreciate you replying, but it is apparent you've missed the intention of the article from the outset, for there was no motive of "flaunting," nor can being accusative be instructional.

I'm always willing to correspond to a peaceable comment, but I prefer not to reply to misguided zeal, and suspecting that's all your reply was, and not an intentional rudeness.