Poll on OSAS

[justaname]

First of all, my response was to your post before this, not back to 39. If you think Jesus was omnipotent then you really don't understand the Trinity. Jesus was the fullness of God, and so is the father and the Holy Spirit, but if foreknowledge wasn't applicable then the word omnipotent would have been used, or is also not applicable. I'm not going to help you to deflect any further off the beaten track. We can just stick with words already in use in the scriptures, which would be FOREKNOWLEDGE.

You complain about my style but them make these *YAWN comments in your typically condescending fashion? Yeh right.

It was YOU who asked about it, so if it was relevant you should have included it. Always something with you to add instead of DEALING with the issue once and for all, you equivocate and deflect. Verse 30 says what it says, it doesn't need your added interpolation. Just as God draws us, He drew them to Jesus, who became their wisdom, and of course it IS because of God that ANY of us are saved. You add a concept to this scripture that is NOT there, except in your fallacious dogma. You lack of acceptance does NOT mean I have exegeted them properly, it just means your are inculcated into your dogma and cannot move from it, just as if your feet were set in cement.

We don't freely come to Christ but we don't freely choose. How exactly does that work? We come to Christ because God draws or woos us by His love. We either respond positively to that and the revelation of Christ as our savior, or we don't. The choice is ours, we are NOT elected, we BECOME the elect.

However I completely agree with your sarcastic closing that the blind remain blind. Unless one has received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as Paul did in Acts 9:17-18, one cannot have the scales of blindness removed so one can SEE what is the truth in God's word.

Firstly the idea we are discussing is omniscience not omnipotence. Then your comment is way off base about the Trinity...if Jesus has not all the attributes of God then He is not God, but something lesser. Yet the Orthodox view of Christology is Jesus is fully God and fully human. This means Jesus is all knowing/all powerful/ever present...

Second Scripture never teaches God elects based on foreknowledge. Scripture teaches we are elected according to God's will and purpose in several texts...it is affirmed in this one.

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:13

Why do you teach we are elected according to a choice of our will?

In accordance with John 6:65 yes it means just what it says...

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:65

Again some will never hear the gospel message...some will hear with disregard, others will draw near for a time, lastly some believe unto salvation. This last group is the elect and were elected into salvation for God's namesake to His glory.

Apostles elected, prophets elected (including John the Baptist) Mary the mother of Jesus elected...all according to God's will and plan which is not "willy-nilly" btw.

We don't "become" the elect, we are elected before the foundations of the world.

 

[Barrd]

I have this idea that God exists outside of time.
Time, as we know it, did not exist until God created it.

(Don't try to wrap your brain around that...it could land you in a rubber room, or at the least, tripping on some fancy psych-drug)

Then there is that whole "omiscience" thing...and, again, don't try to wrap your mind around that one, either.

Obviously, then, God knows exactly what we are thinking, and what we are going to do, because we have already done it.

If everything happens according to His will, does that mean that every time a child is raped, God willed that to happen?
And that's just one example of the evil, brutal things that go on every single day.
Does anyone really believe that these things happen according to God's will?

I do not.

 

[justaname]

This is from N. T. Wright concerning the 1 Corinthians 1 passage and it's context...

26 Think back to your own call, my brothers and sisters. Not many of you were wise in human terms. Not many of you were powerful. Not many were nobly born. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose the insignificant and despised things of the world—yes, even things that don’t exist!—to abolish the power of the things that do exist, 29 so that no creature could boast in God’s presence. 30 Who and what you now are is a gift from God in King Jesus, who has become for us God’s wisdom—and righteousness, sanctification and redemption as well; 31 so that, as the Bible puts it, ‘Anyone who boasts should boast in the Lord.’

‘But God …’ Those are some of Paul’s favourite words. He often describes a human situation or problem and then takes delight in showing that God has stepped in and done something to change it drastically. They were ‘nobodies’, but God has made them ‘somebodies’. Not the sort of ‘somebodies’ the world would recognize as such, but the only sort that mattered. And what is important in this paragraph is the fact that God has taken the initiative in it all. The Christian gospel is a matter of grace from start to finish. God chose these Corinthian ‘nobodies’ (verses 27, 28); God ‘called’ them through Paul’s announcement of the crucified Jesus as Lord (verse 26; the word ‘call’ is Paul’s regular word for what we sometimes call ‘conversion’); God gave them the status in his eyes that the Messiah himself has (verse 30). They are who they are, as he says in a rather shorthand way, ‘from God in the Messiah’ (verse 30). This is the same sequence (chosen, called, justified) as Paul sketches in the famous summary in Romans 8:29–30, though there he extends the sequence backwards to God’s original plan and forwards to ultimate glorification as well.
The result of it all, of course, is that they have nothing to boast of. As he says later in the letter (4:7), they have nothing that they haven’t received as a gift; and if someone gives you a present you didn’t deserve, you haven’t got anything to boast about. This is essentially the same point that Paul makes in several other places, where he speaks of ‘boasting’ as being ruled out by the gospel, both the actual message (the foolish announcement of a crucified Lord) and the way it works (by the power of sheer grace to change the heart and produce faith and Christian life). In Romans 3:27–30 he speaks of the ‘boasting’ of Jewish people, including his own former self. They possessed God’s law, and that (so they thought) made them ‘somebodies’ over against the Gentile ‘nobodies’. He says the same thing in Ephesians 2:9. Later in our present letter (3:21) he will apply the point to those who ‘boast’ about different teachers, himself, Apollos, or whoever.

Wright, T. (2004). Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (pp. 16–17). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Restating what Wright exegetes "what is important is God has taken the initiative...God chose these Corinthian 'nobodies'..."

Wright later states...

No Christian can boast of the status he or she possesses, because from first to last it is God’s work and gift.

In saying all this, Paul is alluding to two Old Testament passages and another biblical theme. In Deuteronomy, particularly chapter 7, the Israelites are reminded that they are God’s people, not because they are anything special in themselves, but despite the fact that they aren’t. They are called to love and serve the one true God out of gratitude for what he’s done for them, not least the ‘redemption’ from Egypt in the Exodus. Paul wants the new Christians to understand themselves as God’s new-Exodus people (see chapter 10), with the same understanding of God’s grace.
Then in Jeremiah 9, quoted in verse 31, the prophet warns against exactly that kind of ‘boasting’ which Paul is attacking in this passage. Paul only quotes verse 24, shortening it as he does so; but he clearly has in mind the whole of verses 23 and 24:
Don’t let the wise boast in their wisdom;
don’t let the powerful boast in their power;
don’t let the wealthy boast in their riches;
but let those who boast, boast in this,
that they understand and know me, says yhwh;
I act with steadfast love, judgment, and righteousness in the earth,
for in these things I delight, says yhwh.
Time and again, Paul quotes the phrase ‘the Lord’ from the Old Testament, where the word refers directly to yhwh, Israel’s God, and makes it refer to Jesus the Messiah. So it is here. He is the one ‘in whom’ Christians possess all the wisdom they need—and the status (‘righteousness’) of being his forgiven, justified people, and the extraordinary privilege of being set apart for his service (‘sanctification’) in virtue of his ‘redemption’ of them from the slavery of sin.

Wright, T. (2004). Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (pp. 17–18). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

 

[StanJ]

Firstly the idea we are discussing is omniscience not omnipotence. Then your comment is way off base about the Trinity...if Jesus has not all the attributes of God then He is not God, but something lesser. Yet the Orthodox view of Christology is Jesus is fully God and fully human. This means Jesus is all knowing/all powerful/ever present...

Second Scripture never teaches God elects based on foreknowledge. Scripture teaches we are elected according to God's will and purpose in several texts...it is affirmed in this one.

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:13

Why do you teach we are elected according to a choice of our will?

In accordance with John 6:65 yes it means just what it says...

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:65

Again some will never hear the gospel message...some will hear with disregard, others will draw near for a time, lastly some believe unto salvation. This last group is the elect and were elected into salvation for God's namesake to His glory.

Apostles elected, prophets elected (including John the Baptist) Mary the mother of Jesus elected...all according to God's will and plan which is not "willy-nilly" btw.

We don't "become" the elect, we are elected before the foundations of the world.

The POINT is, that these attributes are from what the scriptures do tell us. If it didn't use foreknowledge we wouldn't have that concept, but as usual you strive about words instead of zeroing in on the truth of scripture. It seems whatever suits you to wiggle out of accepting a concept, is what you will use, which is why I am loathe to answer ANY questions from you, as they all end up in the same equivocal place.

You're right, scripture does NOT teach that, but again you refuse to acknowledge the truth found in scripture and twist it around. Did you even read 1 Peter 1:2, or is that one of the scriptures you ignore? I'm not going to continually lead you to water if you refuse to drink.

of course we are born of God in the context of John 1, but NOWHERE does it shows of what you term election. Maybe you missed v13?
"to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

I don't teach that, you state it. I state, as the Bible does, that our will in accepting Jesus as our savior is what precipitates being born again. Jesus taught it as well, in John 3, where in v7, He says; "you MUST be born again". That is not a statement of election, as you purport, it is a statement of instruction, where we ALL must decide to believe. He had the same problem with those Pharisees as you seem to have, and the frustration in His words are palpable, when He says in v10; “You are Israel’s teacher and do you not understand these things?", and then ends by saying; "so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
Now I don't know what happened to Nicodemus, but apparently YOU never understood this instruction? Have you EVER confessed Jesus as your savior? Was it you or did God put those words in your mouth?

Really....where are those exact words found in scripture? Please don't tell me Eph 1:4, because you would just be showing your complete ignorance about what Paul was really teaching there.

 

[StanJ]

This is from N. T. Wright concerning the 1 Corinthians 1 passage and it's context...

26 Think back to your own call, my brothers and sisters. Not many of you were wise in human terms. Not many of you were powerful. Not many were nobly born. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose the insignificant and despised things of the world—yes, even things that don’t exist!—to abolish the power of the things that do exist, 29 so that no creature could boast in God’s presence. 30 Who and what you now are is a gift from God in King Jesus, who has become for us God’s wisdom—and righteousness, sanctification and redemption as well; 31 so that, as the Bible puts it, ‘Anyone who boasts should boast in the Lord.’

‘But God …’ Those are some of Paul’s favourite words. He often describes a human situation or problem and then takes delight in showing that God has stepped in and done something to change it drastically. They were ‘nobodies’, but God has made them ‘somebodies’. Not the sort of ‘somebodies’ the world would recognize as such, but the only sort that mattered. And what is important in this paragraph is the fact that God has taken the initiative in it all. The Christian gospel is a matter of grace from start to finish. God chose these Corinthian ‘nobodies’ (verses 27, 28); God ‘called’ them through Paul’s announcement of the crucified Jesus as Lord (verse 26; the word ‘call’ is Paul’s regular word for what we sometimes call ‘conversion’); God gave them the status in his eyes that the Messiah himself has (verse 30). They are who they are, as he says in a rather shorthand way, ‘from God in the Messiah’ (verse 30). This is the same sequence (chosen, called, justified) as Paul sketches in the famous summary in Romans 8:29–30, though there he extends the sequence backwards to God’s original plan and forwards to ultimate glorification as well.
The result of it all, of course, is that they have nothing to boast of. As he says later in the letter (4:7), they have nothing that they haven’t received as a gift; and if someone gives you a present you didn’t deserve, you haven’t got anything to boast about. This is essentially the same point that Paul makes in several other places, where he speaks of ‘boasting’ as being ruled out by the gospel, both the actual message (the foolish announcement of a crucified Lord) and the way it works (by the power of sheer grace to change the heart and produce faith and Christian life). In Romans 3:27–30 he speaks of the ‘boasting’ of Jewish people, including his own former self. They possessed God’s law, and that (so they thought) made them ‘somebodies’ over against the Gentile ‘nobodies’. He says the same thing in Ephesians 2:9. Later in our present letter (3:21) he will apply the point to those who ‘boast’ about different teachers, himself, Apollos, or whoever.

Wright, T. (2004). Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (pp. 16–17). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

Restating what Wright exegetes "what is important is God has taken the initiative...God chose these Corinthian 'nobodies'..."

Wright later states...

No Christian can boast of the status he or she possesses, because from first to last it is God’s work and gift.

In saying all this, Paul is alluding to two Old Testament passages and another biblical theme. In Deuteronomy, particularly chapter 7, the Israelites are reminded that they are God’s people, not because they are anything special in themselves, but despite the fact that they aren’t. They are called to love and serve the one true God out of gratitude for what he’s done for them, not least the ‘redemption’ from Egypt in the Exodus. Paul wants the new Christians to understand themselves as God’s new-Exodus people (see chapter 10), with the same understanding of God’s grace.
Then in Jeremiah 9, quoted in verse 31, the prophet warns against exactly that kind of ‘boasting’ which Paul is attacking in this passage. Paul only quotes verse 24, shortening it as he does so; but he clearly has in mind the whole of verses 23 and 24:
Don’t let the wise boast in their wisdom;
don’t let the powerful boast in their power;
don’t let the wealthy boast in their riches;
but let those who boast, boast in this,
that they understand and know me, says yhwh;
I act with steadfast love, judgment, and righteousness in the earth,
for in these things I delight, says yhwh.
Time and again, Paul quotes the phrase ‘the Lord’ from the Old Testament, where the word refers directly to yhwh, Israel’s God, and makes it refer to Jesus the Messiah. So it is here. He is the one ‘in whom’ Christians possess all the wisdom they need—and the status (‘righteousness’) of being his forgiven, justified people, and the extraordinary privilege of being set apart for his service (‘sanctification’) in virtue of his ‘redemption’ of them from the slavery of sin.

Wright, T. (2004). Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (pp. 17–18). London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

and you'll note that not once does he use the word ELECTED. That people of your POV accuse others of BOASTING when they say they CHOSE Jesus as their savior, is nothing more than consistent with that type of condemnatory practise.

 

[Barrd]

and you'll note that not once does he use the word ELECTED. That people of your POV accuse others of BOASTING when they say they CHOSE Jesus as their savior, is nothing more than consistent with that type of condemnatory practise.

Somehow, the notion that admitting that I am a filthy sinner in need of a Savior is "boasting" escapes me.
Of my own free will, I say that I am not able to rid myself of my sin all on my own. I need Jesus to help me to clean up my life and make me whole.
How is this "boasting"?

 

[justaname]

Somehow, the notion that admitting that I am a filthy sinner in need of a Savior is "boasting" escapes me.
Of my own free will, I say that I am not able to rid myself of my sin all on my own. I need Jesus to help me to clean up my life and make me whole.
How is this "boasting"?

The boasting comes in where you say you made the better choice than those who chose not to believe Jesus is the Messiah. The boasting comes in where you on your on free will came to the understanding that you needed a Savior as opposed to God being the One to show you...

I hope this helps you understand the view better.

Stan,

First to the N. T. Wright comment...God's election=God's choice. Wright agrees even if he does not use "election" that the context is about people being chosen by God. Again what is important is God takes the initiative, not us. He translates verse 30 and 31...Who and what you now are is a gift from God in King Jesus, who has become for us God’s wisdom—and righteousness, sanctification and redemption as well; so that, as the Bible puts it, ‘Anyone who boasts should boast in the Lord.’

Again I do not disregard our faith or belief as necessary. My question moves to how the blind are given sight. If Satan has blinded unbelievers, and all are unbelievers before hearing the Gospel, does Satan give them sight to believe the Gospel...umm no. Do they see the gospel for what it is themselves...umm no because they are blind.

Fashioned after Paul's style...

But God gave sight to the blind! Yes this makes logical sense. It is God's election of those who hear the gospel, I don't believe anyone argues against this, and it is God's election who believes the gospel.


Now to the 1 Peter 1:2 passage. This is a very direct passage with clear language. My statement was "Scripture never teaches God elects based on foreknowledge." Here I am wrong, yet only to a degree pertaining to an understanding of "foreknowledge" in respect to election.

Some believe God elects individuals because He "foreknew" they would choose Him. This is the notion of foreknowledge I reject. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the view I believe you to hold.

A word study by Schreiner is most edifying in this matter...

The word “foreknowledge” (prognōsis) could simply mean that God foresaw whom would be his elect or chosen. No one doubts, of course, that such an idea is included. The question is whether the term means more than this, whether it also includes the idea that God ordains whom would be elect. We should begin by observing the covenantal dimensions of the word. The word “know” in Hebrew often refers to God’s covenantal love bestowed upon his people (cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2). The rich associations of that term continue in the New Testament. That foreordination also is involved is clear from Acts 2:23, where foreknowledge is paired with predestination. Romans 11:2 drives us in the same direction. Paul queries whether God has “rejected his people whom he foreknew” (NRSV). The terms “rejected” (apōsato) and “foreknew” (proegnō) function as antonyms. We could rephrase the verse, “Has God rejected his people whom he chose?” Paul wondered if God had set aside Israel, upon whom he had set his covenantal favor. The same notion informs Rom 8:29, where we see that God has foreknown those whom he predestined. God foreknew “people,” not objects or things. He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.23 Believers are elect because God the Father has set his covenantal affection upon them. The words “according to” (kata) may designate “result” or “cause.”
The second prepositional phrase, “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (en hagiasmō pneumatos), also modifies “elect.” Not only does God the Father foreknow whom the elect will be, but the Spirit is the source of their sanctification. The term “sanctification” often refers to the progressive growth of holiness in the lives of Christians (cf. 1 Thess 4:3). In this context, however, the focus is on conversion. Peter explained how believers came to be part of God’s elect people. When believers are converted, they become God’s holy and set-apart people (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2). Michaels probably is correct, then, in suggesting that this work of God accompanies the preaching of the gospel (1:12). As the gospel is proclaimed, the Spirit sanctifies some by bringing them to faith, by bringing them into the realm of the holy.

Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 37, pp. 53–54). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 

[StanJ]

First to the N. T. Wright comment...God's election=God's choice. Wright agrees even if he does not use "election" that the context is about people being chosen by God. Again what is important is God takes the initiative, not us. He translates verse 30 and 31...Who and what you now are is a gift from God in King Jesus, who has become for us God’s wisdom—and righteousness, sanctification and redemption as well; so that, as the Bible puts it, ‘Anyone who boasts should boast in the Lord.’

Again I do not disregard our faith or belief as necessary. My question moves to how the blind are given sight. If Satan has blinded unbelievers, and all are unbelievers before hearing the Gospel, does Satan give them sight to believe the Gospel...umm no. Do they see the gospel for what it is themselves...umm no because they are blind.

Fashioned after Paul's style...

But God gave sight to the blind! Yes this makes logical sense. It is God's election of those who hear the gospel, I don't believe anyone argues against this, and it is God's election who believes the gospel.


Now to the 1 Peter 1:2 passage. This is a very direct passage with clear language. My statement was "Scripture never teaches God elects based on foreknowledge." Here I am wrong, yet only to a degree pertaining to an understanding of "foreknowledge" in respect to election.

Some believe God elects individuals because He "foreknew" they would choose Him. This is the notion of foreknowledge I reject. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the view I believe you to hold.

A word study by Schreiner is most edifying in this matter...

The word “foreknowledge” (prognōsis) could simply mean that God foresaw whom would be his elect or chosen. No one doubts, of course, that such an idea is included. The question is whether the term means more than this, whether it also includes the idea that God ordains whom would be elect. We should begin by observing the covenantal dimensions of the word. The word “know” in Hebrew often refers to God’s covenantal love bestowed upon his people (cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2). The rich associations of that term continue in the New Testament. That foreordination also is involved is clear from Acts 2:23, where foreknowledge is paired with predestination. Romans 11:2 drives us in the same direction. Paul queries whether God has “rejected his people whom he foreknew” (NRSV). The terms “rejected” (apōsato) and “foreknew” (proegnō) function as antonyms. We could rephrase the verse, “Has God rejected his people whom he chose?” Paul wondered if God had set aside Israel, upon whom he had set his covenantal favor. The same notion informs Rom 8:29, where we see that God has foreknown those whom he predestined. God foreknew “people,” not objects or things. He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.23 Believers are elect because God the Father has set his covenantal affection upon them. The words “according to” (kata) may designate “result” or “cause.”
The second prepositional phrase, “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (en hagiasmō pneumatos), also modifies “elect.” Not only does God the Father foreknow whom the elect will be, but the Spirit is the source of their sanctification. The term “sanctification” often refers to the progressive growth of holiness in the lives of Christians (cf. 1 Thess 4:3). In this context, however, the focus is on conversion. Peter explained how believers came to be part of God’s elect people. When believers are converted, they become God’s holy and set-apart people (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2). Michaels probably is correct, then, in suggesting that this work of God accompanies the preaching of the gospel (1:12). As the gospel is proclaimed, the Spirit sanctifies some by bringing them to faith, by bringing them into the realm of the holy.

Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 37, pp. 53–54). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

No he doesn't, that's pure conjecture on your part, which sadly is typical of your ilk. Always asserting words mean OTHER than they do.

The blind are given sight by a miraculous working of God. Seems you are confused with the old hymn Amazing Grace and the scriptures?

I don't really care what "some" believe, I care what the Bible tells us. Many Christina believe we go to heaven when we die. I read a Facebook post today from Mark Lowry who said Gloria Gaither's sister died and she has gone to her eternal reward in heaven.
I really can't be accountable for what other Christians believe or think, just what I do, and convey it as such.

Did you read what Schreiner actually wrote...I have highlighted a sentence above for you. Sadly Schreiner contradicts himself in this one excerpt alone, so I'm not really thrilled by this citation. Is he a big name in RT?

It means a lot more if you can actually articulate your own belief and perspective than it does by citing others you know.

 

[StanJ]

Somehow, the notion that admitting that I am a filthy sinner in need of a Savior is "boasting" escapes me.
Of my own free will, I say that I am not able to rid myself of my sin all on my own. I need Jesus to help me to clean up my life and make me whole.
How is this "boasting"?

It's not...it's just the way those who accept TULIP, misrepresent facts.

 

[justaname]

Stan,

Your remarks are disheartening...you continually attempt to profile me with RT...I am not.

Your interpretation of Scheriner does not contradict anything...we become converted...we are elect from before the foundations of the world.

It is his study of the word translated foreknowledge that is at the front of this discussion...this is why I posted Scheriner.

This to me explains everything...

You have yet to attempt to convey any explanation of 1 Corinthians 1:30, or John 6:65. All you have done is grind your ax against RT...you didn't even attempt to explain what you understand concerning foreknowledge. This is very telling in our discussion.

As to Wright this is a direct quote from above...

. God chose these Corinthian ‘nobodies’ (verses 27, 28); God ‘called’ them through Paul’s announcement of the crucified Jesus as Lord (verse 26; the word ‘call’ is Paul’s regular word for what we sometimes call ‘conversion’)

So yes Wright does agree the context is about God choosing people...plain English written simply here Stan.

This is the portion of Scheriner I want to emphasize...

He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.

Nobody is attempting to redefine words...the object is to understand them in their context as to how the authors use them in accordance with their time and culture...

So the emphasis in both 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 1 Peter 1:2 is God's initiative and sovereignty in salvation. This agrees with John 6:65 along with the whole of Scripture concerning election.

 

[Wormwood]

justaname,

I apologize for my late comment. I have had some internet issues. I dont have time to read through all the conversation from your comment to me and what follows so I apologize if I repeat something that has already been addressed. I will try to read through the discussion later.

I don't believe you allow a philosophy to explain your view on salvation, rather election. Yet even here I am certain your view of the Scriptures is what shapes your opinion. But in order to achieve your conclusion of God choosing based on foreknowledge you must use a philosophical premise.
All the while the Scriptuers are clear God's election is based according to His purpose and will. Also the Scriptures show God places individuals in Christ. God selected the person and the plan. (1 Corinthians 1:27-30, James 2:5, Ephesians 1:4)
Paul is a prime example, in fact all the apostles were chosen. Jeremiah was selected to be God's prophet. Jonah was selected. Pharoah was raised up for God's purpose. Job was selected by God for His namesake and purpose. All of these individuals were chosen according to His purpose for His plan.

Well, I would say my understanding of "foreknowledge" is based on what Scripture teaches on the subject and not some philosophical system that emerges from a particular concept of human ability/inability such as what we find with Augustine's concept of the bondage of the will. In any event, I understand there is a larger premise that shades how we see particular texts. I assure you that it is not that I discount the texts that you referenced, but I would not see these as selecting persons for salvation but selecting people or groups for a purpose. This is a huge distinction. For instance, God chose Balaam to be a prophet, but that did not mandate his salvation. We see in Scripture on a few occasions where a prophet was not obedient to his calling which led to disastrous results. Just because God chose someone to serve in a particular way does not mean God mandated their salvation. I think this is precisely what Paul is arguing in Romans 9. The Jews felt they were mandated salvation by God because they were the "chosen" people. Paul's very clear point is that God chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to bring about his plan of salvation by faith in Christ. Their being "chosen" for God's past purposes does not mandate their salvation. Paul also shows many times how he had been "chosen" to be an Apostle, and yet he served in such as way so that he himself would not be disqualified for the prize he had been chosen to reveal to the world (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27).

Now when it is said God loves all individuals I agree, yet some individuals are loved more as in the case of Jacob and Esau. God's mercy and grace are on those in Christ. God's love is exemplified through His salvation. True it rains on both the righteous and unrighteous. Yes Jesus atonement and propitiation is for the sins of the world, yet it is only effective for those in Christ. God still hates wickedness and will bring to an end all inequity at the consummation. God does not love all equally else all would be saved. From your analogy God is unable or incapable to save all if he is willing. I say God desires all turn from their wickedness to be saved, yet man is not willing. God selected some to show his great grace towards humanity. Why not select all to be saved? This would deny God's justice.

I disagree strongly. God chose Jacob for a purpose but that does not mean that he did not love Esau. The quote in Romans 9 referring to Jacob and Esau is referring to God's judgment on the nations of Israel and Edom and is not dealing specifically with the individuals nor their salvation. The point is this, God showed a favor to Israel that he did not show to Edom. Edom was made extinct because of their wickedness whereas Israel was permitted to endure as a nation. Otherwise, as Paul quotes, they would have been made Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, the point is not that God tolerates the wickedness of Israel more because he loved them more, but because he had a plan and a purpose to bring about the Messiah through that line. So, let us not mistake God's sovereignty to do as he wishes with wicked people to achieve his plans with God showing favoritism to particular nationalities because he "loves" them more. The Bible could not be any more explicit that God does NOT show favoritism.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:64-65

Through the cross, all men are "drawn" (cf. John 12:32), not just the "elect." This notion that Jesus is teaching that God only allows some to come to him while others he has predestined to eternal fire just does not mesh with the main theme of Scripture, imo. There is a better, and more contextually fitting way to see these John 6 passages. John is referring specifically to those choosing of the Apostles for a purpose and the fact that those who identify with Jesus and follow him are those who are followers of God. The point is simply that one can see who really loves God and seeks God by their response to Jesus, because Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and speaks exactly his Word. This is not a passage about favoritism to the predetermined few, but a passage about revealing those who truly love and seek God. These are the ones who are drawn to Jesus. As Jesus says later,

“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”” (John 8:42–47, ESV)

The point here is simply that it is revealed who really loves God and who belongs to God based on their response to Jesus. This is not about predetermination but response. You show you belong to God if you respond appropriately to Jesus, because Jesus speaks the words of the Father and is the Son of God.

The idea of God being unable to save men denies His omnipotence. God would be bound to man's decision in accordance with salvation. Ultimately salvation would be based you making the right decision. This then places salvation in the hands of men and not God. I reject this notion. God is not dependent on man for anything including the salvation of individuals.
I apologize if my statement oversimplified your position.

Its not that I find it an oversimplification, but simply inaccurate. The idea that salvation can only be truly of God and for his glory alone if it is monergistic is very problematic. If God, by his own sovereignty, has chosen to save people by his grace, through their faith then this is not slighting God's glory in any way. Accepting a gift is not earning or taking the credit for a gift. It would be like you opening a Christmas present and then concluding you "earned" the present and you shoudl recieve the glory for what you have because you took the energy to take the gift from the giver's hands. Such an idea is bewildering to me.

On the contrary, not only is God able to save men, he is able to save all men. I believe the Scriptures attest to the fact that the blood of Jesus is for all and enough for all...not just the limited, preelected group. God desires all to be saved, but some love darkness. The fault and judgment is on them for their own wickedness, not God's refusal to save them. So, in response, I would say:

God is able to save all men and desires to do so. It is the wickedness and faithlessness of man that prevents that salvation from taking place for many. Meanwhile, your view holds that God is omnipotent, but does note desire that the bulk of humanity find salvation. He has the power to save them, but chooses to keep most men in darkness when he alone is the one who can give them light. Thus, from the monergistic view of salvation, most men are not saved because God does not want to save them. He wants them to suffer eternally and has chosen not to give them the ability to believe and, consequently, be saved.

So, from my perspective, God is omnipotent, but he has allowed humans (by his sovereign choice) to have freedom to accept or reject his power in the Gospel of Christ that can save them. Whereas your view (as I understand it) is that God simply chooses not to save the world because he really doesnt love them. He only loves and favors those he has pre-selected. There is nothing in that concept that appears remotely like what I see taught in the NT about God's nature, desire and plan.

 

[Barrd]

The boasting comes in where you say you made the better choice than those who chose not to believe Jesus is the Messiah. The boasting comes in where you on your on free will came to the understanding that you needed a Savior as opposed to God being the One to show you...

I hope this helps you understand the view better.

Stan,

First to the N. T. Wright comment...God's election=God's choice. Wright agrees even if he does not use "election" that the context is about people being chosen by God. Again what is important is God takes the initiative, not us. He translates verse 30 and 31...Who and what you now are is a gift from God in King Jesus, who has become for us God’s wisdom—and righteousness, sanctification and redemption as well; so that, as the Bible puts it, ‘Anyone who boasts should boast in the Lord.’

Again I do not disregard our faith or belief as necessary. My question moves to how the blind are given sight. If Satan has blinded unbelievers, and all are unbelievers before hearing the Gospel, does Satan give them sight to believe the Gospel...umm no. Do they see the gospel for what it is themselves...umm no because they are blind.

Fashioned after Paul's style...

But God gave sight to the blind! Yes this makes logical sense. It is God's election of those who hear the gospel, I don't believe anyone argues against this, and it is God's election who believes the gospel.


Now to the 1 Peter 1:2 passage. This is a very direct passage with clear language. My statement was "Scripture never teaches God elects based on foreknowledge." Here I am wrong, yet only to a degree pertaining to an understanding of "foreknowledge" in respect to election.

Some believe God elects individuals because He "foreknew" they would choose Him. This is the notion of foreknowledge I reject. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the view I believe you to hold.

A word study by Schreiner is most edifying in this matter...

The word “foreknowledge” (prognōsis) could simply mean that God foresaw whom would be his elect or chosen. No one doubts, of course, that such an idea is included. The question is whether the term means more than this, whether it also includes the idea that God ordains whom would be elect. We should begin by observing the covenantal dimensions of the word. The word “know” in Hebrew often refers to God’s covenantal love bestowed upon his people (cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2). The rich associations of that term continue in the New Testament. That foreordination also is involved is clear from Acts 2:23, where foreknowledge is paired with predestination. Romans 11:2 drives us in the same direction. Paul queries whether God has “rejected his people whom he foreknew” (NRSV). The terms “rejected” (apōsato) and “foreknew” (proegnō) function as antonyms. We could rephrase the verse, “Has God rejected his people whom he chose?” Paul wondered if God had set aside Israel, upon whom he had set his covenantal favor. The same notion informs Rom 8:29, where we see that God has foreknown those whom he predestined. God foreknew “people,” not objects or things. He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.23 Believers are elect because God the Father has set his covenantal affection upon them. The words “according to” (kata) may designate “result” or “cause.”
The second prepositional phrase, “through the sanctifying work of the Spirit” (en hagiasmō pneumatos), also modifies “elect.” Not only does God the Father foreknow whom the elect will be, but the Spirit is the source of their sanctification. The term “sanctification” often refers to the progressive growth of holiness in the lives of Christians (cf. 1 Thess 4:3). In this context, however, the focus is on conversion. Peter explained how believers came to be part of God’s elect people. When believers are converted, they become God’s holy and set-apart people (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2). Michaels probably is correct, then, in suggesting that this work of God accompanies the preaching of the gospel (1:12). As the gospel is proclaimed, the Spirit sanctifies some by bringing them to faith, by bringing them into the realm of the holy.

Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 37, pp. 53–54). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

What bothers me the most about this osas nonsense is the notion that God, Who is Love itself, purposely created hundreds of millions of human beings with the express intention of torturing them throughout eternity....they were pre-chosen...pre-destined for the fires of hell.
There is no way I will ever believe that.
In my opinion, for what little it is worth, the very idea is blasphemy....maligning the very character of God.

Never mind "the devil made me do it"....according to you, they can honestly say "God made me do it." God made them rape that child, murder that woman, beat that old man to death for the change in his pocket...it was all God's fault.
No, Justaname...

 

[StanJ]

Your remarks are disheartening...you continually attempt to profile me with RT...I am not.

Your interpretation of Scheriner does not contradict anything...we become converted...we are elect from before the foundations of the world.

It is his study of the word translated foreknowledge that is at the front of this discussion...this is why I posted Scheriner.

This to me explains everything...

You have yet to attempt to convey any explanation of 1 Corinthians 1:30, or John 6:65. All you have done is grind your ax against RT...you didn't even attempt to explain what you understand concerning foreknowledge. This is very telling in our discussion.

As to Wright this is a direct quote from above...

. God chose these Corinthian ‘nobodies’ (verses 27, 28); God ‘called’ them through Paul’s announcement of the crucified Jesus as Lord (verse 26; the word ‘call’ is Paul’s regular word for what we sometimes call ‘conversion’)

So yes Wright does agree the context is about God choosing people...plain English written simply here Stan.

This is the portion of Scheriner I want to emphasize...

He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.

Nobody is attempting to redefine words...the object is to understand them in their context as to how the authors use them in accordance with their time and culture...

So the emphasis in both 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 1 Peter 1:2 is God's initiative and sovereignty in salvation. This agrees with John 6:65 along with the whole of Scripture concerning election.

The clarify yourself, because if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, to me it's a duck.

We are not, and you continually misrepresent Eph 1:4. The following link will clarify that for those that need clarification. I sadly don't expect you will even read it.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Eph1_4.html

I have definitely attempted, but it is NOT negated by your refusal to recognize it as such or accept it.

Yes, CHRIST was chosen as He already existed as God. He BECAME Jesus as John 1:14 states, so either Schreiner doesn't get it, or you don't. I lean towards YOU don't.

Of course you are, and keep using the RT vernacular instead of the scriptures themselves. You keep saying you are NOT RT, but you keep using their vernacular, so what exactly are you? You seem to vacillate back and forth?

The emphasis is on God's PLAN, and how he arrived at it, through His own foreknowledge. He KNEW how men would respond and used those positive responses to set in motion His plan, which was FULLY formed before creation. It does NOT depend on men, but it requires that men, in faith, believe and accept what His plan is. Just like Adam & Eve were required to exercise their own will to NOT break God's sole command, we as the unsaved, are expected to exercise our own will when it comes to God's command to believe on and accept Jesus as our saviour.

 

[justaname]

justaname,

I apologize for my late comment. I have had some internet issues. I dont have time to read through all the conversation from your comment to me and what follows so I apologize if I repeat something that has already been addressed. I will try to read through the discussion later.

Well, I would say my understanding of "foreknowledge" is based on what Scripture teaches on the subject and not some philosophical system that emerges from a particular concept of human ability/inability such as what we find with Augustine's concept of the bondage of the will. In any event, I understand there is a larger premise that shades how we see particular texts. I assure you that it is not that I discount the texts that you referenced, but I would not see these as selecting persons for salvation but selecting people or groups for a purpose. This is a huge distinction. For instance, God chose Balaam to be a prophet, but that did not mandate his salvation. We see in Scripture on a few occasions where a prophet was not obedient to his calling which led to disastrous results. Just because God chose someone to serve in a particular way does not mean God mandated their salvation. I think this is precisely what Paul is arguing in Romans 9. The Jews felt they were mandated salvation by God because they were the "chosen" people.

My point is God does select individuals for His purpose as given through various examples in Scripture. My argument is those who do receive salvation are no different. It is for God's plan and purpose and they are elected through such. They are not selected because God "foreknew" they would choose Him in the future, they were selected for God's namesake to be vessels of mercy. I refer you to post #67 on the matter of foreknowledge and the Schreiner quote.

Paul's very clear point is that God chose them for a purpose and that purpose was to bring about his plan of salvation by faith in Christ. Their being "chosen" for God's past purposes does not mandate their salvation. Paul also shows many times how he had been "chosen" to be an Apostle, and yet he served in such as way so that he himself would not be disqualified for the prize he had been chosen to reveal to the world (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27).

And again I agree; Peter also encourages us in a similar fashion...Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;

No one disagrees that faith in Christ is the condition set upon salvation, rather what is the root cause of your decision? I say God took the initiative, you say you made a decision based on your will. This gives you room to boast over those who did not make the right decision. John 1:12 is explicit...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Romans 9 again explicit...So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy

I disagree strongly. God chose Jacob for a purpose but that does not mean that he did not love Esau. The quote in Romans 9 referring to Jacob and Esau is referring to God's judgment on the nations of Israel and Edom and is not dealing specifically with the individuals nor their salvation. The point is this, God showed a favor to Israel that he did not show to Edom.

Exactly...God loved, favored, foreknew Jacob over Esau evidenced by making a covenant with Israel and not Edom. Before the individuals were even born or before they became nations God had predetermined He would make a covenant with Jacob. Why? "so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls," For His namesake and purpose of bringing the plan of salvation to humanity. Yes Paul is referencing the OT, but that does not negate how Paul is using that quote. God explains He placed His covenantal love on Jacob, not Esau in Malachi. This is the same covenantal love, "foreknowledge" placed on those in Christ. Grace by definition means favor...

Edom was made extinct because of their wickedness whereas Israel was permitted to endure as a nation. Otherwise, as Paul quotes, they would have been made Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, the point is not that God tolerates the wickedness of Israel more because he loved them more, but because he had a plan and a purpose to bring about the Messiah through that line. So, let us not mistake God's sovereignty to do as he wishes with wicked people to achieve his plans with God showing favoritism to particular nationalities because he "loves" them more. The Bible could not be any more explicit that God does NOT show favoritism.

God did extend a favor (grace) over all other nations with His covenant nation Israel because of His Seed. God now also extends that favor (grace) to those in Christ because of His Seed. I have confused nothing here. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

This does not say called according to how they would decide...

Through the cross, all men are "drawn" (cf. John 12:32), not just the "elect." This notion that Jesus is teaching that God only allows some to come to him while others he has predestined to eternal fire just does not mesh with the main theme of Scripture, imo.

Evidence that not every individual even hears the gospel facilitates the idea of nations being drawn. Context shows Greeks were seeking Jesus at that time, an allusion to nations being drawn.

Now for your complaint of double predestination...“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."

All would be destined for condemnation, yet God through His sovereign plan has decided to save some in order to show His mercy.

There is a better, and more contextually fitting way to see these John 6 passages. John is referring specifically to those choosing of the Apostles for a purpose and the fact that those who identify with Jesus and follow him are those who are followers of God. The point is simply that one can see who really loves God and seeks God by their response to Jesus, because Jesus is the exact representation of the Father and speaks exactly his Word. This is not a passage about favoritism to the predetermined few, but a passage about revealing those who truly love and seek God. These are the ones who are drawn to Jesus. As Jesus says later,



The point here is simply that it is revealed who really loves God and who belongs to God based on their response to Jesus. This is not about predetermination but response. You show you belong to God if you respond appropriately to Jesus, because Jesus speaks the words of the Father and is the Son of God.

Do you select your earthly father through your decisions?

Its not that I find it an oversimplification, but simply inaccurate. The idea that salvation can only be truly of God and for his glory alone if it is monergistic is very problematic. If God, by his own sovereignty, has chosen to save people by his grace, through their faith then this is not slighting God's glory in any way. Accepting a gift is not earning or taking the credit for a gift. It would be like you opening a Christmas present and then concluding you "earned" the present and you shoudl recieve the glory for what you have because you took the energy to take the gift from the giver's hands. Such an idea is bewildering to me.

God has chosen to save people by His grace (unmerited favor)through their faith in Christ, here we agree.

You must not see that you are stating you made the right decision to accept Christ by you own accord all while being blinded by the god of this world. All while being in rebellion to God. All while being evil. You are stating you overcame Satan's power by your own strength or intelligence...This is bewildering to me.

I say God empowers us to overcome Satan through a working of His Holy Spirit. God takes the initiative by electing us for salvation. The condition for election is His will and purpose not Him knowing we would choose Him. Simply having the privilege of hearing the gospel is unmerited favor on God's behalf. It is by His doing we are in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30) not by our smart decisions.

On the contrary, not only is God able to save men, he is able to save all men. I believe the Scriptures attest to the fact that the blood of Jesus is for all and enough for all...not just the limited, preelected group.

I agree, yet it is only effective for those who believe, those God foreknows, placed His covenantal love upon.

God desires all to be saved, but some love darkness.

By stating this you are basically stating some don't love the darkness, thus some must be good by nature? You need to clarify yourself here.

The fault and judgment is on them for their own wickedness, not God's refusal to save them. So, in response, I would say:

God is able to save all men and desires to do so. It is the wickedness and faithlessness of man that prevents that salvation from taking place for many.

Yet all men sin thereby all are in rebellion to God. Are you stating not all are beset with wickedness only some? Also if God is able to save all men and desires to do so, has not Christ already paid the price for sin? Wickedness and faithlessness would be considered sin would it not? Then is faithlessness more powerful than the blood of Christ or God since He desires all men to be saved?

Meanwhile, your view holds that God is omnipotent, but does note desire that the bulk of humanity find salvation.

This is false. God does desire all men turn to Him, yet men love the darkness.

He has the power to save them, but chooses to keep most men in darkness when he alone is the one who can give them light. Thus, from the monergistic view of salvation, most men are not saved because God does not want to save them. He wants them to suffer eternally and has chosen not to give them the ability to believe and, consequently, be saved.

This again is false. Men are wicked and deserve judgement. God judges the wicked. In His mercy He selects some to be in Christ.

So, from my perspective, God is omnipotent, but he has allowed humans (by his sovereign choice) to have freedom to accept or reject his power in the Gospel of Christ that can save them.

Basically some are good enough or smart enough to choose Christ. What about infants or mentally handicapped?

Whereas your view (as I understand it) is that God simply chooses not to save the world because he really doesnt love them.

It is rather apparent you understand it wrong.

He only loves and favors those he has pre-selected. There is nothing in that concept that appears remotely like what I see taught in the NT about God's nature, desire and plan.

Thats because you have imagined this view for this argumentation in an attempt to make my position look foolish. What you don't seem to understand is no matter if men choose God by their own accord or if God is the initiate on the choosing, God still created the world the way He did knowing all who will suffer eternally. This "wanting" them to suffer as you put it started with the tree in the garden. God being omniscient planned Christ before the foundations of the world as we know, thereby God knew those who would not be in Christ. This makes your argument moot.

You just want to be able to say, well it's their own fault, they should have made a better decision like me.

Something I find interesting is people are so accepting of God selecting the nation people of Israel for His covenant before Christ. What about the rest of the world then? Would this not go against His nature also?

 

[justaname]

What bothers me the most about this osas nonsense is the notion that God, Who is Love itself, purposely created hundreds of millions of human beings with the express intention of torturing them throughout eternity....they were pre-chosen...pre-destined for the fires of hell.
There is no way I will ever believe that.
In my opinion, for what little it is worth, the very idea is blasphemy....maligning the very character of God.

Never mind "the devil made me do it"....according to you, they can honestly say "God made me do it." God made them rape that child, murder that woman, beat that old man to death for the change in his pocket...it was all God's fault.
No, Justaname...

This view I truly do not understand. I do see a correlation to WW's position here maybe reading my response to him might help clarify my position.

I really don't get where God is responsible for the actions of wicked men. You need to explain how you came to that conclusion.

 

[justaname]

The clarify yourself, because if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, to me it's a duck.

We are not, and you continually misrepresent Eph 1:4. The following link will clarify that for those that need clarification. I sadly don't expect you will even read it.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Eph1_4.html

I have definitely attempted, but it is NOT negated by your refusal to recognize it as such or accept it.

Yes, CHRIST was chosen as He already existed as God. He BECAME Jesus as John 1:14 states, so either Schreiner doesn't get it, or you don't. I lean towards YOU don't.

Of course you are, and keep using the RT vernacular instead of the scriptures themselves. You keep saying you are NOT RT, but you keep using their vernacular, so what exactly are you? You seem to vacillate back and forth?

The emphasis is on God's PLAN, and how he arrived at it, through His own foreknowledge. He KNEW how men would respond and used those positive responses to set in motion His plan, which was FULLY formed before creation. It does NOT depend on men, but it requires that men, in faith, believe and accept what His plan is. Just like Adam & Eve were required to exercise their own will to NOT break God's sole command, we as the unsaved, are expected to exercise our own will when it comes to God's command to believe on and accept Jesus as our saviour.

Stan,

Your attempt to pigeon hole me is rather futile as I do not come from some organizational indoctrination. At best you could say I am conservative evangelical. Yet even here I have differing views concerning the Eucharist than most of my ilk. I like to say I am a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, a follower of the Way. Most people I know call me a Christian.

I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. I exegete the texts understanding to the best of my ability and knowledge the historical and cultural background of the authors. I comprehend textual criticism from lower criticism. I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

As pertaining to your beloved TULIP I have already told you the best I can claim is TUP. Even here I am not really steeped in Calvinistic theology so I don't really know if I exactly agree concerning these. My studies have not led me to learning any one system per se' rather they have directed me in the pursuit of exegesis for myself. I am currently studying intermediate Greek.

I have read some of the link you posted, yet it is not brief. What I have read so far is interesting. I will need time to fully read and comprehend it. With the holiday seasons I am rather busy right now so it may take some time before I generate a response.

Merry Christmas to YOU! God bless you.

In the love of Christ,
Justaname

 

[Barrd]

This view I truly do not understand. I do see a correlation to WW's position here maybe reading my response to him might help clarify my position.

I really don't get where God is responsible for the actions of wicked men. You need to explain how you came to that conclusion.

If God pre-chose those who are saved, then didn't He also condemn everyone else to be damned?

If everything I think, say, or do was decided for me before I was ever born, then how is anything I think, say, or do "wicked"? In order for me to be "wicked", I have to have the choice, don't I? If I'm just a puppet, then the "wicked" is the one pulling the strings....

 

[justaname]

If God pre-chose those who are saved, then didn't He also condemn everyone else to be damned?

If everything I think, say, or do was decided for me before I was ever born, then how is anything I think, say, or do "wicked"? In order for me to be "wicked", I have to have the choice, don't I? If I'm just a puppet, then the "wicked" is the one pulling the strings....

Let me start by answering the second half.

God is not controlling your thoughts (as I believe you to be in Christ) any more than He controls the thoughts of those not in Christ. We are agents making free choices. Our choices are based on our greatest desires at any given moment. The desire of the Christ was to always do what was pleasing to the Father. We all fall short of this.

Angels need only sin once to be forever damned. One desire towards pleasing themselves over God and it is over. God knew every angel that would rebel before they rebelled, yet He created them anyways. The same is with humanity. God knew Adam would rebel in the garden, yet God put both Adam and the tree there anyway. The same is to be said of every person that walks the planet. Every person who comes to Christ God knows beforehand, thereby everyone who does not come to Christ God knows beforehand. No scholar disagrees here. The disagreement is how people come to make that decision.

I say God moves in the hearts of believers to cause them to come to belief.

You on the other hand believe you came to that decision on your own. What brought you to make that decision? You can't say God made you that way. What makes you better than or different than those who don't come to Christ? Are you somehow less evil, and if so why? Was it your upbringing? Should we credit your parents for making that decision? Was it your intellect? Are you smarter than everyone else? Is it your heart? Are you somehow more loving than the rest, and if so how did you get that way if it was not God who made you different than the rest?

 

[Barrd]

Let me start by answering the second half.

God is not controlling your thoughts (as I believe you to be in Christ) any more than He controls the thoughts of those not in Christ. We are agents making free choices. Our choices are based on our greatest desires at any given moment. The desire of the Christ was to always do what was pleasing to the Father. We all fall short of this.

Angels need only sin once to be forever damned. One desire towards pleasing themselves over God and it is over. God knew every angel that would rebel before they rebelled, yet He created them anyways. The same is with humanity. God knew Adam would rebel in the garden, yet God put both Adam and the tree there anyway. The same is to be said of every person that walks the planet. Every person who comes to Christ God knows beforehand, thereby everyone who does not come to Christ God knows beforehand. No scholar disagrees here. The disagreement is how people come to make that decision.

I say God moves in the hearts of believers to cause them to come to belief.

You on the other hand believe you came to that decision on your own. What brought you to make that decision? You can't say God made you that way. What makes you better than or different than those who don't come to Christ? Are you somehow less evil, and if so why? Was it your upbringing? Should we credit your parents for making that decision? Was it your intellect? Are you smarter than everyone else? Is it your heart? Are you somehow more loving than the rest, and if so how did you get that way if it was not God who made you different than the rest?

The problem that I have with this is that, according to you, God knew every one who would rape a child, or murder a family, or beat an old man to death for the change in his pocket, before He created them, yet He created them anyway. Therefore, He is directly responsible for the pain that child feels, He is responsible for the deaths of that family...and He is responsible for the tears of the old man's family as they must bury their beloved grandfather and father.

I am not arguing whether God draws us to Christ or not...of course, He does. Why does He draw certain ones but not others? Are they better or different than those He does not draw? Are they somehow less evil? Is it their upbringing? Should we credit their parents for making that decision? Is it their intellect? Are they smarter than everyone else? Is it their heart? Are they somehow more loving than the rest, and if so, did God make them that way?
Obviously, the answer is "yes"...some are smarter, some are less evil, for some it is their upbringing, for others, it is their intellect...but I suspect that for most, it is their heart. I can't say why some people are more loving than others...i suspect we are all born with the potential, (God made us that way), but something happens...perhaps they are raped as a child, or maybe someone murdered their family, or beat their grandfather to death for the change in his pocket...perhaps they are mad at God. Or did God make them that way, as well?

If God "makes" good people to be good, then He also makes evil people to be evil. And evidently, He likes evil people better, since He seems to have made so many more of them. Does God get His jollies by watching people suffer?

See, I don't believe that at all.
My Bible says that, when God sat back and looked at His Creation, He declared that it was "good".

 

[Wormwood]

My point is God does select individuals for His purpose as given through various examples in Scripture. My argument is those who do receive salvation are no different. It is for God's plan and purpose and they are elected through such. They are not selected because God "foreknew" they would choose Him in the future, they were selected for God's namesake to be vessels of mercy. I refer you to post #67 on the matter of foreknowledge and the Schreiner quote.

Yes, I understand that is your view. Mine would be that God selects individuals for a purpose, but not for salvation. Certainly God does foreknow us and our actions and he does know who will persevere to the end. Yet, it is very different to say God has an elect based on foreknowledge and God has predetermined apart from human free-will. Rather than address all my issues with the Schreiner quote, I will simply quote another scholar that I feel better handles the text and the issue of foreknowledge that does not violate basic biblical concepts that God truly does love all people and want them saved.

When the Bible speaks of predestination to salvation, it usually refers to specific persons who are predestined and not to an abstract group or an impersonal plan. In Rom 8:29–30 Paul speaks of persons who are not only predestined, but also called, justified, and glorified. In 2 Thess 2:13 he says that “God has chosen you,” the Christians of Thessalonica, “for salvation.” In Rom 16:13 Rufus is identified as an elect person. In 1 Pet 1:1–2 the apostle greets the elect Christians in several specific geographical areas. Revelation 17:8 implies that specific names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Who can these be except those whom God has predestined individually to salvation? Their very names have been known to God from the beginning. What can this be but individual predestination? “Rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20).
How is it possible that God could determine even before the creation which individuals would be saved, and could even write their names in the book of life? The answer is found in the fact and nature of God’s foreknowledge, which according to Scripture is the very basis for predestination (Rom 8:29; 1 Pet 1:1–2)—a point that will be discussed in detail in the next section. That God has foreknowledge means that he sees the future; and he sees it not as a nearsighted man might see vague outlines at a blurry distance, but as someone with perfect vision sees every far-off detail through a powerful telescope. One cannot believe in predestination according to foreknowledge and at the same time deny individual predestination.
We must say, then, that God predestines specific individuals to salvation. Is this the same as Calvinism? Far from it. As mentioned above, Calvinism teaches not just a predestination to salvation, but a predestination to faith itself: God determines which unbelievers will become believers. The biblical teaching is that certain individuals are predestined to salvation as such. Which individuals? The ones whom God foreknows (Rom 8:29) will become believers of their own free choice. These are the ones whose names he records in the Lamb’s book of life and who are predestined to glory. In short, rather than certain God-selected unbelievers being predestined to become believers, all foreknown believers are predestined to enjoy the benefits of salvation.
This is seen in 2 Thess 2:13, where Paul says that “God has chosen you [Thessalonian believers] from the beginning for salvation.” In 1 Pet 1:1–2 this salvation is seen to include the double cure: a life of good works and justification by the blood of Jesus (“chosen … to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood”). Romans 8:29 states clearly that those whom he foreknew were “predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the first-born among many brethren.” Some mistakenly take this to be a reference to the sinner’s spiritual re-creation in the moral image of Jesus, but the context shows it is a reference to our final inheritance, the redeemed and glorified body we will receive at the final resurrection (Rom 8:11,23). “The image of His Son” refers to the fact that our resurrection bodies will be like that of Christ (Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:29; 2 Cor 3:18). Thus we as believers are chosen to become God’s glorified children (Rom 8:30) with Christ being the “first-born among many brethren” because he was “the first-born from the dead” (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), i.e., the first to be raised in a gloried body (Acts 13:34; 26:13; Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:20).
This is the only sense in which some are predestined to be saved. That is, God predestines believers to go to heaven, just as he predestines unbelievers to go to hell. But he does not predestine anyone to become and remain a believer, or to remain an unbeliever. This is a choice made by each individual, a choice that is foreknown by God.


Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 391–392.

No one disagrees that faith in Christ is the condition set upon salvation, rather what is the root cause of your decision? I say God took the initiative, you say you made a decision based on your will. This gives you room to boast over those who did not make the right decision. John 1:12 is explicit...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Romans 9 again explicit...So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy

I would say God takes the initiative AND we make a decision based on our will. I think it is important to recognize that God is at work in drawing people, but that drawing is not irressistable or based on a predetermined outcome apart from human will. Also, choosing mercy is not "deserving" mercy. Abraham "believed" God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham did not believe because he was righteous. He was credited righteousness because he believed. Do you see the difference there? God credits us with righteousness because we choose to believe his Word (specifically the Gospel of his Son). It is not out of inner righteousness that belief springs, but rather righteousness is credited to the unrighteous because they choose to believe God and accept the light that shines upon them. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the ability to recognize good from evil is a source of boasting or a means of establishing one's own righteousness. Rather, it is assumed that even the godless and depraved have the ability to recognize good from evil, and sometimes even do that which is good on occasion (cf. Rom. 2:15). The issue for humanity, both Jew and Gentile, is not that they cannot recognize what is good, and not even that they cannot do good deeds from time to time. The issue is that all humans sin and therefore are slaves to sin and death. This is Paul's very point in Roman 2 as he focuses his attention on the Jews. They have the law. They know what is right and they are expected by God to do what is right. The problem is that they do not follow the law perfectly. Certainly they followed the law to a degree, but they could not keep the law perfectly. Thus, the righteous decree of God condemns them rather than saves them because they could not follow perfectly the law of God. Paul clarifies this issue in Chapter 7 when he says that he loves God's law (in his heart, he embraces the light) but in his flesh he cannot carry it out (his sin nature rebels against what he knows to be right and good). Thus, he shows that the issue is not that he could not recognize or even love what is good, but that he simply could not live out what he knew was right. That is where the grace of Christ comes in. Not simply to help us recognize what is good, but to give us grace and a means to overcome the sinful flesh by the power of the Spirit.

The problem with Calvinism is that it assumes that because we are "slaves to sin" and "dead in our sins" that our wills are in complete bondage and we cannot recognize or do any good thing. This is a philosophical leap that is not expressly stated in Scripture and, in fact, is the opposite of what the Bible actually teaches. Rather, it teaches a partial depravity that while all humans sin, they have the ability to recognize good from evil and they have the ability to respond to the Gospel. Only only has to take a cursory reading of the book of Acts to see that when the Gospel is presented, those preaching the good news assume that everyone has the ability to respond and when they do not, it is not due to God's refusal to give them faith, but their refusal to accept God's Word.

““You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” (Acts 7:51, ESV)

“But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.” (Acts 13:8, ESV)

“And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46, ESV)

“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” (Acts 17:26–27, ESV)

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” (Acts 17:30, ESV)

“When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved.” (Acts 28:23–24, ESV)

I quote some of these verses just to emphasize the fact that there is no indication here that these people believed or disbelieved because God permitting or not permitting such a response. Rather, the clear teaching is that God desires all to find him and even commands all to repent, but some resist, reject and refuse to be convinced. God does give grace to allow people to hear and respond to the Gospel, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests that this grace is irresistible or that those who reject the truth do so because they are unable to do otherwise. I just do not know how anyone can read these verses and come away with the notion that the human does not have responsibility in this matter.

This is false. God does desire all men turn to Him, yet men love the darkness.

How can you say that God desires all men to turn to him and yet make comments like, "I say God empowers us to overcome Satan through a working of His Holy Spirit. God takes the initiative by electing us for salvation. The condition for election is His will and purpose not Him knowing we would choose Him."
You say its not our choosing God but God choosing us apart from our own actions or decision making. Yet, doesnt that imply that God has chosen not to choose people? If we are "elect" because God chose us apart from our own choices, then that can only mean that those who are not elect are in their state because God did not choose them apart from their own choices. Thus, how can God desire to save them but choose not to make them part of the elect? If salvation is monergistic then only God's will is accomplished which must mean that those who are not saved are not saved because it was not God's will.

Do you select your earthly father through your decisions?

Obviously not. However, the Scriptures are very explicit that fleshly birth is very different from spiritual birth.

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12–13, ESV)
“for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:26–29, ESV)

“Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” (Luke 3:8, ESV)

Basically some are good enough or smart enough to choose Christ. What about infants or mentally handicapped?

I believe that we are held accountable based on our understanding. I do not believe a newborn who dies at birth is either elect or not elect. Scripture teaches that the child does not bear the guilt of the father. We are judged in accordance with our understanding and our own actions. Based on a monergistic view of salvation, everyone is handicapped apart from those God chooses to empower to believe. I just do not believe that. Many mentally handicapped people are very much like children. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these. I have adopted two children with Down Syndrome. I assure you they do understand a little about God and they exhibit more of the fruit of the Spirit than most mature Christians I know.

It is rather apparent you understand it wrong.

Well I apologize if I am misunderstanding your view. I am only going off what I see you have written, which doesnt always seem consistent...at least from my vantage point. I would appreciate clarification. In some instances you say it has nothing to do with human decision making but only God's predetermined will, but then on the other hand you say God desires all to be saved and the fault is ours because we love darkness. Again, my question for you is, "How do you understand that God wants all to be saved if, by your own declaration, God saves us apart from our choosing and only by his sovereign choice?" To me, this sounds like someone saying, "I want to eat all the sticks of bubble gum in the pack." Then they throw 4 of the sticks in the trash and someone asks, "I thought you wanted to eat them all. Why did you throw most of them in the trash." And then that person responds with, "I do want to eat them all, but those didnt want to be eaten." And then the response is, "But I thought you were the sovereign decision-maker in this matter. How can you say you wanted to eat it, the choice was solely yours, but then you chose to throw most of it away? Did you want to eat it all or didnt you?"

Sorry for the long reply....I'll stop here :)