Predestination or "Free Will?"

[In Christ]

Matthew 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Totally depravity...I think not! :huh:

Shalom!

Who will ask seeing they are spiritually dead? And, supposing they did have the capacity to ask ( which they have no power to do so ), what things do you think they will ask? Would not it be logical to ask for salvation? After all, isn't this what Jesus want His people to do?

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28

The word “rest” can also mean “heaven.”

“His people” in paragraph one above are those whom He saved.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall
save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21


Matthew 7: 9-11 must be read in light of the whole Bible and to search out what else Scripture has further to say about the matter.

 

[Angelina]

must be read in light of the whole Bible and to search out what else Scripture has further to say about the matter.Matthew 7: 9-11

I did...and you must read putting your doctrinal beliefs aside for a time so that you can take in what the word is truly saying... :huh: or do we just ignore the word of God for the sake of our doctrinal position?

Matthew 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

I do not believe in Calvin's theology but I do believe that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. I also believe that God works in mighty ways and draws us to him through his son. The way he does this can be seen through his word and the testimonies of believers. I agree with both positions, that he has predestined some and has given others a free will to choose to accept or reject the message of the Gospel that brings salvation and eternal life. JMHO

Blessings!!!

 

[HiddenManna]

Paul, chose to bring his will into harmony with God's will. We are to come into agreement with God's will as it is progressively revealed to us. God does not obliterate our will, just as He does not remove our mind and emotions.

The Spirit of God by His Word stabilizes our emotions, renews our mind and actually strengthens our will so that we are in complete control of it and that it is not easily swayed by man or devil anymore. We then offer up our body as a living sacrifice to God, employing our members (mind, will, emotions, body) as members of righteousness now. We choose to yield our members to God (Romans 6) to carry out His desires (His will) in our life and others.

We always have a choice and we choose to glorify God with our mind, body, will and emotions. In short, we love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.

My friend Axehead, what you are describing is not "free-will" but surrendered will. A death to ones own abilty and strength is the answer that God demands. Not some confidence in ones own will and ability to work righteousness.

Paul said "it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me" He made clear in absolute terms that he was crucified daily to his own will.

1Co 2:2

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3

And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1Co 2:11

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This is not "free-will" nor did even the Lord Himself walk in "free-will" but as he submitted to the Fathers Will, "NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE" The Christian walk is surrendered will, not free will.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

If the tone of my responses is demeaning it is not my intention. It is true God gave us pastors and teachers Ephesians 4: 11, but we must make sure they are faithful to the word of God, just as the Bereans checked out Paul to see if his teachings were in accord with Scripture.

1. 
   You who it was that first mentioned the names, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley. You are correct that no one would cry out for mercy under an apostate condition. However, you forgot about the publican of Luke 18:13 who cried out: “God be merciful to me , a sinner.” Wasn't he a picture of a reprobate individual before crying out? Indeed he was. In fact, God drove home the point that he was a publican, which according to the Pharisees were down casts The call of salvation is to the world, but many are called and few chosen. This sounds like limited atonement, does it not?
   
   
2. 
   It may seem nonsense to you that God can grieve, but He does only in the sense that He wish all to be saved, but man as a sinner does not want to be saved, and more importantly he has no power to choose to want to be saved. Jesus wept as He was entering Jerusalem: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Matthew 23: 37
   
   
3. 
   I beg to differ. You are twisting my words. I've never said or claimed the raising of Lazarus was a teaching tool for free will proponents. In fact it is the opposite. Go back and read my post again on how I used the raising of Lazarus against those who believe in the free will doctrine. I am against free will doctrine because Scripture declare God is sovereign and He has all the right to choose and elect those He wishes to save. If there was a word or two that suggested I was a proponent for free will then, I go on record today to say I don't believe man has a free will to choose for God as I've already illustrated in the raising of Lazarus! Again, you have twisted my words If Calvin and I happen to agree with some doctrines of the Bible, then we must be reading the same Scripture and coming up with the same conclusions. I don't believe we can discuss about the meaning behind the miracles in the ministry of Jesus because they are spiritually discerned as in the example of the raising of Lazarus which you have misunderstood.
   
   But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2: 14
   
   
4. 
   You said, we are all impacted by our pastors and teachers...and I say, only if they are faithful to the word of God. Please read my opening remarks above. We ought to go to the Bible knowing nothing and let the Holy Spirit lead and guide us into all truths.
   
   
5. 
   God would like all to be saved, it's only because He does not wish for anyone to perish. He loves His creation. God does not plead and encourage people to change their behaviors because He knows, man by nature, is a sinner and on his way to hell.
   

6. I thank you for understanding.

Again, I must emphasize that I am not a Calvinist. Please read my 3rd. set of statements above. I believe you study the Bible but along side other books like Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley. I too follow one teacher but I check the doctrines he teaches against Scripture.

You said, “This is double predestination. Am I wrong?” Indeed you are! Calvin taught that God chose His elect from before the foundation of the world because that is what Scripture teach. Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8; 17:8 Psalms 69:28; 9:5
People really do read the Bible casually same as reading printed statements written by others.. For example, I said in one of my posts here that the cross was only a “demonstration,” yet no one challenged me on this. The cross was only a demonstration because the reality of the Atonement was done before the foundation of the world. Jesus did not truly die back there in 33 A.D. because if He did then how did the old testament believers like Abraham, Izaak, Jacob and a hots of other believers become saved? Note, as He hung on the cross and before He died He said “It is finished.” What was finished? The Atonement, of course. Scripture teach that without the shedding of blood (death) there is no remission for sins. Jesus was not yet dead as He cried, “It is finished” unless He had died previously before God created the world. This is not a new doctrine for the Bible was finished almost 2,000 years ago and it has not changed. This is what Scripture teach and this is how Calvin was led by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I repeat, unless we understand we are spiritually dead and has no power to choose for God, we will surely end under the wrath of God!

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand , not of works, but of him that calleth , Romans 9:11

Believe it or not, free will to choose for God, is works, same as the word faith.

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you, John 15:16

Predestination at its purest form.

In Christ,

Thanks for the response.

1. Yes he was a sinner crying out. But both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that he recognized his need for God through God's grace, not his own innate goodness. The text where we find "many are called but few are chosen" is based out of a parable of a feast the King is having for his Son. I think this text is a very strong support for free will actually. The King was calling everyone to come celebrate with the son, but only the marginalized responded. And even among those who responded, not all came dressed appropriately. So we see that everyone is called, but the "chosen" are the ones who respond appropriately. This text teaches the opposite of what you are suggesting in my opinion.

2. Yes I agree with you. But if God wants all to be saved, and none can be saved apart from his irresistible grace, why wouldn't he bestow that grace on everyone? Isnt God choosing to not save some when he could easily impart irresistible grace on them and cause them to be saved? So if this is true, how can Scripture say that he wants ALL saved? Clearly he doesn't want all saved if he is purposely choosing to condemn some by not imparting grace to them. So which is right? Scripture or this picture of limited atonement?

3. Well then I think we can chalk that up to unclarity and move on. I would have thought you would have said that the story of Lazarus is the "best" text for teaching Calvinism or the best text refuting Arminianism if your point was that it is an argument for Calvinism (and even here I don't think I have heard it used as an argument for such). When you say it is the best text concerning teaching on Arminianism, it sounds like you are talking about a support text for Arminianism. Anyway, no big deal. I do think we can discuss the significance of the miracles in the Gospels. John has seven of them. Each miracle depicts something significant about the person and work of Jesus and are often followed with an "I am" statement (healing the blind - "I am the light of the world, raising Lazarus - I am the resurrection and the life, feeding multitudes - I am the bread of life, and so forth). I just don't happen to think that the spiritual meaning of Jesus bringing Lazarus out of the grave was to prove a point about God's sovereignty and man's lack of free will. I think it had much more to do with putting faith in Jesus as the one who has power over life and death and is the ultimate judge of mankind. Anyways...

4. Well I would have to disagree with you regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting text. The Holy Spirit works though the church via gifts such as teachers and so forth. I do not believe he gives special illumination to each individual so they can have proper doctrinal understandings of texts. If this is the case, then we don't need teachers. Moreover, if this is the case, then either 95% of the church does not have the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is sending mixed messages since most Christians do not agree on these issues. Everyone claims they are enlightened by the Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. So why is it YOU are the one really receiving the truth and everyone else is deceived? Personally, I just don't think this is how the Spirit operates. But that's another blog.

5. Well, that's the rub you see. If God really desires it, and God alone can save man through his irresistible grace, then why doesn't he elect everyone? If He sees nothing in us good that would warrant our salvation and simply elects some to be saved out of a whole human race headed to hell....why not just elect everyone? Then God displays incredible grace and his desire for all to be saved is accomplished. Maybe....maybe that is not how God works. That would be my argument.

Again, I believe in predestination. However, is election based on foreknowledge or God's sovereign selection process? That is the debate here. If you believe he elects people based on foreknowledge, then you and I are in agreement. If you do not, and God arbitrarily chooses people from before time to be saved, then he is also electing people to be destroyed by necessity. If the selected group is A and the non selected is B...then by choosing A you are also designating B. This is double predestination. If God chooses some to be saved before they ever acted by his sovereign will, he is also choosing some to be condemned by NOT choosing them as the heavenly elect. They have been predestined not to be chosen and thus be condemned. I do not think the Bible teaches this.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

I did...and you must read putting your doctrinal beliefs aside for a time so that you can take in what the word is truly saying... :huh: or do we just ignore the word of God for the sake of our doctrinal position?

Matthew 7
9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

I do not believe in Calvin's theology but I do believe that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. I also believe that God works in mighty ways and draws us to him through his son. The way he does this can be seen through his word and the testimonies of believers. I agree with both positions, that he has predestined some and has given others a free will to choose to accept or reject the message of the Gospel that brings salvation and eternal life. JMHO

Blessings!!!

You do know he was talking to fellow brethren, right? It's not an universal law for all mankind, just for the elect.

 

[Angelina]

Just try to read this verse without the TULIP colored glasses on...just for a second. You are missing my point entirely.

BB

 

[FHII]

KingJ: If you look closer you will see He hates those who disobey Him. He did not hate Cain until Cain mocked Him by disobeying Him with his sacrifice. It is no more a case of giving a cookie to a good child and a hiding to the naughty one. Favouritism is keeping some children in a room for 10 years like Ariel Castro whilst you spoil others. A partial God is evil!

I don't understand how Cain came into this discussion, but OK. I was talking about Esau, whom the Bible says God chose against before he and his brother were even born.

KingJ: As I explained to Jiggy, we cannot read scripture and form our opinion about the definitions of God's character. God defines Himself as ''He is''. We then work backwards to grasp all scripture in this light! Scripture says He IS good. He IS impartial. Now if we read about predestination and being foreknown, we can conclude that, yes He knew whom He would make and all be destined to be in Christ. Jesus died for everyone. Can you imagine Jesus saying to the other guy on the cross 'dude even if you did repent like the guy next to me' I am not dying for you....lol...that guy rejected Jesus, the other guy accepted Jesus, Jesus died for both. For those that accept Jesus, it is destined that they THEN be in - Christ.

Well, the scripture gives us God's nature and gives us an opportunity to come and learn of him. Again, I agree with you that the scripture says he is good, but we cannot define God as "Good" by our standards of what is good. The Bible even notes that when it says His ways are higher than our ways and in the last times men would call evil "good", and "good" evil. As for him being impartial, again, he seems pretty partial when he says things like the sheep are on my right hand and the goats on my left. He seems partial when he says Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated. The Bible says that God had friends and enemies.

KingJ: You need to use more lateral thought. Scripture says that we must make righteous judgements...now would you ever send a baby to prison? Scripture says God is a righteous judge...how silly are we to think He would send a baby to prison, we conclude that God is evil and dumb...and base our whole belief system on that possibility....we just need to use logic and trust that scripture is true when it says God IS good and righteous. God cannot and will not be evil. So despite how evil God may appear in the passage of scripture you read, don't form an opinion that goes against God's definitions from prophets. Otherwise the entire bible is joke!!

The Bible describes the gates of hell as being wide, and the path to righteousness as being narrow (paraphrasing) and it said to put line on line and precept on precept. So this doesn't sound like lateral thinking to me, especially when it comes to questioning God's judgement.

Again, I am not going to judge God as being evil and the bible being a joke. God thought it was righteous to send babies to their death so that I'm going to leave up to God as weather it was righteous. I'm not forming an opinion on God at all.... I am going what the Bible says and swerving to the left or to the right to state why God did it at all.

I appreciate you enjoyed my post on Calvin... Thanks.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't understand how Cain came into this discussion, but OK. I was talking about Esau, whom the Bible says God chose against before he and his brother were even born.

FHII,

If you track the source of this quote, it comes from Malachi. This text is not about God hating Esau as a person, but God choosing Israel over Edom for his service. So, I would disagree that God hated Esau as an individual, but that God predestined Jacob and the nation of Israel to serve him and thus showed special favor to them as his servants. None of this speaks to the salvation of Esau or individual Edomites (or even Israelites for that matter).

As for him being impartial, again, he seems pretty partial when he says things like the sheep are on my right hand and the goats on my left.

Yes, but that is not being partial, that is making a judgment based on those who gave him drink, clothed him and visited him as the "least of these." So this is judgment is not based on a predetermined declaration, but based on human response to Jesus' words by their actions.

 

[aspen]

there is nothing we can do to force God into having a relationship with us - the same is true with all healthy relationships. However, like all relationships, our relationship with God takes work to maintain. Because the relationship is not controlled by us, we have nothing to brag about, but we can certainly neglect it.

 

[FHII]

FHII,

If you track the source of this quote, it comes from Malachi. This text is not about God hating Esau as a person, but God choosing Israel over Edom for his service. So, I would disagree that God hated Esau as an individual, but that God predestined Jacob and the nation of Israel to serve him and thus showed special favor to them as his servants. None of this speaks to the salvation of Esau or individual Edomites (or even Israelites for that matter).


Yes, but that is not being partial, that is making a judgment based on those who gave him drink, clothed him and visited him as the "least of these." So this is judgment is not based on a predetermined declaration, but based on human response to Jesus' words by their actions.

I am aware that Paul was quoting Malachi, but in Paul's discussion he noted that he chose Jacob the individual over Esau the individual when they were still in their mother's womb. Regardless, even if we acknowledge your assertation, even better.... God hated a whole bunch of people (at least up until NT times) based on what their daddy did.

As for judgment not being based on predermined declaration (God's will) but based on human response (works).... You've got to ignore a lot over verses that clearly state some were predestined.

 

[Wormwood]

FHII,

Let's not confuse faith response as a necessary requirement for salvation and "works." Faith is not a work. And God mandating salvation in an irresistable manner on a subject is not "faith" either in my opinion. The point in Malachi is that God showed preference to Israel and they were acting worse than the Edomites. Certainly there were Edomites who became proselytes and are saved. This declaration is not about salvation but service. The whole point of Romans 9 is that God ISNT saving Israel! Why, if Israel is chosen by God and "loves" Israel are they not being saved? Because they are stumbling over the stumbling stone and not accepting salvation by faith rather than works. That is Paul's entire point in Romans 9. To suggest Paul is making a plea for God predetermining individual salvation in Romans 9 is to undermine the entire point of the chapter.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Just try to read this verse without the TULIP colored glasses on...just for a second. You are missing my point entirely.

BB

OK. That said, can you put down your own dispensational & 'personal coloured ideas'? If we leave it to subjectivism, then it's no wonder there's so much confusion in the body of Christ and so many claiming an authoritative position.(Miriam said) i.e hath not God spoken to all of us.

Secondly, I don't think I get YOUR point at all. Care to explain it to this simple fella.

 

[FHII]

Wormwood,

I understand the point of Romans 9, but what you seem to be missing is that it is clear that it started with two individuals who were predestined before they were even born. Paul also uses the example of Pharoah (not all pharoahs, but one in particular) to make his point. So yes I understand that when we look at Jacob and Esau we are also looking at the fate of Israel and Edom, but it still comes down to and starts with Jacob and Esau.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

I understand the point of Romans 9, but what you seem to be missing is that it is clear that it started with two individuals who were predestined before they were even born. Paul also uses the example of Pharoah (not all pharoahs, but one in particular) to make his point. So yes I understand that when we look at Jacob and Esau we are also looking at the fate of Israel and Edom, but it still comes down to and starts with Jacob and Esau.

Okay. So I am glad you are in agreement about the point of Romans 9. So why would Paul be focusing on God selecting certain individuals regardless of their actions as proof of this point:

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,” (Romans 9:30–32, ESV)

Why would Paul derail to talk about sovereign selection of individuals regardless of what they do when his point is to urge everyone put faith rather than pursuing works? I believe my take on this passage is much more in line with the overall flow of thought and it goes like this:

Paul's point is that any Gentile who comes to Christ through faith is accepted and most of Israel is being rejected. This is not about individual selection for salvation, but the way God uses people and nations in a sovereign way to fulfill his plan. God chose Israel and not Edom to serve him in his plan. Why? Because God is God. God selected Pharaoh for a purpose, but that purpose had to do with his plan for a people, not individual salvation. Just because God chose to use Pharaoh did not mandate Pharaoh's salvation. God had a bigger purpose in mind...his glory. The same is true for Israel. God chose them...but that choosing does not mandate their salvation. Election for salvation is the exact OPPOSITE of what Paul is teaching here. Many Israelites are expecting that because they are "God's chosen" that they should all be saved! Paul is saying, NO...God chose you to work out his plan..and that plan includes Gentiles. If you don't embrace this plan of salvation by faith, it doesn't matter if you are an Israelite who was chosen to serve God's purposes in Christ. God is sovereign and he can save anyone he wants. He has chosen to save both Jews and Gentiles through faith. The way you served God does not mandate your salvation because no one is saved apart from faith in Christ!

This is the flow of thought here in Romans 9. It has nothing to do with God arbitrarily choosing individuals he wants to save. Rather it is the opposite. God has sovereignly chosen a plan for Jews and Gentiles to be saved through their free-will response of faith to the Gospel. God is not mandated to save Israel because they served this plan anymore than he is obligated to save Pharaoh. Service does not equal salvation. God can save whomever he wants and he has chosen to save anyone who comes to Jesus in faith. This is not a restrictive view of personal selection for salvation but a wide open view that invites anyone through the sovereign plan of God.

 

[In Christ]

In Christ,

Thanks for the response.

1. Yes he was a sinner crying out. But both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that he recognized his need for God through God's grace, not his own innate goodness. The text where we find "many are called but few are chosen" is based out of a parable of a feast the King is having for his Son. I think this text is a very strong support for free will actually. The King was calling everyone to come celebrate with the son, but only the marginalized responded. And even among those who responded, not all came dressed appropriately. So we see that everyone is called, but the "chosen" are the ones who respond appropriately. This text teaches the opposite of what you are suggesting in my opinion.

2. Yes I agree with you. But if God wants all to be saved, and none can be saved apart from his irresistible grace, why wouldn't he bestow that grace on everyone? Isnt God choosing to not save some when he could easily impart irresistible grace on them and cause them to be saved? So if this is true, how can Scripture say that he wants ALL saved? Clearly he doesn't want all saved if he is purposely choosing to condemn some by not imparting grace to them. So which is right? Scripture or this picture of limited atonement?

3. Well then I think we can chalk that up to unclarity and move on. I would have thought you would have said that the story of Lazarus is the "best" text for teaching Calvinism or the best text refuting Arminianism if your point was that it is an argument for Calvinism (and even here I don't think I have heard it used as an argument for such). When you say it is the best text concerning teaching on Arminianism, it sounds like you are talking about a support text for Arminianism. Anyway, no big deal. I do think we can discuss the significance of the miracles in the Gospels. John has seven of them. Each miracle depicts something significant about the person and work of Jesus and are often followed with an "I am" statement (healing the blind - "I am the light of the world, raising Lazarus - I am the resurrection and the life, feeding multitudes - I am the bread of life, and so forth). I just don't happen to think that the spiritual meaning of Jesus bringing Lazarus out of the grave was to prove a point about God's sovereignty and man's lack of free will. I think it had much more to do with putting faith in Jesus as the one who has power over life and death and is the ultimate judge of mankind. Anyways...

4. Well I would have to disagree with you regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting text. The Holy Spirit works though the church via gifts such as teachers and so forth. I do not believe he gives special illumination to each individual so they can have proper doctrinal understandings of texts. If this is the case, then we don't need teachers. Moreover, if this is the case, then either 95% of the church does not have the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is sending mixed messages since most Christians do not agree on these issues. Everyone claims they are enlightened by the Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. So why is it YOU are the one really receiving the truth and everyone else is deceived? Personally, I just don't think this is how the Spirit operates. But that's another blog.

5. Well, that's the rub you see. If God really desires it, and God alone can save man through his irresistible grace, then why doesn't he elect everyone? If He sees nothing in us good that would warrant our salvation and simply elects some to be saved out of a whole human race headed to hell....why not just elect everyone? Then God displays incredible grace and his desire for all to be saved is accomplished. Maybe....maybe that is not how God works. That would be my argument.

Again, I believe in predestination. However, is election based on foreknowledge or God's sovereign selection process? That is the debate here. If you believe he elects people based on foreknowledge, then you and I are in agreement. If you do not, and God arbitrarily chooses people from before time to be saved, then he is also electing people to be destroyed by necessity. If the selected group is A and the non selected is B...then by choosing A you are also designating B. This is double predestination. If God chooses some to be saved before they ever acted by his sovereign will, he is also choosing some to be condemned by NOT choosing them as the heavenly elect. They have been predestined not to be chosen and thus be condemned. I do not think the Bible teaches this.

Wormwood,

You are very welcome.

1. Scripture says in Romans 3 there is none righteous no not one, and there is none that seeks after God. If this is true, which I believe it to be, then the Publican will never have recognized his need for God. And, if he did recognize his need for God, it is only because he was an elect, he was named and he was chosen by God, before the foundation of the world!

How do you figure the wedding feast is a strong support for free will? Remember, this story is a parable, an earthly story with a spiritual meaning. Although I must say and I say it kindly, I believe you do not have any idea what the “call” is about. The call is “to believe in the name of His Son.” But God knows man can't respond because he is spiritually dead yet, the command was given anyway. I believe this is a test to man once again just as God tested Adam long ago back there in the Garden of Eden and failed. Today, however, the test is, are we going to trust in the finished work of Jesus that He alone did all the work to save us or, are we going to insist that somehow we can contribute to our salvation by believing or having faith in Christ? As I've mentioned to you in a previous post, faith is works ( I Thessalonians 1:3 ), therefore contrary to Ephesians 2:9. The word believe is a verb and the word faith is a noun and both words are derived from the word faithful. You don't have to believe what I say, but believe the Bible.

We have opinions and that's just it, opinions. No relevancy. The churches have their own presuppositions and these reasons are why there are so many different denominations in the world. If we are reading the same Bible then it is only logical that we arrive with the same conclusions. But we don't because all have feet of clay.

The spiritual meaning of the wedding feast is this. God told His servants ( angels ) to go and invite ( call ) the whole town ( here, National Israel is in view ) to celebrate His Son's wedding. The town's people rejected the invitation so he told his servants to go to the highways ( the world ) to gather all the good and the bad to the feast. The guests arrives and one of them shows up without a wedding garment and was cast out. The wedding garment represented Christ's robe of righteousness, that is, his sins were not covered by the blood of Christ. The wedding feast was for the elect only..

2. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

The text above are God's word. If you want to contend with Him about it then do so. The term, “many
are called but few are chosen,” doesn't it sound like limited atonement?

3. We've gone through the raising of Lazarus so many times that if you haven't grasped the illustration by now then you'll never get it. Sorry, I am not even going to listen to your explanations about Calvinism or Arminianism, I have a one track mind....the Bible!

4. You can disagree with me on anything and everything about the Bible, as you like.. But, to say the Holy Spirit only works through the church via the gifts of teachers and so forth, and without as much as giving scripture references, I think is saying too much, and really, shows me you have no knowledge at all of Scripture, and rely only on what you've read in other books written by man! But let me share what the Bible have to say about what the Holy Spirit do:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 16:17

Why God reveals truths to some and not to others, I don't know.

5. Your argument is invalid and not biblical. God is the same today, yesterday, and forever, that means, what He has decreed He will do. The wages of sin is death! Man by nature is a sinner and is accountable for his sins, and must pay for them, unless he can find a substitute to take his place.. God is not under any obligation to save everybody, only those He predestined to save, arbitrarily. What a loving and merciful God we serve! Yet, people find fault with Him for sending them to hell, which they put themselves under, and they do not realize how He paid a tremendous price to have a special people for Himself, by sacrificing His only Son to die on man's behalf!.

I too believe the Bible does not teach that God chooses people to be condemned. The unsaved are condemned because they are sinners and ready to be slaughtered, on their own doing.

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.

Psalm 44:22

The debate is not about foreknowledge, rather the OP is about predestination ( God elects ) or free will ( man has a choice )?

 

[Wormwood]

In Christ,

1. I agree with part, but I think you are combining some verses with some additional assumptions not spelled out in Scripture. Please post the verses that support these ideas and we can discuss them. As far as the verses and other ideas you did post on this matter...

The point of the story is that all are called...all are invited to the Kings' son's party. But the "chosen" are those who respond appropriately. The King does not go hogtie his elect and bring them to the party regardless of how they respond to the call. No, they are chosen based on their response to the call. If the parable were conveying the spiritual meaning Calvinism portrays of God's call (as you previously implied by quoting the verse) and election, then the King would make a call, plug the ears of those he does not want to respond to that call, and irresistibly compel those on a list he had written up prior to even giving the call.

Faith is not works. Faith may produce works or the fruit of genuine faith is works, but faith is not works. Otherwise we can say we are saved by works and it would be a totally legitimate statement. This is not true. We are saved by grace through faith. That faith will produce works. But the two are not the same. I agree that belief and faith are the same word in the Greek (pistis). But faith/belief and works are not. Not sure where you are going here.

2. I really don't get your point. I do believe that God wants all to be saved as that verse states. However, "many are called but few are chosen" has a context. That context does not indicate a God of pan-determinism. Quite the opposite. The choosing is based on foreknowledge of human response to the call. So no, it doesn't sound like limited atonement.

3. We are both discussing the Bible. We are just viewing the verses in the Bible differently. But we can move on from Lazarus if you like. I have no problem with that.

4. Well, I could write a book on the issue and quote 100 verses, but I hardly have the time and that's kinda prohibited via the rules of this blog site. So I figure we can dialogue on the issues and I can share things little by little.

The John 14:26 verse is a promise given by Jesus to his disciples/Apostles before his death. He would bring to remembrance all the things Jesus said to them. So, has Jesus audibly spoken to you recently? If not, then this verse likely is directed at the pillars of the Church, the Apostles, and not to every Christian. The role of the Holy Spirit is not to provide you with individual enlightenment of doctrine about Scripture. If you argue this is the case then the following must be true:
1. We don't need teachers because the HS gives us personal enlightenment on all Scripture.
2. Only one group of Christian can be right and have the HS. There can be no diversity of belief in the Church. The Holy Spirit would certainly not send mixed messages would He?
3. You can never change your mind on your views. To change or grow as a Christian is to suggest that the Spirit is changing also. So if you have ever changed your mind about a verse, which was the Spirit's illumined interpretation?

The Bible teaches that we are given teachers who are gifted by the Holy Spirit who are there to help guide the church in matters of faith and doctrine. This seems to undermine the idea that every believer is self-sufficient and has their own illumined view of the Bible. The Jews nor early Christians ever viewed Scripture interpretation this way. Interpretation always had principles, teachers, and leaders who could be pointed to in order to help guide the Church's understanding of passages.

I don't see the point of Matthew 16:17. Yes, Peter had his eyes open to see that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Just as all of us Christians on this board have been given grace to see and believe that. This has nothing to do with personal enlightened for inspired individual interpretation of Biblical verses.

Personally I think he reveals some truths to some and not others is because they are humble and cooperate with his grace. Isaiah 5:3-6; Rev. 3:18; James 4:7-8

5. Actually the debate is about foreknowledge. Free will implies that God predestines based on prior knowledge whereas pan-determinism suggests that God predestines based on arbitrary will. I don't know how I can be more clear. God does predestine people for destruction if he chose them for such prior to them ever being born. God didn't make that decision based on them being a "sinner." Otherwise, that would indicate God is condemning them based on foreknowledge of their sin (this is what I believe, plus the fact that they refuse to cooperate with his grace to save them). Election based on Calvinistic pan-determinism says God predestined people for heaven and hell before the ever were created and became sinners. Thus his election is not based on man's action (either good or bad) but divine sovereign choice prior to any action by man. I believe this is wrong and that the Scriptures teach no such concept. I hope that clarifies things a bit more.

Thanks for your engagement in this discussion.

 

[bling]

Bling

You said I started on a false premise because I said Adam was created perfect. You have a right to your own opinion specially for one who has no understanding of Scripture.

You are correct to say the Bible said, Adam was “very good.” Did you also know the Bible declared:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Mark 10:18

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: John 17:21-22

Jesus in these verses is equating the believers as one with the Father and Himself. Since God is good, and from your own lips admitted Adam was “very good,” and since God is perfect, so then is Adam also perfect, and in this sense, was he created in the image of God, was good and perfect.

Someplace else in the Bible, we are told that when we see Jesus we shall be like Him. I don't know how all these will play out, but I do know that we should not accuse others of building false premises when they, themselves do not have any knowledge of Scripture. Found the scripture text.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know
that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I John 3:2

[SIZE=medium]You should be “one” with your spouse, but that does not make your spouse equal to your spirituality. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Adam may have started out very good, which means better than any other person that ever lived, but that is not perfection like Christ is perfect. God is good (which is better than anyone that has ever lived (including Adam because he went from being very good to a sinner) and God is also way better than good in that He is perfect like Christ is perfect. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]A being that is perfect is also very good, but is a very good being also perfect? [/SIZE]

 

[aspen]

You should be “one” with your spouse, but that does not make your spouse equal to your spirituality.
Adam may have started out very good, which means better than any other person that ever lived, but that is not perfection like Christ is perfect. God is good (which is better than anyone that has ever lived (including Adam because he went from being very good to a sinner) and God is also way better than good in that He is perfect like Christ is perfect.

A being that is perfect is also very good, but is a very good being also perfect?

How can someone be more perfect than another person? Perfection is not measured by comparison. Jesus is our example of a perfected human being - He also happens to be God. He lived He life in perfect relationship with the Father and His neighbor. After justification and sanctification culminate in redemption we will be just as perfect. Perfection for all humans means loving God and neighbor as we were created to love. Time is the measure of change, which is why God is outside of time - He never changes because He is already perfect. One day we will be outside of time, as well, just like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Fall; before time.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

How can someone be more perfect than another person? Perfection is not measured by comparison. Jesus is our example of a perfected human being - He also happens to be God. He lived He life in perfect relationship with the Father and His neighbor. After justification and sanctification culminate in redemption we will be just as perfect. Perfection for all humans means loving God and neighbor as we were created to love. Time is the measure of change, which is why God is outside of time - He never changes because He is already perfect. One day we will be outside of time, as well, just like Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the Fall; before time.

Because we're using the wrong word. When talking about pre-fall Adam, a better word would be impeccable or unimpeachable. Speaking of using the better word, a better word than perfect to describe God would be pluperfect, a state of perfection that regresses infinitely into antiquity. Add that word to your lexicon and may it serve you well.

 

[BibleFeast]

Lets not forget John 17:20-23 JB “I pray not only for these, but also for those who will trust in me because of their word, [SIZE=.75em]21 that they may all be one. Just as you, Father, are united with me and I with you, I pray that they may be united with us, [/SIZE]so that the world may believe that you sent me. [SIZE=.75em]22 The glory which you have given to me, I have given to them; so that they may be one, just as we are one —[/SIZE][SIZE=.75em]23 I united with them and you with me, so that they may be completely one, and [/SIZE]the world thus realize that you sent me, and that you have loved them just as you have loved me. Please don't overlook what the text says or be blind to it's truth. ITS CLEAR!!!