TULIP an open discussion

[setst777]

setst777 said: "Divine Determinism” is fatalistic.

Divine determinism is not fatalistic because fatalism suggests that the outcome is not tied to our actions

According to you, there is no “our actions” that God did not already create.

Divine determinism is the belief that God so arranges the affairs of the universe that everything and anything that ever happens is efficaciously orchestrated by God so that it must have happened exactly as it did.

That is “fatalism.”

setst777 said: Your own quotes reveal that you believe in “Divine Determinism.”

Tell me something new.

Your own quotes show that you are fatalistic, which is what “Divine Determinism” is – fatalistic.

setst777 said: The Scriptures do not paint “predestination” with such a broad stroke. In contrast to your view of “predestination,” the Bible defines predestination as pertaining to God’s plan to conform the faithful to the Image of Christ, sharing with Christ in salvation (Romans 8:28-29; Ephesians 1:4-5).

What does this "conforming" look like? In your view, God isn't conforming anything. Human beings do that all by themselves.

According to the Scriptures, the Spirit of God leads us to life as the believer is diligent to live and walk by the Spirit, which is the believer is obligated to do to have life (Romans 8:12-13; Galatians 6:7-9).

On the contrary, predestination is fixing the course of events and outcomes according to God's eternal decree.

That is your definition, but show me where predestination is defined that way in the Bible. I gave you “2 Peter 1:8-11” as my evidence, and you ignored it.

Predestination, according to the Scriptures simply means that God has a special plan for those who believe (which are the ones loving God: Romans 8:28). That "special plan" is to conform believers to the image of Christ, and share with Christ in salvation.

setst777 said: True, just like you, they misunderstood God’s justice.

No, Paul isn't talking about mercy, justice or punishment in that chapter.

Mercy: Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

Justice: Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

Punishment: Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

On the contrary, God is not a selector, he is a creator. God makes a priori decisions to harden or bless.

That is your belief, which not taught in Scripture. God "elects/chooses," which means God selects.

setst777 said: We learn from God, the Prophets, and the Apostolic Writers, that how God chooses to discipline or bless, or use for special purposes, is all dependent on how such persons respond in His hands.

Jeremiah was not talking about individuals, he was talking about nations.

That is not accurate. God is admonishing both the nation, and the individuals in the nation in “Jeremiah 18:1-12.” The “nation” consists of the people in the nation, just as Israel consists of the people in Israel in “Romans 9:1-33.”

Jeremiah 18:11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Yahweh says: “Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a plan against you. Everyone return from his evil way now, and amend your ways and your doings.”

Why argue about whether God forms a nation or an individual, since you believe that both are God's work of creating.

setst777 said: Regarding salvation, God forms for eternal life those who believe in him and continue to believe (John 3:16-18).

Agreed, but salvation is not a response to belief. God saves those that believe, and remain, yes, but belief and endurance are both gifts of God.
Romans 5:15

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

God saves those who believe. The “free gift” is God’s saving grace to those who believe, which is taught in the very same chapter you quoted from.

Romans 5:1-2 (WEB) Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; 2 through whom we also have {{{our access}}} by faith into {{{this grace}}} in which we stand. We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I ask you honestly, could Paul have made in any more plane to understand?

setst777 said: In contrast to the Jewish reaction, you think that God actually created us to be the way we are before we were born. Amazingly, you think that is perfectly fine that God would actually create people to do evil acts, including the choices that God created in them, and then send them to hell for what God already created them for.

Think about this. If God didn't create such people, they wouldn't exist. The contradistinction of creation is non-existence.

That is your human reasoning. God created us in His image, able to choose good from evil (Romans 2:13-16)

setst777 said: Paul does not say he created people to suffer his wrath beforehand; rather, God prepared as vessels of destruction those who deserved his wrath resisting God, even though he was patient with them.

Preparation is an act of creation.

The Greek word for “prepared” never means “created.”

Paul argues that just as a potter gives form to a pot according to its intended function, God gives a person form according his intended function of that individual.

Rather, God forms/prepares for ignoble purpose, or destruction, those (the clay) who, of their own doing, act contrary to God’s patience. These are the objects of God’s wrath, not that God created them to try God's patience.

Romans 9:21 Or hasn’t the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath {{{prepared}}} for destruction

“In Romans 9:22,” the word for “prepared” is “2675 katartízō,” which means, “having prepared/fitted/adjusted. God prepares (not created) for destruction those who, in spite of God’s patience, resisted God’s patience, doing evil.

 

[setst777]

setst777 said: Your thought wrong. As I have repeatedly stated, God foreknows us, and foresees us, and He also searches our minds and hearts; and so, according to His plan of Salvation, he acts on certain people whom he foreknew to work his plan of Salvation for all sinners, so that everyone who believes may be saved (John 3:16-18).

I previously argued that foreknowledge isn't the way you say it is. And this is a problem for your view. Again we go back to Paul's potter analogy, where he dismisses the concept of "selection."

God, as the Potter, selects to prepare for destruction those who, despite God’s patience with them, did evil, being objects of God’s wrath. God does not say he created them to be objects of wrath; rather, God prepared for destruction those who were objects (those who resisted God's patience) of God’s wrath. That shows that God selects individuals to prepare for destruction.

Before I run though this again, I should point out that "foreknowledge", the way you describe it, is nothing if it isn't information obtained by observation. According to this view, God looks ahead at the behavior of individuals and he decides how to treat them based on what he sees.

That is what foreknowledge means.

Acts 2:23 (WEB) him, being delivered up by the determined counsel [God determined that this should take place] and foreknowledge [forethought; foreknow] of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed

4268 prógnōsis (from 4267 /proginṓskō, "foreknow") – properly, foreknowledge. 4268 (prógnōsis)
From proginosko; forethought -- foreknowledge.

Many Calvinists will interpret "foreknowledge" to mean "for-cause," and you interpret it to mean "foreloved;" however, "Acts 2:23" is not discussing those whom God "foreloved;" but rather, it is discussing God's plan to have Lord Jesus crucified by wicked men; therefore, "foreknowledge" cannot mean "foreloved."

Likewise, "foreknowledge" cannot mean "for-caused" or "determined" because Paul differentiates between "determined counsel" and "foreknowledge."

setst777 said: I gave you Biblical examples from Paul for what is “descriptive” and “prescriptive” regarding the Gospel, and you ignore it, giving me un-Biblical examples instead. Do you really have so little value for God’s Word?

setst777 said: The Promise and Grace of God are both by faith, the same faith Abraham had in God.

I understand that. But contrary to your interpretation, "by faith" doesn't mean "because of faith."

Observe Paul's language in his epistle to the Ephesians.

Ephesians 1:7-9

so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.


In Romans, Paul contrasts works with faith when the matter centers on the attainment of God's justification. How and why is justification accredited? In that context he points out, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due." Any view of faith that depicts faith as the means to a wage is erroneous. The opposite of "wage" is "grace."

So then, when Paul says that salvation is by faith, he doesn't mean to say that salvation is our wage in exchange for our faith. We aren't saved because of our faith. Rather, we are saved by grace through faith because faith itself is a gift of God.

I hope I have been helpful to your own studies.

You are referring to “Ephesians 2:7-9.”

Firstly, there are many different interpretations by scholars of what “Ephesians 2:8-9” is teaching because Paul uses a difficult Greek construction of that verse. Therefore, you may interpret it one way, and I interpret another way, but we will get no closer to the truth by viewing that one Scripture.

However, the NT is full of repeated teaching about “faith,” and “grace.” Regarding “gift,” this refers to the free gift of salvation, and not to the faith by which we access God’s saving grace.

Yes, Christians, who are already saved, one in the Body of Christ, are given a measure of faith to operate the other gifts of the Spirit; however, regarding faith by which the sinner is saved, we access God’s saving grace by faith, just as Abraham did.

No Scripture states that God created this faith in a select number of people by grace; rather, we who believe {{{gain our access}}} into this grace in which we stand.

Romans 5:1-2 (WEB) Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; 2 through whom we {{{also have our access}}} by faith {{{into this grace}}} in which we stand. We rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 4:2-5 (WEB) 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” [Genesis 15:6] 4 Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed. 5 But to him who doesn’t work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

Romans 4:13-16 (WEB) 13 For the promise to Abraham and to his offspring that he should be heir of the world wasn’t through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of no effect. 15 For the law produces wrath, for where there is no law, neither is there disobedience. 16 For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace, to the end that the promise may be sure to all the offspring, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

Abraham, of himself, believed God, and that is why he was justified – not that he was created to believe.

Romans 4:16-25 (WEB) 19 Without being weakened in faith, he didn’t consider his own body, already having been worn out, (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 Yet, looking to the promise of God, he didn’t waver through unbelief, but grew strong through faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was also able to perform. 22 Therefore it also was “credited to him for righteousness.” [Genesis 15:6 23] Now it was not written that it was accounted to him for his sake alone, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be accounted, who believe in him who raised Jesus, our Lord, from the dead, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.

Romans 3:18 (WEB) We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Galatians 2:16 (WEB) even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

Wouldn't it be wise to accept what God's Word actually states about faith and grace, rather than interjecting that God, by grace, creates faith in some?

Doesn't Paul do a good job of explaining why faith, unlike works, does not merit our salvation? Why refute Paul's clear instruction by trusting in your own opinions?

 

[Wrangler]

Since Paul does not describe the reasons God gives for the things he does in this isolated section, you choose to assume and impose your own doctrine of Divine Determinism to explain the “why” irrespective of what Paul taught about the reasons God acts in the rest of his Letter to the Romans, and irrespective of how God himself states as the reasons He does things in the OT.

There is not one Scripture that teaches that the potter forming clay into a vessel has anything to do with creating persons to be wicked or good, or saved or condemned; rather, you are inferring and assuming your doctrine onto the text. God explained, in “Jeremiah 18:1-12” and “2 Timothy 2:19-22” the reasons why He forms us into vessels for blessing or punishment, which depends on how we respond in His hands. I also quoted "Ezekiel 18:20-32," in which God gives his righteous reasons for condemning some and not others.

It can’t be to the contrary because Paul teaches us that God prepares for destruction those who refuse his grace, and not that God creates people to hate and then sends them to destruction.

There does seem to be a bit of reversing cause and effect. I've made similar posts this week several times in other threads. Profound.

So you see how your assumptions onto isolated quotes cause you to form false doctrines that contradict God’s Word? You cannot form your own assumptions onto isolated texts outside of the context. You are assuming things according to your own bias.

This is a well written analysis. Eisegesis is pervasive in Christendom, reading into verses a doctrine one already has. Sad.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nothing in those verses state that God created some to be good or bad, or created Jacob to love and Esau to hate.

You missed the point entirely. You argue that God's "election" is not a matter of creation, but a matter of selection. In your view, preordination is nothing more than a decision to reward believers with salvation and to punish unbelievers. Each individual must decide for himself, whether to believe or not; and each individual must decide to maintain belief.

Accordingly, in your view, God predetermined to love anyone who believed his promise and to hate those who despised it. Since Jacob believed God's promise, God loved him, and since Esau despised his birthright, God hated Esau.

I get your view, but does it square with Paul's argument? Did Paul intend to illustrate the principle that God rewards the good and punishes the bad? No. Not really. Paul removes judgment from the equation.

God tells Rebekah, before her twins were born, that the younger would serve the older. Was this merely a prediction of the future? No, not entirely. God's word to Rebekah was a promise, indicating his intent to purposely help Jacob and burden Esau. He points out that God decided to work things out for the good of Jacob, and work things out for the detriment of Esau. Everything God did for Jacob, gave Jacob the advantage over his brother Esau. And everything God did against Esau put him at a disadvantage.

In Paul's mind, the account of Jacob and Esau illustrates the call of God. He writes, ". . . so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls . . ." In Romans 11, Paul will assert that the callings of God are irresistible. Jacob didn't compel or induce God to work on his behalf. Jacob didn't petition or pray to God that he might help Jacob gain an advantage over Esau. Rather, it was Jacob's "calling" to be the leader of Israel. It was Esau's "calling" to serve his brother. And since God "called" Jacob to be the leader of Israel, God orchestrated Jacob's personal history to Jacob's advantage and to Esau's disadvantage.

Understand, God assigns our calling to us before we are born and he orchestrates our personal histories such that we will fulfill our calling.

God chose Jacob, not for salvation, but as the one through whom the promise would come, which, as Paul concludes, is by faith, not by works (Romans 9:30-32).

Did God ask Jacob whether he wanted to be the child of promise?

You believe that our decision to believe the Gospel after we are born is all God doing, having created some to believe and be saved, and others to hate and condemn, before being born. That is not what “Romans 9” states anywhere; rather, that is your assumption.

On the contrary, that is my conclusion -- not my assumption.

True, Paul did state that being adopted as sons of God was not for all Jews just because they are physically from the seed of Abraham, but that the true sons of God are those of the Promise, which Paul defines is by faith, not works, as Paul concludes in “Romans 9:30-32.”

By faith doesn't mean "because of faith."

Therefore, “Romans 9” is not saying God created Jacob to save; rather, Paul is teaching that God had planned that, through Jacob, the Promise, “children of the promise” (Romans 9:8) [Which is by faith not works: Romans 9:30-32], would come.

Does it make sense for God to orchestrate the lives of Jacob and Esau if it also didn't illustrate what it means to be called "by faith"? Why would Paul employ the lives of Jacob and Esau as an example of God's calling if Jacob wasn't a man of faith destined to be among the "adopted sons"? Didn't Rebekah give expression to her faith by helping Jacob receive the blessing and the birthright? Didn't Jacob give expression to his faith by wrestling with God? But was it Rebekah and Jacob's faith that compelled God to work to Jacob's advantage? No, not really. According to Paul, it was the providence of God that set the course of each man's destiny.

God prepares for destruction those who are objects of His wrath (those who do evil) even though he was patient.
God appoints beforehand for glory those who will believe.

I already argued how your analysis does not square with God's role as a creator. In your view, God is selecting people according to decisions that the people make. This is like the woman who goes to the store to pick out a vase. But God is not like the woman who goes to the store to pick out a vase. God is like the potter who makes vases.

 

[Wrangler]

John 3:16-18 (WEB) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

In my view, Calvinism puts faith on its head; eternal life has nothing to do with what you believe OR ones believe is not a matter of free conscience.

 

[Wrangler]

On the contrary, God's has mercy on whom he will show mercy. Therefore it doesn't depend on whether or not someone refuses his grace. It can't be both ways.

You are confusing multiple things, layer upon layer. Mercy is withholding a negative consequence. Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is undeserved favor (giving a positive that the receiver did not earn).

Regarding refusing grace, you are again confusing two things that are related but separate.

1. God offers X.
2. We accept or reject X.

Yes, God offers X on whom he will and the offer, indeed, does not depend on our reaction to it. Still, there is our reaction to it. Why do you suppose such a verse as this exists?
if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.
Hebrews 10:26

The conditional IF proves we have the potential to go either way; meaning it is not assured that we will never sin again. This is much like a convicted man, whose sentence is commutted but does not turn his life around. He commits crimes again. And this time, there is no grace offered.

This does not change the facts that grace was offered AND rejected.

 

[CadyandZoe]

God, as the Potter, selects to prepare for destruction those who, despite God’s patience with them, did evil, being objects of God’s wrath.

Again, I take you back to the difference between "selecting" a pot and "creating" a pot. The potter analogy illustrates the process of creating a pot. If a potter wants a vase, he makes a vase and he treats the finished product as a vase. If a potter needs a toilet, he creates a toilet and treats the finished product as a toilet.

God does not say he created them to be objects of wrath; rather, God prepared for destruction those who were objects (those who resisted God's patience) of God’s wrath. That shows that God selects individuals to prepare for destruction.

The difference between a vessel of wrath and a vessel of mercy is understood from the potter analogy. Just as a potter treats a vase he created as a vase, God treats a vessel of mercy he created, with mercy. Just as a potter treats a toilet he created as a toilet, God treats a vessel of wrath he created with wrath.

That is what foreknowledge means.

Acts 2:23 (WEB) him, being delivered up by the determined counsel [God determined that this should take place] and foreknowledge [forethought; foreknow] of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed

Nothing in that passage describes God looking ahead to the future.
And again, if God is reacting to empirical knowledge, then he isn't acting as a creator.

Many Calvinists will interpret "foreknowledge" to mean "for-cause,"

I don't know any Calvinists who interpret "foreknowledge" as "fore-caused."

Likewise, "foreknowledge" cannot mean "for-caused" or "determined" because Paul differentiates between "determined counsel" and "foreknowledge."

Most Calvinists that I know, and I agree with them, understand Biblical foreknowledge in terms of a covenant. If God has a covenant with a people in the past, then he has "foreknown" them. To "know" somebody is to have a relationship with them.

Jesus used the verb "to know" in Matthew 7:23, where he clearly means "You and I never had a relationship together."

Firstly, there are many different interpretations by scholars of what “Ephesians 2:8-9” is teaching because Paul uses a difficult Greek construction of that verse. Therefore, you may interpret it one way, and I interpret another way, but we will get no closer to the truth by viewing that one Scripture.

I think the reason why we find so many interpretations of a verse is more likely due to personal preference and worldview.

However, the NT is full of repeated teaching about “faith,” and “grace.” Regarding “gift,” this refers to the free gift of salvation, and not to the faith by which we access God’s saving grace.

He says "that not of yourselves."

Yes, Christians, who are already saved, one in the Body of Christ, are given a measure of faith to operate the other gifts of the Spirit; however, regarding faith by which the sinner is saved, we access God’s saving grace by faith, just as Abraham did.

So you admit that God gives each person a measure of faith? But for some reason you want to say that you came up with saving faith on your own? How does that work?

We know that when Paul used the phrase "by faith" he didn't mean "because of faith" in the way you mean it. Salvation is not a wage we receive after we give God the faith he wants.

No Scripture states that God created this faith in a select number of people by grace; rather, we who believe {{{gain our access}}} into this grace in which we stand.

The passage you quoted highlights the boast of those who have a proven faith. There is only one reason why a faith remains, even after sustaining trials and tribulations. "The Love of God is poured out into the heart in the form of the Holy Spirit." And under that condition, a person's hope will not be disappointed.

Abraham, of himself, believed God, and that is why he was justified – not that he was created to believe.

You got that wrong. It was Abraham's faith that was accounted as Justifedness. Abraham wasn't justified because he had faith. Abraham's faith indicated that he was justified.

Wouldn't it be wise to accept what God's Word actually states about faith and grace, rather than interjecting that God, by grace, creates faith in some?

Wisdom dictates that we constantly guard ourselves from confusing our interpretation of a passage with what God's word actually states.

Doesn't Paul do a good job of explaining why faith, unlike works, does not merit our salvation? Why refute Paul's clear instruction by trusting in your own opinions?

I think so. But your interpretation of the phrase "by faith" makes salvation into wages.

 

[Wrangler]

Again, I take you back to the difference between "selecting" a pot and "creating" a pot.

You’re doing laps on this subject. Perhaps cognitive dissonance with your doctrines not holding g up to scrutiny?

God creates the pot, yes, but does not create the reaction of the pot being created.

Analogies are useful but limited. At some point, the analogy breaks down in comparison to reality. God is all knowing but his foreknowledge does not negate the existence of the Free Will he bequeathed to us.

Jesus was unique in being created to do God’s will. All others struggle with the basic choice of whether to submit our will to God’s. Hear me. Having the potential to do God’s Will is not the same as actually doing it.

To suppose God creates people for the purpose of punishing is sadist and blasphemous.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is “fatalism.”

No, that is not fatalism. You left out an essential component of fatalism, which is nihilism -- the idea that nothing really matters. Remember, I argued that narrative is an essential aspect of Divine Determinism. God is not only creating individual people, he is creating individual stories. Consequently, since the outcome of any story depends on the events and decisions associated with the story, then it DOES matter what we do.

According to the Scriptures, the Spirit of God leads us to life as the believer is diligent to live and walk by the Spirit, which is the believer is obligated to do to have life (Romans 8:12-13; Galatians 6:7-9).

The scriptures also reveal that God works to the good of those whom he has called.

That is your definition, but show me where predestination is defined that way in the Bible. I gave you “2 Peter 1:8-11” as my evidence, and you ignored it.

Yes, I ignored it because it didn't help you make your case. I can read Peter for myself. So if you only quote Peter, I will walk away from your quote with the same interpretation I began with.

Predestination, according to the Scriptures simply means that God has a special plan for those who believe

I disagree. When the Bible speaks about "planning" it uses the term "plan". When it wants to speak about a destination that was decided beforehand, it uses the term "predestination."

Have you never read that "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in love"? This is a clear elucidation of the concept of predestination.

Mercy: Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy.

This verse defeats your position because, according to you, salvation does depend on making a free-will choice and on a man's perseverance under tribulation, which is his responsibility alone.

Justice: Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

What follows is Paul's argument why Election is not a matter of justice.

Punishment: Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

Why is this a question for Paul?

That is your belief, which not taught in Scripture. God "elects/chooses," which means God selects.

Again, Paul argues that God is a creator not a selector. If a woman wants to select a pot, she goes to the store to buy one from among the options available. But God, as the potter, creates those he needs to create to demonstrate his wrath, and he creates others to demonstrate his glory.

That is not accurate. God is admonishing both the nation, and the individuals in the nation in “Jeremiah 18:1-12.” The “nation” consists of the people in the nation, just as Israel consists of the people in Israel in “Romans 9:1-33.”

The potter analogy is intended to illustrate a point. The point illustrated in Jeremiah's potter analogy is not the same point that Paul's potter analogy does.

God saves those who believe.

Yes, he saves those who believe, but not BECAUSE they believe.

The “free gift” is God’s saving grace to those who believe, which is taught in the very same chapter you quoted from.

And what is God's saving grace if he saves people BECAUSE they believe? Grace is unmerited favor.

I ask you honestly, could Paul have made in any more plane to understand?

Not According to Peter, who said that Paul is hard to understand.

That is your human reasoning. God created us in His image, able to choose good from evil (Romans 2:13-16)

Right, but according to Paul, it doesn't depend on what we choose.

The Greek word for “prepared” never means “created.”

It means "created" if Paul intended that meaning. And from the context, which is an explication of God's right to create vessels for whatever purpose he designed them for, then we understand the term "prepare" in the context of the creative process.

Rather, God forms/prepares for ignoble purpose,

forming is creating

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God created man in his likeness.

God has freewill

hence he created man with freewill

He did not create robots.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In my view, Calvinism puts faith on its head; eternal life has nothing to do with what you believe OR ones believe is not a matter of free conscience.

Most Calvinists I know do not put faith on its head or suggest that eternal life has nothing to do with what you believe. Some Calvinists might suggest that one's belief is not a matter of free conscience because, according to some Calvinists, people are constitutionally incapable of making a free will choice. According to Jonathan Edwards, for instance, a man's choices arise from his motives, but his motives have a divine origin. Before a man can truly act or believe from a free will, the shackles of a man's conscience must be removed. The bottom line is that unbelief is a matter of will, and saving grace is a supernatural repair, transformation, and repair of a man's (woman's) motives.

Other Calvinists believe in the "noetic effects of sin." The term "noetic" comes from the Greek word "nous" which means "mind". Paul talks about the renewal of the mind and it is believed that before one can freely choose to believe in God, he must first free a person's mind and bring that individual's "worldview" into conformity with God's worldview.

Armenians affirm a similar perspective they call "prevenient grace." In their view, prevenient grace includes Christ's work on the cross and his ascension, as well as many of the same "graces" afforded to all, including but not limited to opening the eyes and the heart to believe. But once God has opened the eyes and ears, man can still reject the free gift of eternal life.

For support of this idea one might turn to Hebrews chapter 6, where Paul speaks about those "who were once enlightened."

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Most Calvinists I know do not put faith on its head or suggest that eternal life has nothing to do with what you believe. Some Calvinists might suggest that one's belief is not a matter of free conscience because, according to some Calvinists, people are constitutionally incapable of making a free will choice. According to Jonathan Edwards, for instance, a man's choices arise from his motives, but his motives have a divine origin. Before a man can truly act or believe from a free will, the shackles of a man's conscience must be removed. The bottom line is that unbelief is a matter of will, and saving grace is a supernatural repair, transformation, and repair of a man's (woman's) motives.

Other Calvinists believe in the "noetic effects of sin." The term "noetic" comes from the Greek word "nous" which means "mind". Paul talks about the renewal of the mind and it is believed that before one can freely choose to believe in God, he must first free a person's mind and bring that individual's "worldview" into conformity with God's worldview.

Armenians affirm a similar perspective they call "prevenient grace." In their view, prevenient grace includes Christ's work on the cross and his ascension, as well as many of the same "graces" afforded to all, including but not limited to opening the eyes and the heart to believe. But once God has opened the eyes and ears, man can still reject the free gift of eternal life.

For support of this idea one might turn to Hebrews chapter 6, where Paul speaks about those "who were once enlightened."

what about people who are neither arminian or calvin?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are confusing multiple things, layer upon layer. Mercy is withholding a negative consequence. Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is undeserved favor (giving a positive that the receiver did not earn).

I get that. The point is, whether God gives a person what he deserves or he withholds a negative consequence, what makes the difference is NOT what a man wants or what he does.

Regarding refusing grace, you are again confusing two things that are related but separate.

1. God offers X.
2. We accept or reject X.

Yes, God offers X on whom he will and the offer, indeed, does not depend on our reaction to it.

Paul never frames salvation as an offer. We got that idea from American Evangelists who salesmen trained. These men were trained in various manipulation techniques in order to push the congregation to a decision. The basis of this idea is a misconstrued interpretation of Romans 10:9-10. (Formerly known as TNT). Under that assumption, all an evangelist needs to do is get someone to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. Once that was accomplished, it was thought that a person was saved.

The NT view of salvation begins, as Jesus said, with being born again. And as Peter said, we were born again to a living hope. He teaches that all those who were born again to a living hope will be glorified at Jesus's return.

Still, there is our reaction to it. Why do you suppose such a verse as this exists?
if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.
Hebrews 10:26

Are you suggesting that human agency exists apart from the divine will? In the passage you quoted, Paul warns his readers against changing their minds about Jesus's messiahship. Without the redeeming work of Jesus' death on the cross and his ascension, one will never find another way to find pardon.

This statement, by itself, necessitates self-governance. Paul is telling the Hebrews that there is only one alternative that will get them what they seek, so choose the right one. But if we go down to verse 32, Paul depicts a group of people who endured trials of faith and didn't recant. What they lack is confidence, which is available to anyone who has persevered under persecution. So Paul's advice to them is to remain confident.

The conditional IF proves we have the potential to go either way; meaning it is not assured that we will never sin again. This is much like a convicted man, whose sentence is commutted but does not turn his life around. He commits crimes again. And this time, there is no grace offered.

This does not change the facts that grace was offered AND rejected.

The conditional does not prove that we can go either way. It proves that among a large group of people, we can't know who will go one way or the other. But, with respect to the inevitable goal of the individual, anyone with a proven faith has a faith that will never fail or fall away. And God uses his power, through the Holy Spirit, to accomplish the outcome.

 

[CadyandZoe]

what about people who are neither arminian or calvin?

I'm not sure what you mean, so if I fail to address your question, please come back at me.

I spoke about Calvinists and Armenians because that is how the debate is framed, but I suppose that there might be people in between.

The debate centers on the question, "How much does salvation depend on God, and how much does it depend on me?" Denominations and theologians fall somewhere along a spectrum. Some say that salvation is ALL up to me, while others say that salvation is ALL up to God, while others fall somewhere in the middle.

The middle ground is held by those who affirm the idea that God has the ability to look ahead to see what people will do. In this thread, at least one person has been using the term "foreknowledge" to indicate this idea. (I haven't read the entire thread, so someone else might also be using the term that way.) Molina proposed the concept of "Middle Knowledge" to find a way to make divine sovereignty compatible with human freedom.

Refer to this article for additional research.

Middle Knowledge | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

I don't agree with Molina but I to agree there is a way that both ideas can be compatible.

Come back at me if you have additional questions or comments.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm not sure what you mean, so if I fail to address your question, please come back at me.

I spoke about Calvinists and Armenians because that is how the debate is framed, but I suppose that there might be people in between.

The debate centers on the question, "How much does salvation depend on God, and how much does it depend on me?" Denominations and theologians fall somewhere along a spectrum. Some say that salvation is ALL up to me, while others say that salvation is ALL up to God, while others fall somewhere in the middle.

This is one of the things I hate about this debate.

I have yet to meet anyone who claims salvation is all up to them. The only people I hear say this are calvinists who are saying arminians are claiming this.

The middle ground is held by those who affirm the idea that God has the ability to look ahead to see what people will do. In this thread, at least one person has been using the term "foreknowledge" to indicate this idea. (I haven't read the entire thread, so someone else might also be using the term that way.) Molina proposed the concept of "Middle Knowledge" to find a way to make divine sovereignty compatible with human freedom.

God is omniscient yet. so yes he foreknows all things..

Refer to this article for additional research.

Middle Knowledge | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

I don't agree with Molina but I to agree there is a way that both ideas can be compatible.

Come back at me if you have additional questions or comments.

I was just asking a question

These Calvin vs arminian debates are unfruitful because everyone tries to read the other as they have to be one or the other.. And this in turn causes people to not understand what the other person is actually saying.

I also know there are quite a few calvinists here. Are there any arminians here at all?? I have yet to meet one..Maybe i missed it

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Paul never frames salvation as an offer. We got that idea from American Evangelists who salesmen trained. T

Did Not Jesus make this as an offer?

Just as Moses lifted the serpent was an offer for the jews to by saved from poisonous snakes.

He said he himself would be lifted up so that whoever believes will not perish but live forever.

How can someone receive Christ in faith (john 1: 12) in order to be saved if it is not offered to them?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You’re doing laps on this subject. Perhaps cognitive dissonance with your doctrines not holding g up to scrutiny?

I like to think that we are dealing with a complicated subject and that discussion among friends can be helpful to those who follow along. I opened this thread at someone else's request, and I did so because she asked and because I thought it might be helpful to others.

Moreover, the doctrine of election as it pertains to Perseverance is very encouraging. And, during these times, I want to be as encouraging as possible.

God creates the pot, yes, but does not create the reaction of the pot being created.

Paul's Potter analogy is intended to defend his position against those who claim that Paul's arguments are invalid because they lead to absurd conclusions. Paul's argument must be invalid, for instance, because it leads to the conclusion that God is unjust.

The analogy seeks to illustrate the fundamental and foundational reasons behind the act of creation. I explain the analogy in terms of a hypothetical woman who goes to the store to buy a pot. Her choices are limited to the available pots and she chooses a pot that was already created. But God is not like the woman who chooses a pot. He is like the potter who makes a pot. And one of the fundamental principles of creation is "form follows function". Paul's analogy makes this point explicit.

Granted, the potter analogy doesn't speak to the reaction of the pot, except to say that a pot would not say, "Why did you make me this way?"

To suppose God creates people for the purpose of punishing is sadist and blasphemous.

Sadism implies that God is treating someone in a way they didn't deserve. But Paul's analogy specifies that God is treating someone based on the purpose for which they were designed.

 

[Wrangler]

Here, your cognitive dissonance really shows. You are trying to force your theology against reality.

a man's choices arise from his motives, but his motives have a divine origin.

A man choosing to commit a series of murder is motivated by divine origin?

The bottom line is that unbelief is a matter of will

<Sigh>I cannot convince myself that circles are not round. To suggest it is a matter of will, a matter of stubborness or moral defect on my part is absurd!

You keep getting things backwards, confusing cause and effect.

Consider how well Christians keep the command to love one another so the world will know we are Christ's disciples? Horrible. Anyone paying attention has NO REASON TO BELIEF what we are saying is true. Said differently, the ancients believed because of evidence! The Hebrews saw God part the Red Sea and many other signs and wonders.

Today, religionists are contend to divorce their theology from reality and actually expect people to believe despite their experience. Rather than look inward at our failure - to love each other as Christ loved us - we are content to condemn the image bearer of God for "willful unbelief."

To conclude this rant, I fundamentally reject these posts of your @CadyandZoe in the strongest possible terms! I suppose this is the basis for so much acrimony against Calvinism.

 

[Wrangler]

The point is, whether God gives a person what he deserves or he withholds a negative consequence, what makes the difference is NOT what a man wants or what he does.

There you go again, doing laps on ground already covered.

 

[Wrangler]

Paul never frames salvation as an offer.

I'm not sure that is true. However, Scripture contains more than the writings of Paul. Salvation is certainly framed as an offer by John 3:16 and the author of Hebrews.

if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.
Hebrews 10:26