Two Ways of thinking about OSAS

[justaname]

I have heard your kind of answers over and over through many years of my Christian life. It has nothing to do with not liking your answers. It has everything to do with your inability to stop using logical fallacies. When will you get it?

I didn't get anything from this because you were not specific when I directly asked where you believe I did not deal with the issues you raised. You decided to answer with more questions; very unhelpful if you were truly attempting to have open, honest discourse. Now if you desire to continue your allegation of a red herring I suggest you be more specific and clear where you feel I am at fault, otherwise desist in your accusation.

 

[justaname]

Oz,

I did just read your link you posted. I do like the beginning portion, that dealing with the text and admittedly the only section I read due to time constraints. This section though I need more time with:

The human will is freed for all people in regard to salvation. This is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

I do not see the necessity of implying a freed human will in regard to salvation for the call of these to maintain truth and conviction. Not only does the appearance of Jesus Christ bring salvation to all, but He also brings condemnation. It is only through belief that salvation is actualized, while unbelief actualizes condemnation. Perhaps further study will bring me to a different conclusion, yet as it is I am not convinced of your conclusion. Here I am reminded of Revelation:

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
11 “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

 

[StanJ]

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus is referring to prayer. Romans 3:11 Paul is referring to the unregenerate. Matthew 7:7 is telling us those who are God's pray to Him and through persistence they receive what they ask for; Romans 3:11 is telling us the unregenerate do not even seek Him and are shut up under sin. Thus those who pray to God have been sought by God first.

That's bull pucky and you know it. Jesus was referring to prayer in the previous chapter. In any event this is the Sermon on the Mount and he was preaching to people who did not yet accept him as a savior nor had they understood what he had come to bring. Your conclusion here is also not biblical strictly RT. No where does the bible say that those who pray to God have been set by God first. You seem to have a really hard time separating your personal belief system from what the Bible says and that sadly it just means, as your other comments to Oz have shown, you refuse to see the truth.

I do not place any portion of Scripture above another. You again present a false dichotomy. Paul, Jesus, and I all agree. Rather than indefensible my position is biblical. My hermeneutics are just fine and I do not "cherry pick". I give the full context with supporting Scripture. You have presented nothing but opinion, and now you have moved to attack my character, which is typical of every discussion we have when you have nothing constructive to add. I have never deflected nor strayed off topic. I know exactly what the Bible means referring to dead in their sins and transgressions.

You do when you use a different scripture to address the argument supplied previously. Paul and Jesus agree, you definitely don't agree with them. Your position is not biblical and you continue to state that but never show it and yes you do cherry pick. You don't give any context unless somebody calls you on it and then you try to change context or deflect to something else. That is not what I would call proper hermeneutical exegesis. Continuing to deny what is obvious in your words that are here in black and white just really shows you either totally refuse to deal with your misinterpretations or you are totally inculcated. Either way there's not really much use to discuss any of this with you because you have shown that you can't move nevermind want to move.

Why did God set these elect apart according to StanJ? It was based on God's foreknowledge of who they would be in Christ.

That's right, of who they would be, not that they would be set apart in Christ. Again you don't seem to get the distinction or just absolutely refuse to acknowledge it. Not surprising given your admission that you have believed this way for years and nothing will change your point of view. It's absolutely not my responsibility to change your point of view but to rightly divide the word of Truth, which I have done, and I will leave it up to the Holy Spirit to get through to that thick covering OSAS, and all that entails, to make you see the light of God's truth in His word.

Rather simple here. Election is based on God's foreknowledge.
Your quote: I never said election was based on foreknowledge I said God foreknows who will be the elect.
Perhaps you think you conveyed this. Perhaps you intended to convey this. This is not what was conveyed.

No it's not, God's plans are based on his foreknowledge of who would be the elect.
Again repeating myself a hundred times is not really going to help you because you have an obvious comprehension problem. It obviously can't be only me that's having a problem getting through to you because you're saying the same thing to Oz, and I know for a fact that we are saying the same thing to you.

Now please explain your nuance you are differentiating because your language is getting rather smokey now.

There is no nuance, it's plain straightforward English, which you refuse to acknowledge and so equivocate and deflect about it's real meaning when we all know you know what we're saying.

Then you did not answer my question. Is believing Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God an act of the will?

Of course it is our free will, given that we CHOOSE to accept Jesus or not. Sadly but predictably you go off topic again by introducing another part of this RT dogma. Are you telling us the truth when you say you're not a Calvinist, because you sure present as one?

 

[justaname]

That's bull pucky and you know it. Jesus was referring to prayer in the previous chapter. In any event this is the Sermon on the Mount and he was preaching to people who did not yet accept him as a savior nor had they understood what he had come to bring. Your conclusion here is also not biblical strictly RT. No where does the bible say that those who pray to God have been set by God first. You seem to have a really hard time separating your personal belief system from what the Bible says and that sadly it just means, as your other comments to Oz have shown, you refuse to see the truth.


You do when you use a different scripture to address the argument supplied previously. Paul and Jesus agree, you definitely don't agree with them. Your position is not biblical and you continue to state that but never show it and yes you do cherry pick. You don't give any context unless somebody calls you on it and then you try to change context or deflect to something else. That is not what I would call proper hermeneutical exegesis. Continuing to deny what is obvious in your words that are here in black and white just really shows you either totally refuse to deal with your misinterpretations or you are totally inculcated. Either way there's not really much use to discuss any of this with you because you have shown that you can't move nevermind want to move.


That's right, of who they would be, not that they would be set apart in Christ. Again you don't seem to get the distinction or just absolutely refuse to acknowledge it. Not surprising given your admission that you have believed this way for years and nothing will change your point of view. It's absolutely not my responsibility to change your point of view but to rightly divide the word of Truth, which I have done, and I will leave it up to the Holy Spirit to get through to that thick covering OSAS, and all that entails, to make you see the light of God's truth in His word.


No it's not, God's plans are based on his foreknowledge of who would be the elect.
Again repeating myself a hundred times is not really going to help you because you have an obvious comprehension problem. It obviously can't be only me that's having a problem getting through to you because you're saying the same thing to Oz, and I know for a fact that we are saying the same thing to you.


There is no nuance, it's plain straightforward English, which you refuse to acknowledge and so equivocate and deflect about it's real meaning when we all know you know what we're saying.


Of course it is are free will, given that we CHOOSE to accept Jesus or not. Sadly but predictably you go off topic again by introducing another part of this RT dogma. Are you telling us the truth when you say you're not a Calvinist, because you sure present as one?

In other words everybody that disagrees with you is inculcated, indoctrinated, and can not see the truth...this really sums up the majority of our discussions, this and your continual equivocation.

You really have an ax to grind against RT, unfortunately I will not allow you to grind it on me. This really bothers you.

I will continue to pray for you Stan. I love you in the Lord, and feel you have the potential to add different perspectives and good insight into discussions even if we do not agree.

Shalom!

 

[justaname]

Logic, lest examine,

How we have God, all soverign, all powerfull, creating man, an arrogant, pridefull, selfish creation. Now this mazing God offers this man a plan of salvation, knowing that he will argue, contend, fight, reject and be troubled by it. and fight and rebell all teh way. Now if there is any logic to that. Please tell me.

God is logical even when we can not perceive His logic. Man is the illogical creature looking towards to Perfect asking why. Yet if left to his own devices man would never even look to God, Him being the whole reason for man's existence. This is where I see God making the effort to pull some from the mire, so some will proclaim His mercy to the masses. Here then is the logic.

 

[justaname]

So then for those who are following these discussions (let me first say I feel for you ):

If believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is an act of the will, then salvation is merited on making the proper decision concerning the Christ. Salvation is not a free gift, rather a choice that must be made properly else it has dire, eternal consequences. Some merit salvation through good decision making, others suffer for poor decision making. Yet what I find interesting is this discourse between Jesus and Peter.

Matthew 16
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are athe Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

The Father reveled to Peter the person of Jesus. God selected Peter from everyone in the world and disclosed this information to him. So then I question, does God do this for all that believe? Is it possible that it is not a matter of our will, rather like Peter it is of the preference of God to cause belief in us? We do know Jesus speaking on a different occasion to His disciples stated, "None can come to me unless it is granted by the Father." We do know the Bible states none seek God, no not one. We are assured men are dead in their sins and transgressions.

Yes thus far I am convinced it is by the grace of God that men come to believe Jesus is the Christ. Grace by definition is unmerited favor. Why then do some believe they merit God's favor through proper decision making?

 

[StanJ]

In other words everybody that disagrees with you is inculcated, indoctrinated, and can not see the truth...this really sums up the majority of our discussions, this and your continual equivocation.

You really have an ax to grind against RT, unfortunately I will not allow you to grind it on me. This really bothers you.

I will continue to pray for you Stan. I love you in the Lord, and feel you have the potential to add different perspectives and good insight into discussions even if we do not agree.

No, just those that display the symptoms. Sadly this is always the end result of conversations with you.

No, it's not an axe to grind, it's false teaching to fix, based on that very flawed humanist lawyer associated with the Catholic Church who never really understood God's word.

Good to hear because I need all the prayer I can get.

 

[StanJ]

So then for those who are following these discussions (let me first say I feel for you ): If believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is an act of the will, then salvation is merited on making the proper decision concerning the Christ. Salvation is not a free gift, rather a choice that must be made properly else it has dire, eternal consequences. Some merit salvation through good decision making, others suffer for poor decision making. Yet what I find interesting is this discourse between Jesus and Peter.Matthew 1615 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”16 Simon Peter answered, “You are athe Christ, the Son of the living God.”17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.The Father reveled to Peter the person of Jesus. God selected Peter from everyone in the world and disclosed this information to him. So then I question, does God do this for all that believe? Is it possible that it is not a matter of our will, rather like Peter it is of the preference of God to cause belief in us? We do know Jesus speaking on a different occasion to His disciples stated, "None can come to me unless it is granted by the Father." We do know the Bible states none seek God, no not one. We are assured men are dead in their sins and transgressions.Yes thus far I am convinced it is by the grace of God that men come to believe Jesus is the Christ. Grace by definition is unmerited favor. Why then do some believe they merit God's favor through proper decision making?

And you have been fairly well refuted in all these points and positions. Everybody chooses to accept a gift, they cannot be compelled to do so. Making the proper decision or not is evident throughout scripture. Adam and Eve made the wrong decision, Moses made the wrong decision comma David made the wrong decision comma Peter made wrong decisions and the ultimate wrong decision was made by Judas. Jesus said God draws us to him period drawing does not mean causing us to believe it means bringing us to a point where we see the reality of Jesus and how he is indispensable to our Salvation and eternal life. That is the point in time that Paul talks about in Romans 10:9-11. Confess means to agree with God. To confess Jesus as our savior means to agree with God that he is our savior, and only we can do that. We are NEVER forced into that position.

 

[justaname]

And you have been fairly well refuted in all these points and positions. Everybody chooses to accept a gift, they cannot be compelled to do so. Making the proper decision or not is evident throughout scripture. Adam and Eve made the wrong decision, Moses made the wrong decision comma David made the wrong decision comma Peter made wrong decisions and the ultimate wrong decision was made by Judas. Jesus said God draws us to him period drawing does not mean causing us to believe it means bringing us to a point where we see the reality of Jesus and how he is indispensable to our Salvation and eternal life. That is the point in time that Paul talks about in Romans 10:9-11. Confess means to agree with God. To confess Jesus as our savior means to agree with God that he is our savior, and only we can do that. We are NEVER forced into that position.

Being well refuted is a matter of opinion, just like this comment does no convincing refuting.

I do agree confessing means to agree with God. Peter's confession was a result of God's doing, not that of flesh and blood, and yes that would include Peter's flesh and blood also.

 

[OzSpen]

Perhaps you do not like my answers.

That's your straw man fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

I did just read your link you posted. I do like the beginning portion, that dealing with the text and admittedly the only section I read due to time constraints. This section though I need more time with:

The human will is freed for all people in regard to salvation. This is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

I do not see the necessity of implying a freed human will in regard to salvation for the call of these to maintain truth and conviction. Not only does the appearance of Jesus Christ bring salvation to all, but He also brings condemnation. It is only through belief that salvation is actualized, while unbelief actualizes condemnation. Perhaps further study will bring me to a different conclusion, yet as it is I am not convinced of your conclusion. Here I am reminded of Revelation:

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
11 “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

I don't think you have fully comprehended what I stated in providing this biblical evidence:

The human will is freed for all people in regard to salvation. This is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

When God urges/exhorts people to turn to God, to repent, and to believe, God knows it is possible for these people to do so. God would not be calling people to these actions if it was not possible for them to do so. Therefore, God has freed the will to enable them to do this. Norman Geisler has expounded this position well in his book, Chosen But Free (Bethany House 2010).

Here is a list of the early church fathers who supported free will. I agree with their position. Irenaeus (Against Heresies XXXVII) wrote:

'"How often would I Have gathered they children together, and thou wouldst not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion.... But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God' (emphasis added).

The link given provides much evidence in support of free will and with support from Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't get anything from this because you were not specific when I directly asked where you believe I did not deal with the issues you raised. You decided to answer with more questions; very unhelpful if you were truly attempting to have open, honest discourse. Now if you desire to continue your allegation of a red herring I suggest you be more specific and clear where you feel I am at fault, otherwise desist in your accusation.

Don't you know what a red herring fallacy is and how you have been committing it against me in this thread? See HERE for an explanation of how a red herring is committed.

I've provided explanations of how you do it with me. There is no need for me to explain it further. There is a need for you to admit that you do it.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Being well refuted is a matter of opinion, just like this comment does no convincing refuting.I do agree confessing means to agree with God. Peter's confession was a result of God's doing, not that of flesh and blood, and yes that would include Peter's flesh and blood also.

It wasn't meant to is it was just addressing your post it wasn't pertinent to mind at all but just signified that you had nothing more to say or were able to say about my previous response to you. You do tend to do this when you really don't have a pertinent reply.

 

[justaname]

Don't you know what a red herring fallacy is and how you have been committing it against me in this thread? See HERE for an explanation of how a red herring is committed.

I've provided explanations of how you do it with me. There is no need for me to explain it further. There is a need for you to admit that you do it.

Oz

Respectfully,

I answered all the issues you raised, then added further support to my refutation of your positions or defense of mine. This does not constitute a red herring.

Your unwillingness to be specific in your accusations are causing me to question the validity of them.

 

[StanJ]

Respectfully,I answered all the issues you raised, then added further support to my refutation of your positions or defense of mine. This does not constitute a red herring.Your unwillingness to be specific in your accusations are causing me to question the validity of them.

Actually you haven't, and despite your issue with Oz in regards to red herring fallacies, how can a person repent if not for his own free will? I understand your reluctance to answer this because it is a slippery slope once you admit or concede to one point in your tightly woven argument, but the reality is, the truth doesn't need to be a complex tightly woven scenario but is simple in its lack of complexity. Jesus didn't present a flower to humanity, He presented his own truth in himself and showed the way to Salvation. The onus was always on the hearers of His messages, to repent and believe in who He was. Not once did Jesus ever allow or claim that salvation was not a matter of choice. You can equivocate about everything that Paul states in his letters, but the bottom line is that Paul agreed with Jesus and the simplicity of the gospel of salvation.

 

[justaname]

Actually you haven't, and despite your issue with Oz in regards to red herring fallacies, how can a person repent if not for his own free will? I understand your reluctance to answer this because it is a slippery slope once you admit or concede to one point in your tightly woven argument, but the reality is, the truth doesn't need to be a complex tightly woven scenario but is simple in its lack of complexity. Jesus didn't present a flower to humanity, He presented his own truth in himself and showed the way to Salvation. The onus was always on the hearers of His messages, to repent and believe in who He was. Not once did Jesus ever allow or claim that salvation was not a matter of choice. You can equivocate about everything that Paul states in his letters, but the bottom line is that Paul agreed with Jesus and the simplicity of the gospel of salvation.

Stan my language has been very clear. I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.

None can come to God unless it is given by Him.

The remainder of your rethoric is truly a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my position.

Shalom!

 

[FHII]

Stan my language has been very clear. I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.

None can come to God unless it is given by Him.

Absolutely agree! Nice way to put it.

 

[StanJ]

Stan my language has been very clear. I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.
None can come to God unless it is given by Him.
The remainder of your rethoric is truly a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my position.

Yes, clearly equivocal. And you're doing it again by saying you never 'stated the gospel was not a matter of choice', when in fact you do by stating that we have no Free Will and believing in southern election. You really think that's slightly changing words are going to follow me or rather is that know? I find that to be a very disingenuous way to discuss things.
Jesus said 'nobody can come to me unless the father draws him', not 'gives' him, so again you use equivocal wording.

Well if it TRULY is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of your position, then show how that is, and don't just be dismissive about it. I could easily say that about everything you post, but I do respond to most of your points. Again sadly this is the type of typical rhetoric I do see all the time from people who dogmatically push RT.

Oh and by the way you totally ignored every point I made in the post you responded to here.

 

[OzSpen]

Stan my language has been very clear. I have never stated the gospel was not a matter of choice. Men left to their devices would never make the choice to turn to God is my contention. God is the initiate in salvation in more than generating a plan, he acts in the lives of individuals.

None can come to God unless it is given by Him.

The remainder of your rethoric is truly a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of my position.

Shalom!

How does that position align with 1 John 2:2 (ESV), 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world'?

Does your position mean that this verse does not apply to the whole world, but only to the ones God draws and not to the ones God does not draw?

Why could it not apply to all the world for salvation (as in Titus 2:11 ESV) and God gives all people the ability to say 'yes' or 'no' to him? That means salvation is God-centred on God's terms, but not on Calvinistic terms.

That God gives people the opportunity to choose for or against him is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Respectfully,

I answered all the issues you raised, then added further support to my refutation of your positions or defense of mine. This does not constitute a red herring.

Your unwillingness to be specific in your accusations are causing me to question the validity of them.

No, you did not answer the specific issues I raised in your red herring responses.

As for my specifics, can't you see what you did at #62? You quoted my specifics. Here they are again:

That God gives people the opportunity to choose for or against him is implied by all of the verses in Scripture that exhort people to turn to God (see Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; Acts 3:19); to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts2:38; 17:30), and to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23) (from my article for which I provided a link at #55, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11)

Don't ever accuse me of not dealing with the specifics when I have. I gave you the link to this article at my post #55 that enabled you to obtain this information - specifics from me.

You are playing games when you accuse me of not giving specifics. I find this to be dishonest and I'm not impressed.

Oz