Calvinism and Hell

[CheeseMan]

As I come to a greater understanding of Calvinism, I struggle with the following concept:

If Christ died for the elect only, then those who were not chosen have been granted hell without any choice. Outside of a Calvinist realm, hell seems fair. Trust in God or trust in yourself. If you die trusting in yourself and forsaking God, you will remain apart from God. On the other hand, if you are living within the Calvinistic realm, eternal hell seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel.

I am not rejecting God's sovereignty in its totality, but rather questioning that a sovereign God must and does control every action for His Glory. Cannot a sovereign God put the wheels in motion, knowing the final outcome, but still allowing choice? I know that God can, and has intervened to nudge us back on track, but does he control every human decision. If so, it seems like an awful waste of pain and suffering on the un-elect.

What would be the point in torturing the un-elect in hell for all eternity if they had no choice? Annihilation would have been a more appropriate alternative for a Calvinistic view of God.

Tread lightly, as I am exploring this issue and walking out my faith.

[logos_x]

As I come to a greater understanding of Calvinism, I struggle with the following concept:

If Christ died for the elect only, then those who were not chosen have been granted hell without any choice. Outside of a Calvinist realm, hell seems fair. Trust in God or trust in yourself. If you die trusting in yourself and forsaking God, you will remain apart from God. On the other hand, if you are living within the Calvinistic realm, eternal hell seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel.

Ironic isn't it?
Choice makes Hell "seem" fair.
Anyway...these issues are part of the reason I studied the whole issue of Hell in the first place...and finally realized that everything God is doing in His sovriegnity , even "Hell", is moving us toward "the restitution of all things".

Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Hear is theThayer definition for restitution: G605 ἀποκατάστασις apokatastasis Thayer Definition:1) restoration 1a) of a true theocracy 1b) of the perfect state before the fall
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G600

G600 ἀποκαθίστημι apokathistēmi Thayer Definition: 1) to restore to its former state 2) to be in its former state
Part of Speech: verb


I am not rejecting God's sovereignty in its totality, but rather questioning that a sovereign God must and does control every action for His Glory. Cannot a sovereign God put the wheels in motion, knowing the final outcome, but still allowing choice? I know that God can, and has intervened to nudge us back on track, but does he control every human decision. If so, it seems like an awful waste of pain and suffering on the un-elect.

Indeed...IF eternal torment were actually true.
Thankfully..but really, hell is the 'corrective punishment of the ages' Matt 25:46 renders it "eternal punishment' in KJV and it's cousins.

What would be the point in torturing the un-elect in hell for all eternity if they had no choice? Annihilation would have been a more appropriate alternative for a Calvinistic view of God.

Indeed...what would be the point if they had a "choice"?

Tread lightly, as I am exploring this issue and walking out my faith.

Calvinism is wrong and based on a mis-understanding of "predestination".

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

This is talking about the same thing as Acts 3:21.

[Sold Out]

What would be the point in torturing the un-elect in hell for all eternity if they had no choice? Annihilation would have been a more appropriate alternative for a Calvinistic view of God.

Tread lightly, as I am exploring this issue and walking out my faith.

Something important to remember is that hell was never created for humans Matthew 25:41 says, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Since hell was not created for humans, then God's original plan for humankind did not involve humans going to hell. It stands to reason that man HIMSELF is responsible for sending himself there - by willfully rejecting salvation through Jesus Christ. God created hell for the 1/3 angels of heaven who followed Satan at the fall. This happened before Adam and Eve first sinned.

God gives every man a choice to accept or reject His terms of salvation. God has foreknowledge, and knows who will and who won't accept salvation, but that in no way affects free will. God has not imposed the eternal death sentence to some men while choosing others to be saved. That theology casts doubt on the goodness of God. Satan is very clever, isn't he?

[Clete]

As I come to a greater understanding of Calvinism, I struggle with the following concept:

If Christ died for the elect only, then those who were not chosen have been granted hell without any choice. Outside of a Calvinist realm, hell seems fair. Trust in God or trust in yourself. If you die trusting in yourself and forsaking God, you will remain apart from God. On the other hand, if you are living within the Calvinistic realm, eternal hell seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel.

I am not rejecting God's sovereignty in its totality, but rather questioning that a sovereign God must and does control every action for His Glory. Cannot a sovereign God put the wheels in motion, knowing the final outcome, but still allowing choice? I know that God can, and has intervened to nudge us back on track, but does he control every human decision. If so, it seems like an awful waste of pain and suffering on the un-elect.

What would be the point in torturing the un-elect in hell for all eternity if they had no choice? Annihilation would have been a more appropriate alternative for a Calvinistic view of God.

Tread lightly, as I am exploring this issue and walking out my faith.

POTD! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=714392&postcount=1) :first:

Excellent point!

[Berean Todd]

As I come to a greater understanding of Calvinism, I struggle with the following concept:

If Christ died for the elect only, then those who were not chosen have been granted hell without any choice

Wrong entirely. The point is not that some are given a choice (the elect) and some are not (the non-elect). That is a complete misunderstanding. The point is that ALL men are given a choice, but as God's Word says, NONE of of us choose Him. No one. Read Romans. None choose God. God chooses some who He draws to Him (the Word literally says that He DRAGS them to Himself). That is Calvinism.

[logos_x]

Wrong entirely. The point is not that some are given a choice (the elect) and some are not (the non-elect). That is a complete misunderstanding. The point is that ALL men are given a choice, but as God's Word says, NONE of of us choose Him. No one. Read Romans. None choose God. God chooses some who He draws to Him (the Word literally says that He DRAGS them to Himself). That is Calvinism.

Calvinists can readily see the reasons universal salvation is true.

[Clete]

Wrong entirely. The point is not that some are given a choice (the elect) and some are not (the non-elect). That is a complete misunderstanding. The point is that ALL men are given a choice, but as God's Word says, NONE of of us choose Him. No one. Read Romans. None choose God. God chooses some who He draws to Him (the Word literally says that He DRAGS them to Himself). That is Calvinism.
This is typical of what Calvinists say but it is not logically consistent with the bulk of their core theologies. Choice is discounted, an illusion if all things have been predestined and God controls every single event that happens.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Calvinists can readily see the reasons universal salvation is true.
If so, it is only so much more evidence that they are prone to poor logic and down right irrationality.

[philosophizer]

Wrong entirely. The point is not that some are given a choice (the elect) and some are not (the non-elect). That is a complete misunderstanding. The point is that ALL men are given a choice, but as God's Word says, NONE of of us choose Him. No one. Read Romans. None choose God. God chooses some who He draws to Him (the Word literally says that He DRAGS them to Himself). That is Calvinism.

Doesn't that effectively mean that there is no choice?

[logos_x]

If so, it is only so much more evidence that they are prone to poor logic and down right irrationality.

The restitution of all things is Biblical. (see post #2)
But...since you don't believe in it, and it is just as much Bible as anything else...you could actually be a victim of poor logic and down right irrationality.

If you just take bits and pieces of scripture to form a doctrine...it will never encompass the awsome ability of the Creator to also save to the uttermost.

[Berean Todd]

Doesn't that effectively mean that there is no choice?

I am on my way to class right no so can't fully respond, I will do so later at leangth for you guys, as no one here cares to even understand Calvinist theology (poor from supposed scholars) or else blatantly mischaracterizes it (even poorer).

To that point though, no it does not, it means we all have choice, and we all choose other than God. He though, by His own grace, for His own purpose, according to His own will, chooses some of us whom He drags to Himself.

[elected4ever]

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me". None come to Jesus unless they be drawn. You might not like that but that is the word of God. All who here the word are drawn. That does not mean that ever one who hears the word and is drawn accepts the word and believes. The Apostle Paul ask, "How shall they come if they do not hear? How shall they hear without a preacher". It is not that Jesus is unwilling to draw some to himself because he has proclaimed that he will draw all. The onus to proclaim is with us. If we do not proclaim then the word is not heard and the Holy Spirit will not convict of sin. If there is a failure, then it is ours not God"s. We are the ones that were told to go into all the world and preach the Gospel even to the uttermost parts of the world.

[Clete]

I am on my way to class right no so can't fully respond, I will do so later at length for you guys, as no one here cares to even understand Calvinist theology (poor from supposed scholars) or else blatantly mischaracterizes it (even poorer).
I have been accused of this so many times its ridiculous, and not one single person has yet shown me one single thing about Calvinism that I didn't already know and that I haven't said a hundred times. Nor have they ever been able to demonstrate how my so called "blatantly mischaracterizations" are in any way inaccurate. I readily admit that I couch things in terms different than what the typical Calvinist would use but that is because this is a debate forum and I play to win.
I will make you a challenge and extend it to any Calvinist who is reading this post. You state, in whatever terms you like, any distinctly Calvinist doctrine and I will debate it on those terms. It makes no difference how you say it, predestination is predestination, total depravity is total depravity, etc, etc. If you don't like the way I state a particular doctrine, then put it in your own words and it will still be wrong and I will prove it by Scripture and by plain reason.

To that point though, no it does not, it means we all have choice, and we all choose other than God. He though, by His own grace, for His own purpose, according to His own will, chooses some of us whom He drags to Himself.
Semantics! Meaningless semantics. If God predestined your "choice", which you cannot deny and remain a Calvinist, then it wasn't your choice at all, but His.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me". None come to Jesus unless they be drawn. You might not like that but that is the word of God. All who here the word are drawn. That does not mean that ever one who hears the word and is drawn accepts the word and believes. The Apostle Paul ask, "How shall they come if they do not hear? How shall they hear without a preacher". It is not that Jesus is unwilling to draw some to himself because he has proclaimed that he will draw all. The onus to proclaim is with us. If we do not proclaim then the word is not heard and the Holy Spirit will not convict of sin. If there is a failure, then it is ours not God's. We are the ones that were told to go into all the world and preach the Gospel even to the uttermost parts of the world.
If we go unto all the world, it is precisely and only because God predestined us to do so. Is that not what Calvinism teaches? If someone preaches, are they not preaching because they were predestined to preach eons before the world began? If someone rejects the preached message where they not predestined to reject it millennia before time began? According to Calvinist doctrine, what has ever happened (or not happened) that was not predestined BY GOD HIMSELF to turn out just exactly the way it did?
You contradict your own theology practically every time you post, which is not a reflection on you so much as it is on Calvinism itself because ALL Calvinists do this, all of them! You cannot help it because you're painted into the corner of exhaustive predestination which will not allow you to turn to the right or to the left without contradicting yourself, which you, if you were consistent, would have to admit was itself predestined to happen! According to your own theology, I've been predestined to believe in free will, and you have been predestined to contradict yourself at practically every move! How can that make any sense?!!!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Berean Todd]

Your view on predestination and election is tied entirely and completely to your view of man and how lost you are. That is the turning point, what is the state of man, and what does the Bible teach about it? I'm not going to go into a 10 page essay on the subject of Calvinism, but I will briefly walk through some of the steps.

1. Man - what does the Bible say about us?

Well, we all admit that Romans says that we all have sinned and fallen short of His glory. The Bible teaches that in Adam all sinned (original sin) and that by nature we are sinners. The wages of sin are death. But it says more than that.

1 Cor 1-2 says that the Gospel is foolishness to the lost person, and that the natural man CAN NOT understand the Gospel. You can't react to what you can't understand. Ephesians 2:1 and elsewhere also says that we are spiritually dead. How can a dead person react or receive? Well it I allready answered, 1 Cor says that they can not.

Isaiah says that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags. The OT also says that none turn to God, which we are also told in Romans 1, that none are righteous, that no man chooses God. I can go on, but the Scripture is plain in it's judgement of man and our heart condition. Our nature, our state.

2. If man has no power to accept the Gospel, to save Himself, then is anyone saved?

Yes, the Bible is clear that some are saved.

3. If God chooses to save some, does He choose to save all?

No, the Bible is clear that Jesus/God does not save all. Most all here will agree to that, save the few scattered universalists.

4. Does the Bible clearly lay out a group of people called the elect?

Yes it is clear all through the NT. In fact in John 10, Jesus talks of being the Good Shepherd and how He lays down His life for His sheep. Following this passage the pharisees come up to Him and ask Him for a sign if He is the Christ. He scolds them and tells them this:

"You have not believed, because you are not of my sheep." (John 10:27)

Now, He did NOT say "because you don't believe you are not my sheep ..." He clearly says that they do not BELIEVE because they were not His sheep. Now consider that Christ says that He lays down His life for His sheep, but He says that these people are not His sheep. The clear and only conclusion is that He did NOT lay down His life for those pharisees whom He was speaking to.

Ephesians 1:4 says that we were chosen before the world began. 2 Thes 2:13 says that we were chosen from the begining for salvation. John 6:44 says that the Father has to DRAG us to the Son. That word there is usually translated there as draw, but it is not in a wooing sense, that exact word in Acts is used to say that Paul was DRAGGED by a mob, the mob did not entice Paul, they physically dragged him. That word in the Greek can not mean "wooing" like He is trying to get us to come to Him, it means a forcible dragging, as against one's own will. I can go on ad infinitum on the subject of the elect, but the NT is very clear on it.

So what does it all mean? Look, we are God's workmanship, created for good works, which God set out before time for us to do (Eph 2:10). He knows who will choose Him, because we can't choose Him apart from His dragging us unto Himself. No man comes to the Father lest He is drug.

Before I was saved I had no interest at all in God. I was running as hard as I could from Him. I wasn't woo'ed to Him I was hit over the head, my heart was changed. The Bible is clear on one thing - man will never and does never choose God. We are sinful and fallen and unable to understand the Gospel, let alone react to it.

It is only when the Spirit draws us, through the power of the Gospel, that we are regenerated and then respond to God's calling on us. The calling that Ephesians says was set out before time began.

[Lighthouse]

Tha father of Calvinism is Plato. And he wasn't even a Christian. He was a polytheist, a pagan.

[Ninjashadow]

So, Calvin doesn't have anything to do with it?

[Lighthouse]

So, Calvin doesn't have anything to do with it?
Calvin got his ideas from Augustine, who fgot his ideas from Plato. And even admits that he took Plato's word over what the Bible said, supposing that the Bible was translated wrongly, or that it didn't mean what it said.

[elected4ever]

If we go unto all the world, it is precisely and only because God predestined us to do so. Is that not what Calvinism teaches? If someone preaches, are they not preaching because they were predestined to preach eons before the world began? If someone rejects the preached message where they not predestined to reject it millennia before time began? According to Calvinist doctrine, what has ever happened (or not happened) that was not predestined BY GOD HIMSELF to turn out just exactly the way it did?
You contradict your own theology practically every time you post, which is not a reflection on you so much as it is on Calvinism itself because ALL Calvinists do this, all of them! You cannot help it because you're painted into the corner of exhaustive predestination which will not allow you to turn to the right or to the left without contradicting yourself, which you, if you were consistent, would have to admit was itself predestined to happen! According to your own theology, I've been predestined to believe in free will, and you have been predestined to contradict yourself at practically every move! How can that make any sense?!!!

Resting in Him,
CleteAre you naturally stupid or do you have to work at it? It seems to me you are looking for an excuse to fail.

[Lighthouse]

Clete-
In e4e's defense, as you have been told before, he is not a Calvinist.

[elected4ever]

Clete-
In e4e's defense, as you have been told before, he is not a Calvinist.Thank you.

[Clete]

Clete-
In e4e's defense, as you have been told before, he is not a Calvinist.
He doesn't call himself a Calvinist but he beleives what Calvinism teaches so as far as I'm concerned that makes him a Calvinist. If you quack like a duck, walk like a duck, and swim like a duck, you're a duck.
Prove me wrong by simply and openly admitting that God does not predestine everything that happens.
If you state plainly that there are things that have happened and that will happen that were never planned or predestined to happen by God before the world began I will stop calling you a Calvinist.
If you are unwilling to make such a statement then respond to the point made and quit playing idiotic word games.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[philosophizer]

To that point though, no it does not, it means we all have choice, and we all choose other than God. He though, by His own grace, for His own purpose, according to His own will, chooses some of us whom He drags to Himself.

Okay. But can a man choose God? Is it even possible in any sense? If not, then it is not an option. And if choosing God is not an option, then there really isn't a choice; even if the option is offered, it is not available.

I could go talk to my grandma's cat with bladder problems and tell it that it can either stop peeing all over the place or it can go to the pound. But if it really can't stop peeing (and can't understand me in the first place), then even though I'm being so generous as to provide the option, there no way we can say that the cat actually has a choice.

Now, maybe you're saying that Adam had a choice. Maybe Adam's choice applied to us all; certainly the consequences did. But if you're saying that the consequences render the option out of our reach, how is that still a choice? You can say that "ALL men are given a choice," but if you really mean that only Adam was given a choice, you might as well say that.

While I agree that Adam's choice and Christ's choice are really the weightiest choices in our human history, I do believe that we all have choices as well; real choices, that is.

[elected4ever]

He doesn't call himself a Calvinist but he beleives what Calvinism teaches so as far as I'm concerned that makes him a Calvinist. If you quack like a duck, walk like a duck, and swim like a duck, you're a duck.
Prove me wrong by simply and openly admitting that God does not predestine everything that happens.
If you state plainly that there are things that have happened and that will happen that were never planned or predestined to happen by God before the world began I will stop calling you a Calvinist.
If you are unwilling to make such a statement then respond to the point made and quit playing idiotic word games.

Resting in Him,
CleteWhat have I written that you should think that I am a Calvinist? The only things that is predestined is the plan God has executed from the foundation of the world. The fate of the children of God and the fate of the enemies of Christ. I have never said that I or anyone else was predestined to be saved or lost.You talk like an idiot, act like an idiot so therefore you must be an Idiot but I don't think you are an idiot, just misinformed. :baby:

[Berean Todd]

Okay. But can a man choose God? Is it even possible in any sense? If not, then it is not an option. And if choosing God is not an option, then there really isn't a choice; even if the option is offered, it is not available.

I could go talk to my grandma's cat with bladder problems and tell it that it can either stop peeing all over the place or it can go to the pound. But if it really can't stop peeing (and can't understand me in the first place), then even though I'm being so generous as to provide the option, there no way we can say that the cat actually has a choice.

Now, maybe you're saying that Adam had a choice. Maybe Adam's choice applied to us all; certainly the consequences did. But if you're saying that the consequences render the option out of our reach, how is that still a choice? You can say that "ALL men are given a choice," but if you really mean that only Adam was given a choice, you might as well say that.

While I agree that Adam's choice and Christ's choice are really the weightiest choices in our human history, I do believe that we all have choices as well; real choices, that is.


That's all fine that you believe that we all have choices, I understand that is our natural inclination. I did not start out a calvinist (nor do I now call myself one, but by my doctrine all here would class me as one). I didn't want to accept these doctrines, they are not natural to our fallen state. We all want to feel that we are in control, that we have command, but the question is not what do we think, but what does God say? I've allready covered that - NO ONE comes to God (Romans 1, Isaiah), we have to be DRAGGED to God (John 6), the Gospel is foolish to unsaved man (1 Cor 1) who can't even understand ANYTHING spiritual (1 Cor 2). We were chosen before time began (Eph 1 and elsewhere), predestined to salvation (2 Thess 3, Rom 8).

I notice no one has tackled my last post too. It wasn't the leangthiest nor best defense I could have made, but still I would love for someone to try and handle it.

[philosophizer]

That's all fine that you believe that we all have choices, I understand that is our natural inclination. I did not start out a calvinist (nor do I now call myself one, but by my doctrine all here would class me as one). I didn't want to accept these doctrines, they are not natural to our fallen state. We all want to feel that we are in control, that we have command, but the question is not what do we think, but what does God say? I've allready covered that - NO ONE comes to God (Romans 1, Isaiah), we have to be DRAGGED to God (John 6), the Gospel is foolish to unsaved man (1 Cor 1) who can't even understand ANYTHING spiritual (1 Cor 2). We were chosen before time began (Eph 1 and elsewhere), predestined to salvation (2 Thess 3, Rom 8).

All I'm saying is that if man cannot choose God in any way, shape, or form, then we cannot say that he has a choice. The option may be there, but if it is an impossible option, then there really isn't a choice. If someone offered to either drive me to work or teleport me there, the offering of the option of teleportation doesn't make it any more possible, or any more a choice I can make.

[philosophizer]

I'm just trying to say that if people must be "dragged" to God, we shouldn't say that "all men get a choice."

[Clete]

What have I written that you should think that I am a Calvinist?
What haven't you written?

The only things that is predestined is the plan God has executed from the foundation of the world.
You are the king of nonresponsive answers, that much is certain!
What has ever happened that was not included in that plan, if anything?

The fate of the children of God and the fate of the enemies of Christ. I have never said that I or anyone else was predestined to be saved or lost.
Who else is there besides the children of God and the enemies of God? Doesn't that pretty much cover every single person one the planet? I think it does. So which is it, is everyone predestined or not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Someone who isn't afraid to be called a Calvinist should shut this guy up! He's doing more damage to your theology than an army of Open Theists could do in a life time! :chuckle:

[elected4ever]

What haven't you written?


You are the king of nonresponsive answers, that much is certain!
What has ever happened that was not included in that plan, if anything?


Who else is there besides the children of God and the enemies of God? Doesn't that pretty much cover every single person one the planet? I think it does. So which is it, is everyone predestined or not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Someone who isn't afraid to be called a Calvinist should shut this guy up! He's doing more damage to your theology than an army of Open Theists could do in a life time! :chuckle:your brain dead and cannot read in context.

[Clete]

your brain dead and cannot read in context.
And you're so used to getting trounced in debates that you've stopped trying! :chuckle:

[elected4ever]

And you're so used to getting trounced in debates that you've stopped trying! :chuckle:No use arguing with idiots. I have told you the truth but you had rather believe you funny book instead than the Bible.

[ChristisKing]

As I come to a greater understanding of Calvinism, I struggle with the following concept:

If Christ died for the elect only, then those who were not chosen have been granted hell without any choice. Outside of a Calvinist realm, hell seems fair. Trust in God or trust in yourself. If you die trusting in yourself and forsaking God, you will remain apart from God. On the other hand, if you are living within the Calvinistic realm, eternal hell seems bizarre and unnecessarily cruel.

I am not rejecting God's sovereignty in its totality, but rather questioning that a sovereign God must and does control every action for His Glory. Cannot a sovereign God put the wheels in motion, knowing the final outcome, but still allowing choice? I know that God can, and has intervened to nudge us back on track, but does he control every human decision. If so, it seems like an awful waste of pain and suffering on the un-elect.

What would be the point in torturing the un-elect in hell for all eternity if they had no choice? Annihilation would have been a more appropriate alternative for a Calvinistic view of God.

Tread lightly, as I am exploring this issue and walking out my faith.

"Walking" out your faith?

They go to hell because of their sins, Calvinism is the purest form of the Gospel. I love it!

[Lighthouse]

Calvinism is based almost entirely on the pagan ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It contradicts the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that anyone is predestined to hell. In fact, if it even says that anyone is predestined to go to heaven, than it says all are. And who beieves that?

People go to hell because they reject god. Pure and simple. Not because they were created for the sole purpose of going to hell.

[elected4ever]

Calvinism is based almost entirely on the pagan ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It contradicts the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that anyone is predestined to hell. In fact, if it even says that anyone is predestined to go to heaven, than it says all are. And who beieves that?

People go to hell because they reject god. Pure and simple. Not because they were created for the sole purpose of going to hell. :BRAVO:

[God_Is_Truth]

Your view on predestination and election is tied entirely and completely to your view of man and how lost you are. That is the turning point, what is the state of man, and what does the Bible teach about it? I'm not going to go into a 10 page essay on the subject of Calvinism, but I will briefly walk through some of the steps.

I’d love to read the 10 page essay if you ever get around to it :D


1. Man - what does the Bible say about us?

Well, we all admit that Romans says that we all have sinned and fallen short of His glory. The Bible teaches that in Adam all sinned (original sin) and that by nature we are sinners. The wages of sin are death.

No disagreement here.


1 Cor 1-2 says that the Gospel is foolishness to the lost person, and that the natural man CAN NOT understand the Gospel. You can't react to what you can't understand.

1 Corinthians 1
18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

While it says that it’s foolishness to those who are perishing, it does not mean one cannot understand it. All it means is that when one first hears it, it sounds like non-sense to them. It seems “foolish”, but that is very different from being unable to understand it.

In the second chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul states that the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God and that he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. Now we must look at the context to determine what are the “things of the Spirit of God” that he is speaking of here.

At the beginning of chapter 2 Paul speaks about how he came with much trembling, proclaiming the cross, determining to know it and it alone. He says he did not come with superior speech or superior wisdom and that his preaching consisted of neither of these things. Instead, it was a demonstration of the power of the Spirit of God.

Paul goes on to say that even though he did not speak with persuasive words of wisdom, yet he does speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, a wisdom that is not of this world, but one that God had kept hidden, having predestined it before the ages to our glory.

This wisdom that Paul speaks is distinct from preaching “Christ crucified” which was not in persuasive words of wisdom. This wisdom is spoken among the mature and is only discerned by the spiritual men. The natural man does not understand it and cannot because it is spiritually discerned.

If there was any other doubt that Paul was speaking of something apart from the gospel, one must only look to the first verse of Chapter 3 where Paul states

1 Corinthians 3
1And I, brethren, [v]could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh[/b], as to infants in Christ.
2I gave you (DB)milk to drink, not solid food; for you (DC)were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
3for you are still fleshly.
He was speaking to men who had the gospel, who should’ve been ready for the spiritual things, the meat, but instead they were still acting fleshy and Paul had to speak to them as natural men, giving them the milk (the gospel) again.
The point here is that Paul could not speak to them as “spiritual men” who discerned “spiritual things” but they still had the gospel and were just infants in Christ. Thus, the gospel is not part of the “spiritual things” which can only be discerned spiritually.

Ephesians 2:1 and elsewhere also says that we are spiritually dead. How can a dead person react or receive? Well it I allready answered, 1 Cor says that they can not.

As I have shown, 1 Corinthians is not saying the gospel itself is spiritually discerned. In Ephesians 2:1 we read:

1And you were (A)dead in your trespasses and sins

Which is absolutely correct. But we are not physically dead. And as long as we have breath and life, given to us by the good Lord above, we have opportunity to repent of our sins and turn to God.


Isaiah says that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Yep, we can never come to God on our own terms.


The OT also says that none turn to God, which we are also told in Romans 1, that none are righteous, that no man chooses God. I can go on, but the Scripture is plain in it's judgement of man and our heart condition. Our nature, our state.

I cannot find any OT passage nor anywhere in Romans 1 or 3 that says that in our nature we are unable to turn to God. Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, quoted by Paul in Romans 3 both say that at those points in history, there is no one doing good, no one seeking God etc. Paul uses that passage as evidence against the Jew saying that he himself is like the people David saw who were turned away from God. I see no argument here that man is unable to turn to God or repent of his sins at some future time.


2. If man has no power to accept the Gospel, to save Himself, then is anyone saved?

Yes, the Bible is clear that some are saved.

As long as man has breath and life he has the ability to accept the Gospel. He does not save himself though, not even when he accepts the Gospel. When he does accept the Gospel, God saves him through it.


3. If God chooses to save some, does He choose to save all?

No, the Bible is clear that Jesus/God does not save all. Most all here will agree to that, save the few scattered universalists.

God chooses to save all who accept the Gospel.


4. Does the Bible clearly lay out a group of people called the elect?

Yes it is clear all through the NT. In fact in John 10, Jesus talks of being the Good Shepherd and how He lays down His life for His sheep. Following this passage the pharisees come up to Him and ask Him for a sign if He is the Christ. He scolds them and tells them this:

"You have not believed, because you are not of my sheep." (John 10:27)

Now, He did NOT say "because you don't believe you are not my sheep ..." He clearly says that they do not BELIEVE because they were not His sheep. Now consider that Christ says that He lays down His life for His sheep, but He says that these people are not His sheep. The clear and only conclusion is that He did NOT lay down His life for those pharisees whom He was speaking to.

First point—nowhere does it say Jesus laid down his life ONLY for the sheep. All it says is that he does lay his life down for them. To assume he didn’t lay it down for those who aren’t his sheep is, just that, an assumption.

Second point—“but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep” the Pharisees were not believing Jesus when he said he was the Christ. They did not believe because they were not his sheep. What kind of people were the sheep?

John 10
27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

The sheep:
A) hear My voice
B) are known by Christ
C) Follow Me

These are the three characteristics given by Jesus in John 10 about his sheep. The two the Pharisees were lacking were A and C (B is not in their control). The Pharisees had refused to hear the voice of Christ. They certainly heard what he said, but they refused to listen to it and obey it. They had ears, but were not using them to hear.

They had also refused to follow after Christ even after many works had been shown them. Thus, they were not sheep on the basis of those two areas of their lives. Therefore, because THEY had not listened to the voice of Christ, and because THEY had decided not to follow Christ (thus, making them not of his sheep), they did not believe Jesus when he said he was the Christ.

That is why Jesus said to them “you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep”.


Ephesians 1:4 says that we were chosen before the world began.

Ephesians 1
3(I)Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in (J)the heavenly places in Christ,
4just as (K)He chose us in Him before (L)the foundation of the world, that we would be (M)holy and blameless before Him (N)In love
5He (O)predestined us to (P)adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, (Q)according to the kind intention of His will,
6(R)to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in (S)the Beloved.
In verse 4 of Ephesians chapter 1, Paul states we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. The question here, therefore, is what is being spoken of here, individual election, or corporate (group)? It seems to be rather vague in verses 3-5, but when we come to verse 6, we see the phrase “which he freely bestowed [b]on us in the Beloved”

The phrase “in the Beloved” is absolutely key in determining whether it is individual or corporate election being spoken of here. It says in verse 6 that it was freely bestowed “on us” which at first leads us to think of individual election. But when we read “in the Beloved”, we understand that it was bestowed on us because we are in the Beloved.

Therefore, all the things Paul has been writing up to this point are about us individually, but only because we are in Christ. We are predestined to adoption as Sons because we are in Christ. We are predestined now to become like Christ, holy and blameless because we are in Christ. Thus, it seems obvious, that though the glory of the church and the cleansing of it to be holy and blameless was all done before the foundation of the world, they are only applied to us in the here and now when we are “in the Beloved”.


2 Thes 2:13 says that we were chosen from the begining for salvation.

2 Thessalonians 2
12in order that they all may be judged who (C)did not believe the truth, but (D)took pleasure in wickedness.
13(E)But we should always give thanks to God for you, (F)brethren beloved by the Lord, because (G)God has chosen you [a]from the beginning (H)for salvation (I)through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14It was for this He (J)called you through (K)our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
First, I must say that the text does not say what “from the beginning” is referring to. ‘The beginning of what?’ is the question to be asked. But I do not think it matters. No matter when the beginning is or what it is of, the latter half of the verse says that it was for salvation through both work by the Spirit and faith in the truth. God put a condition and that condition was faith in the truth. So even though they were chosen from the beginning for salvation, they were required to have faith in the truth to actually be saved.


John 6:44 says that the Father has to DRAG us to the Son. That word there is usually translated there as draw, but it is not in a wooing sense, that exact word in Acts is used to say that Paul was DRAGGED by a mob, the mob did not entice Paul, they physically dragged him. That word in the Greek can not mean "wooing" like He is trying to get us to come to Him, it means a forcible dragging, as against one's own will. I can go on ad infinitum on the subject of the elect, but the NT is very clear on it.

Is it the same Greek word as in John 12:32?

John 12:32
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Also, it is not wise to build an entire doctrine (like irresistible grace) upon one verse. One should take into account the verses which state people can reject God’s will for them and quench the Spirit and things of this sort.

1 Thessalonians 5:19
Do not quench the Spirit

Luke 7:30
30But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.


So what does it all mean? Look, we are God's workmanship, created for good works, which God set out before time for us to do (Eph 2:10). He knows who will choose Him, because we can't choose Him apart from His dragging us unto Himself. No man comes to the Father lest He is drug.

While we are God’s workmanship, created for good works which God prepared in advance for us (not before time), I see no biblical evidence that he knows who will choose him (especially considering I am an open theist).


Before I was saved I had no interest at all in God. I was running as hard as I could from Him. I wasn't woo'ed to Him I was hit over the head, my heart was changed. The Bible is clear on one thing - man will never and does never choose God. We are sinful and fallen and unable to understand the Gospel, let alone react to it.

It is only when the Spirit draws us, through the power of the Gospel, that we are regenerated and then respond to God's calling on us. The calling that Ephesians says was set out before time began.

I believe you had a very real encounter with the living God which changed your life in a very direct way. However, I believe you are incorrect in your understanding of everything that went on during it.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be as thorough as I could be.

In Christ,

GIT

[Lighthouse]

Spiritually discerned? That's not Calvinism.:nono:

[ChristisKing]

Calvinism is based almost entirely on the pagan ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It contradicts the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that anyone is predestined to hell. In fact, if it even says that anyone is predestined to go to heaven, than it says all are. And who beieves that?

People go to hell because they reject god. Pure and simple. Not because they were created for the sole purpose of going to hell.

Calvinism is the Gospel. God has always chosen a people, it is from Genesis, when Plato and Aristotle were in their father Adam's loins, all the way to Revelation. In Romans 9, the Holy Spirit describes our predestination and election to salvation by comparing it to the numerous times that it is specifically taught in the OT. One example provided is the election of Jacob and the non-election of his brother Esau before they were even born:

(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;) ... As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9:11,13

[Clete]

Calvinism is the Gospel. God has always chosen a people, it is from Genesis, when Plato and Aristotle were in their father Adam's loins, all the way to Revelation. In Romans 9, the Holy Spirit describes our predestination and election to salvation by comparing it to the numerous times that it is specifically taught in the OT. One example provided is the election of Jacob and the non-election of his brother Esau before they were even born:

(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;) ... As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9:11,13
As I explained in the other thread Jacob and Esau are used to refer to nations not individuals, which I have proven many times and will do so again if need be. I make this post though to make the following statement.

Romans 9 is the strongest (or at least one of the strongest) chapters AGAINST Calvinism in the entire Bible. It simply has nothing to do with predestination (at least not the Calvinist type anyway).

Resting in Him,
Clete

[ChristisKing]

As I explained in the other thread Jacob and Esau are used to refer to nations not individuals, which I have proven many times and will do so again if need be. I make this post though to make the following statement.

Romans 9 is the strongest (or at least one of the strongest) chapters AGAINST Calvinism in the entire Bible. It simply has nothing to do with predestination (at least not the Calvinist type anyway).

Resting in Him,
Clete

As I said in the other post, the NT teaches that Jacob and Esau were elected as individuals as well. They represent nations, individuals and "the elect and non-elect" of today. You are stripping out 2/3's of what the NT is teaching by just pointing to their representation of nations. As a result you are missing 2/3's of the truth.

Read the verses again;

ROM 9:11 (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;)

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[Berean Todd]

1 Corinthians 1
18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2
14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

While it says that it’s foolishness to those who are perishing, it does not mean one cannot understand it.

Really? Did you miss out the point of 1 Cor 2:14 which I just emboldened in your quote above?

All it means is that when one first hears it, it sounds like non-sense to them. It seems “foolish”, but that is very different from being unable to understand it.

No, read the whole passage in 1 Cor 2:11-14

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have recenved not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the SPirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.


Now this says that we understand because the Spirit of God is in us, and yes, that unsaved (or natural) man can NOT understand anything spiritual. Let's look at another passage here - 1 John 5:1

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Now, I point out two phrases in that passage. First off "Whoever believes" - the words there in the original Greek are singular, present tense participle. In other words a more true translation would be "The one who is believing" but that is clumsy, so it gets translated in most versions as "whoever believes". Now the second "is" in the sentence is another interesting word. In the English it is in the present tense, but the greek is actually in the perfect tense, a tense that we do not have in the English. What the perfect tense is, is it indicated a past action that has continuing present ramifications. In other words being born of the Spirit of God had to precede the present belief.

Look at some examples of this right out of the book of Acts.

Acts 13:48 "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Note that it does not say as many believed were appointed to eternal life, but as many as were appointed believed.

Go now to the 16th chapter of Acts, Paul is working on the woman Lydia, and we read this:

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia , from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshipper of God, was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

You see, we are not sick men who need a doctor in our lost state, the Bible is clear that we are dead, and dead men don't talk, don't walk, don't choose, don't think. We are not open to spiritual things until we are born again of the spirit. We don't need a doctor, because we aren't sick, we are dead, and the only cure is a supernatural God who can powerfully raise us to new life.

I cannot find any OT passage nor anywhere in Romans 1 or 3 that says that in our nature we are unable to turn to God.

Really, how about "There is none righteous, no not one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God ... that passage goes on and on, and ifs found in both Psalms and Romans.



Wrong again, it is not used against just the Jew, the immediate context in Rom 3:9 Paul charges it against both Jew and Greek.

[quote] He does not save himself though, not even when he accepts the Gospel. When he does accept the Gospel, God saves him through it.

Really? Then I have two questions that I want you to answer so we can move forward in this discussion:

1. What separates lost man and saved man?

2. What is the atonement? By this I mean what was the signifigance of the cross, what was Jesus accomplishing through the cross?

First point—nowhere does it say Jesus laid down his life ONLY for the sheep. All it says is that he does lay his life down for them.

He clearly says both that He lays His life down for the sheep, and that some are not of His sheep. You do the math.

Second point—“but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep” the Pharisees were not believing Jesus when he said he was the Christ. They did not believe because they were not his sheep. What kind of people were the sheep?

John 10
27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

The sheep:
A) hear My voice
B) are known by Christ
C) Follow Me

These are the three characteristics given by Jesus in John 10 about his sheep. The two the Pharisees were lacking were A and C (B is not in their control). The Pharisees had refused to hear the voice of Christ. They certainly heard what he said, but they refused to listen to it and obey it. They had ears, but were not using them to hear.

That is the most circular argument I have ever heard. Jesus says they don't believe because they are not His sheep, and you basically turn around and say that the reason they aren't His sheep is because they don't believe. If that's the case then Jesus could have clearly said "Beacause you don't believe and follow me you are not my sheep" and saved us all the confusion. But Jesus, God incarnate, KNEW what He was speaking, and He was quite clear when He said: You do not believe because you are not my sheep.



Is it the same Greek word as in John 12:32?

John 12:32
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Yes, the word is the same, except that notice I changed the color of men in your quotation. That is because the word "men" is not in the text, it is added in. Literally it is that He will "drag/draw all unto Myself" Now, notice Phil 2:10-11, one day all of creation will bow before Christ, and that is what is being spoken of in John 12:32, in verse 31 He was talking about the judgement coming on the world. The point is that we can either bow or be bowed, but one day every one of us will acknowledge Him as Lord of Lords. Apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit though, none will come to Him willingly.




Now, I will stop my response to you there, my chief interest from you would be for you to respond to my two questions I posed above, as I think that is a very important ground in this discussion.

[Clete]

As I said in the other post, the NT teaches that Jacob and Esau were elected as individuals as well. They represent nations, individuals and "the elect and non-elect" of today. You are stripping out 2/3's of what the NT is teaching by just pointing to their representation of nations. As a result you are missing 2/3's of the truth.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Just because you claim that it is talking about individuals doesn't change the fact that Paul was clearly and only talking about the nation of Israel. You are adding to the text and ignoring its context.

Read the verses again;

ROM 9:11 (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;)

ROM 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
I've read the verse a thousand times! It is NOT saying that God prefered one baby over the other! It cannot be saying that or God is unjust.
Further in Gen 25 when God explicitly said that there were two nations in her womb he said the the older shall serve the younger. Which is fine except that Esau never served Jacob! Did the prophecy fail? No it didn't because the prophecy wasn't about Esau and Jacob the indviduals but about the nations which would descend from them.
Further still, Paul is quoting Malachi chapter 1 verses 2 & 3 which says...
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"Yet you say, "In what way have You loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"
Says the LORD.
"Yet Jacob I have loved;
3 But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."

Are you ready for what verse one says? Here it goes...

Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.

It can be proven from so many different angles that Paul was talking about Israel that it literally is not funny. One must simply ignore the clear teaching of Rom. 9 to get any other subject out of this text and resort to quoting isolated sentences which when removed from the obvious context can be made to look as though they are teaching something that they are not. You're as good at this as anyone I've ever come across..

Resting in Him,
Clete

[ChristisKing]

Saying it doesn't make it so. Just because you claim that it is talking about individuals doesn't change the fact that Paul was clearly and only talking about the nation of Israel. You are adding to the text and ignoring its context.

Clete, I'm so sorry. I don't want to continue this. It is so obvious that Jacob and Esau are individuals that to begin arguing this point seems like a real waste of our time.

I've read the verse a thousand times! It is NOT saying that God prefered one baby over the other! It cannot be saying that or God is unjust.

A verse can not be saying something because it doesn't make sense to you? This is not how we begin understanding God. Some say the trinity can't be right because God is one i.e., Islam and the Jews

Further in Gen 25 ... Further still, Paul is quoting Malachi chapter 1 verses 2 & 3 which says...


I'm more concerned with what Romans 9 says.

Well anyway, God bless and I'm sorry if I upset you.

[Clete]

Clete, I'm so sorry. I don't want to continue this. It is so obvious that Jacob and Esau are individuals that to begin arguing this point seems like a real waste of our time.
Very well. If that is how you feel, you are correct by default, it would be a waste of time. But do I seem that stupid to you? If you think it through for just a moment I think it should be clear that I am not so stupid as to be suggesting the Esau and Jacob were not individuals, right? And not to blow my own horn to loudly here but there are a lot of people on this web site, do you suppose that one so asinine as you are suggesting could manage to acquire such a high standing with his peers as I seem to have here on TOL? It seems much more likely to me that you simply do not want to debate it; you believe what you believe and don't want to be convinced otherwise.


A verse can not be saying something because it doesn't make sense to you?
I have nothing to do with it. I didn't define the word justice, God did. And by that definition your interpretation of Rom. 9 is impossible. Yes, I do mean IIMPOSSIBLE.

This is not how we begin understanding God.
Oh yes it is! Words have meaning and the WORD of God has meaning as well. You can ignore the definition of words if you like but then it would be on you to explain how we can understand anything if the definition of words cannot be relied upon to convey their own meaning.

Some say the trinity can't be right because God is one i.e., Islam and the Jews
And they would be wrong. There is nothing illogical about the doctrine of the Trinity. It is not necessary to know everything there is to know about a subject in order to determine that what you do know is correct and rational. If something is irrational (self-contradictory for example) it cannot be true. This is the nature of reality and of truth. If you reject this then you cannot know anything at all.

I'm more concerned with what Romans 9 says.
Then you should listen to what I am trying to teach you.

Well anyway, God bless and I'm sorry if I upset you.
You didn't upset me at all. Only next time, if you want to bring something up in a debate forum, you should at least be prepared to debate it. Your simply having shown up to declare what you think is right doesn't do anything but stroke your own ego and waste everybody's time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[God_Is_Truth]

Really? Did you miss out the point of 1 Cor 2:14 which I just emboldened in your quote above?

Did you completely overlook all that I wrote in saying that the “spiritual things” were distinct from the gospel?


No, read the whole passage in 1 Cor 2:11-14

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have recenved not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the SPirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Read 1 Corinthians Chapter 3 verse 1, the spiritual things are not the same as the gospel. I fully affirm that man cannot understand the spiritually discerned things, but that does not include the gospel as Chapter 3 verse 1 confirms.


Let's look at another passage here - 1 John 5:1

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Now, I point out two phrases in that passage. First off "Whoever believes" - the words there in the original Greek are singular, present tense participle. In other words a more true translation would be "The one who is believing" but that is clumsy, so it gets translated in most versions as "whoever believes". Now the second "is" in the sentence is another interesting word. In the English it is in the present tense, but the greek is actually in the perfect tense, a tense that we do not have in the English. What the perfect tense is, is it indicated a past action that has continuing present ramifications. In other words being born of the Spirit of God had to precede the present belief.

Actually, it doesn’t have to mean that at all. All it means is that whoever is believing now, has been born of God in the past. Being born of God would be past tense and the believing is a present tense, but you are assuming this means one was born of God before one ever believed. All it means is that right now, those who are believing, have been born of God in the past. Anything beyond this is an assumption.


Look at some examples of this right out of the book of Acts.

Acts 13:48 "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Note that it does not say as many believed were appointed to eternal life, but as many as were appointed believed.

Does it say when they were appointed? Does it say it was from eternity past? No, neither of these are stated. All it says is that the ones who believed were the ones who had been appointed to eternal life. It is descriptive in nature, saying that those who believed were also the ones who had been appointed to eternal life. To assume this means they were individually elected from eternity past by God’s irresistible grace is an assumption and nothing more.


Go now to the 16th chapter of Acts, Paul is working on the woman Lydia, and we read this:

Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia , from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshipper of God, was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

Let me draw your attention to something you probably overlooked. Lydia, before her heart was opened was a worshipper of God. Read the verse again, it states that she was already a worshipper of God before the Lord opened her heart. In other words, she was not a lost person, not someone who didn’t seek God. Thus, she establishes nothing for your position as she was already following after God. Given that, it’s no surprise at all that God opened her heart to what Paul was speaking.


Really, how about "There is none righteous, no not one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God ... that passage goes on and on, and ifs found in both Psalms and Romans.

Did you overlook everything I wrote on this in my post?


Wrong again, it is not used against just the Jew, the immediate context in Rom 3:9 Paul charges it against both Jew and Greek.

You must consider the passage Paul is quoting, what was the original meaning and why he is quoting it. the entire point is to show that we are all under sin using passages of scripture which indicate this to be the case in history through Israel as well as the Gentiles. To say that he means this to be the case of all of humanity and that no man anywhere ever seeks God on his own is another assumption, something that seems to be critical to Calvinism.


Really? Then I have two questions that I want you to answer so we can move forward in this discussion:

1. What separates lost man and saved man?

Jesus.


2. What is the atonement? By this I mean what was the signifigance of the cross, what was Jesus accomplishing through the cross?

Romans 3
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

2 Corinthians 5
18Now (AB)all these things are from God, (AC)who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the (AD)ministry of reconciliation,
19namely, that (AE)God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (AF)not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20Therefore, we are (AG)ambassadors for Christ, (AH)as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be (AI)reconciled to God.
21He made Him who (AJ)knew no sin to be (AK)sin on our behalf, so that we might become the (AL)righteousness of God in Him.
Christ was not an atonement first off. He was a propitiation. He did not die to cover up our sins, he took them away. That is the difference between atonement and propitiation. The law made provision for atonement, but could not take them away. Christ took them away by becoming sin on our behalf, taking upon himself the full wrath of God almighty which is due upon all of humanity.

He took the place of all of us just as Adam was in place for all of us. thus, just as all in Adam die, so all in Christ will live (Romans 5). The difference between them is that while all are born in Adam without choice, not all are born of Christ because it is of choice.


He clearly says both that He lays His life down for the sheep, and that some are not of His sheep. You do the math.
You are still assuming here.


That is the most circular argument I have ever heard. Jesus says they don't believe because they are not His sheep, and you basically turn around and say that the reason they aren't His sheep is because they don't believe.

I did not say that. I said they didn’t believe because they were not sheep and that they were not sheep because they did not listen and accept what Christ had said when he said to follow Him. It is not circular whatsoever.


Yes, the word is the same, except that notice I changed the color of men in your quotation. That is because the word "men" is not in the text, it is added in. Literally it is that He will "drag/draw all unto Myself" Now, notice Phil 2:10-11, one day all of creation will bow before Christ, and that is what is being spoken of in John 12:32, in verse 31 He was talking about the judgement coming on the world. The point is that we can either bow or be bowed, but one day every one of us will acknowledge Him as Lord of Lords. Apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit though, none will come to Him willingly.

What makes you think he is speaking of Judgment here?


Now, I will stop my response to you there, my chief interest from you would be for you to respond to my two questions I posed above, as I think that is a very important ground in this discussion.

What of the rest of my post? What about Ephesians and Thessalonians?

[Berean Todd]

Let me draw your attention to something you probably overlooked. Lydia, before her heart was opened was a worshipper of God. Read the verse again, it states that she was already a worshipper of God before the Lord opened her heart. In other words, she was not a lost person, not someone who didn’t seek God. Thus, she establishes nothing for your position as she was already following after God. Given that, it’s no surprise at all that God opened her heart to what Paul was speaking.


I'll respond to the rest later, but no you are wrong "worshiper of God" was a phrase meaning that she was a prosylite to the Jews, she followed Judaism.

[Berean Todd]

Sorry I will also begin the discussion of my questions. I asked what separates lost man and saved man. You responded:

Jesus.

Wrong, you are telling me that Jesus died for everyone, so try again. What makes a lost person different from a saved person. It can't be Jesus if Jesus died for everyone.

Now I asked what your view of the atonement was, what was it that Jesus acomplished on our behalf? You responded:


Christ was not an atonement first off. He was a propitiation. He did not die to cover up our sins, he took them away. That is the difference between atonement and propitiation..


Well, I will applaud you on one half. You know that if you believe in universal atonement you can not also believe in the orthodox, common position of penal substitution of death. But really, all you have done is change the words. If He died to take away our sins or to atone for them, either way if He did it on behalf of everyone then everyone must be saved and your only logically consistent conclusion is to become a universalist.

If you deny universalism (which any sane person would rightly do) then you can not say that He either was a penal substitute (the common, orthodox position) or that He "took away" our sins, but must rather accept one of the alternate positions, such as the moral influence view of Abelard, the "he died as an example to us" view of Socinus, the governmental view most often held by arminians, the rather generic Bathian view that "He died to show us His love for us and His hatred of sin" ... but one thing you can NOT do is say that He either took away or substituted for our sins, because then all would be saved.

[Lighthouse]

Calvinism is the Gospel. God has always chosen a people, it is from Genesis, when Plato and Aristotle were in their father Adam's loins, all the way to Revelation. In Romans 9, the Holy Spirit describes our predestination and election to salvation by comparing it to the numerous times that it is specifically taught in the OT. One example provided is the election of Jacob and the non-election of his brother Esau before they were even born:

(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;) ... As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9:11,13
Wrong. God elected Israel, as a nation. And Romans 9 is about that. It was never about individuals. Individual election to salvation is not in the Bible. In fact, election to salvation in any form is not in the Bible. And the verses that say, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," were not about salvation. And it was also a remark not just on Jacob and Esau, but there descendants as well. And, once again, it wasn't about salvation.

[Lighthouse]

I don't want to continue this.
Coward.

[ChristisKing]

Coward. Now thats good Christian debating skills.

I love to debate and defend the Gospel but when we start debating whether people are individuals or not I just have to beg out. Of course Jacob and Esau represented nations, but they were also individuals. David was a type of Christ, but he was still an individual, David. We are now into the realm of the ridiculous in this debate when it will not even be recognized that Jacob and Esau were individulas. Have you heard of John Duns Scotus?

Scotus was a Scottish theologian and philosopher in the 13th century and founder of a school of Scholasticism known as Scotism. Born in Duns, Duns Scotus entered the Franciscan order and studied at the universities of Oxford and Paris. Scotus was one of the most profound and subtle of the medieval theologians and philosophers known as Schoolmen. Duns Scotus was a staunch supporter of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which Pope Pius IX defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic church in 1854.

Anyway, Scotus would debate and debate and debate and never give ground. It would eventually get to this level of ridiculous that we are now in in this debate and he would keep just debating. When our great Calvinistic and Predestinarian Reformers read his debates in the 16th Century they laughed at how ridiculous and unnecessarily complex his arguments were and how they always eventually led him into false conclusions like the immaculate conception. Scotus also believed a "funnel cap," like those worn by the wizards of his day, would "funnel" knowledge into his head. As a result, the term "dunce" was used to describe debaters like Duns and a "funnel cap" was given to them for all to recognize from afar. :dunce:

So if you don't mind I'll skip the cap and "the Jacob and Esau were not individuals debate (maybe they were aliens?!?)" and just go on believing they were. Poor 'ole me, I guess I'm just not as complex as you guy's, and Duns! :dizzy:

[Clete]

Now thats good Christian debating skills.

I love to debate and defend the Gospel but when we start debating whether people are individuals or not I just have to beg out. Of course Jacob and Esau represented nations, but they were also individuals. David was a type of Christ, but he was still an individual, David. We are now into the realm of the ridiculous in this debate when it will not even be recognized that Jacob and Esau were individulas. Have you heard of John Duns Scotus?

Scotus was a Scottish theologian and philosopher in the 13th century and founder of a school of Scholasticism known as Scotism. Born in Duns, Duns Scotus entered the Franciscan order and studied at the universities of Oxford and Paris. Scotus was one of the most profound and subtle of the medieval theologians and philosophers known as Schoolmen. Duns Scotus was a staunch supporter of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which Pope Pius IX defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic church in 1854.

Anyway, Scotus would debate and debate and debate and never give ground. It would eventually get to this level of ridiculous that we are now in in this debate and he would keep just debating. When our great Calvinistic and Predestinarian Reformers read his debates in the 16th Century they laughed at how ridiculous and unnecessarily complex his arguments were and how they always eventually led him into false conclusions like the immaculate conception. Scotus also believed a "funnel cap," like those worn by the wizards of his day, would "funnel" knowledge into his head. As a result, the term "dunce" was used to describe debaters like Duns and a "funnel cap" was given to them for all to recognize from afar. :dunce:

So if you don't mind I'll skip the cap and "the Jacob and Esau were not individuals debate (maybe they were aliens?!?)" and just go on believing they were. Poor 'ole me, I guess I'm just not as complex as you guy's, and Duns! :dizzy:

Um, hello! I'm over here! Remember me?! I'm the one who just got through stating plainly that Esau and Jacob were obviously individuals and that you'd have to think me pretty stupid to think that I would hold any other position? Remember that at all? It was like one post ago I think.
Give me a break, will ya? There can be no doubt that Esau and Jacob were two individuals, that isn't what we are debating at all. If you think it is, you've missed the point. I don't believe that you do think that we are debating that though, I think you do not want to debate the issue because you know that I am not stupid and you can probably tell intuitively that I can very well establish my position and you simply don't know how to deal with it and therefore want out. Fine, go away then. I'd very much rather you stay and think these things through but if all you going to do is dismiss every point we make out of hand then you're wasting everyone's time.

Perhaps if you don't want to discuss Calvinism from the angle of Rom. 9, we could discuss Calvinism from some other angle, like say the immutability of God, or the sovereignty of God, or whatever. It makes little difference to me, all of it is quite completely wrong and I can prove it rather easily.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[ChristisKing]

Um, hello! I'm over here! Remember me?! I'm the one who just got through stating plainly that Esau and Jacob were obviously individuals and that you'd have to think me pretty stupid to think that I would hold any other position? Remember that at all? It was like one post ago I think.
Give me a break, will ya? There can be no doubt that Esau and Jacob were two individuals, that isn't what we are debating at all. If you think it is, you've missed the point. I don't believe that you do think that we are debating that though, I think you do not want to debate the issue because you know that I am not stupid and you can probably tell intuitively that I can very well establish my position and you simply don't know how to deal with it and therefore want out. Fine, go away then. I'd very much rather you stay and think these things through but if all you going to do is dismiss every point we make out of hand then you're wasting everyone's time.

Perhaps if you don't want to discuss Calvinism from the angle of Rom. 9, we could discuss Calvinism from some other angle, like say the immutability of God, or the sovereignty of God, or whatever. It makes little difference to me, all of it is quite completely wrong and I can prove it rather easily.

Resting in Him
Clete

Oh ok, well lets start over. Since we all agree that Jacob and Esau are individuals, lets review the Scriptures again to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9. He seems to be using plain words to say that he wanted Israel to be saved because salvation came from the Israelites but just because you are born an Israelite does not mean your going to saved.

ROM 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
ROM 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
ROM 9:6 ...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

But rather a true Israelite is not a race or nation , but rather a true Israelite is one who is chosen by God by specific election. Therefore Paul continues saying there is the elect in Israel and the elect of the Gentiles, and the common denominator in both is God's specific election of individuals, not nations!

ROM 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Therefore, He has mercy on whomever He chooses and to those whom He chooses He calls, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Not nations, but rather individuals!

ROM 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
ROM 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified;
ROM 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
ROM 9:25 As He says also in Hosea, "I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,' And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'"
ROM 9:27 ¶ Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;

So all the Jews that are predestined are called and saved and all the Gentiles that are predestined are called and saved. This seems to be the heart of Romans 9

[Clete]

ChristisKing,

Just because I acknowledge the Esau and Jacob existed as real people doesn't mean I concede your point concerning Rom. 9. All you've done here is restate your position which I have already responded too.

If you are correct God is unjust.
God is not unjust.
You are therefore wrong.

The defeat of your position is truly as simple as that.


Resting in Him,
Clete

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

Just because I acknowledge the Esau and Jacob existed as real people doesn't mean I concede your point concerning Rom. 9. All you've done here is restate your position which I have already responded too.

If you are correct God is unjust.
God is not unjust.
You are therefore wrong.

The defeat of your position is truly as simple as that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That's exactly what the Holy Spirit anticipated you would say, so in the same Chapter 9 in Romans He inspired Paul to answer you back:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? (ROM 9:14,20)

[Clete]

That's exactly what the Holy Spirit anticipated you would say, so in the same Chapter 9 in Romans He inspired Paul to answer you back:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? (ROM 9:14,20)

And I anticipated that this is how you would respond. You're so predictable!

What happened to verses 15-19? And the rest of the whole Potter and the clay story? You can't just pick and choose which verses you want and ignore the rest of them. How much would you like to bet that I can prove that the Potter and the clay story is specifically about God working with the nation of Israel and not individual people. Forget betting, just read Jer. 18.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[logos_x]

... You know that if you believe in universal atonement you can not also believe in the orthodox, common position of penal substitution of death. But really, all you have done is change the words. If He died to take away our sins or to atone for them, either way if He did it on behalf of everyone then everyone must be saved and your only logically consistent conclusion is to become a universalist.

Very good!

If you deny universalism (which any sane person would rightly do)...:blabla:

Wow..soooo close, and then as a vapor the entire notion that God really can and will save everyone and bring all things unto Himself is dismissed as an insane idea.
Oh well.
I guess even God can't win them all.

[elected4ever]

I guess even God can't win them all. Will there goes universalism down the tube

[ChristisKing]

And I anticipated that this is how you would respond. You're so predictable!
Clete

What do you mean? You said my belief about God electing and prdestinating people was wrong because that would make God unjust. Yet that is the only reason this verse is in Romans 9:

ROM 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

Why else would this verse have to be in Romans 9?

[logos_x]

Calvinism is based almost entirely on the pagan ideas of Plato and Aristotle. It contradicts the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that anyone is predestined to hell. In fact, if it even says that anyone is predestined to go to heaven, than it says all are. And who beieves that?

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Actually, it says everyone is predestined to be "in Christ:..in "the fullness of times"
Who believes that?

[Clete]

What do you mean? You said my belief about God electing and prdestinating people was wrong because that would make God unjust. Yet that is the only reason this verse is in Romans 9:

ROM 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!

Why else would this verse have to be in Romans 9?


In other words, if Paul were talking about individuals they would have a valid objection; God would be unjust. But because Paul is talking about nations, he can refer to passages like Jer. 18 to prove that God is not unjust.

Resting in Him,
Clete

[God_Is_Truth]

Wrong, you are telling me that Jesus died for everyone, so try again. What makes a lost person different from a saved person. It can't be Jesus if Jesus died for everyone.

It is Jesus. All sins are forgiven IN CHRIST. The reason some people are not saved is that they are not IN CHRIST. That is why Jesus is what separates the lost from the saved.


Well, I will applaud you on one half. You know that if you believe in universal atonement you can not also believe in the orthodox, common position of penal substitution of death. But really, all you have done is change the words. If He died to take away our sins or to atone for them, either way if He did it on behalf of everyone then everyone must be saved and your only logically consistent conclusion is to become a universalist.

No, that is not the only logical conclusion, it just seems that way because you hold to Calvinism. All sins are forgiven in Christ. For one to have their sins forgiven one must be in Christ. So Jesus died for all, forgives all, but not all are saved, and there is nothing logically wrong with this.


If you deny universalism (which any sane person would rightly do) then you can not say that He either was a penal substitute (the common, orthodox position) or that He "took away" our sins, but must rather accept one of the alternate positions, such as the moral influence view of Abelard, the "he died as an example to us" view of Socinus, the governmental view most often held by arminians, the rather generic Bathian view that "He died to show us His love for us and His hatred of sin" ... but one thing you can NOT do is say that He either took away or substituted for our sins, because then all would be saved.

I am not a universalist. I hold that Jesus took upon himself the full wrath of God due upon humanity for our sins and that whoever is in Christ has been crucified with him and is a new creation having all their sins forgiven. The only reason some are not saved is that they are not in Christ, and the reason they are not in Christ is because they have rejected him.

[Berean Todd]

It is Jesus. All sins are forgiven IN CHRIST. The reason some people are not saved is that they are not IN CHRIST. That is why Jesus is what separates the lost from the saved.

Ok, and why are some IN CHRIST as you say, and others not?


The only reason some are not saved is that they are not in Christ, and the reason they are not in Christ is because they have rejected him.

And there we get to the crux of it. The difference in the lost and saved to you is not Christ, but is man's decision for Christ. Who do we choose, we are in control. Christ did not accomplish anything on the cross other than to give us a chance (although He Himself said It is finished - and the word He used that is translated that is an accounting term, meaning the debt is paid if full, it has been completed - in other words He DID literally acomplish something on the cross)

So, since it is man's choice that separates lost and saved for you, let me ask you, what was it in you that made you choose and not someone else? Are you wiser? Smarter? Just made of better stuff? Maybe you were raised better? Well, why didn't God make all people as wise/smart/good/well reared as you? God wants literally ALL men to be saved you tell us, so why not make all of us good enough, wise enough that we will choose, like you did?

[God_Is_Truth]

Ok, and why are some IN CHRIST as you say, and others not?

because some have rejected him and some have accepted him.


And there we get to the crux of it. The difference in the lost and saved to you is not Christ, but is man's decision for Christ. Who do we choose, we are in control

the difference is Christ but is because of us as well. whether we are in Christ or not is a decision we make but an action done by God. when we accept the gospel we do not place ourselves in Christ, but rather God places us in Christ.


Christ did not accomplish anything on the cross other than to give us a chance (although He Himself said It is finished - and the word He used that is translated that is an accounting term, meaning the debt is paid if full, it has been completed - in other words He DID literally acomplish something on the cross)

In Christ, all debt is paid, all sins are forgiven and the wrath of God is satisified. Christ accomplished all these things on the cross. he reconciled the world to himself as well, on the cross.


So, since it is man's choice that separates lost and saved for you,

it is sin and not being in Christ which seperates the lost from the saved.


let me ask you, what was it in you that made you choose and not someone else? Are you wiser? Smarter? Just made of better stuff? Maybe you were raised better? Well, why didn't God make all people as wise/smart/good/well reared as you? God wants literally ALL men to be saved you tell us, so why not make all of us good enough, wise enough that we will choose, like you did?

the calvinist assumption is that one person makes a choice because of something different about them compared to the person who makes the other choice. this is an ungrounded assumption. two people can be completely identical and yet make different choices. the calvinist denies this, but it is still the case.

people reject the gospel because they choose to. people accept it because they choose to. it's not because one is smarter, wiser, more good, raised better or anything like that. it is because the person either chooses to accept it or chooses to reject it. it's called free will, something the calvinist denies completely, but exists none the less.

[ChristisKing]

people reject the gospel because they choose to. people accept it because they choose to. it's not because one is smarter, wiser, more good, raised better or anything like that. it is because the person either chooses to accept it or chooses to reject it. it's called free will, something the calvinist denies completely, but exists none the less.

Pls allow me to make a quick comment here. It would mean that they made the most moral decision of their lifetime and the rejecter would be making the most immoral decision of their lifetime. This great moral decision would be quite "an accomplishment" for the accepter who might be tempted to be proud of his "great moral decision."

The Scriptures teach just the opposite. Of course we have free will and we will freely only choose evil. What we don't have is the freedom to choose to do good because we are in bondage of sin and the devil, the ultimate good of course being the giving of our lives to Christ! The Scriptures teach that we don't become "free" until Christ sets us "free." Then we are "free indeed" to will to do good, the ultimate good of course being the giving of our lives to Christ!

I'm sorry if you didn't want to be interrupted, especially by a Calvinist.

[Berean Todd]

people reject the gospel because they choose to. people accept it because they choose to. it's not because one is smarter, wiser, more good, raised better or anything like that. it is because the person either chooses to accept it or chooses to reject it. it's called free will, something the calvinist denies completely, but exists none the less.

Here rather than my attacking your semi-pelagianism I'm going to let two others address it - first Martin Luther and then JI Packer who will comment on Luther's assessment:

Luther: This hypocrisy of theirs (semi-pelagians) results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace. Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumtuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptable.

-exerted from The Bondage of the Will

Packer: Pelagianism is bad enough, for it tells us that we are able to earn our salvation, and this is to flatter man; but the semi-Pelagianism is worse, for it tells us that we need hardly do anything to earn our salvation, and that is to belittle salvation and to insult God.

[God_Is_Truth]

Here rather than my attacking your semi-pelagianism I'm going to let two others address it - first Martin Luther and then JI Packer who will comment on Luther's assessment:

Luther: This hypocrisy of theirs (semi-pelagians) results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace. Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumtuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptable.

-exerted from The Bondage of the Will

Packer: Pelagianism is bad enough, for it tells us that we are able to earn our salvation, and this is to flatter man; but the semi-Pelagianism is worse, for it tells us that we need hardly do anything to earn our salvation, and that is to belittle salvation and to insult God.

i have said nothing about one earning the grace of God in any way, shape or form.

[Lighthouse]

Pls allow me to make a quick comment here. It would mean that they made the most moral decision of their lifetime and the rejecter would be making the most immoral decision of their lifetime. This great moral decision would be quite "an accomplishment" for the accepter who might be tempted to be proud of his "great moral decision."

The Scriptures teach just the opposite. Of course we have free will and we will freely only choose evil. What we don't have is the freedom to choose to do good because we are in bondage of sin and the devil, the ultimate good of course being the giving of our lives to Christ! The Scriptures teach that we don't become "free" until Christ sets us "free." Then we are "free indeed" to will to do good, the ultimate good of course being the giving of our lives to Christ!

I'm sorry if you didn't want to be interrupted, especially by a Calvinist.
Moral decision? No. It was not a moral decision. Neither did those who rejected Christ make immoral decisions. We are not saved by morality, but by grace, and grace alone. God calls us, we respond. Some accept, some reject. Some hearts are open, some are closed [like your mind]. But it has nothing to do with morality.

[Lighthouse]

Now thats good Christian debating skills.

I love to debate and defend the Gospel but when we start debating whether people are individuals or not I just have to beg out. Of course Jacob and Esau represented nations, but they were also individuals. David was a type of Christ, but he was still an individual, David. We are now into the realm of the ridiculous in this debate when it will not even be recognized that Jacob and Esau were individulas. Have you heard of John Duns Scotus?

Scotus was a Scottish theologian and philosopher in the 13th century and founder of a school of Scholasticism known as Scotism. Born in Duns, Duns Scotus entered the Franciscan order and studied at the universities of Oxford and Paris. Scotus was one of the most profound and subtle of the medieval theologians and philosophers known as Schoolmen. Duns Scotus was a staunch supporter of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which Pope Pius IX defined as a dogma of the Roman Catholic church in 1854.

Anyway, Scotus would debate and debate and debate and never give ground. It would eventually get to this level of ridiculous that we are now in in this debate and he would keep just debating. When our great Calvinistic and Predestinarian Reformers read his debates in the 16th Century they laughed at how ridiculous and unnecessarily complex his arguments were and how they always eventually led him into false conclusions like the immaculate conception. Scotus also believed a "funnel cap," like those worn by the wizards of his day, would "funnel" knowledge into his head. As a result, the term "dunce" was used to describe debaters like Duns and a "funnel cap" was given to them for all to recognize from afar. :dunce:

So if you don't mind I'll skip the cap and "the Jacob and Esau were not individuals debate (maybe they were aliens?!?)" and just go on believing they were. Poor 'ole me, I guess I'm just not as complex as you guy's, and Duns! :dizzy:
When did I say they weren't individuals? The main point is that the scriptures that state, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," were not about salvation, whether on an individual basis or in the scope of the nations they represent.

[Lighthouse]

Oh ok, well lets start over. Since we all agree that Jacob and Esau are individuals, lets review the Scriptures again to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9. He seems to be using plain words to say that he wanted Israel to be saved because salvation came from the Israelites but just because you are born an Israelite does not mean your going to saved.
Esau was not born an Israelite. Neither was Jacob. Jacob is the one the Israelites are named after. rememebr when Jesus changed his name to Israel? And he had 12 sons, each one the patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel?:duh:

Not to mention Romans 9 is Not about salvation!

ROM 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
ROM 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
ROM 9:6 ...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Israel was not elected for salvation, but that salvation ight come through them. that is what God elected them for. that is why they weer His chosen people. But then they rejectred the salvation that came through them; Jesus. So God moved to the Gentiles, as a shame to Israel. But God still saves individual Israelites, just as He saves individuals who are not Israelites, for He saves all kinds of people.

But rather a true Israelite is not a race or nation , but rather a true Israelite is one who is chosen by God by specific election. Therefore Paul continues saying there is the elect in Israel and the elect of the Gentiles, and the common denominator in both is God's specific election of individuals, not nations!
:blabla:

Where does Paul say this? Where does Paul say there are elect in Israel, and elect among the Gentiles? Where? Show me.:rolleyes:

Not only do you follow the doctrines of men, yuo follow the doctrines of polytheistic, pagan men.:nono:

ROM 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Called to what? Salvation? It doesn't say that. If salvation is the only thing you can think of to which the ideas of mercy, compassion and destruction pertain then you have some serious issues with your ability to think things through, to even think.

Therefore, He has mercy on whomever He chooses and to those whom He chooses He calls, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Not nations, but rather individuals!
God said He would draw all men unto Him. Are you calling Him a liar? He has called us all, yet not all have heeded. He wants us to love Him, to truly love Him, and that requires that we be able to choose, not to be chosen at random.

ROM 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
ROM 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified;
ROM 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
ROM 9:25 As He says also in Hosea, "I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,' And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'"
ROM 9:27 ¶ Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;
What's with the skipping of verses? You go from 8:30 to 9:24, without even touching on 8:31-9:23. And those verses are needed to see how 8:30 and 9:24 actually connect. Without then you're trying to make things fit that don't fit. And you quote Romans 9:15 before 8:30? What good does that do you? There is a succession, and you are skirting it. Why? Are you afraid your pet theology will fall apart if you follow the logical progression of the scripture? And why did you pull 8:30 out without any reference to the rest of chapter 8? Afraid of what it actually says, and how it disagrees with what you're presenting? Verse 32 says that God delivered up His own Son for us all. What do you think Paul meant?:confused:

So all the Jews that are predestined are called and saved and all the Gentiles that are predestined are called and saved. This seems to be the heart of Romans 9
It only "seems" to say that if you go into it with the idea that it says that. No one is predestined unto salvation, and the Bible never says they are. All are called, but only those who heed are saved, by the grace of God.

[Lighthouse]

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Actually, it says everyone is predestined to be "in Christ:..in "the fullness of times"
Who believes that?
It says in heaven, and on earth, but nothng about hell.:think: It also says that He would gather all things in Christ, not that all things would be in Christ. He's only gathering those things that are in Christ.

[logos_x]

It says in heaven, and on earth, but nothng about hell.:think: It also says that He would gather all things in Christ, not that all things would be in Christ. He's only gathering those things that are in Christ.

Yes.
But...in yet another one of Pauls letters, he had this to say:

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.(died physically)
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order:
(1.) Christ the firstfruits;
(2.) afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 (3.) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

"When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. " That seems to say that everything except God Himself!

[elected4ever]

Yes.
But...in yet another one of Pauls letters, he had this to say:

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.(died physically)
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order:
(1.) Christ the firstfruits;
(2.) afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 (3.) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

"When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. " That seems to say that everything except God Himself!All things are subject to Christ but all things are not in Christ. Even Satan is subject to Christ even though Satan is in rebellion to Christ. The Kingdom is still the Kingdom even when part of the Kingdom is is in rebellion.

[logos_x]

All things are subject to Christ but all things are not in Christ. Even Satan is subject to Christ even though Satan is in rebellion to Christ. The Kingdom is still the Kingdom even when part of the Kingdom is is in rebellion.

That isn't what Paul says here!
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".

Mark 3:24-27 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

[elected4ever]

That isn't what Paul says here!
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".

Mark 3:24-27 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. If some are not in rebellion the why is it necessary for them to be subdued?

[Lighthouse]

Yes.
But...in yet another one of Pauls letters, he had this to say:

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.(died physically)
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order:
(1.) Christ the firstfruits;
(2.) afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1