rca

Here is a closer look at Romans 8:28-30, one of a Calvinist's most important passages. Romans 8:28 says "And we know that all things work together to those who ..., to those who...". There are 2 "to those who" here. When something is written like this it means that they are connected. There are 2 conditions that have to be met in order to have all things work together for our good. These conditions are: 1. those who love God. 2. those who are called by God. And the order of the statements shows that we need to love God first and then in turn God calls us. Or God calls those who love God. Since "according to His purpose" is part of the sentence of verse 28 it belongs better there as opposed to verses 29-30. In light of all this, another way to put verse 28 is "To those who love God all things work together for their good. This is the purpose of God calling the ones who love Him, that all things work together for their good. "To be called" is one of the verbs in the list of verses 29-30. Paul used the word "called" in verse 28 already. He is expanding the thought of being called by God. That is why he begins verse 29 by saying "For whom". Then he starts in the very beginning from the perspective of God. That is from foreknowing us to glorifying us. In the middle of this is being called by God. Verse 29 begins with "For whom He foreknew". A Calvinist will say that "foreknew" means that God foreknows them the elect without any foreseen faith of theirs. An Arminian will say that "foreknew" means to know beforehand what we will do and on that basis we are either elected to salvation or not. But what does the Scripture say? The scripture simply says "foreknew". It does not say at all on what basis God foreknows us. But the verse begins with "For whom" which connects it with what was previously said in verse 28. In verse 28 the order is we love God and then God calls us. Verses 29-30 gives more of the detail of God's side of the equation including calling which is mentioned in both verses 28 and the 29-30 list. Now if you are not convinced that we have to love God first (at least in God's foreknowledge of all of human history) before God calls us or saves us then look at John 14:21-23. John 14:21 says: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Here it very plainly says that we need to love God first before He will love us and manifest Himself to us. This same thing is repeated again in 14:23. John 14:23 says: Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. The order of events is again stated plainly. We love God. God in response loves us. Then the Father and the Son will come to us and make their home with us. But you may say "Does not the Bible say that God loved us first? In John 15:16 Jesus says "You did not choose Me, but I chose you". Here Jesus is speaking about choosing not loving. He is also talking to the 11 apostles. Judas Iscariot already left. 1 John 4:10 says: In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. This is talking about prevenient grace or God enlightening the whole world as in John 1:9; 16:8-11 and especially John 3:16. God loved us first in enabling all men to be able to believe in Jesus and be saved. But we need to respond to that prevenient grace. If we do then God responds by giving us saving grace. So God enables the whole world. The world is without excuse (Romans 1:18-21). We need to respond to this love by believing in God. God responds to our response of faith by graciously giving us salvation. All men are able to be saved. But we must make the first step and come to God, believe in Jesus, receive Jesus. An unbiased study of Romans 8:28-30 makes it clear that we need to love God first. Then God God calls us. God knows all we will do in our future (Psalm 139:1-6). So chronologically God may know us first but God only knows us first because He foresees all we do. rca

Your beliefs are inconsistent. If you believe that nobody can choose God on their own and it is God that gives you faith (Calvinism) then if it is God that gives you the faith then surely God would not take it away either. If you believe that you come to faith by choice (Arminian) then choice could just as easy leading to throwing away your faith by choice. Calvinism believes faith comes from God as a gift and does not get taken back by God. Arminianism believes faith comes by free choice and free choice could just as easy depart from faith. Either faith comes by God or you choose faith. I see no middle ground. You have simply interpreted clear Arninian doctrine (Like Hebrews 6, 10) to come to your supposed middle ground. In effect you are saying man chooses faith. Once he has faith then God makes it (overides his further choices) so that he cannot give up the faith. And as far as that goes the 5th article of the Remonstrance did not completely deny perseverance of the saints; Arminius, himself, said that "I never taught that a true believer can

In a sense, we can. The Bible says: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM [/b](human responsibility), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE in His Name [/b](again, human responsibility): who were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD" (God's choosing) (John 1:12-13) "And as many as had been APPOINTED tp eternal life [/b](God choosing) believed" (human responsibility) (Acts 13:48b) All of the verses in the Bible which state that God chooses (predestination) are all inspired by God and in the Bible. All of the verses in the Bible which say that man must choose (free will, which I call human responsibility) are all inspired and are in the Bible. Therefore, all verses in BOTH camps are the inspired word of God. They are not to be pitted against each other -- they are to be believed as the inspired word of God. I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Therefore, how are they to be understood? The Bible itself does not say, it just says that they are to be believed. To get my own mind around it (until I get to heaven to ask God), I see them as two perspectives: God's view of things, and man's view of things. God chooses, yet we believe. People say that if this is the case, then the choice is not really a choice. I disagree. I make the choice the same as I make any other choice: with the facts at hand, by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs. The thing is that God's view is different than my view, and in His view, i have already been chosen and the Holy Spirit is working in the background to make it a certainty. I'll never know which turns in the road, so to speak, He kept me from, and which people He put or didn't put into my life to accomplish His will. All I know is that with the facts I have, and by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs, and coming to the end of myself, I believed. Then, as I studied the Bible more, I saw that He chose me before the foundation of the earth. I'm glad He did so -- I'm so rebellious and independent that I'm glad He took matters into his own hands behind the scenes to make sure I chose Him. But looking at it as though it is from God's perspective, and from my own perspective is just my way of seeing things. The Bible does not say why God's will and human responsibility both exist -- it just says that they do. I guess it is the same as God fighting our battles for us, yet asking us to fight with all our might. It is why we are not saved by good works, nor can good works keep us saved -- it is all by faith, and any Calvinist will not denounce the importance of faith -- yet at the same time, if there is no "good work" fruit born in our lives, we were never truly saved. God provides a balance in every aspect of doctrine in the Bible. So, if the "perspective" thing does not strike a chord, maybe "balance" is better -- but NOT "contradiction" and NOT "one or the other". The Bible clearly teaches both, as by now on this thread, the "Calvinists" and the "Armenians" have both pointed out their favorite Scriptures either way. I agree that contradictions cannot exist in reality. So we should proably not call them contradictions. The law of non-contradiction says that truth A cannot be A and not A at the same time, in the same sense and in the same relationship. So we cannot say that God is completely soveriegn and not sovereign or that humanity has free choice but limited choice. We cannot define human freedom in a way that contradicts divine soveriegnty and vice verse. Sciripture states 2 things clearly: 1. That God is completely sovereign over all things including the process and extent of salvation 2. That human beings make real choices for which God holds them accountab le and that have real consequences. The scriptures never explicitly explain how these truths intersect (although scripture hints at it). So, we must be careful in how we state these truths and how we attempt to resolve them. The classic example is in Acts: Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know.Though He was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.] Acts

Thank you Personal unconditional election is the Calvinistic belief that God sovereignly elects certain individuals to salvation purely by God's choice not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part. It is personal because it is individual by individual. The word personal distinguishes it from God's choice of Israel as His favored nation. In that sense God choosing Israel could be called corporate unconditional election. But that has nothing to do with salvation as Paul made it clear throughout Romans 9-11 and everywhere else.

Most people see Romans 9 as an exposition of God's sovereignty over free will or as unconditional election. However the idea of unconditional election did not come about until Augustine's time in the 4th century. Before that commentaries were written on Paul's letters including Romans. Nobody imagined such a thing as unconditional election. It would seem strange for Paul to interrupt the topic at hand to introduce a radical topic like election. The Jews believed that they were saved simply because they are descendants of Abraham and for keeping the law. They were jealous of the Gentiles being justified by faith only. This is hinted at throughout Romans 1-8. See 2:17, 25; 3:1,9, 29: 4:1 for just a few examples. For the Jews if being descendants of Abraham and keeping the law meant nothing then God broke His Old Testament covenant. In their eyes the word of God failed or God's promise was broken. The Jews were furious at Paul's teachings. An example of the Jewish thinking and reaction is found in Acts 13:38-52. In 13:38-39 Paul's proclamation is given and in the rest of this passage is the Jewish reaction. So now Paul wanted to wanted to focus on this issue. This was such a hot issue that he began by stating 3 times in various ways that he is telling the truth (Rom 9:1). He goes on by telling of his great anguish for the Jews even being willing to be accursed from Christ for the sake of the Jews (Rom 9:3). He reminds them of all their blessings (Rom 9:4-5). Then he begins to respond to the Jewish accusation that God's covenant with Israel or the word of God has failed (6). 9:30 begins with "What shall we say then?". This connects it to what was just said (7-29). Another way of saying that would be "In the light of all that I just said, what is to be the conclusion?". Then he makes his conclusion. The conclusion being that for the Jews they failed to attain righteousness. But it is not because the word of God failed but that the Jews stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33) as it was written about in Isaiah 28:16. Paul also showed OT Scripture saying that the Gentiles would come to faith in Rom 9:24-29. So to conclude, none of God's word has failed. The Jews have failed to understand God's Word and to follow it. All this clearly shows that the topic of Rom 9:6-24 is going to be to prove that God did not fail on what He had said in His word. Also Paul will attack the Jews' false belief that they should be saved just because they are Abrahams' descendants or just because they were pursuing the law. The whole context of Romans 9-11 makes it clear that this would be the most natural topic in 9:6-24. Not a entire new topic (unconditional election) that as I will show in subsequent posts are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. From what I have just mentioned the questioner that will speak from time to time must be a jealous Jew not an Arminian. Paul mentions the Jewish jealousy is 11:11-14. Paul's first argument is that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (9:6). Abraham fathered children through 3 women but only through the child of promise (Isaac) are the children of God counted (9:7-9). Then Paul gives the next argument. This is a stronger argument. Ishmael was an illegitimate child so in the Jewish mindset, Ishmael did not really belong in Abraham's family. Isaac's (the child of promise) wife Rebekah had twins and before they were born and could do anything good or bad God already chose through whom the line of promise would be. That is the context here, not unconditional election. As I said earlier on, the Jews were trying to obtain righteousness by works. Here Paul proves that before either child could do any works God already chose through which line the promised line would go through. There is nothing here about individual election but the election of nations by God. 9:12 quotes Genesis 25:23 where God is telling Rebekah before the children are born that two nations are inside her. There is nothing here about individual election for salvation. God chose to bless the nation that would come from Jacob before either he or his twin brother could do anything good or bad. God's decision of what nation to bless had nothing to do with the conduct of these 2 individuals. Rom 9:13 (Jacob I loved, Esau I hated) is quoting Malachi 1:2 a book written many centuries after these 2 children died. It is clearly talking about nations, not individuals. God never said that He hated Esau until centuries after he died. God hated the nation of Esau (Edom) because of their refusal to allow Israel to pass through their land in peace. This rebellion took place long after God chose Jacob. And it was the nation of Esau, not Esau personally that rebelled. The rebellion took place a long time after Esau already died. In fact God was kind to the nation of Esau. He wanted that Israel peacefully walk through their land without taking anything (Deu 2:4-6). In Malachi 2:1-2 God warns Israel that they can expect the same punishment if they continue to rebel against God. There is nothing here about personal election. In Rom 9:14 the jealous Jew questioner asks if there is injustice on God's part. The answer is no. God has a right to choose which nation the nation of promise will be. Israel became God's favored nation but it was certainly not because Israel was any better than any other nation. The questioner's claim to injustice was not that God hated Esau the person and loved Jacob the person. This was not even the case. And a real Jew would have no problem with Isaac and Jacob being blessed. Paul is defending the Jewish accusation that the word of God failed (9:6). That a true descendant of Israel is one that has faith not a physical descendant of Abraham. That was the Jewish sense of injustice. Paul answers this accusation with God choosing who He will have mercy on and who He will have compassion on. Moses was the one God chose to have mercy on. The context of when God said this to Moses is when Moses was asking to see God's glory (Exo 33:18-19). God chose to be merciful and compassionate to Moses' request to see God's glory. God did that for Moses but God would not do that for just anybody who asks. It is purely up to God to decide if He will fulfill anybody's request. That is what Rom 9:16 means. Now Paul turns to Pharaoh in 9:17. The quote given in this verse is from Exodus 9:13-16. There God was saying I could have destoyed Pharaoh and his people by now but I have temporary mercy on Pharaoh because I want to use Pharaoh to show My power. Then in Rom 9:18 Paul says the famous line. God will have mercy on whom He wills and He will harden whom He will. Now God knows all people if they will believe or not (John 2:24-25; 6:64). And a person either believes or he does not believe. There is no middle ground. God knew that Pharaoh would never believe in God. God did not have to harden his heart in that way. God hardened Pharaoh's heart not so that he would not repent and believe in God but so that Pharaoh would not listen to Moses' request to let Israel go. Pharah could have reasoned that all these plagues are too burdensome on Egypt's economy and so he may have let them go because of that. But God wanted Pharaoh to stay stubborn until the 10th plague and even then chase after Israel afterwards. All this was to show God's glory and so that the Passover could happen. The Passover is very symbolic of Jesus' death and resurrection and salvation. God wanted to make sure that Pharaoh not let Israel go until the Passover happens. So God showed mercy to Moses' request to see God's glory and He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let Israel leave until the appointed time. The mercy in this context has nothing to do with personal election and the hardening in this context has nothing to do with reprobation. Rom 9:19 has always been seen as a verse talking about God's unconditional election. But in the question "who can resist His will" His will is referring to His wills in Rom 9:18 which had nothing to do with personal election. The jealous Jew questioner is thinking that God has mercy on the Gentiles but He seems to harden the Jews since few believe in God. But God is not hardening the Jews, they are hardening themselves. Paul responds by using the clay metaphor. In Rom 9:20 Paul is basically saying "how can you a mere man talk to God and tell Him how to run things?". It is like the clay asking the potter why he makes him like that. Jeremiah 18:1-10 is an OT metaphor of clay and the potter. There the clay is not passive. The clay is Israel or any nation and God reworks that clay depending on how that nation repents or does not repent. By using a clay/potter metaphor Paul is telling the Jews that they can be remade according to their repentance or lack of repentance. Instead of asking God why He changed His word (so they think) they need to simply repent. The word of God has not failed (Rom 9:6). 9:22,23 has usually been assumed to mean that the vessels of wrath are the reprobate and the vessels of mercy are the elect. However considering this whole context and the jealous Jew issue it would make more sense that the vessels of wrath are non believing Jews who God is dealing with much patience. See Rom 2:4 where God's patience is said to lead to repentance. The vessels of mercy are the Gentiles. And God gives mercy to those who repent and His wrath is on those who believe not or turn away from God. As Romans 11 shows God can bring the Jews in or the Gentiles out according to their belief. God's mercy is static. In can change according to how one responds to God. This is also seen in the 9:25-26 quotes. To conclude the preceding verses of Rom 9:1-6 and the verses of Rom 9:30-11:36 clearly show that the context of 9:7-29 is of the Jewish exclusion of the people of God. 9:24-25 and the rest of the surrounding verses show that Israel can be included if they only come to faith. There is certainly nothing to support that 9:7-29 is speaking about personal unconditional election. Chapter 11 particular shows that God's mercy is dependant on a person's response to God whether they be Jew or Gentile.

There is alot of misunderstanding and accusation of Finney out there, Satan does not want his sucess with God repeated. He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology, but he did denounce the Westminister confession as Calvinism in essence i think because of the part that says a man cannot avoid sin even with the aid of God? Id have to recheck to be sure i got that right. I too dislike Calvinism for its fatalistic tendency and the general air of arrogance. The hyper Calvinist were laughable, but i suppose hyper Arminism might produce similar absurdacies. It will take some searching but im confident of my memory of his refutal of some of Arminism theology. Im not really that theologically inclined or suited for such, my main interest is in who did great works in Gods power while remaining pure and why were they so. Im am just staggered that most american christians either do not know of the great revivals wrought by God through Finney or they have mistrust and misimformation. There are quite a number of well knowns who report being majorly affected by Finney, one such person is Keith Green. Origininally you asked "How about a neither position?" You also have stated in a previous post that Finney had issues with some Arminiam theology. Here you have said "He was against Calvinism but i think he did not write off everything and certainly was not predjudiced of any theology" There are many that say they have a neither position. Some say they believe both. I cannot find how any of this can be possible. Calvinism in a nutshell is unconditional election. Arminianism in a nutshell is conditional election. I do not see any alternative. You cannot believe in unconditional election and conditional election at the same time. And you cannot beleive in neither either. That is unless you believe in universalism or that nobody is elected. No christian would believe either of the last 2 mentioned. So can you please explain what a neither position is. How could Finney not believe either?

When I first read your original letter on Finney 2 posts earlier I searched the internet to see what I could find about him. I did not have the time to read all he wrote so I had to look at what others said about him. Then I wrote my post. His systematic theology (1013 pages) was interesting or is interesting. I have started to read a portion of it (justification). I do like what he is saying. From what I have read so far of his actual writings his doctrine is good. You have read so much more about him so you are in a much better position to know and to comment on him. My whole reason for being involved in this topic is because I find Calvinism fatalistic. I see it as more preventing revival rather than enhancing or encouraging it. I am all for revival. It is good to read theology summarized by well known theologians. And to recommend those who have sound doctine. Of course the most important theological book is the Bible. All of us who have a strong opinion on this topic are well versed in the Bible. It is also the source of what theologians get their theology from. So it is from that book that most of this discussion should be about. From what I have read about Finney he does seem to be an Arminian, certainly not a Calvinist. So if you say that he did take issue with some Arminian theology then please give an example of this.

I cannot see what a neither position would be. Finley had a theology like any other preacher. His systematic theology is 1013 pages. You can find it at http://www.firesofrevival.com/st1851.pdf His theology is certainly on the Arminian side even going beyond that to Pelagianism. As far as his converts go, the best way to measure that is to look at the converts sometime after their conversion. For the parable of the soils (Matthew 13) makes it clear that a true believer will endure the test of time. From what I have found on the internet, I cannot find any documented evidence of this. In fact it seems to be the opposite. See http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr99.html for example. See also http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm I realize these are Calvinists websites. The Arminianism website did not support him either and had a link to the latter website mentioned above. Finney was a Pelagian. I am a Arminianist which is Semi Pelagian. Finney was too man centred. My favorite preacher was John Wesley. He was a Arminianist and led a revival with lasting effect.

Rhonda Lou I want to thank you for all what you have written in response to me. I agree that it has taken very much time. Looking back it was more time than I wanted to spend on this. Yet if it was not for you it would have seemed like talking to the wall. I got to see how the other side thinks. I got to see which passages they like to use. I have discovered new insight into some passages while trying to explain my position. And at times I searched the internet to see how other like minded people explained certain passages. Through that I also have learned new things. I do plan to at some point write down all my beliefs in a blog as well. I appreciate the time you did spend on debating me. I respect your beliefs and have no intention on trying to change them. Thank you. I wish you God's blessing in the new year. rca

My initial post in which Rhonda Lou is responding to is: Jude talks about very immoral people. They are like unreasoning animals (verse 10). God says to Israel come let us reason together says the Lord though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow ... If you are willing and obedient ... but if you refuse ... (Isaiah 1:18-20). God reasons with man, He does not decree them to follow Him. God tried to build a vineyard out of Israel but failed (Isaiah 5:1-4). It was not that God failed but that Israel refused to listen to God. God does not choose us for salvation and then it is guaranteed that we will follow Him. God calls everyone, the whole world but only some choose to respond to Him. Many are called, few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). I wanted to emphasize the importance of reasoning. That is how God witnesses to the world, to the unbelievers. I wanted to contrast Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason". with Jude 10 "They are like unreasoning animals". In your response to this you stated several times that these teachers are not true teachers. I already know this. I merely wanted to say that God reasons with man, He does not decree man to follow Him. And if you do not listen to reason, then God cannot help you. I am now done with responding to what you have said. I will now start to interpret key Calvinism passages like Romans 9-11 and show that they do NOT teach that only God chooses who will come to Him.

I just want to say a few things regarding 1 Corinthians 2:14. Both you and Kross have misunderstood what I was trying to say in 1 Corinthians 2:14. I did not say that 2:14 is talking about new believers. I tried to say that both the natural man or unbeliever (2:14) and the new believer (3:1) were not able to understand spiritual things. This was in response to Rhonda Lou's question of How can one who CANNOT understand the things of God be saved? I tried to say that not all believers (new believers) can understand spiritual things or the things of God. 3:1 is an example of a saved person that does not understand the things of God. This is all I wanted to say. I did not want to start a debate of if you can lose your salvation. Spiritual knowledge is like all other knowledge. You do not teach a 5 year old Grade 12 math. They cannot understand it. An unbeliever is taught the basics of what is required for salvation. A new believer you give milk. Then a mature believer you give meat. According to Hebrew 5:11-6:1 first is the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. Then elementary doctrine or milk for the new believer. Then finally solid food for the mature in Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:6-13 shows that this is not just foundational things of God (repentance from dead works and faith towards God) that the Spirit is imparting. 2:6 begins with "Yet among the mature"..." So 2:6-13 is talking about things of God for the mature. That is why the unbelievers (natural man 2:14) and the new believers (infants in Christ 3:1) could not understand those spiritual things.

I have not responded for awhile because I was very busy with Christmas preparations. I sense that you gasp when I comment on what you have said because of all the time it has taken you to repond. You strongly suggest that I stop writing. I, too would also like to move on. Having said that I will quote your last sentence in the above quote and apply it to myself. I just wanted to respond to the new information about the Prodigal Son and 1 Corinthians 3. Actually I won't even respond to your 1 Corinthians 3 writing. It is too far removed from our current topic. In post 968 Rhonda Lou says: (Bold is mine for emphasis) <<I agree with you that God leaves a witness for everybody in the world. The true life comes into the world. Romans 1:19-20 makes it clear that God provided creation as a witness. Romans 2:15 mentions that those who do not know God are still able to follow a conscience, and the conscience is a witness of God to the world. Acts 14:17 says that God gives rain, harvest, and filled our hearts with food and gladness. We are told that nobody will be without excuse at the judgment because everybody had facts. The Bible clearly says that, and I agree with you on all of those points. The problem is, as I refer you back to other passages, that men do not seek God, and all of those evidences are foolishness to those who are perishing and they CAN NOT understand them, because God has not drawn them, at least not yet. One need only read as far as the unbelievers who access this site, to see how they refuse to believe in creation -- or refuse to believe in the conscience, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrayr -- not because they are stupid, but because they are spiritually blind, and God has not taken off their blinders. God first has to draw. God first has to open their eyes enough to be able to see. And He does not do that for everybody in the world, though we are never to determine who is or is not among God's chosen people.>> Then in post 995 you say regarding the prodigal son: I did not plainly state this as I should have done, but my point is this is not an "unbeliever" it is someone who already has facts. At first you say that all the world has the facts of God but that alone does not make them able to choose God let alone be saved. Then you say that the prodigal son was a believer because he had all the facts. This is a contradiction. Why is the prodigal son special? Even though it says that he was dead you claim that he is a believer because he had all the facts while in a previous post you say that all the world gets the facts of God. Also the parable of the prodigal son is in a series of parables that all have a related theme. Something or someone is lost and then found. This is followed by a celebration. The other two add that there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:7,10). When in Luke 15:24,32 it says that the son was dead and now is alive, it also says that he was lost and now is found. This connects it with the previous 2 parables where something or someone was lost and now is found. It seems to me as you are not reading these parables from a neutral position. You have a prime datum to defend and the passage must be interpreted to fit your prime datum. A neutral meaning would be that the prodigal son was spiritually dead and now was alive again. The context of these 3 parables is that Jesus was eating with sinners and the Pharisees were grumbling about this (Luke 15:1-3). In the boxed part of your quote you said "the story of the Prodigal Son is a story with a point. Jesus was speaking it to Jewish leaders. Their understanding was that a son which erred that wrongly would be "dead" to the father... What Jesus was telling the Jewish leaders is that the Father could forgive the one who wronged him; the moral being that they should do the same." While what you said may be true, the main reason for Jesus saying these 3 parable is because the Jewish leaders were grumbling over the fact that Jesus was eating with sinners. Also Jesus was attacking the Pharisees with this last parable. The Pharisees were grumbling over the fact that Jesus was receiving sinners and eating with them. Jesus was like the shepherd and the woman actively looking for what was lost. By receiving the sinners the way they are, Jesus was winning them over to believe on Him. This was a reason to celebrate like all the parables were mentioning that. The Pharisees were like the elder brother claiming that they were the righteous ones and these sinners deserve nothing and should receive nothing from the father (Luke 15:29-30). The parable was meant to condemn the Pharisees for their self righteous attitudes and for the fact that the Pharisees did not rejoice when sinners were found or became alive spiritually. This was not the first time that the Pharisees grumbled over sinners being accepted by Jesus. Matthew 9:10-13 is another incident that is recorded in all 3 synoptic gospels. For the Pharisees the tax collectors and prostitutes were the bottom of the earth, the most despised people there were. Jesus said another parable directed to the Pharisees in Matthew 21:28-32, the parable of the 2 sons. Jesus told the Pharisees that tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before they do. Such a statement angered the Pharisees greatly. Then Jesus tells 2 more parables directed against the Pharisees in Matthew 21:33-22:14. The last one also described the salvation process. In that parable (Matthew 22:1-14) there is no room for God choosing first theology. In that parable the ones that were called at first did not come to the wedding feast. Not all that God calls or invites choose to accept God's call. Many are called, few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). Both the shepherd (Luke 15:4-7) and the woman (Luke 15:8-10) went looking for what was lost in order to find it. When they found it, they rejoiced greatly. In the same way Jesus was dining with these sinners in the hope that they would respond with repentance. This was Revelation 3:20 literally in action. Jesus and/or God the Father is drawing us. That is God's part. It is up to us to repent and come to faith. That is our part. You like to quote John 6:44. In Post 985 you even claim that Jesus is speaking about predestination (your interpretation of it) in this verse. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. Notice what this verse does not say. This verse does not say whether the Father draws everyone in the world or only a select. And it also does not say if all of those that are drawn by the Father actually come to Jesus. It says that only those that the Father draws can come to Jesus. It does not say that they will come to Jesus. John 6:44 cannot be read independently of John 6:45. John 6:45 begins with "It is written ...". That means that what was just said is backed up or proved by another Scripture. In 6:45 it says that all will be taught by God. I would say that being taught by God is the same as being drawn by the Father. 6:45 goes on by saying that those who have heard and learnt from the Father come to Jesus. So according to this, all are drawn but only some respond and come to Jesus. Regarding that the drawing is universal is further proved by John 12:32. "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself." All are drawn but only some come. John 6:45 says that all are taught by God. However only those who hear and learn from the Father come to Jesus. That is why Jesus told the Pharisees to "go and learn what this means 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice' (Matthew 9:13)". In John 8:43,47 it says "Why do you not understand what I (Jesus) say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word ... Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God. God's word has come out to all the world. That is God's part. It is up to us to respond by hearing and learning from the word. Matthew 22:14 says "Many are called, but few are chosen". This is in reference to the parable of the Wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14). In the boxed quote you also say "So, when I state that we must "cooperate" with God, what I mean is that if we are chosen, sooner or later we will accept, it might as well be when we are invited." In the parable many were invited that did not come to the feast and they were destroyed (22:7). One came to the feast but was not wearing wedding garments. He was cast into outer darkness (22:11-13). According to this parable (which began with "The kingdom of heaven is like...") not responding to the invitation resulted in severe punishment (hell). Many (the world) are called but few are chosen (chosen because of their response to Jesus not according to your definition of predestination). So I would say responding positively (obediently) to God's call (He calls all not just some) is not an option to put it off as long as you like. There are many that would like a "get out of hell card" and live to please themselves. Those are not the people that God will choose to save. In your boxed quote you say "An unbeliever does not have the option for belief unless God draws and calls Him, believers have both the dead "flesh" and the Holy Spirit. We are told to live by the Spirit." So according to this believers have an option. They could choose to live their entire life in the flesh. They could live like unbelievers and still be saved. The Bible talks about setting your mind on the flesh or according to the Spirit (Romans 8:5-8). Reading this at face value, setting your mind is what we do, not what God does for us. God does not set anybody's mind on anything. This is what we do. It is like a TV with 2 channels. One is the flesh or Satan's channel. The other is the Holy Spirit channel. We have a choice on what channel we put our mind on. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (Romans 8:6). Regarding the same above boxed quote, while believers have the Holy Spirit inside of them, unbelievers have the Holy Spirit operating in their lives as well. The Holy Spirit is convicting them (John 16:8). So the Holy Spirit has a role in an unbeliever's life as well as in a believer's life. Jesus stands on the door and knocks (Rev. 3:20) In the boxed quote you say "that everything in the Bible should be accepted on face value, so that it is NOT either/or, but "both". I quoted Scripture for both, denying neither" I can say the same thing as well. Some of the passages you say you read at face value does not seem like face value to me. And there are passages I say that I read at face value, you do not agree with me that I am reading them at face value. I also believe that our beliefs have to be supported by all Scripture, not just some. I try not to have any paradoxes. If you allow them too freely you can easily start a cult. Every passage that seems to support God not man choosing I can read and interpret that man does have free choice.

I just wanted to mention one more thing here. In the above paragraph you said: I am not saying that God does it all, and we don't do anything. We are to cooperate with God. How come that regarding coming to faith you have stated previously that it is God that chooses first? Otherwise man would be sovereign not God. According to that logic then God would also have to choose last otherwise we would be able to override His decision. So coming to faith is all God. Man can do nothing to bring it about. Yet once God brings you to faith then moral living requires co-operation with man and God. Then so to speak God becomes powerless as to how you live. You only live moral if you co-operate with God. But if you do not co-operate and continue to be carnal like in 1 Corinthians 3:1 or the prodigal son before coming to his senses, then God is powerless to make you be spiritual or moral. Not only is He powerless to make you live a moral life but He is obligated to keep you saved regardless of how you live. I would say that is inconsistent logic. God would not be absolutely sovereign then. You also mentioned that supralarianism website http://www.predestinarian.net/library/showentry.php?e=34 where the writer there states that God decrees every event, good evil or neutral like tying your shoelaces. I do not know why you recommended me to read this if you do not believe this yourself.

Rhonda Lou I thank you very much for all what you brought up and responses to me. However this is a forum and you are never under any obligation to write. Neither can you stop someone else from writing. And since there are 2 opposing views in this topic, you can always expect things to be written that you do not agree with. You brought up many passages on your own and I want to use this forum to discuss them so people can see both sides of that passage. I too have time challenges and there are passages that have been brought up and that I still want to discuss. Therere also main passages that people with God choosing beliefs like to use (Romans 9-11; Ephesians 1). Also in the last post you have had some misunderstandings about what I have said. Kross attacked me personally rather than keeping to the issue of what he or she disagrees with. I will copy and paste from some posts to keep it close to the discussion so there is no confusion on who said waht. This I, rca wrote on post 989. How can a dead person believe? In the prodigal son parable the son was dead (Luke 15:24,32). He finally came to himself or his senses (15:17). The father never pushed him into this decision, he decided on his own that he needed to return to his father and repent. What helped him come to his senses was that he finally realized living according to the father's ways is better than the pleasures of sin. This Rhonda Lou wrote in post 990. In Luke 15, Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son to Pharisees and Scribes, who were being snobbish for keeping the law. A parable is a story from one's own experience meant to make a moral point. They could relate to a human father with two sons, the eldest being obedient to the law, but sinful in his heart in that he is unable to forgive the younger, unlawful son, who has repented. The human father forgave the sinful son. That is the context. Now, about this story, I believe that you are thinking that the youngest son lost his salvation. He did lose his inheritance, or reward in the family, but he remained the human father's son in good and evil times. I liken this moral or spiritual principle to 1 Corinthians 3:12-15: "Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." The prodigal son never lost his salvation, or sonship --he lost his moral compass. The only reason why I mentioned the prodigal son passage was to respond to this quote from Rhonda Lou in post 951. Colossians 2:13a says, "And you, being dead in your trespasses..." How can a dead person believe?" End of her quote. Luke 15:24 says for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry. Luke 15:32 also repeats most of this. Rhonda Lou asked the question "How can a dead person believe?" and here is a passage about a son that was dead now believing. In Luke 15:17 it says that he (the prodigal son) came to himself. That was the moment he changed from being dead to being alive. I believe that the father in this parable represents God. The father never tried to stop him from leaving nor did he send servants out to try to get him to return. Rhonda Lou has often said that nobody chooses God that is not drawn by God first and God does not draw every person. I believe that God draws all people (John 12:32). This passage was meant to show that there was no hint of a special drawing here. He just came to his senses. It is interesting that Rhonda Lou answered her own question here "How can a dead person believe?". In her quote above about this passage she says "The prodigal son never lost his salvation, or sonship --he lost his moral compass." So if I understand her right she is saying that the dead son remained a believer (saved) throughout the parable. The dead son was a believer. I believe that when the Scripture calls someone living as dead that means he is spiritually dead or unsaved. I see this "you cannot lose your salvation once you have it" idea as what can easy lead to fatalism for some. Rhonda Lou mentions 1 Cor. 3:10-15 as her support for her view. I would say that 3:1-5 is talking about the carnality of these newborn believers in that one says he follows Paul, the other says he follows Apollos. None of those were saying that they are following Jesus. IN 3:6 Paul says "I planted, Apollos watered and God gave the increase". 3:8 says "Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.". It is in reference to this that the works of 3:10-15 are referring to. Paul and Apollos are teachers. Then 3:9 says that we (teachers) are God's field, God's building. Field and Building mean the same thing here. They are word pictures of teachers of God. The God's field anology is in 3:6-9. 3:10-15 uses the building anaology. A building has to have a foundation. Paul is the skilled master builder of 3:10. Jesus is the foundation. We are all the someone else building on it (3:10). Paul, being an apostle has been chosen by God to write a lot of Scripture concerning the teachings of God. We as commentators or interpreters of Scripture are adding on to Paul's work and ultimately Christ's work. So 3:10-15 is talking about the judgment of teachers. James 3:1 says that teachers will be judged with greater strictness. So 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 is saying that we are teachers. Our works (or teachings) will be tested by fire. As long as your work or teaching is based on the foundation (Christ) you, the teacher will still have salvation even if your teachings were not completely true. And that goes for this topic. Let God be the judge who of us is bulding with gold, silver, precious stones (things that endure the test of fire) and who is building with wood, hay and straw (things that do not endure fire). Since the last point of the TULIP is Perseverance of the saints I will just say quickly that I believe that you can lose your salvation. At least from our perspective. God knows who will endure to the end so He does not get fooled by a temporary belief. Some Scripture to support this is Matthew 13 (the soils parable), 2 Peter 2:22 says "a dog returns to it own vomit", 1 Corinthians 15:2, 1 Timothy 1:19,20. To discuss this issue at length would be beyond this topic. A "Can you lose your salvation?" topic would be more appropriate to discuss this topic at length. Rhonda Lou also said in her post 990 regarding the prodigal son: Another point that you made about this parable is that the father showed emotions -- waiting for the son to return -- without affecting what the son did. I never said that God does not show emotions. I have already quoted 1 Samuel 24:1, where God is angry. Ephesians 4:30 says, "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." God can be grieved by our behavior, yet the Holy Spirit is still His promise of our future salvation at the day of glory. However, God will and must do what He says, even if He is hurt emotionally through it. This passage never says otherwise. If you read my brief quote at the top of this page of the prodigal son, I did not mention there anything about emotions. Of course I fully agree with you that the father indeed did show emotions. Now I will quote Rhonda Lou's final comment in post 990 regarding the prodigal son; There is one distinction between this parable and God. This father was human, and therefore powerless to effect the life of his son. God is all powerful and is able to effect the lives of His children. We read in Philippians 1:6, for instance that He who began a good work in us, will bring it to completion. We read in 1 Corinthians 8 that Jesus "will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." We read in Jude 24: "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." 2 Corinthians 3:18 says, "But we all, with unveiled faces, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."This does not exempt moral responsibility. I am not saying that God does it all, and we don't do anything. We are to cooperate with God. As I have stated before, Jude 20 says that we are to build ourselves up in the most holy faith. The best example of this can be found in Philippians 2:12-13, and I'll quote it from the NLT: "Dearest friends, you were always so careful to follow my instructions when I was with you. And now that I am away you must be even more careful to put into action God's saving work in your lives, obeying God with deep reverence and fear. For God is working in you, giving you the desire to obey Him and the power to do what pleases Him." All of these passages speak to God's power in our lives, making us holy and blameless -- and it all happens much faster if we cooperate with God, something any true Christian will do. The human father in the parable of the prodigal son had no power to help his son return to him. Therefore, he looked daily for his son to return. As mentioned earlier, I believe that the father is this parable represents God. I agree with Rhonda Lou that good moral living requires co-operation between God and man. God supplies the power and strength. It is up to us to use it. God works through us, not for us.

This is regarding the belief that God chooses who will choose God. This really means that man has no free choice. The choice was already determined by God. I cannot see how both can exist at the same time (man's choice and God's choice). I will call this God choosing theology. Many that have a God choosing theology for whatever reason do not like to call themselves Calvinists even though their teaching is really the same. Anyway the above belief can lead to fatalism. Since everything has already been ordained by God and is unalterable you might as well eat, drink and be merry and not be overly concerned about following God's commands. Your eternal destiny is fixed no matter what you do. There also is no urgency to evangelize since those that God wants to be saved will be saved anyway regardless if we evangelize or not. Also it does not lead to real revivals since there seems little motivation to totally commit your life to following God. Now many that teach this God choosing theology may personally seek the Lord truly with all their heart and they may evangelize with heavy hearts to reach the lost. But that teaching can easy lead to the students of this teaching to follow God half heartidly at best. James 3:1 warns about how teachers will be judged more strictly than others. If through this God choosing theology even one student is led astray to the point of not really practicing the christian faith anymore and ending up in hell, this teaching would be the cause of his downfall. Jesus says that whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened about their neck (Matthew 18:6). So there is serious warnings to teaching a theology that can easy lead to fatalism.

The website you quoted is http://www.predestinarian.net/library/showentry.php?e=34 This is so all readers of this post do not have to hunt for the website we are talking about. I do plan on commenting on this website as well as I have lots to say about that. But that will come later. For now I will comment on 3 of these 4 passages listed above. Any passage referring to Romans 9-11 will be addressed when I comment on that passage. #1 I have no problem with the Lord making the wicked. God creates and forms every human being (Psalm 139:13-17). He makes everyone with a free choice. Some by their free choice will be wicked and some will be good but the Lord makes all of them. #2 The Greek word translated as "ordained" here is "prographo". "Pro" means "before" and "grapho" means "written". From this we get words like "photography" meaning "writing of light". In the culture that the NT was written there was of course no internet or newspapers since the printing press was not invented yet. So when a criminal was condemned to death for some crime, this was posted somewhere publicly in advance. In verse 3 the word "grapho" or write is mentioned twice. So readers of this in the original language would notice this pun on the word "write" or "grapho". Also at that time criminals had public written notices of them, their name and what they were condemned for. As the context shows their condemnation was written because of what they had done, what their deeds deserve. It is the same as criminals. They are condemned because of what they did, what their deeds deserve. It was not that God decided beforehand that they should be condemned simply based on God's decided choice (without rhyme or reason) for them and then decreed them to do evil things. It was that God foresaw that they would be evil (Romans 8:29) and so condemned them long ago. #4 I see no problem with God creating calamity or evil. In order for there to be free choice there had to be more than one thing to choose from. God already was good so there had to be the opposite, evil. When Adam and Eve were created He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. Regarding the paradoxes. I see your sense of humour when you say "I'll just pick one passage, but I'll just pick two". However you picked 2 choices not 1. That is a truth, not a paradox. I will have now state one key verse to understanding these verses. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. [PHI 4:13] KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God: This is something we do with God's help, not alone. John 15:6 says "Without Me (Jesus) you can do nothing". Now to HIM who is able to KEEP YOU from stumbling: If we do things through Christ, He strengthens us. His strengthening us can keep us from falling. Philippians 2:13 says For it is God which worketh in you both to WILL and to do of his good pleasure. A believer has a general will to please God. Romans 7:14-25 talks about the dilemna of wanting to please God and not being able to carry it out. Romans 7:25 says that I (Paul) serve the law of God with my mind (general will to please God), but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Temptation to sin gets in the way of our wanting to please God. This is called spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:10-20). God tempts nobody (James 1:13). God does not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability and He provides a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). This is what is meant by God working in you, giving you the desire to obey Him. You have the general desire to please God. However when temptation comes you need God's working (1 Cor. 10:13) so that you can still obey Him despite temptation. If you do not have the general will to please God, then God will not be able to work in you the desire to obey Him. Faith requires that you want to please God (Hebrews 11:6). And if you are not a believer yet, then God is working on you to convict you of sin (John 16:8-10). First you have to realize that you are a sinner, that you want to come to God (Hebrews 11:6) and please Him (general will). Then God saves you and begins His work in you. 2 Peter 1:3-11 talks about the teamwork involved in being a believer. Verses 3-4 show that God has given us everything required to live a godly life. Verse 5 starts with "For this very reason" connecting it to verses 3 and 4. Then it says "make every effort...". This is our part. Verse 8 says "For if these qualities (verses 5-7) are yours and increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ". That is they keep you from falling (Jude 24). Then verses 9-11 says that if you maintain doing this, you will never fail. Your salvation is secure. Verses 3 and 4 are all God's doing. It only takes 2 verses to tell us what God does and 7 verses (5-11) to tell us what we need to do. This is teamwork, co-operation between God and man. In Colossians 1:29 Paul says For this I toil, struggling with all His energy that He powerfully works in me. In Philippians 4:13 Paul says I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Then in John 15:6 it says Without Me (Jesus) you can do nothing. These 3 passages clearly show the teamwork mentioned in 2 Peter 1. It is these passages (2 Peter 1:3-11; Col. 1:29; Phi. 4:13; John 15:6) that form the framework of how I believe God works. God works through us, not for us. God provides the strength. It is up to us to use His strength. With that framework these 2 so called paradoxes are no problem for me. I agree that the answer to So, obedience in the christian walk: is it God's work or ours?. The answer clearly is both. But it is not because God does all this for you. It is because God gives you the strength to do this. We have to decide if we want to use His strength. Sometimes despite all of God's actions we still sin when temptation comes. It is not that God never gave us what we needed to overcome the temptation but that we chose not to use His strength. Is there predestination and free will We both have the same answer. Both But my idea of predestination is different than yours. That I will discuss on a later post.

You are asking me to read some selected verses from a neutral position. You have a prime datum to defend and so do I. So I do not see why you would ask me to read these verses from a neutral standpoint when you yourself do not read Scripture from a neutral position. However I will respond to them. #1 I have no problem with that. We cannot control who are parents are, where and when we are born. #2 God knows before the foundation of the world all that we will do and exactly how long we will live. Even though murder, suicide and terror attacks all result in death due to someone's free choice. #3 Ultimately God wants that every human being does good works and follows Christ. 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 verify this. #4 Reading this passage in context it is talking about not thinking too highly of ourselves. An example is given of the church (the body of Christ) consisting of many members each performing a certain function assigned by God. These are called the gifts of the Spirit. There are some gifts that seem to be more popular or important than others. For example preaching is usually seen as an important function of the church. While in reality the janitor that nobody ever sees at work is just as important. This whole topic is expanded on in 1 Corinthians 12. The last verse (12:31) of that chapter says "But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a more excellent way". One of the highly sought after gifts of the church then (and in the Pentecostal church today) is speaking in tongues (12:30). 13:1 says if "I speak in tongues and have not love" ... paraphrased "it is useless". Verses 2 and 3 are speaking about super christian that no believer ever achieves (well at least verse 2). I am starting a new paragraph to show that I am coming to the main point. In verse 2 it says if I have ALL FAITH. The more excellent way in 12:31 of course is love. Faith in this context does not refer to salvation faith. For the context talks about the body of Christ, the church where of course all are believers and have saving faith. All faith as opposed to a measure of faith. God never gives anybody all faith to do what is all stated in 13:2. If He did then that all faith would be a gift of God. Nobody could be able to do that on their own. And if God does not give you all faith then He gives you a measure of faith. Notice verse 3 According to the measure of faith that God has assigned. Verse 6 According to the grace given to us. These are 2 ways of saying exactly the same thing. Verses 4 and 5 talk in generality and 6b-8 is specifics. Then in verse 9 he says "Let love be genuine... This is exactly like in 1 Corinthians 12 where the following topic is love. Going back to verse 3 and not thinking too highly of yourself. If you teach and another contributes, do not think of yourself more highly then the contributer. Only perform your gift to the best of your ability that God has given you. Anyway what this passage does not say is anything about salvation faith. The context and the parallel passage make this clear. #5 I have no problem with God stirring on people to do things so that God can work things out for His good will. #6 I have no problem with God ordaining certain people to offices. #7 Same as #5. I believe that God indeed is sovereign but I do not believe in absolute sovereignty where He decides who will have salvation faith and who will not.

Rhonda Lou. Thank you for your last post. I agree that we have stated our opinions and we disagree. I do not want to rehash things we have already discussed. This discussion is open to the public and others may read this. So I still would like to discuss things we have not discussed yet. Things one of us has brought up and the other one has not discussed yet. This keeps this topic interesesting and ongoing. I stated awhile ago that I want to comment on Romans 9-11 the crux of the doctrine that God not man decides who will be saved. I still plan to do this because I have a lot to say about this. But I want to discuss other matters first. So I am skipping the part of the above post dealing with Romans 9-11. In the first paragraph of the quoted post above regarding 2 Peter 3:9 (God not willing that any should perish) you say This is the only way this passage may be understood in the light of every other Scripture in the Bible. I would qualify to say that this is the only way this passage can be understood in the light of your prime datum that God chooses who gets saved, not man. And if this is so then what about 1 Timothy 2:4 which says Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. This verse is saying the very same thing and cannot possibly mean only those members of one particular church. Then the rest of this post you seem to try to defend God, trying to show Him as a God of love, not a mean God. Regarding your retirement decision, God owns the whole world. He is not limited in any way unless there is a maximum capacity for Heaven. Will the ones that have loved ones end up in hell see God's choosing as His glory? They will focus more on their lossa nd grief. You say He gives everybody an opportunity to select Him -- but He only chooses certain ones. That seems contradictory to me since only those who He chooses can choose God according to your prime datum. Regarding the hardening verses (Isa. 6:9-10; Mat. 13:14-15) Isaiah 55:6 says "Seek the Lord while He may be found". Romans 1:21 begins with "For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him ...". In reference to that and what follows in Romans 1:21-23 God gave up on them. This is stated in Romans 1:24,26 and 28. When God gives up, it is like their hearts become hardened. And when God gives up then the Holy Spirit does not convict (John 16:8-10) them anymore. Using the imagery of Revelation 3:20 God stops knocking at our door. And without God's convicting Spirit they will never choose God. Seek the Lord while He may be found is not limited to the time we have before we die but to the time before God gives up on us. And God only gives up on those that He knows will never follow Him. Then regarding differing degrees of love. Sure we are limited by time and finances to love our family and choice friends more than others. But God created the whole word. He created man in His own image. Jesus said that whatever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do it to me (Matthew 25:40). God's family is the whole world. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world. It does not say that He loved some of the world. I would say God's wrath is against individuals that do not obey Him, that commit sins like those mentioned in Ephesians 5:3-8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Rev. 21:8. It is people that will go to hell, not sins themselves. Regarding Romans 1:20 and being without excuse. The Greek word translated as "without excuse" is one word "anapologetos". In Greek "ana" means "against". From the remainder of the Greek word we get the English word "apologetics". Oxford's dictionary defines apologia (a form of that word) as a formal defense of belief or action. If only God could choose who will decide to choose Him then a nonbeliever could have a valid argument or defense for not believing in God. According to what you have beforehand stated, they could say that God did not remove their blinders. If someone would say to another person "you can go to hell" do we love them? When God says to somebody "You can go to hell" (And God is the only one that can actually make this happen) does God really love Him? In your second to last paragraph (other than "Please forgive any grammar or spelling mistakes" paragraph) you say that it is not an illusion. I think to be honest you would have to say something like "God chooses (heaven's perspective) but from our perspective (earth) it appears as if we do the choosing". And in my eyes that would be an illusion or deceptive appearance. You said that God has to decide first. In order for God's decision to stick, God must also decide last. So essentially man has no choice. And when it comes to so contrasting destinations like heaven or hell, God has to be a very mean God to choose hell for many, a choice the hellbound people cannot make for themselves. There is no way to cloak this any other way than to say that God is a very mean God. That is why my prime datum is that man has to be able to choose who He will serve and thereby control his own eternal destination. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Rhonda Lou, you talk about 2 perspectives, heaven and earth. That in heaven the decision that we will decide for God has already been made. You say that on earth we still must decide. You say that God has to decide first, otherwise we would be sovereign over God. If that were true then to be consistent we can only decide what God has decided for us. If we decided otherwise then we would cancel out what God has decided and then we would be sovereign, not God. So what this really means is that God has first choice and He has last choice. Yet you say that we also have free will. You say that you believe in predestination and free will, both. The way you define predestination is that God chooses first. This is like the old Communist system. They said that they have democratic elections but there is only one candidate on the ballot slip. In other words you have free choice but only one option to choose. That is not free choice. You say that God decides ahead of us, not on the basis of knowing what we will do. If that were true, then we would be sovereign over God. I disagree, if God chooses based on knowing us then God is still sovereign, He just is not absolute sovereign. God gave up absolute sovereignty when He created free choice. Absolute means that He decides everything including trivial things like scratching our nose. Also that when you say God chooses ahead of time but not on the basis of knowing what we will do, this contradicts Romans 8:29 where it says that For those He foreknew He also predestined. Now on another occasion you said that the Greek word from which "foreknew" comes from, the same word is translated as "foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20. So you are trying to make a point that you could use the word "foreordained" in Rom 8:29. The Greek word is "proginosko" and it is a compound word. The first part "pro" means beforehand". "Ginosko" means knowledge. The English word "agnostic" comes from that same Greek word. "Agnostic" means "no knowledge" as "a" means negative. Everytime this Greek word "Ginosko" is used on its own (not part of a compound word) it always is translated "know". So "foreknew" clearly means "foreknew" and nothing else. In Matthew 7:23 Jesus says "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew (ginosko) you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness". He says "never" which includes before the foundation of the earth. Jesus knows who will be and who will remain believers (John 2:24,25; 6:64). So to paraphrase Romans 8:29a "For those God knew beforehand that they would believe, He destined them beforehand ...". Jesus did not intimately know these people because of what they were doing as the context of Matthew 7 clearly says. God's knowing us intimately is based on our response to God, not on God's decision in the past having nothing to do with foreknowledge. I think that it is faulty logic to say that by us being able to decide our fate (heaven or hell) then we would become sovereign, not God. All what this would mean is that God is not absolute sovereign. Scripture never says that God is absolute sovereign. Also saying God decides ahead of us not on the basis of knowing what we will do is going against the Scriptures (Rom 8:29).

If God is absolutely sovereign over everything then why does He decree a believer to sometimes do good and sometimes sin? Why is it called spiritual warfare if God decrees all we do? In Isaiah 5:1-7 God tries to build the vineyard Israel and fails, He cannot do it. He laments "What more could I have done that I have not done" God never lies. If He decreed this to happen then He could not ask what more could I have done for obviously He could easy have done something to make the vineyard suceed. And how can God be absolutely sovereign and still fail? For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage and decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 8:20-21). Why does the God who decrees all things hope? If you control all events then there is no need to hope for anything to happen. Why does God only elect some? Is it because there is not enough room in heaven for all? To put this in a parable this would mean that the kingdom of God is like a lottery. There are losers and winners. According to Mat. 7:14 then there are more losers than winners, the same as a lottery. If we get saved then we have luck or blessedness. If we never get saved and die then we lucked out. God is no different than Hitler who made a race suffer immensely and tried to kill them all just because they were not members of his chosen race or people. If man is totally depraved and unable to come to God unless God chooses them and then they get sent to hell to suffer torment for eternity then God is the worst tyrant that can ever be. And if you say that He loves the elect, Hitler also favored his chosen race, the so called Arayans. If you say that Scripture affirms these 2 points then please show me where it does this. I believe that God is sovereign but absolute sovereign over everything that occurs then you cannot have free will. And we need free will to be rightly judged as to where our ultimate destination is, heaven or hell.

You have a prime datum as well. Your prime datum is both points 1 and 2. You admit that your position has paradoxes as well. You say that whereas Calvinists and Arminians will try to explain paradoxes you do not even try to explain when Scripture does not fully explain. This is my understanding of what you are saying. Now regarding the 2 points, I agree with point 2. Regarding point 1, I would modify that. I certainly believe that God is sovereign but not absolute sovereign. When God created free choice He gave up absolute soverignty. Man and God cannot always choose the same thing. They are too different. If God was absolute sovereign, man would be a robot. With no choice directly his. My prime datum would be: 1. God is sovereign but not absolute. 2. Human beings make real decisions for which God holds them morally accountable and that have real choices. 3. Sometimes God will lead or draw man to make certain choices. Regarding point 3 God, God's punishment on earth can involve other people to do evil to the one He punishes. Examples are when God sends other nations to make war on Isreal and even to bring them in exile. Then there is 2 Samuel 24:1 and 2 Samuel 12:11. The last verse is God's punishment to David for his Bathsheba sin. When God uses unbelievers to inflict the evil it is easy to understand since they have already made themselves vessels of wrath. But in the 2nd example God raises up evil from David's own household. I would think that the ones God raised up were already evil by their own choice. Anyways the problem with God being absolutely sovereign are numerous. The closest thing I can use as a parable would be a movie producer. A movie producer has absolute choice of every scene in the movie. Everything that happens in the movie is because the movie producer wanted it in there. When you look at the finished movie, you can tell certain things about the producer. Things like what he likes, what he dislikes, what mindset does he have, what he believes in. For instance if a movie was full of bloodshed, violence, betrayal, pornography and adultery, then you would not think that he is a very good person. The movie of life that God produced that is still playing with us all as actors is filled with such scenes. How can God make choices that are an abomination to Him? God hates sin so much. So why would He choose sinful events? If God decrees everything that happens, then God also decrees temptation. Yet James 1:13 says that God tempts no one. How can God decree temptation but not tempt anyone? Then there is judgment. How can the God that decreed you to do all things also be your judge? Romans 1:18-19 leaves man with no excuse for God's wrath or hell. If God decreed every action man does, then how could man be without excuse? Some people use the excuse, the devil made me do it. Now we can use the excuse, God made me do this evil. Absolute sovereignty would make man a robot. I cannot see how God can be absolutely sovereign and make choices for man while at the same time man also makes free choice. To say that God is absolute sovereign while at the same time man has free choice is like saying hot snow or small crowd. That is an oxymoron. If God is absolutely sovereign then man cannot have free choice. You cannot have both. That would be an oxymoron.

The text does not say that God merely allowed it. It says God incited or inticed David. it is an active sense, not a passive sense. In addition, there is no possible way the word could be interpreted as allowed. This is actually a great example of what I talked about earlier. A passage is encountered that gives ones theology a challenge. To resolve the tension a word is given a meaning that the grammar does not allow. The result is that it fits neatly in our theology, but it is not faithful to the text. You are absolutely right that scripture cannot contradict itself. A contradiction is where something is A and not A at the same time, in the same sense, and in the same relationship. The scriptures are however full of paradoxes. A paradox is something that appears to be a contradiction until examined more deeply. When we encounter a paradox, it is probably not the best approach to assign lexical meanings to words to remove the apparent contradiction. It is probably better to admit that the paradox exists, and we cannot as of yet resolve it in a way that is faithful to the text grammatically. You gave the following interpretation of 1 Chron. 21:1,8; 2 Sam. 24:1 in post 960. I have copied and pasted it here. The original has nothing in bold. The bold was put in by me to emphasize certain points: Now we see that the direct agent used to incite David was Satan. Are these three perspectives on the same even contradictory? Hardly! We can see that David made a real decision, for which God held him accountable. We also see that David's decision was not made in a vacuum. God's purposes were in play so that the writer could say that it was God who moved David to act the way he did (with out violating David's volition, yet preserving God's absolute sovereignty and purposes in the matter). We also see that the agent God used was Satan (affirming that although God is not the author of evil, He is sovereign over it). Notice David takes personal responsibility for his actions (and God allows him to do so), yet this in no way interferes with God's sovereignty in the matter. Scripture never explains how these three things operated together in the event. It just says that they did. 2 Sam. 24:1a says that the Lord's anger burned against Israel. This is what started God to act. You say that Satan was the direct agent and that God used the agent Satan. So I am trying to understand your way of thinking. I see it happening in 1 of only 2 scenarios. Scenario 1 God: Satan, can you incite David to do a census and sin against me. Satan: Yes OK I will. Scenario 2 Satan: I would like to incite David to do a census and sin. God: OK Yes you may. Scenario 2 is definitely God permitting or allowing Satan to incite David. Scenario 1 is very similiar. The only difference is that God asks Satan to incite David. He lets him incite David. So I do not see your way of thinking as being much different than mine. Also as far as David taking responsibility for his sin. There is no problem with that. He was only moved or incited to sin. He was never forced to sin. You also say that God is not the author of evil. Isaiah 45:7 says: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. This verse does not support that viewpoint. I would say that God wanted free choice. God is good. He wanted people to love Him by choice. So He had to create another choice. So He created evil. Then to get the ball rolling He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of this tree. Thus Adam (and then Eve) had free choice.

I want to make absolutely sure I understand what you believe before commenting any further. You gave me a website http://www.predestinarian.net/library/showentry.php?e=34 I would take it that you support what this website says. This website talks about supralapsarianism. I would describe this as decreeism. Much easier to remember. The website basically says that every single event in human history was decreed by God. This would include things like deciding which sock to put on first. And it also would include all the evil events in human history. When it comes to faith (the trigger for salvation) you seem to be saying that God makes the decision first that you will believe. When He decides that it is time for you to believe, then He draws you. Then it is up to you to decide. However if I hear you correctly, you are saying that since God already decided that you will believe then you will believe. You still have to decide but since God already said that you will decide yes to God, then it would be impossible for you to say no. So basically in your perspective you still decide, but you will only decide what God has decided that you will decide. Then you say that according to Romans 1:19-20 nobody will be without excuse on judgment day because everybody had the facts about God. So there will be some that had the facts about God and are without excuse. Yet God did not open up their blinders and draw them so they are unable to believe. So they are unable to believe but without excuse for not believing. That makes no sense to me. How could they be without excuse for not believing when they were unable to believe? What use is it to have the facts about God but still being unable to believe? So I want to know if you believe that all events in human history were ordained by God. That there is nothing that happens without God ordaining it first. Then regarding the biggest decision anyone can make (to believe in God by faith which gives you salvation). That God decides if and when you will believe. You still decide but the decision has already been made in heaven and you can only decide what was decided in heaven. If God makes your salvation decision for you then to be consistent, He would have to premake every decision you do. From your perspective on earth it appears to be that you are making all your decisions but in reality they were already made in heaven by God and you will only decide what God had decided that you will do. You say In heaven, where God is, the decision has been made. On earth, we must decide. We both agree with that -- that there are two perspectives: God's and ours. Where we disagree is the order of them. I have shown you how I believe that God decides ahead of us, not on the basis of knowing what we will do. If that were true, we would be sovereign over God, and He would be doing OUR bidding. We don't have the right. If this is true then you cannot say that you have free choice. You only would have preprogrammed choice. Yet in your 3rd paragraph you say that you have free will. You say Once God drawn me, from God's perspective in heaven, I WILL say yes. However, I also have free will. How can you have free will if you can only decide what God has already decided you will decide? Please let me know if I am properly understanding what you believe. Then I can continue our discussion.

rca, It is time to get back to you. I'm sorry this has taken so long, but between computer problems and putting dogs to sleep after 12 1/2 years of love (and the resulting emotions), I have not been up to doing much over the Internet other than my blog. Because my post was so long, and your post was also lengthy, I'm not going to quote the whole thing. I have not figured out the quote button yet, so I'll just be copying and pasting. Nor will I be able to answer everything tonight. For starters, once again I remind you that I do believe in predstination totally and free will totally; I believe that God determines who will and will not be saved. I also believe in free will -- that God wants us to choose Him. I do not find this to be a contradiction. I can't exactly explain it because Scripture never says why God predetermines and acts on our behalf, and yet why He wants us to believe and receive, but I DO believe that this is what the Bible says. The only way I can get my head around it is to say that it is God's perspective and our perspective. God does not choose based on our will because John 1:13 says: that we are born 'NOT of the will of flesh, NOR of the will of man, BUT OF GOD."[b/] This could not be any clearer. It point blank SAYS that it is not our will, but God's. However, verse 12 says that God gave the right to become children of God to those "who believed in His name."[b/] Faith through free will does play a part, but God, through the Holy Spirit point blank says, that we are born NOT of OUR will, but of HIS will. That is not twisting Scripture, that is just repeating what it says, in context. The next thing that I'd like you to consider is that the Bible should NEVER be read as a Calvinist, nor as an Armenian -- but is to be studied for what it says from a neutral point of view. I do not consider myself to be a Calvinist. I believed in predestination before I ever heard of Calvin -- simply because the Bible teaches it. So, if possible, try not to think of me as a Calvinist, or guess what I might believe based on what he believed. I am simply trying to explain what I believe the Bible teaches. To begin with, you state: Can a dead person believe? No, a physical dead person certainly can do absolutely nothing. The Bible uses word pictures. They give pictures of a reality but there is a limit how far you can go with it. God is our Rock. But a rock is a dead material thing. God is certainly not like that. [b/] This is your counterpoint to my quoting Colossians 2:13, "and you, being dead in your sins..."[b/] What the passage in Colossians 2:13 is stating is that man is SPIRITUALLY dead. DEAD things need life. A physically dead person is physically dead. A spiritual dead person is just as dead spiritually. To prove just how "dead" spiritually this spiritual dead person is, I quoted other passages. Romans 8:6-8 says that those carnally minded are spiritually dead, they are in enmity against God, and CANNOT keep the law. Those who have the Spirt of God in them are Christians and CAN keep the law through Christ. Not only can an unbeliever not keep the law, but they don't even understand spiritual things, indeed CAN NOT know them, according to 1 Corinthians 2:14. According to Romans 3:11-12, no one seeks God, no one understands, all have turned aside. Salvation is impossible for an unbeliever without God opening their eyes to it. I quoted John 6:44, 65 where Jesus says not once but twice, that nobody can come to the Father unless the Father first draws Him. He must act in our lives before we can come to Him because we are spiritually dead. I will take up the next point later, but I'd like to close with one final thought. Adam and Eve walked with God and thus were aware of God. They were able to choose, having information to do so. The nation of Israel had God with thim in the desert, in the ark, in a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day. They had enough information to make a choice. Once God begins to draw us to Himself, we have information about Him and are able to make a choice. Believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they have a new heart and a new spirit, yet this is all contained in flesh - treasures in earthen vessels. We are constantly reminded to live by the Spirit rather than the flesh -- a choice. Unbelievers do not have a choice. They are dead in their sins, they do not seek God -- in fact John 3:19 says they run from God, their mind is incapable of understanding spiritual truths, and their flesh is incapable of choosing God -- until God draws that person to Himself. Therefore, until God begins to work in our lives, there is no choice. Once God works in our lives, there is a choice -- in fact, according to Scripture, there MUST be. The biggest section on predestination in the whole Bible about predestination is Romans 9-11, and right in the middle of that, Paul says, 'If we confess with our mouths Jesus as Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we are saved" and that "faith comss by hearing" (once God has opened our ears to hear). This is chapter 10:8 and 17, paraphrased by me, with the parentheses added. I never said there was no free will -- I simply said that it did not determine who is and is not saved -- God does that. However, it is a requirement of salvation: we must believe. Please tell me where I am wrong in the Scriptures I have quoted, keeping in mind that I am not a Calvinist. I will proceed to your other passages if you still want me to, but what else can the Bible mean in the passages I've quoted here? I am sorry to hear about the loss of your dog. Hopefully you did not lose important data due to your computer problems. I too agree that God determines who will and will not be saved. But this is based on our reponse to Him. God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). In various ways God speaks to all men hoping that they will respond with repentance. Once they repent then He gladly saves us. We both have stated our position on John 1:12-13 before. John 1:12 says that all who receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right [or power] to become children of God. This is like an orphan child asking someone that they want to be their father if they can be their father. The child may want that man for his father but that is not up to the child to decide. Ultimately the man must decide if he wants to adapt that child. That is how it is with us. We may want to become a child of God but it is up to God to give us the right to become a child of God. To receive Christ or to believe in His name is to repent. According to 2 Peter 3:9 all that repent, God will want to save them. There are some that claim to receive Christ. They are like the bad soils in Matthew 13. God knows everyone who will believe from the heart. That is what is the basis of His decision in 1:13. God knows if your repentance is genuine, if you truly will do works worthy of repentance. (Matthew 3:7-10). Concerning can a dead person live. What you hi-lited in bold was my lead up to the whole question. I went on to explain it more fully. I see your take on this issue as: You are dead. It is impossible to say yes to God. You have the old nature. God draws you Once God draws then it is impossible to say no to God. God has given you a new nature. Some of this I got from other posts that you wrote. Post 916 and 922. From my reading of Scripture there is John 1:9 "The true light which enlightens everyone was coming into the world. This is the leadup to John 1:12-13 which we have discussed. Meaning that everyone was enlighted by this light. Then there is John 16:8-11 where the Holy Spirit convicts the whole world of sin. Then there is Romans 1:18-19 where unrighteous man is without excuse because what can be known about God was made plain to them. Then Romans 2:4 where God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance. Rom 10:18 asks if all have heard and the answer is affirmative. All of the above verses show God's kindness leading to repentance. Your big trigger for repentance is when God draws you. Some writers use different words to say the same thing. In many ways all the above verses have different ways of saying that God draws. You mentioned 3 times about having enough information to make a choice (Adam & Eve, Israel in the desert). Romans 1:19 says "For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them". In other words they had enough information to make a choice. Jesus enlighten the world (John 1:9) gave them enough information to make a choice. The Holy Spirit convicting gave people enough information to make a choice. All of the above examples were given to the entire world, so they are without excuse. Then considering John 6:44 which you often quote. You do not quote John 6:45 the following verse. There it says all will be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me [Jesus]. In John 6:45 the same "comes to me" words are there as well. Then John 12:32 Jesus says that He will draw all men to Himself. You also quote John 3:19 but not 3:21. John 3:20-21 show the 2 possible responses to the light the same way as John 1:11-12 show the 2 responses to the light using a different analogy. Then I would consider Isaiah 5:1-4 another example of God drawing, doing everything possible that Israel would believe. Yet there God failed. So God's drawing is not always sucessful. Why is it not always succesful? It is because free choice is involved. God's part is moving people to come to Him in various ways. But because of free choice it will not always be sucessful. So strictly from a clear reading of the Bible I would conclude that God uses various ways to draw all men. However because of free choice only some respond.