more indept study of Armenian and Calvinist

[angels4u]

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Word trickery won't cut it. He did not say purposed he said that Calvinists claim, that God created sin.

I buy a truck. I purpose it to move things, to serve my puposes. That does not mean or imply, that I created the truck. Sorry Ezra, that dog won't hunt.

As Joseph said to his evil brothers:

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

That is God purposing something, but he did not create the sin of Josephs brothers, he purposed it to accomplish His will.

Then there is Romans 8:

 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 8 says all things, all things would include evil / sin, would they not? Again, we see God purposes things that He did not create.

Also notice, since we are on the topic of Calvinism etc., we see once again, that God foreknows (this will come up later for discussion) and those He foreknows, He predestined - looks like a sequence to me! Then, those He predestined, He also called (sequence) and those called, He justified (another sequence). Then again, those He justified, made in right standing will God, He glorified, yet another in a chain of events.

If one did not know better, one would think that the Bible supported Calvinism, who knew?

Truth be known though, the Bible does not support Calvinism, it is Calvinism,  that supports the Bible!

 

Romans 8:9

28And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29Forthose God foreknew, He also predestined to beconformed to the image of His Son, so that Hewould be the firstborn among many brothers.30And those He predestined He also called, those He called He also justified, those He justified He also glorified.…

In a way that makes sense if you think of Gods foreknowledge of somebody excepting  Jesus, that He gave that person already salvation through predestination. God knew if the person would accept His Son,therefore the wording is different. Everybody still has a free will but God knew by foreknowledge the acceptance of that person and therefore you could call it predestination?

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Romans 8:9

28And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29Forthose God foreknew, He also predestined to beconformed to the image of His Son, so that Hewould be the firstborn among many brothers.30And those He predestined He also called, those He called He also justified, those He justified He also glorified.…

In a way that makes sense if you think of Gods foreknowledge of somebody excepting  Jesus, that He gave that person already salvation through predestination. God knew if the person would accept His Son,therefore the wording is different. Everybody still has a free will but God knew by foreknowledge the acceptance of that person and therefore you could call it predestination?

I read Omega and think it sounds pretty good. then you write this.............Sounds pretty good too.

[St_Worm2]

2 hours ago, Willa said:

God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.  1 Pet 5:5, James 4:6,  Prov 3:34 IS 57:15.  Don't ask me, ask God.  He offers His salvation to all.  Not all are willing to receive Him.  Some resist the Holy Spirit.  I try to state what Scripture states and not put words in God's mouth.   And that is all that God gave me when I prayed about it after my friend asked me why her dad was not saved.  Most of us are melted by God's love.  Jesus is a gift. Grace is a gift. Salvation is a gift. Faith is a gift. The Holy Spirit is a gift. Righteousness is a gift.  In no way do we ever merit such gifts or be worthy of them.  We can only receive them with hearts of thanksgiving.

I do know that Jesus said He had kept all but the son of perdition.  He knew in advance that Judas would betray Him.  Satan had entered into Judas to do it.  We are also told that Judas held the purse for the group and had been skimming.  So Judas was used as a part of God's plan just as Pharaoh was when he hardened his heart 7x and lied to Moses about freeing the Jews.  

Joh 1:11 WEB He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him.   12  But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

Some people think they can go to heaven by themselves rather than through the Good Shepherd.  Another route, another gate, over the wall, whatever.  "I did it my way".  It takes humility to admit there is a God and turn to Him for help and forgiveness. Yes God can humble us and often does, as with Paul.  Some might continue to resist God as Pharaoh did.  Why one and not another, you will have to ask Him.  

Hi Willa, the verses you posited above are not speaking to those outside the faith, rather, they are written to those within. Nor does the grace spoken of in any of those verses concern "saving" grace. 

Also, while it's true that Judas is the "son of perdition", and that God knew in advance that he would betray Him, you said in an earlier post that you believed God "made" some of us that way for His purposes, and that was what my comment (about the basis for His judgment of such men) was specifically referring to.

The question is, on what basis does God choose to save us? Arminianism tells us the God gives the same 'dose' (if you will) of saving grace to ALL, so what, in the end, is the difference between those who are saved and those who aren't? If Arminianism is true, the difference is the choice that each of us makes APART from His grace. And if that's true, how can that "choice" not be said to be "meritorious" in God's eyes (since by it we choose obey God and do the right thing, the good thing, the very thing that He wants us all to do .. John 6:29)?

Thanks!

--David

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by St_Worm2

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, angels4u said:

In a way that makes sense if you think of Gods foreknowledge of somebody excepting  Jesus, that He gave that person already salvation through predestination. God knew if the person would accept His Son,therefore the wording is different. Everybody still has a free will but God knew by foreknowledge the acceptance of that person and therefore you could call it predestination?

Some see it exactly that way angels. Some see it, that since God knows, then it will happen, and that is predestination. I do not think that is untrue, but I do not think that is what is meant.

Some say that God looks down through time, and in that foresight, chooses who He sees, will accept Him. used to be of that persuasion myself, it was the way I satisfied myself as a way to harmonize election, predestination, and free will. Problem is, I came to realize, that was only me, making up something that the Bible never says, it was MY harmony, not the Bible's testimony.

I am going to suggest something here, that Arminians tend to fine really unacceptable . . . 

that foreknowledge do not mean merely to see into the future, to know ahead of time.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

Does that mean that Adam knew his wife as in "Madam, I'm Adam, happy to make your acquaintance!"

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

Notice, it does not say that he foreknew something about them (like what they would do, it says He foreknew them, they themselves.

Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Does this mean that Jesus did not know about them?

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Does that mean, that Joseph did not meet Mary until after Jesus was born?

There are others, but you should be able to catch the drift. The way the Bible uses the word knowledge, is not always about intellectual understading. Often it refers to intimacy, and deep knowledge, a relationship. We know that God knows everthing, He knows everybody, in fact, in that sense, he foreknew everybody. Those He foreknew, He predestined . . .

Since not everybody will be conformed to the image of His Son, this foreknowledge has to mean something more. I suggest the possibility, that what is really being indicated (I cannot prove it) is that God foreloved some. Those, are the elect.

   2“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3but I have hated Esau

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice (election) would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls

again, there it is, it is God who calls, He calls those He chooses! God is the first agent, we love Him BECAUSE He first loved us!

I do not think that this foreknowledge or forelove of God, it a strong argument for Calvinism, but it is not contradicted by the Bible, not refuted by Arminianism, so it remains a possible understanding. It is clear, in many passages, that God prechoose people to salvation, we have looked at quite a few of them, and no passage or verse has been offered so far, that refutes that. The best and only ways around those passages that I have seen, is to either ignore them, or to try to diminish what they say, or try to find some less literal way to understand them.

Let me ask . . . 

If a person, does not believe in God, if a person is blind to spiritual truth, if a person cannot understand spiritual things, if a person has a hard heart, a heart of stone, if a person is in fact, and enemy of God, and a person does not seek God, if a person cannot submit to God, if a person cannot hear God, because he is spiritually deaf, if a person is spiritual dead, if a person is a slave to sin, if a person is a fool . . .

How would that person choose God?

All of those are things the Bible says, about people who are still in the flesh. Seems like God has to change that person, that person is not really able to choose, he  does not undestand, and he does not seek. That is why it has to be God who chooses us, not the other way around, and we are told, that he made that choice, before the foundation of the world.

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Then there is Romans 8:

 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

That certainly does not say what the Westminster Confession says. 

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

The Confession says that God has unchangeably ordained from all eternity (fore-ordained) everything (good and evil) whereas this Scripture says that God makes all things (good and evil) work together for good. Big difference.

1 hour ago, angels4u said:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

This is one of the most wrongly interpreted Scriptures by Calvinists.

What is the purpose of predestination in this passage?  TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.  This corresponds to "elect according to the foreknowledge of God, THROUGH SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT" (1 Pet 1:2).  This is certainly not about predestination for salvation, but predestination for sanctification and ultimate perfection.

[Ezra]

32 minutes ago, St_Worm2 said:

If Arminianism is true, the difference is the choice that each of us makes APART from His grace. 

This is certainly not how Scripture presents the Gospel.  Sinners respond to the Gospel under the power of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.  That is NOT apart from God's grace, since Scripture tells us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all draw men to Christ.  At the same time the sinner must respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith, when drawn to Christ.  Some respond, others do not. And the ones who do not are identified in John 3:18-21.

[Omegaman 3.0]

35 minutes ago, Ezra said:

That certainly does not say what the Westminster Confession says. 

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

The Confession says that God has unchangeably ordained from all eternity (fore-ordained) everything (good and evil) whereas this Scripture says that God makes all things (good and evil) work together for good. Big difference.

You can be quite amusing at times Ezra, you quoted from the confession to show what you think it means, but do not even notice (or just plain ignore) what you yourself highlighted. Let me show you what I mean:

  I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,

Thank you for providing a document that shows they did not consider God to be the source of sin, thereby refuting your own post, gotta love it!  Good job. 

I think there is another problem here though. In your desperation to discredit Calvinism . . 

you are searching far and wide for something to quote. This is why I said in an earlier post, I prefer to discuss doctrines, not isms and labels.

You cannot, or at least should not, quote some old document as if it speaks for everyone in an ism.

Let's take Protestantism. I can find and quote Protestants, who held, and some still do, that the Pope is the antichrist.

By you implied reasoning, I should be able to say, that protestantism, teaches that the Papacy, is the antichrist!

Now, just consider how many Calvinist there have been in the last few hundred years. Many of them prolific writers. Am I, or other Calvinists responsible for everything, any one of them has said? I do not think so, so, let's, if we can, stick with doctrine, and the Bible, and figure out what we should believe, instead of making a clash of isms.

[St_Worm2]

2 hours ago, Ezra said:

This is certainly not how Scripture presents the Gospel.  Sinners respond to the Gospel under the power of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit.  That is NOT apart from God's grace, since Scripture tells us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all draw men to Christ.  At the same time the sinner must respond to the Gospel with repentance and faith, when drawn to Christ.  Some respond, others do not. And the ones who do not are identified in John 3:18-21.

Hi Ezra, if all of us (saint and reprobate alike) are given the same choice to make, and we are also given the same grace to make that choice by, then the difference between those God chooses to save and those He doesn't can only be found in us, not in Him, right? I agree that apart from His saving grace, none would or could choose Him, but if God gives saving grace to all men equally, then the difference between those who are saved and those who are not comes down to the choice we make 'apart' from grace, does it not?

Thanks!

--David

 

"As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed"
Acts 13:48

 

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by St_Worm2

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Some see it exactly that way angels. Some see it, that since God knows, then it will happen, and that is predestination. I do not think that is untrue, but I do not think that is what is meant.

Some say that God looks down through time, and in that foresight, chooses who He sees, will accept Him. used to be of that persuasion myself, it was the way I satisfied myself as a way to harmonize election, predestination, and free will. Problem is, I came to realize, that was only me, making up something that the Bible never says, it was MY harmony, not the Bible's testimony.

I am going to suggest something here, that Arminians tend to fine really unacceptable . . . 

that foreknowledge do not mean merely to see into the future, to know ahead of time.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

Does that mean that Adam knew his wife as in "Madam, I'm Adam, happy to make your acquaintance!"

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

Notice, it does not say that he foreknew something about them (like what they would do, it says He foreknew them, they themselves.

Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Does this mean that Jesus did not know about them?

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Does that mean, that Joseph did not meet Mary until after Jesus was born?

There are others, but you should be able to catch the drift. The way the Bible uses the word knowledge, is not always about intellectual understading. Often it refers to intimacy, and deep knowledge, a relationship. We know that God knows everthing, He knows everybody, in fact, in that sense, he foreknew everybody. Those He foreknew, He predestined . . .

Since not everybody will be conformed to the image of His Son, this foreknowledge has to mean something more. I suggest the possibility, that what is really being indicated (I cannot prove it) is that God foreloved some. Those, are the elect.

   2“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3but I have hated Esau

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice (election) would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls

again, there it is, it is God who calls, He calls those He chooses! God is the first agent, we love Him BECAUSE He first loved us!

I do not think that this foreknowledge or forelove of God, it a strong argument for Calvinism, but it is not contradicted by the Bible, not refuted by Arminianism, so it remains a possible understanding. It is clear, in many passages, that God prechoose people to salvation, we have looked at quite a few of them, and no passage or verse has been offered so far, that refutes that. The best and only ways around those passages that I have seen, is to either ignore them, or to try to diminish what they say, or try to find some less literal way to understand them.

Let me ask . . . 

If a person, does not believe in God, if a person is blind to spiritual truth, if a person cannot understand spiritual things, if a person has a hard heart, a heart of stone, if a person is in fact, and enemy of God, and a person does not seek God, if a person cannot submit to God, if a person cannot hear God, because he is spiritually deaf, if a person is spiritual dead, if a person is a slave to sin, if a person is a fool . . .

How would that person choose God?

All of those are things the Bible says, about people who are still in the flesh. Seems like God has to change that person, that person is not really able to choose, he  does not undestand, and he does not seek. That is why it has to be God who chooses us, not the other way around, and we are told, that he made that choice, before the foundation of the world.

 

I  have a question. I cannot see how there can be any other than two views here? Either we choose or we don't. this stuff is new to me. so am I missing something? how can it not be one or the other?

[CATerri]

This is how I have come to be comfortable with both freewill and predestination at the same time.  It is called the uncertainty principle.  Light behaves both as a wave and as a particle.  If you look at it to see the wave phenomenon, you cannot see the particle phenomenon and when you look at the particle phenomenon, you cannot see the wave phenomenon.  Both are true, yet you can't see both of them at the same time.  Scripture teaches both freewill and predestination, but when you are trying to prove the one, you have to ignore the other scripture.  I am perfectly comfortable with both of them being true at the same time.  Doesn't it make sense that it would be more complicated than light?

Edited May 24, 2016 by CATerri
spelling