Featured Either .... Or

Even when enabled by God to do so? Why does that enabling work have to be 'irresistible' for you to consider it a work of God?

Please answer this question: Is the Gospel itself a work of the Holy Spirit? If so, why do you assume its an insufficient work to accomplish its purpose of making an appeal for enemies to be reconciled?

So the word 'understand' means the same thing as "accept" to you? If not, can you explain how one understands enough of God revelation to be 'without excuse' but not enough to accept what they have understood?

I agree and explained how God does individually set apart his prophets, priests, kings and apostles from Israel to accomplish his overall purpose in electing Israel to begin with...

Right. He chose THE SAINTS. He didn't chose lost people to become saints, he chose the saints (whosoever believes) to be justified, sanctified, and adopted. He predestined what would happen to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who enter His kingdom by faith. And the mistake Calvinists make is to take that to mean God predetermined who would and would not be irresistibly drawn into his kingdom.

As I just explained, individual are not excluded from the context in my interpretation. If YOU (an individual) believes in Christ then God has predetermined for YOU (still an individual) to be justified, conformed and adopted.

 

I mean it just like you answered here. It means inevitable or effectual. Why must a work of God inevitably cause a man to obey for that work to be credited to God? Why can't you affirm that God may do a work that enables a response without effectually causing a response? If one is enabled to respond positively but chooses to respond negatively, does that in any way negate God's involvement and gracious provision?

No, but its not because the gospel is lacking. Its because the person is free to reject it. The gospel enables the response because it is more powerful than man's nature, but just because a man rejects the gospel doesn't mean the gospel wasn't enough. It only means they freely chose to reject it and stand accountable for that choice.

How is their lack of understanding their fault if they were born with an inability to understand it? That is like the USA military going to enemy tribe in a foreign country which speaks another language, warning them in English ONLY that if they don't sign a treaty that we will bomb them. They look at us confused and don't submit to our demands; so our military leader says, "Well, we warned them, the fact they can't understand our language is their own fault. Bomb them!" It's absurd to any objective observer.

I simply meant 'believers.' He has chosen to justify whosoever believes. I used the word 'saint' because you did.

It is the EXACT wording of Paul. He never says that he chose the lost to become believers. It says "he chose 'US' to be..." Who is "us"??? BELIEVERS. He CHOSE what will happen to whosoever believes in him, even if they are not of Abraham's Seed. The fact that God would save those who are not of Israel was the big controversy of that day, which is why Paul (an apostles of the Gentiles) keeps reminding them that they too have been chosen from the beginning...that it has always been God plan (he predetermined plan) to save people of all nations...whosoever believes.

 

And one could avoid the unnecessary contradictions by simply removing the presumption that the first statement is really about individuals. If Cals understand election like the church fathers and most of Christianity not influenced by the Western influences of Augustine and Calvin the contradictions and controversies of these two biblical doctrines wouldn't exist.

 

Exactly my point. It works to ENABLE the person to respond. If every conviction of God lead to certain salvation then everyone would be saved because God sent his HS to convict the world of sin. Surely you've known of people who were under conviction but who rejected, don't you? I know I do.

You define free as "doing what ever he wants", but you fail to point out that what he wants is determined by his nature, which was determined by God in such a manner than it could not have been otherwise. There is nothing "free" about that. The gospel, in your view, is lacking. It lacks the ability to convict or enable a lost man to come to Christ apart from an additional regenerative work of the HS.

Are you saying someone is justified prior to believing????

It's all in the perspective. Look at it this way: Suppose a Army Sergeant is speaking to his recruits after a few weeks of basic training and he says to them, "Uncle Sam has chosen us and has determined for us to be the best trained fighting force in the world." Does that mean the Army recruiters didn't attempt to recruit other solders who chose not to join? Of course not. It only means that it was the plan of the US Army to equip and train whosoever joined. You are just reading it from the perspective of an 'individual' being chosen and made to believe so that they would be justified, adopted and conformed, when in reality the perspective is that God has chosen to justify, adopt and conform whosoever believes, both Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

No one here has denied that and you know it. Deal with my actual views please or we are just going to keep going in circles. I affirm that we are born enemies of God, but I also believe that is why God sent a message meant to make an appeal for his enemies to be reconciled. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that gospel appeal doesn't have the ability to enable reconciliation.

Then explain what you meant when you said, "It cannot be said he chose believers to be justified." Believers are already justified."

If you don't mean that believers are justified prior to believing then what is your point? Because my point is that God has chosen to justify whosoever believes. Why would you argue against that point with the statement above if it doesn't mean that?

I agree, which is why I'd like for just one of you to correctly represent your opponents view of predestination and election.

 

Are you suggesting Augustine and Calvin didn't view election from the individual perspective? (i.e. God chose to effectually save that individual but not that one?) Versus the corporate view of election (i.e. God chose to effectually save whosoever believes, Jew or Gentile). Please explain.

 

JonC,

I disagree, respectfully of course because you're a respectable fellow.

I believe Augustine/Calvin's individualistic approach has created an unnecessary controversy. It is not a controversy for those who don't read those passages from an individualized perspective. Just look at Eastern Orthodoxy as proof. Sure, they have their own conflicts but the controversy over election/predestination is not one of them because this super individualized perspective of Calvinism wasn't there to introduce the apparent contradiction of God's individualized election and man's individual responsibility/freedom.