"Election"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by UMP, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many men cavil at election; the very word with some is a great bug ear; they no sooner hear it than they turn upon their heel indignantly. But this know, O man, whatever thou sayest of this doctrine, it is a stone upon which, if any man fall, he shall suffer loss, but if it fall upon him it shall grind him to powder. Not all the sophisms of the learned, nor all the legerdemain of the cunning, will ever be able to sweep the doctrine of election out of Holy Scripture. Let any man hear and judge. Hearken ye to this passage in the 9th of Romans! "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor! What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." These are God's words; if any man doth cavil at them, let him cavil; he rejecteth the testimony of God against himself. If I promulgated the doctrine on my own authority, I could not blame you if you should turn against me, and reject it; but when, on the authority of Holy Scripture, I propound it, God forbid that any man should quarrel therewith.
    I have affirmed, and I am sure most Christians will bear witness, that what I said was the truth, that if any man loveth God he loves him because God gave him grace to love him. Now, suppose I should put the following question to any converted man in this hall. Side by side with you there sits an ungodly person; you two have been brought up together, you have lived in the same house, you have enjoyed the same means of grace, you are converted, he is not; will you please to tell me what has made the difference? Without a solitary exception the answer would be this—"If I am a Christian and he is not, unto God be the honor." Do you suppose for a moment that there is any injustice in God in having given you grace which he did not give to another? I suppose you say, "Injustice, no; God has a right to do as he wills with his own; I could not claim grace, nor could my companions, God chose to give it to me, the other has rejected grace wilfully to his own fault, and I should have done the same, but that he gave 'more grace,' whereby my will was constrained." Now, sir, if it is not wrong for God to do the thing, how can it be wrong for God to purpose to do the thing? and what is election, but God's purpose to do what he does do? It is a fact which any man must be a fool who would dare to deny that God does give to one man more grace shall to another; we cannot account for the salvation of one and the non-salvation of another but by believing, that God has worked more effectually in one man's heart than another's—unless you choose to give the honor to man, and say it consists in one man's being better than another, and if so I will have no argument with you, because you do not know the gospel at all, or you would know that salvation is not of works but of grace. If, then, you give the honor to God, you are bound to confess that God has done more for the man that is saved than for the man that is not saved. How, then, can election be unjust, if its effect is not unjust? However, just or unjust as man may choose to think it, God has done it, and the fact stands in man's face, let him reject it as he pleases. God's people are known by their outward mark: they love God, and the secret cause of their loving God is this—God chose them from before the foundation of the world that they should love him, and he sent forth the call of his grace, so that they were called according to his purpose, and were led by grace to love and to fear him. If that is not the meaning of the text I do not understand the English language. "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

    Spurgeon
     
  2. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love this part...

    And the consequence...

     
  3. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Npetreley,
    EXACTOMUNDO !!
     
  4. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 9:13 and Hebrews 11:20 do not contradict each other.

    Isaac, Jacob and Esau are listed among the heroes of faith or on the roster of those who had faith in the Lord God. [Hebrews 11:20] Sorry, to frustrate your Augustinian/Calvinistic theory about your view of election.

    Cain probably did not go to Heaven, but Abel did because he had faith in the Lord. [Hebrews 11:4]

    Dr. Berrian
     
  5. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, Esau is a hero of the faith on the basis of Heb.11:20, huh? Flip the page over Ray, and tell us how Heb.12:16 reinforces this fine piece of exegesis. Meanwhile, lets not try to impress each other with our titles - Matt.23:5-8

    - Paul
     
  6. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys surface study the Bible.

    Moses killed someone. King David had the husband of Bathsheba killed and probably repeatedly committed adultery and yet I think you will agree that they are listed among the O.T. saints. Moses [Hebrews 11:24] David [11:32]

    Take time to study the background of Jephthae in verse thirty-two and yet he is included among the roster of the Lord's people.

    Are you trying to bluff us by trying to say that Esau was not listed among the people of God? [vs. 20] Maybe some other Christian in your family can explain to you that Esau really is among the O.T. people of God and was a person of faith.

    As to Hebrews 12:16-17 Esau was a foolish person for selling his birthright. Big deal. He did, however, did get Xed from being the lineage by which Jesus was born. Jacob produced the son of promise, meaning our Lord Jesus by way of a pure Jewish lineage.

    If you check the context of the word, 'fornicator', you will see that it is referring to the people who the Hebrew author is writing to as the people of God. Even if Esau did sin in this way he was not worse than David or Moses. God calls Esau 'profane' meaning he treated something sacred with abuse. Would you send Esau to Hell for just that?

    Esau's repentance and sense of sorrow was because his father would never again reinstate him into the eldest sons materialistic blessings, as the O.T. documents.

    The Lord preferred and love Jacob more than He did Esau. The eldest brother, Esau, was relegated to Edom[Malachi 1:1-4] which was a much more inferior place to live than where Jacob lived.

    Who was the deceitful one? Jacob or Esau? Jacob had his own sins of 'deception' and yet God included this repeated person of fraud on the listing of the O.T. saints, as He did Esau.

    Later in life when Esau returned to Jacob, why do you think that Jacob thought that his elder brother Esau was returning to kill him? The anwer is because it was Jacob who committed the sin of trickery. Jacob deceived Esau, and the younger brother and fraud---felt the guilt.

    You said, 'You guys surface study the Bible.

    Moses killed someone. King David had the husband of Bathsheba killed and probably repeatedly committed adultery and yet I think you will agree that they are listed among the O.T. saints. Moses [Hebrews 11:24] David [11:32]

    Take time to study the background of Jephthae in verse thirty-two and yet he is included among the roster of the Lord's people.

    Are you trying to bluff us by trying to say that Esau was not listed among the people of God? [vs. 20]

    As to Hebrews 12:16-17 Esau was a worldly and careless person for selling his birthright. Big deal. He did, however, get Xed from being the lineage via Jesus was born. Jacob produced the son of promise, meaning our Lord Jesus.

    If you check the context of the word, 'fornicator', you will see that it is referring to the people who the Hebrew author is writing to as the people of God. Even if Esau did sin in this way he was not worse than David or Moses.

    Esau's repentance and sense of sorrow was because his father would never again reinstate him into the eldest sons materialistic blessings, as the O.T. documents. Plus Esau lost the greatest of all honor, that being the descendant through which Jesus was born to save the lost sinners.

    Who was the deceitful one? Jacob or Esau? Jacob had his own sins and yet God included this repeated person of deception on the listing of the O.T. saints, as is Esau.

    I think you are saying that when a Calvinist has a doctorate and acknowledges it, it's o.k. But if a person who is more of an Arminian theologian and writes it down, then it is pride.

    I'm expecting you to blow this all off, but I want to see your response, line by line, question by question.

    Rev. Berrian, Th.D.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

    The "hero" of faith in this verse is Isaac, not Jacob or Esau.

    21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff.

    The "hero" of faith in this verse is Jacob. And so on.

    Esau is nowhere listed as a hero of faith in Hebrews 11. His name appears in the context of what Isaac did (blessed him) by faith. Just as Cain's name appears in the context of what Abel did by faith. His name appearing in the chapter doesn't make Cain a hero of faith anymore than the appearance of the name Esau makes Esau a hero of the faith.

    Context, Th.D, context.
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    npetreley,

    You said, 'Esau is nowhere listed as a hero of faith in Hebrews 11. His name appears in
    the context of what Isaac did (blessed him) by faith.

    Ray: 'While I agree with you that verse 20 starts out with the words, 'By faith Isaac . . . ' yet he is blessing both Jacob and Esau concerning the future life, eternal life. It is right to include these latter two men also as those who will see God in Heaven.'

    You said, 'Just as Cain's name appears in the context of what Abel did by faith.'

    Ray: Here I agree with you that Cain is not pointed to as attaining everlasting life with the Lord, because in Jude verse 11 tells us that he was an unbeliever and in I John 3:12 clearly tells us that Cain was a child of the 'wicked one' meaning the Devil. Here is the context.'

    You said, 'His name appearing in the chapter doesn't make Cain a hero of faith anymore than the appearance of the name Esau makes Esau a hero of the faith.

    As noted above Cain was unsaved, but in Hebrews 11:20 Isaac would not be blessing unsaved men who were not fit for Heaven. Jacob was the deceiver and even you think that he will be in Heaven. Esau committed no cardinal sins and yet you hope that he went to Hell, otherwise your Calvinism will come apart at the seams.

    Dr. Merrill C. Tenney in his "Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary" says on page 398:

    'Jacob and Esau were children of faith, as was their father (Hebrews 11:20).'

    Here is a Ph.D. who taught at Wheaton Graduate School saying exactly what I am telling you. And he has a lot more clout than me.

    Pastor Berrian
     
  9. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you Ray? Some kind of legalist? You give us this list of sinning saints, and then try to shoe-horn Esau into Heaven on the basis that he was no worse than them! "Even if Esau did sin in this way he was not worse than David or Moses." I'll bet your doctrinal thesis was not on Grace, Ray!

    Please read Heb.12:16 again. It tells you in the plainest language that Esau was a PROFANE man (AV)- look it up in the dictionary. NASB (a translation an Arminian could hardly object to) renders bebaylos "a GODLESS man", as does the NIV. Even your beloved co-Arminian Wuest says in his Word Studies on Heb.12:16 that Bebaylos "has the opposite meaning of Hagios (holy, set apart, concecrated). It speaks of the secular, the non-religious, as contrasted to that which is asociated with the worship of Deity."

    To top it all off, as Nick points out, Heb.11:20 is referring to the faith of Isaac, not his sons.
    We poor folks might just surface-study the Bible Ray, but at least we try to rightly divide what we find there!

    Regarding Th.D's, Jesus' point is that waving our titles about is prideful and inappropriate for a servant of God, no matter whether we got them from Westminster, Bob Jones, or Disneyland.

    - Paul
     
  10. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray -
    You must think the other people on this board don't own Bibles! The exact substance of the blessing Isaac bestowed upon his Godless son runs like this:

    "And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
    And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
    And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." (Gen.27:38-40)

    So this speaks of eternal life for a profane man, does it?

    - Paul
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spurgeon makes two very common mistakes which we might expect from someone without any formal education:

    1. He misapplies Romans 9 to speak of individuals being chosen to the neglect of others when it is clear from the reading of the text that the apostle is contrasting God's treatment of the Gentiles with his treatment of the Jews. This interpretation is clearly seen in Paul's summary statement in which he writes: 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law.

    Jacob and Esau are clearly representatives of God treatment of nations, as they are representatives of nations. Adam Clarke, a lessor known but much more studied contempory of Spurgeon, explains it as such:

    2. Spurgeon's second mistake is a misapplication of scriptures speaking of men's boasting in their works to those who believe that salvation is involves man's faith based response. If one of you can tell what makes the difference in Calvinistic believers and non-Calvinistic believers then I will show you what makes the difference in the lost and the saved.

    Good day.
     
  12. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tumbleweed,

    You said, 'What are you Ray? Some kind of legalist?'

    No, I am not a legalist. I believe that if a person becomes a Christian that Christ keeps that soul forever. I believe in Grace and also believe in eternal security. I do not think that brethren fall in and out of grace. I do not know if this answers your question. We will see in your next post.

    You said, 'You give us this list of sinning
    saints, and then try to shoe-horn Esau into Heaven on the basis that he was
    no worse than them! "Even if Esau did sin in this way he was not worse than
    David or Moses." I'll bet your doctrinal thesis was not on Grace, Ray!'

    Ray: It was written about "Quasi-Augustinian Theology." I basically showed the errors of John Calvin's theology with a few side bars here and there.'

    You said, 'Please read Heb.12:16 again. It tells you in the plainest language that Esau
    was a PROFANE man (AV)- look it up in the dictionary. NASB (a translation
    an Arminian could hardly object to) renders bebaylos "a GODLESS man", as
    does the NIV. Even your beloved co-Arminian Wuest says in his Word
    Studies on Heb.12:16 that Bebaylos "has the opposite meaning of Hagios
    (holy, set apart, concecrated). It speaks of the secular, the non-religious, as
    contrasted to that which is asociated with the worship of Deity."

    Ray: I think Dr. Wuest is in between theologically speaking. You may be right but I know that he believes in the perfect security of the Christian believer.

    You said, 'To top it all off, as Nick points out, Heb.11:20 is referring to the faith of
    Isaac, not his sons.'

    Ray: According to your view and Nick's when Jacob died he 'blessed both the sons of Joseph' {11:21} suggesting that he blessed unbelievers in Jehovah the Lord. Now back to Isaac. You think that he was saved but Jacob and Esau were lost because it does not say, By faith Jacob and Esau . . . ' No, if the truth be know you still think Jacob was saved but Esau was damned, because of you proclivity toward Calvinism's determinism hookup with Augustinian philosophy coming from Plato and Aristotle.'

    You said, 'We poor folks might just surface-study the Bible Ray, but at least we try to
    rightly divide what we find there!'

    Ray: That's why before we send men to the pulpit we make sure they stop by their choice of Bible Colleges and seminaries. At least there they get to see both sides of theology and not like in a congregation where they only hear the ideas of one side which the pastor presents.

    You said, 'Regarding Th.D's, Jesus' point is that waving our titles about is prideful and
    inappropriate for a servant of God, no matter whether we got them from Westminster, Bob Jones, or Disneyland.'

    Ray: 'In the end in the sight of God we are all servants of the Lord. I have given the Lord all of the glory and praise for allowing me to study at one Bible College and two seminaries. I left one seminary because they taught that God is the Author of sin, plus they believed in the Five Points of Calvinism and would not allow any student to question them as to why they held this position. It was listen to their diatribe or out! I never asked a question I just left of my own free will and accord.

    God reads the hearts of men and women and if I get too prideful, He will be sure to remember, for your sake, to knock me down a few pegs.
     
  13. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon writes:
    "Spurgeon makes two very common mistakes which we might expect from someone without any formal education:"

    Where does it say you need a formal education to understand the truth? In fact, I could argue exactly the opposite.

    Luke 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I should have guessed that someone might focus on my insignificant jab to the neglect of the real issues. Just forget I mentioned his education, or lack thereof, and let's deal with his content.
     
  15. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon writes:
    "I should have guessed that someone might focus on my insignificant jab to the neglect of the real issues. Just forget I mentioned his education, or lack thereof, and let's deal with his content"

    No, no, I'm not neglecting anything, I made a valid point. Luke 10:21 is in the Bible for a reason. Now, regarding the "real issues" as you put it, I think Spurgeon got it right.
     
  16. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, your point was valid and I agree. Please forgive me for implying that uneducated people could make mistakes in regard to their doctrine. I don't know what I was thinking. You are right about that. I concede.

    Oh, well that settles it then. If you think he is right that proves it must be true. Its been fun discussing this with you. :rolleyes:

    Why do you bother?
     
  17. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, your point was valid and I agree. Please forgive me for implying that uneducated people could make mistakes in regard to their doctrine. I don't know what I was thinking. You are right about that. I concede.

    Oh, well that settles it then. If you think he is right that proves it must be true. Its been fun discussing this with you. :rolleyes:

    Why do you bother?
    </font>[/QUOTE]I guess because I'm a moron?
    Is this where I'm supposed to ask for your autograph ?
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    autograph? :confused:

    No actually when someone loses a debate they typically just stop replying to you, you know like Nick. [​IMG]
     
  19. UMP

    UMP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    0
    What more can I say? I think Spurgeon got it right, you say he got it wrong while throwing in the "Spurgeon makes two very common mistakes which we might expect from someone without any formal education:"
    I can not elaborate further on what Spurgeon has written. It's plain and as far as I can grasp, it is true. So, if your goal was to win the so called "debate". With pleasure, you win.
     
  20. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Or, the other just left the other alone because that one is so dense he doesn't even notice it and it's a waste of time.
     

Share This Page

Loading...