An honest question about free will.

Really Npetreley? You must be confussed.. in another post you were arguing that people were predestined for salvation:

So there in these posts to myself and Helen you really didn't think you were predestined to be saved?? Whatever!

I'll find it for you how about that? And No it doesn't cancel out the eternal life verse.

the Bible says that Eternal life is the gift of God just as it says in ephesians

For by grace are ye saved,(through faith); and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.

the subject is Salvation. not faith. "IT" refers to "saved" how are you saved?? by grace. try this.. take out the word faith and now go through the sentance

For by grace are ye saved, and not of yourselves it is the gift of God.

Faith is the medium. not the subject matter of the verse.

eph 2:8,9 lines up perfectly with romans 6:23 the gift is slavation. not faith.

No offense here.. but maybe you should study Calvin..that way you can know something about the group you're chosing to follow.

Faith is not in the text neither is gift. they are not the subjects. your taking words and changing them in order to make them fit your ideas. you might need to go back and look at what is being talked about in 27-30.

 

That doesn't answer the question. ..Israel is God's elect. Bible says so. Now Israel is not a saved nation..and there are people from Israel in hell right now.

why is that if Irresistabel grace is true along with unconditional election??

Those that didnt believe were certainly of Israel..Israel is who the Lord went to and Israel is who put him to death.

 

Really Npetreley? You must be confussed.. in another post you were arguing that people were predestined for salvation:</font>[/QUOTE]I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not deliberately misrepresenting the issues, so I'll explain this one more time, and then give up.

The definition of "elect" is to be chosen, not to choose. One can be "president elect". A people can be "elect" or "chosen" to be the geneological line leading to the Messiah. A people can be "elect" or "chosen" to record and preserve God's Holy Word. People can be "elect" or "chosen" to be saved. Just because a president is "president elect" doesn't mean that he's saved. Just because a people have been chosen to record and preseve God's word doesn't mean all those people in that nation will be saved. But if you have been "elect" or "chosen" to be saved, then you will be saved. Do you finally see that "election" can apply to many different things?

So when I said...

...I was referring to Ephesians 1, which refers to people who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, which I do not equate to the same as the election of the nation Israel to be the source of the Messiah, or the election of the people Israel to record and preserve God's Word. But I do equate it to that subset of Israel who were elected to be in Him. I say subset because, as others have pointed out multiple times, not all who have descended from Israel are Israel. (Romans 9:6)

You presume much. I am not following a group, I have come to conclusions based on what it says in the Bible and, I pray, also from the Holy Spirit. From what others tell me, many of those conclusions coincide with Calvinism. I would like to read about Calvinism sometime, and hopefully I shall.

 

So, please explain St. Paul's conversion (Acts 9).

Rev. G

 

Here is the text:

For it has been given to you on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

BELIEVING ON HIM is in the text, and isn't believing on him the same thing as faith?! That our belief in Christ is GIVEN to us is in the text, and whatever is given is a gift, is it not?

Are you really serious with this line of argument? Are you sure you're not arguing just for the sake of arguing?

I know what's being talked about in the text. The Philippians are going to suffer persecution, and their suffering will be given to them on behalf of Christ just like their belief was given to them on behalf of Christ.

 

Shilo said

Shilo, with respect, I must say that your knowledge of grace is quite immature. God's Grace is something that is true (an attribute) of God, not a dispensible commodity that He hands out like candy to his favorites. All of creation is currently the beneficiary of God's Grace. It is what we do while God is gracious toward us that matters. We must come to believe in Jesus; belief (faith) being that which saves us, else we condemn ourselves.

We, being created in the image of God, also have grace as an attribute, and grace is part of who we are to the extent that we apply it. Our grace constrains us in the same manner that God's grace constrains Him. When someone does us wrong, our first primal urge is retaliation in anger. However if one is a gracious person one withholds retaliation toward the offender. It is one's grace that constrains from anger and retaliation! With God, it is Grace that he extends to us, the offenders, that keeps him from meting out his wrath upon us. It is God's grace that provides us with the environment in which we can hear the word and believe, that is, develop faith in God. Grace does not save us, but it does constrain God's justice so that we can come to belief in Jesus, God's only begotten Son, and thereby be saved through our faith! God has gifted us with his Grace in spite of the fact we can do nothing to merit such grace extended to us. However the truest gift is that God saves us because we believe in His only Son, even on his name!

I strongly suggest that for a better understanding of Grace, as well as some other of God's attributes, that you seek out the 100 page book titled, "Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W.Tozer. If you read it, it will change your understanding of God in a most positive way.

 

Yelsew:

1) What about St. Paul's conversion?

2) I suggest you read a lot more of Tozer - I think you will find that it will change YOUR understanding of grace.

Rev. G

 

Rev G. Do you think that Paul's conversion was forced? I don't, because Saul with his free will could have refused to believe that what happened to him was of God. I've seen that very thing happen in our time, where a God caused event did not change the hard heartedness of the one who should have been converted but was not because of refusal to believe.

If you believe you are made in the image of God, try dispensing your grace in the manner that you seem to believe God dispenses His Grace. You will find that it is quite impossible to give your grace away as implied. You will find that all you can do is behave in accordance with your grace. Your grace will restrain your anger, you vengeance and your hate. But the one who benefits from your grace cannot put any of it is his pocket and take it home. Put it to the test and see if it is not so!

 

Saul was still "breathing murderous threats" against the Church and was on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians. He wasn't seeking after God. He didn't ask God to do anything in his life, so to speak. God interefered. God knocked him off his horse. God didn't ask permission. God overcame Saul's hardened heart. If God had not subdued Saul's will, he would not have chosen Christ. Because God did do a work in his heart, he freely chose Christ.

The Lord said of Paul, "He is a chosen vessel of Mine" (Acts 9:15). Paul understood later that it was God who had "separated [him] from [his] mother's womb and called [him] through His grace" (Gal. 1:15).

Rev. G

 

But all free gifts are not by God's saving grace, (it's not any old generic "grace" we are talking about here)
Why would faith be a gift in the first place? what does it do for you? It allows you to believe unto salvation. So the real gift is salvation, which is by grace through faith (as the means, not the object here. I think it leans more to salvation, but as you can say "that present was a gift from us to you, so be grateful..." (obviously, present=gift), such redundancies are allowable.

 

It might be wise to keep in mind that Saul was not a reprobate, but a Jew thinking He was serving God by stamping down a sect he saw as blasphemous. He was trying to serve God, and many people seem to forget this.

 

Look at the comparison made in the verse:

So this comparison to "any old grace" you're talking about can only be "of yourselves". Are you seriously suggesting that the point he's making is that you weren't saved by a free gift you gave yourself, but instead grace from God? That makes no sense and is contradicted by the qualifying phrase "not of works". Who gives himself a free gift of works?

Yes, we can all make up sentences where something works, but apply the concept to the verse itself and it makes no sense.

 

At that point he was unregenerate, Helen. He had a murderous heart. Do you deny this?

What you are saying above could also be said of the Pharisees, couldn't it? They were trying to put down a "sect" (Jesus and His disciples) they saw as "blasphemous" ("He makes Himself equal with God"). They thought they were serving God. You seemed to have forgotten this.

Rev. G

 

Even so Rev G., if Saul had refused to believe that it was Jesus who knocked him off his horse, he would not have become Paul and he would have been worthless, and we would not have the Pauline writings.

 

You completely ignored what the texts say in Acts and Galatians. Did you realize that?

How could Saul, who was on his way to Damascus with a murderous heart, suddenly be converted to Christ? A bright light? A voice? There were two others with him. Why didn't they believe? They saw a bright light. They heard a sound. Why is he the only one who was converted under those circumstances? What made him to differ from his traveling companions?

Rev. G

 

I was referring to your claim that all "free gifts" are "grace", so that it would be redundant for "gift" to be used for "grace" in this passage. My comment at that point had nothing to do with what we were not saved from. But as I showed, such a redundancy is allowable here, so plugging in "gift of God" where grace or "that" should be does not prove anything. Actually, it does make sense, (is grammatically correct) but is just a redundant choice of words --the subject is not identified.

 

The Glory of the Godhead revealed itself to Saul in the resurrected Christ. He in effect could not, not believe.

Is that close??

Bro. Dallas

 

You said it yourself, Saul's traveling companions saw a light and heard a sound. Saul was blinded by the light and heard the voice of Jesus. Considerable difference. Jesus was not working on the others, just Saul.

The point is Saul believed at some point during his days of blindness and became Paul, perhaps the greatest missionary and teacher of all time.

If Sauls traveling companions had been blinded and heard the voice of Jesus as Saul did, they too perhaps would have been converted as Saul was. But alas there is no evidence they were or they did, and none that they were.