Can the Non-Elect Come Under Conviction?

Jesus and the Apostles were considered to be quite harsh at times as well, wouldn't you agree?

.... at any rate, thankfully the truth of the matter ought to be determined with how well the propositions line up with Scripture, not based on the way that truth is presented. Someone could tell us in a perfectly polite and courteous manner that 2+2=5, but obviously that doesn't make it so.

Be that as it may, I am glad to see you say that Calvinism makes sense, I believe you are "spot on" here...

please do not allow harshness of the messengers (myself included sometimes, though those supporting the Arminian/semi-Pelagian position are every bit as harsh as the Calvinists) to detract from the truth of the position.

blessings,
Ken

 

But the preaching of the gospel to them who don't believe is not "irrational", it has a "purpose".

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

If a person hears/accepts the gospel, it justification to saves,

If a person hears/reject the Gospel, it Justification to condemn,

But either way, the word won't return void in Judgment.

This is the reason the whole world will hear the gospel before the end comes.

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

So ya see, preaching to the lost, accomplishes it mission, whether it saves/condemns. </font>[/QUOTE]Then the point is this, the Arminian cannot reasonably and consistently criticize the Calvinist for preaching the Gospel to everyone even though some will be elected to salvation and others won't be. For the Arminian is in exactly the same position, namely preaching the gospel to all without distinction even though they have to admit that God knew/knows from all eternity that the gospel message would fall on deaf ears. Say that a certain person that God knew from all eternity that would NOT ever exercise saving faith, it has to be true that that person would not and in fact could not have ever done otherwise then to have not believed. Otherwise, you would have to claim that God's absolute and exhaustive foreknowledge of the future would be mistaken. That is to say, given God's absolute and exhaustive foreknowledge, a person who God knew would never be saved, and He knew this before that person was ever born, in fact, knew it from all eternity, this person really never had a “chance” to be saved ever, because God knew that from all eternity, that person would never believe even though that person might have had the gospel preached to them.

 

Yea, but at least we can hope for all.

 

Just as Satan "deceived" Eve in garden, he still deceives people today.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

On the one side you have God's spirit calling, offering salvation, on the other side, Satan's spirit is calling, offering "the things of this world".

The parable of the sower explains this.

Lu 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. (Preaching the gospel)

12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

(Sartan deceived these into not being chosen)

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

(Only Satan tempt man, not God)

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

(Things of this world are more important to these)

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

(Good ground??, Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground)

Man recognizes Good/evil, and Whether we chose to accept God/satan's offer is who's servant we become.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


To be saved, a person must be willing too "Crucify the flesh", or lust of the flesh, not that man can totally crucify the old man, but if man opens the door and God's spirit comes in the person it will help "purge" the mind/conscience of sin sufficient to serve God.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?



The required "Sacrifice" to "take away" all sin, even the sins of the whole world, has already been made, all that's required of any person is "SIMPLE FAITH" believing in that "sacrifice", nothing else, and thy shall be saved, no exceptions.

 

Where C/A disagree is "WHY" some are not elect, God's will, (calvin) or man's will. (Arminian)

I don't think either side has disagreed on "foreknowledge".

Predestination is "set in stone", it can't be changed, however "foreknowledge" can change, and that is proven in scripture.

You say God "foreknew", "Everything", then why would God do something he "Foreknew" he would repent of doing????

Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Why would God repent of making man, Man's sin, man evil/wickedness, man's rejection of God??

If God repented of making man because of man's sin, would God "Predestine" any to be "Sinners", absolutely not,

Satan deceived Adam/Eve and "stoled" every soul God breathed into life, the reason God repented,

Jesus died for the sins of "Every soul" (whole world) that Satan stole, but they must believe in him.

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Just as Adam/Eve were given a "free choice" to go into sin, man is now given the "free choice" to be taken out of sin.

Here's the part both C/A miss, Jesus offer the
"Kingdom of Heaven" to Israel, a "literal kingdom, where God (jesus) sit on his throne, think of the MK and you'll know what I mean.

But Gave the "kingdom of God" to the church, a "Spiritual Kingdom".

Was it predestined for Israel to reject Jesus, NO, Jesus said he would, they wouldn't, if Israel had accepted Jesus, what we know as the MK would have begun 2000 thousand years ago, Israel would be "light of the world", not the church.

When the "kingdom of Heaven" come to the earth, "THY WILL" will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Calvins, and some Arminians, believe that God's foreknowledge of future events equal God's "predestination" of those events, nothing could be farther from the "truth", man's rejection of God, grieved God so much he repented of making man, and God certainly won't predestinate any event or man to fulfill the sin that "grives him".

Some things are predestine, Judgment day for one.

 

ahhh I see Me4him... you are an open theist...

you said "however "foreknowledge" can change, and that is proven in scripture."

wrong... you are redefining the very meaning of the word "foreknowledge"... it is, in fact, impossible to have foreknowledge that a certain event would transpire, and then that event not take place... this would not be foreknowledge at all!

Consider the following:
Isa 41:21-23 esv Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.
(22) Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.
(23) Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified."

One of the aspects of God's attributes is the ability to accurately and perfectly foreknow what will happen in the future, this is what seperates Jehovah from the false gods. Keil and Delitzsch says of this passage;
"Isa 41:21-23 -
There follows now the second stage in the suit. “Bring hither your cause, saith Jehovah; bring forward your proofs, saith the king of Jacob. Let them bring forward, and make known to us what will happen: make known the beginning, what it is, and we will fix our heart upon it, and take knowledge of its issue; or let us hear what is to come. Make known what is coming later, and we will acknowledge that ye are gods: yea, do good, and do evil, and we will measure ourselves, and see together.”
In the first stage Jehovah appealed, in support of His deity, to the fact that it was He who had called the oppressor of the nations upon the arena of history.
In this second stage He appeals to the fact that He only knows or can predict the future. There the challenge was addressed to the worshippers of idols, here to the idols themselves; but in both cases both of these are ranged on the one side, and Jehovah with His people upon the other."

If you deny this, then the Bible says to you
Isa 41:24 esv Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you."

So I urge you, take the Bible for what it says, and do not buy into the modern philosophical notions regarding God's foreknowledge being mistaken. If you believe this, you believe in another god, a false god, the Bible says anyone who chooses this god is an abomination.

blessings,
Ken

 

Incidentally, consult the following link which addresses the common passages used by Open Theists to prove that God was mistaken (!!!!) about knowing the future...
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/answering_boyd.html

also, I mentioned earlier that you are redefining the word "foreknowledge", here is why I said this:

foreknowledge
A noun
1 precognition, foreknowledge

knowledge of an event before it occurs (Word reference.com)


fore·known /-'nOn/; -know·ing
: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation (Webster)

fore·knowl·edge P Pronunciation Key (fôr-nlj, fr-, fôrnl-, fr-)
n.
Knowledge or awareness of something before its existence or occurrence; prescience."
(dictionary.com)

To foreknow something is to know, with certainty, that something will take place. You can't "foreknow" that something doesn't take place, other then to know that it didn't take place! lol!

blessings,
Ken

 

also, if you deny that God infallibly knows the future Me4him, you should not be posting on a Baptist board, because this article of faith (that God infallibly foreknows the future) is one that has been adhered to by Baptists as long as there have been baptists... if you deny this, you are not a Baptist in the common understanding of the beliefs that make up the Baptist systematic theology as expressed in their creeds. For instance

"The Second London Confession of Baptists in 1677 (reissued in 1689), in Chapter II, "Of God and the Holy Trinity," paragraph 2, says:

"In [God's] sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the Creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain."1

It is remarkable that three hundred years ago Baptists explicitly repudiated an essential tenet of contemporary "openness theology"; namely, that God's knowledge is indeed significantly "dependent upon the Creature." As Greg Boyd says, "God can't foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn create their decisions."2 This "openness" view entails that for God many things are indeed "contingent or uncertain," which the Baptists of 1689 also reject in their statement of faith.

Why did a Baptist confession of faith in 1689 include such an explicit denial of these "openness" tenets? One reason is that "Socinian thought became predominant in many circles, both General Baptist and English Presbyterians being widely contaminated."3 But all orthodox branches of the church rejected this doctrinal aberration and affirmed God's exhaustive foreknowledge. Charles Hodge expresses this common knowledge, "The Church . . . in obedience to the Scriptures, has, almost with one voice, professed faith in God's foreknowledge of the free acts of his creatures."4 Greg Boyd acknowledges that "Until the time of the Socinians, the belief that God's omniscience included all future events was not generally questioned."5

But the Socinians, taking the name of Socinus (1539-1604), avowed a view of God's foreknowledge similar to the one being advanced by openness theology today.The Socinians . . . unable to reconcile this foreknowledge with human liberty, deny that free acts can be foreknown. As the omnipotence of God is his ability to do whatever is possible, so his omniscience is his knowledge of everything knowable. But as free acts are in their nature uncertain, as they may or may not be, they cannot be known before they occur. Such is the argument of Socinus.6

Therefore, the Baptists in 1689, when confronted with the spreading of this false teaching about the foreknowledge of God, were moved to take an explicit stand against it in their affirmation of faith.

The issue remained important enough for the next 60 years, so that when the Baptists in America chose their first affirmation of faith, they chose this same 1689 London Confession. They made some small additions relevant to their situation, but left the wording on foreknowledge exactly as it was in the 1689 Confession.

In 1707 the first Baptist association in America was organized at Philadelphia. As theological disputes arose among the Baptists of the New World, they appealed to "the Confession of Faith, set by the elders and brethren met in London in 1689, and owned by us," as their standard of doctrine. When the association gathered at Philadelphia on September 25, 1742, they ordered a new printing of this by then classic statement of faith which became known on this side of the Atlantic as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.7

Thus, in this first American Baptist statement of faith, the explicit disavowal of limited foreknowledge was preserved in the same language. "In [God's] sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the Creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain."8 We may infer several lessons from these observations:

1. The view of God's foreknowledge espoused today by openness theology is similar to that espoused by Socinianism, even though not all of the unorthodox views of Socinianism are embraced by openness theology.9

2. The limited view of God's foreknowledge was rejected by all orthodox bodies in the history of the church including our Baptist forefathers.

3. This doctrinal issue was regarded by seventeenth-century Baptists as important enough in their day to repudiate explicitly in their affirmation of faith.

4. It is not unbaptistic or narrow to do the same today."

_____________________________
1 William L. Lumkin, ed., Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959), p. 253 (emphasis added). The fact that these early Baptists were Calvinistic in their orientation does not mean that the issue of foreknowledge was a uniquely Calvinisitc concern. Arminius himself rejected the notion that his view demanded God's uncertainty about future human choices. He affirmed, for example, "The fourth decree, to save certain particular persons and to damn others . . . rests upon the foreknowledge of God, by which he has known from eternity which persons should believe according to such an administration of the means serving to repentance and faith through his preceding grace and which should persevere through subsequent grace, and also who should not believe and persevere." Quoted in Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), p. 352.

2Greg Boyd, Letters from A Skeptic (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1994), p. 30,

3 O. Ramond Johnston, "Socinianism," in: Everett Harrison, ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 490.

4 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989, orig. 1871-1873), p. 400.

5Gregory A. Boyd, Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of Hartshorne's Di-Polar Theism Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics (New York: Peter Long Publishing, Inc., 1992), p. 296.

6 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1., pp. 400- 401.

7 Timothy and Denise George, eds., Baptist Confessions, Covenant, and Catechisms (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996), p. 10.

8 Ibid., Baptist Confessions, p. 60.

9 Nevertheless, we should hear the warning of Robert Strimple in response to openness theology: "A Socinian view of God leads inevitably to a Socinian view of salvation, which is not the good news of salvation by God's free grace - by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone - but rather a message of salvation by one's own efforts, a false gospel that is not good news at all. It is the gospel that is at stake in this debate." "What Does God Know?" in: The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John Armstrong, ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), p. 150." http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/early_baptist.html

So I object to your presence here on a Baptist board.

blessings,
Ken

 

it is unreasonable to hope for something God said would not happen, you might as well hope that God will overlook and therefore not punish sin (not to say this is what you are suggesting)... its a fact, sin must be dealt with.... but the point is this, we know from God's word that not all will be saved, so it is absolutely certain that not all will be saved. This doesn't affect the way we preach in any way, we preach the gospel in season and out.... we preach to all, but we know that Jesus said that the tares will always be in with the wheat... it doesn't mean that we have to try and figure out who the tares are....

and all this is to reinforce the following: that the Arminian/semi-pelagian (of whatever stripe) are themselves being unreasonable in saying that the Calvinist is unreasonable or inconsistent by preaching to everyone since only the elect are saved. Therefore, they are also being irrational by saying that the Calvinist's soteriology in any way interferes with the necessity of evangelism. The fact is, the Arminian preaches to all knowing that some of those to whom they preach will in fact not be saved. Does that mean that they stop preaching? Of course not. And the same is true for the Calvinist. The Calvinist believes that the sinner primarily comes to be saved through the means of hearing preaching and through the reading of the word. God uses these means to save the elect, therefore the Calvinist engages in evangelism.

The difference, it seems to me, between the two camps is that Calvinist KNOWS that their preaching will be effectual in some cases because God has decreed it to be so. The other camp seems to depend on emotionalism and psychological manipulation in order to "get decisions for Christ". That is, Finney was expressing the logical outcome of the Arminian view in that if sinners were not saved, it was because he did not preach fervently enough, long enough, clear enough, logically enough etc etc etc. That is because the Arminian preacher has to depend on themselves and their rhetorical abilities to get people to change their wills in such a way as to make going to Christ the reasonable thing to do, they have to depend on the sinner themselves changing their wills based on their preaching, so that they exercise their free will and "ask Jesus into their heart". Of course the Arminian will object and say that their preaching becomes effective through the empowering of the Holy Spirit. But the fact is, in the Arminian/semi pelagian scheme, the Holy Spirit ultimately cannot do anything to violate the free will of the sinner. In the end, it's always man's choice that reigns supreme, no matter what, man's (supposedly free) choice is the determinative factor in salvation. Whereas in the Calvinistic camp, the Holy Spirt actually effects the salvation of the elect through the means God has ordained.

"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so He hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto;[13] wherefore they who are elect, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[14] are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[15] and kept by His power through faith unto salvation;[16] neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[17]

13. I Peter 1:2; II Thess. 2:13
14. I Thess. 5:9-10
15. Rom. 8:30; II Thess. 2:13
16. I Peter 1:5
17. John 10:26; 17:9; 6:64

(London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter III artile VI, of God's Decree, emphasis mine)

blessings,
Ken

 

Bob, having looked more deeply into your claim that only the Apostles were elect, you are perhaps completely uninterested in the fact that I have found this view to be unscriptural. However, so that you may know the full counsel of God...

Mat 24:24 esv For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."

Surely Jesus was not speaking only of the Apostles here, was He?

Mat 24:31 esv And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Surely Jesus was not speaking of the Apostles only, was He?

Luk 18:7 esv And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?"

Surely Jesus was not speaking of the Apostles only, was He?

Rom 8:31-33 esv What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
(32) He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
(33) Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

Surely Paul wasn't just speaking of the other Apostles only, was he?

Rom 11:1-7 esv I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
(2) God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
(3) Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.
(4) But what is God's reply to him? I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
(5) So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
(6) But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
(7) What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,"

Surely Paul was not limiting the "elect" to just the other Apostles, was he?

2Ti 2:8-10 esv Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel,
(9) for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!
(10) Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

?

Tit 1:1-3 esv Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
(2) in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began
(3) and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;"

?

2Jo 1:1 esv The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,"

Surely John was not just referring to the other Apostles, was he?

2Jo 1:12-13 esv Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
(13) The children of your elect sister greet you."

?

blessings,
Ken

 

Bob, you might also find the following debate helpful to you as you examine the idea of election... the debate is between James White and a Mormon named Darryl Barksdale, who, sadly, seems to hold closely to the same views you have regarding election....

http://aomin.org/debate.html

blessings,
Ken

 

Did God "predestine" Israel to reject Jesus??

if he did, then Jesus was actually "LYING" to Israel when he said he would take them under his wings, knowing all the time that it was "predestine" for him "NOT" to take them under his wings.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

If Israel's rejection of Jesus was predestine, Jesus was lying to Israel and going against the "will of God".

God "foreknew" they would reject, but still made the offer, an offer that was still possible for them to chose to receive or reject.


If rejection was Predestined, there was no possibility of receiving the offer, and Jesus's offer and choice both a lie.


Foreknowledge permit both offer and choice.

Predestination denies both the offer and choice.

 

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Is this remark by Jesus subject to mis-interpretation? Jesus spoke to Jerusalem, but referred to gathering the children. It does not appear that he was speaking to the children. Who was it that would not let Him gather the children together?

Jesus did not say he would gather Jerusalem together, but Jerusalem's children. I think we're missing something here.

 

Jesus was only send to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", only "AFTER" Israel rejected him was the Gospel taken to the Gentiles.

Jesus was "send to Israel" he "did make a offer", and it was rejected by the "WILL" of "his own" people, not God's will. (predestine)

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

It was possible for Israel to accept Jesus, else Jesus would not have made the offer.

"Cities" (Jerusalem) don't stone people, people stone people.


Yes, calvin did miss something here.

 

Me4him, you said

Act 4:26-28 esv The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed (27) for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
(28) to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.


Rom 8:29-30 esv For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Eph 1:3-5 esv Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
(5) he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,


Eph 1:11 esv In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"


deny predestination... deny the Bible.. its as simple as that...

blessings,
Ken

 

Act 4:26-28 esv The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed (27) for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
(28) to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.


Rom 8:29-30 esv For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Eph 1:3-5 esv Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
(5) he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,


Eph 1:11 esv In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"


deny predestination... deny the Bible.. its as simple as that...

blessings,
Ken </font>[/QUOTE]None of those verses speak of a person being predestine to be saved/lost, but only what they will become (conforming to his image) and how they will be adopted, "AFTER" they are saved.

Is your reading comprehension always that bad? :D :D

Here's a little clue as the part that was "predestined".

Jesus, was the Son of God.
Matthew 8 29,
Jesus, thou Son of God.

Christians, are Sons of God.
John 1 12,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God.


Jesus, spoke the words of God.
John 3 34,
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God:

Christians, speak the words of God.
John 17 8,
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me.


Jesus, possessed the Holy spirit.
John 3 34,
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

Christians, possesses the Holy Spirit.
Luke 11 13,
your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.


Jesus, was the Light of the world.
John 9 5,
I am the light of the world.

Christians, are the light of the world.
Matthew 5 14,
Ye are the light of the world.


Jesus, performed the Works of God.
John 9 4,
I must work the works of him that sent me.

Christians, perform the Works of God.
John 14 12,
He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also.


Jesus, had the Righteousness of God.
Romans 10 4,
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

Christians, Have the Righteousness of God.
Romans 3 22,
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.


Jesus, was God's Representative.
Matthew 10 40,
he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Christians, are God's Representatives
Matthew 10 40,
He that receiveth you receiveth me.


Jesus, Crucified for salvation.
Matthew 27 35,
And they crucified him.

Christians, Crucified for salvation.
Romans 6 6,
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him.


Jesus, sin had no dominion over Jesus.
Second Corinthians 5 21,
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.

Christians, sin has no dominion over Christians.
Romans 6 14,
For sin shall not have dominion over you.


Jesus, was Rapture off the earth.
Acts 1 9,
he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Christians, will be Rapture off the earth.
First Thessolonians 4 17,
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.

There's nothing in those verses as to who can become a Christian (Saved/Lost) but only what a "CHRISTIAN" will become when they are saved.

 

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town for several days.

And I agree. I disagree that he did so because of his own goodness but rather because God put goodness into him.

I don't have a mental block. Perhaps you all do or maybe you just don't want to face the unbiblical implications of your position.

None the less, you haven't answered the question at all. If I asked you why you drive a Ford rather than a Chevy and you said "Because we have a choice"... I would naturally say that you didn't answer my question but had only re-stated the condition my question was premised upon.

I agree. We do HAVE A CHOICE. Now, why do the saved choose to be saved while those who are not saved remain unsaved? What is different about those who believe?

Repeating back to me that "we have a choice" isn't an answer. Either we exercised that choice completely of our own accord and thus deserve credit for the decision we made or else God's goodness led us to repentance and He is worthy of all the glory.

 

At least M4H is honest enough to recognize that non-calvinists attribute the "why" to "man's will"... aka, "man's goodness".

IOW's, the salvation bought by Christ on Calvary is incomplete without man's goodness/willful good choice.

 

Jesus didn't even include Himself in goodness.

If I chose a ford why would you say I did not answer you, that is what I can't understand at all. You want me to say because God put it in me. Well God's Spirit strives with all men, I just happen to want to go the Heaven rather than enjoy sin for a season.

You know, when I was a sinner I didn't want to die that way for I knew hell would be my home so I kept telling myself after I live for a while then I will turn to the lord. Now, who was putting that in me for it did not work? I also drove cars as fast as they would run, put them on the drag strip but did most of it on the highways. I used to tell myself, if I roll this car over before I hit the bottom I will say "
God have mercy on me" thinking that would save me. But it didn't work, wonder who put that in me? Then one day I fell from a ladder with a massive heart attack, they rushed me to the hospital and the doctors told my family my life was over and I would not live through the night for about half of my heart was dead. Well, I started praying like Hezekiah, mightly unto the Lord and He heard my cries and let me live. I will never believe anything else but that the Lord extended my life as Hezekiah. I am still here by His mercies and expect to go to Heaven someday. I have been back to the hospital several time since with 2 open heart surgeries but I had the Lord this time and almost didn't make it last time. I swelled so big my family could not tell it was me. I got so miserable in pain that I asked the Lord to let me die. I could almost reach out and touch the peace. I could feel it but couldn't reach it so I asked God to let me go, but it was not His will. I am back to preaching just as hard as ever and will continue until the Lord does call me home. Now that is my life of serving the Lord and I think I asked for it and the Lord heard my cries. Amen

Blessings,
BBob

 

Not true. He said: "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."

He also said "I and my Father are one."

In context, Jesus was challenging the man to expose his hypocrisy.

Because I didn't ask you what you did or if you had a choice about it. I asked you "why". You might say a great number of things about how good they are... but in the end your choice would relate back to and be evaluated by your intelligence.

To directly relate, if Fords uniformly performed better but it required a person's intelligence/goodness to determine that this was true... then your choice to drive a Ford would be a credit to you... the rewards for your superior choice would be due to the merit of your decision making.

And you seem to want to hold back part of the credit for yourself. If God didn't put it in you then aren't you in fact saying that you deserve credit for that goodness? What caused you to "just happen to want..."? Was it something you did or God did? Where did that desire come from?

The devil "knows" but won't repent. You had knowledge but knowledge doesn't necessarily imply "will". You resisted apparently because you thought you could get away with it... You resisted because it was the nature of your will to do so.

Is this when you got saved? If so, didn't God in fact change your will through these circumstances?

So God has to respect your independent will when it comes to choosing your eternal destiny but not when concerning your temporal life in this flesh?

And you still haven't conclusively answered why you chose to ask for it... The third comment I quoted from you above came pretty close to claiming credit for yourself by implicitly denying that God put it in you... but I am hoping that you will turn from that idea.